Legislative Assembly of Ontario

CONTENTS Wednesday 6 August 1997

Tenant Protection Act, 1996, Bill 96, Mr Leach / Loi de 1996 sur la protection des locataires, projet de loi 96, M. Leach

Persons United for Self-Help in Northwestern Ontario

Ms Morgan Atkinson

Shelter House/Thunder Bay

Mr Keith Milne

Thunder Bay Home Builders' Association

Mr Rene Larson

Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty

Ms Beulah Besharah

Ms Chris Mather

People Advocating for Change Through Empowerment

Mr Leonard Maki

Northern Women's Centre

Ms Gwen O'Reilly

Faye Peterson Transition House

Ms Susan Ward

Ms Nadine Halona

Villa Street House Project

Mr Wolfgang Schoor

Duke's Trailer Court

Mr William Duke

Ms Bernadette Duke

Lakehead Social Planning Council

Ms Brenda Reimer

Ms Betty Kennedy

Dryden Area Mobile Home Association

Ms Lauretta Wesley

Mr Doug Mills

Kinna-Aweya Legal Clinic

Ms Mary Veltri

Ms Nola Hill

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)

Substitutions / Membres remplacants

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Clerk / Greffier Mr Tom Prins

Staff / Personnel

Mr Jerry Richmond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1301 in the Valhalla Inn, Thunder Bay.

TENANT PROTECTION ACT, 1996 LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES

Consideration of Bill 96, An Act to Consolidate and Revise the Law with respect to Residential Tenancies / Projet de loi 96, Loi codifiant et révisant le droit de la location à usage d'habitation.

The Chair (Mr David Tilson): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is the standing committee on general government of the Ontario Legislature. We are today having public hearings on Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act.

PERSONS UNITED FOR SELF-HELP IN NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

The Chair: We have a number of people making presentations to us this afternoon, the first of which is Morgan Atkinson, development worker, Persons United for Self-Help in Northwestern Ontario. Good afternoon, Ms Atkinson. You may proceed when you're ready.

Ms Morgan Atkinson: My name is Morgan Atkinson. I'm a community development worker with PUSH Northwest, and I thank you for this opportunity to speak today.

Persons United for Self-Help in Northwestern Ontario is an organization of persons with mobility, hearing, vision, psychiatric, developmental, neurological and non-visible disabilities and seniors who work together to address issues that impact directly on their lives, rights and freedoms. PUSH Northwest and its community-based Disabled Alliance Network groups include consumers in the geographic area of northwestern Ontario and the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation.

Several sections of Bill 96 are of concern for persons with a disability, who often are made vulnerable by the very laws that claim to protect them. These issues have been brought to your attention in the previous hearings, but the concerns of consumers have been all but ignored and nothing has been resolved. Therefore it is necessary to reiterate these concerns.

Under part IV, "Care Homes," the rights of care home operators far exceed the rights of tenants. The care home operator is entitled to enter residents' units without notice to provide care or perform bed checks if it is agreed to by the tenant. The operators in care homes will have the right to transfer residents to alternative facilities when the level of care needs changes. The operator is charged with the responsibility of determining when the level of care requires changing.

Allowing landlords to evict tenants in a care home on the basis that they cannot meet the care needs of the tenants is patronizing. It also assigns the assessment of need to the landlord and the tribunal, who may or may not be qualified to make those decisions. A person with a disability, like any other person, must be given the right to make the decision whether or not their needs are being met. This provision will primarily benefit government and service providers who will no longer have to deal with the pressures of providing services where needs increase. However, this creates feelings of extreme vulnerability for tenants and their families. What if the landlord wants the eviction on the basis that they cannot meet care needs because of lack of funding? In this scenario there is no incentive for government or landlords to meet care needs.

Sections 73 and 74 of Bill 96, dealing with abandoned property, give landlords the right to dispose of a tenant's property after they believe the rental unit to be abandoned and they have received an order terminating tenancy. This is of particular concern for persons who live independently in the community but from time to time check themselves into facilities that provide psychiatric services, often for more than 30 days, which is the stated period of time to wait for the tenant to claim property. It is also a problem for persons with developmental disabilities. Not all tenants will remember to, have an opportunity to, or be able to notify the landlord prior to taking an extended leave.

If you think this is not a realistic scenario, talk to persons with psychiatric and developmental disabilities about the difficulties they have in obtaining housing or retaining housing once the landlord determines that the tenant has a psychiatric or developmental disability, often not because of the tenant's personal behaviour but because of the community's assumption that all individuals with psychiatric and developmental disabilities are violent. Where are the built-in safeguards for tenants in this situation?

Access to affordable housing has always been a problem for persons with disabilities because their income is usually 60% to 70% lower than persons without disabilities. Rent increases every time a tenant space is vacated means the potential for escalating rents with no ceiling. The potential is great that this legislation will cause a major housing crisis. Has the government considered the full impact of this legislation on people with disabilities, seniors on fixed incomes, low-income families and the general population?

The introduction of section 200 identifies more issues of concern for persons with a disability. Persons with a disability are concerned about the impact that section 200 will have on persons who have a low income. As stated previously, a large percentage of persons with a disability live on a low income and therefore are vulnerable to the discrimination that this act allows. The fact that a landlord is given the authority to demand personal information such as the source of a person's income can lead to discrimination. There are landlords who currently discriminate because of income and income source, and this legislation will only give landlords the legal right to do so. Checking rental and credit history is an appropriate practice for determining if a landlord should rent to a prospective tenant. However, it is not appropriate for a landlord to access income information and, based on that information, decide that the person is likely to default on their rent. This is what section 200 would allow.

This government is making the assumption that people receiving social assistance will default more often on rent than others. This type of comment is discriminatory and confirms the misconceptions and prejudices of the general public. There are no studies to support making these statements, and the government should be working to dispel myths, not perpetuate them.

Persons with a disability often have difficulty finding rental units which accommodate their needs. Income restrictions will make this even more difficult. The rent-to-income ratio of 30%, the standard that many landlords would use to determine the eligibility of a prospective tenant, would eliminate many apartments for a person with a disability who is receiving social assistance. The only apartments that will be affordable are subsidized housing units, which are available in very limited numbers and have long waiting lists and a government freeze on building more units.

We are asking the government to consider these concerns and the limitations that section 200 of Bill 96 puts on persons with a disability who are receiving social assistance or living on a low income. Section 200 will have a negative impact on these individuals by allowing landlords to discriminate on the basis of the person's source of income when looking for an apartment.

Another concern is that if landlords are given rent directly from social assistance cheques, which is proposed under the new Social Assistance Reform Act, there will be no incentive for landlords to maintain the building. If the landlord is guaranteed rent no matter what, where is the incentive to maintain an adequate standard of living in the tenancy unit?

The government has added a new provision which gives them the power to exempt from the legislation classes of accommodation. This can be done through regulation. Therefore the government can decide without any consultation or public hearings that tenants living in a particular type of housing, ie, care homes, will no longer have any rights.

In Bill 96, persons with a disability are not treated as equal citizens. Consumers are patronized and treated as if they are not able to make their own decisions or be financially responsible. As well, persons with a disability are discriminated against on the basis that a large number live on a low income. How can this government justify treating people with this type of discrimination and disrespect?

The Harris government has listened to consumer opinions expressed in the previous hearings. The same concerns are being expressed again in these hearings, with added emphasis on the discriminatory nature of section 200. We have read the Hansard reports from across the province and the issues are the same. Why has there been no response to these concerns evidenced by redrafting the legislation or acknowledgement of the validity of the consumer voice? When will this government acknowledge the concerns of the most vulnerable people in the province? We ask you to give credibility and validity to the process of these hearings by acknowledging the issues brought forth by persons with a disability and making the corresponding changes to Bill 96. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms Atkinson, there's time left in your presentation for members to ask you questions. Would you be prepared to entertain questions from members of the committee?

Ms Atkinson: Yes.

1310

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good afternoon, Ms Atkinson. Thanks very much for making the presentation. I think, just for the information of the committee, it would be useful to know what percentage of people in northwestern Ontario are disabled.

Ms Atkinson: In Thunder Bay, 18% of the population have a disability and 12% are seniors who may have some degree of disability. In general, it's usually about 15%, but in Thunder Bay the percentage is greater because people come in from northwestern Ontario because there is a greater degree of services in Thunder Bay.

Mr Gravelle: So there are a number of people who come to Thunder Bay as a result of the access to services. Obviously with PUSH Northwest too, you're dealing with a lot of people, I would think, on some of the housing accommodation issues whom you're already dealing with on a fairly regular basis.

Ms Atkinson: Yes.

Mr Gravelle: Section 200, which you referred to very specifically in your presentation, is one that certainly has been referred to. As you probably know, the head of the Ontario Human Rights Commission came forward at public hearings on this bill and very strongly made the same point you're making, that indeed it is discriminatory. Has there been a great expression of concern about that particular part from the people you've been dealing with in the community?

Ms Atkinson: There is great concern. I've heard concerns even without this type of legislation making it legal to discriminate; I've heard concerns about discrimination even before it's legalized. It's there, and making it legalized will just exacerbate the problem.

Mr Gravelle: As you say too, checking on rental or credit history is one thing, but checking on the source of income obviously puts people in a position where you really are designating people who are obviously either on social assistance or in various other situations. They can make a determination on what they presume that person will be like, which clearly feeds into prejudices that we have in our society.

Ms Atkinson: Exactly.

Mr Gravelle: How much time do I have? Are we sharing this time?

The Chair: You've got time for one brief question, Mr Gravelle.

Mr Gravelle: I don't know where to go with this one; there are so many areas to get into. Give us one area, Morgan, if you would. You mention quite frankly that, "The Harris government" - and I think you may have misspoken here or misread it to some degree - "has listened to consumer opinions expressed in the previous hearings." I think what you're really saying is that they actually haven't listened in terms of some of the changes.

The Ontarians with Disabilities Act is something you fought very hard for. Do you believe that if the government brought forward an Ontarians with Disabilities Act, a lot of the concerns that you express in this particular presentation would no longer be there?

Ms Atkinson: If an Ontarians with Disabilities Act was brought forward in the way that we see an Ontarians with Disabilities Act should look like, a lot of the regulations in this would have to be changed, really, because they would go against what we believe an Ontarians with Disabilities Act should look like.

Mr Marchese: Ms Atkinson, I'm not sure that you spoke about vacancy decontrol and the effect that would have on people with disabilities. You're familiar with vacancy decontrol?

Ms Atkinson: Can you explain that?

Mr Marchese: If someone moves from one apartment to another, that immediately allows the landlord to raise rents as much as he or she thinks they can get. We fear that's going to affect a lot of tenants. I'm assuming you're concerned about the effect it will have on people with disabilities in particular.

Ms Atkinson: Yes. As I stated, a large number of people with disabilities live on a low income. Housing is restricted as it is for people with disabilities, particularly if you're looking for accessible housing. There are just a lot of issues that feed into that. You need something affordable and you need something accessible, and raising rent is not going to help the situation.

Mr Marchese: I think you spoke about the treatment of tenant property and a 30-day notice being inadequate for people either with mental illness or with disabilities. Do you have a suggestion as to what is an appropriate time frame?

Ms Atkinson: The problem with that section and what I can see happening is that people with psychiatric disabilities, people with developmental disabilities, are looked at negatively by society in general a lot of times. If a landlord decides they don't want this person living there, there's sort of an easy out there. If a person is leaving for an extended leave time in order to check himself or herself into facilities or for an extended vacation, there's an opportunity for a landlord to say, "I think they've abandoned their property, so I'm going to go to the tribunal and terminate the tenancy," and that would be that. It leaves too much power in the hands of the landlord to determine if someone has abandoned their property.

Mr Marchese: So some language should be there to protect people with mental illness or people with disabilities in particular. That's what you're suggesting?

Ms Atkinson: Yes.

Mr Marchese: On the whole issue of income information, by the way, the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner has spoken against it. He was a former cabinet minister with a Conservative government. He's very concerned because he recognizes that discrimination is happening out there and that if you put that language into this bill, it will legitimize for all landlords that they can do that freely without any problem. You're not the only one who has raised it. There are many people who have been raising this concern, and I hope - the government is hinting that they might change it.

Ms Atkinson: I'm aware of what he said and I'm just reiterating that opinion to let the government know that a lot of people share that opinion.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Thank you, Ms Atkinson. I appreciate you coming before us here today. I know one of the things that even we wrestle with when we're dealing with a bill, any new piece of legislation, is its complexity and the interrelationship between how various ministries handle a problem.

I think you've identified the one area in this bill that we've probably wrestled with more than any other: the need for extra care for patients in care homes. You're probably aware of the evolution of the CCACs, the community care access centres, the one-stop shopping that will in each community across the province be responsible for ensuring that all the appropriate services are there, particularly for seniors and people with disabilities. Let me just walk you through some of the steps that would have to take place, because I note that an awfully big portion of your presentation dealt with possible dislocation of people with disabilities.

First, there's mandatory mediation. They would have to go to the tribunal. The landlord would have to prove that the level of care can't be delivered where they are right now. At that point, the Ministry of Health would take priority and the community care access centre would have to be able to guarantee both to themselves and to the tenant, the person involved in the possible relocation, that alternative and more appropriate care facilities are available. If that test is not met, that person does not move.

I appreciate that until the regulations get drafted - and that cart always follows the horse, unfortunately, in the legislative process - a lot of that detail won't be there. But I can assure you that all of us have parents and many of us have relatives who are disabled in one form or another, and I would not think that any of us would want to see the sort of suggestions that you make in your presentation come to pass. So I want to give you that absolute assurance that the Ministry of Health will take a lead in any case where it really is a question of the appropriate level of care. Once that detail is there, I believe I can say all of your concerns in that regard will be addressed.

Ms Atkinson: Can I speak to that?

Mr Gilchrist: Please.

Ms Atkinson: What I see as a problem is that the power is being taken away from the individual and given to the landlord and the tribunal, who may or may not be qualified to make those decisions. I think a person is able to know whether their care needs are being met.

Mr Gilchrist: I think we're talking about, and not to dwell on any one example but just as a for-instance, someone with dementia severe enough that they may not be able to form a qualified opinion of what is best for them. I think you would agree with me that there certainly are circumstances where people have to rely on the health profession or relatives to make decisions for them, and that's why the bill is drafted in such a way that there has to be that oversight by the Ministry of Health.

1320

There is just not going to be anyone moved unless it's to equal or superior care facilities. That's an absolute; it really is. I guess until it comes to pass, you're going to have to take us on faith on this, but I can assure you that the Ministry of Health will be taking the lead role in terms of assessing the presentation. It won't be a landlord who I would agree with you is probably quite unqualified in medical matters. It will be somebody from a health background who will be making those final decisions.

Ms Atkinson: But doesn't that also take away the responsibility of the landlord and the health profession to meet those care needs?

Mr Gilchrist: Oh, far from it; just the opposite. Part of what the community care access centres will do is to make sure that the appropriate level of care is available in the community. The mere fact that an issue like this might arise might bring a spotlight on the fact that in a particular community appropriate level of care is not available. The Ministry of Health will be charged via the community care access centre to then make sure that those services are provided.

The Chair: Ms Atkinson, Mr Gilchrist, it's obviously a topic we could spend some time on, but unfortunately, your time has run out. We thank you for coming this afternoon. Being the first presenter is sometimes most difficult. Thank you for breaking the ice and coming and speaking to us.

SHELTER HOUSE/THUNDER BAY

The Chair: The second presenter this afternoon is Keith Milne, who is the manager of Shelter House/Thunder Bay. Good afternoon.

Mr Keith Milne: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to come and speak with you again. It seems like, as was mentioned in the previous brief, maybe there wasn't a sense from a lot of us that the changes that were asked for had been made to this bill.

I come to you today really to ask for your help. As the manager of a shelter for homeless people in this community, which provides probably more service to people in extreme poverty than anyone else in this community, and also as the chairperson of the Ontario Association of Hostels, which has a membership of over 60 emergency shelter/hostels throughout the province, I'm quite aware of the fact that we, as agencies which are not funded with any adequate level of funding - most of us are responsible to go out and raise our own money for the work that we do - need to ask for your help in how we are going to continue to deal with the problems of people who are homeless and the numbers that continue to increase. We turn around to this bill and find another barrier being put in the way for someone to find adequate housing.

I want to share with you some facts and some figures. The first fact and figure I'd like to share with you has the name of George. He's about 5'6" and 155 pounds. He doesn't have a visible disability, but he does have a disability. His income comes from provincial social assistance/disability assistance programs. When he, in his simple way, goes looking for somewhere to live, he's now presented with another problem of a landlord maybe not wanting to take anyone who has that source of income. Once again, he has the barrier of trying to find somewhere that's adequate and safe to live.

Or Sarah, who's about 5'3" and 115 pounds and has three children, and for reasons that are beyond her circumstances is on mother's allowance. Here's another opportunity for her to be turned away from adequate housing, if it's even available.

I'm completely puzzled as to how a government cannot think through to the consequences and the pain that is caused by allowing extra barriers to be put in place for people. Not everyone who is homeless has a severe psychiatric illness. Not everyone who is homeless fits any type of stereotypical thinking we might have. They are all individuals, all people who have their own challenges in life. They are not there and they are not the poorest of the poor because of their own choices necessarily. Sometimes, because of their lives, they have made some poor choices, but I don't think we can blame the poor for being poor. Instead of creating more barriers, we need to find ways to work together to overcome this growing problem of people and families who are homeless.

In 1996 the shift and change in homelessness has changed dramatically. In Metro Toronto in previous years the typical profile of a homeless person was a single male. That made up about 60% of the homeless people who used shelters in Metro Toronto. In 1996 there was a complete shift: 60% of the people using shelters within the Metro Toronto system were families. Obviously there are some very major barriers to overcoming the problems of homelessness.

We ask for your help. What can we do? We don't have adequate funding to try and house everyone. All we're meant to do is provide short-term emergency housing so that people can move on.

I want to just share one last story, because we often get this picture in our minds of who is homeless. Let me tell you the story of Gord, who showed up on our doorstep a few years ago. He had experienced some difficulties. He was homeless; he needed somewhere to stay. He stayed with us for about a month and a half. He was able to overcome some of his barriers and now serves as the chief financial officer for a chain of restaurants in Calgary, Alberta. Not everyone who is homeless may fit the picture you may have in your mind.

My request is that somehow this government will begin to listen, because we do not want to enter the situation where - many years ago it was uncommon to think of this stat they call the unemployment rate or the employment rate. Pretty soon we're going to be quoting the stat of the homelessness rate. I don't think that's the kind of society any of us wants to head towards. Thank you.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Mr Milne. It's good to see you again. It's important to have people like yourself raise these issues because you're on the front lines, dealing with people who are very vulnerable. Sometimes we are sheltered from that. Part of the problem is that this government is not creating housing any more. They've decided to get out of the business, they say. They want the private sector to step in. Perhaps Mr Larson, who is next, might help us out. He might give us a sense of how they're going to build housing for those who really need it; I'm not sure. We really need answers from the government to help us out, to tell us how they're going to provide for those who, for one reason or another, become very vulnerable.

I haven't heard any good answers other than the government members saying: "We're going to do it because the system is broken now. We haven't been able to do it in the past, so once we get the government off people's backs, especially the private sector, things will start happening and we'll see those kinds of protections you're looking for." I don't see them. Do you see them, Mr Milne?

Mr Milne: It's difficult from my perspective of dealing every day with people who are the most vulnerable, the most challenged in our communities. It's difficult for me to see the kind of activity that's spoken of, that somehow private sector investment is going to produce housing solutions for people who need support, who need assistance in order to be there and in order to get to a stabilized position so they can take closer steps to their own independence. It's very difficult, from our angle, to see any improvements. It seems that we're having more barriers placed in our way. Supportive housing has been frozen and social housing virtually eliminated. I would love to hear something that would give me some encouragement, because after seven years of working in this field I don't see very much encouragement, I don't see any improvement.

1330

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Milne. I appreciate your comments. I have no doubts that you're very sincere about the problems you face up here in Thunder Bay.

I should share with you that Seaton House - I'm sure you're familiar with that important shelter in downtown Toronto - did a survey of all hostel use in Metro Toronto last year. I'm very pleased to report that they said shelter use was down 1.8%. I would invite your comments. Clearly the problems we all face today all across Ontario are a legacy - and I'm not going to point a finger at a government; that's not appropriate any more, there's no mileage in that. But just recognizing that even if someone had started planning another housing co-operative in June 1995, if you were really lucky and the weather had cooperated, you would just now be bringing it on stream. So any problems we face today I think can't really be blamed on anything that's happened since June 8, 1995.

I would ask you, then, that if we face these problems with the status quo legislation, what would you do to improve the - simply throwing dollars at the problem hadn't solved it, not between 1985 and 1995. It had not made the problem go away. What other creative solution have you ever considered or have you ever offered to these gentlemen that you may not have shared with us as to how we could meet the needs of the homeless and those who need supportive shelter up here in Thunder Bay?

Mr Milne: First of all, I don't think the situation was static between 1985 and 1995. There was progress being made. In the June you speak of, after your election to government, there were over 101 apartments that were taken away, allocations that were made that were removed from the potential market. That would have had a significant impact positively on this community. But even if the need is to take away that type of thing, then there need to be some alternatives.

Shortly after the election we were approached by telephone by one of the largest landlords in this community, or former landlords, offering to give us an apartment building with about 130, 150 suites. Knowing the history of the building, I wasn't too anxious to pursue it, but the thinking was that as a non-profit maybe we'd be able to acquire money to improve and bring the thing up to code and possibly keep the units on the market. My concern was that there were 130 units at the low end of the market that were being removed due to back taxes, due to this private landlord not able to make a go of this.

I met with him, even though it was not a property that I would necessarily look at and think was reasonable, but I met with him. Unfortunately, another program had been cut as well. There was a previous program that could have been used to turn that building into a co-op and possibly renovate to improve the quality and bring it up to the proper building and fire codes. Those units then could have been left on the market, but instead, left up to the ways of capitalism and free enterprise, those units are now completely lost.

I don't think we can say that before this government there was nothing being done. Certainly there were some significant problems, but with proper planning I think we recognize that there is a segment of the population that needs supportive housing, that needs social housing, and left to the devices of free enterprise, there's not a strong enough market there to provide an opportunity for investment.

I would look at alternative funding. We would look at possible purchase of units and renovations to activate units if there was some sort of alternative funding to access the capital. But I can't go out and raise the money in this community to simply add to our real estate.

Mr Gravelle: Good afternoon, Keith. Obviously, you view this bill as one more step along the path that has been taken to, in essence, set up more barriers for people who have greater needs. I shouldn't speak for you, but it seems to me it comes down to whether or not people feel there is a responsibility by government, whether municipal, provincial or federal, to play some role or to have some responsibility for people in our society. Clearly you feel that's the case. You just made reference to if there was an opportunity for Shelter House to get involved in some kind of housing development, you might consider that, but obviously that funding isn't in place; it's not there any more.

It's certainly obvious Mr Gilchrist doesn't agree with that philosophy, but one of the first things this government did, almost exactly two years ago, was cut social assistance benefits by 21.6%, I think it was. Did you see an effect in terms of your activities at Shelter House within a reasonably quick period of time? Can you statistically tell us there was a difference in terms of what happened to the need you see in the community now?

Mr Milne: There was a lag in any increase of about three months. Within a year after the 22% decrease in social assistance, we experienced an average 40% increase in use of services. That is consistent with every shelter I'm aware of in the entire province. That's a major impact. If I was in a for-profit business, I'd have it made to have that big an increase in business in one year.

Mr Gravelle: Clearly, we as legislators should be concerned about that. I know the city task force on poverty is very much addressing those issues as well and there's some real concerns about it. In regard to what Mr Gilchrist said about Seaton House's survey, I'd be curious about from when to when?

Mr Gilchrist: From 1995 to 1996.

Mr Gravelle: I'd be interested in seeing it, because it also feeds into - I'd love to see that study. Have you seen that study, Keith?

Mr Milne: I haven't seen it in its entirety.

Mr Gravelle: Regardless, the increased need was there. It's also the question of announcements like, "There are fewer people on social assistance," quite proudly released by the government every month. Frequently, nobody seems to know where all these people have gone. I'm thinking that some of them literally are in a position where they no longer have affordable housing of any sort at all.

Mr Milne: Because of restrictions and new policies and things like that, if a person does not qualify for social assistance, for a variety of reasons, they cannot reapply for three months. So what in the world are they going to do for three months?

I know very closely of a situation where a young woman was in a relationship, living with somebody for about a year, and decided that for her own good and the good of her child she could not remain in that situation. Because she had applied for welfare assistance some time previously within the year and because she actually left where she was living voluntarily and there wasn't a situation of physical abuse, she was denied welfare for three months, so she had to leave her child with the father, even though that wasn't the best situation for the child, and basically begged and borrowed from friends to survive for three months.

Mr Gravelle: The important point too is that in all these numbers there's an individual story behind every statistic. That's what gets lost in this.

Mr Milne: That's what I wanted to bring today, the fact that there are individuals who are suffering pain. We need to be conscious of that and aware of that. I know it's not something you can be confronted with every day. I testify to the fact that it can be very wearing. We come hat in hand asking for any assistance to help us deal with this situation, any bright ideas.

The Chair: Mr Milne, unfortunately we've run out of time. I thank you for coming and giving your thoughts to the committee this afternoon.

1340

THUNDER BAY HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION

The Chair: The third presenter is Rene Larson of the Thunder Bay Home Builders' Association. Good afternoon, Mr Larson.

Mr Rene Larson: I appear before you today as first vice-president of the Thunder Bay Home Builders' Association, which has over 40 members who are builders, land developers, renovators, suppliers, as well as service providers and professionals in the housing production industry.

We thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee in Thunder Bay. I think it is very important to the democratic process that your committee travels across the province to hear from Ontario citizens on proposed changes to the law. I think it's very important that you come to the north and to the northwest of Ontario.

Thunder Bay Home Builders' Association wishes to advise the committee that it supports Bill 96 with respect to the changes proposed for rent control. In the opinion of Thunder Bay Home Builders' Association, the government has struck a proper balance between the interests of landlords and their tenants.

Allowing the landlord to adjust the rent upon termination of a tenancy will give that landlord the ability to carry out renovations and upgrading to rental premises with at least the hope of recovering his or her costs. In comparison, the present rent control regime limits the ability to recover such costs, and I am sure that some landlords are so discouraged about going through the current regulatory regime with the result that needed renovations and upgrading never occur.

In Thunder Bay the public enjoys the benefits of a competitive rental marketplace, with a vacancy rate among apartments with three or more units of 5.6% in October 1996, according to a CMHC market analysis, although in the previous October 1995 the vacancy rate stood at 6.2%. So there was a statistically significant decline.

If there is a competitive marketplace, then tenants will have a choice of both quality and price of rental premises. Furthermore, landlords will need to respond to the marketplace competition in the key areas of rental rates and the curb appeal of their buildings and individual rental premises. It is this element of choice by the consumer renters which will raise the standards of the premises and at the same time check the rental prices.

This new element of competitiveness in the rental marketplace will be stimulated by Bill 96 as it is proposed. If investors and builders perceive that there will be freedom to invest and earn competitive rates of return in the rental marketplace without a vast bureaucracy and the red tape of a rent control regime as it currently exists, there will be a stimulus on the supply side of rental housing which will self-regulate the prices of rental housing. With no further supply of assisted housing forthcoming from governments, it will be up to the private sector to provide rental units to the public.

Thunder Bay Home Builders' Association supports the position of the Ontario Home Builders' Association presented to your committee on June 26, 1997. Increasing the supply of private rental housing in Ontario will not only depend upon adoption of the changes to the proposed rent control regime in Bill 96 but will also require consideration of changes in other areas. Why is GST on production of new rental accommodation taxed at 7% versus 4.5% on most ownership housing? Property taxes on apartment buildings with seven or more rental units in the city of Thunder Bay are almost double that of those with six or less units which are in the same class as single-family dwellings. It is hoped that the Fair Municipal Finance Act will result in a fairer and more consistent property tax system in Ontario.

Thunder Bay Home Builders' Association respectfully submits that changing the rent control regime as proposed in Bill 96 will stimulate rental construction and the renovation and retrofit of existing buildings, creating a healthy and competitive supply of housing for tenants, more construction jobs and more taxes for all levels of government.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

The Chair: Mr Gilchrist may have a question for you.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Larson. I appreciate your coming before us here today. It's our pleasure to be here in Thunder Bay. Thank you for your comments.

Let me ask you, if I may, are you aware by any chance here in Thunder Bay of the disproportionate level of taxation that's applied to apartments vis-à-vis what would be applied to a single-family home?

Mr Larson: Yes, the assessed rate of apartment buildings of seven or more units is approximately double that of single-family dwellings.

Mr Gilchrist: Okay, well, you're quite fortunate here in Thunder Bay, because in places like Toronto it's as high as 6.2 times as much as what in the same area a single-family home would pay in taxes. By means of inviting a comparison, in my riding of Scarborough East if the city government had been fairly taxing apartments, the average rent, which currently stands at $550 for apartments in my riding, would drop by $125 overnight.

Would you care to hazard a guess, if the municipality here was to fairly assess apartments, what that would do to the monthly rental price of an apartment here in Thunder Bay?

Mr Larson: I think it would probably be in the order of about a $100-a-month decrease.

Mr Gilchrist: What would that be as a percentage of an average rent here in Thunder Bay?

Mr Larson: About one eighth; so 12%.

Mr Gilchrist: A 12% reduction. Are you aware of any group of tenants' associations or, on the other side, are you aware of any municipal councillors who have recognized the unfairness of this and are campaigning this fall, who, if elected again, will change that situation and drop those rents 12%?

Mr Larson: Quite frankly, I think the municipal politicians are afraid to deal with that issue and it'll have to be the provincial government that does it.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm pleased to say that in a companion piece of legislation we have just done that. We have now given them all the tools. There are no excuses they can make any more. It's quite ironic you say that, because as we go around the province on bills like this, we're accused of interfering with day-to-day municipal affairs. Yet your submission to us is that they can't be trusted to handle something as simple as dealing fairly with apartments. I must say it bothers me on a personal level that tenants and their associations would not see that one of the most obvious remedies for the lack of affordable housing is to change the property tax structure, and I'm intrigued that that is not in fact taking place here in Thunder Bay either.

Mr Larson: Mr Chairman, I did not use the word "trust."

Mr Gilchrist: Sorry, my choice of words. Thank you for taking the time to make a presentation before us.

Mr Gravelle: Mr Larson, welcome. I think it needs to be recognized that, even just today, it was announced that among the other things the provincial government is doing it is downloading responsibility on to municipalities in an extraordinary amount. I think it was announced today that in northern municipalities at this stage, as best we can tell, there's a shortfall of about $136 million. So to simply phrase it in that way, Mr Gilchrist, in terms of what municipalities should do, does not take into account some of the realities.

I'm sure, Mr Larson, you are aware of what the government would call transfer of responsibilities, which is putting municipalities in a very difficult position, which is not to say that the issue shouldn't be dealt with. But I think to simplify it in that manner is a bit cute. The fact is that there are some really extraordinary new responsibilities being put on municipalities which are going to obviously have the option of either increasing property taxes or reducing services, which I'm sure, Mr Larson, you're familiar with. But no comment?

Mr Larson: No comment.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate it. I presume that ideally the home builders' association would prefer to have rent controls completely eliminated. Is that probably fair to say? You've described this as a balance.

Mr Larson: I think, if you're an economic theorist, that you'd prefer not to have them and to have freedom in the marketplace. But there obviously is a need to move from one system to another, and I think the government has balanced it in doing that.

1350

Mr Gravelle: Obviously there's a clear belief that if this bill goes through, certainly in terms of the rent decontrol, or the vacancy decontrol as I think it could be called, but certainly the fact that once an apartment is vacated, the landlord or owner can raise the rent to whatever the market will bear. The home builders believe, that being the case, that will put them in a position where there will be more construction, there will be more rental units built. It would probably be useful to know, has there been any sort of statistical study of what it will mean in terms of the difference it will make? Presumably that will mean that rents will have to go up in order to be able to facilitate -

Mr Larson: I think it's interesting that in Thunder Bay in 1996 there were 56 rental units constructed. To show the significance of government policy, it has been attributed by CMHC that all 52 of these units were because of the Bill 120 "housing unit within a residence" provision, which allowed people to construct fourplexes instead of duplexes, and those were the only rental units that came on to the market in 1996. It was a response by the builders and by the investors to the ability to essentially cut the cost of their land in half for each unit and thereby put some more housing stock on the market.

Mr Gravelle: I guess the point I'm making is that this bill going through as it is would obviously put landlords and owners in a position where they could raise rents once an apartment is vacated and that would be necessary in order to increase their revenue and therefore be in a better position to build more. Is that how it follows in terms of the process of why more -

Mr Larson: I think it's the whole psychological setting for people who are going to invest their money knowing that they can adjust their prices in the marketplace and sometimes they will do better and sometimes they will do worse, but there is at least the hope of return on their investment.

Mr Marchese: Mr Larson, you acknowledge and we acknowledge that the tax differential between rental buildings and, let us say, the single-family dwelling is quite high. I think you appropriately said that if you're going to fix that, the province should do it. It is magnanimous of the provincial government to say, "We've given the tools to the municipality," but if the city all of a sudden finds itself with that tool, it will say: "How do I deal with this differential? If I reduce the level of taxation of these rental buildings, I've got to make up that differential somehow. Am I then going to pass it on to the homeowners?" Do you think the homeowner will be happy to receive the extra shift in property taxes? Because if you're taking money from somewhere, you've got to make it up, do you not agree?

Mr Larson: I agree with you. I think on an individual basis that any single-family homeowner, including myself, would be upset that their taxes had gone up because of that kind of adjustment. On the other hand, if I was to think about the reason for it, so that the people who are in apartment buildings don't end up paying a greater share of the taxation burden because they're renters rather than being able to own, to me that's something I would be satisfied with as an explanation.

Mr Marchese: I appreciate the spirit of your generosity in this regard, but I suspect a lot of homeowners are not going to feel that way. Because many of them will feel they're overtaxed, they can't afford it now, so they have a problem. The municipality has a problem, but the province is saying, "We've given you the tools, now you go and fix it." I think it's problematic is the point I wanted to make.

The other point you've raised, having to do with how we create choice and a competitive market and all of that, you give emphasis to the fact that once you get rid of this vast bureaucracy and red tape which this government is willing to provide for you, investors will all of a sudden start building. Mr Lampert, the economist they hired, says it's not so simple. In fact, he says there is a $3,000 gap per unit to build versus what people can afford to pay. That's why the industry isn't building, really. It's not the red tape. It's a small factor, although some of them want to say, "Yes, it's a big factor," or "It's part of a continuum, we need it," but it's really a small factor. They're not building because there's no money, because people can't afford to pay what they need to develop that. We really have a bigger problem here. I'm not seeing the private sector building, and it's not because of the red tape. Would you agree with that analysis or do you disagree with it?

Mr Larson: I would disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.

Mr Marchese: It's not even mine. Greg Lampert is an economist the Conservative government has hired. He admits in another study that he's done called Prospects for Rental Housing Production in Metro that people who own existing buildings do fairly well versus how they do with newer buildings. There's a rate of return that's higher with older buildings.

Mr Larson: Yes.

Mr Marchese: He says that, and he says that to build new buildings is costly. So I'm not sure it's the red tape that's the problem here. I'm not sure this bill is going to answer it, and they admit this. There are a lot of other things that have to be done. Mr Gilchrist, who is not here at the moment, says that part of that picture is the equalization of property taxes. Mr Lampert speaks to that. That's one of the things, but it's tough.

What do we do in the meantime in terms of building housing for a whole growing number of people who are being impoverished, who are either poor, working poor or becoming impoverished in this economic climate? What do we do? What are you going to do?

Mr Larson: In addressing the previous speaker, you raised the question and hoped that I could perhaps answer it for you. I had the opportunity of thinking about it. I certainly think that the private sector isn't going to come forward and provide that social housing. I think you have to deal with it from a provincial point of view of finding the people who are in need of income to afford the housing that the private sector can supply and you're going to have to devise some kind of policy at the provincial level that supplements their economic means to afford the housing.

Interjection.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Marchese. Thank you, sir, for coming.

Mr Marchese: I was just going to complete it for him.

The Chair: You were going to complete it for him. I'm sure you would. You'll have to complete it with the next delegation, unfortunately, Mr Marchese. We've run out of time.

THUNDER BAY COALITION AGAINST POVERTY

The Chair: The next delegation is the Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty. I'm going to let your president, I assume, introduce everyone. I have four names: Ms Beulah Besharah, Ms Barbara Carignan, who is the treasurer, Ms Jean Holyk, who is the vice-president, and Ms Chris Mather, who is the coordinator. I probably pronounced all of your names incorrectly but I'm sure you'll help me out. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Beulah Besharah: Thank you very much, Mr Tilson. I'm Beulah Besharah and mine is the only name you mispronounced.

I'm very happy indeed that we have just this month produced our Tin Cup Times, with its heading "Housing for the Homeless." You will note that it's included in your packages.

The Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty is a non-profit community organization concerned about the depth and extent of poverty in our society. The majority of our members are people whose incomes fall below the Statistics Canada poverty lines. Most of them are on some form of social assistance. One of our primary activities is the operation of a food bank at which we serve approximately 600 people a month. It's from our contact with these people and our knowledge of the difficulties they face that our concerns with Bill 96, An Act to Consolidate and Revise the Law with respect to Residential Tenancies, arise.

As the proposed legislation is concerned with tenancy, we wish to begin our discussion by providing this committee with information about rental housing in Thunder Bay. We believe the provision of such contextual information will assist the committee members - all of them, not just one or two of you - in evaluating our submission and will provide them with an understanding of some of the housing difficulties faced by people with low incomes in Thunder Bay.

When examining the cost of housing in Thunder Bay, it's not sufficient to include only the actual rental charge. Our severe winters and the concomitant high heating costs necessitate a more sophisticated analysis. Our weather results in tenants in Thunder Bay having the second highest shelter costs in Ontario. On August 5, 1997, we contacted the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp and were told that in Thunder Bay, the average rental cost of a one-bedroom apartment was $530, the average cost of a two-bedroom apartment was $672 and the average cost of a three-bedroom apartment was $809. None of these rents include the cost of utilities, which, as we've just stated, are very high in our city.

As of July 31, 1997, there were 1,538 families waiting to be placed in rent-geared-to-income housing. This is an artificially low figure. Since the cancellation of 13 non-profit housing projects by the current government, people with low incomes often do not register on the waiting list, believing it to be an exercise in futility.

1400

Having provided some context, we will now turn our attention to Bill 96. In this submission we intend to confine our comments to section 200 of the bill. We have four sets of concerns.

Human rights: We have three points to make in this part. Housing is a basic human right. This right is codified in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, to which Canada is a signatory. The covenant states, "The states party to the present covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions." It's surely inherent in this statement that disadvantaged and poor groups have an equal right to the security described in the covenant.

Our second point: The Ontario Human Rights Code includes the provision that the receipt of social assistance cannot be used to discriminate against a person. Legislation which permits the use of tenant screening based on income is a clear violation of this provision in the context of housing.

Again, contrary to Ontario's Human Rights Code, section 200 will allow discrimination against several other identifiable groups, including but not limited to the working poor, the majority of single mothers, the young, people with disabilities, people living with AIDS, first-time renters, members of Canada's first nations, immigrants and refugees. We say this because it is our experience in Thunder Bay that members of these groups are disproportionately represented within the low-income community.

Let's continue with tenant selection. Obviously private landlords should be able to make a reasonable return on the money they've invested in their properties by minimizing the possibility of a tenant defaulting on rent. Again, obviously it's reasonable for a landlord to institute tenant screening as a safeguard against bad debt. Credit checks and rental histories are good ways to assess tenants. It is the specific inclusion of level of income as a mechanism to discriminate against prospective tenants which we find unreasonable. We find it unreasonable on six grounds:

(1) Income is not an accurate predictor of tenant default.

(2) People on social assistance, and others with low incomes, are less inclined to enter into a tenancy agreement they cannot afford because the costs of moving, of the first and last months' rent and of hook-up charges for utilities are outside their budgets without months of preparation. Assistance with such costs is one of the most frequent requests for help that we receive.

(3) People on social assistance have no higher record of defaulting on rental agreements than any other socioeconomic group. In fact, our experience with the people we serve is that they place paying their rent above other financial commitments. It's not possible to live on the streets in Thunder Bay in the winter.

(4) If discrimination on the basis of income is allowed, it seems likely that the widely quoted 30%-rent-to-income rule would be used as the mechanism of discrimination. This rule will effectively exclude social assistance recipients from renting. We will return to this point later in our submission when our co-ordinator Chris Mather will be reading.

(5) Living in a university and college town with a fluctuating pool of renters, it has been our experience that landlords are more likely to discriminate on the basis of income when the vacancy rates are low. This is precisely when disadvantaged people are at greatest risk of not finding suitable housing.

(6) It has been our experience that our members who run into difficulty in paying their rent do so because of changes in their lives: job loss, illness etc. No amount of screening for income at the start of a tenancy will protect a landlord from such situations, which often occur after a home has been rented. We would be remiss if we left this point without indicating to the government members present that the 21.6% decrease in social assistance payments instituted at the start of their regime was directly responsible for dozens of our members being unable to pay their rent. A survey we conducted at our food bank indicated that within 12 months of the cut to welfare, a full 60% of our customers had had to move to cheaper accommodation.

Ms Chris Mather: Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Chris Mather, the coordinator for our group. The next section of concerns is the effects of Bill 96 on social assistance recipients.

As we noted above, if the common 30%-rent-to-income rule is used to decide if a person can afford an apartment, no one in this city on social assistance would qualify as a tenant in private rental accommodation. The maximum monthly social assistance payment which a single person can receive is $520. The average cost of a one-bedroom apartment is $530, which is 102% of such a person's income. The maximum monthly social assistance payment which a parent with one child can receive is $957. The average cost of a two-bedroom apartment is $672, which is 70% of such a family's income. For every income level of social assistance, the percentage of rent to income exceeds the 30% rule. Our local calculations are consistent with the conclusions arrived at by Dr Michael Ornstein in his Ontario-wide study, to which we believe this committee has already had access.

This section is concerned with the effects on the province and municipalities. Section 200 will cost the taxpayer money. We have three points with which to support this assertion.

(1) Even without section 200, it is an unpalatable fact that some landlords in Thunder Bay discriminate against people with low incomes, and social assistance recipients in particular. This already costs the taxpayer money in two ways: (a) through the costs of the operation of shelters to which homeless people resort for housing, and (b) because those who cannot find affordable housing are forced to rent higher-priced accommodation, thereby increasing the shelter costs portion of their welfare allowance.

(2) If Dr Ornstein's and our local calculations are correct, fully 100% of people on social assistance in this province would be at risk of discrimination by landlords who apply the 30% rule. Caring for even a small increase in the homeless caused by this discrimination is surely contrary to the government's much-quoted credo of "doing more for less."

(3) The costs of caring for homeless people are not limited to the provision of emergency shelters. They include, but are not limited to, increased health care costs, rising crime rates and increases in educational difficulties for children living in shelters. Further, this government subscribes to the fallacious belief that large numbers of people remain on social assistance in preference to being employed. We know from firsthand experience the difficulties faced by people in getting a job when the only address they can provide is that of a shelter. We have two recommendations to make:

First, that the government remove the phrase "income information" from section 200.

Second, that the government increase the shelter costs portion of the social assistance monthly allowance to more accurately reflect the shelter costs in Thunder Bay. Such an increase would be consistent with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which includes the phrase "continuous improvement in living conditions." Such an increase would also be consistent with the throne speech delivered on September 27, 1995, on behalf of this government, which on page 5 promised to accommodate the needs of the north in the delivery of services. It said that local input would be sought. We have provided this local input on shelter costs in Thunder Bay to government committees conducting public hearings in Thunder Bay on five separate occasions, and we would now like to see the promises of the throne speech put into action.

We have one proviso to make in regard to the use of credit checks as a tenant screening mechanism. There are people who have no credit record, such as immigrants, newly separated women and young people. Some of these people will also not be able to find a guarantor. The absence of a credit record or a guarantor should not be viewed as being the same as a bad credit record.

Summary: In conclusion, the Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty is concerned about the use of income information as a way to discriminate against tenants. We believe that it is contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, that it is an inaccurate assessment tool of tenant reliability, that it will exacerbate our members' already hard task of finding suitable housing, and that it will cost the province and the municipalities money. We recommend that the phrase "income information" be removed from section 200 and that the shelter cost portion of social assistance payments to Thunder Bay residents be increased.

1410

One of the activities we undertake is to teach our members how to evaluate legislation. One of the first questions we advise them to consider is, "Who benefits from this?" Let's ask that question now.

Does section 200 benefit low-income tenants? Obviously not. It leaves them with no recourse if they are discriminated against by landlords on the basis of income.

Does section 200 benefit society? Obviously not. It increases the risk of discrimination being allowed in the province.

Does section 200 benefit the taxpayer? Obviously not. It will cost them money.

The only group which will benefit from section 200 is landlords with extensive property holdings. Presumably this is why such lobby groups as the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario have been so assiduous in seeking the legalization of discrimination on the basis of income.

We would like to draw the attention of the government members present today to the introduction to the Common Sense Revolution document, which states, "Our political system has become a captive to big special interests." We would ask you to free yourselves from such "big special interests" and amend section 200 in the interests of ordinary people.

Thank you for your attention to this presentation.

The Chair: That concludes the remarks of the group? Thank you. There's time for questions.

Mr Gravelle: How much time, Chair?

The Chair: We've got to share about six minutes, so two minutes each.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much. It's a terrific presentation. You brought forward some points that I think need to be made. One that's not quickly thought of is the fact that there are indeed additional costs in terms of northern Ontario and Thunder Bay in terms of heating costs and everything else. Probably that's something that isn't brought forward enough. It makes a difference and it should be considered, I think, especially when the government talks about serving the needs of the north and listening to the needs of the north.

In terms of section 200, this is one that clearly this committee has heard a great deal about. Keith Norton, head of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, has spoken about this, how it is discriminatory and should be removed. I sure would be interested and hopeful in hearing even our parliamentary assistant say this is one section they will be repealing. I would even argue that perhaps this is no particular benefit to landlords either. They're going to be losing the opportunity to actually have very good tenants by using this in a discriminatory manner. The fact is, as you say, if you have the credit history - although your caveat is important on that as well in terms of those who don't have a credit history, that literally the rental history should be enough. If you've got a credit history and you've got a rental history, why do you think the government would want to put this particular section in? What would be the purpose for putting this in when the rest should be sufficient?

Ms Mather: Your question is, why does the government want to include that section? I guess my feeling on that would be that the government since election has consistently acted in a way that benefits those who profit from our economic system, that they are supported by and encouraged by people with large amounts of capital and who benefit from the legislation that they choose to pass. I can't think of any logical reason, and so I'm forced to turn to a political-economic reason.

Mr Gravelle: There's certainly no question that in terms of people who are renting accommodation in a building, if you base it on income I think it's probably just as easy to find people who may appear to have a substantial income but who may not necessarily be the best people to rent to. But in terms of a credit and rental history, that should be sufficient, certainly, and this section is clearly discriminatory.

Mr Marchese: I want to thank all four of you for the submission and to congratulate you on the focus that you have given to this particular issue. I think a lot of people are failing to see that this section will affect more people than we have cared to sort of give a percentage to. It is a big number of people who would be affected by this. I appreciate the focus. Instead of sort of hitting all of everything else that's in this bill, this is an important one, because housing is a human right and this section will affect the human rights of many people. Your suggestion to remove income information is a very helpful one.

You've done a good analysis. Dr Ornstein has done a good analysis. In my view, your analysis is important as well.

You've raised the point that it's an inaccurate assessment tool of tenant reliability. Others have said as much. "It will exacerbate our members' already hard task of finding suitable housing." Governments have to worry about people and you have raised that concern. I hope they will not simply take care of the interests of those with money, but of those without. I appreciate it.

Ms Mather: One of the things that concerns me so much about the legislation we have seen passed since this government was elected is a fallacious belief, in my opinion, that we need to return to a time when the private sector was able to take care of the social needs of our community. The truth of the matter is that private charity and the private sector were never able to take care of all the needs of the disadvantaged of our community. This is why we have people living in the depths of poverty, people unable to seek health care. We need to somehow go back to thinking there is a role for government, because it's unfair to expect the private sector to take care of all our social needs.

One part of my job is to do fund-raising for our organization. People who give us money tell us they're getting 20, 30, 40 letters a month requesting money. The private sector is not able to bear the load of the government's responsibility and it's time we began to recognize that again.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I certainly want to join with the others in thanking you for making this presentation. I want to come back to the one issue that has created a lot of discussion, and that is section 200. One of the previous deputants made reference to the need for trying to strike a balance, because one of the issues that became very clear across the province, perhaps not in Thunder Bay but provincially, is the shortage of rental accommodation, how to get to that issue and how we can create legislation that will provide that kind of framework for more investment in that field.

I want to come back to that issue of the balance and the question of the options that you recognize are there in section 200, the notion of credit, the rental history and income. You made reference to the fact that there might be circumstances where the credit - for instance, a woman who has just left an unsatisfactory relationship may not have a credit history; someone who is a first-time renter obviously doesn't have a rental history. You also recognize the fact that people do ask about income history at this point.

My question then is, do you see validity in some kind of option here in terms of what kinds of things landlords should be able to ask?

Ms Mather: The issue is one of prejudice and discrimination. Everybody in this room has prejudiced attitudes towards a specific group. Somebody in this room can't stand gays, somebody in this room can't stand social workers, somebody in this room can't stand social assistance recipients. The point is that we don't act on those prejudices. The point is if somebody inquires what your income is when you are seeking to rent their apartment and they don't act on that in a discriminatory fashion, that's the balance for me. I believe that's the point Mr Norton was trying to make too - I had access to his presentation - that the act of discrimination is the important thing. You can say a credit check is good and a rental history is good. So let's call those supposition A, and they're good. Then we say that discrimination on the basis of income, B, is bad. Well, A and B put together make C, but because B is bad, C isn't good. Do you see what I'm saying? It's a very convoluted answer. Shall I try again?

1420

Mrs Munro: I guess my question really is, what then do you consider legitimate options for a landlord to ask?

Ms Mather: What do I consider legitimate things? I consider that a credit check and a rental history are legitimate things for a landlord to ask.

Mrs Munro: But you do recognize that sometimes those are not going to be available.

Ms Mather: That's correct.

Mrs Munro: Then does the landlord discriminate on the basis of those things not being available? This person could have an income that would allow them to be a good tenant.

Ms Mather: Hey, if somebody doesn't have a credit record and somebody doesn't have a rental history, but they've got an income and the landlord agrees to rent to them, I've got no problem with that.

Mrs Munro: But then you have to give them the option -

Ms Mather: Of course they have to ask if they have income. We're not saying don't ask, we're saying don't discriminate. This is the point that's been made by Mr Norton too.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I know this topic is just starting to get warmed up, but the problem is we've run out of time and I regret to say we have to end it. Thank you very much, Ms Mather and company, for coming to the committee this afternoon and giving us your presentation, particularly on this issue. It's too bad we can't go on, but we're out of time.

Ms Mather: Thank you. We hope you enjoy our newsletter, the Tin Cup Times.

The Chair: Thank you very much for giving it to us.

PEOPLE ADVOCATING FOR CHANGE THROUGH EMPOWERMENT

The Chair: The next presenter is Leonard Maki. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Leonard Maki: I don't have a written submission, but I am here to tell you that I'll pick it up right from where the Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty left off, I believe.

I want to address section 200. I believe that section will do nothing less than create systemic discrimination for people on social assistance.

I work for a group that is what is known as a psychiatric consumer survivor organization. All our members are people who suffer from serious mental illness. The majority of them are people who are on FBA. Some of them have not qualified for FBA and are on GWA.

I know the government is going to implement some reforms to FBA, and to a large extent we think those reforms look fairly positive, but I've watched people be turned down by landlords because the minute they say they are on any kind of social assistance, landlords do not want to deal with them. If this legislation goes through as passed, they will have absolutely zero recourse in the law to fight for their basic human rights. Do you want to do that to people? Sometimes people have to lie.

In 1992 PACE produced a report. The title of the report was Surviving in Thunder Bay: An Examination of Mental Health Issues. I'd like to read just a few of the comments people have made in here in regard to housing issues.

The preface says: "The most common problem experienced by respondents" of the survey, of the focus groups that this is part of, in regard to housing "was renting on a limited income. Respondents felt a limited income restricted their housing choices, and they often had to settle for substandard living conditions."

Here are a few quotations: "The problem is getting something in decent condition that you can afford." Here's another one: "It limits what I can rent and what I can't, and which location I can live in." Here's another good one: "There's a stigma around low rentals. Once they find out that that's where you're from, that that's where you're staying, it's almost like you're branded as a certain individual or a certain kind of individual. If you wind up living in a rat hole and you wake up every morning, it's like you're in the same dive, and you go to bed every night and you're in the same place. You start to lose the joy of life. You lose the spark that makes you want to do something and you start to slack off, and then little by little, hygiene goes, then your eating habits go, and the next thing you're right back to where you started off. You know you're just as bad as you were before you got help."

Here's a very telling one: "I have to lie to my landlord to get a place to live, like tell him you're on a disability. If it's not visible or physical, they don't take you. Even slumlords won't take you, because they don't want psychiatrically ill people living in their housing."

I don't agree that it's proper to lie to people about anything, but some people feel that even currently they have no choice. If you take away the sections protected in the Ontario Human Rights Code, they will have no recourse.

I believe that getting rid of rent control will also make it harder for people to find affordable housing. Often when people get ill they end up institutionalized. The 30-day provision for landlords to take over property is also problematic for that. I don't have a solution to that. I recognize there are two sides to both issues. I've heard a lot of very eloquent presentations today. Even people who represent the homeowners' association recognize that people with lower incomes have to have decent housing.

I believe Mr Larson was asking at the end of his presentation what the government can do to help people. He spoke of quality and choice. But people on social assistance have very little choice. When people speak of vacancy rates, I always wonder what prices they're talking about. Are we talking about vacancy rates in affordable housing, in housing in the $300 or $400 range, or are we talking about the $800 or $900 range? Somebody on FBA currently simply cannot afford anything above $300 or $400. I know that people do dip into their daily living money to find basic shelter.

You heard from Keith Milne today from the Shelter House. I know that people I help to support sometimes end up there. When they're there, sometimes landlords take over their property. If people leave their property vacant without notifying people, a landlord may feel they have every right to step in if rent is owing. But if somebody is ill, they might not have the presence of mind to notify their landlord, they might not have a family member who will step in, they might not have done the proper legal things beforehand, particularly if this is the first time they've become ill. We were talking about people with, for instance, bipolar affective disorder, also known as manic depression, which can affect people at any point in their life.

Mr Milne pointed out that not everyone who is poor stays that way. Well, not everybody who suffers from psychiatric illness stays sick, and not everybody who suffers from those illnesses is from the lower economic scale, but becomes that way. We have membership from right straight across the socioeconomic strata.

That is basically all I have to say. I really hope you get rid of this part of section 200. If you believe in basic human rights, you will recognize that it will do nothing except create a situation where people have no recourse. I would recommend the exact opposite, that you strengthen the Ontario Human Rights Code. I will certainly entertain any questions.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Thank you, Mr Maki, for appearing before us today. I think there has been a general misconception that we as a government are going to allow discrimination under Bill 96. There is no intent to allow discrimination. We are not changing anything that presently exists in terms of allowing the landlord to ask for income information. All we are doing is clarifying.

What is important here is that if there is an area where you feel or have evidence that someone has been discriminated against, then you should bring it forward, follow the process, and we will take action to the full amount allowed by the law.

I know what you're saying, that landlords have been allowed to "discriminate" on the basis of a prospective tenant being on family assistance. They haven't been allowed. There perhaps have been some who did discriminate on that basis. Some of the smaller landlords will excuse that by saying, "We can't afford to take a risk because we only get 2%, 3%, 4% or 5% return on our equity, and this is our pension money, this is our life savings." Nevertheless, we are not going to allow any discrimination. I want to make that perfectly clear. We are not allowing any discrimination; we're just clarifying.

Mr Maki: What do you mean by "clarifying"?

Mr Wettlaufer: We are saying: "This is what is going on. This is what is permitted now. We are putting in writing what will be permitted." Discrimination is not shown in section 200.

Mr Maki: So you're telling me that it will remain against the Ontario Human Rights Code to directly ask somebody if they are on social assistance.

Mr Wettlaufer: No, they can ask the question, but they can't deny housing on the basis of the answer.

1430

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): The last presenters said they agreed with this section as long as it was not used to discriminate against people. All right? If you were a landlord, what questions would you want answered to make sure your prospective tenants were going to treat your place properly and pay the rent?

Mr Maki: I would ask them if they can afford it. I don't know anyone who wants to move into an apartment, have to pay first and last months' rent, which is a very difficult thing for people to come up with when they live on social assistance, and then have to turn around and move out.

Mr Preston: There are some horror stories around where people go in and give a bum cheque and it's six months before they can be gotten out again. There are those stories around. There are two sides to it, no question. How do you propose, as a landlord, to guarantee that won't happen to you?

Mr Maki: I am not against doing credit checks or references. Quite frankly, even that poses problems for our membership because often when they have been ill they have done things, they have walked out. We recognize that and it's very unfortunate that these kinds of things happen. People are quite frank about it and they have to live with that. I wish it weren't that way, but sometimes in a small percentage it does happen.

But I don't know of people, and I've helped move a lot of people I know, who willingly go into a situation where they move what belongings they have, get set up, finally start establishing a home - a home to people is a very special place. They don't want to have to move into a place they know they cannot afford. The majority of people I know, as I said, put more than their shelter allowance into their monthly rent as it is and they do so willingly - maybe "willingly" is the wrong word - because they would rather do that than live in a substandard house or sometimes having to share dwellings with people, sometimes not a healthy choice for people either.

The Chair: Thank you. Our time has expired.

Mr Preston: I just want to -

The Chair: I know you'd like to go on but I'm afraid it's Mr Gravelle's turn. He'd get mad at me if I didn't let him speak.

Mr Gravelle: Go ahead.

Mr Preston: I just want to make clear what your answer is. It's okay to ask about income as long as you don't use that for discriminatory purposes; it's okay to get a credit check as long as you don't use that for discriminatory purposes. Is that correct? Is that what you're saying?

Mr Maki: I am saying I am concerned about the provisions and their interpretation. The way I've read it is that it will allow landlords to systemically discriminate. I am not opposed to credit checks.

Mr Gravelle: I think part of the problem is, even in Mr Wettlaufer's clarification, you set up a system where if the answer is, if there is discrimination as a result of this - which acknowledges the possibility that there could be discrimination as a result of it - and you say, "We'll deal with it then," that just seems to me to be a justification for removing it. If indeed there is a possibility as a result of that section being in there that discrimination could be practised, clearly it's far more difficult to deal with it afterwards and it shouldn't be dealt with that way.

This section seems to be something that has been a major issue at all the hearings. We have the head of the Human Rights Commission coming in, being very concerned about it and we have had others. Even to have your clarification to say, "If it happens, we'll deal with it," that makes one probably think you therefore acknowledge that the possibility exists, so it should be removed. It's a major issue, one that Mr Maki feels about, T-CAP feels about the same way, various other groups feel the same way. Therefore, I hope you're considering removing it just exactly on the basis that you described it.

I think probably this section 200 has been a major element today, but in terms of the issue of the removal of rent control, which is ultimately what's coming as a result of this, there's a great deal of movement frequently for tenants, which means that if you move out of an apartment and a vacancy occurs, the landlord can raise the rent again. What impact do you think just simply that would have on people who already, as has been pointed out very clearly, are paying, almost all of them, more than 30% of their income?

Mr Maki: Thank you for that question. I think there is the potential for significant impact. There is a social need for affordable housing. If landlords raise the rent every time an individual moves out and choose to move it above what people on social assistance can afford, where will they go? The people I know are dealing with a lot of issues already. One of the issues that society is dealing with right now is deinstitutionalization. We need affordable housing for people. If landlords do choose to raise rents above what people can afford, I don't know where people are going to go. I think people will consider suicide even because they would rather not live in hellholes. That might sound like an outrageous statement but, believe me, that is the truth and the reality for some people.

Mr Gravelle: You raise an important point in terms of people's desperate need, but I also think it's significant that you recalled what Mr Larson from the home builders said too, that indeed there is a need for social housing and that it should be provided by the government, because it's probably not correct to expect the private sector to come into it. With deinstitutionalization taking place the need for housing is greater than ever for those in need, and I think you've made a great presentation.

The Chair: Thank you, sir, for coming.

1440

NORTHERN WOMEN'S CENTRE

The Chair: I understand the next delegation is not here. I'll call their names. Gwen O'Reilly, coordinator from the Northern Women's Centre. Is she here yet? Susan Ward, community liaison, Faye Peterson Transition House. Gwen O'Reilly is here, just in time. Are you prepared to start now, Ms O'Reilly?

Ms Gwen O'Reilly: I guess so.

The Chair: If you wish, there's another delegation that could go first.

Ms O'Reilly: It doesn't matter. That's fine. I apologize for my lateness.

The Chair: You're right on time, perfect.

Ms O'Reilly: I work as the coordinator at the Northern Women's Centre. We deal with all kinds of women. Mainly the issues we focus on are poverty and violence, although we try to assist women in all aspects of their lives and that leads us to work in a great many sectors. We do economic development work as well as a number of different community development projects. We also do support and advocacy work for individual women, and that's one of the reasons I'm here, because I often get a chance to speak to women about their housing situation and the kinds of factors that affect them in their lives.

Today I realize you're all here to talk about Bill 96 and we're specifically interested, as I'm sure you've heard before, in section 200, which is about the inclusion of income information as a factor for landlords to use in determining prospective tenants. If my presentation seems a bit general, it's because we are generalists and we deal with women's lives in a holistic sense. Although this is one piece of legislation, there are many factors in women's lives and many different kinds of legislation right now that are going to affect women in difficult ways. I hope you take that into consideration.

I want to talk a bit first about poverty. All levels of government in this country have recognized, at least to some degree, that women in Canada and elsewhere experience a tremendous amount of economic disparity, especially with regard to their family and marital status. There have been various attempts to redress this balance, things like pay equity, employment equity, Family Benefits Act, child support, child tax benefits, various human rights and labour standards that concern gender and marital, family and economic status. The United Nations has also noticed the disproportionate number of women and children living in poverty in Canada.

Today I want to talk about this particular legislation. Any legislation that's based on minimum income criteria will affect women disproportionately. I don't know if you know the statistics, and I'll spare you them, but women are the poorest group in our country and correspondingly this province. Aboriginal women, other women of colour, younger women, older women, lesbian women, immigrant women, women with disabilities and sole-support mothers are poorer still, and they all face double or triple discrimination when they are seeking shelter. Most of the people receiving social assistance are women and children; in fact women are overrepresented in most groups of low- and fixed-income people. Women who are not currently low-income are still at high risk of poverty. It can and does occur suddenly for women as a result of a divorce, a dependent child, a disability or a pink slip.

Women regularly report negative reactions from landlords when they reveal they have children and/or are in receipt of social assistance. Racism and other forms of discrimination are common, and in northwestern Ontario first nations people bear the brunt of this behaviour. Allowing landlords the ability to select prospective tenants on the basis of income will effectively allow them to also discriminate on many other, albeit prohibited, grounds.

In 1995, the Northern Women's Centre conducted a survey of women receiving social assistance in the area, many of whom were single parents: 40% of our respondents said they could not afford adequate shelter. This was before the 21.6% cut to social assistance benefits. Fully a third of these women reported that they would have to move from their current homes once the cuts came into effect. If section 200 in Bill 96 takes effect, women with children, especially sole-support mothers, will have tremendous difficulty finding affordable housing.

Lone-parent women in all income brackets pay much more than 30% of their income for shelter, that's a fact. Lone-parent women are also more likely to be on social assistance, which means many will encounter negative stereotypes not only about their family, their marital and economic status, but will also have to face the stigma of being a "welfare bum," or in this town, a "welfare cheat." Women already have difficulty obtaining housing as a result of these attitudes, and many do not have the ability to challenge an unfair decision by a landlord. If Bill 96 comes into effect intact, many single mothers and their children and other low-income women will find themselves homeless.

The issue of credit checks is another big issue for women. I'm only going to touch on it here. Credit is a complicated thing. If you were married or partnered for some time, any of your credit records may be in your partner's name, not in your name. Women generally have difficulty getting credit. An irresponsible partner may also leave them with a bad credit rating through no fault of their own and that should be taken into consideration by landlords but often isn't.

The other issue I want to deal with with regard to women and housing is violence. Any measure which makes women more vulnerable to the whims of landlords will increase the incidence of sexual harassment. Women already report that many male landlords will make sexual innuendoes or request sexual favours, sometimes as a condition of tenancy. If women are desperate for shelter, they may find themselves in the age-old feminine situation of "put out or get out." This may be a particularly difficult decision if they have children and no place else to go.

Poverty and violence are intimately connected in most women's lives. Being poor means fewer options, and women often face the difficult choice of staying with an abusive partner or raising their children in extremely reduced circumstances. I have spoken to a number of women who have returned to abusive relationships solely for economic reasons. Restricting shelter options for women will result in more women and children at risk, especially now that transition houses and second-stage housing projects have experienced funding cuts.

When women leave an abusive relationship, they do it in a hurry, sometimes in secrecy if they fear for their lives. They don't have the luxury of waiting for that perfect apartment, and often end up in expensive or inadequate accommodation. Women are also most at risk immediately after leaving a violent partner. They need security and often anonymity, which may mean access to a security building and/or the ability to change the locks on their door. Any legislation that compromises these requirements will compromise women's lives.

That goes not only for women leaving abusive relationships but for women in general. Women often have a higher need for security. The world is a dangerous place for women and many low-income, inadequate housing situations don't provide that.

Just to put this all together: The impact of including income information in Bill 96 will be devastating enough for women and other low-income people. Combined with other changes, such as the loss of rent control, the loss of subsidized housing, the reduction of affordable rental stock, and now, with the Social Assistance Reform Act looming on the horizon which is going to mean many changes for both homeowners and people in general on social assistance, this will result in a full-scale housing crisis for low-income people. Many people, including women with children, will lose whatever stability they now possess, and will have fewer crisis services to rely on and few or no avenues of appeal. This government is legislating misery for vulnerable people in all sectors. Adjusting the Human Rights Code to allow landlords to discriminate on the basis of income is a very slippery slope, and hopefully not an indication that other rights will be undermined. I would recommend that you don't do it. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. We've probably got some questions.

Mr Gravelle: You just walked in when you were asked to speak so I should certainly let you know off the top that your concerns about the bill are being strongly expressed by other presenters this afternoon; specifically section 200 has been discussed at great length. I think it's a pretty common strong feeling that indeed this is a section that should be repealed and, as has been said earlier but obviously you know, the chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Mr Norton, has made a presentation and made it very, very clear as well.

1450

I think you bring out some other points that probably need to be discussed a little bit more, ie, that this is but one a number of actions that have been taken by the government that is making it, in essence, a more dangerous environment for many women and many single parents. I would just ask you if you could talk a little bit more about what the impact is for people being put into a situation where they simply, for a variety of reasons, can't find access to an affordable apartment, what that means in terms of their lives, being forced into a situation or remaining in a situation that is dangerous to them, to their children, whatever else. Are you seeing more of this as a result of what has happened in the last two years?

Ms O'Reilly: Certainly. If you're asking what the risk is to staying in an abusive relationship, the risk is death or serious physical or psychological injury to women and their children. We talk to women regularly who are either going back to or staying in abusive relationships. People are doubling up. They're looking for cheaper options. In some instances I've spoken to women who have been on social assistance in a relatively stable situation and have decided to go off it to a much more marginal economic situation, whether it's with an abusive partner or a low-wage, part-time job, because they can't stand it any longer. The system is too intrusive and too unworkable. There are many ways that some of the changes lately are putting women at risk both physically and economically.

Mr Gravelle: You mentioned as well an important reference that the Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty made about the fact that credit checks and rental histories are useful in terms of landlords but obviously there are some people who are simply - the government members will probably ask you, "Then what are landlords to do? How can they find out whether someone is going to be a good tenant?" Have you got any thoughts on that? That's certainly one of the questions they're likely to ask, so let's deal with it.

Ms O'Reilly: There has been lots of talk about welfare fraud in this town and elsewhere. I think in any system there's a certain amount of fraud and there are people who can pay, people who can't pay and people who won't pay. I think the people who won't pay are a fairly small minority and the size of their income doesn't reflect whether they will or will not pay. Sorry, I've lost my train of thought.

The Chair: Perhaps we will move to our next question.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Ms O'Reilly. You'll have an opportunity to come to it, I suppose.

On the point of lack of affordable housing, I must tell you that I'm profoundly worried about that. The government has cancelled, as you know, 110 projects or so. The government is getting out of the housing business, they have said. They're optimistic, and they tell you this, that somehow the private sector is going to fix that.

I have learned from a number of things I have read that the private sector is not going to fix it. They will not build affordable housing because there's no money to be made. In fact they're not even building housing that is within a $800 to $900 range because that too is a difficult thing to do because there's not much money to be made out of that. The cost to build versus what they can recover creates a gap. So we're going to have a serious housing crisis that they will not admit to, that somehow they think this is going to magically happen.

I'm worried profoundly about housing. I think we will face a housing shortage in the future, and the people you are representing, speaking for, will face serious problems as a result of that housing right that will not be there. That's the one point.

On the other point about section 200, the essential point about this act is that it says in section 200:

"Section 21 of the Human Rights Code is amended by adding the following subsection:

"(3) The right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation without discrimination is not infringed if a landlord uses in the manner prescribed under this act income information...."

This section says they can use income information, presumably in whatever way they want, and they don't have to worry about the Human Rights Code. So putting in income information allows landlords to discriminate without any remedy from the other party. That's the problem with this section and that's your worry too, is it not?

Ms O'Reilly: Certainly in so many words, yes.

Mr Marchese: I have to tell you this is my worry as well. It's a big worry of many and only now are people beginning to understand that this section, although it appears to be a minor one at least for the landlords, because they'd like to be able to have any means at their disposal to do what they want, when you look at it, affects a whole lot of people. I thank you for raising this as one of the other issues that affects the community you represent.

Mrs Munro: Thank you very much for being here today to give us your views. As Mr Gravelle said, the issue of section 200 is obviously one that has created a great deal of concern. We've certainly heard that in a number of presentations today. He asked you about the fact that probably by the time the questions came around to the government side, someone would ask you about the kinds of options a landlord should have. I'm very concerned about recognizing the issue you raised about the fact that while credit rating is traditionally viewed as a legitimate method of viewing a person's ability to pay, clearly many women are in a circumstance where that's not a viable option. The question then becomes, if credit rating and rental history don't exist, what does a landlord do? What's fair to ask a landlord?

Ms O'Reilly: You've reminded me of the train of thought I lost earlier.

Mrs Munro: I thought I might.

Ms O'Reilly: Shelter is a necessity. People don't try to get it on a whim. First of all most tenants have to come up with first and last months' rent. For most of the women I know and work with, that's no small feat. I would say that's a particularly good indication of someone's ability or intention to pay. Also, people don't haul all their stuff around town, usually in borrowed trucks, repaint an apartment, change their mailing address and move their kids to a new school. Often women who are coming from abusive relationships need to change their address radically and keep it secret. People don't do those things lightly. It's not, "Let's see how many landlords I can take advantage of this month." It's, "I need a place to live and I'm willing to make these changes to accommodate that need."

The other issue is that people's lives change and women's lives certainly change dramatically and economically with their life circumstance: marital status, family status, employment. When you are marginalized to begin with, any change in life circumstance can affect your ability to pay or stay where you are very drastically, but no one is at fault for that and that doesn't mean that people aren't willing to pay. It means their circumstances are difficult and it's hard for anyone to predict that, including a tenant.

The Chair: Ms O'Reilly, thank you very much for your presentation.

FAYE PETERSON TRANSITION HOUSE

The Chair: The next presenters represent Faye Peterson Transition House, Their names are Susan Ward and Nadine Halona. Good afternoon. I've given both your names. Perhaps you could identify which is which.

Ms Susan Ward: I'm Susan Ward.

Ms Nadine Halona: I'm Nadine Halona.

Ms Ward: We are both here representing Faye Peterson Transition House and are pleased to have an opportunity to put forth our concerns on behalf of the women and children we work with.

When I was listening to Gwen's presentation, I thought when we came up here all we really needed to say was "ditto," but there are many things we agree with and we'd like to give information from the perspective of Faye Peterson Transition House and the women and children we serve.

We are a regional shelter for abused women and their children in northwestern Ontario but we have been known to serve women from all over the world. How that comes about is that women will come to Thunder Bay and area from other countries. Their spouse would be abusive and that leaves them ineligible for any assistance. So we have had many women from countries all over the world staying at our shelter while we work with agencies such as the Northern Women's Centre and immigration to help these women be safe and eligible for benefits. Technically our catchment area is northwestern Ontario, but we are very flexible and our aim is to meet the need for the protection and safety of women and their children.

1500

In 1996 the house sheltered 116 women and 148 children. Seventy families were also turned away, but when we say "turned away" we mean they were referred to other shelters because we were full. Our average occupancy rate for 1996 was 112%.

The women and children we see will be very much affected by this proposed legislation. Just about all the families we've served require affordable housing. In Thunder Bay we will soon have a loss of approximately 700 subsidized units and more and more women are having to go to the private market to have their housing needs met.

We had a chart distributed that shows the changes in basic needs as of last October. You can see the reductions that have happened for that period of time. For basic needs a single person, in our case it would be a woman, would be allotted $248. As of October 1 of last year it was $195.22. Shelter allowance was $414 and has been reduced to $324.48 for a single person. If you look down under "Shelter," for a family of six it was $859 and has been reduced to $673.46. So there have already been huge reductions that have had a severe impact on the women and children we try to assist and help to better lives, lives where they can be assured of safety for themselves and their children.

One thing we are very concerned about is that the majority of women and children we see, as I mentioned, live below the poverty line: a single person receives approximately $6,200 a year and a family of six receives $14,469 a year. If rent controls were abolished, it would create a severe strain on people who are already taxed to the limit.

As it stands now, many of the women are forced to spend half or more of their income on decent, adequate housing for themselves and their children. Where does this money come from? Usually from the food budget or from other government incentives such as the GST and the child tax credit, which aren't really meant to be spent on housing; they were meant to be a bit of a bonus. But the majority of this goes to help them meet their survival needs. In Thunder Bay, and I'm sure in other parts of the province and in Canada, everywhere we look we see the emergence of additional food banks and the working poor, while the women and children we see are the poor and the working poor. Increased rents are taking food out of the mouths of families. Women come to see us every day and this is the concern: What are they going to do with their rents?

What you pay for is what you get. There are those other than women who are lucky enough to have a subsidized unit. That means not having a security building where you can see who is at your door. That creates huge stress and is part of the reason why we had close to 3,000 crisis calls on our 24-hour crisis line this year. Women and children are living in terror because they can't be assured of safety in their own home. Perhaps if it was a security building it might be easier to feel a sense of safety, but security buildings usually have a higher pricetag.

We are very, very concerned because we have a listing we give out: 33 Reasons Why Women Stay in Abusive Relationships. One of the main reasons is that they don't have the assurance of economic security. They may have been out of the job market for a number of years raising their children, or they may not have an educational level which makes them have marketable skills, so they think once, twice and more than that about leaving a situation where their partner might be making anywhere between $40,000 and $70,000 and perhaps going and living with their children where they might realize $10,000 a year. Housing is one of the most crucial points of a woman being able to leave, knowing that she will get this security. Hopefully none of us wants to increase the incidence of women staying in their homes because they can't be assured of having a safe place to make a new home or know they'll have enough money left for food and shelter.

It's an attitudinal thing as well. For persons with any difference, be it a visible disability or a non-visible disability, seniors, anyone who has a difference, if these things go forth and further discrimination can be made based on income or based on if they think the person would be credible and reliable, then it would create great hardship.

Just the other day, and I don't often get this reaction, I went into a local restaurant to buy a gift certificate for my mother-in-law's birthday and I asked the manager, "Do you have gift certificates?" He said yes and I said, "I'd like to buy a $30 gift certificate," and he said, "Do you have $30?" I was very offended. Needless to say, I'm going to write to head office. The only reason I can think of that he asked that question was because I came into the restaurant using my wheelchair.

If that kind of discrimination can happen to a person such as myself with a visible difference, what is going to happen if you have a difference that is visible or with your credit line when you go for housing? It's a real concern and we want to be part of having a strong voice to say that no, we can't accept this because we'll be putting people out on the streets. We'll be putting people in danger and we will have women either not coming to shelters at all or coming and staying for an extended period of time because their needs can't adequately be met. We also don't want to see places such as shelter houses, which are excellent facilities, springing up because private accommodation can't be made. We are open for any questions.

1510

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Ward. Ms Halona, you have no comments?

Ms Halona: When Susan mentioned the shelter cost, that also has to include heat, hydro and water with the rent.

The Chair: That's the item under "Shelter"?

Ms Halona: Yes.

Mr Marchese: Thank you both for coming. I congratulate you on the work all of you in this room do. It's the most difficult work that some of you have to face. I tell you I couldn't do it because it would be difficult to have to face the kinds of problems you have to deal with on a daily basis.

The context here is that this government has cut 21.6% of people who receive social assistance. The context is that they've cancelled a lot of housing projects and they don't want to build any more. The context is the private sector is saying, "We won't build." They've said, "We can't build affordable housing." They've said that. The context is that this bill allows, through vacancy decontrol, for landlords to increase rents to as much as they think they can get. The context is that section 200 allows landlords to discriminate based on income information. Mrs Munro said: "If they can't do the credit check, what else can they do? Surely they need to look at income information." But that's their job. Their job is to say, "If a credit check is not enough, what else?" But if their answer is that they can discriminate based on income information, I find that a problem.

Mr Preston: Nobody said that.

Mr Marchese: That's what this section does. This section changes the Human Rights Code and allows landlords to in essence discriminate based on income information.

Mr Preston: That's a patent lie.

The Chair: Mr Preston, that's a bad word.

Mr Preston: That's right. I apologize for that. It's not correct, what you've said.

Mr Marchese: No, Mr Preston - he'll help you out in a second. This is the context and I don't know. I'm as worried as you are about what's going to happen.

Ms Ward: At the moment women within the shelter who apply for Thunder Bay Housing are exempt from a credit check. But if they go in the general market, where they often have to look, for instance, to the best of my knowledge, if it's a single woman looking for a one-bedroom apartment with Thunder Bay Housing, they could wait for about a year.

Ms Halona: Six months.

Ms Ward: Six months to a year. Certainly women with children are very important, but does that mean that single women aren't important? They're the women who are waiting the longest time, and if they go through subsidized housing they don't have to undergo a credit check, but if they're in the private market it changes it absolutely. As Gwen spoke to the safety of women too, women come to us because they are fleeing for their lives; they are looking to make a new life to protect their children from abuse as well and waiting for housing that isn't there. So they get discouraged and go back home because they know what they have there and they minimize the beatings and the sexual abuse of themselves and their children and the emotional and financial end.

We have a huge concern because it's a big part of our population. I'm not sure of the absolute statistic now but a few years back we did a study. We have many people with disabilities living in Thunder Bay who have come to Thunder Bay because we have so many good services and we had a statistic of 17.5% of our population who were persons with disabilities. Our shelter is physically accessible to accommodate women with disabilities who may not have started out with a disability, but because of the abuse have become disabled. So they need accessible, affordable accommodation too, be it in the private market or subsidized housing. It's a huge concern because we don't know where it's going to go. In all honesty, if a woman asks us what to do, we can't say, "We can guarantee that you're going to get a place in a month or two." We can't say that.

Mr Preston: The suggestion that because of this section this government is going to allow landlords to discriminate is completely misleading. Mr Marchese knows of my abhorrence of discrimination. For him to suggest that I'm part of a government that is going to allow or condone discrimination, he knows better than that. This is not going to happen.

Mr Marchese: What does section 200 mean, then?

Mr Preston: Section 200 means that the landlord has the opportunity to question his tenant to satisfy himself that he's going to be paid for his accommodations. If he does not use that in a discriminatory manner, then there is no problem. The last three presenters who have been up here have said, "Yes, that's fine, as long as it's not used to discriminate."

Mr Marchese: But you know what happens, Mr Preston.

Mr Preston: To remove something because there's a chance of discrimination would suggest that there are certain races or religions that should be removed because there's a chance of being discriminated against. That's not correct. What we do is fight against the discrimination, not against the problem, not against the situation. We fight against the discrimination, and that is exactly what this government will do under this section. We will not allow discrimination. We will allow people to get the facts, but they will not be able to use those facts to discriminate against somebody. Mr Marchese knows that and he likes to twist it.

The Chair: Mr Preston, you're out of time, I'm afraid. Mr Gravelle.

Mr Gravelle: As I said earlier - and Mr Preston and I had a brief private conversation about this - it still seems strange to me - and I don't want to take all your time - to put a section in that may lead to discrimination or can be used in a discriminatory way. Therefore, if that's the case, it shouldn't be in there. I would expect you to agree with that.

Ms Ward: We certainly do. As a matter of fact, I think just a couple of weeks ago Nadine had a situation where a private landlord was speaking to her about a prospective woman who was going to go in the house. I believe he was asking all kinds of questions and almost wanted a guarantee. Maybe you can speak a little more to that, Nadine.

Ms Halona: That's what he wanted. He wanted me to guarantee that everything would be all right, and I can't guarantee that. When a woman is in our shelter, everything is fine, and when she goes out, for whatever reason, if an abusive partner goes over there and smashes up her place, it's not her fault. He wanted me to guarantee him that everything would be okay. I couldn't guarantee that.

Also, with women having so many issues coming into the shelter, if they are discriminated against, they don't want another problem. They don't want to go and see Human Rights because they already have enough on their plate.

Mr Gravelle: Of course that's one of the other problems too. Your story about what happened to you, Ms Ward, in terms of the restaurant is a pretty awful story too. The fact is, this is also a government that has reduced staff, certainly in its own government, in terms of being able to do some of the work you say you want to do.

I know Mr Preston well and I believe he means everything he says in terms of this, but the fact is, if you don't have the people who can handle these situations, if you don't have the resources, you set up a situation where actually you can mean what you say but you can't deliver on it. That's one of the things that we're all concerned about.

In whatever time I have left, I just want to talk about affordable housing.

The Chair: You have none. I'm afraid your time is over, Mr Gravelle. Thank you very much, ladies, for coming. I don't mean to cut him off, but we really have time slots, and it's expired.

Ms Ward: We'd be pleased to speak to you at any time at a later date.

Mr Gravelle: I'll look forward to that.

The Chair: Thank you for that offer.

Mr Preston: It was made to him.

1520

VILLA STREET HOUSE PROJECT

The Chair: The next presentation is by Wolfgang Schoor of Villa Street House Project. Good afternoon, Mr Schoor.

Mr Wolfgang Schoor: Good afternoon. I'm happy to be here and I'm glad you've all made it, or some of you made it back. If it sounds as though I am biting my tongue, I just came from the dentist, so excuse me, please. Root canal, oh.

Mr Gravelle: You are on time.

Mr Schoor: I don't have any material to hand out as I did last time. However, I would like to make a brief presentation, because I feel it's very important, related to rooming-houses. The previous presentation that I made was related to rooming-houses. I have read most of the Hansards, the publications, and I didn't see where rooming-houses were considered at all.

I'm not so sure that the material I did bring with me is relevant but as a handout it may be okay so people understand what I'm talking about, and it will also perhaps verify that I speak with some knowledge in the area.

The reason I've talked about the Villa Street project - and this is the documentation that I have here - is that in 1988 I began on a project which specialized in housing people who have had a brush with the law, people who lacked the social skills, who could not live within the framework of a structured living environment, so for the last nine years now I have looked at people's behavioural patterns and where they actually take them. I have seen people on the streets and I have a database verifying the information that I have some ideas of how and why this will happen. In fact, one of the documents has just been published. One of the manuscripts has been published at an international ergonomics congress in Finland, which now is published in 50 countries, so I speak with some authority and knowledge of the subject.

When changes will occur in rent controls, if the past is any indication of what may happen in the future, I think we're heading for sheer hell, particularly for a specific group of people. Why would I say that? Well, there are all sorts of people who are predicting doom and gloom, but many people make a living at doing that. In my case, and in the cases of people who are like me, who are independent landlords, for us the problem is real. We have seen people who have just moved out a few weeks earlier and you read in the obituaries that they died. We've seen people hauled away by the medics, and by the police, in case they have a problem with the law. These are all the things that I can see happening as a result of changes within the streamlining of the conflict resolution system, and this is where my focus will be.

How will that affect people who are hard to house? How do people end up in a rooming-house? People who live in a rooming-house are normally there because they're changing their life in a certain way. Some have either come from an institution, such as a mental health institution, hospital or jail, or they're battered wives with children or they're battered husbands. I've seen husbands who have been beaten up with a hammer. As a result, these people can't afford a hotel or a motel. They haven't got a set of references because they haven't got a tenant record, so they somehow end up in a rooming-house.

As a result, they often don't understand, they don't know what is expected of them as a tenant, so they behave as they behave at home. Well, at home they got kicked out. When they leave, I could cram more possessions into this little attaché case than some people have when they leave home. I have seen it over and over, hundreds of times.

These individuals, when they're not in jail and when they're not at home, need to live somewhere. We've established that. They still don't know how to behave. Then they screw up, so to speak, if you'll pardon the expression, and the Landlord and Tenant Act kicks in. There are many options which can be dealt with, so people leave, for whatever reason.

At some point, when people come back knocking on the door - they got kicked out, they have been kicked out many times. The next thing you know, they come back to you, or to other landlords, and say: "Wolfgang, I'm straight now. I don't drink any more. I haven't been in jail for a while. I know this is a safe place. I want to come back," which is great. Hallelujah. Fine.

But what happens is, the time frame from when the person leaves - and I have established a database, as I said, over the last nine years - to the time that the person comes knocking on your door, looking well and having all these good intentions and conquering the world, as we all want to do sometimes, it takes perhaps two years for that cycle to occur, for that to happen.

I foresee that streamlining the conflict resolution system will compound the problem that exists today, because what happens is, the cycle of when people will be coming back to knock on the door to the residence where they were treated fairly well, the time frame will be much shorter, and that is where I foresee the problems.

To get away from the concept of the Villa Street project in Thunder Bay, I've looked at other living arrangements in different geographic regions. I don't know if you know that I'm an ergonomics design specialist who quantifies information and separates it into small bits and pieces and assembles the information and tries to make some sense of it.

1530

Trying to look at how this could happen, I looked at rooming-houses and living arrangement concepts from the late 1960s to the early 1970s, which had an all-time high of fatality rates. For example, in Ontario in 1989 there were 16 fatalities as a result of rooming-house fires. Is that high? It's only a number. But when one now compares the numbers with what the norm is, that year in the entire province there were 160 residential fatalities as a result of fires. The percentage of rooming-house living arrangements was only 2%, 2.5% or 3%,but we're talking about 10% of the fatality rate, which is quite high. What that breaks down to is that, for example, out of the 160 fatalities in Ontario in 1989, there was a ratio of calls of occurrences from the fire department of 160 to 1. Don't quote me on this now, I'm just going by memory. With the rooming-house fatalities, with out of every 10 calls there occurred a fatality.

How does that matter today? What will happen when the conflict resolution system is streamlined? What will happen is that the cycle which I talked about before, that people get vacated or evicted, the cycle will be a lot closer together. People don't have an opportunity now to recover from whatever got them kicked out. The place where they felt reasonably safe as, for example, in the rooming-house at Villa Street - they will not have had an opportunity to recover. As a result, if they come knocking at the door after four months and say, "Wolfgang, I'm okay now; I'm trying to quit drinking," or, "I'm trying this," or "I'm trying that," then in fairness to the other people, you couldn't take them. They wouldn't fit within the structure, which in itself is already not a structured living environment.

The concept of living, for example, in this rooming-house or the ergonomic living arrangement on Villa Street, is where people can live by means of experiential learning. In other words, it is okay to not do everything right. That doesn't mean it's okay to do wrong, but not everything is right.

I think you're probably getting impatient now. By the time we get back to the people, what are the options for them now if they can't come back to, let's say, Villa Street House? They can go to a hotel, but they won't have the money. Could they go to an organized, non-profit organization which gets funding from the government to actually house people who have social inabilities? They themselves also have requirements that people have to live by. When they don't meet those requirements, they're not accepted. So that is out. A regular apartment will not work. Ultimately, people will end up at a rooming-house.

That is why I'm saying, when they're not accepted - and that is what is happening today - when people are not accepted in a rooming-house, which incidentally is considered to be a low place to live, if they can't live there, then what is the next alternative? The next alternative is living on the streets, and I have seen it dozens of times. It's really sad when we see these people ending up in the street, ending up homeless.

What is the solution? All of you have done a lot of listening to a lot of people. As I mentioned before, a lot of people make a living at speaking out, but I don't. I've seen the misery and I would like to see the rooming-houses be included, or at least talked and thought about, before the final decisions are made. That is the end of my compassionate plea for rooming-houses.

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We've got time for about one question, and I'm going to give that to Mr Gravelle.

Mr Gravelle: That's very kind, Chair.

The Chair: It's your town.

Mr Gravelle: Wolfgang, welcome. It's actually important for this committee to understand what this means to you, because I know this is not a business to you in the sense of how you make money; this is something that has a great deal of importance to you in a very human sense. I know you have been working hard to get your message across. I guess one quick question is all I have time for.

What do you think needs to be done in a legislative sense? What would help you basically make a concept or process or project like yours, the Villa Street property, which I've obviously seen as well, work better, and could affect other rooming-houses across the community or across the province?

Mr Schoor: That's a good question, Michael, and thank you. The only thing I could see is to start by educating the people, the segment of that population - again this will be a long answer, and I'm sorry but there's only one way to answer this question - because traditionally what has happened in living arrangements is that people outgrow where they live as a result of social status. People move out. They start out with a small house, they inherit maybe another one that's a little bigger, and the next thing you know they have saved up some money, they've got good jobs, they bought some good stocks, and now they want to have a big house. There is the trend: People start out small and end up in a big house, which eventually they can't afford and then sell, but then there's somebody else there who will buy it up.

But what has happened with the segment of the population we are talking about is that the buildings have outgrown the people who live in them, as a result of streamlining. For example, with the early protection systems, alarms are pulled mistakenly by the pull stations. People mistake them because their vision is not as good as yours or mine would be and they don't know enough; if they have glasses, they lose them. People mistake the pull stations for a light switch and on comes the alarm, over comes the fire department and the police, and it costs a lot of money. You see what I mean?

Maybe I'll leave one of these brochures with some of you fine people, and maybe the clerk can make copies.

The Chair: Mr Schoor, if you leave that with the clerk, the clerk will make it available to the committee members. You can leave us with one copy. Unfortunately, your time has expired, unless you can wrap up in a couple of seconds.

Mr Schoor: Okay. The solution is that landlords need to learn how to become responsible landlords in rooming-houses; tenants need to learn how to become responsible tenants in rooming-houses.

The Chair: Thank you for your message.

1540

DUKE'S TRAILER COURT

The Chair: We next have the Dukes of Thunder Bay, who have been waiting patiently since 1 o'clock. I think they're the first people I met when I walked in this afternoon. Bernadette, William and Ellen Duke are representatives of Duke's Trailer Court.

Mr William Duke: Good afternoon. I hope you all had a nice flight up here. Rather than waste more time - I'd like to say a lot of things, but right now I will give you credit, you've done a little bit; I won't knock you this time yet. I'll let Bernadette go ahead with the presentation and have some time.

Ms Bernadette Duke: I'm Bernadette. I'm really nervous. This is the first time I've ever spoken in front of a committee, so please bear with me.

I'd like to address part V of Bill 96. Real property relates to buildings erected on land and everything affixed to the land such as apartments, condominiums and houses. Personal property is property of a movable nature such as clothing, automobiles, mobile homes. A manufactured home land-lease community is shared real property. The owners operate as a business to provide the land for a viable housing alternative.

I would like to address the sections of part V as they pertain to our present situation.

The rights and duties of a landlord and tenant: With Section 99, although it states the tenants have the right to sell or lease their personal property, the owners of the real property are being told to relinquish the right to screen or ask for references of incoming tenants. Some real properties, such as apartments and condominiums, have application forms allowing the landlord or building manager to use them as a screening process.

Mobile home parks do not seem to be allowed a screening process to possibly ensure that the incoming tenant is responsible to do their best to meet the requirements of their lease agreement.

Are mobile home park owners' rights being compromised or is the "cure" a higher conscience, financially and legally, to the landlord?

It is not in the best interest, at any time, under section 100, for the owner to purchase a mobile home on his property. In our land-lease community there are several older mobile homes and they pose a high risk. The foundation for this analysis is that in 1984 the construction of mobile homes changed from a two by two to a two by six. There are tables I won't go over. I'll let you read them separately and apart and just sort of skip them.

A 1990 home is worth approximately $30,000. A 1978 double-wide home depreciation value calculates at 68% to replace, and a 1972 mobile home, 12 by 60, in good condition, is worth approximately $750 not established on land lease property.

Even at these prices, depending on the condition of the home the estimated costs may still be too high. The real estate companies have inflated the price with the explanation that they are on established properties.

When looking at the age, replacement value, high-risk insurance and personal loan financing, why would the owner not consider the right to purchase at a reduced price? At a reasonable price that only includes the manufactured or mobile home, the cost of skirting and set-up and not the price of the owners' real property, a purchase could be plausibly considered.

"Restraint of trade prohibited" in section 102: I am assuming this means all personal properties pertaining to the mobile home tenant. Our land-lease agreement is an informational piece of paper with the standards for maintaining the mobile homes in it. If our tenants choose to abide by this agreement, they will; if they do not, it not only costs time but money to take them through the court system. The right of the tenant outweighs the right of the landlord at a costly solution.

The responsibility of the landlord: Duke's Trailer Court is known as one of the better-maintained mobile home parks in this region. We are proud and understand our responsibilities and adhere to them. My comments are based on our financial obligation to provide services and the costs we incur for them.

Section 103(1)(a): As owners, we are only allowed to collect as part of the rent $3.11 per unit for garbage disposal. This totals $37.32 per month. This service costs us $100 and is now going to increase to $120 per month.

Sections 103(1)(b)and (c): There is absolutely no money available to provide a continual maintenance of road, winter or summer, but we are governed by law to provide it at a cost of approximately $5,000 for 1996. Now our roads are in need of upgrading, which will cost close to $6,000, not including the cost of the yearly maintenance.

Section 103(1)(d): On a yearly basis, just to maintain the water system and sampling costs, estimated is $3,000 per year, and that's on the low end. Fuel and sewage maintenance are another $500.

Section 103(1)(e): Nine of our 12 tenants keep their lots and their boulevards well groomed, as we do the rest of the park. Our costs have also increased in this area as equipment is very costly to repair. Approximate costs for 1996 were $1,600.

Sections 103(2), (3) and(4): Where are the provisions for wilful or negligent conduct on the tenant's part that does damage to the owner's property? Who pays the cost when the real property has to be repaired?

We have one tenant who sublets his mobile home and his tenants have dumped motor oil on our ground. In the end we will have to clean it up before another tenant can move in.

What is the responsibility of the tenant?

We are going further into debt to provide essential services. The application for the above-the-guideline increase is inadequate as it pertains to mobile home parks.

The tenants established in our land-lease community and the new tenants purchasing a mobile home do not have to be responsible to uphold their agreement or even sign it, if they so choose. They can choose not to pay rent. Try and collect or evict the tenant and their personal property.

"The panel will be asked to ensure that property tax reform leads to greater fairness for rental buildings and moves toward removal of major impediments to invest in new construction." Mr Leach is accurate in his implications in his statement but how is this applying common sense to the situation?

Termination of Tenancies: Summarizing this section, questions about the equality defined in the Landlord and Tenant Act. A tenant who abandons his or her mobile home: We send a registered letter to the last known address. We put a notice in the local newspaper regarding our intent. After 60 days we can dispose, sell or assume responsibility of this mobile home. If the tenant returns before the 60 days are up, he is to pay what is due to the owner in rent.

If the tenant returns during the six months, the owner must pay the difference after expenses to the tenant if the mobile home is sold or give the tenant back their personal property, if the owner has assumed responsibility for it, and get the arrears for rent from the tenant. Last, the owner is not responsible to anyone for selling, disposing or retaining the mobile home.

It is the tenant's responsibility to communicate his or her intentions to the owner. If, by the tenant's own free will, they abandon their personal property and do not pay the rent, then the tenant should forfeit the right to lease the land on which the mobile home is established. What laws pertain to abandonment of personal property?

My understanding is if a mobile home is not being lived in, the unit is uninsurable and causes liability problems, not only for the owner but a safety problem for the tenants in the park if they were to suffer loss because of fire or other problems arising from an unoccupied home. In the event the uninsurable mobile home was to cause damage to another unit in the park, such as fire, the real property owners then become responsible for the damage through their insurance policy.

If you have ever seen a mobile home on fire you would understand the importance of this issue. There is little or no time for the occupant to react and there is little or no time to react so that other mobile homes do not burn as well. We have personally lived though this traumatic event.

Prior to 1984 a single manufactured mobile home, 12 by 60, would burn in seven minutes and a double-wide would burn in approximately 12. The risk is high. Duke's Trailer Court has 11 units older than 1984 and only one newer unit. Two men who live in our mobile home park who are associated with the volunteer fire department - one is the fire chief - could not respond quickly enough to even save their own parents' homes.

Mobile homes that are unoccupied also become a target for vandalism, not only for the unit but for other tenants' properties. Provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act should allow owners or their insurance companies to validate the tenants' insurance. This is only for the protection of other tenants and all who live in the mobile home park.

1550

"Death of a mobile home owner," section 105: In other words, we are unable to do anything. If the tenant has no living relatives and there has been no instruction, such as a will, then how or what do we consider this? Provision of intestate succession is a long process. It is necessary to establish legislation to address this issue. It creates a lost revenue at the expense of the owner's already heavy financial burden.

"Extended notice of termination," in special cases, section 106: This is probably the only good news. For some, it would be an alternative to bankruptcy. The above-the-guideline increase of 2.8% does not take into its equation the rate of inflation when dealing with mobile home parks.

"New tenants," section 107: As an owner, our business gets nothing compared to what we have to put out in expenses. Revenue from our tenants, who have all the necessary and maintained needs of water, sewer and road maintenance, totals 36.06%. Since the last standing committee hearing was held in Thunder Bay, we have been analyzing our financial position. First, I have taken the time to contact other mobile home parks in the Thunder Bay area and compile the information to find a fair market value. It's a table on the next page. If you notice, Hillcourt is city-owned. At one time it was not, but when it went bankrupt the city purchased it. They are now able to charge for water.

The mean of this analysis is $208.14. As you can see, we are much lower than any of the other mobile home parks. To be able to charge incoming tenants a fair lot rental amount, equal to the mean, would provide the revenue necessary to maintain this viable housing alternative.

In the Todd report, November 21, 1996, it was stated, "There are approximately 5% to 10% of units that have chronically depressed rents, which are well below market." Our tenants are being subsidized by the owner 63.94%. The long-term tenants who have been in the park for more than 30 years realize the chronically low rent. The lot rental must be increased to a fair market value to continue this viable housing alternative.

Procedures before the tribunal, section 109: Most mobile home parks feel their legitimate expenses are not being recognized and our rights are not being respectfully treated. Most of these mobile home parks face potential bankruptcy, the same as we do. The yearly allowable increase from rent control of 2.8% does not keep up with the rate of inflation.

Most parks face the same problems and have the same questions.

The above-the-guideline increase is unfair. It is geared for apartments, condominiums and any type of real property. What can be considered to increase lot rental and continue this housing alternative?

How has the Institute of Municipal Assessors valued mobile homes prior to and after 1984?

How can the real estate business use our property to inflate the cost of a mobile home that has depreciated more than what it is worth?

Should the insurance companies or building inspectors evaluate these mobile homes older than 1984 to ensure they are safe and insurable?

How can the property tax assessment office place a fair market value on mobile homes prior to 1984 if the depreciation of these older units is inflated by real estate?

These substandard buildings, 20 to 30 years old, are fire hazards to other homeowners. How can we eliminate these major impediments and this high risk?

Subletting should be abolished. We feel this would eliminate the problem of transients. It is a proven fact that persons who own their mobile homes and live in them are more responsible and respectful of their neighbours' properties. How can we screen who sublets these units?

Our lease agreements and bylaws are of no value. We spend money on lawyers to draw up the agreements and the tenants do not have to abide by these. They have more freedoms on our property than we do, even when they sign a lease agreement.

Our tenants have broken their lease agreements. They have planted trees over the sewer line. These trees are now causing problems with the hydro lines and need to be trimmed. They have built additions on to their mobile homes and repaired their vehicles, causing damage to the owner's property.

In a hearing for the above-the-guideline rent increase, a tenant, in ignorance of the mobile home park, submitted false statements. We were not allowed to speak to correct any of these statements even though we were the new corporate landlords.

Mr Al Leach stated in his August 26, 1996, release: "We must protect tenants first and foremost." Where is the equality?

The previous owners did not understand that their kindness would only burden the new owners left to carry on the business.

In 1957, Mame Duke and William Duke Jr had cleared the land and opened the park. The mobile home park was considered at that time a transient or gypsy community. Since then, mobile home parks have undergone several changes, as with the times. We have always worked with government ministries to make sure all work was done by the book. This property has the blood, sweat and tears from our family poured into hard work to make something that all of us could be proud of.

William Duke personally in the community has volunteered with the McGregor Recreation Centre for the community's recreational activities; volunteered his time and finances to take children to sports activities; always was available for consultation with the municipality of Shuniah council; volunteered his time at the school as an entertainer; donated his time and business equipment to the fire department, recreation centre and municipal office; fought for the fire department since 1963; and in 1973 accomplished the organization of the Shuniah Volunteer Fire Department, with equal opportunities for both men and women. He received the bicentennial medal for establishing and organizing the Shuniah Volunteer Fire Department in 1984.

Mobile home parks provide a viable housing alternative for personal property belonging to the tenant. Different from real properties such as apartments, condos and houses, there is very little in this Tenant Protection Act that deals fairly with mobile home park owners.

The operating cost of our land-lease community requires a higher guideline increase over the 2.8%. Mobile home parks house personal property and should not be placed in the same category as real property. Control on rent should be gone when the sale of a new manufactured home is on a rental unit site. Allow land-lease communities to impose minimum and maximum age designations on mobile units. The cap on capital expenditures should be increased to 12%, or a maximum of $50 per month per annum. Third-party costs should be allowed to be passed through 100%. For Sale signs should only be placed in the window of the manufactured home to a maximum of two feet. Sublets and assignments of existing tenancies should not be allowed. Clarify provisions under the Landlord and Tenant Act to deal with the abandonment of tenants' homes.

Before part V of Bill 96 passes and becomes legislation, it would be in the best interests of the standing committee to visit land-lease communities. Essentially, it is imperative that the standing committee on general government realize and convey that mobile home parks have real impediments and need changes so they can remain a viable housing alternative and continue to have incentives to grow. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Bernadette, for your presentation. I know the members of the committee will read your report again, with the exhibits. It's an accomplishment. I believe this is your 40th year as a family operation. I think that's what the brief stated, and you should be congratulated for that. We thank you for coming.

Mr Marchese: Just as a small point of privilege here, Mr Duke kicked me around a little bit the last time.

The Chair: I remember. I know the two of you are disappointed not to go at it again.

Mr Duke: Quit while you're ahead.

Mr Marchese: He did it in such a way that he paid me a compliment, but I'm not sure you heard it because I didn't hear him very well. I wonder if we could hear him again.

Interjection: No, no, no. Once is enough.

The Chair: At the risk of losing complete control of the meeting -

Mr Duke: I'm tired of him knocking landlords. I've been on skid row, I've panhandled, I've sailed, I've worked in mines, I've done everything there is. I've worked from the bottom up and I'm sick of people crying poverty. Listening to you, you do good sometimes, but you sure screw up others.

The Chair: I thank you for coming.

Mr Duke: The Liberals and the NDP screwed it up in the first place. That little black book you got there, you sure opened up a can of worms. Now straighten it out for yourselves.

The Chair: I think we'll move on now.

1600

LAKEHEAD SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL

The Chair: The next presenter is Brenda Reimer, the executive director of the Lakehead Social Planning Council. Good afternoon, Ms Reimer. You may proceed.

Ms Brenda Reimer: Good afternoon. The Lakehead Social Planning Council has been active in Thunder Bay for the past 34 years. Our mission is to promote effective, efficient, responsive community services by identifying and researching social issues, providing information and referral services, and bringing people together to provide workable solutions to community concerns. During those 34 years, affordable, accessible and adequate housing has been an ongoing concern.

Since 1988 we've been actively involved with the Thunder Bay Access to Permanent Housing Committee. The goals of this committee are to advocate for more adequate, accessible and affordable housing; to assist individuals with limited resources to locate permanent adequate, accessible and affordable housing; to provide public education on affordable housing issues; and to provide a network for those concerned with housing needs and issues.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this public consultation. My comments will be made in the context of the goals shared by the Lakehead Social Planning Council and the Thunder Bay Access to Permanent Housing Committee. Our premise is that all people, regardless of their income level, require adequate shelter. Our concern is that some of the measures proposed in Bill 96 will actually make it more difficult for low-income tenants to meet their shelter requirements.

One year ago when I made a presentation here, I indicated to you that in Thunder Bay the problem was not one of housing supply but of affordability. The vacancy rate, which for years hovered around zero to 1%, is now in the 5% to 6% range, but the number of households on the waiting list for rent-geared-to-income housing stands at some 1,500, and 84% of these households are in the core-need area. In other words, they have enough points that if the housing were available, they would be housed immediately. This is an increase in the percentage of people on the waiting list who are in that core-need area.

The existing vacancies are all at the high end of the rent scale. In response to this situation over the past year, we have some landlords who have lowered the rent in order to have their units occupied. We have many tenants who are paying as much as 50% to 60% of their monthly income for rent and are consequently doing without food or depending on food banks to get them through the month. We also have a situation where people are living in overcrowded or unsafe conditions because they cannot afford anything better. Despite the high vacancy rate, low-income people continue to be as limited in their choice of housing as they were when the vacancy rate was much lower.

The proposed Tenant Protection Act will only make the affordability situation more difficult because it allows landlords to increase rents whenever a unit becomes vacant and it eliminates the rent registry which a tenant could use to ensure that the rent being charged was a fair rent.

The repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act also adversely affects low-income people because the stock of rental housing is no longer protected. People on low income require permanent affordable housing. Emergency shelters or sleeping on the street are not acceptable solutions. The government has a responsibility to be fair to both landlords and tenants, but it also has the responsibility to ensure there are affordable housing options for all of its citizens.

This brings me to the primary concern we have with Bill 96, and that is section 200. This section will allow landlords to use income information as one of the criteria in tenant selection. In other words, if the rent on a unit is more than 30% or 35% of a prospective tenant's income, the landlord could refuse to rent to that tenant, even if the person has an impeccable credit rating. If this section is passed as it stands, landlords will be legally permitted to discriminate against people on the basis of their income. Is this fair? Where are the human rights in which Canadians take so much pride?

From our work as an access-to-permanent-housing committee, we are already very aware that some groups of people are viewed by landlords as being less desirable tenants. People just released from institutions such as prisons or psychiatric hospitals often experience great difficulty in finding appropriate housing. Women who have left their partner because of domestic violence are often refused housing because the landlord is afraid the abusive spouse will appear and will damage the property. Sometimes this happens, but it is not a reason for refusing to rent to all women in that situation.

It is certainly reasonable for a landlord to be able to check credit ratings and landlord references and to be able to interview prospective tenants before renting to them. However, to be legally able to refuse to rent on the basis of income information is purely discriminatory. I know you have received many submissions which quote studies that show that there is no objective basis for linking defaults on rent to income levels. In fact, many low-income families, including both the working poor and those on social assistance, are very stable and desirable tenants.

A further concern with section 200 centres around those such as young people or newcomers to the country who may not have a credit rating or landlord references. The absence of such information should not be grounds for refusing to rent to them. Nor should income information be used as a criterion, because the majority of both young people starting out on their own and newcomers to Canada are living on a low income. These people deserve the opportunity to prove themselves.

In conclusion then, the Lakehead Social Planning Council and the Thunder Bay Access to Permanent Housing Committee add their voice to the many others you have heard across this province urging you to provide equal opportunity to all citizens to obtain housing on the basis of criteria such as credit rating, landlord references and interviews. Generalizations about people on low income must not become a legal basis for tenant selection.

We urge you to remove the words "income information" from sections 36 and 200 of Bill 96. We also urge that the section be amended to clarify that the absence of criteria such as credit ratings or landlord references not be sufficient basis for rejecting prospective tenants.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Reimer. Our committee has some questions that perhaps you can entertain.

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I would like to comment on the topic that keeps coming up again and again with respect to section 200. I don't know whether it's because the commissioner referred to that section or whether there has been misinformation going on about that section, because most of the people who made comments today referred to that section and indicated that the section would be used to discriminate.

We had people this afternoon indicating that there has been discrimination going on because often people are asked about their income, and just a couple of people before you indicated that often women would not raise this issue with the Human Rights Commission because they just can't afford to. So this is something that exists already.

What this section does exactly counteracts that. If Mr Marchese and other members would refer you to the subsection that goes after section 200, subsection (1) refers to section 21 of the Human Rights Code, and what subsection (3) says "the right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation without discrimination is not infringed if" and only if "a landlord uses in the manner prescribed under this act" the income information. So the landlord is required to use that information in the manner prescribed under the act. Then underneath that, subsection (2) of section 200 says, "Section 48 of the act, as amended...is further amended by adding the following clause: (a.1) prescribing the manner in which income information, credit checks, credit references...may be used by a landlord in selecting prospective tenants without infringing section 2."

So what this act says is that there will be regulation that will not allow the landlord to use that information in a manner that will infringe the Human Rights Code, not what Mr Marchese and other people are interpreting it to be. It's clearly stated in the act that it shall not be used in that manner.

I would like the people in the north to get it very clearly that the act actually prevents what has probably been going on before this bill was put forward.

1610

Ms Reimer: I thank you for that clarification. It still seems to me that criteria such as your credit rating, references from previous landlords and the kind of information that a prospective landlord can glean through an interview should be sufficient basis for deciding whether or not someone is a suitable tenant. I don't know why there has to be any income information asked for beyond that. If the person provides the first and last months' rent as required, what business is it of the landlord what their source of income is?

Mr DeFaria: I agree with you that, for example, 30% of income to be judged as being able to afford an apartment is not a correct way of judging affordability, but I'm saying that already landlords ask people's income. It's a normal thing in assessing the ability of somebody to pay, because if somebody has a high income, there is no problem. You don't even have to check other things. What I'm saying is that what this section does is actually formalize it, and there will be a regulation - the section clearly says that it will prescribe the manner in which it may be used by landlords without infringing section 2 of the Human Rights Code. So it's a protection, not a free card to landlords to discriminate. I think people are forgetting this other subsection that comes after the first one.

Ms Reimer: I think there are a lot of people across the province who have interpreted it differently. That being the case, I think it perhaps behooves this commission to look at the wording again and perhaps rethink it one more time, because people on low income are being blamed for many things that are happening in society today, some of which are not of their making at all. By various circumstances, any one of us could find ourselves suddenly in that low-income bracket and to be suddenly then seen as someone who is automatically going to be a bad tenant, who is automatically going to be out to cheat the system, all of these negative things. That's very unfortunate and very unfair.

Mr DeFaria: I totally agree with that.

The Chair: Mr DeFaria -

Mr DeFaria: If I may just finish my point.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr DeFaria: If 30% of income would be a fair way to judge whether somebody can afford an apartment, when my parents arrived on this continent, they would not have had any place to live, so I agree completely with you and other statements that have been made this morning as far as that aspect of it is concerned.

Mr Gravelle: We have discussed this. It's come up many times this afternoon and it's come up previously in other parts of the public hearing process. Regardless, it seems clear that this section sets into place basically something that will, at the very least, set up a situation where discrimination can take place. That's what seems clear to me. I think it's even been acknowledged by members of the government, "Yes, that might happen," and the response has been, "We will make sure, therefore, that is dealt with."

It seems to me, as I expressed earlier as well, that this is not a government that's actually been in the process of getting more people hired by the province to look after these matters; in fact, there are many less, so I don't have a great deal of confidence it will be handled. Therefore, I think the best thing is to simply eliminate this particular section.

As discussed previously by Ms Reimer and others, there are the credit checks and the rental history and everything else, with some sensitivity being needed.

I support what you are saying and the others have said and recognize that some of the government members here seem to feel this would not be a problem. I think we're trying to make a case that indeed it is and should be repealed.

I just want to ask you, if I may, Ms Reimer - thank you very much. I think it's -

The Chair: Mr Gravelle, we're almost out of time. I don't know whether Mr Marchese is going to pass.

Mr Gravelle: I don't know. Affordable housing: The bottom line is we do not have enough affordable housing; it's one of the realities. Do you view it as a responsibility, ultimately, of our society, of our government system, to care for those people who have a need for basic shelter?

Ms Reimer: Absolutely. At the present time, for people on social assistance, for example, the amount of money that's provided for shelter allowance is not sufficient for them to obtain shelter at the market rate. I'm not for a minute saying that landlords should therefore necessarily be expected to subsidize them. Landlords have a right to make the profit they should expect to make from providing housing; it is a business. But beyond that, housing is also a necessity and there has to be some kind of housing available to people that fits in to the amount of shelter allowance they receive. I think that's a government responsibility.

The Chair: At that note, Ms Reimer, I thank you for coming.

1620

BETTY KENNEDY

The Chair: Our next delegation is Betty Kennedy, who is an alderman with the city of Thunder Bay, and the Thunder Bay Task Force on Poverty. I assume she'll clarify what that is. Welcome, Ms Kennedy.

Ms Betty Kennedy: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'd like to start by identifying the fact that back in 1991 approximately 15,000 people, or 12% to 13% of the population, were living below the poverty line in Thunder Bay. Based on a number of indicators, including the increased use of services such as food banks, the shelters, soup kitchens etc, we believe that there's been a dramatic increase in the number of people living in poverty in Thunder Bay over the last six years. In addition, the level of poverty has deepened and problems faced by people in their day-to-day living have intensified.

Not surprisingly, one of the major concerns for people of low income is the area of housing. We held a number of focus groups and found, in consultation with public housing providers and tenants, that the major problems experienced by low-income tenants were identified as the lack of decent, affordable rental accommodation in the private rental market, longer waiting lists for subsidized housing and a diminishing number of subsidized units. At the present time, there's approximately 1,550 people on the waiting lists for all categories of subsidized housing. As you know, the province is in the process of eliminating 263 provincial units now subsidized under the rental supplement program.

Discrimination in securing rental accommodation because of being in receipt of social assistance or because of family status or marital status: I should just add that I am also the executive director of Beendigen, which is a native women's crisis home in Thunder Bay, and many of our women experience discrimination based on the factors I've identified, in addition to race, in this community.

People living in inadequate housing because of landlords' non-compliance with property maintenance standards and health and safety requirements: A number of people identify that their utilities were being cut off because of their inability to pay both their rent and utilities. They can afford either one or the other but not both. In some situations women were forced to make the decision between paying what they could towards their rent and utilities and in fact feeding their children, and this is real.

The primary focus of my submission to the committee is in responding to what impact Bill 96 will have on people living in poverty. I am extremely concerned about the elimination of rent control, which allows a limited rent increase whenever a unit changes hands. With this change, I believe homelessness will increase. It will create an incentive to evict tenants who are living in affordable housing so that new tenants can be charged higher rents. I'm also concerned that under the new legislation people with low-paying jobs or who are in receipt of social assistance can be denied housing if the landlord perceives that they cannot afford the level of rent in the building. This is giving landlords a licence to discriminate against poor people and will exacerbate the existing problem that poor people have accessing decent housing.

I'm also deeply concerned that the overall effect of Bill 96 will be to weaken procedural rights and safeguards of to tenants, and in particular the well-established right to security of tenure. It's almost ironic that this bill is called the Tenant Protection Act when I believe some of the changes in fact would undermine the rights that they presently have under existing legislation.

Low-income tenants are experiencing increased hardship in finding affordable housing. Many people have been forced to move into smaller accommodation or to double up with another household, resulting in overcrowding. More people have had to rely on shelters and there have been waiting lists for people trying to get into shelters. In addition, there have been numerous reports of women returning to abusive relationships because of their inability to secure affordable housing for themselves and their children.

By repealing the Rent Control Act, Bill 96 enables landlords to charge whatever amount they want whenever the rental unit changes hands. This will inevitably result in higher rents, given the low vacancy rates in the low end of market units. Right now I believe our vacancy rate is about 4%, but that vacancy rate really relates to the higher end of market rent and there's very little in the lower end. In combination with the provisions that make it easier to evict a tenant, it will also create an incentive for landlords to evict tenants who are now living in units with low rents.

It's obvious that the removal of rent control will create further financial hardship for the most vulnerable of tenants. For existing tenants there will continue to be rent increase guidelines established each year by the government. However, Bill 96 allows landlords to apply for an additional increase of 4% or more. Currently the additional increase is 3%. Unlike the Rent Control Act, the new legislation allows for the full cost recovery of property tax and operating cost increases to be recovered from tenants by increasing the rent.

All these changes simply allow landlords to charge more rent. It is my understanding that procedural changes will also allow landlords to collect rent increases before they've even been approved by the tribunal. In contrast, it will be more difficult for tenants to recover illegal rents or charges because of a one-year limitation period, as compared to the current six-year limitation period under the Rent Control Act. Bill 96 also allows a higher illegal rent to become legal if a tenant has not found out by the time one year has passed. Inasmuch as the rent registry will be eliminated, it may be impossible for a tenant to know if the rent was legal or not.

I strongly oppose these provisions because they are so obviously one-sided to benefit landlords to the detriment of tenants. I find it objectionable that a landlord would be able to keep the illegal rent and have it considered legal after one year simply because a tenant did not appeal that. The provision sharply contrasts with the fact that tenants no longer have the right to apply for a rent decrease should the landlord's utility costs go down, for example. The cumulative effect of all these provisions is to give landlords all the power and to seriously undermine tenants' protections against landlords who would abuse it. They will obviously also seriously erode the availability of affordable housing for the most vulnerable in our community.

One of the side-effects of the province's decrease in assistance rates has been increased difficulty for tenants in paying their rent, resulting, as I mentioned, in increased tension between landlords and tenants and a growing reluctance by landlords to rent to people who are on social assistance. Under the current human rights legislation it is illegal to discriminate against an individual in housing because they are on social assistance.

Section 200 of Bill 96 will amend the Human Rights Code to enable landlords to use income information in selecting prospective tenants. Regardless of whether the tenant has a good credit rating and rental history, it will now be legal to deny housing simply because a person has a low income or is in receipt of social assistance. This provision will also have a devastating effect on the most vulnerable: those on assistance, single mothers, young people and those who rely on disability benefits. Section 200 essentially condones the most widespread and destructive form of discrimination in Ontario against recipients of public assistance. It serves to legitimize a growing hostility towards poor people in this province and in this community.

It is my concern that this provision will have the effect of further restricting the ability of low-income tenants to secure affordable housing. It will force many individuals into accepting less adequate housing and others into more costly accommodation. More young people will be forced on to the streets and more people will be relying on shelters, which are already full, and more children will be forced into the care of children's aid societies.

Not only would legalizing discrimination have a devastating effect on the most disadvantaged tenants; it will result in long-term social problems and eventually increased government spending. I therefore strongly urge the committee to amend section 200 to strike out income information as a permissible criteria for selecting tenants. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have an opportunity for a quick question from each caucus.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much, Alderman Kennedy. You again have reinforced, certainly on behalf of the city task force on poverty too, some of the real concerns about affordable housing and the fact that a lot of the parts of this legislation are going to simply make it more difficult for people to afford housing.

Could I ask you a question that's related to the downloading of public housing in terms of municipalities? I appreciate it's not related to Bill 96, but I'm interested in terms of asking municipalities to take over the responsibilities for social housing, what impact that might potentially have obviously on the housing situation in our community.

1630

Ms Kennedy: At this point, without the detailed information that we're waiting to hear from the provincial government, we estimate that the overall impact of that will result in a $15-million cost to the municipality. You can be sure that over time the municipality obviously will be struggling to cope with that significant downloading and ultimately will result in less and less affordable accommodation being available to people in our community.

Mr Marchese: I guess there's really only time for one question.

The Chair: One very brief question, yes.

Mr Marchese: I'll leave section 200 for comment from another lawyer who's coming at 5 o'clock.

Ms Kennedy: Right.

Mr Marchese: Just to talk briefly, the government says the system is broken, that's why they're trying to fix it. Landlords coming in front of this committee in the past and now are saying it's just tilted too much to tenants' rights. This government, listening to that, said, "We need a balanced approach." So Bill 96, in their view, is striking that balance. What do you think of that opinion?

Ms Kennedy: I've already indicated I feel it's gone too far the other way. I don't see this as a balance. It's titled Tenant Protection Act and the way I perceive this is it's eliminating any protection tenants had and really undermines anything they could possibly foresee in the future.

Mr Gilchrist: I have a question, but a quick comment: It's quite unbecoming to perpetuate the myth and to state it in such terms as you did. This section 200 does not condone discrimination. Particularly, it does not change the existing clause in the Human Rights Code that says you cannot discriminate on the source of income. To suggest that it does is patently untrue. I would be more than happy to go over the details. We don't have time here now. If you're at all unclear about the other section, this does not change anything in the Human Rights Code. It clarifies an existing right.

I'd like to ask you a very quick question, though. We heard earlier today - and as an alderman you're in a position to do something about this. I would invite your comment as to why Thunder Bay, as all other communities in Ontario, charges a disproportionately high property tax to apartment dwellers and why, given the problem with finding affordable housing is obviously impacted by the fact of that unfairness, you as a council would not have remedied that and gone to a system that charged the same taxation for signal family homes and for apartments.

Ms Kennedy: As you've already indicated earlier today, you've just given us the tools to do that. We're still waiting for the detailed information to analyse exactly what's coming down in terms of how it's going to affect the municipality. You, as a government, have had years and years of having the assessment under your responsibility, and I would ask why you didn't use the opportunity to do that yourself.

Mr Gilchrist: This is the first bill that's come forward. Don't skirt the issue. We're not talking the total pop. We're talking about how you distribute between apartments and houses and you didn't answer the question.

Ms Kennedy: You can be sure that in the next year, now that we do have the tools, we will be analysing that to determine how best to deal with that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Kennedy, for your presentation.

DRYDEN AREA MOBILE HOME ASSOCIATION

The Chair: The next presentation: I have two names from the Dryden Area Mobile Home Association, Lauretta Wesley and Doug Mills.

Ms Lauretta Wesley: I'm very glad to be here. Thank you for giving us a spot to speak. I will leave out some of the things on this leaflet. You can read them yourselves to give Doug time to speak.

I've been hearing the word "discrimination" today. Would you consider a landlord protection act? The other thing on discrimination is, government and municipalities can download garbage pickup and water testing on us. We cannot pass this on to our tenants. Is that discrimination?

The town started dumping their garbage in our trailers at night and we had to hire a garbage collector. It cost us $20 a month for gas when we picked up our own, and due to the town downloading all their garbage on us, we had to hire a collector who went door to door and picked it up. It has now gone up to $192 a month. Our last increase was $92 this year. You're increasing it 2% above the guidelines, I believe, this year, and that comes to $84 in a year. It hardly touches our $92-a-month increase. As a matter of fact, our garbage pickup uses your whole 2.8% increase from 1997.

The MOE lab closed in Thunder Bay and our test went from zero dollars to $10,000 a year, and that's a quote from the Manitoba lab.

The next one you can read at will.

For those of you who don't know, there are nine mobile home courts in the Dryden area, within 30 miles, on drilled wells, their own sewer system, who have to supply snowplowing, grading, gravelling roads, garbage pickup, hydro and phone lines, water and sewer and have septic tanks pumped and cleaned yearly. We are billed for everyone's taxes, which we have to pay and then collect from the tenant. We are not reimbursed for collecting. If it's not collected, it's our loss.

Mr Doug Mills: Good day. As owners of the mobile home parks in Dryden, this act clearly defines that if we don't look after our obligations on our end, they wish to impose fines on us, which we are perfectly willing to accept. What we don't like is that if the tenants don't live up to their obligations, nothing is done. We would like to see something put in place. As an example, the tenants are continually late paying their rent. You continually have to chase them. Without authorization, they'll go and build sheds on the property that they're using for their mobile home. It's a constant battle. They'll let their dogs run loose. They'll have old cars that they don't want to get rid of parked in their yard.

We have no rights as landlords to enforce anything, any of these obligations that you point out in the act. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act it says that they have to obey certain rules living here. They don't have to obey anything. They do exactly what they like and we have no authority, unless we want to hire a lawyer and go after them through the court system, which is almost impossible. There's not a judge in the land who's going to impose any fines or anything on these people. We would certainly appreciate and like some help in this area.

As for the 2.8% increase we're allowed to pass on to our tenants, as an example, we all have to haul our garbage to the municipal dump, which is controlled by the town of Dryden. The 2.8% increase that we got last year didn't even cover the cost of our garbage pickup because it more than doubled. This basically is a joke.

The municipal governments have been getting infrastructure subsidies from the provincial government for many, many years. They have repaved their streets, improved their sewer and water for the taxpayers. We owners of the mobile home parks have to do all this on our own, and get these meaningless little increases to actually keep our parks running, so we are getting further and further behind as our costs escalate. Even the imposition of a 7% GST on everything we do - if we buy a load of gravel, there's 7% GST. Everything we do, we're taxed on, and it's really hard to keep up.

I was very impressed with the Dukes' summary of what is going on. They covered just about all our concerns. Thank you for listening. Hopefully, something can come of this. We provide affordable housing for these people and would like to continue doing so, but how long this is going to carry on, we have no idea.

The Chair: I believe members of the committee may have some questions.

1640

Mr Marchese: It's nice to see you both again. Obviously, questions you raised keep on coming up. The Dukes raised similar questions over and over again.

We have been hearing from some people where they suggest that perhaps mobile home parks and land-lease communities should be dealt with in a different way, perhaps not under this act. The more I hear about it, the more I seem to be convinced that one needs to take a better look at how one deals with mobile parks and land-lease communities, because I'm not sure we have done a good job of it. I don't really know what kinds of questions to ask. You've raised a whole lot of questions, the Dukes have raised many more. The government members may have some suggestions about how to deal with it. I really don't know what to ask you.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you both. It's unfortunate the Dukes talked right through the 20 minutes, because I did want to respond to some of the comments they had made. You've afforded me an opportunity now to piggyback, because you've raised many of the same concerns.

I'd like to give you some good news right off the top on your point 1. First off, the act allows for extraordinary above-guideline pass-through of costs for anything ordered by the municipality, or by the province for that matter. For example, for your increase in garbage collection you will be allowed to simply flow that through to the tenants. Also, I can't confirm this as an absolute, but we're sympathetic to the water testing issue as well and we're going to be making a recommendation to cabinet that they add that service as another one to be flowed through.

Both of you have raised the issue of tenants who could be a problem. We are also sympathetic to that, and it has come from a variety of sources. I don't think we've heard from a single tenant group that didn't agree that it's possible to have a bad tenant, just as it's possible to have a bad landlord. It was raised, particularly in the Toronto hearings, that this bill only singles out harassment by one party. We will be addressing that so it fairly represents the fact that you could have a problem on either end of the scale and it's not appropriate to single out one or the other.

The final comment I would make is that you talk about things such as chronic late payments. That is also grounds for eviction, as it should be, if someone is continuing to not live up to their tenancy agreement. That would be something you can currently pursue. As a general rule, the items you've stated in here that are ordered by the municipality will be able to be passed on to the tenants, obviously divided by the number of units you would have there.

The other thing is recognizing that on the flip side, for those people who are your clients, we don't want to eliminate their ability to resell their units. That's not in your interests, because then they'd just become empty. But recognizing that there are some chronically depressed when those units are sold, the minister has stated publicly that he's anticipating an amount no greater than - but it could very well be exactly - $50 by which you could raise the rents when one tenant sells or when one mobile home owner sells to someone else in chronically depressed areas. There would be an opportunity to have that balance.

Meanwhile, the 2.8% this year applies to your clients, no different than other rental units, save and except that you can pass through all these other extraordinary municipal increases.

Mr Mills: Can I say something here?

The Chair: You sure can.

Mr Mills: You say we can go after them for the rent. How do you propose we do that?

Mr Gilchrist: You could go to the tribunal with an eviction.

Mr Mills: This tribunal will be set up where?

Mr Gilchrist: All the landlord-tenant issues that are currently done in court will now be set up in a separate entity. I anticipate we'll have regional offices across the province. That sort of detail has not been fleshed out as yet. But certainly there will be no less service, and probably greater service. What there will be is a singular focus. All that people who will be working in that tribunal will do will be landlord and tenant issues. They will therefore have the ability to become far more proficient and make sure there are faster time frames.

Mr Mills: So what you're saying is they are definitely going to be the enforcers on both sides, for the tenant and for the landlord.

Mr Gilchrist: The mediators, hopefully -

Mr Mills: As mediators, are they going to enforce?

Mr Gilchrist: At the end of the day, they will have the power that the courts have right now to seek enforcement via the sheriff. But hopefully, mandatory mediation will be part of the process and we certainly believe that having the landlord and the tenant sit down to discuss the issues is a good first step, and cheaper for both parties as well. But at the end of the day, if there's no resolution or if the tribunal finds there has been a wrong either from the landlord or from the tenant, they will certainly have all the powers and remedies they need to enforce their rulings.

Ms Wesley: I have a letter from the rent review board that says I cannot pass on the garbage pickup and the water testing to the tenant.

Mr Gilchrist: Under the current law you can't. Under the bill we're proposing to amend, you cannot do that. Once this bill has received royal assent, then you will be able to. Not just that, but if the municipality asked you to improve the roads, for example, or any municipal work order that comes down - again, no tenant is going to deny that that's appropriate. It's their garbage that's being thrown out. If you reside there as well, your cost would be one whatever of the total number of units. I'm not suggesting that everyone doesn't pay their fair share. But from the point the bill is passed, you would have that right.

Ms Wesley: We have 25 tenants and us. The garbage company told us they're picking up over 112 bags a week. Somebody is putting out a lot.

Mr Gilchrist: I think your clients have a built-in incentive to be a little vigilant and report anyone they see illegally dumping.

Mr Mills: What this has created is another problem, where friends come and drop their garbage off from town, because there they have to pay. Right now, it is far more appropriate to rent in a mobile home park, where you're not getting passed on these user fees.

Mr Gilchrist: Your 26 units will work out to about another $4 a month. Maybe that will make them think twice about inviting their friends to do that.

The Chair: Maybe you should talk to Alderman Kennedy.

Thank you very much for coming.

1650

KINNA-AWEYA LEGAL CLINIC

The Chair: The next delegation is Mary Veltri.

Ms Mary Veltri: Good afternoon. I'm sorry, I was out in the hall.

The Chair: It's all right. You're right on schedule. Please proceed.

Ms Veltri: My name is Mary Veltri. I have copies of my submission, if someone would like to take them.

I'm one of the staff lawyers at Kinna-Aweya Legal Clinic. Our legal clinic serves the district of Thunder Bay. We have three branch offices and we've been in operation for 20 years.

One of the major areas of law in which we practise is residential tenancy law. It's probably the second-highest case type in our office. Through our work with low-income tenants, we have developed a fair amount of expertise around the Landlord and Tenant Act and other related legislation.

We have over the past few years become aware of a growing problem that tenants have in this community, and that is that they can't afford decent housing. Since the social assistance cuts in the fall of 1995, what we've seen in our office are growing numbers of people who can't afford the rent, are being evicted because they can't afford the rent, can't afford utility bills, have no heat in winter, don't have facilities to cook, don't have phones. What we have observed in a short period of time is a real worsening and deepening of the problems that poor people face in our community.

When we speak to this Tenant Protection Act, we speak from the perspective of low-income people and what the impact will be on their needs for housing and the protection of their security of tenure. We are concerned that this legislation in its totality does not benefit tenants, despite the title Tenant Protection Act. We feel that this legislation primarily enables landlords to increase their rents and to be able to evict tenants with greater ease.

As someone who has practised in this area for 10 years, I guess the Landlord and Tenant Act was always one of my favourite pieces of legislation, so I also feel a bit of sadness that this act is being tossed out.

In our province and in our country, we have developed the principle of security of tenure. What that represents is a recognition that people have a right to housing and that they cannot be evicted as renters unless procedural steps are followed very closely and unless there are proper grounds to terminate the tenancy. The law, as it has been interpreted and developed over the years by the courts, has come to recognize this as a very fundamental principle. That's because we recognize as a society that people need a roof over their heads, and before we can turf them out, we need to make sure that all the safeguards have been met.

I don't intend to deal with the whole legislation point by point. There are a number of areas in the law as it has been drafted that clearly show that the intent is to preserve and to enhance the rights of landlords, who in many ways are already in an advantageous position because they have more money than tenants, and to do so at the expense of tenants.

The very first thing I want to comment on is the rent control provisions. In principle, it's fine to combine all the pieces of legislation under one head in the Tenant Protection Act. I think in theory that's fine and it's not in any way offensive, but what the legislation does is effectively remove rent control. We do not see how allowing the landlord to increase rent without any limitation is going to increase the housing stock in this community. What we inevitably foresee is that landlords will have an increased incentive to evict tenants and that in fact the current stock of housing will diminish.

The most vulnerable tenants, of course, are people who live on a fixed income: social assistance recipients, people who live on old age security, students, new immigrants, people with disabilities. They are the people who are least able to withstand the vagaries of the market. So when you deregulate rent control, then what you have is a situation where the supply and demand is what's going to determine the rent.

In Thunder Bay we have a situation each September where the number of people looking for rental units increases. We have Confederation College students and Lakehead University students who come into our community, and all of a sudden it becomes very, very difficult to find rental accommodation. Of course the market forces would determine the rent and it would be very easy and, I guess, appropriate in these situations for landlords to increase the rent. What will that do to people who also need housing? They're not going to be able to afford it.

We are concerned that many more people will be rendered homeless by the removal of rent control. The limited rent control which comes into place is weaker from the perspective of tenants than what exists currently. Landlords are now going to be able to charge an increase of 4% rather than 3% in addition to the annual guideline the government is going to set. It will also allow landlords to pass on the full cost of property taxes and operating cost increases to tenants on top of the 4% increase.

At the same time that the landlords' ability to increase rent revenue has been enhanced, what we've seen is that tenants' rights have been substantially weakened. For example, a tenant will not have the right to apply for a rent decrease where a landlord's utility costs go down. A tenant will only have one year to apply for a rent reduction because of a withdrawal of services or facilities, as compared to the landlord's ability to get a rent increase which has a six-year limitation period. We see this imbalance throughout the Tenant Protection Act. It's so blatantly unfair: A landlord has six years to try to get increased rent and a tenant only has one year.

In addition, another provision we think is blatantly unfair is one that says illegal rent increases will be deemed legal after a year. The current Rent Control Act imposed no time limit for establishing lawful rents and it placed a six-year time limit to recover illegal rents and charges. There's absolutely no justification for allowing landlords to have illegal rents deemed legal after one year. This provision encourages illegal conduct by landlords and unsuspecting tenants will be taken advantage of. We think this particular section is extremely offensive and should not be allowed to continue.

The big area our office is involved with has to do with when tenants are being evicted. Security of tenure and termination of tenancies is an area in the Tenant Protection Act which in some ways is similar to the Landlord and Tenant Act, but again the changes it makes are generally there to weaken the rights of tenants. We feel the changes will make it easier for landlords to evict tenants and their right to adequate notice has also been seriously diminished under the act.

The Landlord and Tenant Act sets out a prescribed form that landlords use when they evict tenants. These standard forms are widely available and most landlords use these forms. What was required in the form was not only the grounds for evicting the tenant, but also the particulars; that is, the details of the facts for the reason the landlord was evicting.

The notice also had to include a warning to a tenant telling the tenant that they had a right to remain in the premises if they disputed the notice. As a lawyer who has practised in that area, that warning was of extreme importance. A lot of tenants, when they read that realize, "Oh, I do have a right; there is a law that protects me." Particularly young people who are entering the rental market for the first time, aren't informed of their rights generally. But when they see it on a piece of paper, they know, "Okay, I can challenge this, I can go to court or I can have someone hear my side of the story." I think that's a very important piece of information to include on the notice.

The Tenant Protection Act doesn't provide for prescribed forms and rather states that the notice must be in a form approved by the tribunal. This is ambiguous. We don't know, does this mean the tribunal can approve it after the fact? In which case, we will have all kinds of notices that might be considered legal.

1700

In addition, the Tenant Protection Act doesn't require the landlord to give particulars. This sort of flies in the face of a very basic principle of natural justice, which is that a person has a right to know the case they have to meet. If the landlord is saying, "You are making noise," it's good to know what exactly the offensive noise is. Why is this disturbing other tenants? Was there a party on such and such a time? What is the case the tenant has to meet. These kinds of particulars, usually just two or three lines that the landlord would include in the notice, would be sufficient for a tenant to know what exactly the accusation is, what the allegation is.

Another issue relating to procedural fairness is a provision of the Tenant Protection Act that says the tribunal can amend the application at any time. Again this goes against something very basic and fundamental, which is that you shouldn't be ambushed at trial. You should know well before you go to a hearing what exactly the allegations are. We think this is not going to be helpful for tenants.

Another provision that is very dangerous and is open to abuse is the provision that says unwritten agreements to terminate a tenancy can be enforced by the landlord applying to the tribunal and simply giving an affidavit to the tribunal saying that there has been an agreement to terminate. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act it's certainly possible to have an agreement to terminate the tenancy. It should be signed by both parties and it should be in writing and then the landlord can go to the court, apply for a termination order and get possession. However, it has to be in writing and it has to be signed by both the parties. That's very clear, demonstrable evidence that there is an agreement.

Under the Tenant Protection Act, the landlord doesn't even have to give notice to the tenant that they're going to go and get this order evicting the tenant. So they go to the tribunal and they say, "Yes, we don't have an agreement in writing, but yes, we definitely have an agreement," and the tenant doesn't even know this has happened. This flies in the face of basic principles of justice, fairness, due process. This is offensive. We should not have an act that purports to protect tenants' rights when tenants are not even going to be given an opportunity to dispute an allegation that there's been an agreement to terminate the tenancy.

This problem is worsened by the fact that if a landlord gets a default order or an order without having to give notice to the tenant, the landlord doesn't even have to serve that order on the tenant. I don't know if this is an omission, an oversight or a blatant example of how we are trying to make it easier for landlords to evict and have absolutely no regard for the tenant's rights. Under the current legislation, if there's been a default order, a tenant has seven days after being served with an order to apply to the court to set aside a default judgement. So they will have an opportunity, if they have a dispute, to try to appear before the court.

Service of court or tribunal orders that affect something as fundamental as housing should be clearly stated in the legislation. There should be a requirement that these orders are served.

With respect to privacy, a very central concept of a tenant's rights to security of tenure, we see that there has been a diminishing of the rights of tenants. The Landlord and Tenant Act narrowly prescribed when a landlord had the right of entry and had to provide notice. The Tenant Protection Act has expanded that right of entry and has included now the right to enter to show premises to prospective purchasers, mortgagees and insurers, and to carry out repairs.

In addition, the landlord has the right to enter for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective tenants after the landlord has given notice to the tenant. Currently, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, if the tenant has given notice to the landlord that they're going to leave, then the landlord can show the place to other tenants. If the landlord has served notice, what if the tenant is disputing the notice? What if the notice is a sham?

By doing this, first of all, it's enabling the landlord to harass a tenant who is exercising their legal right to remain in the premises even though they've received a notice, and it misleads prospective new tenants. We just see this as a method for landlords to put pressure on tenants to leave when they're enforcing their legal right to remain.

With respect to changing the locks, the one provision in the Tenant Protection Act which erodes a tenant's rights is that a tenant cannot change the locks unilaterally without the consent of the landlord, although the landlord can unilaterally change a lock without the consent of a tenant. We see a lack of respect for reciprocal rights. Certainly, the tenant's right to have security, both psychological and physical security, is very important. That's one of the most basic things we get when we rent an apartment: We want to be able to keep the door locked and keep intruders out.

There are many circumstances where tenants fear for their physical safety. A very well-known example is a situation where women are leaving an abusive relationship and are being stalked by their former spouse. In a situation like that, if a landlord is refusing to change the locks, is it proper for the tenant not to change the locks? We would think that as long as the tenant gives a copy of the key to the landlord, they should be allowed to change the locks where the landlord has unreasonably withheld consent.

The Chair: Ms Veltri, I don't know where you are in your presentation, but I regret to tell you that you have about two minutes left.

Ms Veltri: I will leave the rest for you to read. I've addressed some similar provisions that I think others have addressed, including the Human Rights Code amendment. I would ask that you consider the rest of my submission and I would gladly entertain any questions that you have at this stage.

The Chair: We can't give questions to all caucuses, that's the problem. We've got two minutes left. I'm going to ask Mr Gilchrist if he has any questions.

Mr Gilchrist: No, I'll pass.

The Chair: Fine. Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: You covered a lot of areas that I think are very important. I'm hoping some of these changes will be made by the government, some that I think are very reasonable. The one I wanted to pursue, of course, was the human rights one because Mr DeFaria has commented on this, and they all have different opinions than you and I and many others in this regard.

Section 200 simply says: "The right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation without discrimination is not infringed if a landlord uses in the manner prescribed under this act income information, credit checks, credit references...or other similar business practices which are prescribed in the regulations made under this act."

Subsection (2) I'm not sure helps any.

Ms Veltri: It simply deals with the regulatory power to further define how a landlord may use that information. It doesn't in any way change the basic intent of that legislation.

Mr Marchese: That's my sense. But they say: "No, it simply enshrines something they do now, at the moment. A lot of landlords do it and we're putting it in and that section does not discriminate. It will not discriminate." Or they say, "Landlords would not be allowed to discriminate and this section simply says that." I don't know if you've had an opportunity to see it. I just don't see how this section makes it clear that landlords will not be able to discriminate. I'm not sure.

Ms Veltri: In terms of the comment that this is a widespread practice right now, it's true. It's the number one complaint that is made to the Human Rights Commission currently. You know the Human Rights Code deals with all kinds of discrimination: in housing, in contract, in service provision.The number one complaint the commission receives is from social assistance recipients who try to get housing who are told, "Sorry, we don't rent to welfare recipients."

It is currently against the law and people who go to the Human Rights Commission can get immediate redress for this offensive behaviour. We are living in a time when it has become fashionable to pick on poor people and to victimize poor people.

1710

This particular section of the act simply says: "We are going to condone this. We think it's all right that landlords don't rent to social assistance recipients because they're poor." I think that is very clear. When you open the door to gathering information about a person's income source, what you're saying is that we can legitimately ask this question, and if that's the reason, if the person's income is too low, then we can justifiably not rent the unit. The impact of this will clearly be to discriminate against social assistance recipients. Otherwise, why do we need to make the exception? That's what this section is all about. Even though the Human Rights Code says it's not proper to discriminate against social assistance recipients, the exception is that landlords can now ask about income information.

The Chair: Ms Veltri, we've gone beyond our time. If the committee members consent, Mr DeFaria has a question. Agreed? Mr DeFaria.

Mr DeFaria: I would like you to read subsection 200(2) and tell me how you can say that section 200 allows discrimination when subsection (2) says that you can't.

Ms Veltri: Subsection (2) of section 200: Is that what you're referring to?

Mr DeFaria: Right. Can you read it?

Ms Veltri: What it refers to is section 48 of the act, but what is meant is of the Human Rights Code. Section 48 of the Human Rights Code, as I understand it, is a regulation-making power. Under the Human Rights Code, it says the Lieutenant Governor can make regulations to do certain things in relation to the Human Rights Code. Usually by regulation we elaborate on powers, we clearly define what exactly is meant by certain sections. This is saying that in addition to all the other regulatory powers under the Human Rights Code, now under that code there will be the regulatory power to prescribe the manner in which income information etc may be used.

Mr DeFaria: It says without infringing section 2 of the code.

Ms Veltri: That's right. They're deeming it not to be an infringement.

Mr DeFaria: No, that's not what it says.

Mr Preston: Where does it say that? That's what I want to know.

Ms Veltri: Pardon me?

Mr Preston: Tell me where it says that.

The Chair: Mr Preston.

Ms Veltri: It's a parallel section to the section above it. It says "is not infringed." Subsection 200(1) says that we're going to be able to do that and it's not going to be considered to be an infringement.

Mr DeFaria: "If." Then it goes to subsection (2). I'm talking about subsection (2).

Ms Veltri: Yes, but subsection (2) must be read in light of subsection (1). We're already saying that the gathering of income information is not going to be held to be discrimination against social assistance recipients.

Mr DeFaria: If it's used in the manner prescribed by the code.

Ms Veltri: Right.

Mr DeFaria: That regulation is to indicate how that information is going to be used without infringing on section 2 of the Human Rights Code. This is the protection that you are asking for to prevent all the abuses and all the appeals that have been made up to now.

Ms Veltri: I strongly disagree. I just consulted with a human rights lawyer, an expert who has written one of the definitive texts on the subject.

Mr DeFaria: I was involved with Parkdale Community Legal Services when it was opened about 22 years ago, which is probably a parent to your clinic that was opened a few years later. I dealt with the Landlord and Tenant Act and I'm telling you that this subsection clearly sets out what kind of use the landlord is going to be able to make of that information in a manner that will indicate that it cannot infringe on the Human Rights Code.

Ms Veltri: The subsection preceding that amends section 2 of the Human Rights Code. I think that's the most important section, because it delineates or it narrows what the interpretation of discrimination would be under that grounds.

Mr DeFaria: That section only amends the Human Rights Code to allow the landlord to ask information about income.

Ms Veltri: Yes.

Mr DeFaria: Isn't that all it does?

Interjection.

The Chair: If the committee agrees, Rosario.

Mr DeFaria: Isn't it true that all it does is allow the landlord to ask information about income?

Ms Veltri: Yes, that's right.

Mr DeFaria: That's all it does. It doesn't say you can discriminate.

Ms Veltri: My submission and those that have been made in greater detail by other organizations - CERA and I gather Michael Ornstein have made a submission. The argument, I think, has been well made by others.

The Chair: I love it when lawyers fight. Somewhere, Mr Marchese, we have to -

Mr Gilchrist: That's why every court has two of them.

The Chair: We're going to go on forever here. It's an issue, Ms Veltri, that obviously the committee is going to deal with in the future. Mr Marchese, I see your hand. You had your chance.

Mr Marchese: No, I have a question of the parliamentary assistant, now or after. It'll only take a second.

The Chair: All right. I'm timing you.

Mr Marchese: Given this debate, I really believe we need an opinion from the lawyer of the ministry to confirm much of what your members are saying in this regard. There is a difference of opinion. We hold that strongly. Many who have come to depute feel the same way as I do, that this will lead to discrimination. I'd like a written comment from the ministry lawyer convincing me in one way or another that Mr DeFaria is correct.

The Chair: That's a fair request.

Mr Gilchrist: I will take that request back. I'm sure we can get an answer before the end of the week from legal staff.

The Chair: Ms Veltri, you obviously got the committee going. Thank you for coming.

NOLA HILL

The Chair: There's an amendment to the agenda, the addition of Nola Hill, who is going to speak to us.

Ms Nola Hill: Thank you very much for this opportunity to tell you what I think about what's been going on as a new trailer park owner. I also own seven apartments, a restaurant and campgrounds.

We're presently trying to make a go of it. We had to take over due to my mother's illness, so there was no collateral that normal business owners walk in with. The bank does not just hand you the money and say, "Here you go; you're ready for it." With my mother being sick, we took it over with the meagre funds that we did have, and they're holding the mortgage and they don't want it back.

When I first took over, I had this older trailer park and I have been trying to get rid of the mobile homes in it and phase it out. I was told by the government that I was not allowed to do this. Some of the trailers are owned by us and they're very old, so I haven't wanted to rent them out due to their deterioration. All we've been doing is replacing water lines and everything else.

But what do I do with them? If I sell them, Ontario Hydro won't hook them back up because the wiring isn't suitable. There is no governing that we've been able to find as to how we get rid of these mobiles. We don't see a reason why, if they're moved to another lot, they couldn't be rehooked up if the wiring is suitable. If they're working fine and not blowing circuits all over the place, at least give us the leeway of being able to upgrade our parks if we so wish. But we're told we can't expand, we can't get rid of the trailer park completely, and we're unable to put in cabins to change it to something else. I'm stuck. I could have cabins year-round for my tourism business, but I'm not allowed to do that because I have to keep these trailers; I'm not allowed to give any notices.

1720

To move on, concerning welfare recipients, I've had quite a few at my park due to the apartments, the trailers and so on. I have no problem with this. I have been paid direct by the welfare office for the rent. I haven't had any problems whatsoever. I've never turned one away. As long as they sign a form and welfare says, "Yes, we'll send the money directly to you," there hasn't been a problem. I've been hearing people talk all day today concerning welfare recipients being turned away. I think this would get rid of a lot of unnecessary cases.

We had a family in our park where the mother said that she was renting an apartment off of us, the son said he was renting an apartment off of us, and his girlfriend turned around and said that she was renting a trailer off of us. All three of these people were getting welfare cheques, separate welfare cheques, for living in these apartments and they were all living in the same trailer. This was unknown to me at the time until the welfare office contacted me, and when it was reported, they did nothing about this. That's where I think if it's "pay direct" it will get rid of a lot of these problems. For the tenant, the tenant doesn't have to worry about finding the money to pay the rent; it's already paid for them. For the landlord, they don't have to worry about the tenant walking out in the middle of the night if the rent is already paid for them. It might be an issue to look into.

Another thing I would really like to stress is that I've talked to very many government people and a lot of them have said government funding is out there for tourism parks like mine, but I haven't been able to find any. I've left my name and my address at the bottom if there is any help. Even a person's name that I could contact would be greatly appreciated.

I'm ready for questions.

The Chair: Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: I'll give my time to Mr Gilchrist because he's got a lot to say.

Mr Gilchrist: I appreciate your coming before us, Ms Hill. I believe you were here when I responded to some of your concerns perhaps via the comments we made to the earlier presentation. In no particular order, you've asked a couple of other questions in your presentation here.

If you can be charged for being in disrepair when a tenant complains, is the reverse true? Yes. You have every right to set standards. In fact, the bill clarifies it in subsection 102(2): "A landlord may set reasonable standards for mobile home equipment." So the presentation of the home and its surrounding site is certainly something you have the right to set a reasonable standard for, and once that standard is set and is entered into as part of the tenancy agreement, it will be enforced no differently than will your obligations to the tenant.

Welfare recipients: You may or may not be aware that we have now moved to direct payment to landlords where they request. That regulation has just been brought forward by Community and Social Services, so I may be in advance of myself in saying that the process exists today, but it will, if not today then very, very shortly. So certainly send an inquiry to your local welfare office and they will be more than happy to accommodate that request, precisely for that reason.

Throughout these hearings we've heard people suggest that landlords have a bias against welfare recipients. The facts are just the opposite. At the annual meeting of the Multiple Dwelling Standards Association, which is the association of small landlords, people with units of eight to 12 apartments in a building, those people en masse, in a presentation I made there just about a month ago, agreed that simply moving to direct deposit would not only take away most of the concern they would have, but would actually elevate people on government assistance to being one of the best credit risks they could possibly have. They may get a bit less, but at least they're guaranteed 100% payment.

So this continued mythology that there's poor-bashing, it's just the opposite. There are 150,000 people in this province who are currently paying over 50% of their income towards rent. Obviously that means the landlords of 150,000 units have been accommodating under today's rules, and they don't change. So your comments here are very appropriate.

As for the government funding, I'm not aware of anything directly, but we'll certainly be pleased to go back and see if there's anything vis-à-vis - you also note conversions there. There may be something in the tourism sector, and of course through the northern heritage fund there may be a tourism aspect up here that we could look at. I hope that addresses your questions and I appreciate your making your making your presentation.

Ms Hill: One more question about the welfare recipients, seeing as how we touched on that: What about damages? I have a family that was on welfare. They completely totalled my apartment and the welfare office told me, "Sorry, can't do nothing to help you." They're not held responsible for any damages. I said, "If I was to rent an apartment off of you and I wrecked it, I'd be held responsible." Yet I pay through my taxes to have this welfare family have a home, and then I have to pay to fix up my apartment after they've wrecked it. I said, "Where's the justice?"

Mr Gilchrist: There is a remedy available to all us, and not just for somebody that's on welfare. That's the Small Claims Court.

Ms Hill: She told me I couldn't take them because they had nothing. They had nothing at all.

Mr Gilchrist: They have their ongoing payments, and that's another proposal we've made, to be able to allow court orders to be garnisheed from future payments.

Ms Hill: That's good.

Mr Gilchrist: Clearly, personal responsibility is something that extends to all of us. It's not something that can be shirked just because your circumstances are somewhat disadvantaged right now, and no one should have the ability to do damage to someone else's property. I've never heard anyone, even the most vocal defenders of social assistance, suggest that was something that should be part and parcel of the social package, the ability to destroy someone else's property. So we've recognized that and we think it's only appropriate that if it takes a Small Claims Court action, clearly that person has to be accountable.

The Chair: Mr Gravelle, you have the last word.

Mr Gravelle: Ms Hill, I apologize for not being here for the earlier presentation made. I wanted to ask you, have you had an opportunity to talk to your provincial member, Frank Miclash? Have you approached him with some of your concerns?

Ms Hill: Yes. I called his office about a year ago and they told me everything was put on hold.

Mr Gravelle: If I may, if it's all right with you, I'll make sure that Mr Miclash gets a copy of your presentation.

Ms Hill: I'd appreciate that.

Mr Gravelle: I will certainly suggest their staff may want to call you, because obviously you've got a lot of areas of concern. Certainly in terms of what the government has done, there has been a considerable amount of downloading, as you know from your own experience. The closing of the MOEE lab in Thunder Bay is one that we continue to be sort of shocked by in terms of the added cost to everyone, let alone the actual incredible added cost to privatize when indeed the government tends to want to give the impression it will be less expensive to do it. Obviously that's another effect you've had, but I'll make sure Mr Miclash contacts you so you can have an opportunity to talk to him about this as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Hill.

That concludes the presentations today in Thunder Bay. The committee will be continuing with its public hearings in Sudbury at the Ambassador Motor Hotel tomorrow at 10 am. We are staying in Thunder Bay tonight. The plane leaves at 6:45. Checkout, we should be on our way by 5:45. The bus leaves at 5 to 6. Have a good night. The meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1729.