TENANT PROTECTION ACT, 1996 LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES
HAMILTON AND DISTRICT APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
BETHLEHEM HOUSING PROJECTS OF NIAGARA
STONEY CREEK LANDLORDS' ASSOCIATION
ADOLESCENT
COMMUNITYCARE PROGRAM
WESLEY URBAN MINISTRIES
HAMILTON URBAN CORE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE
SECOND LEVEL LODGING
HOMES
TENANTS' COMMITTEE HAMILTON
AND AREA COALITION OF TENANTS ASSOCIATIONS
UNITED SENIOR CITIZENS
OF ONTARIO
STEELWORKERS ORGANIZATION OF ACTIVE RETIREES
COMMUNITY LEGAL
SERVICES OF NIAGARA SOUTH;
HALTON COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
SOCIAL HOUSING AND ACCESS COMMITTEE
CONTENTS
Monday 11 August 1997
Tenant Protection Act, 1996, Bill 96, Mr Leach / Loi de 1996 sur la protection des locataires, projet de loi 96, M. Leach
Hamilton and District Apartment Association
Mr John Bruno
Mr Derek Lobo
Effort Trust Co
Mr Arthur Weisz
Bethlehem Housing Projects of Niagara
Mrs Mary Dool
Mr Mark Eshuis
Ms Carolyn Bostock
Williams and McDaniel
Mr Clark McDaniel
Mr Sid Barnett
Stoney Creek Landlords' Association
Mr Albert Marrone
McQuesten Legal and Community Services; Dundurn Community Legal Services;
Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton-Wentworth
Ms Andrea Horvath
Mr Michael Ollier
Ms Judith MacNeil
Mr Don Jaffray
Adolescent Community Care Program; Wesley Urban Ministries;
Hamilton Urban Core Community Health Centre
Ms Andrea Newman
Ms Elizabeth Szkodziak
Mr Paul Johnston
Mr Allan Boudreau
Second Level Lodging Homes Tenants' Committee;
Hamilton and Area Coalition of Tenants Associations
Mr John Schalkwyk
Ms Jackie Gordon
Barlake Tenants Association
Ms Karen Gillespie
Ms Norma LaForme
United Senior Citizens of Ontario;
Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees
Ms Gwen Lee
Mr Orville Kerr
Woman Abuse Working Group
Ms Lisa Singh
Ms Renate Manthei
Labourhood Homes Resource Centre;
Mental Health Rights Coalitionof Hamilton-Wentworth;
Housing Help Centre of Hamilton-Wentworth
Ms Shannah Murray
Mr Mark Davies
Ms Sharon Hafner
Community Legal Services of Niagara South;
Halton Community Legal Services
Mr Michael Foster
Ms Marilyn King
Social Housing and Access Committee
Ms Yolisa Nongauza
Sister Agnes Ward
Mr Quin Ho
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 Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East / -Est L)
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Ms Susan Swift, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1100 in the Ramada Hotel, Hamilton.
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.
HAMILTON AND DISTRICT APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
The Chair (Mr David Tilson): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. These are the public hearings of the standing committee on general government of the Ontario Legislature. We are today holding public hearings in Hamilton on Bill 96, which is the Tenant Protection Act, 1996.
We have the first delegation before us, the Hamilton and District Apartment Association: John Bruno, the executive director, and Derek Lobo, who is past president of the association and who has appeared before standing committees in the past. I'm sure many of us recognize him. Good morning, gentlemen. You may proceed when ready.
Mr John Bruno: My name is John Bruno. I'm the executive director of the Hamilton and District Apartment Association and have been since 1960. I'm going to briefly tell you something about our association before I turn the floor over to Derek Lobo, who will speak about the implication of the bill.
The Hamilton and District Apartment Association is a non-profit organization formed in 1960, and it is believed to be one of the oldest organizations of its type in the province. Over the last 37 years, it has grown to become the largest association of its type outside the city of Toronto. The organization now has some 350 active and non-active members representing in excess of 75,000 units throughout Mississauga, Oakville, Guelph, Brantford, Hamilton, St Catharines and the Niagara Peninsula.
Although I am not a landlord, I have been in the business of rental accommodation for 37 years. I know the situation. We were in the business for 17 years prior to the implementation of rent controls.
We're going to leave ample time for you to ask questions. We polled our members to find out what was on their minds and what we were to present to you this morning, and implementation was the most important thing. I'm going to turn the floor over to Derek, who will go into this item more fully.
Mr Derek Lobo: As was mentioned earlier, I am a past president of the Hamilton apartment association. I've also worked as a rent review consultant for a number of years. I actually wrote this manual entitled How to Take a Building to Rent Review. Interestingly enough, this was for the Residential Rent Regulation Act. The single largest purchaser of the manual was the Ministry of Housing. I've done work in the last few years in both the private sector and the non-profit sector, helping apartment owners market their buildings and minimize their vacancies. I've also been an apartment owner in the past.
After a second reading, I think there's little chance that anyone will be able to significantly change the legislation, so I don't want to dwell on things that can't be changed, but I think there are some facts about rent controls that need to be mentioned. The main purpose of our presentation today is to discuss how we can make the legislation work and how to make rental housing in Ontario work.
Since 1975, there have been five pieces of rent control legislation. It seems that every time there has been a change in government, there has been a change in legislation. It seems that you're all trying to make something work that won't work. Based on Ontario's past history, if there's a new government in the next three or four years, we'll be sitting around this table again discussing a new version of rent controls. This has to stop. I'm sure you're also tired of the rubber chicken circuit, going around the province. This just isn't working.
I think you've got to ask yourself a question, and the question is this: Is there any jurisdiction in the world where rent control has worked? It's certainly not working in Ontario, otherwise we wouldn't have gone through this thing five times. It's not working in New York, it's not working in Berkeley, it's not working in New Jersey. If it has never worked in the past, it's likely not going to work in the future. But let me today take a leap of faith and say that the legislation does work and encourages landlords to maintain their buildings, build new apartment buildings, and protects needy residents -- although the best protection for needy residents is a free market, and we'll discuss why the free market is working in Hamilton today.
Rent controls are a political issue, and politicians use it in the political process. Let's just assume that this legislation does work, that a small miracle happens. If it does work, let's just leave it alone. We can't go on to a sixth, a seventh and an eighth form of this legislation.
There are two myths about rent controls that I want to talk about, and they apply more to Toronto than anywhere else. The first myth is that keeping rents low helps the poor. Well, indeed there are some buildings -- again, they're in Toronto -- where tenants are paying significantly less than the market could bear. These cheap apartments are typically in markets where the landlord is charging the maximum rent; he's charging the most he can by law. In most of Ontario, landlords are not charging the maximum rent. What this means is that the landlord could be charging X, but the market won't bear it so he's charging Y. For all intents and purposes, rent controls really don't matter. In Hamilton, the majority of owners are not charging maximum rent.
Cheap apartments, the kind you're trying to protect for the needy, are not rented to the needy. They go to people who are actually quite affluent and they have very low turnover. These apartments are never advertised and they're rented by word of mouth to friends of friends of friends, things like that. The average statistic in Ontario for turnover is about 25%, which means in theory that an apartment will turn over every four years, but that's an average number. Expensive apartments, where they're charging the market rent, turn over very often, and cheap apartments, with chronically depressed rents, turn over very seldom. Buildings with very low rents, the kind I'm talking about in Toronto, have a 10%-a-year turnover, and buildings with high rent have a 50% turnover.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Did you say 15% or 50%?
Mr Lobo: It's 50%. That's not a surprising statistic if you're in the industry; that's a very common thing for buildings that have high rents, with transient populations.
That's the first myth. The second myth is that there's a perception that higher rents bring affluent residents and lower rents bring less affluent residents. That's not true. I'm sure you're all familiar with an area in Toronto called the Jane-Finch corridor. It has a bad reputation. Based on the public perception, you would believe that buildings in the Jane-Finch area have relatively low rents. They don't. In fact, they have very expensive rents. The rents for the building sitting right at the corner of Jane and Finch are typically $800 to $900 per month. The reality is that the buildings in these areas are rented to people who are economically distressed, they're often minorities and people who other people don't want to rent to. These people pay a very high percentage of their income in rent, there's overcrowding, and really, these people don't have a choice. Rent control has taken away that choice from them. If there was a large supply of apartments with vacancies throughout Ontario, landlords would be competing for residents. They compete for them here in Hamilton; they're not doing that in Toronto.
The point here is that suppressing the rents artificially in some older buildings does not benefit the people that rent controls are supposed to protect. Indeed, there's no way for you to really protect the people, other than a healthy marketplace, with lots of vacancies, where rents are tumbling. Examples of that are Ottawa, London and Hamilton, where the free market is working. Most landlords in Ottawa, London and Hamilton are not charging maximum rent; they're charging something below it. They have to compete for their customers.
Hamilton is working. Tenants have a good choice of apartments and rents are probably falling, as opposed to rising. If you open up the Hamilton Spectator and count the ads, you'll probably see somewhere around 500 ads on a Saturday. It's similar in London, Sarnia, Ottawa, Kingston and Belleville.
Let's talk about the proposed legislation and how to make it work. There's a perception among politicians that a modified rent control system, with an exemption for new buildings, will encourage developers to build. For the housing sector to work in Ontario, we need building, and we need building desperately. We have a number of our clients who are developers and I ask them regularly, "What would it take to get you to build an apartment building in Ontario again?" I get many answers, that there's a problem with lot levies, land prices, unfair taxation etc, but it always came down to one factor: It came down to the fact that they can't trust the government any more because, quite frankly, they've been lied to. By that I mean that retroactive legislation has brought buildings under rent control; they've been told one thing, but the next government comes in and changes it. You can't run a business that way. One of my clients said: "I would have to be a lunatic to build in Ontario. Based on the last 20 years of experience, if I built a building today, what guarantee do I have that the next government that comes in won't retroactively bring in rent control legislation and undo everything the previous government has done?" You can't blame him. We're on legislation number five.
The answer, I think, is to somehow guarantee, and I want to stress the word "guarantee," to developers that rent control will not be brought in on any building that is built from now on. I think this means that you have to somehow -- I can't think of the way to do it, but I would suggest that once a building is built, a certificate is issued saying that under no circumstances can a building be brought under retroactive rent control, so it's permanent and free forever.
1110
If the private sector does not build, that task is left up to the Ontario government. No matter what political stripe you are today, I think you'll agree that the non-profit housing that's gone on for the last five and maybe the last 10 years has been a financial disaster for the taxpayers, and that's the only other option. If the private sector does not build, then that task is left up to the Ontario government. So either the private sector builds and there's some confidence built, or the government steps in and builds.
My experience in the rent review process went mainly from 1988 until about 1992, and I worked as a rent review consultant representing landlords through the rent review bureaucracy. We acted for many landlords. The bureaucracy itself seems to have a life and an ego of its own and it starts taking on its own personality. Rent review hearings that happen in forums something like this often become battlegrounds and there's a real polarization between landlord and tenant. I suppose it's the nature of the business, but setting up an adversarial process like that only makes things worse. Let me give you some examples.
Oftentimes during hearings, either the landlord party or the tenant party asks for an extension. So you wait two, three, four, five months for your hearing, you get into the hearing and someone finds they don't have a piece of documentation so they ask for another hearing, they ask for another extension. This happens over and over again. I worked on a case last year where the rent review officer granted six extensions and six different hearings. This went on in the evenings so that everyone could attend, and the order still hasn't been issued. This whole idea of granting extensions and things like that just doesn't work. It drags out the process and makes it very cumbersome and then the whole system starts to implode.
The solution is very strict administrative guidelines so that the entire case is thoroughly documented in front of the adjudicator at the time. You can't ask for extensions, you can't ask for time to provide more information, to bring expert opinion. You come prepared, you get your one opportunity and that should be it. I think that was part of the downfall of the previous rent review systems.
This is an extremely important point. The hearings should have defined time limits for people to present their cases, otherwise the submissions go on for hours and it actually turns into a battle of egos. The landlord should get time to present their case and the tenant should be allotted time to present their case, otherwise, in the open forum we currently have, it becomes a free-for-all and really just degenerates to pointless discussion and debate. Adjudicators of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal must be taught how to run a hearing and not be afraid to silence a landlord or a tenant to keep the hearing moving.
Adjudicators should also not be selected from the existing pool of ministry staff. All the weaknesses in the old system will be brought to the new tribunal. If you see this as a re-engineering of the rent review system, then bringing people over from the old system to the new system will just propagate the same rent review system we've had for 20 years that's been a bureaucratic nightmare that hasn't worked. I'm glad to see it's been taken out of the Ministry of Housing, but just moving the staff over I don't think is going to solve the problem. They're good people; find something else for them to do.
In terms of delays and backlogs, with the recent announcement of provision for transitional capital expenditures, there are going to be a number of applications filed, particularly in Metro Toronto. I don't know if there will be that many applications filed in Hamilton, Ottawa or London, because landlords aren't charging the maximum rent anyway, so where's the rush to go to rent review to raise a rent you can't charge anyway? There may be some applications, but in Toronto there's going to be a rush. This is going to cause exactly the same problem that was created when the Residential Rent Regulation Act came out and when the Rent Control Act came out. The legislation came out, owners rushed, filed thousands of applications, and right away the whole system fell apart and any kind of timeliness just went out the window.
I think in Toronto applications will be made sooner rather than later and that the new tribunal will be swamped to get out from under this workload. Then the mindset comes in, "Well, if you're one month late or two or three months late, it really doesn't matter when you're already nine months late." So if you let the system get boggled now, it's just not going to work. This is based on experience. We're not just saying this. Very strict guidelines have to be set out for making the system work. The computer programs have to be work the first time and they've got to be able to generate the orders quickly.
The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal has to be held to a very high standard for the people who run it and it has to be a much higher standard than those that have been for the four pieces of legislation prior.
We'd be happy to accept any questions now.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lobo. We have an opportunity for a brief question from each caucus. We'll start with the official opposition.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I want to pursue a notion, and I will place a question to you, given your experience, and I would also ask the government to note it and perhaps respond if they can now or at a later time. Representatives of other landlord groups have expressed the concern to me that not enough resources will be applied to the new tribunal and that there will be an immediate backlog created. There's a fear among those groups that this in turn will undo what the government is attempting to do with the streamlined processes. The figure that's been bandied about, just for the government's information, is that about $17 million will be applied to this tribunal and it's been suggested that won't be enough to deal with the immediate problem. How do you recommend the government go about ensuring that this kind of immediate backlog doesn't occur?
Mr Lobo: I don't think it's an issue of money. I think it's an issue of approach. If you doubled it and put $34 million at it, the backlog would still be there. It's approaching it from the point of view of not a civil servant-bureaucratic mindset. What you have to do is that you've got a time frame to get the application out, and the ministry should pay a penalty if the application is filed properly and it's not out in the allocated time. I don't think it's a case of money. It's a case of the approach that's taken to solving the problem, controlling the hearings and just setting up a good system up front. It's a good question.
Mr Bisson: In one of your comments, you talk about how the current system of rent control, under the last five versions, has polarized the relationship between landlords and tenants. If I buy your argument, that tenants have too many rights -- that's basically the argument on the one side -- how does going to a system where the tenants lose rights and you give more rights to the landlords stop the polarization? I'm curious.
Mr Lobo: The polarization was created by the legislation in the first place --
Mr Bisson: No, no, hang on --
Mr Lobo: I understood your question, thank you. If you go to Alberta, there is no polarization because you never pitted landlords against tenants. If you go to Minnesota, it's not polarized. The legislation creates it.
Mr Bisson: I disagree. There is great polarization in both those systems. I've travelled a bit.
Mr Lobo: I think there's a great polarization in the NDP towards residents.
Mr Bisson: You're right, because we chose sides. We said, "We're on the side of tenants," and this government chooses the side of landlords. My question to you is, if you give more power to the landlords and less power to the tenants, it doesn't do anything to end the polarization. It only alienates tenants further and gives landlords more power. In the end, how does that stop polarization?
Mr Lobo: I don't think that I'm going to be able to convince you, no matter what I say.
The Chair: I don't either, Mr Lobo. Next questioner: Mr Gilchrist.
Mr Bisson: Chair, that's highly inappropriate.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, you're right. Perhaps that calls for an apology. The two of you were very argumentative. Your time has expired, but I do apologize. You're absolutely right.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Mr Lobo, I don't have to be neutral. I will agree that you're not likely to convert Mr Bisson, because he doesn't see that what he did and what rent controls are is an interference in the free market. You understand that. At the same time, we go to places like Ottawa, with 6.8% vacancy, one of every 17 apartments sitting empty. In the cab ride back to the airport yesterday, the cabby told us that you can buy town houses in Ottawa now for $50,000, which carries for less than $500 a month including taxes. Clearly, the marketplace has started to respond.
Here in Hamilton, if the government were able to provide you that peace of mind that there wouldn't be subsequent re-interference, what would that do as a stimulus to create new housing, and then in turn, what would new housing do for the tenants in the city?
Mr Lobo: There are some speakers coming up later on today who are builders, and you can ask them. They've built before; they stopped building in 1975 when rent controls came in. But on the assumption that apartment buildings are built, it would benefit the needy the most. The higher the vacancy rate, the lower the rent. If you want a mandate to create good, affordable housing for the residents, do what you can to fairly drive the vacancy rate up, "fairly" meaning in a just way. That's what creates a competitive marketplace where tenants get the best advantage, landlords maintain their buildings and they serve their customers like customers. When you're 100% occupied and there's nowhere else to live, you lose that sense of customer service. And you can't raise your rents, so you say, "What's the point any more?"
The Chair: Mr Lobo, Mr Bruno, thank you very much for coming.
1120
EFFORT TRUST CO
The Chair: The next delegation is the Effort Trust Co, Arthur Weisz, chairman of the board. Good morning, Mr Weisz.
Mr Arthur Weisz: My name is Arthur Weisz. I would like to be very brief. I would much sooner have the panel ask me some questions about Hamilton and the surrounding area. We have managed for the last 30 or 35 years a big portfolio of apartment units, and we have never had the pressure and the problems we have today to maintain the quality of a unit and rent it on the market.
Not for argument, but just to tell you a little bit of the local situation, I'll mention a building in Hamilton, 140 Robinson Street. That's one of the last buildings built before apartment construction stopped completely. The building is a 130-unit apartment building. The market rent is about $60 less per unit than rent control allowed on that building. The building still faced lots of vacancies. Now they're giving a month's free rent and they still have 10% vacancy in the building.
The Hamilton situation is maybe a little bit unique to Ontario. The Ontario population has doubled since 1956, from five million to 10 million. The Hamilton population in 1956 was 250,000 people; the mountain had 50,000 and the lower city had 200,000. Today, the mountain has 133,000 population and the lower city has less than in 1956; it's only 185,000. Since the government reduced welfare, of the group living in the lower city, in 1956 we had 10% welfare people. In the lower city today we maybe have 30%. I have no statistics, but that's my personal feeling. In the surrounding area -- Ancaster, Burlington, Dundas -- the population increased 300%.
There is no bigger waste of money in Hamilton than to maintain rent control. When your people get the information, we ask rent control how many applications they've had in the last five years. I never went to rent control for five or six years. It doesn't matter. They are expecting the taxes to go up about $200 to $220 per unit in Hamilton under the present situation. Nobody should be worrying that even the worst landlord could get away with something in Hamilton or the surrounding area. Maybe in downtown Toronto there is pressure; it's possible.
But rent control, I honestly feel -- take my word for it -- is a complete waste of activity at the present time in cities like Hamilton. Nobody can hurt the tenants. Maybe we should save the money and maintain five or more hospitals open, and the people who are serving rent control right now should be used for something else; they are capable people and their quality is not used. I shouldn't have a ticket to China when I don't want to go.
Honestly, at the present time, regardless of which side I look at -- the NDP side, the Liberals or the Conservatives -- nothing is a bigger waste than maintaining a system that is not needed. Why should I change the tire on my car when I don't want to use the car? There is no worry, and that's my honest feeling. You can drive through Hamilton, there isn't a building in Hamilton where you haven't got a For Rent sign, and the landlords are doing everything they can to steal tenants from each other. There is no fresh blood in this city.
There is a real problem. The taxes are way higher on rental units. I don't know if the people know it, but an apartment unit is paying two and a half times more taxes than a single-family house. How do we justify that? We want to protect people; they have no money, and we're overtaxing them. You can only do so much with $500 a month. Hamilton, Brantford, Guelph and Kitchener really don't need rent control. Maybe there is a small situation where you need it. When rent control came in in 1975, Hamilton had 8% vacancy. Toronto had a shortage. Why apply something to the whole province when you have an isolated situation? You can always introduce rent control anywhere when you feel somebody's doing something wrong.
I would like to have the panel ask me some questions. The previous presentation was very interesting, but my feeling is, save money and do something else with this money that is more important. I would like to see that a hospital is not closed for the money that is wasted to maintain rent control. We manage a large portfolio and we never went to rent control once, and there were many reasons for it. GST has been added to our cost and nobody went to rent control to recover that. There will be a big tax increase. What is the use to maintain something like this? That's my personal feeling, and I could demonstrate that is correct.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Weisz. The questions start with the New Democratic caucus.
Mr Bisson: I have how long, about three minutes?
The Chair: Each caucus has time for a couple of questions, yes.
Mr Bisson: The premise of what you're saying is that in areas where you have high vacancy, like Hamilton, you don't need rent control. Then you said that in areas where you have low vacancy, maybe there is some need for rent control. Did I understand that correctly?
Mr Weisz: Right.
Mr Bisson: Then you went on to say that maybe we need to find a way to apply rent control only where needed, in Toronto or wherever there may be a low vacancy rate.
From the point of view of lawmakers, that's fairly difficult to do. How do you set up a rent control system that triggers at a certain vacancy rate and then how do you take it off if the vacancy rate goes back up again? You'd be constantly going into and out of a rent control system, depending on the fluctuations of the market. Lawmakers have to make a decision: Either you're going to have a system of rent control or you're not. That's basically the question.
In the case of the former governments -- Tory, Liberal and NDP -- there were decisions to move towards rent control because there were, in more cases than not, areas where low vacancies existed and high rents were being charged, to the point that it was very difficult for a lot of people who are renters. A political decision was made to institute rent control in order to stabilize the market somewhat. Yes, it was an intervention into the marketplace, no question about that. As a New Democrat, I never say rent control is not intervention in the market, because that's exactly what it is. But in the case of rental, it is one of the basic things we need to live. This government has decided to do otherwise. They've decided to turn the clock back, I would argue, more than 20 years, to go to a system where you don't have rent control.
The point I'm getting at is that even in Hamilton, where you have a high vacancy rate, there is going to be a cost to tenants in some areas. If it's not in price, it's going to be in some of the powers given to landlords in this act. For example, in this act a landlord could gain access to an apartment without the permission of the tenant under certain circumstances. Is that a right we want to be giving landlords?
You made a blanket statement that people won't get hurt. I take it that you're talking about just the market side of rental and not the powers and the rights the landlords have.
Mr Weisz: May I answer you very simply? I hope this committee gets information from the rent control people in our area about how many applications have they have had in the last five years. That will indicate whether rent control is needed or not. If Toronto has a lot of applications, the system maybe needed to be introduced. But we have a large portfolio. We are so anxious to maintain our tenants, you have no idea. Really and truly, we are fighting for them.
The situation created itself slowly. What is very healthy for the present situation is that you can almost buy a town house, with the low interest rate we have. So we have pressure in many ways. I am not saying that some cases couldn't be -- but controlling the quality of the unit, we have a lawful building department checking when a tenant has a complaint.
The question is, should we spend $50 million in Ontario for rent control when we don't need it, or should we keep open five hospitals that have to be closed because we haven't got enough money?
I am not against rent control. Don't get me wrong. I would like to see that the market is working. We should replace rent control with some kind of other very easy -- not a rent control type of thing. I hate to see that we're spending such a large of amount of money and we get nothing. Nothing is perfect.
1130
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): How do you do, Mr Weisz? You mentioned the previous presenter and some of the comments he made. One of the comments he made was that he'd be crazy to build a new apartment today. Is that your view?
Mr Weisz: I'll tell you, it's even worse, much worse. When I made this statement, we don't have the amount of vacancy and the amount of pressure that we have today. I would say it's much worse, the chances that somebody will build an apartment. Even the interest rate is so reasonable. When you can borrow money for 7% and you don't build, it's much harder to understand than when interest was 10% and you didn't build. The interest rate came to a point that somebody could buy a house and it's almost as reasonable as rent. When interest was 10%, 11%, that was not -- I would say under the present interest rate you don't see a crane in Hamilton. Not only don't they build an apartment unit for rental, they don't even build a condominium. There isn't a city in North America the size of Hamilton where you have not one overhead crane. That's showing that we have not one crane that is doing some construction. I don't see one.
Mr Doyle: In view of the fact that we have these attractive interest rates, what would it take in legislation, as far as you can see, in areas where there are shortages to get somebody to build a new apartment?
Mr Weisz: May I say there are no shortages. The shortage has to develop before we can make a statement. I would say the chances that anybody will build an apartment unit in Hamilton, even with the low interest rate situation, is completely out of hand.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Hi, Arthur, how are you? Today, as a matter of fact, I just received a call from one of your tenants up on Mohawk Road West who is very happy living where he's living. Tell me, if rent controls were removed tomorrow, what would happen to his rent?
Mr Weisz: Nothing, and nobody's rent. I could show you letters here from tenants who are saying, "We are willing to stay when there will be no increase." I have a letter here, a tenant talks about a $56-a-month reduction: "I am willing to stay although I have been offered something similar for a lower rent." It means the chances that any landlord or anybody in Hamilton or someplace similar to Hamilton could increase the rent for -- everybody's rent is reduced, not increased. So the chances that could happen are very slim.
I have no problem with rent control. The only problem I have from a practical point of view is, why should we maintain something that is not needed and spend money when we can spend this money on something that is needed? In Hamilton there's a big discussion about closing one of our major hospitals. We can save much more money. These people who are running rent control can do something else that is much more important. That's my personal feeling. I'm not here for and against; I'm just practical. I say this is not needed at the present time.
Mrs Ross: Can you tell me, what is the vacancy rate in the units that you now have?
Mr Weisz: I'll tell you an actual statistic. Some are really bad. I would say a year ago our vacancy rate was maybe 2%. Today it's 6%. In some cases the vacancy rate is 30% and 40% in buildings. You can't really say that the average vacancy in Hamilton is 7.5%. Some buildings have 20% or 30%. There are pressures.
Again, some buildings' rents are higher than they should be and now the market is adjusting. Nevertheless, I still maintain very strongly that any tenants who are worrying their rent in Hamilton will be increased because rent control is not controlling it, I think are making a mistake.
Mr Duncan: Thank you, Mr Weisz, for your presentation. I want to ask a question to get your perspective as somebody who is a well-regarded landlord in his community, and I frame it in a context -- I don't want to sound argumentative, but I see a paradox in the arguments that I'm hearing from a number of landlords, and I don't include you in that, about the notion that in places like Hamilton and Ottawa and Windsor, where you're not at the maximum, where there's a fairly healthy vacancy rate, I believe the minister's assistant quoted 6.8% in Hamilton -- so then what's the problem with rent control? You've got a market that's functioning freely in a community like yours. I think you've made the point that you see there's wasted money. The government, in other parts of the bill, tries to address the question of a fairer or more efficient process around rent control. What's the problem with the system of rent control if in most major centres of the province you're operating in an environment where there are vacancy rates that are high and maximum ceilings aren't being met? What's the problem?
Mr Weisz: It's very simple. There's no problem. We should not have it.
Mr Duncan: How does it interfere with the free market if you're operating in a market where you're competing very effectively?
Mr Weisz: May I say this to you. In our organization I have no problem with rent control because they don't bother me and I don't bother them. It's nothing. But the activity is useless; that's the problem.
Mr Duncan: The which?
Mr Weisz: The activity. We're maintaining something we don't need. I'm not here against rent control. It doesn't interfere with our operation. I am a decent citizen of Ontario and I see that money is completely wasted and doesn't do any good and we can use this money for something else that is much more needed.
Let's say, except for Toronto, Ontario doesn't need rent control. A year later, if we find that we are wrong, we can always introduce it. It's not the end of the world. But I am saying at the present time to spend so much money and keep people -- there is no activity. The rent control people are not doing anything in this community to help the tenants or help the landlords. There's no activity. It's very simple.
Mr Duncan: You referenced how Hamilton has changed in the course of time that you have been doing business. I wonder how factors such as 5% down payments on homes today versus much higher figures in years gone by affect the development of new rental accommodation, people making choices between ownership versus rental. We did a little bit of research and found that right across the board, whether or not there's been any kind of rent control, there have been increasing percentages of people who get into their own ownership situation first, and therefore the supply question isn't exclusively affected by rent control. There's a whole variety of other factors. We've addressed a number of them around this table and in our debates about the supply of rental housing. Could you just share your views on that, how the market's changed over the last few years?
Mr Weisz: May I say this to you: The rental market is suffering greatly for many reasons -- reducing welfare. We're suffering greatly. It's maybe important the panel should know that a lot of senior citizen people were the best tenants in a building because they didn't move. They moved into a building, they were living there many years. Our normal changeover, and the previous people mentioned it, was a very healthy 10%. Normal was 20%. We have 40% to 50% today. It's unbelievable.
We see this advertising in the paper every time: "Why rent?" I'm saying at the present time, really and truly, the rental market is under great pressure. The landlord who wants to rent his unit has to do anything he can: free rent, no deposit. When you look at the Hamilton Spectator, I just brought a couple of things: "A month's free rent when you sign a one-year lease."
What I'm saying is the pressure is the opposite. We are here to make sure that nobody is a victim of circumstances. Now I would say almost that a year from now or five years from now we'll be talking about the landlord needing some help because he can't maintain his buildings. We're facing a major problem and nothing is worse than that the building is not maintained. Who wants to see that owners are walking away from their buildings? Who will look after them? I came from Europe 50 years ago and I went back for the first time 30 years later and under the administration that existed there, nobody did anything. It means that buildings fall apart completely. It's important that we give a healthy balance here so that the building can be maintained.
The Chair: Unfortunately, Mr Duncan, we're out of time.
Mr Weisz, thank you for coming this morning and making a presentation to the committee.
1140
BETHLEHEM HOUSING PROJECTS OF NIAGARA
The Chair: The next presentation is the Bethlehem Housing Projects of Niagara. I have three names: Mary Dool, Mark Eshuis and Carolyn Bostock, who are members of the board. Good morning, ladies and gentleman. We have your brief before us. You can proceed when ready. Perhaps whoever the speaker is can identify themselves.
Mrs Mary Dool: My name is Mary Dool and I have with me Carolyn Bostock, who's a member of the board and was a resident of Bethlehem Place for two years and one of the first members to be elected by the residents to represent them on the board of directors. Since leaving Bethlehem, she has been re-elected as a member of the community at large. This is Mark Eshuis.
On behalf of Bethlehem Place, we want to thank you for the opportunity to respond to Bill 96. As a non-profit supportive housing provider, Bethlehem Place appreciates the efforts of the government to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act in order to reduce costs, decrease bureaucracy and to provide more flexibility for groups offering care or rehabilitative services. As you know, the proposed legislation, as outlined in 3(k)(ii), allows programs where the living accommodation is intended to be provided for no more than a year to be exempt from the act. While this change from six months to one year is a commendable one, for us it doesn't allow sufficient time for many of the people to whom we give service to establish the kind of stability and to develop the self-esteem, skills and confidence they need to move on. Currently what we're doing is operating under the Landlord and Tenant Act and use the grounds-to-terminate clause for rehabilitative programs. That's clause 110(3)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act. In the proposed legislation the grounds-for-termination clause has been removed from the act.
Before explaining more fully the impact of the changes to the act on our services and our recommendations to you, we would like to briefly describe the nature of our program.
Bethlehem Place is the only second-stage rehabilitative program in the Niagara region which provides an integrated approach of housing and support services to men, women and children. Since 1988, we have been serving people who are experiencing major crises in their lives, most of them coming from pretty chaotic kinds of backgrounds. They want to develop the skills and stability necessary to move on to independent living.
We have a 27-unit apartment building in downtown St Catharines which accommodates approximately 65 people. The maximum length of stay is two years. The average length of stay over the past year was 16 months. Examples of the kind of people we're serving are victims of abuse -- we have large numbers from that group -- people recovering from addictions; people with disabilities, both physical and mental health problems; people with significant emotional difficulties who are suffering poverty or have very limited skills. One of our largest groups is those who need to learn parenting and other skills of daily living.
I think an indication of the high degree of credibility and visibility that the Bethlehem program has in the community is that we have over 30 agencies referring to Bethlehem Place both individuals and families who require intensive community support and skills training. Referrals are made to Bethlehem when community agencies determine that the individuals and families require greater support and practical assistance than our traditional services can provide. One of our main referents is Family and Children's Services of St Catharines, which is the children's aid society of the Niagara region.
I was a social worker there for 26 years and I think I can attest to the tremendous value of this program for people such as a single mother with children who really wants to be a good parent but lacks the knowledge and the parenting skills to do so. Prior to this program being available, as social workers we found that quite often we had very little alternative but to take these kinds of children into foster care, and that's of course at a great emotional cost to both the parent and the child, to say nothing of the financial burden on the province, since I think the cost of one child in foster care for a year is something over $17,000.
Problems are compounded by the fact that the majority of residents do not have positive families or social networks to assist them to make positive changes in their lives. Bethlehem Place substitutes for this lack of supports by providing a very positive, caring environment where people learn to leave behind the damage of physical or sexual abuse or an addictive lifestyle or debilitating low self-esteem. and where they also learn a great many skills. We have very proactive programs to provide parenting skills, to provide budgeting, general living skills, help with addictions. We use many resources in the community, such as the public health nurses to teach infant and child care; we use social workers from the mental health clinic at the General Hospital; we use workers from Family and Children's Services.
Being part of this kind of program and of the Bethlehem community provides opportunities for people to develop social skills, family skills, parenting skills, relationship skills, and to develop social networks which will sustain them when they move on into independent living in the community. Over 500 people have moved through the program at Bethlehem Place into the community since its inception in 1988.
Mark Eshuis is going to talk to you about the impact of the proposed changes to the act on this program.
Mr Mark Eshuis: Proposed legislation 3(k)(ii), as Mary said, allows rehabilitative programs such as Bethlehem Place where the living accommodation is intended to be proposed for no more than one year to be exempt from the Landlord and Tenant Act. The respectful submission of Bethlehem Place is that this one-year time period is not sufficient time within which to allow people to become self-sufficient and independent of any governmental support. They need time to recover from the abuse that they may have suffered, to learn parenting skills, and thereby become self-sufficient.
Bethlehem Place residents, as I said, need more than one year. Therefore the Landlord and Tenant Act would apply. Bethlehem Place currently operates under the Landlord and Tenant Act as a housing program solely for the purpose of rehabilitation. More particularly, it uses the grounds-to-terminate clause for rehabilitative programs, which is found in section 110(3)(f). Unfortunately, the proposed bill removes this section from the act.
As you may know, what section 110(3)(f) says, to paraphrase it, is that a tenant who occupies accommodation solely for the purpose of rehabilitative services agreed upon between the tenant and the landlord is not permitted to live in these accommodations for longer than two years. To use these particular grounds for termination, Bethlehem Place has developed a detailed tenancy agreement which implements the specific required provisions and sets out the rehabilitative goals of Bethlehem Place. Through this tenancy agreement which we have developed and the agreement to terminate a tenancy form, which is form 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, these two documents reinforce to the resident that Bethlehem Place is solely for the purpose of rehabilitation.
Currently what Bethlehem place does is it contracts with the residents for shorter periods, up to a maximum of two years, to keep track of the resident's progress and to ensure that the resident's program terminates when the objectives of the services have been met or it's determined that they will not be met. Just as an example, the first contract generally is set at four months, the second contract is at 12 months and the third contract ends at 18 months. This allows Bethlehem Place to assess if residents are meeting their rehabilitative goals.
1150
It's our respectful submission to you that Bethlehem Place is a unique program. Most rehabilitative programs deal with individuals. Bethlehem Place often deals with dysfunctional families, which requires more time. As Mary pointed out to you earlier, the residents have problems with abuse, addiction, mental health and lack of parenting skills, to name a few. Bethlehem Place's program works towards skill development, goal setting, increased coping capacities and establishing social and support networks. It's our respectful submission to you that the proposed one-year exemption is insufficient for people to develop skills and stability to make a successful transition to independent living within the community.
With the removal of section 110(3)(f), Bethlehem Place's rehabilitation oriented tenancy agreement will be ineffective. Bethlehem Place would be required to apply to a tribunal to transfer a resident as proposed under section 93(1)(a) and (b). Under section 93, residents may perceive Bethlehem Place as permanent housing, which would severely limit the number of people Bethlehem Place could serve and promote long-term dependence on our services. This would severely reduce the effectiveness and rehabilitative benefits of our service provision.
As just a quick conclusion to what I've said, the removal of section 110(3)(f) decreases Bethlehem Place's flexibility and places an unrealistic time restraint on Bethlehem Place residents to prepare for independent living. The pressure of having to move out within the time frame of 3(k)(ii) of the proposed legislation would seriously jeopardize our residents' ability to participate and benefit from the program.
On page 3 of our handout, which you all have, our recommendations are in subsection (4). We request one of the following two options as a solution to address our concerns: that the current clause (f) of section 110(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act remain in effect to allow us to continue operating under our current tenancy agreement; or in the alternative, reword exemption 3(k)(ii) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1996, to read that the living accommodation is intended to be provided for no more than a two-year period.
Ms Carolyn Bostock: I'd like to start off by reading a small portion of a speech that I gave at the annual meeting in 1995 while I was a resident at Bethlehem Place:
"I'm a single 33-year-old with no children who has been living at Bethlehem Place for almost two years. I have a history of childhood physical, sexual and emotional abuse. My first years of life were spent with an alcoholic parent and the cycle of abuse continued into my adult life. I was suffering from a crippling lack of self-esteem and chronic depression. I felt very alone and scared.
Then I found Bethlehem Place. I would like to be able to say that I was immediately enveloped in feelings of purpose and community, ready and willing to do whatever it took to turn my life into something manageable, but it was a long, hard struggle. Making changes is difficult. Making major changes can seem impossible.
"I was encouraged to become the chairperson of the newsletter committee and a member of the residents' council. I reluctantly agreed to try, but I was concerned: How could I speak in front of groups? Who would listen to me?
Then amazing things started to happen. Through working on my committees, I found my voice and my strength. My self-confidence increased and I started to take more risks. I no longer wish to be invisible. I now have a growing support system and I feel less alone than I have for years. I have found courage and I'm learning to give support as well as receive it. I'm a very different person from when I first walked into that building. I have developed more self-assurance and have a more positive outlook.
I have also learned to be more compassionate with myself and others. I'm grateful that Bethlehem Place was there when I needed them. I thank the staff and the volunteers who make Bethlehem Place a special place. My two years are almost over. The once shy, angry person who didn't want to be there is now sad that the time has gone by so quickly. But I'm ready to face tomorrow with hope and strength."
That's what I said two years ago and that's what Bethlehem Place has done for me, but it wasn't easy. It takes a lot of hard work and time to make changes, and I know that one year would not have been enough time. It takes time to build a trusting relationship with a counsellor and it takes time to establish goals and plans and put them into action.
When a person makes positive changes in their life, the benefit is not only to themselves but to the people around them. When many people make positive changes, as happens at Bethlehem Place, the benefits are immeasurable. A strong, healthy, self-reliant individual becomes a better person, a better neighbour and a better Canadian.
Two years ago when Bethlehem Place was hit with a major funding cut, we were devastated. A cut in time allowing people to go through the program would be equally devastating and seriously impact the ability of the staff to care and nurture hurting individuals and families. My two-year stay at Bethlehem was the best investment of time I have ever made. I have moved on, having increased confidence and knowledge of myself and those around me and the ability to deal with the past and look forward to the future.
Mrs Dool: That's concludes our submission. Thank you very much.
Mr Gilchrist: You've raised a very good issue and I'd like to start off by thanking you for your presentation, and in particular thanking you for your good works and proving that community-based care is exactly where the focus should be. I appreciate your personal anecdotes, Ms Bostock.
Let me just say I'm aware that you've been raising this issue with the ministry staff and you've given us two options. The Speaker reprimanded us once for presuming that bills even pass, so I'm not going to presume that any one amendment will pass, but let me just say we're very sympathetic and you can rest assured that we'll be coming forward with what we believe will be a very satisfactory resolution to your questions. We are very sympathetic to the position you've taken here and we appreciate very much the time you've taken to alert us to this need to improve the act.
Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. I too have heard of your good works from my colleague the member for St Catharines, Mr Bradley.
I wonder if I might ask you a question related to part IV of the act. This particular section of the act has been the subject of some controversy and difference of opinion. As I understand your organization today, your goal is to help people get back into an independent living environment in as short a time as possible. You're a non-profit organization, I take it?
Mrs Dool: Yes, we are.
Mr Duncan: My question is this: The concern with this section of the act, and I'd like your experience with this, has been that there are situations where there are vulnerable people who can now be removed from their rental accommodation. I'm referring specifically to section 93, the transferring of tenancy. Given your experience and background, do you have any advice to the government on this section?
It's been suggested by other caregivers, other people who have an interest, that perhaps this section gives too much power to landlords in situations where people are perhaps not able to be reintegrated into the community. Do you have any thoughts on that general section?
Mrs Dool: Yes, I think that is a concern. There are many people who cannot be integrated in the community. A particular concern we have at Bethlehem Place with the decrease in provision of non-profit housing is that even for our people leaving, when we have made a decision that they're ready to move on, the fact that there isn't accommodation out there for them is going to increase the problem or maybe decrease the kinds of gains they made at Bethlehem Place.
Mr Bisson: We've probably run out of time. Thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr Chair: We have run out of time. I know members would have lots of questions, but we have literally run out of time. Thank you for coming this morning.
Mrs Dool: Thank you so much for your attention.
1200
WILLIAMS AND MCDANIEL
The Chair: The next presentation is Williams and McDaniel, Clark McDaniel. Good morning.
Mr Clark McDaniel: Good morning. Mr Chair, members of the standing committee, my name is Clark McDaniel. I wish to thank you for the opportunity to address the issue of the Tenant Protection Act in a public forum.
I represent the Guelph and District Apartment Owners Association and I am also a principal of Williams and McDaniel of Guelph, which owns and manages approximately 1,200 apartment homes in south-central Ontario. We've been in the business of apartment ownership and management since 1977.
We have made representation to various government departments concerning rent control in Ontario on various occasions over the past 19 years, as we realize that governments require input from the apartment owners' perspective in order to formulate a viable housing policy.
We are generally pleased with the direction the present government is taking with the Tenant Protection Act. However, we have a few areas that we feel could be and should be addressed to make the legislation fairer and more responsive to the needs of all parties.
The first item we feel should be amended is the matter of the loss of legal maximum rent. By taking away legal maximum rents on first turnover, this legislation retroactively confiscates rent increases earned for capital expenditures completed on our properties. This problem becomes more apparent in soft rental markets, for example, when plant closings and government cutbacks mean that a building that has had capital expenditures completed on it under past rent control regimes is not able to collect the increase temporarily. The fact that the increases were qualified and approved becomes irrelevant.
For example, when a tenant vacates a unit, the rent perhaps is left the same and the owner loses the legal maximum rent level he has earned. This perhaps should not be allowed to happen. The legal maximum rent should be able to be carried forward until such time as the market allows the earned rent level to be implemented. The legal maximum rent in this case should be allowed to increase with the guideline each year, as is currently the case.
If tenants are afraid of large increases as rents are brought to the legal maximum levels, a cap could be in place to ensure that these increases are implemented gradually. The issue here is fairness. Owners get paid for their capital expenditures and tenants experience increases that they can budget for.
Second, future capital expenditure costs should be able to be phased in beyond a two-year period without reapplying. Legislated expenditures such as the fire code retrofit items should be exempt from the cap, and the cap should be in the 5% to 7% level. Smaller caps remove the incentive for owners to do capital expenditures, because of the slow payback period.
Third, there is a need for a minimum dollar increase as well as a percentage calculation to avoid penalizing low-rent units and widening the gap from market rents. As well, there should not be a cap on the ability of owners and tenants to agree to a mutually acceptable rent increase. This would also include the ability of owners and tenants to agree on separate and additional services and charges.
Finally, the proposed Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal is a move in the right direction, provided it is adequately funded and monitored. This less formal system of adjudication is welcomed by owners, and I'm sure by tenants. This tribunal must be free of political bias and be staffed by individuals with the appropriate qualifications. The tribunal must have the ability to control process and command authority. Timely decisions are imperative to ensure both owners and tenants maintain confidence in the system. Provisions must also be considered to dissuade frivolous applications from both tenants and owners.
In summary, the final format this legislation takes must be such that both owners and tenants believe both are being treated fairly. Years of experimenting by governments of various stripes have left both owners and tenants cynical. Owners require confidence in a system before investing much-needed capital into their buildings, and tenants require confidence that they will receive value for their housing dollar. Politicians must also realize that they cannot use rent control as the political hot potato, as they have in the past two decades.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views and concerns on this very important piece of legislation.
Mr Duncan: Thank you very much for your presentation. The two points you've addressed have been raised by other landlord organizations. I want to come back to your second point, the question of the proper administration and funding of the tribunal. Earlier I asked the same question of a prominent Hamilton landlord. He expressed his view that money wasn't the issue in terms of the proper functioning of the tribunal, that they're simply administrative issues. I wonder if you could elaborate on the points you made in that area for my benefit and the benefit of the committee.
Mr McDaniel: When I refer to funding, the tribunal needs to have the resources available to it to enable timely decisions to be made. Under past regimes, back to 1976, we were always frustrated, both landlords and tenants, by delays because of there not being enough commissioners under the old system, not enough administrative staff and delays that went on for months, sometimes a year and a half. It was very difficult for both parties.
Mr Duncan: Would I be properly paraphrasing you if I were to say that in order for the new tribunal -- and the government has I think properly argued that it's a more streamlined process, that the positive benefit that could accrue as a result of those changes could be lost if it's not properly organized and funded from the outset?
Mr McDaniel: That's correct, yes.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Thank you for appearing before the committee. You specifically stated your concern about the fact that we have not included a provision to deal with the loss of legal maximum rent. I share some of your concern in so far as chronically depressed rental units have been found to be a problem in Massachusetts, New York, British Columbia and Ontario. We would like to deal with that, but perhaps you have an idea how we may be able to.
Mr McDaniel: My main point here was with buildings at large, not specifically chronically depressed rents, the impact of losing the legal maximum rent. For example, we have a property in Sarnia, and the Sarnia area as a whole has been depressed for the last number of years. There have been considerable expenditures put into this particular building because it was necessary to provide good accommodation. Because of the softness of the market we will not be able to implement those increases that were justified, and once we establish a new rent level on turnover, those are gone.
What we would like to be able to do in those circumstances is for those to be maintained, so that if and when the general economy in that area turns around, we can get paid for the considerable work we've done to keep the building in good shape.
Mr Wettlaufer: Did you find that in those units the problem was similar to other areas, where they were not being occupied by low-income tenants but rather by tenants who had sufficient means?
Mr McDaniel: The building is just a typical apartment building with residents who cover the whole spectrum: working, seniors, young adults.
1210
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr McDaniel. I appreciate your taking the time to make your presentation before us here today. Two very quick things: First off, just to comment on Mr Duncan's question to you, we are committed very much to providing whatever resources are necessary to make sure the new tribunal is the most efficient, most effective, most focused way of delivering a rent review system in this province. Certainly it will have an initial budget, but the minister has made it very clear that this isn't about cost-saving; this is about improving a system that right now has seen a number of delays built in as a result of using the court system -- and some parts of the province are worse than others. Our goal is to do something that provides for a far faster and far fairer administration of the disputes that may arise between landlords and tenants.
Let me pose a question to you, because as somebody with that many apartments yourself, you'll no doubt have a perspective on this that will help the committee in terms of its deliberations about where the real problems lie in the rental system in Ontario.
One of the speakers earlier this morning indicated that the property taxation on apartments is two and a half times that of a single-family home. Actually, he's being conservative. Province-wide, the average is four to one. In downtown Toronto it's as high as 6.2 to one. Imagine that: an apartment paying six times as much tax as the a single-family home the same size. In a companion piece of legislation we've now given municipalities all the tools -- if in fact they ever needed any, but now they have no excuse -- to bring fairness back to the taxation system.
Would you hazard a guess in your community up in Guelph of what that imbalance works out to per month per apartment right now? If your property taxes were rolled back to what they should be paying comparable to the level of a single-family home, how much of a saving would that be for your average apartment?
Mr McDaniel: Would I be correct in making the correlation of a single-family home that's worth $120,000 in Guelph and what taxes it would pay, and what the corresponding apartment unit would be worth and what taxes it's paying?
Mr Gilchrist: You could approach it that way, or even with an ultraconservative two-to-one ratio -- knowing what property tax you pay per building, if you divide that by the number of units and then cut that in half -- what would that saving be? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but just a ballpark figure.
Mr McDaniel: On a typical Guelph building, the property taxes are about $1,200 a unit per year.
Mr Gilchrist: So a saving of $600 a year would be realistic, and that's in a municipality that was only two to one, not Toronto, which is six to one.
What does the average apartment in that building rent for?
Mr McDaniel: It's $675 a month average, one-bedroom and two-bedroom.
Mr Gilchrist: So you're looking at about an 8% reduction in the total rent bill overnight. Would you have any problem with the concept that any property tax reduction flows through directly to the tenant?
Mr McDaniel: No problem with that concept, no.
Mr Gilchrist: It's obviously not something that's part of your profit margin. Could we then deduce from all we've just discussed here that in terms of the real impact on tenants one of the biggest problems right now is the fact that municipalities have not found it in their hearts to deliver that fairness? Given that this is an election year, this might be something where both landlords and tenants would share a mutual interest in raising the issue and making sure you get commitments from prospective municipal councillors starting their term next year, get an answer from them where they stand on this issue.
Mr Bisson: They are all running to council chambers to lower taxes already. I can see it coming.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, please.
Mr McDaniel: It's difficult for us as owners. We're one vote in a municipality, for example, in a 50-unit apartment building. It's difficult, as one voter, to rally the forces to get the support we need to go to city hall to effect the type of change we wish.
Mr Gilchrist: What about raising the issue with your tenants and letting them be the squeaky wheel? Would that be something you would see as a feasible course of action?
Mr McDaniel: I could see that being appropriate maybe as the next year or two unfolds because of the fact that as new home construction costs -- for example, the tax imbalance adds to the disadvantage of the renter. As that becomes more apparent and we lose more of our residents, buying first-time homes, we become less competitive. I could see that being the driving force behind us doing that type of thing.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr McDaniel. The committee thanks you for coming this morning.
Mr Bisson: Mr Chairman, I have a question to the parliamentary assistant.
The Chair: I guess you can wait your turn. We'll see what happens when the rotation comes.
Mr Bisson: No, we're allowed to ask the parliamentary assistant for advice or information with regard to the bill.
The Chair: Why don't you ask the question now, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Chair. You're very helpful this morning.
The Chair: Indeed.
Mr Bisson: To the parliamentary assistant: You are indicating that municipalities are going to have the ability, if they didn't have already, to lower municipal taxes. Can you give us a list of what municipalities in Ontario have entered into any kind of discussion, or even hinted in the remotest fashion, that they're going to lower municipal taxes as a result of this legislation?
Mr Gilchrist: The region of York has indicated that they accept the fact that on January 1 they will have considerably lower taxes and they intend to pass that along in the form of a tax reduction. I'm not going to sit here and debate the whole Who Does What initiative with you, but there are many, many municipalities that have already come to that conclusion, as you're well aware. Metro Toronto, by the end of this month, will also be in a situation where in all likelihood you will see a reduction as a result of the transfers. Far from the $500-million increase, you're going to see a decrease.
Mr Bisson: You've answered my question, and it's for the record.
Interruption.
The Chair: I'd ask members of the audience who are speaking to wait until your turn comes. We simply can't have interjections from the audience. No committee Chair allows it, nor do I, sir -- you in the front row.
SID BARNETT
The Chair: The next delegation is Sid Barnett. Good morning. Actually, I guess it's afternoon; quarter past 12.
Mr Sid Barnett: Thanks for listening to me. I don't represent anybody but myself. I'm a landlord and have been for a long time.
My impression from what I've read in the paper is that you've heard pro and con, both sides, on everything to do with what they call vacancy decontrol, if that's the label for the new plan. I don't have anything new to say on that. My opinion coincides with the bulk of the landlords, who regard it as continued rent control. We don't regard it as a natural phasing-out; we regard it as a continuation of rent control. In some respects it may be less onerous than in the past, in others it may be more onerous, but it's a continuation, and the bureaucracy remains. Minor changes in the legislation could make it much worse or much better in the future, but it's a continuation. That's the general view.
I don't really have anything to add to everything you've heard from anybody else, the different opinions. What I would like to address is the landlord and tenant side. Regardless of what the rent is, regardless of the rent control law that is ultimately enacted, the new legislation addresses the relations between landlord and tenant. Tenants misbehave, landlords misbehave, and how do they deal with their relations? In the existing legislation the matter goes to court, and under the proposed legislation you have a tribunal that will deal with those issues.
The point I want to emphasize, if it hasn't been made -- and maybe it has -- is the reality that any landlord knows, that any landlord experiences every time he appears before any tribunal, whether it's a court or a rent control tribunal, a building standards tribunal, any kind of tribunal in which he is classified as a landlord and there is an opposing tenant. The point I want to emphasize is that there is an overwhelming, all-pervasive anti-landlord bias. Any landlord knows that. Any landlord experiences it every time he appears at a tribunal. It's taken for granted. It's so taken for granted that the officers who decide these issues are completely unaware of it. They think they're being totally neutral because they carry on in a regime which has a ubiquitous anti-landlord bias.
The point I want to address is, how is that going to be any different under the proposed system? There's a tribunal set up and it has very large areas of discretion. My fear is that we'll be exactly where we left off. Let's say there is a tenant in default of rent who comes before the tribunal. Automatically, what happens in court now is that if the tenant shows up and asks for a delay, it's automatically granted. Any tenant with the least little bit of savvy can get two months' free rent before he's evicted. That's considered normal and proper. That's not considered a loss to the landlord. That's just considered normal and proper procedure, for a tenant to be able to get that kind of extension and stay where he is.
The simple point I want to make is that there should be very clear guidelines, without these broad areas of discretion. If the situation is simple, if the rent is in arrears or things of that nature, it should not be allowed to be dragged out. Right now, I see nothing in the legislation that prevents the same kind of anti-landlord bias from continuing. That's the simple point I want to make.
1220
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I want to thank you for being here today and giving us your opinion, particularly as an individual as opposed to --
The Chair: Mrs Munro, Mr Bisson has again corrected me. He's correct; it is the NDP's turn. I apologize.
Mr Bisson: The NDP is always correct. I couldn't resist.
Mr Gilchrist: Too bad the voters didn't agree.
Mr Bisson: Well, voters come and voters go to political parties, and you should know that as well as anybody else.
You make an interesting point, and it's something I've heard from both landlords and tenants: the fear of the tribunal, but for a little bit different reasons.
You make the comment -- I don't want to put words in your mouth -- that the courts, by nature, are much more friendly towards the tenants than they are towards the landlords. As a sitting MPP -- this is my second term -- I've seen both a whole bunch of tenants and a whole bunch of landlords make the same arguments. I've seen tenants come in and say: "The courts didn't give me a fair shake. The landlord had all the power." I've seen landlords come in and argue the same thing. It's somewhat subjective, depending on where you're at.
The point I want to make is that in the case of a rental unit, a rental unit is much more important for a person's livelihood than, let's say, a car or a stereo or a TV or a Nintendo game or whatever purchase you might make. The courts, yes, you're right, have given a certain amount of latitude to tenants in the event that they don't pay for whatever reason. It's not always because the person decides not to pay; often it's because they can't afford to pay -- something has happened, they've lost their job etc. The courts have given a certain amount of leeway in allowing, to a certain extent, the tenants to fall back.
Do you argue that if your rent is due on June 1 and you have not paid, this government should give the power to evict the person automatically after they're overdue? What kind of latitude would you give? It's an interesting point.
Mr Barnett: I agree that the relationship between landlord and tenant is different from a purely economic relationship. I agree with that, but the areas in which it is more than an economic relationship are in areas that have to do with privacy and things like that. A landlord cannot go into a tenant's apartment, things like that.
The economic aspect of the relationship, the payment of rent, is a basic economic relationship. In my view, I can't think of any justification. There is no other area that I am aware of in normal life where a person who is obliged to pay money is excused from paying it, is given some latitude because he happens to be a tenant or happens to be anything else. If rent is not paid, the normal consequence that follows should be that whatever you pay the rent for, you no longer have it.
You suggested that because it's a special type of relationship -- and I agree that it is -- a tenant should be given latitude, that even if he doesn't pay the rent he can stay there. To me, that reflects an anti-landlord bias.
Mr Bisson: Just to clarify for the record, I just want it on the record: I'm not advocating that people don't pay their rent. I want to make sure that everybody has a responsibility and must pay. The argument is, how much latitude? That's all I'm arguing.
Mr Barnett: What do you mean by that? When you refer to it as "latitude," do you mean he should be able to stay there without paying rent?
The Chair: That's it, thank you. Mrs Munro.
Mrs Munro: We hear the fact from both the landlords and the tenants that in most cases relations are very good. I just wondered if you could give us some kind of estimate from your experience of what you would consider to be the percentage of situations that result in any kind of protracted discussion.
Mr Barnett: In our buildings it's probably less than 1%, but the 1% is egregious. One tenant can make life absolutely miserable for every other tenant in that building.
Mrs Munro: Certainly the issue of polarization between landlord and tenant is something that previous speakers have commented on, and you've suggested the need for some kind of process which appears to be fair on both sides. There have been a number of suggestions: a tribunal that acts in a timely fashion and a tribunal that creates less cost for both sides. I'm wondering if you care to comment on those as possible ways to deal with this polarization that so many have spoken about.
Mr Barnett: The cost and the time factor are the two elements. What I call the anti-landlord bias -- I think it's a misguided effort if they think they're doing the tenant some good by letting him stay there longer. I think that's totally misguided. The persons who are really harmed by a bad tenant are the other tenants.
Every case is an individual case, but if there is broad discretion in a tribunal, the sympathy is always going to lie with the tenant. You don't want to kick somebody out on the street --
The Chair: I'm sorry. I cut you off in mid-sentence. We have to keep moving somehow. Mr Duncan.
Mr Duncan: Well, we have no questions, so I'll just ask you to finish your answer to that.
The Chair: The Liberals are going to allow you to finish your sentence, Mr Barnett.
Mr Barnett: We don't have a lot of history with how a tribunal can be set up so that it does function. It's just an experiment; whoever has ideas, they are just theoretical ideas. My own suggestion is based on my own experience, and our experience in this province is that the discretion should not be broad. There should not be broad discretion to extend the times for notices and things like that or to waive requirements. There's a legislative requirement that if a tenant doesn't pay the rent and has some excuse, he's got to pay the rent into court. That's never enforced. If there is the discretion in the tribunal to enforce it or not enforce it, it's going to show the anti-landlord bias.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Barnett, for speaking to us this morning.
1230
STONEY CREEK LANDLORDS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The final delegation this morning is the Stoney Creek Landlords' Association, Albert Marrone. Good afternoon, sir.
Mr Albert Marrone: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Stoney Creek Landlords' Association.
Bill 96 has had its second reading and I understand we're in the process of having some public input regarding the bill. While Bill 96 addresses some concerns between the landlord and the tenant, we believe that this bill falls short on some major issues for the landlord.
To provide affordable accommodation to the general public requires an initial substantial investment by the landlord in acquiring a building or a complex. Once the landlord rents the unit to a tenant, the tenant will move in and may literally destroy the premises, with very few consequences at present. The tenant may move out, leaving the premises in a deplorable state, as has been experienced in the Stoney Creek area on very many occasions, and of course they leave the added expenses to the landlord.
The landlord may take legal action, and many of them do and have done, but only to incur added legal expense while going through the process. Usually they find out that the tenant has very little, if anything, in return. They move from one dwelling to another, and on and on and on. They simply move on to the next unit. They will destroy it and keep going. SCLA members have all at one time or another experienced this major problem and have had losses of anywhere from $2,000 to $11,000 in damages, in as little as one year to five months.
Bill 96 must provide the mechanism that when a tenant takes over the dwelling the tenant is responsible for the general inner maintenance of the building. The premises should be kept in the same livable condition as when they took possession of the premises.
Bill 96 does not allow the landlord to hold a damage deposit. I find this quite interesting because my daughters both go to university right now -- one just finished graduating from Scotland -- and at most Canadian universities you have to have a $500 damage deposit if you are living in residence. In essence, the same rules should be applied to the people who want to be tenants in this province. The cost of supplying moneys up front is $500 to $700 for any Canadian university that I've researched.
Bill 96 must inculcate the responsibilities of not only the landlord but also the tenant. Both should have the same stake. We have investments, they need a place to live. It should be a two-way street. Right now, it seems to me it's in favour of the tenant.
Bill 96 should make the tenant receive a release tenancy form indicating the status of the tenant before they qualify for the next rental accommodation. In this way it puts the onus on the tenant to at least try to maintain the property to a livable level. This system, by the way, is used in many European countries such as Italy, France, Germany and Switzerland and is very, very successful.
In conclusion, we as an association find that unless we address the issues at hand there are going to be less and less rental units for people to live in. There is simply too much at stake here; something has to be done. It's a two-way street and I think it's about time that we put some of these hard rules that both parties have to abide by and that have to be law.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Marrone. I appreciate your comments. Let me ask you, in looking at the bill, whether you would agree with us that there is a need for balance throughout the bill. In section 24 we specify the landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining the complex in a good state of repair, fit for habitation. In section 28, responsibility of tenant, the act as it's currently drafted says the tenant is responsible for ordinary cleanliness of the rental unit. Would it be your submission that we should add a section there to the extent, "and be responsible for any damages which may be occasioned"?
Mr Marrone: Absolutely. I think it's a must. I'm really not against tenants. A lot of them are quite good, quite frankly. I think the majority are good tenants, but from what I've experienced in my association, and there are about 25 of us, you get some scenarios that really are a tremendous burden on the actual landlord. Some of the premises have been empty now for three or four months. The insurance will not cover any damages. It's a big bill, and who is going to pay? I have articles in the papers here. It has led to shootings. Unless we have some very hard laws that deal with both sides of the street, you're going to resort to violence here. That's what I'm really scared about, that some of these tenants don't understand what's involved here.
Mr Gilchrist: I guess it's the old syndrome of the one bad apple, because as we've heard from landlords all across Ontario, there certainly is not a mindset, nor is there among the members of the government, that tenants are all bad. In fact, as one of the presenters just before you said, there are good landlords and bad landlords and there are good tenants and bad tenants.
Precisely the fact that you've identified that this bill certainly is not everything that landlords would want demonstrates that the government has tried to find a balance. Surely, if everyone from the tenant side came in here and raved or everyone from the landlord side came in here and raved, then you would not have a fair bill.
We don't expect both sides to love it 100% but we do believe this is a step forward towards fairness. We'll certainly take back your suggestion to add a far more definitive statement of the tenants' responsibilities, and hopefully for that 1% or one tenth of 1%, whatever it is, those stories can become more past anecdotes and less of a burden on landlords, and quite frankly less of a burden on tenants, because ultimately the landlord has to recover those costs somewhere, and that somewhere is generally in increased rents for all the tenants.
Thank you very much for taking the time to make your submission.
Mr Doyle: How are you today? You had mentioned that the universities have a damage deposit of $500.
Mr Marrone: That's correct. At Western, McMaster and Brock University you have to put in a $500 deposit. If you're in a residence, you have to put that money down, and if you leave the residence in a similar state to that in which you got it, you get the refund back, I think plus a bit of interest as well.
Mr Doyle: It had been mentioned by a previous landlord that he believes only about 1% of tenants are troublesome. That was his estimate, that 99% were good tenants. Would you concur with that?
Mr Marrone: I wouldn't go as far as putting a percentage point value on the tenants who are good or bad, but in my experience -- I'll give you an example. I have a very nice two-bedroom home and I've been renting it since 1988. I've had five tenants, three of whom demolished the property. That's just my experience.
We keep fixing the stuff up, bringing new people in. They all look nice up front, they say they're good tenants, they're great, they work, this and that. But you get all kinds of things happening. Before you know it, you've got pets in there that literally destroy all the carpets; they urinate all over the place, they smell up the home, we have to do all kinds of things to it. It's disgusting. I don't know how people can live in those kinds of environments, quite frankly. I just don't understand it. I'm not talking about the investment itself; even the health of the people who live in those conditions. I find it quite extraordinary that they can live in that type of environment.
If you were to look at my place now that I've had empty, and all my other friends who have had vacant buildings -- I welcome anybody to come and have a look, to see exactly what I've done to that home to make it livable. I'm talking about a very beautiful little home. I'll tell you right now, I've had it empty. I'm screening the people, but there's no guarantee. These people could come in and literally destroy that place, which they've done before, with all kinds of holes in walls. It's a total disaster. So if you tell me about 1%, I don't know what the percentages are, but in my experience, I'd say about a good 20% to 30% of the tenants I've had, I haven't had very good luck. By the way, we've screened tenants out. So the mechanism has to be there.
I feel sorry for the people who can't afford to buy good homes. I try as a Christian to accommodate people who are a bit needy too. But to be taken like that over and over again -- not only me, but I'm here representing an association, as I said, of 25 to 30 people in Stoney Creek. They all have horrible stories to tell. Some have gone to the paper; some have not gone to the paper. I haven't gone to the paper. But when I saw that in the paper, I said, "Who's this Mr M?" I thought they were talking about me. It wasn't me at all, it was somebody else, and then we formed an association. But something has to be done.
1240
Mr Duncan: Thank you, Mr Marrone. You've put a case that has been well put by yourself and a number of others.
I want to take a moment to explore your views on another aspect, the whole question of supply of affordable rental housing, and perhaps ask, given your background in municipal government -- one of the big issues that has been raised by landlords throughout these hearings, and indeed it has been well discussed prior, is the differential taxation between apartment units and single-family residential. Is it your view that municipalities such as Stoney Creek or others will be in a position to lower property taxes for landlords, given everything that has gone on, in the coming couple of years?
Mr Marrone: That is an issue. Mr Agostino knows me very well. I was a councillor in Stoney Creek for nine years. I did not get re-elected this term and I've been working on my own. I'm a teacher so I've got my own profession. However, to answer your question regarding taxation, yes, I tend to agree with you about trying to make the taxation levels lower, because we are taxed to a considerable degree, and to provide affordable housing the taxes have to be looked at as well. Certainly the remuneration on getting the moneys back on the investment that I've got there, forget it. We're just paying the taxes and trying to maintain the premises.
Mr Duncan: The government has suggested that individual municipalities could become an issue in the coming election dealing with the differential. Do you think that's realistic in light of all of the changes that are going on with respect to downloading, as some would call it, disentanglement, as it used to be known? Do you think it's realistic?
Mr Marrone: The disentanglement I think is a process that has to be looked at in terms of who gets what. Certainly the downloading of the taxation is a different issue. Whether it affects the affordability of homes and the tenant versus the landlord is hard to say. However, I've got to admit that some of the things this government has done are very positive and some of them are very disturbing, quite frankly. I find some of the things disturbing, but I think they're trying to do some things that are positive.
In terms of us, as an association, I've still to see a nice, clear balance between the tenant and the landlord. That has got to be looked at. In terms of the taxation, it's hard to say who are the winners here and who are the losers in this whole gamut of restructuring. But I would hope, putting all politics aside, and I have been a past politician, we are all winners. That's what I think it's about. People in general have to be in a win-win situation, not that we sacrifice somebody for somebody else's gains. I don't tend to agree with that at all.
Mr Bisson: I've got two questions. You seem to be suggesting through your presentation that tenants be responsible for not only the good repair of the unit but the overall unit. Are you suggesting if I take a unit from you and the tap breaks or the carpet needs changing because of wear and tear that I should pay for that?
Mr Marrone: If I was to rent my brand-new suite to you and you're living a normal life -- I've lived in my own home -- I built my home in 1968, I'm still there. I had to change the taps on my sink, sure. But you don't change the taps once every two months when somebody gets a hammer and smashes the thing up. If there's a leak in a tap, yes, I think the tenant should be able to maintain those premises in a livable condition.
Mr Bisson: So that's your argument. You're arguing that the government should say by way of this legislation that tenants not only pay rent but must pay for the ongoing maintenance of the apartment?
Mr Marrone: The general small upkeep of the apartment, the small inner workings. If a lightbulb breaks, that's his responsibility. If a switch falls or becomes inoperable in a home, they have to fix that switch.
Mr Bisson: I disagree with the premise but I understand what you're saying.
The second one is that you talked about the landlord needing a way to recoup damages done to the unit, and I sympathize with that to a certain extent. But if you read on in the legislation, there is already an indication that you're going to have this right, and I hate to be the one to tell you this. Section 40 gives the power to the landlord under certain circumstances to seize the assets within the unit -- in other words, all the furniture, the colour TV, the Nintendo game, the mink coat, whatever the heck it might be -- and there are no limits placed on how much a landlord can take. In other words, I rent your unit, there's $1,000 damage, there's $10,000 worth of furniture in there, you can keep it all. Do you think that's fair?
Mr Marrone: First of all, I don't know what section you're reading there.
Mr Bisson: Section 40.
Mr Gilchrist: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Mr Bisson, I wouldn't want you to mislead the gentleman. That has to do with abandonment of property. It has nothing to do with damages.
Mr Marrone: Exactly. I was coming to that because I've read the bill and I understand where the bill is coming from. Let me tell you this. We've had cases where they've not only demolished the home but they've moved in the middle of the night with a truck. They literally took everything out of the house and moved out of the home and left damage up to $5,000, $6,000 and no way to recoup that money anywhere. What do you do in that case? How does this bill address that?
Mr Bisson: But what you're arguing is that you be given some sort of mechanism either to take a security deposit at the beginning or to have some mechanism by which to be able to grab the assets within the unit in order to offset your damages.
Mr Marrone: That's right. But what's wrong with that? On a mutual agreement you've got two people who are going to be partners, the tenant and the landlord. What's wrong with having a damage deposit put in a bank account collecting interest at the same rate and leaving the money there?
Mr Bisson: My question is, how much?
Interruption.
Mr Marrone: Well, $500, $700, whatever the cost.
The Chair: Excuse me. The gentleman in the front row, I've asked you to stop disrupting the meeting and I ask you again. Please do not disrupt the meeting. It's not fair to the speaker, it's not fair to the committee members and, more important, it's not fair to the people who are here to listen.
Interruption.
The Chair: I'm sorry? I'm going to warn you this time. I don't want to have to call hotel security but I will.
Please continue.
Mr Marrone: As I was saying, it takes two partners. The amount should be negotiated. The law should permit a set amount. It shouldn't be something that is extravagant but it should be something that ties the people in. How come students have to put that deposit down? Because they know if they're going to have a party in a residence and demolish that particular residence, they're going to lose their $500. That makes them think twice about throwing a wild party and making holes in the walls.
Mr Bisson: A fair amount to you is $500 or $700?
Mr Marrone: I think $500 to $700 for a single unit is a substantial amount that the person could lay away. As I say, if you have an account, whatever interest it gathers, it's their money. But at least I have access to that if there are holes in the wall.
Mr Bisson: That was my follow-up, who gets the interest on the money, which you've answered.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Mr Marrone: Am I off the hook?
The Chair: You're finally off the hook.
Mr Marrone: It's that easy?
The Chair: You've had a tough session. Thank you very much for coming and making a presentation.
Mr Marrone: I will leave this particular piece of information with the committee, if you so desire.
The Chair: If you could leave that with the clerk, the clerk will copy it and present it to members of the committee. Thanks very much for coming.
That concludes the presentations this morning. The committee will reconvene at 2:30 this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1247 to 1431.
The Chair: I call the meeting to order again. There's been a request, members of the committee, that the next two groups on the agenda, McQuesten Legal and Community Services and the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton-Wentworth, meet as one group and that essentially instead of 20 minutes for each group, they meet for a total of 40 minutes. Unless anyone objects, I have consented to that. Seeing none, representatives from those groups can appear.
MCQUESTEN LEGAL AND COMMUNITYSERVICES
DUNDURN COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
SOCIAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH COUNCIL OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH
The Chair: I have four names: C. Michael Ollier, Don Jaffray, Andrea Horvath and Judith MacNeil. Good afternoon. Just so we know the rules, because it is a little unusual what you're doing, it's the Chair's position that you have 40 minutes. You can speak for 40 minutes or you can speak and allow time for members of the committee to ask questions, if indeed they have any. The floor is yours. Each person who speaks, if you could identify yourself.
I see you have things here. I see what you're going to do with them, but the rules of the House, which apply to the committee, indicate that there should be no props, no demonstrations. Try and keep that in mind when you're making your presentation.
Ms Andrea Horvath: Thank you, Mr Chairman. In fact, we appreciate the committee's flexibility in terms of letting us discuss our positions together. They're just here. We're not going to do anything with them. They're just sitting here with us.
The Chair: As long as you don't throw them; it might hurt. I'll try to be fairly liberal, with a small l.
Ms Horvath: Good afternoon. My name's Andrea Horvath and I'm a community development coordinator with McQuesten Legal and Community Services. I have with me, as you've mentioned, Michael Ollier, the executive director of McQuesten; Judy MacNeil, the executive director of Dundurn Community Legal Services; and Don Jaffray, the executive director of the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton-Wentworth. We'll be sharing the time allotted, as you've already mentioned, and we thank you for that.
We'd like to begin by saying that we really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. We also appreciate the opportunity that so many of our local MPPs have come to hear the hearings. We think that's very positive and we're very glad that you're here.
I also chair a group in our community called the Social Housing and Access Committee. The acronym for that is SHAC. SHAC is an unfunded, voluntary organization made up of tenants' organizations, tenants and various groups concerned with the availability of and access to safe, decent, affordable housing in our community.
Many organizations and groups in our community are suffering from serious dwindling of resources and a lack of access to information. Last year during the process of the discussion paper phase of what's now become Bill 96, the New Directions document, it became clear to SHAC that the realities of lack of resources had some effect on our community's ability to respond to that particular initiative of the time, which was the New Directions document. In order to address that situation, SHAC has been working with over two dozen organizations in our community to assist them to have a voice in the hearings today.
So this afternoon you'll hear from numerous individuals and groups and you'll notice that for the most part the community of Hamilton-Wentworth is united in our position on the bill. Even the city of Hamilton and the regional municipality have serious concerns about the effects that this bill will have. Our united opposition to the bill has meant that we have worked together to ensure that you have an opportunity to hear from a rich and diverse cross-section of our community.
Frankly, we are concerned that the Tenant Protection Act is based on a little bit of a faulty analysis about the housing market, an analysis which does not take into consideration all of the complex variables that affect the supply of rental housing, and in particular rental housing which meets the needs of our community.
The assumption that the removal of rent controls will stimulate rental housing construction is false. Time and again over the process of these public hearings it's been shown that this is a faulty analysis. History has shown us that the market does not and will not respond to social need. This has, unfortunately, in our opinion, been ignored, as well as other real economic barriers to construction, including things like financing costs, property taxes, land values and development and construction costs. We fear that even if these costs are addressed, the only housing that would be built would be at the high end. We fear that this point is not being given enough consideration. What we fear as well is that this will do nothing to address the real housing crisis which currently exists, particularly for low-income people. In fact what we fear is that it will make things worse as the most low-rent, in some cases derelict, buildings are demolished or converted to condos or other uses.
The repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act will create havoc in our communities. Our local government will be unable to successfully plan for the ongoing needs of our community, as this bill effectively removes them from any involvement in the decision-making process. The supply of affordable housing will be reduced, and exacerbating this situation is the decision made early on in your mandate particularly to end the construction of non-profit and cooperative housing and the more recent decision to sell off the public housing units.
Bill 96 in our terms is an attack on tenants and their homes. With this bill we fear that you're dismantling brick by brick the essential building blocks which have provided tenants with protection over the years -- hence our building blocks.
As people come before the committee today, or this afternoon particularly, you'll hear about the detrimental effect of the removal of rental controls and the repeal of the RHPA. You'll hear about the loss of choice, the loss of protection from discrimination and the loss of security of tenure. You will hear about reduced access to justice, reduced ability of tenants to have maintenance and repairs addressed and the loss of privacy protections. You will hear how this bill systematically destroys the basic building blocks that society really needs to ensure we maintain an adequate supply of decent, affordable, appropriate housing that meets the needs of our community.
Although you're probably not enthralled with the way I've set the tone of this afternoon, I really ask you to carefully listen to the concerns we have. We ask you to remember that there are millions of tenants in Ontario. You need to keep in mind the needs of these people and not only the drive for construction, which we think is not going to happen, and the drive for profits. You must remember that housing is not a luxury in Ontario. It's a necessity, a basic requirement for life. We ask that you please keep this in mind while you hear our community this afternoon. Thank you.
Next I'd call on Mike Ollier, the executive director of McQuesten legal clinic.
Mr Michael Ollier: I'm the executive director at McQuesten and I work with Andrea. Andrea's our community development coordinator and as a result of that, working as she does in the community, she's associated with a number of groups. I would just say that would be one reason why you would perhaps see her in a number of different capacities, a number of different connections with our community.
Part of our mandate as a clinic is to promote the legal welfare of our community. That's why we're here today and why I'm speaking to you as I am today on a subject that's very dear to my heart. I've worked with McQuesten since 1991 now and since that time my eyes have been opened to issues I never would have seen otherwise.
I used to have a very simplistic image of tenants. They seemed to resemble me in a lot of ways, from the type of building that they would live in, to the way they would behave if they had a problem with their landlord. But since then I've grown to appreciate that there are many different types of premises and that the word "tenant" includes a very broad range of people. This is particularly true for roomers and boarders, and that's an issue that's very close to my heart. A room is usually cheaper than a self-contained dwelling and the people who live in them for the most part are quite poor. In Hamilton, where we have a regional psychiatric facility, many people who live in our rooming-houses face mental health challenges as well.
I'm proud to say that the city of Hamilton and the region around it has demonstrated concern about the people living in rooming-houses. A task force which was completed in 1994 has set about improving standards and encouraging the availability of social service resources as well. A key part of that strategy is making sure that landlords are aware of their responsibility under the law. That has been the Landlord and Tenant Act up until this point.
1440
Section 1(a) of the present act, the Landlord and Tenant Act, includes rooming, boarding and lodging house in the definition of residential premises, and then section 1(e) of the current Landlord and Tenant Act exempts premises whose occupant or occupants are required to share a bathroom or kitchen facility with the owner, the owner's spouse, child or parent or the spouse's child or parent, where the owner, spouse, child or parent lives in the building in which the premises are located. That's the law as it stands at the present time.
Section 1 of the Tenant Protection Act would also include rooming, boarding and lodging houses in the definition of a rental unit. Section 3, clause (i), however, may provide a larger exemption than what was intended, I feel. It reads, "Living accommodation whose occupant or occupants are required to share a bathroom or kitchen facility with the owner, the owner's spouse, child or parent or the spouse's child or parent, and where the owner, spouse, child or parent lives in the building in which the living accommodation is located." It's a small word, but it's a significant one; the word is "and." I suspect that the intent in both acts was the same, and that was to --
Mr Bisson: What section are you referring to?
Mr Ollier: Section 3, clause (i). I suspect the intent in both the Landlord and Tenant Act and the act you're currently considering is the same, and that's simply to exempt from the act premises where a kitchen or a bathroom is shared with the owner. One can see that there's a rationale for that, because you'd really want to rapidly end a situation that was unpleasant when people are obviously in very close quarters. At present, the Landlord and Tenant Act does this. We all recognize that it does this; the judges know that it does this. But adding the word "and" just before stating that the landlord and related persons must also live in the building may have an unfortunate consequence that I'm personally very concerned about, because it might be argued that the "and" provides a second exemption for landlords who simply reside somewhere in the building. That would enlarge the category of exempt landlords from the people who let a room in their house, for example, to anyone who operates a rooming-house on a larger scale who could perhaps arrange to have a family member maintain a residence there.
I'm sure that's not what was intended, but even so, a lawyer for a landlord would be able to challenge the old purpose behind the Landlord and Tenant Act by saying, "Well, why was the 'and' put in? If the Legislature did not want to make the change, they would have left that alone."
As I was saying earlier, since coming to the clinics I've had my eyes opened to many types of tenancies and I know that rooming-house tenancies are often overlooked. Part of my job is to try and make sure that these types of tenancies are not overlooked and I urge you to change this section back to the way it once was. Tenant protection is particularly important for this group of very vulnerable people, but I suspect furthermore that rooming-houses may be in the future for many more tenants if the rents rise or even remain stable when and if this bill is passed. Incomes from part-time employment and social assistance are now very low and rooms may be all some people can afford soon, maybe many people, and it will be even more important then that the legal obligations of rooming-house tenants and their landlords be very clear. It's perhaps a small issue, but it's of vital importance to the people I work with. I thank you very much for your attention on that.
Now I'd like to introduce you to Ms Judith MacNeil, to my left. She's a director at Dundurn Community Legal Services, also in Hamilton here, and she's had a great deal of experience with the landlord and tenant court and the appeal process. Her familiarity with the legal problems and the procedure makes her particularly well suited, I think, to offer comments on the proposed Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.
Ms Judith MacNeil: Thank you, Mike. I'm making this submission on behalf of the three legal clinic of Hamilton -- Dundurn Community Legal Services, Hamilton Mountain legal services and McQuesten legal services. We've been involved in landlord and tenant matters for some 18 years, since the inception of McQuesten, and we've represented tenants in court applications ongoingly since that point.
We accept the inevitability of a transfer from the court's jurisdiction to that of a tribunal. Some of us may regret it, but we realize the cost implications for court adjudication are soaring and we acknowledge that this is inevitable.
Our submissions today are limited to comments on the prospective Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal as suggested in Bill 96. We have some concerns about the loss of rights for tenants that are now secured in the Landlord and Tenant Act and we ask the committee to amend the sections that we have highlighted with the intent of securing those rights that are presently in place.
One of the things we anticipate is that the tribunal will be able to reconsider its own decisions, and we welcome that change. Reconsiderations are often a very expeditious and less costly way of dealing with what ordinarily would be an appeal. We hope that the tribunal would fairly liberally grant reconsiderations, rather than now in the fashion of the rent control programs where reconsiderations are very sparingly granted.
We note that the jurisdiction of the tribunal has been limited to $10,000 for applications. Certainly this is in ordinary circumstances a reasonable limitation. However, where there are joint applications, and this is supported in the present bill, the $10,000 limit may be off-putting to joint applicants and we ask that there be clearer definition that the $10,000 can be apportioned to individual applicants, rather than one application being shared by several applicants.
There is indication in the bill that the tribunal will have jurisdiction to make interim orders, but there's no explicit power to put a wrongly evicted tenant back in possession of the premises, notwithstanding the exclusive right of the tribunal to terminate tenancies. Presently tenants, under part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act, can apply to the court for authorization from the court, a writ of possession, placing them back in possession. This is an occurrence that we see frequently in the clinics and we ask that there be some allowance for that amendment. While there is monetary compensation to tenants wrongfully evicted, that is not sufficient to tenants where they cannot find or have difficulty finding affordable accommodations.
We understand that the proceedings in the tribunal will be done in an expeditious manner. Presently, proceedings in court are considered summary proceedings and the court has determined that these are proceedings where all the procedural requirements of a trial are not necessary. However, in our jurisdiction the judiciary has been very considerate and very careful to allow all parties to make full answer in defence to all applications. We would hope that the tribunal will also allow sufficient time for the hearing of these applications. This would include the opportunity to request adjournments and to expect to be granted those adjournments when the need arises.
Presently in the Rent Control Act there is provision for service, and we're glad to see that the posting provision is no longer a part of the landlord and tenant matters, since this was always a problem for us. However, we're very concerned about actual notice. The section says that if in fact a tenant is determined to have received actual notice in a reasonable time prior to a hearing, then service of the notice will be dispensed with.
1450
This certainly is a real problem. Many questions come to the fore: What is reasonable notice? Under whose determination is it reasonable? Will this be a subjective or an objective determination? Will reasonable notice be sufficient time to retain counsel? Will reasonable notice be sufficient time to file a dispute?
We're very concerned about this actual notice provision. While it was in previous rent control legislation, there we were not dealing with matters concerning security of tenure, and since we are here, this is of great concern.
We're also concerned about the section that deals with payment into court. Presently, under part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act, there is stipulation that rent arrears must be paid into court before a tenant can dispute the application on the basis of the landlord's failure to observe a covenant. This is a sometimes onerous provision in the present Landlord and Tenant Act but it's a reasonable one in the sense that the landlord is naturally concerned that rent will not be paid in the event that a claim by a tenant will fail.
Having the broad provision in the present bill where it's not limited to rent arrears, a breach of covenant obligation situation may mean that tenants cannot exercise their basic rights, since we've seen that payment into court is very difficult for some tenants. We're asking therefore that it be restricted to the rent arrears, breach of obligation parameters.
We also note that costs can be ordered by the tribunal. Recently the court fees have been increased significantly and we're very concerned about this for the poor, whom we represent. Sometimes the amount of a fee can deny access to justice for certain tenants. We would ask, in the rules and regulations to be made for the tribunal, that the parameters of fees be limited. Especially where the section indicates that the tribunal could order that its own costs be covered, we would ask that that be limited to situations where an application is frivolous or vexatious only.
We also note that the tribunal has the opportunity now to mediate a settlement. Certainly, while we support mediation in principle, we have some concerns. Will the members of the tribunal have the ability to mediate? Will training and expertise in mediation be part of the criteria for choice of tribunal members? Will parties to a mediation have an opportunity to retain counsel, especially where, as the bill provides, they can contract or settle outside of the act?
We're concerned, while mediation is something we use all the time, that it not be used in too general a fashion so that the ongoing development of housing law is not thwarted and basically has no negative impact on tenants in general, as opposed to tenants specifically.
I think I'll wrap up now, although I had a few other things. Back in November 1996 there was an article in the Hamilton Spectator about the percentages of tenants who were spending more than 50% of their income on housing. A Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada study determined that 15% of tenant households were spending more than 50% and 4% were spending as much as 90%.
These are the tenants we represent. We're concerned about their rights. We're coming into a time when they need more rights rather than fewer. We would ask you to make amendments that are consonant with those concerns.
I'd like to introduce Don Jaffray from the Social Planning and Research Council.
Mr Don Jaffray: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Don Jaffray and I'm the executive director of the Social Planning and Research Council. I'm here to offer a few comments to you today on behalf of that organization, but I think it's also important to recognize that we're doing that because we have a long-term working relationship with the Social Housing and Access Committee and its members. We have supported their work, we have learned from their work and we have been supported by them. I think that's an important part of the process we're going through to review this piece of proposed legislation.
In addition to that, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to come here and provide some feedback to you along with other members of the community. I think it's an important part of the policy-making process that members of our organization feel is important and continue to support.
The Social Planning and Research Council is an organization that's committed to the principle that the most effective responses to community problems arise from the development of an informal consensus among the various sectors that make up the community about the nature of problems and the most appropriate responses. It's our mission to act as an independent voice in the community to improve the quality of life for all citizens. The SPRC is making this presentation as a SHAC member to facilitate presenting a variety of views. SPRC itself believes that all citizens have a right to adequate, affordable and safe housing. If you don't accept, as we do, that fundamental principle, then a lot of what we would encourage and recommend later in this submission won't make a lot of sense, so let me just review that.
We believe that all citizens have the right to adequate, affordable and safe housing. Good housing is the foundation on which individuals and families can build a healthy and productive life. As a society, it's our responsibility to ensure that all citizens have access to this most basic of life necessities. The SPRC is concerned that changes to the housing legislation proposed in Bill 96 will impact negatively on a minority in Hamilton, that minority being people living in poverty, and that this legislation will create even more homelessness than we have experienced in the past few years.
About that homelessness, we have from a study entitled Homelessness and Mental Illness in Hamilton-Wentworth done in 1995 in this region an estimate that suggests there are approximately 160 homeless people in the city, 36% of whom have some kind of mental or emotional illness. These people have the most serious problems accessing services, including housing. But that estimate is probably a conservative and very small estimate of the homeless population, based largely on a narrow definition of who is actually homeless. Those people would be living in the most extreme conditions of homelessness.
The population is actually larger than that. There are many other people who are not as seriously desperate or critically homeless yet but still face difficult housing pressures. These people rely on social benefits such as general welfare assistance, family benefits and other publicly funded pensions or income support programs. They're living on fixed incomes that are some of the lowest levels of income that individuals and families can live on in this province. In this region alone there are about 22,000 people -- not cases but people -- who are counting on welfare and another 43,000 people who rely on family benefits. When I talk about people, I'm talking about head of household plus a spouse, if there is one, and any other dependants, which would include children.
You can see that this represents about 65,000 in this region in total who come from these two income support groups alone. If you add to this seniors living on government pensions, you can see that our concerns relate to a sizeable population. It's still a minority in our community but it's a sizeable population. Many of them are renting their homes in this region. Their income rates are fixed by government policy; they're not determined by market forces as would be the case with wages, salaries or income from investments.
Benefit rates or incomes are instead a reflection of a political will of a government or a set of values about social programs held by people in the community. Benefit rates don't rise and fall with the shifting of forces of supply and demand in the marketplace. In fact, shelter allowances bear no relationship to market rents.
That comes from a fairly extensive study by a past provincial government on the conditions of people who are living on social assistance. It's dated 1988, but that statement still applies today. Incomes derived from provincial government sources have been in decline for several years now in terms of their purchasing power. The most dramatic recent decline, as I'm sure you'll recall, took place in October 1995, when benefit rates for GWA and FBA were reduced by 21.6%.
1500
Our concern is that housing legislation such as Bill 96 is developed largely on the assumption that housing costs and regulations are designed to regulate housing as a market commodity. Pricing of rents should be left to the marketplace negotiations between landlords as suppliers and tenants as consumers in that market model. For many renters that relationship works. For our most vulnerable populations, that relationship doesn't work.
Our concern is for those people on very low fixed incomes. Only those who have the opportunity to live in publicly supported housing, such as that provided through non-profit and co-op housing projects, will find their housing affordable. Others renting in the private market will have a very different experience. The protections people on low fixed incomes require will be different than the protections designed for and available to consumers and renters who have sufficient income to negotiate a fair deal and so participate fully in a marketplace economy.
Approximately 70% of those living on GWA and FBA still purchase their housing in the private market. Even so, they are still a minority in the renting population in this region and are not able to drive the pricing practice of landlords with available rental housing. Judy mentioned only a few moments ago some figures which suggest the number of people in the private market who are still paying a disproportionately large percentage of their income for their housing costs, something like 19% of the population. You will find a great many people living on fixed incomes and social benefit programs in that 19% of the population renting in the marketplace.
With this in mind we ask, what evidence is there to indicate this legislation will not create undue hardship for low-income families who must find accommodation in a housing market which is increasingly less able to provide housing for low-income families operating outside of the market economy?
Related to our concern for affordable housing is the matter of the protection of existing available and affordable rental housing. Hamilton had a vacancy rate of 2% in 1995. This rate was predicted to drop to 1.8% in 1996 and drop again to 1.6% this year. In some areas of the city, for example, the Westdale neighbourhood, which has a large student population attending McMaster University, the rate would be significantly lower than that. As vacancy rates continue to decline and the rental market tightens, the supply of tenants needing accommodation will force the cost of rental housing to rise if rent control is abandoned and the supply of affordable accommodation shrinks.
The Rental Housing Protection Act was intended to preserve the rental housing stock, especially in light of needs of a specific municipality. Municipalities could determine whether rental units could be converted to other uses since their approval was needed before the conversion could take place.
We have a concern that the elimination of the RHPA will result in the eviction of tenants where the conversion is not related to a condominium situation. Bill 96 provides little hope for improvement to tenants in boarding homes, rooming-houses or the like. With the removal of rent control on all units, buildings presently used for these types of residences may be the most susceptible to conversions to apartments or even to demolitions.
Prior to the Residents' Rights Act, there was nothing to prevent home care operators from changing from a care home, making significant renovations that would force tenants to move to another care home. The result was tenant evictions, and these tenants often had to move to other care homes away from their families. These problems may now recur and therefore this proposed legislation will be regressive for them in that regard.
Protections afforded tenants of care home facilities in section 92 are minimal at best. If the landlord does not find alternative accommodations, and since all that must be done is to make reasonable efforts, there is nothing really to prevent the renovation or conversion. At this point we do not know what interpretation the term "reasonable" will be given or from whose standpoint it will be considered.
Tenants also have the right of first refusal, but there is no assurance that the rent will be affordable, that the accommodation will be accessible or that the landlord will provide services. In light of the fact that tenants of care homes are the most vulnerable tenants, we are concerned about the intention to remove protections for care home rental stock. These tenants are often classified as hard to house, and without some protection for the availability of units for them, their housing requirements will be even more difficult to resolve in the future. Again, Andrea made some remarks at the very outset which suggested that the private market is not breaking down the doors to build and create new housing for this population in particular.
The repeal of the RHPA also has important consequences for local planning processes, and to some extent that represents the loss of local control. The already limited supply of affordable housing will negatively impact on the city's ability to engage in effective community planning. For example, local government efforts to revitalize the downtown core in this city may be further hampered by decisions of individual landowners which may be inconsistent with larger neighbourhood plans and the housing needs of the community in particular. I think that especially applies to low income families.
Under the Rental Housing Protection Act, the city of Hamilton has been able to evaluate the impact of converting rental units to other uses and mitigate some potential danger to tenants. The depletion of affordable rental housing stock has varied and sometimes subtle impacts on this city. Hamilton needs affordable housing for all of its citizens, including seniors, people with disabilities, people without work and people who work very hard but sometimes for very low wages. We do not believe that the repeal of the RHPA is appropriate for all those having to manage in today's marketplace.
Dispensing with the RHPA, completely aside from sections relating to condominium conversions in tandem with the proposed vacancy decontrol, may well lead to increased concentrations of the least expensive, poorly maintained rental housing. Areas with concentrations of that type of housing will become increasingly different and separate from other neighbourhoods which have higher-cost housing and presumably higher-quality housing. That trend over the long term will do nothing other than to segregate communities and the people in our region, rather than integrate communities.
In May 1996, a report on emergency food and shelter needs in this region indicate that the number of people who are unable to meet their basic shelter needs without agency assistance is increasing. That's the experience of service providers. We believe that local control over affordable housing stock is a primary need for all municipalities to forecast and influence their growth. We are reminded that in making changes to the Planning Act, the current government of Ontario emphasized the need for more local control and made changes to that act based on that philosophy.
We urge you to make amendments to this bill that are also consistent with that philosophy. We accept that existing housing legislation will change and can change for the better, particularly with this proposed act to consolidate and revise the law with respect to residential tenancies. But we urge this government to amend the bill in light of the suggestions made by this community and others so that the final act will be a fair and more considerate piece of legislation, with real tenant protections for all members of the community.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
The Chair: Thank you Ms Horvath, Mr Ollier, Ms MacNeil and Mr Jaffray for your presentations. Unfortunately there's no time for questions, but we appreciate your coming.
1510
ADOLESCENT COMMUNITYCARE PROGRAM
WESLEY URBAN MINISTRIES
HAMILTON URBAN CORE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE
The Chair: The next presentation is the Hamilton Urban Core Community Health Centre. There are four people making presentations or at least at the table: Andrea Newman, Elizabeth Szkodziak, Denise Scott and Paul Johnston. I trust your spokesperson will identify who is speaking. Good afternoon.
Ms Andrea Newman: My name is Andrea Newman. Hello, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity for us to speak today. We recognize that there are a lot of people who wanted to speak to the proposed changes to the Tenant Protection Act, and because there is a limited opportunity, we agreed to share our time.
Presenting today will be Elizabeth Szkodziak from the Adolescent Community Care Program. She will be doing the first presentation, and after Elizabeth will be Paul Johnston from Wesley Urban Ministries. He will be relating the legislation how it will affect the youth that he works with in the transitional youth program. After those two presentations, Allan Boudreau and I will be discussing our concerns about the legislation.
Ms Elizabeth Szkodziak: I'm Elizabeth. I work for the Adolescent Community Care Program. For the last 16 years, our main mandate has been to help youth between the ages of 16 and 21 secure housing. This has actually meant going out with the kids looking for apartments, so we have a pretty good idea of what's out there. I'm just going to take a couple of minutes and what I'd like to do is give you a thumbnail sketch of the typical client that we may see and what they need to go through.
She is 17 and a straight-A student. To her now-estranged family she has done the unspeakable, she has betrayed a family secret. Her bruises and hurt are hidden, her fears and frustrations are not. She has pleaded with her part-time employer for more hours. He could not accommodate her. She has searched for another job unsuccessfully. She is not looking for a free ride. She has dreams and goals: to finish high school and then perhaps go to college or university. She has been humiliated in telling her story to many so she may prove herself worthy of receiving social assistance.
With her allotted $320 for shelter she has been looking for a place to call home. Her expectations are modest: something clean and something safe. Her options are limited: a room and board or a bachelor apartment. What she has seen has been either in a basement or in an attic, and generally in the downtown core, taking her away from the school where she has been so successful, from her friends, from her supports and from a familiar neighbourhood.
Apartments that you or I would consider safe and clean for $320 are few and far between. When she does secure an apartment, it will probably exceed her shelter allotment and eat into her remaining meagre living expenses. For her, even those limited options are narrowing as landlords ask her: "How old are you? What is your source of income?" They tell her: "You are not old enough to rent this apartment. This building is for those over 21. You cannot afford to live here. You will be a partier. You will do damage. You will disturb other tenants. I rented to teens before, they are all the same." This is said despite references, good rental histories, and often regardless of a credit rating or guaranteed direct payments. She will find a landlord who will rent her an apartment, but she may have to lower her expectations.
She is not a mere example created to make a point here. She has a name and is as real as you and I. She is one of many vulnerable youths. When they go to find these places to call home, will these be clean, will these be safe, will these be in good repair? Will they be harassed? We all know what teenagers are like. Will they be evicted because they are perceived as troublemakers?
Please do not put up roadblocks for those who are already struggling. Please protect them.
Mr Paul Johnston: My name is Paul Johnston, and I'd like to add my voice of thanks for the opportunity to participate in the hearing this afternoon. I'm the director of resource development with Wesley Urban Ministries here in Hamilton. An outreach ministry of the United Church of Canada, Wesley Urban Ministries has been providing services to those marginalized by poverty, language and culture for 43 years. Our programs range from a drop-in centre and emergency shelter to a no-charge summer day camp and parent-child resource centre. Our work with new Canadians includes multicultural advocacy services and English language instruction.
I think Bill 96 affects many, if not all, of the clients who visit Wesley Urban Ministries, but today I'd like to focus a bit on the impact we feel this bill will have on the young people that we serve through our street youth outreach program.
Let me begin with the story of John, not his real name. He is 19 years old and finally received his general welfare assistance cheque after living in hostels for three months. Currently attending vocational school, John was lucky enough to find a place to live, but he finds he cannot afford rent, school supplies, clothes, laundry and all the other expenses, so he turns to Wesley for some support: breakfast at our drop-in centre and, after school, a visit to the street youth program. There he has a bite to eat, does some homework and gets numerous pats on the back and support from the staff members there. He keeps this routine day in and day out, and I think his future is bright. I tell this as a success story, and why I chose to tell it today was because, right at this moment, under the present legislation, this is an exception to the rule. As we discuss this bill today, I can't help but wonder how much more difficult it will be for this story to repeat itself under the proposed Tenant Protection Act.
The stories that we have about the young people we see at Wesley like John are stories of some of the most vulnerable in our communities. Each day we see 10 to 15 young people accessing our program. Though the paths they travel to get there may be different, abuse is an all too common thread that joins them together; over 80% is our estimate, as far as those who have experienced physical, sexual or emotional abuse. They must now deal with the prospects of starting their life on their own and learn to trust again.
Discussions with these young people, which relates to our brief here today, reveal that they face discrimination on many fronts: discrimination based on their age, discrimination based on the way they look, even discrimination based on the stereotypes of street kids. Under Bill 96, discrimination based on income is one more to add to the list.
Discrimination means less choice in housing, very clearly, and the inability to find appropriate housing has led to some dangerous consequences in this community. It means squatting in abandoned buildings or living on the street. It means accessing adult services such as hostels and drop-in centres that are designed to deal with their specific needs. It means that sometimes they feel they have no choice but to live in substandard housing.
From there, the downward spiral can turn sometimes tragic. The abandoned building can be a death trap, as 29-year-old Donald Dupuis found out, just a stone's throw from where we're holding this hearing this afternoon. Other times substandard housing can be just as dangerous. Just ask the two men who felt it was safer to come to Wesley centre and spend the night in emergency shelter than to live in their room. It was a decision that saved their lives, and their co-tenant was not so lucky. He perished when he was unable to escape a tragic fire. Before it was destroyed, this building had no running water, an impassable fire escape, no fridge or stove and no locks on the room doors. It was not a place where they squatted; it was a building they paid $275 a month to live in.
True, our discussions today are not aimed at solving all the problems of our housing crisis and I don't want to send the discussion down that path, but it is our belief that this legislation does nothing to help individuals who may be looking at this sort of a situation. We believe in fact that it will mean more are unable to find appropriate housing.
Simply put, in order to move forward I think we have to stop sliding backwards. Unfortunately the stories we hear at Wesley are embarrassingly consistent. When you're marginalized economically, unfortunately you tend to be marginalized with respect to where you can live.
A youth worker in our street outreach program told me that in her eight years working with Wesley she has never met a young person in that program who has lived in completely acceptable housing. That experience is repeated over and over again through our workers who actually help operate our non-profit housing complex operated by our sister agency, Wesley Community Homes.
We may ask ourselves why is it that people decide to live in filth and unsafe conditions and why they don't do something about it. The answer we find is that those living in those conditions often feel powerless. There is a fear that landlords will take away their homes. For young people struggling to overcome enormous barriers and start life on their own, manipulation can sometimes be easy. As less and less information is required to be passed on to tenants, this fear will only grow stronger.
In some other cases, safe housing is simply not affordable, and as rent controls erode, this will become more and more prevalent.
1520
We don't feel that this legislation comes close to balancing the tenant-landlord relationship when it comes to those who are most vulnerable. It seems also to further discriminate against those who are already facing discrimination on a daily basis.
In 1996, the United Nations wrote a statement entitled "The Progress of Nations," and part of it read:
"The day will come when the progress of nations will be judged not by their military or economic strength nor by the splendour of their capital cities and public buildings but by the wellbeing of their peoples, by their levels of health, nutrition and education, by their opportunities to earn a fair reward for their labours, by their ability to participate in the decisions that affect their lives, by the respect that is shown for their civil and political liberties, by the provisions that are made for those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged."
I think this excerpt for me provides the litmus test that we must apply to this legislation. We must not view it through individual eyes that understand how the system works, as individuals who have access to all the resources we need to protect our interests. We need to view it through the eyes of those who are most vulnerable, so I return to the story of John, who provided the opening for my presentation this afternoon. I ask you to think about the barriers that individuals like John experience in this community and in others.
When I reflect on this situation, I ask myself three questions: Does this bill increase the options for young people like John? Does it represent no change in their situation? Or does it further the discrimination young people like John already face? Unfortunately, I can only answer yes to the latter.
Ms Newman: I would like to begin by thanking the Chair and the government representatives for the opportunity to speak on the legislative amendments proposed in Bill 96.
The Hamilton Urban Core Community Health Centre is a primary health care service which is committed to work with the residents of the urban core to improve their health and wellbeing, particularly individuals who, due to low income, being homeless or underhoused, language, cultural or other social or economic barriers, experience difficulty in accessing services. This is why we felt it was particularly important to speak to this legislation. I am here with Allan to read this presentation. A group of individuals who are all tenants put this presentation together, and we are reading it, representing those people and their concerns.
We realize that the government attempts with this new legislation, Bill 96, to consolidate and revise the law with respect to residential tenancies. We are concerned, though, that some of the proposed changes will threaten the protections that currently exist for tenants. The health centre recognizes that there are many things that affect a person's health and that housing is a fundamental base to one's sense of self and security. Very often, people who use the services at the centre face barriers to attaining safe, adequate and affordable housing, and the consequences of this have a great effect on their health and wellbeing.
Many of us take our housing for granted, having your own place where you can come home at the end of the day and relax, a place that you can have to yourself or share with those who are close to you, a place where you know you can get a good night's sleep. For many of the people who come to our centre this is not the reality they experi-ence.
Many individuals have low and limited incomes which restrict the choices they have in many areas of their lives, including housing. Oftentimes people are living in places in which they are faced with one or many of the following: rental units that are in need of repairs; overcrowded or shared with strangers; limited facilities, for example, a hot plate for cooking or shared washrooms; hazardous conditions like fire hazards or open electrical sockets; and that are expensive. When faced with these barriers, it becomes the main focus and stress in one's life, leaving it difficult to function through daily routines in the competitive job market or even to keep in touch with family and friends.
We are here today to highlight a few of the concerns we have regarding the proposed tenant protection legislation. Upon speaking to the community members about these changes, the following is a summary of some of the concerns people expressed. The general feeling was that some of the tenants' protections that currently exist will be dismantled by this proposed legislation.
Repairs: With the current legislation the landlord must keep the building maintained adequately and make repairs to the building and the tenant's unit. If a tenant has a repair needing to be done and the landlord does not comply with these responsibilities, the tenant can follow a procedure which includes applying for an order prohibiting rent increases.
This order provides an incentive for landlords to keep their buildings in good shape. The proposed Tenant Protection Act does not include the order prohibiting rent increases, thus taking away the financial incentive for landlords, making it less likely that repairs and maintenance will be done. Tenants are already facing substandard housing conditions, and if this protection is taken away, it will increase unhealthy conditions many people are living in.
Mr Allan Boudreau: Thank you, everybody, for allowing me to speak. I was here this morning and I had the opportunity to hear the other side.
Rights and responsibilities: The Landlord and Tenant Act outlines rights and responsibilities for landlords and tenants. These rights and responsibilities, if followed properly, protect the dignity and the privacy of the tenants. Some examples of this include: Landlords must give 24 hours' notice before entering a tenant's apartment; if the locks are to be changed, the landlord must inform the tenant before the locks are changed.
The new Tenant Protection Act does not include these protections. By not having to give notice to the tenant about these issues, protections are being dismissed, and it seems as though the privacy of the tenant in the home is not being respected.
Discrimination on the basis of income: The Human Rights Code is a fundamental protection from discrimination in housing accommodation. People on low incomes, as it is, face rent costs that often far exceed the affordability standard of 30% of one's income. Considering the limited opportunities in social housing, this is a reality that many people face today, and yet they still find ways to pay their rent, often by sacrificing other necessities, including food and clothing.
Section 200 of the proposed bill would amend the Ontario Human Rights Code to allow landlords to refuse to rent to persons who do not meet their income requirements. This is again taking away a protection which currently exists for tenants -- we believe that's how tenants manage to meet their needs, including having money to pay rent -- that is a diverse and complex one, not always determined solely by a person's income.
The Chair: Mr Boudreau, I just draw to your attention you have two minutes.
Mr Boudreau: Thank you very much. I'll speed up.
Rent control: The rent registry, which is a part of the existing Rent Control Act, is a place where tenants can turn to check if their rents and rental increases are legal. This is a protection that is very important, especially for those individuals who are currently using social assistance, who have very limited incomes, and who want to ensure they are paying rent at a legal rate.
The Rent Control Act ensures some consistency of rental units within communities by ensuring that rental units have a maximum rent and increase. The Tenant Protection Act will abolish a rent registry and only have rent control on occupied units. It will allow the landlord to raise the rent at their own discretion to a new tenant. This will leave fewer choices for tenants, who will be forced to choose between adequate and affordable.
Tribunal: Right now, the landlord and tenant disputes are handled through the landlord and tenant court or the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tenant Protection Act has proposed having these disputes handled through a tribunal. Currently in the proposed legislation, there is nothing that will be an improvement on the existing situation. There is not a clear description of how this new system will work.
We recommend that this system be more accessible than courts, that the location, staff and hours of operation of the tribunal make it easier for tenants to take part in the process. Also, we highly recommend that the tribunal members be more expert and interested in landlord and tenant matters than those currently involved; for example, people who are tenants and landlords and who have training in mediation and sensitivity.
1530
To close off our presentation, we'd like to stress the importance of safe, adequate and affordable housing. It is a fundamental right and we strongly believe that a healthy community begins with healthy housing. By looking at all the different community representatives here today, it seems as though this belief is a strong one held in our community, especially considering there was a lot of community input in creating this legislation.
There are probably many individuals who do not know about this legislation and how these changes will affect them. We recognize the government's attempt to make the legislation more effective and efficient by consolidating the residential tenancy laws. This legislation directly affects tenants and landlords and it would have been very useful to have both parties at the table when revisions were being made. If the tenants and landlords are working together to find a solution, there will likely be a greater possibility of success in following through with the guidelines developed.
Thank you very much. May I ask one quick question of the panel?
The Chair: I don't think so, sir. I've gone beyond your time. I know members of the committee would like to ask you questions, but the time has expired. I'm sorry to have to cut you off.
SECOND LEVEL LODGING HOMES
TENANTS' COMMITTEE HAMILTON
AND AREA COALITION OF TENANTS ASSOCIATIONS
The Chair: The next delegation is the Hamilton and Area Coalition of Tenants Associations, Jackie Gordon. I have two people coming so I know we'll be introduced to the second person.
Mr John Schalkwyk: My name is John Schalkwyk, representing Second Level Lodging Homes Tenants' Committee.
Ms Jackie Gordon: My name is Jackie Gordon and I am with the Hamilton and Area Coalition of Tenants Associations, also known as HACTA. We are a member-supported voluntary organization made up of tenants, tenants' associations and tenants' supporters. We represent over 3,000 tenants in the Hamilton area. We provide tenants with information on their rights and responsibilities, help them with organizing tenants' associations and we advocate for laws that will protect tenants.
I am joined today by another tenants' organization in Hamilton, the Second Level Lodging Homes Tenants' Committee, and John Schalkwyk is going to speak for that group. John is going to speak first and then I will make my comments when he's done.
Mr Schalkwyk: I am here representing the Second Level Lodging Homes Tenants' Committee. The Second Level Lodging Homes Tenants' Committee is a group formed by second-level lodging homes tenants living in Hamilton. Since its formation in 1995, this committee has worked with local and regional government to bring about improvements in the standards in second-level lodging homes.
In our presentation, we wish to focus on legislative changes with respect to care homes. We will address Bill 96 as it relates to the second-level lodging homes system in our community. We would like to talk about the proposed changes and their impact on protection of second-level lodging homes tenants' rights.
Bill 96, one step forward in the protection of tenants' rights: Under TPA, care home tenants no longer have to give 90 days' notice when they plan to leave the home. Now they only need to give 30 days' notice. This is helpful to tenants who must leave quickly to be hospitalized or to accept a nursing home bed on short notice.
Privacy: We are glad that second-level lodging homes tenants will still have the right to privacy in their homes. We feel tenants need privacy protection. The TPA allows care home operators and tenants to make agreements that allow the landlord to enter the tenant's room or apartment to check on the tenant.
Written Tenancy Agreements: Under the TPA there will be a written tenancy agreement relating to the tenancy of every tenant. We think the agreement should set out not only care services and meals to be provided, but also security of tenure, fair notice of eviction, rent increases, changes in rules and security of belongings.
While written tenancy agreements are required under the legislation, there is no accompanying funding to enforce the requirement or educate landlords and tenants about this requirement. In our experience very few homes are using written tenancy agreements. We need enforcement and education.
Bill 96, two steps backwards in the protection of tenants' rights: We are very concerned about two of the most significant changes to the rights of tenants with disabilities: the addition of new exceptions for landlords and tenants protection and the addition of new grounds for eviction based on the level of care services required.
Under the TPA, tenants with very high care needs or very low care needs may be evicted from a care home. This is a new reason for eviction. Care home tenants are at greater risk of losing their homes than other tenants because of the transfer provisions in the TPA. A care home landlord could decide to transfer a troublesome tenant, for example, someone wanting a written tenancy agreement, by claiming inability to provide the needed care services to the tenant. People who live in care homes will be at risk of being evicted more easily. Tenants may be afraid to make legitimate complaints about the quality of food, care and accommodation because of the new power being given to their landlords.
We think that decisions about a tenant's need for care services should clearly be determined by the tenant, his or her doctor or other primary service provider, and family members when appropriate. Landlords may be in a good position to identify changes in care service needs and to make recommendations, but they cannot be given the right to make these decisions. The right to transfer care home residents should be removed.
Under the TPA, Tenant Protection Act, care homes landlords may force tenants to move out because they want to demolish, convert, repair or renovate the house. Since protection under the Housing Protection Act is gone, it can be done without municipal approval. Landlords are only required to make reasonable efforts to find appropriate alternative accommodation for care home tenants, but the TPA does not say what is considered appropriate, nor does it define what should be a reasonable effort by the landlord.
Subletting: With respect to care homes, the landlord may withhold consent if the subtenant does not meet the admission requirements or guidelines of the landlord. Since it allows the landlord to set requirements and guidelines for the subtenant, this situation could result in discrimination. We ask that you do what you can to protect the rights of 1,600 residents in 84 second-level lodging homes, the most vulnerable of society.
Ms Gordon: Many of the things you'll be hearing from us today are many of the things I'm sure you've already heard on this round of hearings, and things you probably heard a year ago when there was the New Directions discussion paper. We were concerned then and are concerned now, as tenants, that what's going to happen with Bill 96 is going to hurt us, it's going to hurt our housing and it's going to hurt our communities.
I was really happy to hear Mr Gilchrist say this morning that the government doesn't hate tenants, because frankly it was starting to feel a little bit like maybe they did. I was quite relieved to hear that. It seems like there are many assumptions about the rental housing market that are being made around this legislation that simply are not true.
To landlords, rental housing is an income-producing or a profit-making business. To the government, the rental housing market is about statistics and competing interest groups. But to us, the tenants of Ontario, the rental housing market is about our homes, our families, our children, our safety, our security, our lives and our ability to live and to participate in our community.
The government says they're concerned about Ontario's crumbling rental stock. The government says landlords have no incentive under the current system to invest in their own buildings, which are becoming more and more run down. Clearly, many landlords do invest in their buildings. There are many buildings that are in a good state of repair. It seems the government sees repairs and maintenance as a matter of choice for landlords, not as a matter of rights for tenants. We would like the Tenant Protection Act to make repairs and maintenance a right for tenants, that we have a right to a well-maintained building.
Some of the things that could do that quite easily are maintaining the orders prohibiting a rent increase. It was an effective tool that's easily accessible, easily understood, and it worked. If a landlord doesn't spend the money they collect on maintenance and repairs, they shouldn't be allowed to take another increase. They should have to wait until those outstanding violations have been fixed.
I'm trying not to repeat things that have already been said today, and that's kind of hard to do. I'm sure you're finding that as well.
1540
If the government was concerned about maintaining Ontario's rental housing stock in good condition, there would be no thought of eliminating OPRIs. Building-wide applications for rent reductions as well are an effective tool. Administratively simple, they help preserve the rental stock.
You've heard about the dangers of vacancy decontrol from others, so I'm not going to go on that too much. However, I think we do need to mention the costs no longer borne provision. Tenants should not have to pay forever for items they've paid for once or twice. Under the current act, once a capital repair has been paid for through a rent increase, it comes out of the rent. Under the new act, tenants will have to pay for that repair through a rent increase forever. That simply is not fair. We'll also experience increases in our rents since there's no limit to how high a rent can go for extraordinary costs such as property tax and utility increases.
We're also concerned about the suggestion that landlords and tenants can somehow negotiate a fair rent together on an equal footing. This just is not the case. With the removal of the rent registry, tenants will be expected to negotiate some sort of fair rent without even having access to the information they need about the unit in order to enter into those discussions. We urge that the rent registry be maintained. It's a vital service that people need.
We believe the changes to rent control will set up a situation where some landlords may encourage tenants or harass tenants to leave their units so they can increase the rent. In a tight rental housing market such as Hamilton, tenants are particularly vulnerable to landlord demands.
Our experience suggests that for many good reasons tenants will not file complaints individually. They are intimidated by the process, they don't have the adequate information or assistance to file complaints and they want harassment just to stop. They don't want to go through a long court proceeding or tribunal proceeding; they want someone to make them stop harassing them. Others just don't have the emotional energy to pursue a complaint. Instead, many tenants will be forced to look for a new apartment in a tighter housing market with higher rents. This kind of harassment also is felt most keenly, most severely by the very groups that are the most vulnerable already: charter groups under the Human Rights Code.
Tenants' associations have proven to be an effective way to limit harassment from superintendents and landlords. The anonymity tenants get from group action makes it safer for individuals to talk about the harassment and do something about it. However, the government has taken this solution away from tenants with their choice to eliminate funding to tenant federations and coalitions that provide that service.
Bill 96 further removes tenants' rights to organize by saying that the tribunal will refuse to hear an eviction case if the reason on the application is that the tenant has been active in a tenants' association or otherwise tried to enforce their rights. Currently, the legislation says a judge cannot hear the case if the judge feels "a reason" the application is being brought forward is the tenants trying to enforce their right through organizing, complaining to the authorities, calling their MPP. The word "a" has been changed to "the" in Bill 96. Now the tribunal will only be able to refuse to hear the case if it says on the application, "I'm evicting this tenant because they tried to enforce their rights." Obviously, that's never going to be on the application. We would strongly urge the committee to put forward an amendment to put it back to "a reason." That's very important to us.
We think that if the government understood tenant protection, it would know it's crucial for tenants that legislation limit rent increases to a reasonable guideline. Tenant protection does not eliminate a rent control system in five years, as we've heard will happen under vacancy decontrol. It doesn't increase rents for tenants and it doesn't set up situations that will result in more harassment for tenants and leave tenants with no solutions to stop this harassment. It doesn't limit the supply of affordable housing options and it doesn't take away tools such as the order prohibiting a rent increase.
When combined with the government's decision to end the construction of non-profit and co-op housing, the potential selloff of public housing and the elimination of funding to tenant federations, it is clear this government does not care about housing needs and the basic housing rights of tenants in this province.
Finally, I want to talk a little bit about vacancy decontrol. Actually, I won't. I'll just stop there. Other people will handle vacancy decontrol.
The Chair: We have an opportunity for one question from the committee. I will give that to the Liberal caucus.
Mr Duncan: Could you take me back to the amendment you requested that was very important. It was a matter of a change of a word. I didn't get the section of the act.
Ms Gordon: I don't have the section in front of me; I'm sorry. I can certainly provide that to the committee.
Mr Duncan: Is it section 79?
Ms Gordon: Section 79.
Mr Duncan: That was the only question I had.
The Chair: Let's move along. We have time for another short question.
Mr Bisson: In short, this act is called the Tenant Protection Act. Do you think tenants are further protected by this act?
Ms Gordon: No, I think this act removes protections that tenants have now.
Mr Bisson: Would you say the title of the bill is opposite to what is actually in the bill?
Ms Gordon: Yes, and you didn't hear us say Tenant Protection Act; you heard us say Bill 96 quite clearly, because we do not feel this provides protection to tenants, that it actually removes protections we have right now. It's a very misleading name, in our opinion.
The Chair: Perhaps we can complete the round.
Mr Wettlaufer: I think part of the reason for misconception about the title of the act is that we have heard from so many tenant groups about things being in the bill that aren't in it.
One of the things I would like to point out is transferring tenancy under care homes. It says, "Care home tenants are at greater risk of losing their homes than other tenants because of transfer provisions in the TPA."
I'm sorry, I don't understand that. The bill is quite explicit in saying, "A landlord may apply to the tribunal for an order transferring a tenant out of a care home," and evicting the tenant, "if the tenant no longer requires the level of care provided by the landlord," or (b) "the tenant requires a level of care that the landlord is not able to provide," and the tribunal may issue an order under clause 1(b) only if it is "satisfied that appropriate alternate accommodation is available for the tenant," and that the level of care the landlord is able to provide, when combined with the community-based services provided to the tenant in the care home, cannot meet the tenant's care needs. It's very explicit.
The Chair: Very quickly, Mr Wettlaufer.
Mr Wettlaufer: That's all I had, a comment.
The Chair: Did you have a very brief response to that?
Mr Schalkwyk: There are two parts to the bill. One part is with very low-care needs. With very high-care needs they can be evicted, which is a new form of eviction.
Mr Wettlaufer: It doesn't say that.
Ms Gordon: But if a tenant no longer requires the care services the landlord chooses to provide, then the landlord can evict the tenant. It's called a transfer, but it basically means if the tenant no longer needs or wants what the landlord is willing to provide, they will lose their housing and their place in the community. There's no guarantee there's going to be something appropriate for them to go to. We've seen green garbage bag evictions from second-level lodging homes and care homes before, when there was no protection, and that's the fear we as tenants have, that we're going back to those days when there was no protection and tenants could just be told to get out.
Mr Wettlaufer: What does a care home --
The Chair: That's it, Mr Wettlaufer. Sorry, we're out of time. We have to keep moving along. Thank you very much for coming and making your presentation.
1550
BARLAKE TENANTS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next presentation is the Barlake Tenants Association, Karen Gillespie and Norma LaForme. Good afternoon.
Ms Karen Gillespie: I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to you today about the government's proposed changes to the residential tenancy legislation. My name is Karen Gillespie and I'm a tenant in Hamilton. With me today is another Hamilton tenant, Norma LaForme.
Being able to afford a decent apartment is difficult at the best of times. I'm concerned that your proposed legislation will make me and my housing more vulnerable. As a low-income wage earner, every cent I make is accounted for, and an unexpected bill such as medication, glasses or car repairs throws my very tight budget out of control. Even normal bills, such as dental visits, are luxury items. Housing costs are of course the greatest part of anyone's budget. The knowledge that your housing and your rent are stable and secure is what allows a person to go to work, attend school and participate in the community.
To be able to afford a decent apartment I had to find a roommate to share this cost. This would not be my first choice, as I had to give up my privacy. It also means I'm dependent on someone else for my housing costs to remain manageable. Even with a roommate, I spend more than 30% of my income on housing. Without a roommate, I would be spending 66% of my net income on shelter, and that does not include hydro.
If the Human Rights Code is amended to allow landlords to refuse to rent to me because of my income, I will be denied access to decent, safe apartments even though I've always paid my rent and lived up to my responsibilities as a tenant. I would urge the government not to amend the Human Rights Code, as such an amendment will take away my ability to secure decent housing.
Should I lose my roommate and need to look for a new apartment, this legislation will make it very difficult for me. Not everybody finds negotiating rent an easy or natural thing to do. I would find it very difficult and intimidating. Many people cannot stand up for themselves and enforce their rights. We have been socialized to be deferential to authority, and landlords are seen as people in authority.
The government is even going to do away with the rent registry, forcing tenants like me to negotiate a rent without the necessary information to do so. This is very unfair and is not tenant protection.
Some of my neighbours are seniors, and I'm very concerned about their ability to find affordable housing should their needs change and they need to find new accommodation. My neighbours are on fixed income and vacancy decontrol will affect their ability to find new housing as well. In fact, even tenants who stay in their current homes will be negatively affected by this legislation, as landlords will have incentive to harass us into leaving so the rents can be raised for incoming tenants.
Maintenance and safety are primary concerns for tenants in my building, across the city and province. Property standards are very hard for tenants to enforce. It can be a long-drawn-out process to get even the most basic repairs done. In many communities there is little money and time to put into property standards. Now, because the provincial government has reduced funding to local governments and increased local taxes through downloading, there is reason to believe that property standards inspections will decline rather than improve.
The government is going to take away the one tool that tenants have been able to rely on to get repairs done, and that is the order prohibiting a rent increase, otherwise known as OPRIs. Tenants have found that landlords who cannot even get a guideline rent increase are suddenly motivated to get repairs done that have been undone for long periods.
You must remember that as tenants we have already paid for maintenance of our homes and the repairs to our building through our rent. Landlords who haven't spent the rent money allocated to repairs and maintenance on repairs and maintenance should not be rewarded with further rent increases. The removal of this from tenants is not tenant protection; it places us at further risk of illness and injury.
With regard to that, I'd just like to add getting fire protection done and also the potential of having asbestos taken care of in a safe, effective manner.
My building has been kept in good repair over the years. I was very pleased to hear my landlord this morning say that he does not have a problem with rent control, that he's more concerned about having a hospital in this city kept from closing. We have one thing in common: that we want to see health care in this city stay at a great level rather than decline. However, in my area the buildings have not been kept in good repair. I'm afraid that the conditions for tenants in those buildings will deteriorate even further should this legislation pass. As I've already said, finding a new apartment is not going to be an option for many of these tenants.
I've heard it said that tenants can solve all their housing problems by moving, but this is untrue. Moving is very stressful, second only to the death of a close relative, and it's very costly. Changing utility connections, hiring a moving van and movers etc are all very expensive.
In addition, tenants make connections to their communities in the same way homeowners do, and moving disrupts these vital connections. Children who change schools frequently do not do as well in school or socially as children who attend one or two schools. Workers need stable housing in order to look for jobs or to go to work each day and be productive.
Decent housing is a requirement for a healthy society and healthy communities. People who live in badly maintained buildings in stressful neighbourhoods or who have to choose between feeding their families and paying the rent are not going to be healthy enough to fully participate in the community or in their own lives.
I've also heard the government say that vacancy decontrol will increase the number of new buildings built. There is no evidence of this happening in any province in Canada or any of the states down south of us that have seen the removal or partial removal of rent controls. Probably the worst effect this legislation will have is to reduce the number of decent, affordable apartments and force tenants on low incomes to live in poorly maintained apartments or to become homeless.
I find it strange that this government appears to be listening only to landlords by bringing forth this legislation, a group that represents only 1% of the population of Ontario, while the tenants who stand to lose the most by this legislation, if passed, represent 35% of the people of Ontario. That's 3.5 million people whom this legislation will be negatively affecting. Why is this government listening to this very small special-interest group? It seems to me that the government should leave current tenant protections alone and let the tenants have security in the knowledge that their home is safe.
Ms Norma LaForme: Hello. I'd like to thank you again for having these hearings and letting the people of Ontario have a right to have an opportunity to respond.
I am a person with a disability. I'm just going to highlight some of the concerns I have about this bill and how it will affect people with disabilities.
Bill 96 says that rent controls will remain in effect as long as tenants do not move from their present apartment. This may be good, but the problem I see with this is that if people have the opportunity to move for jobs or education, they may lose those opportunities because they may feel trapped in their apartment if they feel they would unable to find other affordable housing. This concerns me, because it means people will have lower self-determination. When people feel trapped they don't feel they have the right to make decisions.
It is no secret that many people with disabilities have limited income. If they need to move to go to school or for employment, as I said, they may find it difficult to get an appropriate apartment.
Another concern I have is the lack of accessible apartment buildings. I've heard cases of people in wheelchairs moving to different cities being unable to find appropriate apartment units to live in. I've heard of such cases when people are employed; just because a person who has a disability has a job doesn't mean they have money to pay for high rent. They have other expenses that come with employment. That's two problems: having accessible housing units for people in wheelchairs and having them accessible in terms of affordable rent.
1600
If rents are going up at a rate people cannot afford -- I understand that when people move out of their rental unit, the landlord would be able to raise the rent. If this is the case, it will mean that in a couple of years all the rental housing will be quite high. I can't understand how the government can propose giving the landlords the permission both to raise their rental units as well as to give them a yearly increase. As a result, rental units will skyrocket.
Another concern is the human rights amendment. Section 200 will now give landlords the right to have credit checks for people who are tenants. The problem I see with this is for people who are on social assistance, because unfortunately there seems to be a bias in our community, that people think people on social assistance are irresponsible. That's just not the case. If landlords find out people are on social assistance, they may have the opportunity to discriminate, and I just don't agree with that. That would lead to people not being able to access affordable housing.
Then there's the question of harassment. There are probably provisions in the bill that will stop people from being harassed. However, we all know that if someone wants somebody to leave, there's a pretty good opportunity that they will find ways of, shall we say, convincing the people to leave. This very much concerns me as well. People with disabilities, historically and to this day, have been discriminated against, and if this harassment happens, they will continue to be discriminated against even more. I would think as a caring society our job would be to protect people with disabilities and other types of vulnerable people from harassment.
I just want to quickly make another point. This morning I heard landlords with concerns about people who damage the apartment unit. As a person who is a good tenant, this concerns me too, and I think this behaviour is unacceptable. But if there is a $500 security deposit on a housing unit, that would be a hardship to me. If the premise is that 95% of tenants are honest, that would punish all the honest people just to get at the 5% of dishonest people. I hope the government also finds a way to resolve the conflict that would be fair and equitable and that would keep the costs of the litigation down for both the tenant and the landlord.
Before you put Bill 96 into law, I implore you to ensure that the eviction laws are strong so that people cannot be forced to move out of their apartments, that rents in Ontario remain reasonable so that Ontarians with low incomes will be able to access safe places to live, and that apartments are accessible to all citizens. For the future of the tenants of Ontario, the ultimate responsibility lies with your government. If the policies you implement have a negative impact on people, this is your responsibility, so I hope you will make wise decisions on our behalf. Thank you again.
The Chair: Ms Gillespie, Ms LaForme, thank you very much. We have an opportunity for -- we'll try it again -- one question.
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I want to thank Norma and Karen for the presentation and for the great work they continue to do in this community on behalf of tenants and people with disabilities.
Karen, your presentation talked about some of the obvious weaknesses in the legislation. If you had to point out what you think is the most dangerous part of this legislation as it pertains to protecting to tenants and tenants' rights, what would it be?
Ms Gillespie: The loss of the Tenant Protection Act is the biggest disadvantage for the tenants. I know that all the groups you'll hear this afternoon are going to be talking about the disadvantages of this legislation towards tenants and the organizations that work towards tenants' rights, but I believe it's the tenants being able to live in safe, secure homes, being able to go to work knowing that when you come home you're not going to be locked out of your apartment, for whatever reason, whether it's legitimate or not. You need to have some way of knowing in advance. The way I understand the bill to be is that you may come home and the locks could be changed, without notification. There are a lot of people out there who have enough on their plates to deal with, whether it be a sick family, an insecure job situation, not knowing what's going to happen next in their health situations. They need to be able to come home and say, "Okay, I'm safe." I can't see it happening if this legislation passes.
The Chair: Thank you again for coming.
1610
UNITED SENIOR CITIZENS OF ONTARIO
STEELWORKERS ORGANIZATION OF ACTIVE RETIREES
The Chair: The next presentation is the Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees and the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, Orville Kerr and Gwen Lee. Good afternoon.
Ms Gwen Lee: Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation. There's a little bit of confusion about who I represent. I only found out a couple of days ago that I was presenting, so I cherry-picked instead of making a proper presentation. I hope it's acceptable.
USCO Zone 14, which both of us represents, has many member clubs, and because it is non-political it represents members of all political stripes. All members of the executive except myself are at the annual convention of USCO Inc. I am therefore speaking on behalf of Zone 14. Orville Kerr, who is sitting beside me, is a board member of Zone 14. He will also make a presentation on their behalf, as well as for SOAR, where he is vice-president. SOAR is the Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees.
I am a tenant in public housing in a seniors' apartment in Hamilton-Wentworth and I've been on many of their committees, planning together where tenants and staff work together to try and resolve any problems that might arise. We thought we did a very good job in Hamilton and hoped that the last government and this government felt the same.
In the Common Sense Revolution, the Progressive Conservative Party promised it would not hurt senior citizens or the disabled if they were elected as the governing party in Ontario. Two years into their mandate we are being hurt as never before. If they qualify for a subsidy, public housing tenants pay 30% of their income for rent. With user fees for everything from registration for disabled transportation to prescription drugs, and more new registration fees and user fees coming along all the time, how can we possibly cope with Bill 96? Certain sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act do not apply to public housing tenants. Will these same exemptions apply when municipalities become responsible for social housing? I see Mr Gilchrist nodding his head, so I hope that's true.
Hamilton-Wentworth is a caring community for its low-income residents. Residents in this community come from many other areas of Ontario because of the policy of the provincial government that allows Ontario residents to apply for accommodation anywhere in the province. Seniors were able to apply for a unit with this local housing authority no matter where in Ontario they lived and so were able to live near family and friends.
We have a very high percentage of rent-geared-to-income tenants because Hamilton-Wentworth cared enough to build the needed units -- I should also say here with assistance from Central Mortgage and Housing Corp and the province. Because some of our neighbouring municipalities did not establish much, if any, social housing, their residents may have moved into Hamilton-Wentworth's units. This will place an unfair burden on taxpayers in the Hamilton-Wentworth region when the municipality becomes responsible for public housing. How does the provincial government intend to level the playing-field and share the cost of social housing among municipalities?
In Bill 96 as written, although present tenants would be covered by current rent increases of no more than 2.8% each year, every time a new tenant moves in a landlord can charge whatever he likes. Some landlords may harass tenants, pushing them to move out so that new tenants can move in and pay higher rents. Provision is made in the bill for an anti-harassment process, but it does not define what harassment is.
Death of a tenant: Thirty days after the death of a tenant may not be sufficient time for next of kin to move everything out of the apartment or house. After a tenant dies, the landlord can keep, sell or dispose of tenants' property on the 31st day after the death. No application to a tribunal is necessary. Some unscrupulous landlords may sell some of tenants' property for far less than it's worth. There is no provision for dealing with this issue. This happened some years ago when a very few finance companies seized and sold property to dummy purchasers when borrowers defaulted on loans.
The tribunal: Landlord and tenant disputes will no longer be heard by a judge in a court of law. Instead, a new body called the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, made up of government appointees, will hear disputes. If a tribunal is set up, it should be comprised of competent, independent individuals serving up to five years in staggered time periods. This will ensure that all terms do not end at the same time.
In "Care Homes" on page 45 of Bill 96, subsection 88(1), five days does not allow enough time for a tenant to consult a third party and cancel an agreement within five days of signing it. It may take more than five days to even find a third party to consult, and we must remember that some prospective tenants may not have the ability or knowledge to find a competent third party.
Under transfer to alternative facility, a landlord must never be the one to decide that there is a need for more or less care for a resident. This decision must be made by the tenant or his or her representative in conjunction with the doctor and/or the appropriate care agencies as well as the landlord or his representative.
Public housing tenants have to pay 60 days' rent when moving for whatever reason, including death. How will this be affected by the 31st-day-after-death entrance of the landlord to remove all property? Landlords will be able to enter an apartment without notice to show it to prospective renters, insurers or purchasers. It also lifts an existing restriction against entry after dark. This could be a violation of a tenant's right to privacy. I would like to remind you that the police can't even enter an apartment without a warrant, yet a landlord would be able to come without giving you any kind of notice. At the present time it's 24 hours' notice.
Finally, under supportive housing, in Hamilton we have some supportive housing units under Hamilton-Wentworth Housing Authority. Supportive housing does not come under care homes. Supportive housing bridges the gap where a person is at risk living alone but does not qualify for admission to a nursing home, home for the aged or similar accommodation. Tenants pay rent and various options are available to them to enable them to live safely. There is 24-hour-a-day staff onsite. Everything from congregate dining, which is optional, to homemaker assistance is available as needed. An emergency response system is also in place.
In Hamilton-Wentworth, the district health council assists with funding at present and the Victorian Order of Nurses provides homemaker services and St Elizabeth nurses provide the nursing care.
We hope you will address some of the concerns of my fellow presenters. Thank you.
1620
Mr Orville Kerr: This submission was drafted by Bill Fuller and he had to go to a convention in BC, so he asked me to present this. I will eliminate the introduction.
The Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees is an international organization of retired United Steelworker members with their spouses. The organization was created in 1985 and currently represents 85,000 members in Canada and the United States. SOAR Chapter 10 is located in Hamilton at 1031 Barton Street East. If you want to contact anyone there or wish to contact William Fuller, provincial co-ordinator, the phone number is here and I think you all have that.
We're of the opinion that the government's tenant protection legislation will take away the rights that tenants have under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Rent Control Act and rights afforded by other legislation.
We are concerned that the bottom line is to eliminate rent controls and have some landlords charge as much as they can as soon as they can. We are concerned that seniors will be forced to move to permit some landlords to implement dramatic rent increases. These revisions will be yet another loss in available and acceptable housing as we now understand it. Senior citizens and citizens at the low end of the income scale will undoubtedly be most affected by the revisions.
Care home residents will also be at the mercy of the landlord with economical, easy and speedy evictions. Care home tenants should continue to enjoy security of their accommodation as defined in the Rent Control Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act. Care home operators should continue to be responsible for providing both the meals and services they are contracted to provide in accordance with the Rent Control Act.
The province, in terminating cooperative and non-profit housing programs in Ontario, has denied thousands of seniors their option for housing in their retirement years. Housing is one of the basic features that determine quality and standards for its citizens. Ontario, under the current government, seems to be intent on totally eliminating all the structures that have been in place to provide the level of housing we are accustomed to and entitled to. It is one area that Ontario residents should continue to enjoy, particularly residents in the low-income brackets. We in Ontario must keep a comprehensive strategy in place on housing, one that fulfils the needs of all citizens. The government of the day owes that obligation to its citizens.
Low-income seniors will be put at risk of losing affordable housing in our province. Expensive rental housing will assure more poverty, ill health and social isolation for low-income citizens. The current rent control system is a safeguard against unscrupulous landlords and should not be dismantled. We believe the Rental Housing Protection Act should remain in its present form with no changes whatsoever. This is the only protection low-income seniors and tenants who are forced to rent have for their housing needs.
Many seniors are of the opinion that this government has turned its back on them. They look at Bill 26, the omnibus bill, that gave to the government and their staff the right to pick and choose which hospital should be closing or continue to operate. Seniors looked at the drug benefit provisions with user fees for seniors and low-income citizens and are now faced with dramatic changes in accommodation and housing.
We think it is high time the government took a closer look and listened to its citizens. Health care and housing are key ingredients that make our province and our country what they are today. It is a shame to watch it systematically disintegrate at the hands of the Harris government. Seniors and low-income citizens have a vote a long memory. I am sure at some point in time they will equate the two. Seniors in particular will increase dramatically in the next few years. Seniors played a major role in the previous United States election between Bush and Clinton and I am confident they will take these changes into consideration at the ballot box in the future.
That's it. Thank you.
Mr Bisson: A very to-the-point question: A little bit earlier one of the government members, I forget which one, made the comment that tenants shouldn't be worried about this legislation because tenants more or less are making up all of these fears about the bill, that there isn't anything in this bill that's really going to hurt tenants. Are you of that view, that this bill will not harm tenants?
Mr Kerr: I'm sure of it. I haven't got the legislation here that is proposed, but the way I look at it is, I was formerly a rental accommodation owner myself. I rented property for years. There are so many ways you can evict a person. I can't understand the thinking of the government which makes it so much easier for them to do that. If they don't fix up their property, they can make it so bad that the tenant can't live in there. When they move on, of course the landlord can raise the rent. I don't care what argument is put up; why change it? What's the matter with it the way it is? I never saw any fault with it, I'll tell you. I had no problem in rental accommodation -- unless you're a greedy landlord.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you very much. I appreciate your presentations. Let me just respond to the first one, Ms Lee. You raised a number of questions. I was nodding my head to the first one. The sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act will certainly continue to apply to public housing, regardless of what happens, as part of the Who Does What transfers.
You asked the question about provision in the bill for an anti-harassment process and said that it does not define what harassment is. Harassment is fairly well and comprehensively defined in paragraph 7 of subsection 30(1). But even more to the point, the judicial interpretation of the relevant section of the Human Rights Code would be the legal basis for defining that. The case law that's built up in the past won't change as a result of this bill.
The other issues, just in the few seconds we have here -- you've raised the question that public housing tenants have to prepay 60 days' rent when moving for whatever reason, including death. If you've prepaid your rent, it's your unit; it's not vacant. The rules about the landlord being able to remove anything would not apply if you've paid the rent, so you do not have to worry about a conflict in that section.
Finally, supportive housing does come under care homes in most cases.
Ms Lee: That's something I don't understand. I've lived for 20 years where I am now and I was a tenant representative and still am in the area of advisory committee. I know there have been letters and articles in the paper where people have said, "My mother had to give 60 days' notice that she was going to die." You have to pay the 60 days' rent. How can you reconcile the two things? I tell you our general manager would not do it, but some public housing managers might do it: Go in and take the people's property because they're covered by law.
The Chair: Unfortunately, Ms Lee, we've got to move on.
Mr Duncan: I hear your concerns with respect to that particular section. I would like to comment on the issue you raised with respect to the Landlord and Tenant Act and what sections do not apply to public housing tenants. I think the other thing that advocates such as yourself need to be aware of is that the government has now embarked on two initiatives to privatize public housing units: a small portion of Regent Park and a large development in my community called Glengarry.
When we met with the chair of the Ontario Housing Corp, Mr Carson, who would be familiar to people here in Hamilton, we sought an answer to the question of who the owner of new units would be. Would it continue to be the local housing authority representing the Ontario Housing Corp or would it be the new developer?
We had two differing responses to that question, one from the civil servants who were there and one from Mr Carson. We've asked for written responses to that and to date have not had them. So I would caution that beyond what is going on in Bill 96, there is also significant change going respect to the units that are owned by the Ontario Housing Corp, whether they be here in Hamilton or other parts of the province.
Mr Gilchrist: Fear-mongering.
Mr Duncan: No, it's not fear-mongering, Mr Gilchrist. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You didn't attend the meeting. The ministry wasn't represented and your own officials haven't responded to questions that were put, both in writing and in the newspaper.
Mr Gilchrist: You didn't invite me to any meeting, Mr Duncan.
Mr Duncan: It was organized by your ministry, Mr Gilchrist.
Mr Gilchrist: Not by me.
The Chair: Boys, boys, boys.
Mr Duncan: It was by your ministry.
Mr Gilchrist: Retract that.
Mr Duncan: But in any event I believe Mr Gilchrist has misled you in the answer to his questions and I think the issues you've raised -- I refuse to retract it.
Mr Gilchrist: You're pathetic.
Mr Duncan: You're pathetic.
The Chair: You're both out of order and you're both out of time. Thank you for coming.
Ms Lee: I would just like to mention that on page 16, all those exemptions in Bill 96 are for public housing tenants, but they call it "social housing tenants."
The Chair: Thank you very much for taking the time to make your comments to the committee this afternoon.
Ms Lee: We enjoyed it, as we always do. We try to attend every hearing that's relevant to us. Thanks very much.
1630
WOMAN ABUSE WORKING GROUP
The Chair: The next presentation is the Woman Abuse Working Group, Lisa Singh and Renate Manthei.
Ms Lisa Singh: Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Singh and I represent the Woman Abuse Working Group, or WAWG, as it's known. It's a group of 28 service providers and consumers whose purpose is to develop and implement an accountable community response to woman abuse through the coordination of services, education and prevention in Hamilton-Wentworth.
On July 2, 1997, the Honourable Dianne Cunningham, minister responsible for women's issues, announced the government's strategies to combat violence against women and their children. One of Ms Cunningham's strongest messages was that preventing violence against women and their children is a key priority for this government. As well, she highlighted the safety of women and their children as paramount and that everyone must share responsibility to prevent violence against women and their children.
The concern of the Woman Abuse Working Group would be to alert this committee to the fact that we believe the changes recommended in Bill 96, section 200, the Tenant Protection Act, in general do not protect or provide safety to women and their children who already live in fear of their personal safety, fear of a life of poverty and fear that they will not find decent, affordable housing for themselves and their children. If anything, section 200 further alienates, betrays and makes it more difficult for women to leave abusive relationships.
It is irresponsible for a government to state from one side of its mouth that it wants to combat violence against women, protect children and keep them safe while the other very clear message being sent in section 200 of Bill 96 is that women will not be protected but rather, in many cases, will be forced to remain in violent relationships. Even if the woman chooses to leave, she will be subject to further abuse and discrimination through the so-called Tenant Protection Act. To be more specific, our greatest concern with Bill 96 is the section which amends the Human Rights Code to effectively eliminate fundamental protections from discrimination in housing accommodations that have now been in place for some 15 years.
The acceptable affordable rental rate is 30% of one's income. For anyone on general welfare or family benefits the shelter portion is over 60% of total income. If a landlord is allowed to turn someone down because he does not believe it's affordable, he can turn down everyone on general welfare or FBA. A 1996 study of landlords shows that 10% would not rent to people on welfare. This is when landlords are not permitted to do so, as opposed to when this legislation is enacted.
Mr Bisson: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The parliamentary assistant on two or three occasions has not even bothered to listen to the presentations. When he is here, he's either chatting on the one side or chatting on the other; you can't hear the presenters. If you're not going to listen, leave the room. You should pay attention to what the heck is going on. These people are presenting and I would like to hear. I can't hear when you're heckling away. Please listen to what people have to say.
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Chair, on a point of privilege: Mr Bisson's attempt at lowering the tone of these things never ceases to amaze me: 50% of his caucus doesn't even show up today, and he presumes to lecture us.
The point is that my role is to seek answers for the people posing questions. You know that's why this gentleman is here, as a resource, so I can then answer them informedly. I know you'd rather talk about things you don't understand. I'd like to answer --
The Chair: It's not a point of order and it's not a point of privilege. I'd like to hear the delegations. Continue, please.
Ms Singh: Of all the barriers to leaving an abusive relationship, affordable housing is one of the most vital items. It is the biggest single expense in low-income households. Without the stable resource of affordable housing, the struggle for self-reliance is jeopardized. Women and their children who have already been subject to intense physical and emotional trauma do not need to face further hurdles and discrimination in regard to accessing affordable housing.
Proposed recommendations in Bill 96 which allow landlords to do credit checks, credit references, rental histories and income information in tenant sections would discriminate against women who are victims of domestic violence, because, as stated earlier, upon leaving an abusive relationship women must also face a possible life of poverty. However, there's no evidence that she may not be able to pay her monthly housing charges. These changes give landlords the upper hand and permission to refuse to rent to people under false pretences.
Accordingly, we recommend that the section on income information be deleted because of its ability to further alienate, exclude and again place women at a disadvantage. Legalizing the use of income information is about allowing certain landlords to exclude social assistance recipients and other low-income groups from getting decent and affordable housing. Loss of affordable housing and higher rents are key barriers that will force victims to choose between the abuse at home or the abuse and unfair discrimination she will face if the current Bill 96 is passed.
Higher rents: Under the Tenant Protection Act landlords will be able to set the rent at whatever amount they want when a unit is vacant. The rent in any future unit the tenant moves into will not be covered by rent control. Since two thirds of tenants move every five years, the rental market will effectively be decontrolled in five years, and it is expected that rents will rise significantly. Again, higher rents will make it harder for women to leave abusive relationships. We recommend keeping rent control on vacant units.
Harassment: When the landlord knows the rent can be raised for a new tenant, there is financial incentive to evict tenants or harass them into leaving. Women will be extremely vulnerable to this type of harassment. Many women already in a vulnerable state may return to their abusive partner or continue to spend time in temporary places such as local shelters or second-stage housing and counselling programs. The impact this type of scenario would have on a victim of family violence goes against the grain of what this government states it wants to do for women victims and their children. Abuse is about one party having all the power and the other party having none.
Less safety: Under the Tenant Protection Act tenants will not be able to change their locks unless they have their landlord's permission to do so. If a woman is unable to get her landlord's permission to change the locks, her abusive partner could continue to have access to her children and her home. In addition, under current legislation, landlords can only enter a tenant's unit during daylight hours. Under the Tenant Protection Act landlords would be able to enter between 8 am and 8 pm. For much of the year this extends landlords' access to women's units past daylight hours. This change will make women more vulnerable to harassment by their landlords. We recommend 8 to 4, daylight hours only.
Loss of affordable housing: The new legislation will repeal the Rental Housing Protection Act. This will remove municipal restrictions on the conversion, demolition and renovation of apartment buildings The amount of affordable housing will likely shrink as units are converted to condominiums or demolished for other investment purposes. This will create more competition for a few apartments but will drive rents up. Women will find it harder to find safe, adequate, affordable housing.
Ms Renate Manthei: My name is Renate Manthei. I'm with the Women's Centre of Hamilton-Wentworth. We are a member of the Woman Abuse Working Group. I just have a few comments to add to what Lisa has presented.
First of all, I'd like to register deep concern and outrage regarding the introduction of Bill 96. We believe Bill 96 is a serious step backwards in the protection of tenants' rights and in access and maintenance of affordable housing for tenants in general and for disadvantaged groups in the population, special-needs groups in particular.
I'm going to focus my presentation on the special needs of those women and children who are most vulnerable with regard to housing needs. These include abused women and their children, single-parent families and low-income single women, as well as women who are disabled. Other presenters today have already spoken on how Bill 96 adversely affects immigrant and refugee women and families and individuals at risk due to health issues, mental health and physical health as well as others.
1640
The several concerns I wish to highlight first of all relate to a landlord's right to require income information and the subsequent right to not rent to anyone for whom the rental unit would represent more than 30% of their income. We feel this is a human rights violation, discriminating against those with low incomes, as we all know very well that the fastest-growing rate of poor people in our communities are single women with families. Because of the poverty and the low income, there are many women who have to pay more than 30% of their income on housing in order to live in decent accommodation. In fact, many individuals on welfare and on family benefits assistance would be excluded.
I looked at some of the payment schedules for people on general welfare and on family benefits assistance. A single parent with a child is presently allowed a maximum of $500 shelter allowance, which represents 53% of the total income, which is 23% above the guideline that Bill 96 is going to consider. A single parent with two children is allowed a maximum shelter allowance of $602, which also represents 53% of total income. In the case of a single person -- that could be an older person, a woman whose children have reached the age of 18 and are no longer covered under family benefits, for example -- the shelter allowance in this instance is $520 per month at the maximum level, and that represents 62% of that person's income. If a single mother with two children were to remain within the 30% guideline for shelter costs, she would have to find an apartment for $332 a month. Certainly in our community that's not easy to do. If these two children are different genders, requiring a three-bedroom place, that's virtually impossible.
Abused women will be placed in greater jeopardy with Bill 96. Finding suitable affordable housing is already a significant barrier to leaving an abusive relationship. Again, it's the economic issue of separating that puts women at a serious disadvantage. We have statistics regarding separation of spouses, where the man's income generally goes up and the woman's income is reduced, and even though she has the responsibility for the children she ends up with a lower income than was the case in a marital situation.
The assaults on tenants' rights will further reduce a woman's self-esteem, which has already been compromised in an abusive relationship, again adding to the barriers in leaving such a relationship. The assaults on tenants' rights, as identified for you this afternoon, fly in the face of moving towards a more equitable, empowered society. These assaults create a climate where further coercion and abuse can take place. Lisa has mentioned some of the instances where we expect further harassment on the part of landlords in situations where there are single women or mother-led households. We fear that the removal of the rights will jeopardize these women and again prevent their safe living in the community.
One of the incidents we feel is of major concern is the assault on privacy, where a landlord can come into a home with no notice once an eviction notice has been passed, over the 12-hour period, and simply show that house. That's a major invasion of privacy and adds to the insecurity and lack of safety for a woman.
Women will feel afraid to assert their need for repairs and maintenance of rental units where the spectre of increasing rent due to repairs will force families to resign themselves to living in places that are substandard, where repairs are not done and where perhaps unsafe situations arise. We feel this is a major concern, not only for adults living in these kinds of places but also for the children. Children require safe and suitable places to live, and the threats that are created by Bill 96 we feel will seriously compromise the needs of children and the right to stability.
Ensuring a stock of affordable housing and the ability of vulnerable families to access this housing is essential in providing children with an environment that will enable them to grow up healthy, safe and secure. Undue stress put on parents whose rights and securities as tenants are eroded bodes ill for our most valuable future resource, our children. It is the government's responsibility to provide leadership to ensure that children's needs are met and are not co-opted in favour of the convenience and the rights of landlords. Removal of rent control on vacant rental units will see the proliferation of a gap between those in our community who are well housed because they can afford it and those who are not because they cannot afford the escalating rents that we feel will occur under an uncontrolled situation. Landlords will favour the well-off renter, and housing at the low end of the market will diminish in both quantity and quality. Housing should be considered a social right, and we feel that those whose circumstances have been made more vulnerable should not be jeopardized in terms of finding secure, appropriate and safe housing.
Those are my comments.
Mrs Munro: Thank you very much for bringing your views here today for us. You've raised many areas, and I'm sure the Chair is not going to allow me time to deal with all of those, but just one or two things. First of all, I wanted to make sure we understand that when you're talking about the 30%, this is strictly a practice that some landlords engage in. There is nothing in the legislation that refers to any number, any percentage or anything like that. The legislation does talk about the opportunity for a landlord to use a number of criteria, such as the credit checks, the tenant history and so forth. I just wanted to make that clear, because certainly there are many people who would spend more than 30% on their accommodation. There's nothing there that says 30%.
Mr Duncan: I would like to comment on that issue. The chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Mr Norton, a former Conservative cabinet minister and an appointee of this government, concurs with your opinion. The issue doesn't revolve around credit checks. Landlords can do that now. The issue is around income checks and what the source of income is.
I wonder if you're familiar with the eventual compromise that was reached in Quebec whereby source of income could be used as a last reference if there was no credit history or any other type of history a landlord could use. That's been adopted in Quebec, as I understand it. I wonder if you're familiar with that and if you have any comment.
Ms Manthei: Our concerns are with vulnerable people at the low-income level. We feel they are the ones who are going to end up having income checked more often than not. It's going to affect people who are on family benefits assistance or welfare because their opportunity to develop a credit rating is significantly less. Our point still stands, that it is the people at the low-income level who are going to be more severely affected by this income check.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I've heard this government on a number of occasions, in the House and on committee, espouse that they respect the issue of privacy of the individual, yet in the legislation under subsection 20(3) the landlord is given greater powers to enter the unit if they're showing the unit to somebody else, without notice as long as it's done between 8 in the morning and 8 in the evening. Section 21 gives the landlord, while you're living in the apartment, the ability to enter the unit, it says under subsection (4), "for any other reasonable reason of entry specified in the tenancy agreement," and that can be a whole bunch of things. How do you square that with a government that says it respects the rights and the privacy of an individual, yet they do something that really, according to a lot of people, takes away privacy? What's the motive? Why would they do it?
Ms Singh: I think women have been marginalized, especially women who have come from abusive relationships. The government is focused mostly on landlords, who have more power and control. These are women who come from relationships where power and control is an issue for them. We're looking at placing them in another situation where once again they have limited power and control. Government is taking away from them that right and that power and control to protect themselves, to have privacy in their own homes.
Ms Manthei: Your question is why that's happening. It sounds like a rhetorical question. I'm not sure why, but we're certainly aware of the effects it will have. As Lisa said, it will not create the feeling that people are safe, especially women who have gone through power and control issues. I don't know why the government would do that. A lack of respect for people.
The Chair: Thank you. I'm sorry to be so brisk but we've somehow got to keep the hearings rolling. I thank you ladies for coming and making your presentation to the committee this afternoon.
1650
LABOURHOOD HOMES RESOURCE CENTRE
MENTAL HEALTH RIGHTS COALITION OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH
HOUSING HELP CENTRE OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH
The Chair: The Settlement and Integration Services Organization, has telephoned us and indicated that they are unable to appear this afternoon, so the next delegation will be the Labourhood Homes Resource Centre. I have three speakers: Mitch Holt, Mark Davies and Sharon Hafner.
Mr Bisson: Which delegation --
The Chair: I know I've skipped one.
Mr Bisson: Which is the group that is not --
The Chair: That's cancelled? It's the Settlement and Integration Services Organization. The group before you now is the Labourhood Homes Resource Centre. Good afternoon. I trust you'll identify yourselves.
Ms Shannah Murray: Good afternoon. My name is Shannah Murray and I work for Labourhood Homes Resource Centre. The chair of our board, Mitch Holt, is unable to attend today's hearings so I'll present for Labourhood in his absence. I'm joined today by Mark Davies from the Mental Health Rights Coalition and Sharon Hafner from the Housing Help Centre.
Labourhood Homes Resource Centre Inc is a non-profit housing development, advocacy and education organization created in 1989 as a joint initiative of the Hamilton and District Labour Council and the Social Planning and Research Council. Our work is supported by Hamilton's labour community.
As a resource group working to develop social housing, we have attained a good understanding of the housing needs of our community. We have seen long waiting lists for subsidized housing and we have seen tenants living in substandard accommodations while they wait for decent, affordable housing.
When the provincial government cancelled the non-profit housing program, the supply problems facing our community as well as the rest of the province were exacerbated. If Bill 96 passes as proposed, the supply problems will reach crisis proportions. The repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act will allow landlords to convert their properties to condominiums or non-residential purposes without any regard for the housing needs of the community or the tenants who live in these units. The repeal of the RHPA will mean a loss of affordable rental accommodation for Hamilton and area tenants. This legislation will also decrease the supply of affordable rental housing through vacancy decontrol. As tenants move, rents will escalate and the supply of affordable rental housing will be lost. The economic realities that have caused our province's supply problems have not been addressed by this legislation. Rather, the so-called Tenant Protection Act takes away protections from tenants and makes them and their housing more vulnerable.
I could go on about the supply problems and how this bill does not address the root causes but rather adds to the problem. However, we thought that the best way to understand the impact of an inadequate supply of affordable rental housing is by understanding what people looking for housing and struggling to maintain their housing go through. Sharon and Mark both work with people whose lives are directly affected by the lack of affordable housing and they will be speaking to you now.
Mr Mark Davies: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Mark Davies and I represent the Mental Health Rights Coalition of Hamilton-Wentworth. I'm here today to talk about the Tenant Protection Act, which I think is more aptly proposed as the landlords' protection from tenants act.
The Hamilton Mental Health Rights Coalition is a not-for-profit, consumer-driven organization. As part of our mandate we advocate on behalf of mental health consumers in order to achieve an equitable quality of life. In doing so, it is our belief that all individuals, regardless of disability, have the right to certain basic living essentials, these being food, shelter, income and care. Furthermore, these essentials should not be limited to individuals based on race, gender, disability, ability, marital or family status nor, specifically, income.
The potential impact of section 200 of Bill 96 whereby income information may be used to disqualify potential individuals from tenancy will have, in our opinion, widely detrimental consequences to an overwhelming majority of consumer-survivors in the Hamilton-Wentworth region and indeed across the province of Ontario.
In response to section 200 of Bill 96, it should be noted that the Mental Health Rights Coalition does not contend that landlords should not have access to income information where it is used in a non-discriminatory manner. However, as proposed, the amendment to this section would allow landlords to discriminate at will against individuals with a mental illness who are on some form of social assistance, thus giving no opportunity for recourse such as is now available through the existence of section 21 of the Human Rights Code.
In Hamilton-Wentworth there are an estimated 13,600 individuals suffering from severe mental illness. As well, it is estimated that there are approximately 95,971 individuals living in Hamilton-Wentworth who suffer from one or more mental health disorders. These numbers are staggering when one considers that the large majority of these individuals suffering from mental illnesses are on some form of social assistance, either FBA disability, Canada pension plan disability or general welfare assistance. It is far more of a concern if one considers that these individuals represent only a small portion of the population who are depending on social assistance who may be discriminated against by landlords if this amendment is passed.
Mental health consumers are often discriminated against because of their illness, putting individuals into an isolated environment which not only inhibits access to basic needs, but often contributes to increased alienation and possible recurrence of their illness, resulting in costly hospitalization. To further discriminate against any individual because of income, resulting in inaccessible housing options, will quite simply exacerbate the present situation.
In 1995 there were approximately 161 homeless individuals on the streets of Hamilton on any given night. Of these, 38% were identified as having a mental illness. With funding cuts, potential hospital closures and limitations on supportive housing, we expect this figure to rise dramatically in the near future. Under the proposed amendment, this statistic will significantly increase to devastating proportions, with repercussions not only for mental health consumers but the community as a whole.
Barring homelessness, mental health consumers would have no option but to live in substandard conditions and/or in temporary shelters, providing great stress on both these individuals and care providers. Recent consequences of such situations have contributed to the tragic deaths of several mental health consumers in our city and across the province. One only needs to look at today's Hamilton Spectator on page A4 for an article by Carolynne Wheeler about a man who has spent the last few years living on the streets and in hostels who was found dead last Thursday in one of the back streets of the downtown core.
This situation obviously will be exacerbated during the winter months, when many homeless people or those in substandard housing will experience even greater stress, greater health problems and greater difficulty in maintaining even the most basic necessities of life. Often considered some of the most vulnerable people in our community, mental health consumers would face the added complication and discrimination of being disqualified from adequate housing at the whim of landlords who will be able to refuse to rent to them, with the full support of the government of Ontario and this bill.
In a climate where the Ontario government is encouraging, both financially and legislatively, the increased reintegration of mental health consumers into the community, such a move to remove the protection afforded by the current Human Rights Code is both hypocritical and shortsighted.
Finally, mental health organizations and agencies across the province for many years now have been battling the stigma and prejudice which is often associated with an individual who suffers from some form of mental illness. This amendment, in theory, would seem to condone the ongoing practice of such discrimination, based on misconceptions and lack of understanding. In practice, this amendment allows for mental health consumers and all vulnerable individuals on social assistance to be openly and unabatedly refused their basic needs as human beings.
The recommendation of the Mental Health Rights Coalition of Hamilton-Wentworth is that the Human Rights Code must not be tampered with or amended to allow the collection of income information, in that such a move will violate the most basic human rights of adequate shelter, community integration and an individual's right to choose safe, reasonable and affordable accommodations.
1700
Ms Sharon Hafner: Good afternoon. My name is Sharon Hafner and I'm with the Housing Help Centre of Hamilton-Wentworth. I'd like to take a minute to thank Labourhood for graciously allowing me to share some of their time here with you today.
As you can see from the groups you've heard from this afternoon, there are a large number of tenants and organizations that work with tenants that are concerned about Bill 96, the so-called Tenant Protection Act. Fortunately, those people who were granted time here this afternoon were willing to share their time in order for more of us to have the opportunity to identify some of our concerns with Bill 96. It's that generosity that has allowed me to speak to you here today.
The Housing Help Centre of Hamilton-Wentworth is a storefront community service which helps people find and maintain safe, secure, adequate, affordable housing. The centre is set up so that people can use a self-directed approach or receive intensive assistance from staff, and every level of assistance in between. While the centre provides assistance to any tenant who requires it, we provide service primarily to people with low incomes or special needs.
In order to give you a picture of the barriers that the people we work with face, let me quote some statistics. Of the people who use the centre's services in a more intensive manner: 23% of the people we work with have a physical disability, 19% have a psychiatric disability and 21% are victims of domestic violence. Most people's incomes were extremely low: 31% were receiving general welfare assistance, 31% were receiving a disability pension, 11% were receiving family benefits. Only 12% were receiving some income from employment.
The centre opened its doors in May 1989, and since then we have responded to over 100,000 inquiries. In 1996 alone the centre had over 13,000 contacts with people needing our services.
In addition to providing assistance to people who are attempting to find and/or maintain their housing, the centre also provides tenant education and engages in research, policy analysis, workshops and committee work. The centre documents the need for affordable housing in Hamilton-Wentworth, identifies hard-pressed groups, analyses the effectiveness of existing housing programs and works for improvements in housing policies.
The Housing Help Centre is coming here today from an informed position on the experiences, needs and problems of the most vulnerable people in this community. We are a leader in working with and advocating for the people who are the most housing disadvantaged in the region.
We're here today because, like everyone else you've been hearing from this afternoon, we're very concerned about the impact of the Tenant Protection Act on all tenants, but especially those who are most vulnerable: those with low incomes, people with disabilities, people with mental health difficulties, young people, women attempting to leave abusive relationships, to name just a few. These are the people that we work with.
The number of changes proposed in the Tenant Protection Act are quite staggering, and we have serious concerns with most of the proposed changes. Unfortunately, even a full 20 minutes would not be nearly adequate time to address all of our concerns. What we have decided to do is to speak to the issue of vacancy decontrol, especially as it will affect the people we work with. Let me say with respect to all of the many other issues that we would like to speak to that we share the concerns that have been expressed by the other tenants and organizations that work with tenants who have spoken here today and in other communities prior to today.
The government has spoken extensively about the so-called Tenant Protection Act and it has created I think a powerful image in the minds of people to hear that phrase over and over again. I'd like to spend a little bit of time today trying to create a mental picture for people that's a little bit more accurate.
If one thinks of a tenant protection system as a house or an apartment, a fitting analogy we think, then a nice, warm, well-maintained, affordable house would be a good tenant protection system and a run-down house with a leaky roof, broken windows and cockroaches would be a bad tenant protection system. If the Tenant Protection Act was a house, it would be condemned, as I think you're hearing tenants and people who work with tenants say here today. One of the cornerstones of a nice, secure, warm and cozy house, or tenant protection system, has to be an adequate supply of affordable rental housing for tenants. Without that essential cornerstone, you do not have a tenant protection system.
Over the years we have built tenants a fairly nice little house, at least in comparison to Bill 96. A series of individual bricks or controls have been put in place which help to keep rental housing relatively affordable. I say "relatively" here because even with rent controls, allowable rent increases have been higher than inflation for the last several years, making housing less affordable than we would like to see.
With the proposed Tenant Protection Act, that all changes. The image that comes to mind on hearing the words "Tenant Protection Act" is probably something like a row of beautiful tall trees around their home, something that surrounds tenants in their homes and protects them from anything bad that could happen -- a very nice, compelling image and one that I think a lot of people in the public have bought into. After reading the act, however, one has to change that mental image. After reading the act, the image that comes to mind is something more along the lines of a wrecking ball -- a very large wrecking ball. If Bill 96 is passed, that wrecking ball will hit the house and demolish it. Along with everything else that's destroyed, affordable housing will be destroyed.
Let me talk about one of the specific protections that are part of our current tenant protection system right now. That protection is rent control. Rent control is a very important brick in the house of tenant protection. Even though allowable rent increases have been above inflation rates for several years, our system of rent controls have kept housing relatively affordable. If the TPA wrecking ball is allowed to hit our house of tenant protection, our rent control brick will come tumbling down and affordable housing with it.
As you already know, under the Tenant Protection Act, landlords will be allowed to set the rent at whatever amount they want for new tenants through a process called vacancy decontrol. Government assurances to the contrary, double-digit rent increases are expected by most people. Rent increases have been extremely large in other communities that have introduced vacancy decontrol. For example, as I think you have heard from another presenter, New York introduced vacancy decontrol in the 1970s and rents increased 52% over a three-year period. The loss of rent control as it now exists will severely limit tenant access to affordable accommodation. If rents increase by 20%, then the rent on a $500 apartment could go up by $100. If New York's experience is reproduced in Ontario, the rent increase on a $500 apartment could be as high as $250. Extremely few tenants will be able to afford such increases.
Let me try to explain what all this means to some of the people we work with. Many of the single people who use our services receive social assistance. A single person on general welfare assistance receives a maximum of $520 a month; $325 of that is the person's shelter allowance. It should be noted that $325 is 62.5% of the person's income, way above the 30% which is commonly considered to be affordable. This will create real problems when Bill 96 is passed and landlords are allowed to use tenants' income information to refuse to rent to them. This change will make it extremely difficult for people on social assistance to find any housing at all.
So a single person on welfare receives $520 a month; $325 of that is supposed to pay for the person's rent. However, it is extremely difficult for people to find a one-bedroom apartment in Hamilton for $325. A study conducted by the Housing Help Centre in 1996 determined that the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Hamilton was $451. If a person on social assistance paid this amount for an apartment, they would only have $69 left for all of their other expenses, including food.
People are already finding it extremely difficult to find affordable housing given their incomes. I have to tell you that it's extremely difficult when I have a woman in my office saying she just can't shave any more off her expenses and her housing is still not affordable.
The Chair: Ms Hafner, you have two minutes.
Ms Hafner: Okay. She tells me that she could save a few dollars a month by getting rid of her phone, but she doesn't feel that she can, because she has a child who has extreme allergic reactions and she needs to be able to call 911. "What can I do?" she asks me. "The phone is the only thing I can cut, but if I don't have a phone, my child could die." What do I say to her?
It's extremely difficult when I'm talking to someone who says, "Yes, okay, I could afford that apartment if I bought less food, and if I reduced my food by that amount, that would be okay because I could probably only lose about five or 10 pounds and I can manage that." What do I say to this person? Encourage him to cut his food budget, even if it means he's getting inadequate amounts of food, so he can get an apartment, or encourage him to keep looking for something cheaper, even though I know he has been looking for two weeks and this is the cheapest apartment he has found and that he is currently living on the streets?
What do I say when people tell me how they manage to pay their rent, like the person who has turned his hot water heater off and showers in cold water to save the hydro costs? "It's not too bad right now because it's summer," he tells me, "and the water warms up in the hot water tank even when it's not on. So the water isn't really cold, just lukewarm." Or the person who tells me she can eat only every other day so that she can feed her children adequately. The stories are endless, I could go on and on, but they paint a very desperate picture, a picture of people not having enough money to pay all their expenses. Some of the people I've told you about have found ways to keep their housing, even if it means doing without hot water or eating only every other day, but many others can't find a way to afford their rents and are evicted for being in arrears.
This is the situation right now. What happens with vacancy decontrol is that rents will escalate and these stories will become even more desperate, even though I can't imagine at this point how they could become more desperate. But if this legislation passes, I can come back and tell you the stories and the things that people are having to do to be able to afford their rents. I wouldn't have predicted the stories I told you here today, and a couple of years --
The Chair: Ms Hafner, we're out of time.
Ms Hafner: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Hafner, Ms Murray, Mr Davies, for coming and making your presentation to the committee.
1710
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES OF NIAGARA SOUTH;
HALTON COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
The Chair: The next presentation is the Community Legal Services of Niagara South, Michael Foster and Marilyn King.
Mr Michael Foster: Good afternoon. Mr Chairman, members of the committee, I'd like to express my appreciation for being given the opportunity to speak. I am from a community legal clinic in Niagara south and that represents the Welland and Fort Erie area. I'm also here presenting on behalf of the legal clinic that is located in St Catharines, known as Niagara north. I'm here with Marilyn King, who is from Halton Hills legal clinic, and she will be dealing with issues related to access to justice.
I intend to speak on two matters: one related to privacy rates and the other related to disposal of property or the distress remedies under the proposed legislation. I have submitted papers from both clinics, Niagara north and Niagara south, which deal with both of the issues I will deal with. I will just touch on the high points, but what I urge you to consider is that each of the papers presents proposed changes to the legislation which we feel represent what will be my theme, which is striking a reasonable balance between tenants and landlords. I urge you to consider the amendments that are suggested in those papers. I will touch on some of them briefly.
The first issue I'd like to discuss is privacy rights. Obviously this is an essential element for a landlord-tenant relationship and one that should not be abrogated lightly. The concern that we have with the legislation is contained in subsection 20(3) and what it allows landlords to now do is enter and show to prospective tenants a tenant's apartment without notice. The key is being allowed to do this without notice.
All that the landlord need do is serve a notice of termination to the tenant. It matters not that the tenant is contesting the notice. It matters not that the notice itself would not survive a court challenge. It matters not that the grounds for the notice by the landlord would be otherwise groundless. Having served the notice, the landlord has the right to simply show up at a tenant's apartment, knock on the door, inform the tenant that he is intending to show a prospective tenant through and that's it. The landlord is now allowed to enter the apartment. The tenant has no remedy to stop him.
In a nutshell, there's no reason in our submission in a sense of fairness why this section shouldn't be contained within the provisions of section 21. You could simply add it as a fifth section, which section requires that written notice be given to a tenant for an entry. There's no reason to consider this provision or this reason to be on a par with the other without-notice situations that have been covered under section 20. In other words, this is not a case of emergency for which one could expect that there should be no notice. This is not a case where the landlord and the tenant consent to the entry, in which case there need be no notice. This is not a case where you don't need notice because there's a cleaning arrangement.
This is a requirement that is no different than the provision of subsection 21(3), which allows a landlord to show a prospective purchaser through the property. There is no way to reconcile, in our opinion, the distinction between a prospective purchaser and a prospective tenant. If you have to give written notice to a prospective purchaser, then certainly you must give written notice to show a prospective tenant.
The second prong to our submission would be that the current provision allows that either the landlord or the tenant could give the notice of termination and then these provisions would flip in. We are perfectly in agreement with the fact that when a tenant gives a notice to vacate, naturally a landlord should have the ability to show prospective tenants through. There's no dispute about that.
The question is, at what point should a landlord be entitled to do so when they give a notice? I would say that because every tenant is presumed to be able to challenge a notice that a landlord gives and because not every notice is going to display a reasonable ground, if the tenant does not contest the notice, then so be it. The landlord should be allowed to then show prospective tenants through.
The corollary of the opposition is that if a landlord is allowed to give any notice, even knowing that it won't be upheld and that it will be challenged by the tenant and that therefore the tenant is going nowhere, why should the tenant then be subjected to the harassment of a landlord taking tenants through? That's the easy way, the simple way to resolve that provision.
The other area under privacy rights that I wanted to discuss was an area that's been previously referred to by other speakers, and that's the changing of locks. Under the current legislation it is illegal for both a landlord and a tenant to change or alter a locking system without the consent of the other party. That's fair; that's reasonable. What the legislation has done is created a further reasonable step which, in my submission, is acceptable, which is to allow the landlord to unilaterally change the lock as long as he gives a key to the tenant. I have no problem with that change as long as you again make it fair and allow the tenant an equal right.
I say that because of submissions that have been made by presenters just before me. People who are going to be subjected to abuse, abusive ex-spouses, other dangerous situations, those are exactly the types of people who need the protection of lockout provisions. Give them both the same power. Give the landlord the right to unilaterally change the locks, but give the tenant the same right and add a precondition that, in either case, whoever's going to change the lock must immediately give a key to the other party. The legislation seems to be silent about that and we hope it will address it, but I think the addition of a simple word like "immediately" to "give replacement keys" would solve a lot of problems, like landlords saying, "I'll give them to you in 24 hours or 48 hours."
The other area I want to discuss that we've provided in the paper is the issue of the disposal of property. Those are sections that are found scattered about this legislation that the proposed amendment we suggest would tie all together and provide a greater consistency with all of the provisions. They would have the same rules for the same types of situations. There would be no distinction between a tenant who vacates as opposed to a tenant who leaves or abandons as a result of a court order. It would make no distinction between a tenant who dies and/or tenants who have mobile homes.
The real concern we have with respect to the security of belongings is the powers that it gives a landlord. Landlords in any of the four sections referred to can do one of three things: They can sell the belongings; they can dispose of or just trash the belongings or they can keep for themselves the belongings. They can take any of that property left behind in a circumstance where the tenant can't take it with them, whatever the four reasons are.
The problem is that the tenant is given no power to recover those items in cases of a situation where a tenant vacates, yet they are given a limited power to do that where there's an abandonment or a death. But more important, the tenant has no right to ask for landlords to be accountable in situations where they clearly take advantage. I'll give you this situation in every case: a landlord who sells property under either of the categories for $1 to his brother. There's nothing in the legislation that talks about a landlord selling for fair market value or a landlord getting a reasonable amount for a tenant's belongings, so a landlord could do just that, without recourse, with property in a tenant's apartment that doesn't even belong to the tenant. If I had my guitar at a co-tenant's apartment, not only does the tenant not have the power to challenge but I don't even have the power to do it.
1720
I think there are some serious problems with the security of belongings clause. There has to be some accountability for landlords in regard to what they're doing with the property. The selling is one obvious aspect. The ability to allow a landlord to retain the property, despite the value of the property in relation to what is owed, makes absolutely no sense at all. If you're going to give that power, then put a corresponding duty to have the landlord account for, inventory the property that he's claiming to retain. That's not going to be a great task if we're dealing with valuable property.
Those are the submissions that I have, and I thank you for your attention. I'll turn the floor over to Marilyn.
Ms Marilyn King: Mr Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity. My name is Marilyn King and I am from Halton Community Legal Services. I too work at a community legal clinic which provides services to low-income people, in this case in Halton, which includes Georgetown, Acton, Milton, Oakville and Burlington, a fairly diverse geographical territory. That is why I'm here today to address actually a fairly specific point with you, which is access to justice under the Tenant Protection Act.
As you know, the act is proposed as the legislative framework to give tenants and landlords a procedure to access and ensure justice. Certain provisions contained in the Tenant Protection Act present barriers to justice for low-income persons. It's those points I wish to address briefly today. The manner in which the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal is created may also result in a loss of access to justice. It's imperative, I would respectfully submit, that access to justice be considered in proceeding with the legislation and in setting up the new tribunal.
First, I'd like to address the appointment of tribunal members. Access to justice requires access to a hearing and a determination by a qualified, independent person who has the necessary skills and qualifications to ensure that the law is interpreted and applied correctly and fairly. Currently, as you know, a judge, who has a minimum of 10 years' experience as a lawyer adjudicates upon landlord and tenant applications. Under the TPA, an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal will be formed to hear all landlord and tenant matters. If the adjudicators in this new tribunal are not qualified experts in the relevant areas of law and in legal requirements and procedures, neither tenants nor landlords will have access to justice.
Members to this tribunal should not be appointed because of political patronage or because they are government employees in a current surplus pool. Members of the new tribunal require expertise and legal training to ensure that justice is done. This is important in a system where lay advocacy is frequent and anticipated. A selection committee should apply appropriate selection criteria, including expertise in the area of residential tenancies, legal training and strong verbal and written communication skills.
I would also like to address geographic accessibility. I have copies of my submission in writing, but as I was coming from Georgetown to this hearing in Hamilton, it unfortunately took me an unexpected length of time coming on the highway and I was unable to bring them earlier.
I would submit that access to justice requires geographic accessibility to the tribunal that will be hearing these applications. Tribunals must be located in accessible locations or members of the tribunal must be willing to travel to the local community for hearings.
Even with the current locale for hearings, low-income tenants face a geographic barrier to justice. Our clinic provides duty counsel services to tenants on dispute dates, which is like a first appearance day, for tenants at the courthouse in Milton. Milton is the centre where all landlord and tenant applications currently are brought for Georgetown, Acton, Milton, Oakville and Burlington.
Recently we had occasion to meet a tenant from Burlington who had received a notice that his landlord had applied to court to evict him. The tenant, a low-income person, had no means of transportation to the courthouse in Milton. There is absolutely no public transportation that runs north and south in Halton.
One thinks of Oakville, Burlington, GTA, but unfortunately there is no transportation that runs north and south in that region of Halton. This tenant left home at 4 am in Burlington and walked to court to be there for the required 10 am time. Fortunately he was a previous military personnel and he had the physical stamina to do that. He arrived just past 10 am to discover that the landlord had withdrawn the application to evict him.
Tentatively, the location for the tribunal proposed for hearings of applications from Halton I understand to be Hamilton. In Halton, as I've indicated, there is no public transportation north and south. There is no GO train service that runs from Georgetown or Acton towards Hamilton. Most low-income clients whom we provide services to cannot afford cars. We often go to those other jurisdictions to provide legal services because tenants cannot access our office in Georgetown.
There are many low-income people in Halton for whom it would not be feasible, possible or realistically affordable to travel to Hamilton for a hearing. This means that these tenants will not be able to file applications to have repairs done or to defend landlord applications or to pursue situations where there is harassment. Moving the location of hearings to a locale like Hamilton would increase geographic inaccessibility.
Access to justice means that a hearing by a tribunal must be geographically accessible. If the adjudicative body is to be removed from the local region, such as Halton, and to be based in a few select cities, such as Hamilton, tribunal members should travel to local areas to hear applications. This does happen currently, for example, with the Social Assistance Review Board on a regular basis. Appeals to that tribunal are heard by a single member who travels throughout various areas, including Oakville, Burlington, Milton, Halton Hills. Only in that way can a low-income tenant have access to the mechanism under the Tenant Protection Act to enforce his or her legal rights.
I would also like to address the requirement under the TPA that there be a mandatory dispute in writing.
The Chair: Ms King, if I can interrupt just for a minute. You have two minutes, unfortunately.
Ms King: I'd better be brief.
The TPA does requires that a dispute be in writing, and of course that the application be in writing. This requirement is a barrier to justice for those who are not literate, do not read English or do not write English. A person who cannot complete a dispute is effectively denied a right to access and a right to a hearing on the merits and justice of the case because they are required to file a written dispute. Similarly, the time for filing a dispute is unrealistically short and limits access to justice. Although one can serve by mail, the time lines do not allow for the fact that the mail often takes longer than the five days deemed unto the act. A person will receive an application and is not able within the unrealistic time lines given to serve a landlord or file a dispute in writing, yet it's a mandatory requirement to file in writing.
If this mandatory requirement is going to be kept, which I would submit prevents justice, then the time lines have to be lengthened to enable a tenant to comply.
My recommendations, in conclusion, would be that the new tribunal must be geographically accessible and equipped with qualified persons who are able to be fair and just adjudicators. The requirement for a written dispute should be amended so that a person can dispute in person rather than necessarily in writing, which is the legislation as it is now under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Control Act, and deemed notice after five days by mail should be subject to the right to demonstrate that notice was not received in that time.
The new tribunal is dealing with important rights which have historically been the domain of the superior courts in this province. The creation of this tribunal and the procedures to access it must ensure that tenants, particularly low-income tenants, do not lose access to justice and that the quality of justice is not second class.
The Chair: Ms King, thank you. We're unfortunately out of time. I know members would like to ask you questions.
Ms King: Is there someone with whom I could leave the written copies?
The Chair: Yes, there is. The clerk is now approaching you and he will distribute those copies to the members of the committee. Mr Foster, Ms King, thank you very much for making your presentation to the committee this afternoon.
1730
SOCIAL HOUSING AND ACCESS COMMITTEE
The Chair: The final presentation this afternoon is the Social Housing and Access Committee; Yolisa Nongauza, Sister Agnes Ward and Quin Ho.
Ms Yolisa Nongauza: My name is Yolisa Nongauza and this is Quin Ho. We are members of SHAC, the Social Housing and Access Committee. This is a voluntary organization made up of housing services, landlords, tenants and housing advocates and others concerned with access to and the provision of affordable housing in Hamilton-Wentworth.
I'd like to thank the committee for coming to Hamilton and hearing from those of us concerned with housing issues. Before I make my comments, I'd like to introduce Sister Agnes Ward. She is from the Sisters of St Joseph's refugee program and also represents the ecumenical support committee for refugees and the St Joseph's immigrant women's centre.
Sister Agnes Ward: Good afternoon. I'd like to thank everyone for the opportunity to make this presentation. My comments will be restricted to the impact that I believe this bill will have on refugees and immigrant women.
Those of us who work with refugees and immigrant women, and have for many years, are very concerned about the amendments to the Human Rights Code in section 200 of Bill 96, especially because we consider that these amendments are going to have a very negative and extremely detrimental impact on the ability of refugee claimants and immigrant women, especially those with children, to access the kind of housing they need in Ontario.
As you know, there's been so much on TV. Refugees are survivors. They are survivors of persecution and death threats and many of them have lost family members and are separated from families and all that is dear to them. So they arrive here in Canada -- many of us are descendants of refugees -- and they have lost everything. They have lost their language, their culture, their identity, everything that went with that, and most often family members, and they face the daunting task of rebuilding their lives.
Immigrant women, especially those who are single mothers, are often survivors of abusive situations; therefore, they don't necessarily have financial support. Often the ex cannot be tracked down or made to support them under the current government system. Considering this scenario, it's absolutely essential to emphasize the necessity for this group of people to have affordable, accessible housing that's appropriate to their emotional, psychological and physical health. If this does not happen, then we see that this is going to have a downside on the health system. But I don't want to focus on that.
One of the real problems is the use of income information which section 200 of Bill 96 will permit landlords to use, because it's going to allow them to screen out persons on low income on the basis of their income criteria. Typically refugees, refugee claimants and immigrant women, especially single mothers, have low income. Until very recently, refugee claimants coming in were prevented from working, so they were forced on to social assistance. Added to this we have language barriers, lack of Canadian experience, the lack of accreditation in Ontario even though some may be highly educated in their own country of origin.
They face enormous difficulties, so if we have added to this the fact that there's a 30% or whatever rent-to-income ratio, they're automatically going to be disqualified and landlords will be able to refuse to rent to these people. Such discrimination could become universal if section 200 is not amended. Professor Michael Ornstein argues that the use of such income criteria will exclude 100% of refugees on social assistance from low-rental housing.
In our view, this discrimination victimizes and punishes refugees as well as immigrant women and children simply for being on low income. How could they not be, given how they came in?
Moreover, unamended, section 200 makes it appear that the Ontario government sanctions such discrimination. Keith Norton, the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, has pointed out in a letter to Premier Harris that allowing income information to be used in selecting tenants effectively authorizes discrimination against individuals receiving social assistance or in low-paying jobs, who are in a very disadvantaged position with regard to their ability to obtain housing.
The end result will mean that the possibility of accessible housing for refugees and immigrant women and children is dramatically reduced. For the newcomer, finding appropriate housing is extremely difficult. I say this from experience because I have accompanied many, sometimes acting as translator. Refugees and immigrants are often visible minorities, as I said. There's a language barrier, so there is often, or at least sometimes, an underlying, unspoken barrier of discrimination.
Ms Nongauza: Thank you, Sister Agnes. At this stage of the hearing process, there is little if anything tenants can say that you haven't already heard many times over. You might think this makes your job of listening more challenging, but let me assure you that from this side of the table it is an imposing task to say something which will impact on your important deliberations.
The tenants of this region have responded to the bill in writing and before you today. We make a simple request: Hear our voices and the voices of those who speak on our behalf. See our faces. See us as people, your family members, friends and neighbours, when you evaluate the merits of this legislation. Please do not place us in a faceless category which can easily be dismissed.
We are not statistics. We are children, women and men. We are young, old, single and married. We have disabilities. We have been abused by our partners. We are new immigrants and refugees. We are recipients of social assistance. We are labelled as minorities because of race, culture, language, religion or sexual preference. We are members of this community, we are residents of this province and we have one thing in common: We need a place to live. We need a decent, affordable place to call home for ourselves and our families. We are also united in our opposition to this bill.
The Premier promised tenants that no housing laws would be replaced until there was a superior plan proven to work better. This proposed legislation is an inferior plan. Bill 96 removes fundamental protections found in existing legislation. The list of protections that will be eradicated is a long one and the tenants are frightened, not by change itself but by this very threatening and regressive bill.
1740
A critical protection for tenants is an appropriate supply of affordable rental housing. In reviewing housing legislation, the province first and foremost must focus on supply. We are told that this bill is designated to stimulate construction, but regrettably there is no basis for this theory. Rent regulations are a response to market failure; they are not a cause. We have had market failure in the residential rental market in Ontario for more than two decades.
In response to the supply problem in 1975, the government enacted regulations to protect tenants, to protect us from unfair rent increases and discrimination and to better ensure the proper maintenance of our homes. The construction of new private sector rental apartment buildings was not economically viable in 1975. It is less viable in 1997.
As the cost of building new rental apartments has risen, most of our incomes have declined in real terms. We are less able to afford market rents on new construction. As tenants, we represent increasing demand for affordable rental housing stock. Shelter is a basic need to survive, like food and clothing; it is not an option for us. But the drafters of Bill 96 have failed to distinguish between our collective social need and genuine market demand. We do not have sufficient resources to generate demand in the marketplace.
When there is market demand, then the supply side of the market will function. If there is no market demand, then it will not function. The market does not and will not respond to social need. Bill 96 is premised on a false assumption that the removal of rent controls will allow for construction. As we have said, this ignores history. It also ignores the real economic barriers to construction including property taxes, financing costs, land values and development and construction costs.
This issue of supply is complex. Bill 96 will compound the problem of inadequate supply rather than protect tenants. The loss of rent controls will mean less affordable rental housing.
The repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act will further reduce housing stock. The RHPA, like rent regulation, was a government response to market failure designed to protect tenants. Bill 96 removes this protection. As tenants we are already under attack. We are living with dwindling housing options since the decision to end the construction of non-profit and cooperative housing and the sale of public housing units. There is no economic support for this social experiment which will be inflicted on us by Bill 96 if it is passed. We are helpless pawns and we and our families will suffer.
We ask that you direct our government to address the economic realities of the supply problem. Proposals for rental housing supply must be formulated that will truly protect future generations of tenants. We urge you to recommend the abandonment of this proposed legislation.
Bill 96 is an attack on tenants and our homes. If it is passed, the essential building blocks which provide tenants with protection will be dismantled brick by brick. Bill 96 vacancy decontrol will dismantle rent control in Ontario. This will provide a powerful financial incentive for the eviction of tenants. Tenants will be the victims of harassment.
The dismantling of rent control and the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act will seriously reduce the supply of affordable rental housing in this province. This represents the loss of a vital tenant protection. The dwindling supply of affordable housing will eliminate choices for tenants.
Bill 96 will lead to increased homelessness and further impoverishment of even larger segments of our already vulnerable population. Bill 96 sanctions the discriminatory use of income information. It violates the Ontario Human Rights Code. Landlords will be allowed freely to exclude from housing single mothers, refugees, people with disabilities, the elderly and individuals receiving social assistance, and in more subtle ways it encourages discrimination.
Bill 96 erodes security of tenure protections. Notices require no details to answer to or warnings of the right to dispute. Notice periods are reduced and unwritten agreements can be enforced without tenants being notified. Bill 96 reduces access to justice for tenants. Geography and costs will prevent low-income tenants from using the new tribunal. The requirement of a written dispute within an unrealistic time frame will eliminate many from a fair hearing.
Maintenance and repair are sacrificed by the bill. There are no minimum fines and cash-strapped municipalities are burdened with enforcement. Orders preventing rent increases, the most effective protection for ensuring proper repairs, are history.
Bill 96 reduces privacy protection with expanded rights of entry for landlords. Locks cannot be changed by tenants, putting abuse victims and others at greater risk. Bill 96 will again allow landlords to disdain tenant property. This ancient remedy of distress was removed in 1969. Bill 96 takes away that protection.
Bill 96 jeopardizes the housing of care home residents. Expanded grounds for eviction threaten vulnerable tenants who were only recently protected by the Residents' Rights Act. Bill 96 attacks the democratic right of tenants to form tenants' associations. Tenants exercising their rights will be more easily convicted with the loss of this protection.
We urge this committee not to condone legislation which caters exclusively to one special interest group: the owners of existing rental buildings. There is no protection for tenants in Bill 96. Hear our pleas. Do not support the dismantling of rental housing in Ontario.
Mr Quin Ho: Everybody has been listening the whole day to two groups talking: landlords and tenants; in the afternoon all the groups in this society, like seniors, single mothers, handicapped people, refugees and immigrants, the most vulnerable people at the bottom of society.
I have one fundamental question to ask all the members of this committee: When you vote on this bill or change this bill, do we have social or moral or legal obligations to protect those people who are most vulnerable in this society? Do we have those obligations under international society, under our own society as a whole? Do we really need those protections for those vulnerable people? I think that's fundamental for all of us to think about as you make your decision. That's all I have here.
The Chair: Mr Ho, Ms Nongauza, Sister Ward, thank you for your presentation this afternoon. We have run out of time.
That concludes the public hearing in Hamilton of the standing committee on general government. The committee is adjourning to London at Delta London Armouries, where hearings will be held at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. This meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1749.