HANSARD
Housing Repair and Retrofitting Programs
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
Ms. Maureen MacDonald (Chair)
Mr. James DeWolfe (Vice-Chairman)
Mr. Mark Parent
Mr. Gary Hines
Mr. Graham Steele
Mr. David Wilson (Sackville-Cobequid)
Mr. Keith Colwell
Mr. Wayne Gaudet
Mr. Michel Samson
[Mr. Michel Samson was replaced by Mr. Manning MacDonald.]
In Attendance:
Ms. Mora Stevens
Legislative Committee Clerk
Mr. Alan Horgan
Assistant Auditor General
WITNESSES
Department of Community Services
Ms. Marian Tyson
Deputy Minister
Mr. George Hudson
Director of Finance and Administration
Mr. Harold Dillon - Senior Director
Housing and Employment Support and Income Assistance
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2006
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
9:00 A.M.
CHAIR
Ms. Maureen MacDonald
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Mr. James DeWolfe
MADAM CHAIR: I would like to call the committee to order, please. Today we have the Department of Community Services appearing in front of us. Our usual practice is to have introduction from members and guests, and from the Auditor General's Office as a sound check for Hansard. Then we will turn the floor over to the department for a brief opening statement of seven to 10 minutes, with rounds of questions to follow. So without further ado, we will start with Mr. Steele for introductions, please.
[The committee members and witnesses introduced themselves.]
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Okay, to you, Ms. Tyson.
MS. MARIAN TYSON: Thank you. My name is Marian Tyson, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Community Services and the Chief Executive Officer of the Nova Scotia Housing Development Corporation. I am very pleased to be here today with two representatives of the department to provide information and to answer questions on the department's housing repair programs.
I would like to begin by just making a couple of comments about my colleagues. Harold Dillon, on my right, is the Senior Director of Housing, and Employment Support and Income Assistance. Harold does have extensive knowledge of the area of housing. He was the former Director of Housing for the Central Region and he has played a key role in the development of the province's housing programs.
[Page 2]
George Hudson, on my left, is the department's Executive Director of Finance and Administration. He has held that position for the last ten years and is an expert in the department's budget. George's division also assumed responsibility for the housing budget when Housing Services merged with the department in 2001. George holds the position of Chief Financial Officer of the Nova Scotia Housing Development Corporation.
Through the housing authorities and the housing services staff in the department, we provide a wide range of housing supports and services. Our programs are designed to help lower income households maintain, acquire, or rent safe, adequate and affordable housing. We administer more than 20,000 units of social housing. This would include public housing, co-operative housing, non-profit housing, seniors' homes and rent-supplement units. We administer more than 12,000 rental housing units for families and for seniors. Rent is based on household income. We also provide grants and loans for home repairs, as well as mortgage funds to purchase or build modest homes.
Today we are pleased to talk about our home repair programs, in particular, and efforts to help homeowners and renters maintain safe and affordable housing. We have 13 home repair programs in all, available to low-income Nova Scotians. These programs range from providing assistance to low-income seniors who wish to remain in their homes but who cannot afford repairs, to providing assistance for adapting homes, to allow for wheelchair use and other mobility-related modifications.
Last year we provided assistance to approximately 2,500 households to make needed repairs to their homes. This year we plan to help more than 2,300 households make home repairs. Last year the expenditures to provide home repairs was a total of approximately $13.7 million. This year we are forecasted to spend approximately $16.5 million. Through the provincial home repair programs, we provide about half of the funding available for low-income Nova Scotians. The remaining half is cost-shared between the federal and provincial governments.
Our programs are designed to keep Nova Scotians in their homes by ensuring that they meet health and safety standards.
Nova Scotia faces some unique challenges in the delivery of our housing programs. Nova Scotia has one of the highest rates of home ownership in the country - approximately 70 per cent. In addition, Nova Scotia has some of the oldest housing stock in the country. Approximately 25 per cent is pre-World War II. We are similar to Newfoundland and Labrador in that regard and different from the other provinces. Housing clients include seniors and low to moderate-income earners, as well as income assistance recipients and people with special needs.
[Page 3]
I would like to take a few moments to highlight some recent changes to the provincial home repair programs. In November 2005, we made a number of improvements to the Senior Citizens' Assistance Program, SCAP, so-called, and the Provincial Housing Emergency Repair Program, often referred to as PHERP, for those of you who are familiar with those terms.
We have increased the amount of funding a household can receive under these programs from about $2,500 on average to $5,000. This change reflects the increasing costs associated with the types of repair work permitted and allows more repairs to be completed on some houses, and avoids duplications, as well.
To qualify for these housing repair programs, total household incomes must be below set thresholds. We have increased the maximum household income thresholds for both the SCAP and the PHERP program, the SCAP being the seniors, the PHERP being the family. This enables more households to access these programs.
The new eligible household income levels are based on housing costs in the area where an applicant lives and on household size. For example, the income threshold has been increased from $20,000 to $22,000 for a one-bedroom household in Sydney applying for the Senior Citizens' Assistance Program. For a family in that same area applying under the PHERP program, the threshold was increased from $14,000 to over $30,000.
Through these two home repair programs, we are also working with Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations to deliver an additional $1 million in funding under the Keep the Heat program. This funding will help between 250 and 350 households repair or replace their furnaces.
It is also important to mention the programs we provide jointly with the federal government. In 2003, we renewed our Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for many of the home repair programs delivered by the province. This menu of repair programs which we deliver and cost-share jointly with the federal government - they are often referred to as the RRAP programs.
Under the renewed agreement the assistance available through a number of these programs was improved. Under Homeowner RRAP, we increased the level of assistance from $12,000 to $16,000 for homeowners to make repairs that ensure health and safety standards. Under Home Adaptations for Seniors' Independence, HASI, we have increased the amount of assistance people can receive. Homeowners who are 65 years or older can now
receive $3,500 which is up from $2,500.
Maximum assistance under the Rental RRAP was increased from $18,000 to $24,000 per unit to help landlords make repairs to units occupied by low-income Nova Scotians.
[Page 4]
MADAM CHAIR: I would ask you to bring your remarks to a conclusion quickly, please.
MS. TYSON: We have the Shelter Enhancement Program, as well, and Disabled RRAP, Access-a-Home, all of which we have improved. The overall goal is to help lower- income Nova Scotians make necessary repairs to their homes. Our programs help keep people in their homes by providing assistance, specifically for health and safety areas.
Finally, our programs help maintain and ensure that the housing remains part of the housing stock for the province, so that the housing stock doesn't deteriorate.
So, in closing, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide some opening remarks about the housing repair programs. We look forward to providing more specific information.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. The first round of questions goes to the NDP caucus.
Mr. David Wilson, the member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): Welcome, again, to the Public Accounts Committee. Going through, just a few comments, and then I'll get into some questions about certain aspects of grants available to those low-income Nova Scotians who are finding it very difficult to maintain their homes and their ability to pay for repairs, especially, to those homes to ensure a safe environment for them and their children.
Going through some of the data that was provided to us, one piece that caught my eye was a paper that was presented and prepared for the Social Determinants of Health Across the Life Span conference that was in November 2002. In that paper, it was well documented, and they recognized, that shelter as a basic prerequisite for health is very important. I definitely agree with a lot of the information provided in that paper. It indicates that many studies have found that the homeless population experiences much great incidence of a variety of negative health conditions and ailments. As our Party's Health Critic, I would agree with that, also as our former Housing Critic for our caucus.
Over the last several years, I've dealt with and talked to many people in the province who find it very difficult to continue to provide that safe environment for their families when it comes to affordable housing. Of course we're all aware of the Affordable Housing Agreement with the federal government, and the initiatives from the province in trying to bring programs in to, hopefully, impact the need for addressing affordable housing in Nova Scotia.
[Page 5]
One of the areas that I hear about a lot from individuals in the province and our MLAs in our caucus - I'm sure other caucuses hear the same - is that threshold or that ceiling that is placed on the grants and the level of income that families need to be under to gain access to some of these grants and repairs. You had mentioned a couple of the programs where you have increased that ceiling.
Do you continue to, or have you, or are you reviewing that on a constant basis, to look at family income, and what are the increased costs of heating, insurance, and other costs that continue to go up for residents? Are you looking at, or do you continue to review those ceilings that you put in place to ensure that you are addressing the needs of those most vulnerable in our province, especially those who are able to and, at best, continue to keep their own homes? I think that's the most important thing, that we try to help those individuals. Are you reviewing that on a continuing basis? Are you going to review that for all your programs when you come to putting a cap or a ceiling on family income?
MS. TYSON: We do review. We do track those ceilings and costs. However, many of the programs that we administer, we apply the federal rules. Those ceilings, in fact, that we've just increased are in accordance with the federal rules, with one exception. The ceiling for the seniors is slightly higher for a one-bedroom unit than for a single individual in a one-bedroom unit. This was as a result of a policy decision to try to keep seniors in their homes. But other than that one exception, we are following the federal guidelines and rules in respect to all of our programs.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I appreciate that, you do have to follow some guidelines. But we are ultimately responsible; government is responsible to ensure that the residents of our province can gain access to the monies that would hopefully continue to allow them to live in their homes and do the repairs that they need. I appreciate we have to follow some of the guidelines the federal government lays out, but I would encourage you and suggest that as a province, as a government, we can, on our own initiative, look at increasing those ceilings.
I think that's one of the most important things that I would try to relay to the government, that I feel, and our caucus feels, that those ceilings are too low and that those figures that we see, to be realistic, in my view, are too low, because those individuals who are making that money, I would assume that many of them can't afford to keep their own homes and are forced to go into rental housing and, in our view, put more of a strain on the system if they can't continue to live in their own homes.
[9:15 a.m.]
I understand that, and I appreciate that, but I think that as a government and as a province that is ultimately responsible for our residents, and you stated in your opening address the number of Nova Scotians who own their own homes. I've been in many of them
[Page 6]
over the years in my former career, and it's scary to see what residents are living in, the conditions they live in. To say that someone who maybe makes $30,000 a year family income can sustain a safe housing environment for their family, I think that it's impossible for them to do.
Do you feel that the ceilings you have in place are appropriate and can address the needs of those individuals who might find themselves in that grey area, just above the ceiling or the caps you have in place? Do you feel that our government and your department has the ability to address and really affect those individuals who are just above those ceilings and those caps?
MS. TYSON: I think you're quite right. Certainly prior to the recent increase, the ceilings were quite a bit lower, particularly when you look at the family situation. If a family made more than $14,000, they didn't qualify for the repair program available to families. Now in the example that I gave, a family applying for a three-bedroom household, under that same program that income threshold has gone from $14,000 to $30,000. So it has more than doubled. Similarly, with respect to the seniors, the income threshold has increased for the very reasons that you stated. I do agree that the thresholds were low. I think that there has been a major improvement. It's important, always, to consider, though, and continue to consider those threshold questions.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I'm somewhat encouraged. Recently there hasn't been a lot in the media around housing and affordable housing with the federal election. It seems to have quieted down, but I hope that doesn't indicate to your department and yourself that the need is not there to continue to look at the increased costs of living in the province. Everything is going up, and it's even more difficult for someone to maintain their house and the impact on their monthly budget.
You had stated earlier about the 1,200 rental housing units for families and seniors. One of the things I've dealt with over the last couple of years, frequently, is the availability of senior housing. The senior complexes that we see around the province, many of them had been built back in the 1970s. They're hitting 30 years old, and plus. I've toured around to many of those. It's ironic that we get calls about the wait times for individuals trying to get into those senior complexes.
Also, there's another whole basket of issues once you deal with people who are actually living in them, when it comes to regular maintenance or upkeep to these facilities and these provincial housing stock buildings. Do you feel that your department is addressing the concerns of those who are in these facilities, when it comes to continued maintenance or air quality issues or safety issues or mobility issues, talking about senior residences in the province?
[Page 7]
MS. TYSON: With that number of units, with 12,000 units, staff is constantly working to undertake repairs and maintenance. We spend about $20 million a year on our social housing stock to maintain that stock. Last year, I'm very pleased to say, the government approved an additional $4 million from the strategic fund to help do additional repairs and upgrading to the social housing stock.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I think that's, again, great to see the initiatives over the last year or so, but I think there have been many years of neglect of these facilities, especially dealing with the facilities that house our seniors in the province. There are many issues. Do you feel that that increase in funding will address all the problems seen with our stock when it comes to seniors' housing?
MS. TYSON: It's a challenge to continuously keep that stock safe, healthy and in condition that it will be available for seniors and for others in the long term. Again, we spend about $20 million a year for that purpose. Our staff, I think, are very diligent, they do have a plan which rotates in terms of what they do, how they do it and when they do the repairs. They are doing the best they can with the resources they have to keep that housing in good repair.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I would never say that those individuals who work for the department, especially when it comes to maintenance, don't do a good job. Do you feel that your department and these individuals who work for your department have the resources that they need to address the issues? Do you have enough personnel to inspect, to facilitate the programs, to do the maintenance around the province?
MS. TYSON: I think we do have enough individuals and we do spend all of the money that is allocated in the budget for that purpose on an annual basis. If you're asking, could we spend more, we can always do more in all of these areas.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): One of the issues we see or one of the concerns we had was recently in the papers - I'll actually table a copy of this, I'll quote a little bit from this situation. I understand people in your department can't talk personally about certain cases, so I'll read this but my questions will be roughly around the situation that this individual found themselves in.
It was a Mary Trahon - and I apologize if I don't say her name properly - she and her son are homeless now because they lived in a trailer in South Alton that had a fire recently, I think it was January 12th. With this case, Mrs. Trahon tried to get some assistance through your department through the Home Ownership Preservation Program. The indication in the media clip was that last August they attempted to gain access to this program to hopefully get some funding to fix some of the problems she had in her home. She was told that there was a possibility for her to receive funding but an inspector wouldn't be out or couldn't address her situation until April of this year. Of course, about a month ago the problems in
[Page 8]
her house with a fire left her unable to do those repairs. Do you feel that's an appropriate indication of the timeline seen on people entering a program such as this, to have such a long wait before they can have someone inspect their home and maybe give them some assistance to do a repair, do some of the emergency repairs on them?
MS. TYSON: If staff consider a particular situation, if they understand that it is an emergency situation, then that emergency situation is prioritized, so very quickly staff would be available to address an emergency. Otherwise, they are processed in terms of when they apply and they are processed in a logical way, except, as I say, if there is an emergency.
As you say, I can't speak about an individual situation, but if someone for some reason is displaced from their home - this does occur on a number of occasions each year - our housing staff and our income assistance staff then work with those people to provide temporary or short-term or longer-term solutions. If there is a situation that is of particular concern to you, although I can't speak about it publicly, with the permission of the individual about whom you are speaking, we can certainly sit down with you and provide additional detailed information and try to answer any questions you may have, and we would be pleased to do that.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): With this case, the individual was on social assistance and receiving assistance from your department. It's very concerning for us to hear that this individual would wait six months for someone to come and look at her situation of hopefully trying to prevent what happened on January 12th with a fire that left her without a place to live. Family have stepped in to help with another trailer for her to live in. I know that this is just one case and it was probably very difficult for this individual to come forward, especially to the media, to state her case and say she was on social assistance, that she needs help. I know that there are many cases like this.
Do you feel confident that you can address the needs of individuals like this in a timely manner? In your opinion, do you have enough resources, enough personnel to do those inspections when it comes to people or circumstances like this?
MS. TYSON: We help on average about 2,500 households per year and we have applications for all 13 of our programs coming in at a rate of 100 to 200 a month or more. So we have about 2,600 applications on average every year, some are not eligible, and we do provide the repair requested for about 2,500 of them every year. That seems to be holding at the moment for the past number of years.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): And that issue kind of revolves around the wait times. We hear about wait times, especially in health care, but definitely when we're dealing with some of the concerns, issues and programs in Community Services, there's a huge wait time. We talked earlier about seniors' housing and the wait time for that. I know
[Page 9]
in my area of Sackville, some seniors are waiting up to two to three years to enter into a seniors' facility, so they have that appropriate housing, that safe environment to live in.
Do you feel that the province is adequately addressing the concerns of our seniors when it comes to housing? The age of our population is increasing every year and we have a high percentage of seniors who are finding it difficult to maintain their houses and if they don't own a home, to maintain living in an adequate rental property. Do you feel that the department is doing enough to address the concerns of seniors and seniors' housing in the province?
MS. TYSON: I'm going to ask Mr. Dillon to provide some more detail on what we do to assist seniors.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Dillon.
MR. HAROLD DILLON: The issue of waiting lists and the utilization rates in senior citizens' housing is an issue that is made more complicated by a whole range of things. We have, I believe - if my numbers are correct - about 7,700 senior citizen public housing units spread throughout the province. The demand for those units varies significantly depending on where the project is. Many of those projects were built back in the 1970s and 1980s for populations that were at that time, in many cases, rural. There was perhaps a somewhat even split between rural and urban units.
The demand for the rural units at the moment is declining significantly and that's probably because of the general depopulation of rural areas, general movement of the senior population more toward centres of larger communities or towns, cities and so on. So we have an unusual situation where we have projects that are not in demand at all and we have projects in the cities now where there are increasing demands for the units for senior populations in the cities, particularly in the HRM and Sydney, and perhaps some of the other larger towns in the province. So we have this phenomenon that has been created where we have lower-demand units and higher-demand units, and we're trying to determine means to make the best utilization of that stock to ensure that it's all fully occupied, and wherever possible, seniors get the housing that they need. It's a challenge we're dealing with, it's a relatively recent phenomenon that has evolved over the last four to five years, and it's something certainly that we're trying to attend to.
[9:30 a.m.]
MADAM CHAIR: The time has expired for the NDP caucus.
Mr. MacDonald, the member for Cape Breton South.
[Page 10]
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: First of all, I would like to welcome the three of you here today. I don't think any of you will be surprised to learn that I have a number of problems with a number of departments in this current government, but none as much as the problem I have with Community Services. At the outset let me say to you that you can only work with the tools you're given, and your political masters are obviously the people who give you the tools to work with.
I must say, to you and to the others here in the room, that the current Minister of Community Services certainly has not performed very well, and I'm being kind, Madam Chair, in my assessment of that minister, probably the worst I've seen in my 28 years in public life. Hopefully, maybe this weekend, we might see a change in the ministries in this province that will see not only a new Minister of Community Services but a new direction for that department as well. The reason I'm saying that is that this particular minister makes curious public statements about what's happening in his department, and the public statements that he makes are light years away from reality, in almost all cases that I've witnessed and have come to be associated with in terms of being the critic for that department, light years away from reality. Again, I'm being kind in my assessment here.
I'm going to get into some things that I consider to be serious problems with this department. I also want to say, Madam Chair, that we, in our caucus, have felt, for some time, that the direction Community Services and Housing has been taking is far and away too far to the right. The needs of Nova Scotians have been left behind here. I think the direction started to change when the focus on Community Services and Housing started to change under the current government. That focus has gotten away from the providing of services to people, and rather it has become a department where the emphasis has been on saving money and coming in under budget at the expense of programs, in my opinion, in this province.
I believe the direction comes from the top. It comes from recommendations that senior staff are obliged to make to their ministry. I suggest to you, Madam Chair, that perhaps we should entertain a profile of who's running the Department of Community Services and Housing in this province. I would start with, perhaps, asking the deputy minister to give us a profile of, for example, your qualifications and the qualifications of your senior people in that department, and why there is not more emphasis on employing social workers at the master's degree level in senior positions in your department. After all, it is a Community Services Department that deals with the problems of people on a daily basis in this province.
Perhaps you might give me a profile of your qualifications, the qualifications of the people - I might say that the financial aspect of that department should be one, I think, more appropriately designated to the Department of Finance in this province, to keep an eye on the finances of the Department of Community Services and not a Department of Finance operating within the Department of Community Services and Housing. At the decision-making level in your department - maybe I'll start off by asking you for the qualifications of
[Page 11]
the people who are operating the department, starting with your own. Give me some indication of which social workers - and what positions they occupy in your department - are making the day-to-day decisions and advising the minister.
MS. TYSON: My academic qualifications, I have a Bachelor of Arts from Acadia University and a Bachelor of Education from Dalhousie University, and a law degree from Dalhousie University. I worked in the Department of Justice for many years as a practising lawyer, serving most government departments during my career. I've been with the government for 30 years. I took on management and administrative responsibilities as the Director of Legal Services in that department, and then subsequently took on the responsibility of Executive Director of the court system. In that capacity, we had a province-wide distribution of offices and staff, and we were responsible for administering the courts, the restorative justice programs, maintenance enforcement and so on. I held that position for five years, prior to being Deputy Minister of Community Services.
On my left, George Hudson, who is responsible for the finances of the department, is a chartered accountant with a long history of experience in the private and public sectors. If you want more detail, he can provide that.
On my right, Harold Dillon, who is responsible for the Housing programs, is an architect by profession. He has a very long history, both in the technical aspects of housing and in the administration and management of housing, as he spent a number of years as the director in our largest region, the Central Region.
Under both of these people, they have qualified staff. Under Finance, we have chartered accountants and others. In Housing, we have qualified technical staff, both in Housing Services and with the housing authorities, operating our Housing work. I don't know if we have any social workers working in our Housing programs, we mostly have people who are technical experts, and who are experienced and knowledgeable about housing repairs and managing housing units as the owner and manager of those units.
Otherwise, in other areas of the department, though, we have a large number of social workers. We rely upon them extensively for their knowledge and their expertise, on a daily basis. For example, our senior director - who is responsible for all of our programs for adults with disabilities and all of our child welfare, Children and Family Services programs, including child welfare - has a Master of Social Work degree, and a considerable amount of experience, beginning in Newfoundland and Labrador and then in Nova Scotia, in progressive positions with the Department of Community Services. He has a number of senior social workers in his branch of the department and, of course, all of our social workers dealing with clients on a front-line basis in the child welfare area, they're all qualified social workers. Many of them have a master's level degree.
[Page 12]
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: What I'm getting at here, and all of the people, Madam Chair, that I'm looking at have excellent qualifications, unfortunately in the department we're dealing with we have three senior people here, none of whom are social workers. Your assistant deputy minister is also a lawyer, I understand, and she's very well qualified, as are you people. But what I'm getting at is the direction that this department has taken, the direction for the benefit of Nova Scotians who need the support services of your department, I would suggest to you that perhaps at the most senior level in your department, those chairs should be occupied by people who are actually aware of the problems on a day-to-day basis and able to give direction to the ministry.
The ministry is getting some direction, I believe, that has led us to the problems that we're having today. I'm not saying that the direction is perhaps delivered in any kind of way other than the best performance of your department, the department that you head as the deputy minister. All I'm saying is that I would hope that some consideration must be given with any new ministry or any new minister to the direction of this department. I'm concerned about the direction this department has taken. It must be very difficult for people to work in that department, to work for a government that clearly does not see Community Services as a priority. I don't expect you to answer that. That's perhaps more of a political question, and perhaps it deserves a political answer, which I'm very happy to challenge the next Minister of Community Services on.
I would like to move, however, to a couple of questions that I do have regarding the Housing program. One is a direct question. Have you received notice from the federal government that the Affordable Housing Agreement is going to be cancelled? I ask you that because I recall Prime Minister Harper talking about that in the election, that he was going to provide incentives to landlords across this country. I'm concerned that perhaps incentives to landlords across the country may mean a disincentive for public housing in the future. I suggest to you that perhaps we are moving away from the provision of increased public housing in this province and, indeed, across the country. We are in a situation where the current federal government may perceive that the way to go would be to give more incentives to private developers and less incentive to provinces to continue the provision of public housing.
I will just end my preamble by saying - I said to somebody yesterday - hold on to your hats here in this country because we are moving hard right when it comes to the situation in Canada regarding the provision of public services, including housing. I want to know whether that concerns you and whether or not there is any indication - as there is with child care, already, coming to the province - that the federal government is going to shift gears in that regard? I am wondering if the same thing is happening in housing and are you concerned about that?
MS. TYSON: No, we haven't received any such notice, I am happy to say, and hope we don't receive any such notice. We are working toward completing - and we will be
[Page 13]
appearing before this committee on March 1st on affordable housing - but we are working toward completing a plan for Phase II of the Affordable Housing Agreement. Hopefully, that will go forward without incident. We haven't received any indication whatsoever that the federal government is thinking about cancelling that agreement.
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: Okay. One of the problems that the local housing authority is having in my area is the lack of finances, I guess, to keep up the units they do have. There are huge waiting lists and a lot of people who are looking for housing in my area are now being driven to what we affectionately know as slum landlords, who are charging high rents and providing substandard accommodation for people in need. That is not acceptable.
I think, again, the government has a responsibility to look into those very seriously and to suggest that we need to repair the housing that is in disrepair in the public housing units in my area, on a more timely basis, so people can access those. The waiting lists are too heavy, in terms of people waiting to access public housing. Instead, they are getting frustrated, they are going to private housing and what is happening is, the Community Services part of your operation has maximums on rents in private sector housing, based on their budgets. That is a whole other story that I could get into but time doesn't permit me to do that.
Let me just give you an example. They're paying more to rent substandard apartments in the private sector than Community Services allows them, so they are dipping in to other amounts of monies they get for food, clothing and other necessities, which is unfortunate.
My constant arguments with the housing authority on a daily basis are twofold; one is that I keep hearing the cry that we don't have enough money to fix the units up. There are hundreds of units at any given period of time that go empty because they are not fixed up in a timely fashion to permit new people to move in; and the second problem is that, in regard to these housing units, the local housing authority has engaged in a process of first come, first served, with no consideration at all for emergencies or need.
I find that incredible in this day and age that, simply because one person applies before another person, that they are considered before another person. I know that the people operating the housing authority are frustrated with that but that is a policy and I would like to see some direction from your office to the housing authorities regarding that policy. Maybe you might want to comment on those.
MS. TYSON: I will say that we are very pleased with the increase in shelter allowances in last year's budget. It does help some. It helps, I guess, the biggest gap between what we see as the average rent and the amount of money people are receiving.
[Page 14]
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: Just to interject, that is a laudable thing to do but the problem is that the so-called slum landlords immediately increase their rents. You know there is no more Residential Tenancies Board to deal with that stuff.
MS. TYSON: I'm going to ask Mr. Dillon to address the second part of your question with respect to the wait list and priorities for the social housing.
[9:45 a.m.]
MR. DILLON: Yes, okay, just a couple of comments. First of all, it was on the maintenance, I think we spoke earlier about the fact that we spend about $20 million a year in maintenance and modernization of the stock across the province. We try very hard through the housing authorities to plan that on a five-year basis and deal with the most pressing work first. The authorities are very good at identifying the most pressing work first. Hopefully, that kind of a process will ensure that all the housing stock is maintained in reasonably good condition, although, at any given point in time an individual project may be ready for its work. We were also pleased to invest an additional $3 million in upkeep to that portfolio last year, above the normal $20 million.
On the waiting list, we do have what's called a chronological-based waiting list for public housing as a generic waiting list. As Mr. MacDonald indicates, it generally is first in, first served. However, we do accept that there will be urgent or emergent matters that suggest that somebody need jump the queue and, in fact, move to the front of the waiting list.
We have a couple of priority definitions in the waiting list management strategy to ensure that people are able to move to the front of the queue if they are in either two or three different - and we didn't come here, necessarily, today to talk about public housing. I would have brought more details on that. But they would be - for example, women fleeing abusive situations, people who have literally, suddenly become homeless, you know, an emergency fire, or people who need to be near a hospital because of a medical condition and need to quickly gain access to public housing in the area. There are some exceptions where people can move up in the queue.
Historically, one of the problems with trying to establish a waiting list based on need is every individual will certainly try to present that their need is more serious than anybody else's. It gets in a bit of a, who can tell the most distressful story, and so on. It became a real challenge for the housing authorities, as wise as they are, to try to separate one exceptional circumstance from another and another. So it was the housing authorities' boards and staff who worked with us in suggesting that we need to maybe treat people a little fairer by providing access on the basis of when people apply, except in circumstances where there is a clear indication that somebody has a priority circumstance.
[Page 15]
We have tried the current system and it seems to be working very well, notwithstanding there will occasionally be somebody who feels that they deserve faster service and aren't getting it. I think the current system tries to achieve the greatest level of fairness for everyone.
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: If I might, you say there are exceptions. Well, I can tell you that there are no exceptions in the Cape Breton Housing Authority. I have been told time and time again that they would like to see some - some people who work there would like to see some exceptions and they are clearly not comfortable with the policy as it stands. There are people who are desperately in need and I will give you a good example.
A woman with a couple of children had a house sold out from under her last week and was given one week to get out and nowhere to go. So that to me would be an emergency for the housing authority to deal with. She goes down, she applies to the housing authority and the housing authority says, well, you're on the list, we're having a meeting next month and we are going to look at it. Then you will go on the list. You will be 52nd on the list in this particular place. That woman and her children needed a house this weekend. That is where people are falling through the cracks.
If nothing else comes of this today, in my rant, I guess, is that somebody look into the rules and regulations of how people are approved for housing units. There are a number of people who are applying for housing units now . They are being honest and saying, I want to get into a housing unit because of the oil costs, that most landlords are now asking tenants to pay their own heat. They're not only charging them exorbitant rents but they have to pay the heat, so they're trying to get into public housing units which are heated units in order to save themselves some money. But, again, the other arm of your department kicks in and reduces allotments of money to that family accordingly, in some cases.
There has to be fairness built in here, but particularly in the emergency need for housing. There has to be some mechanism put in place where we can deal with a situation like that. There have to be some units set aside for this, as far as I'm concerned.
MADAM CHAIR: The time has expired for the Liberal caucus. We'll go now to the PC caucus.
Mr. DeWolfe, the member for Pictou East.
MR. JAMES DEWOLFE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's certainly great to have you back here with us. It's refreshing to talk about this subject, because I find it very confusing. There's so many different programs under this umbrella. I guess the access to the programs is key to the people who come in my office. It seems that so many fall through the cracks, mainly because they are perhaps just over the threshold for income or the monies have been allotted for the year.
[Page 16]
I'm wondering if modifications that have been made to the provincial programs in recent times have allowed more people access to the programs? Perhaps you could comment and expand on that.
MS. TYSON: The changes in the seniors' program and the family program have done two things. They have increased the amount of the grant available from $2,500 to $5,000, and they have also expanded the eligibility so that more families are eligible to apply for the programs. So by doing that we will capture more or allow more people who are in need to apply and be helped, and also we will be able to do the more costly repairs that we weren't able to do under the old program. Under the old program we sometimes had people coming back a second time, and we hope to avoid that with the change in the program. We are seeing that that is helping.
The cost of repairs has gone up over the years, and some of the houses are in poor enough condition that they need a little bit more help than $2,500 can do. So the changes, we think, are very positive and they were the right changes to make for those programs, and will help people more so than the old programs did.
MR. DEWOLFE: I find it difficult to help and assist people through the programs. I can think of a case recently where a senior had applied for help, the doorstep was not safe. It happened to be a neighbour in my community. It was in the Fall, and still didn't hear anything back from them all Spring, and called again to find out only that he would have to reapply. I have to delve into this a little further, because I understood that you should normally keep those applications for a period of one year. Is that correct?
MS. TYSON: That's correct. I'm surprised to hear that. I certainly would be happy to look into that particular situation.
MR. DEWOLFE: Anyway, the situation was such that it couldn't wait. He had to get the stairs fixed, with very limited funds, and some windows replaced. As I say, that's one case. I seem to have a lot of difficulty getting through these. Perhaps, deputy minister, you could answer one concern I have, that if a senior's income is just over - let's say it's $24,000, total income, and they have some serious concerns with their house, and there is the possibility of going to a loan program. Now, to enter into a loan agreement, does one have to migrate the property? Does that have to be done prior to that? Now all properties have to be, pretty much across the province, migrated.
MS. TYSON: Do you mean transferred in the name of the Crown?
MR. DEWOLFE: Yes, under the new program. So the cost of migrating properties has gone through the roof, in my mind.
MS. TYSON: Yes, it has.
[Page 17]
MR. DEWOLFE: When some lawyers can do it down the Valley for $500 . . .
MR. MARK PARENT: $300.
MR. DEWOLFE: My colleague is saying $300. It's likely impossible to get one under $1,200 in Pictou County. It seems to be a bit of fancy footwork going on there but I won't get into that, because that's not the concern. I had one done recently myself. I went to Stewiacke and I found it for $700. Most people don't do that, they deal in their hometowns. Would a senior have to pay $1,200 to get their property migrated before they would qualify for the loan? I understand this is the case.
MS. TYSON: I think that's correct. I'll ask Mr. Dillon.
MR. DILLON: I think the reference you're making is to the Small Loans Assistance Program, which is our repayable lending program. Under that program, which was developed, certainly, prior to the new registry rules and the whole issue of the challenges around migration of property, the program allows for loans up to $3,000 to be secured by a promissory note signed by the occupants of the house and does not require any registering or migrating of property.
However, the program, the way it was designed, required a mortgage on the property for anything over $3,000. When the program was designed, it allowed an uncertified mortgage, effectively just placed against the property, on a loan between $3,000 and $5,000 or $6,000, but beyond that it required an actual title search and an actual formal registration. That's become a bit of a problem over the last year, as has been identified to us, because of the costs that do range from $300 to $1,000 to proceed through that migration process. That's become a bit of a deterrent for some clients to borrowing a small amount of money, let's say $5,000. If the cost to migrate was $1,000, it adds an extra burden. For a $20,000 loan, which is the maximum that program allows, perhaps the $1,000 migration fee is defendable.
So we are looking at the program. We're currently reviewing it to see whether or not we should change some of the metrics of that program to allow a greater use of promissory notes or when, in fact, to trigger the requirement for migration. It's something that we're aware of, that has been raised at the regional level.
MR. DEWOLFE: I do believe that a deed should be enough. I have seniors who were looking for $5,000, the basement is in bad shape. I don't need to get into the details, the health issues. They were essentially advised, hey, go to the bank, the interest rates are too high, the cost of migrating the property is going to be upwards to $1,200, so you're better off going to the bank to deal with it, because you don't have to migrate your property to get a $5,000 loan. I guess that's probably good advice under the circumstances, but I would truly like to see the necessity of migrating the property taken away. I think this is an option that could be made available to more residents if that were not the case.
[Page 18]
That's a real deterrent to enter into the program, and I would suggest that probably your funding level for that particular portion of your program is probably pretty much intact. There's probably not too many people who would utilize it under those circumstances. Would that be the case?
MR. DILLON: The latest projections we've gotten from the regions for this year is that the expenditures or the lending under that program is not dramatically different from previous years. We typically lend somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 a year through the Small Loans Program. The current projection, I think, for this year is it will be somewhere in the vicinity of that same number.
[10:00 a.m.]
We have heard that some clients who want to borrow small amounts have done their own calculation, obviously, and concluded that the migration fee is a bit of a deterrent and have gone elsewhere for their loans. So we recognize that it is an issue that we need to address for that small loan category. It is something that we will be looking at.
MR. DEWOLFE: The caps, I believe, are quite clear, they are reasonably fair. I think that you have to have some caps involved there. I have noted that there are a lot of programs that are mainly there for landlords, homeowners, apartment owners and so on. I'm just wondering, how much money actually goes out to some of these programs, like the home adaptation for seniors? It helps homeowners and landlords pay for home adaptations to extend the time that low-income seniors can live in their own homes independently. It provides up to $3,500, I understand.
I have to tell you that I wasn't aware that this was still in effect. I knew they had that in the past but I'm surprised to see that that is still on the books. It is for eligible homeowners over 65 who have their abilities diminished. Is that, in fact, still an accessible program?
MS. TYSON: Yes, it is. The Home Adaptation for Seniors' Independence, the so-called HASI program, is still in effect and we are forecasting to spend approximately $340,000 this current fiscal year on that program.
MR. DEWOLFE: I see, okay. I think that is a good program. I don't know how the funding would play out but I'm going to be looking into that one in the very near future.
There are programs - like all these RRAP programs are essentially assistance to help landlords convert residential, non-residential property, provide affordable housing and offers repair assistance in the Rooming House RRAP program, so there are a lot of programs that are sort of directed towards the landlords, potential landlords. How much money actually goes out in that form, more direct payment towards landlords than direct towards the homeowner and the senior?
[Page 19]
MS. TYSON: I think there is only one program that you are referring to and that is the RRAP Rental Program. We are forecasting to spend approximately $750,000 on that program this year. That is a program that adapts rental units, enables rental units to be upgraded for. . .
MR. DEWOLFE: Okay, that's an update of existing units, is it?
MS. TYSON: Yes.
MR. DEWOLFE: Okay. Madam Chair, if I could, can you please explain this Affordable Rental Housing program? That's a program that I've been dealing with recently, where a landlord can build, say, a 12-unit apartment building that's going to be, sort of, designated as low-rental.
MS. TYSON: I think that's - you're speaking of an Affordable Housing Program which is, I guess, the topic for next month but I think Harold could, maybe, make some preliminary comments.
MR. DEWOLFE: Okay. We can leave that but I'm dealing with a case and I'd just like to know a little bit about it, please.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Dillon.
MR. DILLON: Okay, you're speaking about the federal-provincial Affordable Housing Program . . .
MR. DEWOLFE: That's right, yes.
MR. DILLON: . . . which is a Phase I, Phase II program agreement we have signed which is going to have about a $56 million investment in the province over the period 2003-2009, or thereabouts, over that six, seven year period. It has four different programs within it. One is the new rental program which is what you're talking about, which is the largest chunk of the Affordable Housing Program. It is to assist non-profit or for-profit developers to put new rental housing in the marketplace for low- to moderate-income individuals. That, I believe, is what you're thinking about.
The other three programs under that are the rental preservation program, a very modest one. It has a fairly significant home preservation program. It also has a program that allows some small number of new home ownership units to be built. It has four programs. I think the intention was to speak at length about that program on March 1st.
[Page 20]
MR. DEWOLFE: Okay. I guess my final question with regard to that is, do you have the areas rated for need across the province and where is Pictou County - is it sort of a zone that you look at or do you look at individual towns?
MR. DILLON: Well, we have approached that project, for the most part, through requests for proposals from the non-profit and profit community to develop projects. Part of the analysis and the criteria for approving the project is to prove there is a need, and to prove that the project is viable and required in the area. There is a whole series of criteria, including the costs, the rent levels and so on, but that process ferrets out that there is a need and that the area requires this. In fact, for the most cases, respondents will not respond unless there is a clear need because they need to be sure that when they build the units, that the units get occupied and so on.
MR. DEWOLFE: Well, yes.
MR. DILLON: We're also concerned that it not undermine the existing marketplace so we try to prevent over-building in the area at the expense of existing non-profit or for-profit stock there. We try to work with the proponents to ensure that projects are needed, that they won't upset the marketplace and that there is appropriate housing for what the needs are in the area.
MR. DEWOLFE: Thank you. Just before I pass on to my colleague, I guess it's a known fact that the senior population in Nova Scotia is exploding. Having said that, are your programs, your long-range plans going to embrace this growth in the senior population in Nova Scotia?
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Tyson.
MS. TYSON: The demographics indicate that the number of seniors in Nova Scotia is increasing and will continue to increase. We are working with other government departments - in particular, Health - on all of our program areas. Health has the elderly population, the home care and the nursing homes. We have adults with disabilities and our housing programs which are sensitive to seniors and their needs. All I can say is, yes, we have staff looking at that and looking at our programs.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Mr. Parent, you have two minutes.
MR. MARK PARENT: Thank you very much. I will come back after the break then with the majority of my questions. I just want to thank you for your professionalism and for your coolness in answering questions. I've been on the Community Services Committee and you've appeared before that many times, and at the poverty workshop I was at. At times, some of the comments, I think, rather than dealing with policy are directed towards
[Page 21]
personnel. I think that is difficult to take so I want to thank you for bearing with us on some of those things.
On the home repair, Nova Scotia, if I remember correctly, has the highest percentage of homeowners of any province in Canada. That is both a good thing and a bad thing because, at the same time that we have the highest ownership, I also understand that much of that stock needs some work.
The good thing about it is that we can, with some money, keep people in their homes. That is where they want to be and that's the best thing for them, instead of moving them into communities that, perhaps, they don't live in and where they don't have the same pride of ownership. The difficulty, of course, is keeping those homes up. The difficulty that I faced recently in the constituency work I've done centres around the cost of heating and the fact that many of these homes aren't properly insulated or don't have efficient heating systems, and also, increasingly, environmental problems due to mould. That's mainly with renters, but with a lot of homeowners as well. So I want to go to the first one.
At the poverty workshop, the Coalition for Affordable Energy made a very compelling presentation. What are we doing, specifically? Is that a priority when we offer the home repairs, for insulation and heating issues? Those are big issues that are making it hard for my people to stay in their own homes.
MS. TYSON: Yes, you're right. Heating costs have increased, and they have put additional pressure on our clients and on others. Our home repair programs are focused on repairing homes for health and safety purposes, however, there are a number of other programs that are available. The Keep the Heat program is one which enables repair and replacement of furnaces, which helps. Some of our repair programs, although they're directed at health and safety, for example, door replacements or window replacements, do, in fact, help in terms of energy efficiency.
We have made a particular effort to advise the clients on income assistance through notices with their income assistance cheques on things that they can do to help, and we are working with the Department of Energy, and we've met with some stakeholder groups to obtain their ideas as to what we and other departments can do to help in this regard. There is a new federal program which has been announced, and we're now seeking details of that program.
So there are a number of initiatives that are currently in process. We are making sure that our staff, in particular our Director of Housing, is up to date on all of those programs and taking advantage of as many of them as we can.
MADAM CHAIR: The time has expired for the PC caucus. We have 12-minute rounds now.
[Page 22]
Mr. Wilson.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): Madam Chair, I'm going to go back to where we left off. I believe Mr. Dillon was talking about our seniors' facilities, so I have a quick question on that, and then I'll ask a couple of other questions around other areas. You stated, Mr. Dillon, that there are certain areas of the province where the need has declined, and there are certain areas of the province where the need has increased. Definitely I represent an area, I believe, where it is the case that it has increased. When you look at a wait time of two to three years to enter the facility, I think it's important that we look at what we can do to really keep our seniors in the communities where they've probably established roots, where they have families and support units, and support of family and friends.
I've been contacted by many in my community who have fears and concerns that there is nowhere for them to go if they cannot continue to maintain their homes that they're in right now. A simple question is, are you going to facilitate the building of new seniors' facilities or complexes in those areas, like the area I represent in Sackville, to address the concerns of housing for our seniors?
MR. DILLON: The construction of new units of public housing is difficult in the current environment, because the federal government has backed out of the provision of any new social housing units. As you may know, under the Public Housing Program, they are a 75 per cent contributor to the losses of the program. So their absence from that program and from that field of activity makes it virtually impossible for any province, including the Province of Nova Scotia, to undertake public housing on its own. Covering 100 per cent of the subsidy loss on those programs would probably be prohibitive, although that's a government decision to make.
However, we do have the Affordable Housing Program. So we've looked, through the early stages of the Affordable Housing Program, at getting some housing stock built, specifically in the Sackville community, to address the needs of low-income Sackvillites, including seniors and families. We've had some discouragement through that, which you're probably aware of, but we haven't given up the ship there at all.
We are now looking at embarking on Phase II, and serving areas of the province that did not get addressed through Phase I will be one of our first priorities, we hope, in Phase II. Hopefully that will translate into undertaking some activity, perhaps in the Sackville area, as well as other areas of the province, where Phase I didn't get off to the kind of start we had hoped it might. We'll be looking for support in the community, from elected officials, the private sector developers, the non-profit sector, and the community at large to help us put some housing on the ground to address areas of need.
[10:15 a.m.]
[Page 23]
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I think I've said it before, and I guess I'll say it again, the Nova Scotia Government's commitment to affordable housing and addressing the needs of affordable housing depends heavily on the federal government. I have concerns with the change of guard - not that I support the previous federal Liberal Government or the current Conservative Government - but I do have concerns that the potential of further agreements with our province to address the needs of especially our seniors might be in jeopardy.
One of the things that the deputy minister stated earlier was around the area of plans for the maintenance of the public stock. Do you have a report, or is it in a document, on the plans of the government when it comes to maintenance for public stock in the next year or two years or whatever timeline you have? Do you actually have that down in a form that I could read or that you could provide to this committee so that we could look at what the plans are for the maintenance of public stock in the province?
MS. TYSON: I'll refer that to Mr. Dillon.
MR. DILLON: We asked each housing authority to provide us with a five-year modernization improvement plan for their housing stock, which identifies all of the work they hope to undertake on their stock that's out of the ordinary. So that wouldn't be routine maintenance. If there's a tap that needs replacing tomorrow, they're simply going to replace that. This would be work that typically, across the province, runs anywhere from $4 million to $8 million a year of work that is aimed at refurbishing and upgrading that stock. So we get that.
We've recently asked for those. They are, I believe, either on their way to us or we have them now. They'll be coordinated into one full province-wide picture, and that will be, at least as of today, the five-year modernization improvement request that the housing authorities are making. It will then have to go through a normal budget process to see how much the province will be willing to invest in each of the next five years. Then, on an annual basis, as work gets completed, they update that rolling five-year modernization improvement plan.
So those kinds of documents are available from time to time. They're not necessarily an official, formal blue book; they are a series of spreadsheets identifying, among the individual authorities, all the work they would like to do on every project. It will get into detail, including roofs, elevators, windows, doors, sidewalks, carpets and so on.
MS. TYSON: I would just like to say, Mr. Wilson, that if you can give us a call at some point, if you have specific information that you would like to have, we'll provide you with what we can.
[Page 24]
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I think it's important not only for our committee to have but for the people of Nova Scotia to know what the situation is for maintenance when it comes to the investment that taxpayers make when it comes to the public stock. Hopefully we will see those plans for that. Mr. Dillon mentioned the blue book, I would suggest that we'll probably see that in the near future, just before the next election.
One of the concerns that we have is around insulation to homes. Many residents in Nova Scotia live in homes that need upgrading to their insulation. It's a necessity in this province to have heat, and hopefully maintain a warm and safe environment. To our knowledge, insulation isn't covered under any of the programs that people can gain access to in Community Services. Do you have comments on that? Heating costs are rising daily in this province, and I think it's an area where we need to look at maybe changing the policy.
MS. TYSON: I know that last Fall the federal government announced a $500 million national EnerGuide Program for low-income households. We don't know the details of that program yet, they're working them out, so it's possible that that would include insulation. We're also working with the Department of Energy and they have a pilot program for energy efficiency, and I don't recall whether that includes insulation specifically.
MR. DILLON: I suspect it will.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): Well, that's good to hear because it is important with our efforts in trying to promote that heating is an essential in this province. I think by addressing and allowing homeowners to gain access to funds to hopefully better insulate their homes it would help in their ability to stay in those homes longer and in our view, reduce cost down the road on government, if they end up losing those homes, or having to enter into social housing or other avenues.
One of the issues we also hear about from time to time - which I don't hear a lot about lately from the government - is about co-op housing and the condition of some of those facilities throughout the province. We've heard of some situations where they are really in shambles and really need the assistance of government and programs to address their needs. Do you have any comments about the condition and some of the avenues for our co-op associations and programs around the province to have access to help from the government?
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Dillon.
MR. DILLON: There are about 2,000 co-op housing units spread across the province, virtually from one end of the province to the other. I'm not sure if there are any in Glace Bay but there are certainly in Yarmouth and the Sydney area and so on. Most of those units are in very good condition, we do physical inspections of them on a five-year cycle, so most of our physical inspections of the properties indicate the units are in very good condition.
[Page 25]
However, some of the projects do struggle with difficulties that emanate from either the origin of the co-op, the way the units were constructed or in some cases, where they bought existing units that weren't in very good condition, so there are some units where the physical condition of the units is not great. If the co-op has its own financial resources to upgrade them they do so but there are some that don't.
We've invested quite a bit of money over the last five to six years, since we began administering the projects, to assist struggling co-ops with the upgrading of the property. We didn't come here today to talk about that - and George might help me - but we're talking somewhere between $4 million to $5 million over the past number of years we've invested in that portfolio to assist co-ops to bring their portfolio up to good condition.
An ongoing challenge, the program is funded largely with resources that come from the feds that are frozen amounts, so we can only spend the federal money that comes to us to support that program, and we try to do the best with that funding.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Hudson, do you want to add anything to that?
MR. GEORGE HUDSON: I will just add that probably one of our more notable projects was in Yarmouth where we have invested a lot of money through both loans and direct assistance to that rather large co-op to bring it from pretty difficult circumstances.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I think it's an area we need to concentrate on. I think there definitely are horror stories when it comes to co-ops, but I think there are definite benefits to those that are properly run. I just encourage you to continue to look at ways of helping the co-ops.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. The time has expired.
Mr. Colwell.
MR. KEITH COLWELL: First of all, I would like to ask the deputy minister to table Phase II of the Affordable Housing Agreement.
MS. TYSON: As soon as we have that finalized and approved by government we'd be happy to table it, certainly.
MR. COLWELL: I thought that was already finalized?
MS. TYSON: The agreement itself has been signed but the department's plan to take advantage of the agreement has yet to go before Cabinet. It can start as early as April 1st and we plan to take it before Cabinet before that date, so as soon as it's available. We certainly could, if you wish, provide a copy of the agreement itself.
[Page 26]
MR. COLWELL: Yes. I have some other quick questions too, we need a lot more time today on this issue than we are going to have. Under the Senior Citizens' Assistance Program, what percentage does the federal government pay and what percentage does the province pay in the agreement?
MS. TYSON: That program, the Senior Citizens' Assistance Program, SCAP, that's provincial funding.
MR. COLWELL: It's 100 per cent provincial?
MS. TYSON: That's correct.
MR. COLWELL: Under the Provincial Housing Emergency Repair Program?
MS. TYSON: That's the same.
MR. COLWELL: It's 100 per cent. Home Adaptation for Seniors' Independence?
MS. TYSON: That's cost shared between the federal government and the province.
MR. COLWELL: What percentage?
MS. TYSON: It's 75 per cent federal and 25 per cent provincial.
MR. COLWELL: And any other programs, what's the breakdown of the program and the funding percentage.
MS. TYSON: The suite of RRAP programs are federal-provincial cost shared and they're all on the basis of 75 per cent/25 per cent. That would include the RRAP Homeowner; RRAP Disabled; RRAP Rental Rooming House Conversion; Emergency Repair; Home Adaptation for Seniors' Independence; and the Shelter Enhancement. Those are the programs we call the RRAP suite and they are all 75 per cent federal, 25 per cent provincial funding.
MR. COLWELL: Could you table that document today?
MS. TYSON: Yes, certainly.
MR. COLWELL: What has the minister done to ensure the federal programs with 75 per cent funding are going to be in place? Has anything been done yet with the new government?
MS. TYSON: I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
[Page 27]
MR. COWELL: With the new government there seems to be a tendency that they may cut some of these programs out, that was the indication you got if you listened carefully to what the new Prime Minister has been saying. What action has the minister or the department taken to inquire about these, to ensure these important programs are here for Nova Scotians, because these are very important programs?
MS. TYSON: Yes, I totally agree. We haven't had any indication whatsoever that these programs will be cancelled and our staff have been in touch with CMHC, as we have in other areas of programming.
MR. COLWELL: That's not the question I am asking. The question is what has the minister done? Has the minister written to the new minister or has he done anything to push the province's position to ensure that these programs are maintained in Nova Scotia? This is a very, very important question.
MS. TYSON: As of yesterday, with the new minister being appointed, I don't believe our minister has written yesterday to him.
MR. COLWELL: These programs are so important that I would think he would have a letter prepared and a meeting set up even before the new minister was put in place to get prepared for this. If these programs stop I can tell you there are going to be a whole lot of people in my constituency, and every constituency in this province, who are not going to have houses, period, it's going to be that simple. I know that for a fact with what I deal with every day.
Also, I would like to know what the wait list is with the Senior Citizens' Assistance Program?
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Dillon.
MR. DILLON: I don't have that on the tip of my tongue. I might have some information here on it. Our information indicates the wait list for the Senior Citizens' Assistance Program is probably somewhere between 700 and 900 units across the province, and it's somewhat evenly spread among the four regions.
MR. COLWELL: What about the Home Adaptation for Senior Citizens' Independence? What about the money for that?
MR. DILLON: I did ask that question this week and I understand as of January 1st there were somewhere between 75 and 80 names on the waiting list, and there was funding in the program to be committed before the end of March that would serve about half that number. We'd anticipate that there would be perhaps 20 to 40 names after April 1st for next year. The RRAP suite of programs has been extended by the outgoing government for one
[Page 28]
year. The program agreement was scheduled to expire March 31, 2006 and the outgoing government, before Parliament rose, agreed to extend these agreements for one full year. So the agreements have been extended to March 31, 2007, for the moment.
MR. COLWELL: The other thing is, I commend whoever is responsible for this, of increasing the amount of money for each grant available under the different programs. You helped 2,500 people last year, this year you helped 2,300 people, and I can tell you in my area - and I want to commend the staff who work in my area with the department, because they do everything they can with the resources they have, so it's nothing to do with the staff, if you're not given the resources you can't do the job, it's that simple, and it's up to the government and Cabinet to do that. It's good to see the increase but unfortunately, if you only service 2,300 people, it's definitely not going to service what we need in the Province of Nova Scotia. Really, more money has to be put into this program. Is there any indication, or are you going to request any money from government to increase it above the $16.5 million?
[10:30 a.m.]
MS. TYSON: That's a matter for government during the budget deliberations, in terms of next year's budget. I will say, in terms of the number of people helped, in previous years sometimes people were helped more than once, so they would be counted twice in the 2,500. Whereas this year, we don't expect that to happen. Certainly, it would be quite infrequent because the amounts have increased. So I can't tell you until after the end of the year exactly how many people or that breakdown, but I think we expect to help roughly as many people.
MR. COLWELL: I'd like to know the ones who are helped twice in one year because typically if we contact someone and someone has been helped, even in the last five or six years - and I can understand that policy - they can't help them again. We have some people living in my constituency in particular, in the Preston area, who are living in unbearable conditions and just don't have the resources to do the repairs to their homes. It's getting to a point that they're going to have to move out, so they need some major, major work, and I'm sure it's not just in my area, I'm sure it's in a lot of other areas as well. You have people with very low pensions and very difficult times, and they don't want to leave their homes because these are their homesteads and they've worked hard to get to that point, and they can't afford to lose them.
Again, it's up to government to make these decisions, but is there any recommendation coming from the department to increase it over the $16.5 million? Will you be recommending to your minister to raise this?
MS. TYSON: We will be providing all of the relevant information to our minister and to others in the budget process during the process, and that will be a decision for government.
[Page 29]
MR. COLWELL: Yes, because this money not only helps the recipients in a better quality of lifestyle, but it also generates a lot of revenue for small contractors in the communities, most of the money comes back to the province anyway pretty quickly in taxes and other revenues, so it's a win-win situation with this type of activity.
MS. TYSON: I will say that we'll work as hard as we can to spend every cent of what we receive in the budget process, as we do now. So if we do end up with a higher budget, we'll certainly do our best to spend every cent of it.
MR. COLWELL: Under the Affordable Housing Program, how many houses or units have been built, and how many are in the program to potentially be done?
MS. TYSON: Again, we didn't come with those numbers today because we're coming back on March 1st, so I'm sorry, I can't tell you that off the top of my head.
MR. COLWELL: If you could have those numbers for us when you come next time it will save us asking the question again.
MS. TYSON: Absolutely, we will have that.
MR. COLWELL: Again, I'm very concerned with this program where the federal government has 75 per cent. I'm glad that the outgoing government did extend it for a year, that's very positive, but from what I'm hearing federally now, it's a pretty nervous situation. If these programs are cut for seniors, I can see a huge housing problem coming for seniors in this province.
MS. TYSON: I can tell you that your concern is shared by all of us in Community Services who deal with this area and federal-provincial relations, it's shared among other provinces, my colleagues. We will be doing the best we can to put the appropriate information before our federal colleagues. We don't have any indication that those programs will be cut; in fact, it's only recently that the federal government has come back into the housing field in a big way and we hope that they will stay with it. We'll be having those discussions at the federal-provincial tables among the senior staff and, I presume, the ministers will be having those conversations as well, it's not only a problem for Nova Scotia.
MR. COLWELL: Of the $16.5 million that's in housing that you're talking about now, to help the 2,300 households, how much of that is federal money and how much of that is provincial money?
MS. TYSON: That is provincial money.
MR. COLWELL: At 100 per cent?
[Page 30]
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Dillon.
MR. DILLON: No. The $16.5 million, our early estimate is about half of that money will be 100 per cent provincial and the other half will be 75/25. Effectively, the RRAP suite of programs, which are about $9 million a year as a total package, are typically 75/25, and the remaining funding for the most part is provincial.
MR. COLWELL: Mostly provincial on the rest of it. So how much actual money did the province add to the program, actual dollars?
MS. TYSON: How much did the province add?
MR. COLWELL: Yes, in real dollars what did they add to make it to the $16.5 million? Did they add any money or did they just boost up the other part of the program?
MS. TYSON: Yes, we actually added money. The budget was slightly over $10 million; we added $3 million, which is in the process of being spent now on repairs; there is $1 million that we are working with Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations on Keep the Heat; and there was approximately $1.7 million, thereabouts, that was carried over from last year. Last year a mid-year adjustment gave us quite a bit of money and the work was in the process of being done by March 31st, so about that amount has been carried over and will be spent in this fiscal year. We are projecting approximately $16.5 million to be actually spent in this current fiscal year.
MR. COLWELL: All I can say is your numbers don't add up. You're adding $3 million, you're adding $1.7 million that you carried forward, and $13.7 million and $16.5 million don't add up. Could you give me a written response to that question of where the money is and how much the province added?
MS. TYSON: Certainly.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, the time has expired. We will go to the PC caucus, Mr. Parent.
MR. MARK PARENT: I want to pick up on a remark my colleague made about co-op housing, just adding my two cents. I know that there are some co-ops that don't work well but one I have in Kentville is fantastic - this really falls over to the affordable housing discussion that's coming up. We have public housing on one side of the street and the co-op on the other side of the street and the difference between the two is incredible. It is a well-run co-op, there is pride of ownership and it really, I think, is a model that is worth working at to get straight. I just want to commend him for his comments and add my voice to it.
[Page 31]
In terms of the program that was mentioned to help private builders build affordable housing units, I guess I have some concerns about how that program works. Again, that's more into the affordable housing, I realize, but there are some very strong arguments for using money to subsidize rents. It allows flexibility in terms of what the rent increases are, and at the Poverty Forum this is one of the issues that came up, that they thought there should be more differentiation based on the rent threshold in different communities than there is in the present Community Services program. It's flexible, it's quick to locate a unit when needed, it offers more choice, and it applies more units. So having said that, I'm very supportive of that in an area where I have had population growth, and the lag time to get public housing in place is a problem.
I guess I'm not as convinced that public money should be used to help build those units, so I'm wondering what the justification of that is. To subsidize the rents, yes, but to actually build the units when we're not going to own the units on the end, what's the justification for that?
MS. TYSON: The justification would be that we have additional housing stock available for low-income individuals. There would be an agreement with the owner of the property that the owner would be required to keep the rents at a certain lower level for a certain period of time.
MR. PARENT: What period of time would that be?
MS. TYSON: It's 10 years.
MR. DILLON: In fact, in some cases we've placed 15-year time limits on those agreements.
MR. PARENT: What would be the percentage of financial input we put in to help in the building and what subsidies do they offer us on the end? Is every unit different or is there some sort of formula that you apply?
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Dillon.
MR. DILLON: Okay, typically, the way the program has been designed, CMHC's money, the federal money coming into this program was prescribed as having to be capital up front, paid at the time the project started and that was the end of the story for the federal money. The federal money was very much tied in to capital investment only. No long-term subsidy, no rent supplement, no anything.
What we decided to do is change the nature of the provincial investment so we could reach deeper to lower-income households. What we typically do through that project, if there is, say, a 20-unit apartment building a developer wants to build, or non-profit or for-profit,
[Page 32]
we require them to establish an average market rent for all of the stock. In other words, use the capital investment from CMHC to bring the rent structure down to average market rents which tend to be lower than a high market rent or the market that they might be able to attract for new units. That capital is used for that purpose, so that anybody can benefit from the federal government investment.
The provincial money then is used to take a number of the units, so that you don't create a stigma of a social housing project, take a number of the units and narrow the amount of subsidy but go deeper with it so that people with lower incomes can, in fact, be housed in a building with regular market rent housing people. That's the model and it's been very successful.
The proposals we have been receiving have been very good. That program is fairly easy to implement and it has served both, I guess, what you would call both fields of housing searchers, people who are just looking for average market units and people who are looking for lower-rent units. That is the way that Phase I works.
Phase II might be significantly different because the capital limits the federal government have placed on their share are much larger. They have gone from $25,000 a unit maximum, to $75,000 a unit maximum. It dramatically changes what you might be able to do. They also require all of their money now for Phase II to serve low-income people only.
I think the light has come on for them that investing in people who can pay average market rents is really not the way to do a solution in most provinces. It might work in the City of Vancouver or Toronto where there is a supply problem, but in Nova Scotia and most provinces it's an affordability problem not a supply problem. We have been able to convince them to invest their money on the affordability side, but bring the costs of this housing down for people who really can't afford it. We're happy to report the federal government has gone that way. They have also allowed that their money now can be spent in a rent supplement stream if that seems to be the appropriate solution in a particular circumstance.
MR. PARENT: Thank you very much. That's very informative. I guess I will turn it over to my colleague because he has some choice comments he wants to start with and I want to give him time to say that. If I have time I will come back and ask how we compare with other provinces in terms of this issue.
MR. DILLON: Sure.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Hines.
MR. GARY HINES: Madam Chair, I would just like to make a comment that it's encouraging to see my colleague for Preston shares the same confidence in the new Harper Government that David Emerson does when he's asking for a response from them at this
[Page 33]
early date, seeing that the old Liberal Governments of Martin and Chretien haven't responded to some programs they announced back in 1999. It's just nice to see that Mr. Colwell has that confidence in him.
I would like to move to some specifics. I live in an area that has a lot of on-site sewage systems and a lot of these old homes are having problems with on-site sewage. In light of a couple of things, failures that happened, as well as a new awareness of on-site sewage problems by the department and having them upgraded, one of the problems seems to be that in the programs, because these systems today are very costly to replace - somewhere in the vicinity of $10,000 to $14,000 or $15,000 - that there doesn't seem to be any programs that we can access that can cover the costs of those on-site sewage systems. Are there any combinations or any programs that we could access that can help with those types of costs that are over what one program or another would give?
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Tyson.
MS. TYSON: I'm going to refer that question to Mr. Dillon.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Dillon.
MR. DILLON: Madam Chair, the Homeowner RRAP program is probably the most appropriate candidate program for that. In order to qualify for the Homeowner RRAP program, which has forgivable loans up to$16,000 per unit - you have to have one of five major things wrong with your property; a structural problem, a health and safety problem, electrical, plumbing, and I can't remember the other one. Certainly a sewage system would be a qualifier. So if you have that, and perhaps nothing else is a problem with your house, the house would potentially qualify for the Homeowner RRAP program with a forgivable loan up to $16,000. Provided the household's income fell within the household income limit guidelines for the program, they could make an application and be placed on a waiting list for support. That would be the most appropriate program if that was the primary thing.
[10:45 a.m.]
Now if that house needed other major work, and they were going to exceed $16,000 in repairs, perhaps $20,000 or $30,000 in repairs, then the Home Preservation Program under the Affordable Housing Program, currently, would be the only program available to help somebody who needed repairs beyond $16,000.
MR. HINES: Now to access the RRAP programs, that's 75 per cent costed by the feds and 25 per cent by the province, what's the application process? Who does the paperwork on that? Is that the provincial government that does the work on that?
[Page 34]
MR. DILLON: All of the RRAP suite of programs are delivered by the province. A number of years ago Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation offered many provinces a devolution of their responsibilities in the province if the province wanted to accept it. For the most part Nova Scotia has assumed all of CMHC's collective responsibilities for social and general housing program delivery in the province. We administer all the social housing, all the RRAP suite of programs. Virtually all of CMHC's programs are administered through the Department of Community Services, through the Housing Services division specifically and in the regional offices. So your client would make an application for RRAP through the central regional office, which is located in the MacDonald Building on Gottingen Street.
MR. HINES: I'd like to move to the Family Modest Housing Program. I go back to a specific - I had an inquiry just recently about the purchase of a mobile home under that program. I was told by the individual, and in further following up on it, that the purchase of a mobile home - am I right in saying that it's not supported by this program?
MR. DILLON: We didn't come here to talk about mortgage programs today, and I don't have that information with me. We do have some information in our brochure on the Family Modest Housing Program, but I doubt if it gets into that level of detail. We can certainly get you that information. I know manufactured homes - two-piece manufactured homes - going on a foundation would be eligible, but whether a mobile home, which might represent a chattel more than anything else, whether that's covered, I'm not certain. But, certainly, we can get you that information.
MR. HINES: Thank you for that information. One of the programs that you have that I applaud and that is seemingly becoming more and more popular is the Access-A-Home Program, the wheelchair program. One of the difficulties that I've had in the past in accessing that program is that, seemingly, you're able to access it sometimes at other levels of government, through other ministries. In particular it was Mr. Barnet's ministry, I think, that I was able to apply to and get one of them approved. Is that a shared program, or was that just a caveat that came under the umbrella of another ministry?
MR. DILLON: Our Access-A-Home Program is for homeowners, where there's a member of the household who is permanently confined to a wheelchair. If you have an annual income of less than $30,000 and you have somebody confined to a wheelchair, you can qualify for a grant of up to $3,000. I think you're thinking of the Community Accessibility Program, which is the Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations program. It's aimed at providing access to institutional and community buildings, not individual homeowners. Their program deals more with municipal buildings, churches, schools, other kinds of facilities that are an important part of community infrastructure, versus our program which is homeowners. I don't believe their program is eligible for homeowners at all, but I could be mistaken.
[Page 35]
MR. HINES: Thank you for the clarification on that. Madam Chair, I'll pass back over to Mr. Parent. He has another issue that he wants to deal with, I believe.
MADAM CHAIR: Actually the time has just expired for the PC caucus.
What we will do now is we will have an opportunity for a wrap-up from the department. So I will ask the deputy minister if she would like to make some closing remarks.
MS. TYSON: Yes, I would, Madam Chair, thank you. On behalf of the Department of Community Services, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and provide some information about our home repair programs. Housing is a basic necessity of life. It is essential to the health and well-being of individuals, families and communities. Homes that are affordable and sustainable help to ensure that individuals and families feel safe and secure, and that our communities are strong, healthy and diverse.
Through our 13 home repair programs we offer a wide range of programs in our efforts to meet the diverse needs of lower-income Nova Scotians. Every year the department works to commit all funding available for the home repairs. This year we will help hundreds of Nova Scotians. Repairs range from helping people replace furnaces to keeping their homes warm, replacing roofs and making homes more accessible for wheelchair use.
Today we highlighted some of the recent changes to our programs which we believe improved those programs. Also, I believe our increased assistance levels better reflect the cost of making home repairs today.
I want to say that a couple of individual situations have come up in the questions today and I want to offer to meet, myself, with any of the members who wish to pursue an individual situation, or wish to pursue any aspect of our programs. I can also make available senior staff in the regions if anybody wishes to meet and discuss programs in general, or any of our specific individual cases. So please don't hesitate to call me if you want to do that.
I also should have mentioned in the questions regarding whether the minister is going to write a letter today, in the federal-provincial scheme of things we have usually a lead province for each one of the areas and British Columbia is the lead province for housing. Nova Scotia was the lead last year, so I'm told that British Columbia will be writing a letter today, it will be sent today to the federal minister on behalf of all of the provinces and territories in regard to continued support for the funding of housing programs. Each province will then be able to follow up individually on individual needs, cases, or diverse situations.
Finally, I just want to add that we have over 1,600 staff, including the housing authority staff, in the department, and we have a variety of backgrounds and educational levels. What we attempt to look for at the very senior levels are people who are able to work
[Page 36]
well with staff and other individuals, with stakeholders and our clients, and staff who are motivated to help our clients. At that level we're looking for good managers, good leaders from various backgrounds, we don't restrict the backgrounds at a certain level of people. We do have a variety of backgrounds I'm proud to say, and we hope we will continue to have a variety of backgrounds at the very senior levels.
So with that, in closing, I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the programs and I hope we have been able to provide you with some additional information.
MADAM CHAIR: I would like to thank you and your staff on behalf of the committee, and we'll be looking forward to seeing you in the not-too-distant future to talk about the government's performance with respect to affordable housing in the province. Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: Just one quick question. I wonder if Hansard could make an effort - I know they're really busy - to get the report on this immediately. There is a lot of information that the department has promised us and I think that's important information to have before the next meeting with housing.
MADAM CHAIR: Absolutely, we will make that request to Hansard. With that, we have one other item of business before we adjourn and that is approval of setting the Winter and Spring agenda. You will see attached to today's agenda, additional agenda items, and this would have been circulated to members of the committee prior to today's meeting.
The subcommittee has had an opportunity to meet and is recommending that the following witnesses be invited to appear before the Public Accounts Committee. I would entertain a motion to accept these agenda items.
MR. COLWELL: So moved.
MADAM CHAIR: Is there a seconder for this and then we will have some discussion?
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I second the motion.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Steele.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: I think it's a good list, I know I certainly support it. My only question and the reason I'm going to propose an amendment to the list is No. 6, I know the Auditor General put those two topics together in one chapter, but they are both very important and very separate, and I think each could stand having a session all to themselves.
[Page 37]
We all know that daycare, for example, is a very hot topic these days not to mention all the detail that goes into income assistance.
I would like to move an amendment that No. 6 be split into two separate sessions.
MADAM CHAIR: Can this be a friendly amendment? Yes? Okay, as a friendly amendment we will accept that, thank you. I will call the question then in terms of the agenda items as amended.
Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
I will now call for a motion for adjournment.
MR. COLWELL: So moved.
MADAM CHAIR: The meeting is now adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 10:58 a.m.]
