This appendix in pdf format (includes all four appendices)
Back to Fixing the Social Housing Reform Act main page

Almost since the co-op operating agreement was finalised in 1993 (six years after the first co-op was developed under an Ontario program), the co-op sector has been trying to improve the program. As early as May 1994, the Co-op Housing Association of Ontario submitted a proposal for reform to the Minister of Housing. The major concerns for co-ops were that

• the funding mechanism did not work well, especially for co-ops in areas with flat or declining market conditions. These co-ops faced aggressive annual reductions in revenues, and were constantly obliged to ask the Province for more operating subsidy. This was not the kind of stand-alone, sustainable funding program that co-ops needed
• government oversight was intrusive and inconsistent, and undermined co-ops’ autonomy.

Work on developing a new operating agreement began in 1995, but was set aside after the election of the Conservative government. Picking up on the new government’s election promise to “get out of the housing business”, the co-op sector advocated reform that would cut back on the role of government and create a more business-like relationship between co-ops and government.

After announcing the transfer of social housing to municipalities in January 1997, the Province set up a Social Housing Advisory Committee, and later a Social Housing Committee, to work on the framework and details of reform. Unfortunately the co-op sector was not invited to play a formal role on these committees, but was active in an advisory capacity.

During consultations by the Social Housing Committee there was a good deal of consistency in the expressed goals of government and co-ops.

Government said it wanted

• a simpler, harmonised program
• more accountability
• more efficiency
• long-term viability
• security of tenure for RGI households.

Co-ops said they wanted

• streamlined administration
• respect for co-op autonomy
• a unified provincial operating framework
• financial certainty and viability
• secure RGI funding.

The Social Housing Committee released its report at the end of 1998. Co-ops were pleased with some of the recommendations (for example the proposal for an improved funding model and for province-wide program standards). But last-minute changes made by the committee after the co-op and non-profit housing sector advisors had been excluded, demonstrated that the reform process had been distorted by the municipal download. These unexpected changes included

• conditions on the use of operating surpluses
• suggested guidelines for reducing funding for property management and community services
• promotion of the integration of rent subsidy with the municipal social assistance system.

Clearly these provisions were intended to make responsibility for social housing more palatable for municipalities. Co-ops vowed that they would not sign a new operating agreement which gave them fewer rights than the original one.

Work on implementing reforms stalled after the election of the Conservatives for a second term in 1999. During this period, an informal group of providers, sector organizations and municipalities continued to meet regularly to work on fleshing out and improving the recommendations for reform.

Early in 2000, the government announced plans to introduce legislation that would cancel the project operating agreements of co-ops and non-profits and bring all social housing in Ontario (except for federal-program housing co-operative) under the same program rules.

Housing co-ops were alarmed by the Bill that cancelled contracts that they had signed with government and, they felt, stripped away their ability to run their co-ops as co-ops. Dozens of co-ops sent in submissions calling for changes to the Bill.

The key concerns that co-ops had about the proposed legislation were that it would

• cancel existing operating agreements, replacing them with a program framework in legislation that government could change on its own, at any time
• create more bureaucracy and reduce co-op autonomy through
  • excessive oversight and intrusion into co-ops’ operations
  • a patchwork of local rules allowed by the legislation
  • a shift to centralised RGI administration.
• continue the financial uncertainty faced by co-ops by
  • introducing a new requirement to share operating surpluses with service managers
  • making the reduction in operating subsidy too aggressive
  • leaving funding levels undefined with the risk that new benchmarks would be used to cut costs
  • failing to address the serious shortfall in capital reserve funding.

By working closely with the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, co-ops were able to win more than 100 amendments to the Bill. Some were important (for example, a new provision allowing municipalities to delegate RGI administration to co-ops and non-profits). But the government was not willing to make changes to address the core problems identified by co-ops and the final legislation was uniformly regarded as unworkable and unacceptable. Ontario co-ops immediately called on the Ontario Region to start working to win changes to the Act so that it would work for co-op housing.