TENANT PROTECTION ACT, 1996 LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES
ONTARIO OWNED-HOME LEASED-LOT FEDERATION
GRAND COVE RESIDENTIAL RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION
LONDON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
LONDON COORDINATING COMMITTEE TO END WOMAN ABUSE
LONDON HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
WATERLOO REGIONAL APARTMENT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
WATERLOO REGION TENANTS' COALITION
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTRE, LONDON AND AREA
LONDON AND ST THOMAS REAL ESTATE BOARD
CONTENTS
Tuesday 12 August 1997
Tenant Protection Act, 1996, Bill 96, Mr Leach / Loi de 1996 sur la protection des locataires, projet de loi 96, M. Leach
Norquay Homes Ltd
Mr Michael Howe
LIFE*SPIN
Mr Andrew Bolter
Neighbourhood Legal Services
Ms Cynthia Harper
Persons United for Self-Help
Ms Bonnie Quesnel
Mr Robert Sexsmith
Mr Bill Armstrong
Ontario Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation
Mrs Phyllis Baker
Mr David Winninger
Mr John Timmermans
Grand Cove Residential Ratepayers Association
Mr Robert Ford
Ms Penny Moore; Miss Kim Campbell
United Church of Canada
Rev Susan Eagle
St Monica House
Ms Bobbi Bryx
Ms Linda Robson
Ms Melinda McCooeye
London Property Management Association
Mr Joe Hoffer
London Coordinating Committee to End Woman Abuse
Ms Megan Walker
Ms Laura Kovacic
London Home Builders' Association
Mr Joe Hoffer
Mr Ian Low
City of London
Ms Sheila Davenport
Ms Martha Joyce
Waterloo Regional Apartment Management Association
Mr Robert Eby
Waterloo Region Tenants' Coalition
Mr Paul York
Independent Living Centre, London and Area
Mr Steve Balcom
London and St Thomas Real Estate Board
Ms Nancy McCann
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 remplaçants
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre ND)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / Sud L)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Ms Susan Swift, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Tuesday 12 August 1997 Mardi 12 août 1997
The committee met at 1000 in the Delta London Armouries Hotel, London.
TENANT PROTECTION ACT, 1996 LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES
Consideration of Bill 96, An Act to Consolidate and Revise the Law with respect to Residential Tenancies / Projet de loi 96, Loi codifiant et révisant le droit de la location à usage d'habitation.
The Chair (Mr David Tilson): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. These are the public hearings of the standing committee on general government of the Ontario Legislature to review Bill 96.
The first delegation I understand is not here. I will call their names, LIFE*SPIN, Andrew Bolter.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr Chair, if I may have one moment, I want to apologize to the parliamentary assistant for a comment I made to him yesterday when I rushed in from Windsor. I indicated that he misled a delegation and that was unparliamentary and uncalled for. I want to begin the day by expressing my regret at that and withdrawing the remark.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Thank you, and I certainly withdraw any response that you may have taken offence to.
The Chair: I think this is a wonderful way to start the day.
Mr Gilchrist: It's a lovefest.
NORQUAY HOMES LTD
The Chair: We will try to fit Mr Bolter in later. I will call Norquay Homes Ltd, Michael Howe, president. Good morning, sir. You may proceed when ready.
Mr Michael Howe: Good morning. My name is Michael Howe and I'm here today representing Norquay Homes Ltd. Norquay commenced building small single-family homes in 1972. Over the years, the company expanded into land development, general contracting, commercial office and industrial rentals as well as residential rentals. We currently own and manage over 1,100 residential rentals in London, Woodstock, Goderich and Chatham. We have constructed no new residential rental units since 1989.
Let me start by saying that I support the positions taken by Fair Rental Policy Organization on June 19 as well as the comments being made later today by the London Home Builders' Association and the London Property Management Association.
While the government is to be commended for its attempt to correct the problems existing in the present rent control legislation and while I'm supportive of that initiative, I have some concerns.
I'm concerned that we are not ending once and for all the costly bureaucracy and legislation relating to rent control when the time is opportune to do so.
I am concerned that rent control and the rules under which we operate our buildings are being modified on a five-year cycle. This legislative instability makes it difficult to obtain the financing over 30 years that is required to construct new buildings, or even to finance existing buildings.
I'm concerned that the private rental sector is being used to implement the social policy of providing affordable housing for the minority of needy tenants through rent control.
I'm concerned that by the removal of legal maximum rent this legislation is taking away earned capital expenditures and rent increases forgone as a result of depressed market conditions and thereby dooming the rental housing sector of most of the province outside of Metro Toronto to a future of insufficient cash flow to properly maintain their buildings. This policy alone will result in the bankruptcy of many existing provincial landlords outside of Metro, who are at present barely able to continue operating as a result of high vacancies and reduced rents. Freezing rents at the present levels at the bottom of a financial cycle will be disastrous.
I'm concerned that the legislation needs to be amended to allow landlords and tenants to negotiate rent increases in exchange for specific improvements that are above and beyond the property standard requirements, for which the tenant is prepared to pay, and that there should not be a limit on the value of this work.
I'm concerned that the legislation does not provide for the ongoing operation of the provincial courts as the arbiter of disputes and non-payment of rent issues. With a little streamlining, the present system can provide timely resolution of these issues without creating a new and parallel bureaucracy through the Ministry of Housing. If instead it is decided to create this new tribunal, it is imperative that two issues be dealt with: First, any tenant who is disputing an application must pay any rent or rent arrears into court before the dispute will be heard; and second, the discretion to delay an eviction by the tribunal should be limited to seven days. Above all, the new tribunal system, if implemented, must be fair and equitable to all parties and must be responsive in a timely manner.
I don't propose to go into the merits of these points as I'm sure you've heard in detail from others before me about these issues. Rather, I'd like to discuss the impact that this legislation will have on my company if left in its present format.
First of all, Toronto is different from the rest of the province. As I said earlier, we have rental units in London, Chatham, Goderich and Woodstock. These municipalities have not shared in the recovery and growth experienced in most areas of Metro. Vacancy rates are high, rents are depressed and incentives of one to two months' free rent to attract new tenants or retain existing tenants is the norm.
For example, we have a 42-suite building in Goderich, constructed by us in 1987, at which time the rents were $440 for one-bedroom suites and $495 for two-bedroom suites. The current legal maximum rent for this building is $644 for one-bedroom suites and $725 for two-bedrooms.
As a result of an almost continual 15% vacancy rate, we are charging only $475 for a one-bedroom and $542 for a two-bedroom. However, we're forced to offer the first month free to attract new tenants. As you can see, when you deduct the incentive, after 10 years we are charging virtually the same rent as we did when the building was new, yet our costs to operate this building have increased by over 35%.
We've continued to maintain this building in a first-class manner, as we attempt to do with all of our properties. Notwithstanding that, it has consistently generated insufficient cash flow to cover the cost of doing so, along with paying the mortgage and taxes. Every month we have to come up with the cash to cover this shortfall as well as similar cash shortfalls on other buildings we own. We believe that the employment situation and the economy in general in Huron county and Goderich will improve over time and we'll perhaps be able to charge some portion of the forgone rental increases as well as recoup some of our losses, if we look after the building.
This proposed legislation as presently contemplated would freeze this building in time, denying us the necessary cash flow to make major repairs and replacements when the various components of the building reach the end of their useful life expectancy or to recover the rent increases we've been unable to take as a result of the present poor economic climate.
Our other buildings throughout southwestern Ontario have experienced similar economic conditions. At this time, in our entire portfolio of over 1,100 suites we have none that are rented at the legal maximum. In fact we have some of our higher-end "luxury" units that are today renting for less than they did when they were constructed in 1989.
The inability to increase rents in accordance with the current legislation has taken place against the backdrop of ever-increasing municipal and education taxes, the imposition of non-deductible GST, as well as increased costs of maintenance and replacement as the buildings age, all of which is leading us to an inevitable cash crunch if we have our ability to recover forgone rent increases taken away.
This provision, that of removing the concept of maximum legal rent, will be devastating for my company because, unlike Metro Toronto landlords, we have not been able to take any rent increases for the past seven years and, in many instances, we have had to reduce rents in order to attract tenants.
If the goal of this legislation is to get people like me back constructing residential rental suites, it will fail miserably if some modifications are not made. Recently we considered constructing new residential rental buildings in the Toronto area where demand is high and vacancies are low. In the absence of a resolution of the issues raised here today, as well as assessment inequities, we would not proceed under any circumstances. Such a venture would be far too risky and, in all likelihood, impossible to finance.
Our industry shares the same concerns and beliefs that members of all three political parties share: that every person in Ontario is entitled to decent, well-maintained housing and that those who can't afford that housing should be provided with the assistance required to maintain their housing needs without exceeding a reasonable percentage of their personal resources. Our only difference of opinion is that I believe the cost of achieving these goals should be shared by all taxpayers in Ontario, not just the rental housing industry.
Our company provides rent-geared-to-income units to the various local housing authorities in each of the municipalities in which we have buildings located. I believe that these types of arrangements should be expanded or, in the alternative, a shelter allowance program should be developed which would allow people to remain in their present accommodation without having the stigma of being forced to move to a subsidized housing project, in the unlikely event that such a unit were even to become available. This is especially true where the assistance is only required for a short term, as a result of illness or layoff.
1010
There are cost-effective ways to achieve a truly fair social housing policy at a fraction of the cost spent on direct government ownership and without the burden being borne by the private residential rental sector through rent controls.
If I may leave you with the following thought, if you truly want to create a well-maintained, adequately balanced supply of housing in all areas of this province, consider the following:
If we are to continue down the path of decontrol-recontrol, you must maintain the concept of maximum legal rent, a concept that was included in both the NDP and Liberal versions of rent control.
Allow landlords and tenants to negotiate improvements to suit each individual tenant's wishes.
Leave the resolution of disputes and non-payment of rent with the courts, but streamline the process.
Finally, develop a cost-effective shelter allowance program that truly meets the needs of those in our society that require short-term and long-term housing assistance.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Howe. We have a few moments for questions.
Mr Duncan: Mr Howe, I just want to explore one of the points with you because it's somewhat unique from the landlord perspective. As to your third recommendation, "Leave the resolution of disputes and non-payment of rent with the courts, but streamline the process," other landlord groups have argued that the court process is unnecessarily cumbersome. Also tenant groups have argued that, and my own experience with it is that it's not well understood. The government is proposing what it's calling a streamlined process. Do you not think that under the proposal the government has put forward that from an efficiency perspective, if it's properly funded and the tribunal people are properly trained, it could be a more effective process?
Mr Howe: No, I do not believe that.
Mr Duncan: You don't believe that?
Mr Howe: No.
Mr Duncan: So you don't agree with FRPO's position on that issue?
Mr Howe: I think that FRPO, quite frankly, has committed itself to trying to improve the proposal rather than dealing with the root of the problem, which is that the proper place to deal with these issues is in the courts where you have a judicial settlement. In the London area the process has been streamlined to some degree. It needs further improvement, but my sense of it is, having experience with the Ministry of Housing over the past 20 years, that it will not be a streamlined process. It will be a very cumbersome, paperwork-oriented process.
Mr Duncan: You're of the view then that the tribunal as proposed will just become another even perhaps less efficient way of dealing with these particular issues.
Mr Howe: This is the same ministry that deals with rent review applications in which at one point in time I believe there was upwards of a three-year backlog in hearing dates. To have a program that is not responsive in a timely manner does not do any of us any service.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Thank you for your presentation. I'm very interested in the sort of scenario that you lay out in terms of your investment in Goderich. Forgive me if I sound a little hard, but it just sounds like you made a bad investment.
Mr Howe: I don't believe that's correct, Mr Chair. I think that we all make bad investments and the economy is there to say: "Yes, you made a bad investment. You can't increase your rents because we have too many people in this town out of work." Unfortunately, I think that is the experience of landlords throughout the entire province, save and except for Metro, and I think that's what we're trying to say to you.
We've gone along with that. We've made up the shortfall out of our own pockets. We go out and we get the money somewhere to pay that, and we have forgone those rent increases. But now you're coming along and saying, 10 years after we've done that consistently every year, "Now, Mr Howe, we're going to change the rules and we're not going to let you collect that rent." I don't believe that's fair either, and there's where I have a problem with the new legislation. That's my biggest concern with it.
Mrs Boyd: I gather it is and, really, when we changed the Liberal rent control legislation, putting that maximum in was partly to answer that issue, that if you couldn't raise them at the time that, if economic conditions changed, it might be possible. I certainly hear from a lot of landlords, both large and small, who are really concerned that a lot of the focus has been on the specific problems in Metropolitan Toronto, that it hasn't taken into account what's happening here.
I hear you saying clearly, though, if this legislation goes through as it is, first of all, you're in danger of losing a large investment in our whole area, in southwestern Ontario, and obviously then there are a lot of tenants whose homes would be in some jeopardy. Second, it certainly isn't an incentive to you to get into particularly the affordable housing market in the future. Am I right about that?
Mr Howe: I think that's absolutely correct, and the prime focus of our business is affordable housing, whether it's rental or home purchase. That's where we build.
Mrs Boyd: Given the costs of construction, given the costs of actually building even fairly modest apartments, is it really a good investment when you know it's going to be low-cost housing? Are you saying, when you suggest an extension of the housing supplement allowance, that in order to make this an attractive investment for a firm like yours, you have to have an assurance that, even with very modest rental housing you might build, people with very low incomes would have a supplement in order to be able to afford that so you're not losing money?
Mr Howe: I think that there are people out there who do not have the income to pay the cost of providing decent housing, and I can't affect the cost of providing housing. I can't affect the cost of two-by-fours and concrete and land and development charges, nor can I affect the level of income of people who are not employed or who may need government assistance as a result of various disabilities, work-related or otherwise. I have no control over these things.
I'm simply telling you that for them to afford what it costs to build new housing today, they are going to require some assistance, and that assistance should come in the form of a direct subsidy to those people to pay their shelter costs. I think that is a far more efficient way of doing it than any program that is presently in place. The closest one that you have is the one where we provide shelter for people through the various housing authorities, and we do it on a very cost-effective basis.
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Thank you very much. Although you have indicated a number of areas that I think are worthy of further questions, I'd like to concentrate on page 6 at the bottom where you have suggested the notion of allowing landlords and tenants to negotiate improvements. Certainly one of the issues that has been raised by those who have presented in other locations has been the fear of there not being a level playing field between landlords and tenants. I just wondered if you have any further comment on this recommendation that would demonstrate how this process would work and alleviate those concerns that there isn't a level playing field.
Mr Howe: I don't understand, I guess, in the sense of running my own business, what that concern is. If a tenant doesn't want to have cosmetic improvements and doesn't want to pay for them, then under the legislation they have the right to say, "No, I'm just going to continue to pay the rent I have." But we have tenants who come to us who say, "You know, I really like the apartment, love the location, but we'd like to have a nice sea-foam, moss-coloured carpet through the apartment, because it matches our decor." Well, the carpet's only five years old. Our program is to replace carpets in the 12- to 15-year age range. We can't afford to do that. But if the tenant said, "I'm going to stay here for 10 years and I'm happy to pay for it," under this legislation I may not be able to do it because of the formula that has a certain cap on it.
I guess what we're dealing with here is the cosmetic issues. If you don't give people the right to make those choices -- they are wise consumers, they perhaps are wiser than we all give them credit for. We deal with these people every day. These are our customers. We're concerned that we're unable to meet their desires and that because we can't do those things, they'll say, "Fine, I want to have an apartment with new carpeting and this type of cabinetry and so on, and I'm going to stay here for 10 years because I've sold my home and I'm retiring, and the only way I can get that is to go and buy a condominium."
The Chair: Unfortunately our time has expired, but on behalf of the committee I thank you for taking the time and making your presentation to us this morning.
1020
LIFE*SPIN
The Chair: I believe Mr Andrew Bolter is here from LIFE*SPIN. Good morning, Mr Bolter.
Mr Andrew Bolter: Good morning. I'm sorry I was a little late.
The Chair: That's all right. We're glad you came.
Mr Bolter: I'm director of community development programs and mediation services at LIFE*SPIN. LIFE*SPIN is a community-based, non-profit organization. We're a front-line clinic dealing directly with London's poor, both the working poor and those on social assistance. Every day, between 50 and 60 Londoners come to our office or call us because they are struggling to find proper shelter, food, clothing and work, or they're having problems with government bureaucracy and need our advocacy and mediation services. Our clients are in a constant struggle to maintain their own and their families' basic needs. Depending on the situation, we provide information, mediation and advocacy, and we seek to empower low-income Londoners by providing them with the information and tools they need to protect themselves and their families.
We presented a brief at the last hearing in London on September 4 and we do so again, although we question a process whereby presenters are only given a few days' notice that they have been selected to appear before you.
The proposed legislation is a further erosion of the rights of low-income people and will increase the hardship of those who have nothing left over at the end of the month in their struggle to survive.
Some of the highlights of this erosion are: the removal of employment standards; forcing people to work for their welfare cheques; making sole-support parents on social assistance, most of whom are women, borrow both tuition and living expenses for themselves and their families through OSAP; authoring the decimation of the Ontario legal aid plan; mismanagement of the family support plan; defunding of those community agencies that supported low-income folk, particularly women, and especially women's shelters; and setting up a sham tribunal that will not be allowed to interpret legislation to replace the Social Assistance Review Board.
Now we have this attack on shelter. Many studies of health and wellbeing indicate clearly that a decent home is one of the most fundamental building blocks on which we construct the other complex parts of our lives. Its quality and stability are determinants of physical, emotional and mental health, and these are the key to the healthy development of our children. What is the true cost of not having a society where everyone is properly housed?
There is nothing in this draft legislation that's going to increase the amount of decent, affordable rental stock. As you've been told numerous times, the present rent control legislation exempts new housing from rent control for five years, and landlords told you last year that removal of rent control will not induce them to build. There is no indication that this has given any incentive to developers to build affordable rental housing.
This government has abandoned its responsibility to provide affordable public housing. The structural changes you are making to our society will create a huge demand for affordable housing, and we foresee problems ahead. London already has a shortage in this area. I refer you to a study by London Community Services, dated June 1996, which shows that general welfare clients are a vulnerable population in the area of housing affordability. This study found that all general welfare clients, regardless of family size and structure, would have difficulty finding affordable housing in London.
Where are all the psychiatric patients going to live when you shut down the hospitals? Where is the increased number of working poor going to live, given the huge increase in low-paying service sector jobs? Where are those folks who have been forced to sell their homes and live off their assets while being told to look for jobs that aren't out there going to live when they run out of private resources and have to live on welfare?
We analysed this morning the rental ads in today's London Free Press in order to take a snapshot of the rental market in London today. This is what we found:
Looking at unfurnished apartments, duplexes and homes, we found there were 466 units available in the three categories. That sounds great, but we've got to remember that the shelter allowance for a single person on welfare is $325 a month. There were only six units in this range. The shelter allowance for a couple or a sole-support parent with one child is $511 a month. There were only 27 units in this range. This represents 0.7% of the available apartments in today's paper. There were no units available for a sole-support family of two children. They would not come close to being able to afford them.
The report that the government commissioned by John Todd of Econalysis Consulting Services for the housing ministry in September 1996 points out that for units with rents below $600 there are two categories of building. I'm quoting from the report:
"Some will be buildings in very poor condition. The low rents may be a reflection of the condition of the buildings. Tenants in these buildings tend to be those with the lowest incomes and greatest housing affordability problems. They live in these very poor buildings because that is all they can afford.
"Some of these buildings will be ones with chronically depressed rents. That is, although rents are very low, they are in reasonable condition and could be rented for much more. Higher rents are not being charged because the owner has chosen not to take advantage of the rent review system.... The owners of these buildings normally have long waiting lists of tenants who want units. As a result, they can be highly selective in choosing tenants. For this reason, tenants tend to be individuals or small households with secure jobs and adequate income."
Thousands of poor families struggling to live on disability pensions and income assistance are going to face the brunt of your deregulation. These are the ones who live in what I would call slum housing. Where are they going to live?
If you look in the paper too, many of the ads refer to "preferred tenants." They want people who are employed. They want people who are basically not on social assistance, so there's a limit even in what people on social assistance are allowed to apply for.
Under Bill 96, owners of slum housing are going to be granted the ability to increase rents with no control and with no responsibility to comply with outstanding work orders. If you change the Human Rights Code so that landlords can obtain income information as a permitted practice in selecting tenants, you will exclude whole classes of people. Under Bill 96, the owners of decent, affordable housing will be given the tools to discriminate against "low-income households, a single parent, an unemployed adult or any other type of household that might need a low-rent unit."
Your repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act is, I think, a big mistake. You've got to allow municipalities the right to protect existing rental stocks and to be able to say to a developer that there must be a percentage of affordable units in every development. That way, you avoid ghettoization. If there's a requirement of a percentage, then low-income units are mixed in with higher-income units. I think it's just generally a better practice.
It's astonishing that you are on one hand telling the municipalities they have to pay a bigger chunk of the cost of providing public services and programs, and yet you are taking away their right to make choices within the community about something so fundamental as housing. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Local decisions can and should be scrutinized by Londoners. We can have a say in how things are done in our community. We can elect our local politicians. We can challenge the city when we think it's not doing the right thing. This is democracy. It's something this government seems to find very inconvenient, but it allows people in the community to decide what's going on in the community.
Your provisions on harassment and these anti-harassment teams or units I think are going to fail miserably. The legislation does not properly address the issue of harassment by a landlord. We know there is going to be harassment because the landlords are going to be tempted to get the tenants out so that they can jack the rents up. Traditionally the poor have been ghettoized, and low-income renters will be extremely vulnerable. We've seen cases in our office of sexual harassment, verbal harassment, damaged cars, malicious and untrue reporting to welfare of fraud, malicious reports to children's aid, and inducements of other tenants to make life miserable. This harassment is being perpetrated: not every landlord, of course, but there are landlords out there who are doing this.
1030
These are the types of insidious harassment that occur in the real world. The landlord can simply deny having done anything wrong, and any anti-harassment unit would not be of any use. It is an evidentiary problem. We must remember also that many people who are poor are disfranchised and marginalized by poverty. They simply do not complain and they are very easy victims, very easy targets for landlords.
Passing on of costs to tenants: This is going to impact the working poor and those on social assistance. Bill 96 is going to allow landlords to pass on the full costs of property tax hikes and operating cost increases. Given all the downloading that is going on, we know that municipal taxes are going to go up significantly. You're cutting transfer payments, and the costs will have to be covered locally. It's astonishing that there is no mention of tenants getting a rent reduction if costs go down. So renters are going to foot the bill, and for low-income people it will be devastating.
We have problems with the maintenance and repair provisions. Bill 96 does improve London's ability to enforce property standards bylaws but it also takes away from tenants the tools they can use to ensure their housing is maintained. If the responsibility shifts to the city, how is the city going to pay for it when funding to the city from the province is being decreased? Taxes will have to go up, and of course this increase will flow through to low-income tenants.
Presently a landlord cannot raise the rent until municipal work orders have been completed. These orders have been used to obtain compliance with property standards. Taking away the right of a city to make them is wrong; it's misguided.
Right now a tenant can apply to rent control for a rent reduction due to inadequate maintenance or repair, and the rent officer will investigate to see if other tenants are affected by the lack of repair. In these cases, other tenants are added as parties, so a landlord faces multiple rent reductions until the repair is made. This provision is gone in the new legislation. This removes the stick of cost consequences if a landlord chooses not to comply with standards.
We urge you not to get rid of rent control. We urge you, as a government, to recognize your responsibility to provide adequate housing for every citizen in this province. I think you'll find that if you look at the true external costs of poverty and inadequate housing, that is probably the best investment a government can make. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bolter. We have time for perhaps a question from each of the three caucuses.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much, Andrew, for your presentation. It's very helpful to have such up-to-date figures on what the reality is in London and to have an acknowledgement that, as the previous speaker said, there are landlords who are charging far below what they could. We know that is the case.
I gather from your discussion that the legislation as it stands now, the current rent control legislation that provides for maintenance orders and so on, is what you would like to have maintained. You wouldn't like to go back to what the Liberals had between 1986 and the end of their term, which basically didn't have any ceilings and allowed all of the improvements. Is that quite clear?
Mr Bolter: Like any system, it's not perfect, but it's far better than what's being proposed. Absolutely.
Mrs Boyd: Your real issue is that the balance of power gets really skewed in favour of landlords, and when the landlord is a bad landlord -- and all aren't -- then what this really does is make things that much more difficult for low-income families.
Mr Bolter: I think with an effective balance of power, it's fine for people with incomes, with money, because they can move. But when you're low-income and you're living in an apartment and you know if you move you're subject to rent decontrol, you almost become trapped in your low-rent apartment.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you very much, Mr Bolter. It's good to see you again.
I'm seized by what could only be considered a very pessimistic outlook on life in your report, and I guess I've got some other numbers to throw back at you. The vacancy rate in London between 1995 and 1996 increased from 4.3% to 6%. That means one out of every 16 apartments in this city is sitting empty. At the same time, from 1995 to 1996, the average rent, according to CMHC, went up $3. That's $15 under what even the guideline allowed, and it's certainly $12 under inflation alone.
You mention in your own report that there are 27 units, for example, available for couples or sole-support parents. Well, obviously -- I won't say obviously. How many units does a person need? If in fact there are 27 units today sitting empty in the city of London, then tell me why we have a problem if somebody is out looking for an apartment. Do you not think 27 is adequate choice for someone to select from?
Mr Bolter: No.
Mr Gilchrist: You don't. How many choices should somebody have?
Mr Bolter: There are far more than 27 people, or families, looking for low-income apartments in this city.
Mr Gilchrist: How can there be when there are 27 units sitting empty?
Mr Bolter: There's a lot of poverty in this society. There aren't just 27 poor people in London. I should further add that, out of those 27, a lot of them have preferred tenant requirements. People on social assistance aren't even allowed in the front door of the landlord's house to try and rent the apartment. So I think you're throwing figures around that are totally incorrect.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you.
Mr Bolter: You must remember, too, if I may finish, that the figures you threw out about the vacancy rate in this city, you're just looking at the general vacancy rate, which includes all levels of apartment. I'm focusing here on the lower end, and there are no vacancies.
Mr Duncan: I'd just like to take you back to that argument and allow you to expound. I guess the 22% cut in welfare over the same period of time that we're referring to in terms of the $3 increase in rents -- I wonder, do you know what figures are available from the local housing authority with respect to waiting lists for public housing?
Mr Bolter: Oh, yes. I believe there is quite a waiting list. There's a recent report, 1996, by the city, Jennifer Kirkham's report, which I have somewhere here, which I think refers --
Mr Duncan: But you do have a substantial waiting list of people who have been assessed, had their point assessment between $800 and $1,000?
Mr Bolter: Absolutely. It's a very big list.
Mr Duncan: These I would presume are similar to other communities: families as well as singles, seniors and others who simply cannot access affordable housing.
Mr Bolter: Exactly.
Mr Duncan: The government's argument is that this bill will increase supply. Our belief is it will increase supply at the upper end, it will not increase supply at the lower end, and that coupled with their changes to welfare rates as well as their complete abandonment of non-profit housing, will create a crisis at the lower end. The type of people who you deal with on a daily basis, in your view, will have a more difficult time maintaining and obtaining new rental accommodation?
Mr Bolter: Absolutely.
The Chair: Mr Bolter, unfortunately our time has expired. We thank you again for coming this morning.
NEIGHBOURHOOD LEGAL SERVICES
The Chair: The next presenter is Cynthia Harper of Neighbourhood Legal Services. Good morning, Ms Harper. You may proceed.
Ms Cynthia Harper: Thank you. I'm Cynthia Harper. I am the executive director at Neighbourhood Legal Services in London.
Neighbourhood Legal Services is a community legal clinic. We are funded by the Ontario legal aid plan to service low-income clients in the city of London as well as the county of Middlesex. We provide representation and information to clients. We provide community development, public legal education, and are mandated to ensure that our government is responsive to the legal welfare of the clients we serve. In 1995 we provided assistance to over 2,000 tenants. That has increased in 1996. We provide representation in the area of landlord and tenant matters and rent control, and we also deal with co-op housing.
During these hearings I'm sure you've heard many of the concerns of tenants and community groups about the dramatic effect this legislation is going to have on the 3.5 million tenants in Ontario. We share those concerns. We are certainly in support of the submissions that you received from LIFE*SPIN already, from the Coalition to Protect Tenants' Rights, and other groups.
1040
What I would like to do today is focus on one main issue: the issue of the tribunal that is being set up through this legislation. As you know, the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal is now going to adjudicate both landlord and tenant matters and rent control matters.
It is our position, first, that we would like to see landlord and tenant matters remain in the court system for a variety of reasons. However, we would like to address the issue of the tribunal and perhaps suggest to you some amendments that could be made with respect to that proposal.
First of all, simply transferring the matters to an administrative tribunal does not necessarily meet the goals that were set out in the discussion paper last year. Those goals were stated to be to ensure efficient and fair decisions; to secure a high standard of procedural fairness; to reduce costs and administrative complexity through a one-window access.
The new tribunal must provide justice not only to tenants but also to landlords. It must overcome some of the objective barriers that existed with the court system and it must reduce delays, complexity and costs. It must ensure that there are natural justice and procedural fairness rules that are followed, and the following are our specific recommendations.
First of all with respect to the composition of the tribunal, we do agree that members of the tribunal should be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. However, we wish to point out that it's imperative that the appointments to the tribunal and the appointment process itself be of high quality. With the court system now, we are assured of that through the judicial appointment system. We must guarantee the tribunal is seen to have credibility in the eyes of landlords and tenants and the public as well. The appointments should be made through a procedure that is much like the judicial appointment procedure, where the selection process is fair, open and impartial. There is no room on this tribunal or any other tribunal for purely political appointments. There should be a selection committee. There should be selection criteria set out.
We respectfully request that you consider that this tribunal must be well-funded. It must have the funding to enable it to overcome delays which may exist in the current rent control system or previous tribunal systems. As well, it's crucial that any tribunal member have ongoing training, and there should be a sufficient budget for this. This tribunal is now dealing with housing matters which will include evictions and other matters that are now before the courts. It's going to have an administrative duty where rent control now is dealing with rent increases, maintenance cost increases and that sort of thing; and in addition, with the care home provisions, it is now dealing with a very specific area that is going to affect many vulnerable tenants.
As you know, the legislation provides under section 93 that landlords 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 the tenant requires a level of care that the landlord is not able to provide, and there must be appropriate accommodation in another location.
So this is a whole new area that this tribunal is now going to deal with that is of concern to us. There are many questions. For example, how will we determine what acceptable alternative accommodation is? How will the tribunal determine what the needs of this tenant are? These are health care issues that this tribunal is now going to be dealing with.
As I have mentioned, this tribunal is going to have broad decision-making powers. It must have the jurisdiction and capacity to deal with all these issues, and we're suggesting that it should have the capacity to deal with charter issues. It needs to have the power to grant interim relief, which is now ordered by the courts, it needs to be able to provide injunctive relief and it must be able to deal with matters on an emergency basis. For example, we experience situations where a tenant calls us and he has been illegally evicted by the landlord. Given that situation, we can apply to the courts for an injunction in a very short time delay to have that tenant put back in. It's going to be crucial that this tribunal can deal with those sorts of issues.
Along with these procedural issues, I'd just like to point out that there are many substantive changes with respect to the security of tenure. One example that came to my mind was when I was reading the sections in this act that are similar to section 121(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, where a "judge shall refuse" an application if certain conditions exist. One, for example, is that the judge must refuse the application if he or she is satisfied that a reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has complained to a government authority, or a reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce their legal rights. That section still remains. However, the word "a" has been changed to the word "the." By simply changing one word, we are changing much of that section, and it is reducing a lot of the protections that were afforded to tenants in that section. Even with the word "a," we are able to show many times there are many reasons for a landlord wanting a tenant out, and this may be one of the reasons. By changing this to "the," it becomes that the primary reason for this landlord wanting to evict is that the tenant has belonged to an association or attempted to enforce their legal rights.
The rules and guidelines of this tribunal should be simple, clear and they should be made public. You are going to have many unrepresented tenants and landlords at this tribunal. It's important that they know what the procedure is and there needs to be an equal footing by everyone being informed as to what the procedure and policies are.
In addition, this tribunal is going to have the function of informing landlords and tenants of their rights and obligations. We agree with that section and we would ask you to consider the many needs that tenants have. Information must be in plain, simple language, it must be widely distributed and it must be information not only on what the law is but on what the procedures are before the tribunal and how access may be had to this tribunal.
One section that is of particular concern to us at Neighbourhood Legal Services is the section dealing with costs and fees of the tribunal. We stress that any costs and fees must be minimal. Right now, with the Landlord and Tenant Act, there is a reduced tariff for landlord and tenant matters. For example, when a landlord wants to bring an application or a tenant wants to bring an application, it's a $45 charge. This is substantially less than most matters before the Ontario Court (General Division). However, we have seen that there has been an increase in fees and there has been an increase in the things the courts are now charging for, so we're now in a situation where it costs a landlord $45 to file an application, but if a tenant somehow receives a default order against them where they weren't able to show up for a hearing for some reason and now there's been an order, if we would like to bring a motion to set that aside, we have to pay $75.
Many of these are arrears cases where the tenants are struggling to come up with the money to pay the landlord, and we have had many people say to us, "We can't afford $75 to go in and have a judge decide whether or not this judgement should have been issued in the first place." We strongly suggest that while there is a cost recovery component, you keep in mind that these fees must be low, because if they're high, even $75, they act as a barrier for access to justice.
In addition, the same comments apply to costs. In landlord and tenant matters, while costs are awarded, they are normally a lot lower than what would be awarded in most other matters, and we ask that this remain the same with the tribunal.
One of the concerns we have about the tribunal is that they are going to be dealing with a huge caseload. We would like to ensure that justice is done, but in the haste to have all these cases heard, that tenants and landlords are given ample opportunity to present their cases. As you can imagine, in many cases, even with the relaxed rules of evidence, a hearing may take one hour, two hours or three hours on what may appear to be a simple eviction matter on the face of it. I have done cases where I have spent the day in court disputing applications for evictions when we've had a number of witnesses on both sides, and the tribunal is going to have to deal with that.
I'm glad to see there are going to be forms that are set up for tenants and landlords to use. We would ask that forms be set up for disputes. Currently under the system there is no form for a dispute. In fact, a tenant may simply attend at the registrar's hearing, say, "I dispute," and have the matter heard before a judge. We would ask that the forms be simple, easy to read and readily available to all landlords and tenants.
1050
One of the concerns we have with the whole dispute issue is that currently tenants may just simply attend and they do not need to file a written dispute, but now they must file a written dispute. This is an additional barrier to tenants who cannot read, cannot write. We have people coming in saying, "I don't know what a dispute is, much less how to write it down." We ask you to keep in mind that you are reducing, again, the ability of people to simply attend to present their cases.
The other concern we have about disputes is that there is now a five-day time limit for attendance to file disputes. This may not give tenants a lot of time to seek legal advice and prepare their documents and then actually have the documents filed with the tribunal.
This legislation is providing for mediation. Mediation can be a very valuable tool in resolving cases. However, we have some concerns about how mediation is going to be conducted. If there is a mediation process, it must be voluntary. There must be no prejudicial effects to a tenant for not participating in mediation. Again, there must be proper training of the mediators, they must be well informed about landlord and tenant matters as well as mediation processes and there must be sufficient time for mediation.
I know in the court system, for example in Toronto, there is a mediation system, but it's a system whereby tenants are lined up trying to get in to have a hearing. The judge says, "Everyone go to mediation." They're lined up at the mediation service; they're given five or 10 minutes to try and have the case mediated. If it's not mediated, they go back to the judge. That, in my opinion, is not proper mediation where things can be resolved in a fashion that is in everyone's best interests.
One of the other concerns we have is with respect to section 172, which talks about money paid to the tribunal. This appears to be much larger than the provision in the Landlord and Tenant Act. We wish to stress that as it stands now, tenants have the right to withhold their rent. Under the act now they must then pay it into court under certain circumstances. But we stress that this right needs to be maintained. That is a contractual right and it is very effective at times in having matters resolved without having to go to court.
The other concern we have is with respect to default orders. A default order may be issued when a tenant does not file a dispute. As it stands now, a tenant has the opportunity to bring a motion to set aside a default order and to have a trial in front of the judge. There is a time limit for that. The time starts to tick once the tenant has been actually served with the order. They're served with the order, they become aware that it's there and then they can bring a motion. In the Tenant Protection Act they have 10 days to bring a motion after the order is issued. This is a huge difference. The tenant may not even know that the order was issued and the clock is starting to tick. We suggest that be changed to say that they have 10 days after they're served with the order to bring motions to the tribunal.
Also with respect to default orders, the Tenant Protection Act now provides that if there is a verbal agreement to terminate, the landlord may enforce that by simply attending at the tribunal and filing materials. As it stands now, if there's a written agreement to terminate, there may be an enforcement mechanism. We have grave concerns that this could be open to abuse. I see situations where, for example, a tenant says to me, "The landlord told me to go and I left and therefore I'm out of my league." The landlord says, "No, no, I told you that you could go if you liked, but I still meant that you need to provide me with the proper notice." There's confusion as to whether we even had an agreement at all that there would be any termination of the tenancy.
Last, I'd like to point out, along the lines of access to justice, that if this tribunal is going to provide access to justice, it must be available in a location that landlords and tenants can go to. In the court system we have right now the courts are available regionally. We have concerns that you have the tribunal in locations that people may actually attend and access.
In closing, it's crucial that adequate funding be provided to this dispute resolution system if it's going to meet the goals you have stated. It must provide justice to both landlords and tenants. We ask that you not rush the implementation of the system. This is going to be a huge change in the way things are done and it needs careful planning, it needs policy development and it needs staff training.
The Chair: There is time for one question from the committee. I will give that first to the government side and then, as the day progresses, when that occurs again we'll go to the Liberals and the New Democratic Party.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Ms Harper, I'd like to comment on an opening statement you made, "We also provide public legal education and perform community development." Could you give an example or tell us what percentage of the funding you receive from the government would go to public legal education and community development?
Ms Harper: It's difficult for me to tell. We receive 100% of our funding from the Ontario legal aid plan and we are mandated to carry out these functions. It's hard to say how much time we actually spend on public legal education. It varies. For example, with changes in legislation we spend a lot of time speaking to groups about what the changes are and educating them about their rights and obligations. It varies with the demand. I would say we're probably spending 20% at times providing education in all areas, not just landlord and tenant.
Mr Wettlaufer: The root cause of poverty would be unemployment. Would you agree with that statement?
Ms Harper: No, I wouldn't. I think there are many causes of poverty. I would say unemployment is one of them.
Mr Wettlaufer: Would it be the big one?
Ms Harper: If people cannot find jobs, it's difficult. There are people on disability; there are many reason why people are in poverty.
Mr Wettlaufer: What our government has been trying to do is to create an environment in which there would be a lot more jobs. We see through many columns in the newspapers that companies have much more confidence today in the economy in this province than they have had at any time over the last 15 or 20 years.
We see constantly that house permits are up; non-residential construction permits are up; automobile companies are reinvesting or putting new plants into the province; we had a notice last week that automakers are investing $1.8 billion in Canada this year, most of that being in Ontario. Jobs follow naturally. They do this in time of expansion. It is not our government's position to perpetuate poverty, yet at times I see from some of the presentations that are being made here that some people making presentations have a vested interest in perpetuating poverty. I wonder --
Ms Harper: I wouldn't agree with that.
Mr Wettlaufer: You wouldn't?
Ms Harper: No, I wouldn't.
Mr Wettlaufer: You don't think your legal aid clinic has a vested interest in that?
Ms Harper: In perpetuating poverty? No. Day to day I spend my day trying to fight legislation that may cause people to have more hardships when they're in poverty.
The Chair: Unfortunately, we're out of time.
Interruption.
The Chair: The Legislative Assembly does not permit demonstrations, applause or boos or any sort of demonstration. In future, I would ask that the audience respect that in this committee as well.
The next presenter is --
Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'm quite confused. Normally in Legislative Assembly committees, if there is time for questioning, there is equal time for each party to ask questions. I'm curious why you allowed Mr Wettlaufer to make a commercial announcement on behalf of the government and did not permit the other two parties to ask a question of this speaker. This is not an appropriate process for a legislative committee.
The Chair: The practice I've been following is that when there is not time for all three to participate, I give it to one of the parties. It happened to have been the Conservatives' turn. As I indicated at the outset, the next time that occurred, it would go to the Liberals and the time after that it would go to the New Democratic caucus. That's the practice. If the committee doesn't like that, then we will ask no questions to those particular presenters. I have felt that is the fairest considering the time that's left to ask presenters questions.
Mrs Boyd: Did you happen to time Mr Wettlaufer?
The Chair: Yes, I did.
Mrs Boyd: That's good, because we will expect to have a similar time.
1100
PERSONS UNITED FOR SELF-HELP
The Chair: The next presenters are Persons United for Self-Help, Bonnie Quesnel and Robert Sexsmith. Good morning. You may proceed when ready.
Ms Bonnie Quesnel: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act. Panel members may ask why we think this bill is so important and why it will have a dramatic impact on people with disabilities. I'm sure that when writing this bill we were not first and foremost on the minds of policymakers, but you strike dramatically at those of us at the bottom rung of the social ladder without intending to.
People with disabilities will be dramatically affected, because we are tenants. We are often unemployed or underemployed. We are recipients of social assistance. We are often without proper representation or advice. We are often without housing options or alternatives. We are the tenants you forgot to protect.
In particular, Bill 96 failed when it changed rent controls and when it changed the law affecting care homes. I would like to take this opportunity to expand upon these areas of concern.
Income information: Section 200 of Bill 96 is contrary to current human rights legislation and allows for the discriminatory use of income information. It would be legal to discriminate against groups on social assistance such as groups of people with disabilities. It takes away protections we currently have and gives more power to positions already powerful, like the landlord. The chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission told you that this section should be removed and we urge you to listen to him. Don't take away the protections we currently have.
Such measures allow one more door to affordable housing to close because of minimum income criteria. We will be forced to live in an overpriced, low-quality accommodation. Landlords and communities that believe we do not belong and that we devalue their property are sentencing us to boarding-homes. Boarding-homes will gouge our pocketbooks. We will end up in crime-ridden areas where no one else wants to live, in non-profit housing projects on the outskirts of the cities and ghettoes for people society does not value. In our own city of London, you will be creating institutions within the community. We will be kept out of certain sections and areas of the city and segregated because of the discrimination allowed. The irony is that while one ministry closes our city's psychiatric institutions, another ministry provides us with fewer community housing options. Where is it you would like people with disabilities to live? My understanding is that Aylmer is only so big.
Yes, it is fair to ask if we pay our bills and have a good credit rating, but after that there is no need to go any further. If we have paid our bills in the past, give us choice and give us control. Specific housing may be worth more to a person with a disability than it is to you. Safety may be a bigger concern because of our limited mobility. Friends and family living nearby may be a priority. Access to shopping and amenities may be worth paying extra for, since public transportation for us is not the same as it is for you. Trust us. We will pay for what we need and we'll choose wisely. Few people with disabilities have money to throw away. When you take away from our limited options and choices, we are forced to choose expensive housing from unscrupulous landlords.
Another concern is that we do not have enough accessible housing stock within this province. Therefore, any increase in accessible housing will be new housing and unprotected by rent controls. Our housing will be unaffordable. "Accessible" will become inaccessible to us.
We applaud your effort to protect and ensure that the number of care homes is not reduced. We feel that protection for tenants during renovation is not strong enough and must be monitored.
We are concerned and would like to discuss areas where individuals with disabilities lose their rights as tenants and lose their protection under the Residents' Rights Act, Bill 120. In particular, we are concerned that long-term tenants living in their home may be excluded from protections because of the expanded exemption rules. It is not hard to imagine some landlords using these expanded exemptions for their own benefit and denying individuals their right to tenant protections. The exemption should be limited to premises in which the sole purpose is rehabilitative and should remain fixed at six months.
We are also concerned that future types of accommodations can be added as exemptions later on through regulations. This is frightening to us and leaves us out there with less than the rest of you. At any time, you can change the rules. Our lives and our homes can be altered without so much as a "how do you do." Would this happen to any other members of society? I think not. But then again it was the disabled who boarded a bus in Toronto headed for Aylmer. Where and who is providing the leadership in this province when it comes to speaking up for the most vulnerable? I did not see it in Aylmer, and I do not see it in this bill. And I do not see why you as a government should be trusted to change regulations without a watchdog. Any changes regarding exemptions should be dealt with through the legislative process and not by back-room bureaucrats.
I would like to address our major issue regarding termination of tenancy applied to people with disabilities in care homes. The new grounds for eviction, or "transfer," as you call it, can include that the tenant no longer requires the level of care provided by the landlord or that the tenant requires a level of care that the landlord is no longer able to provide.
When the landlord applies for a transfer, the tribunal makes the determination. The legislation eliminates the fundamental landlord and tenant protection for tenants living in care homes. Again tenant and service issues are being wrapped up together and we are not provided with the same rights and protections of others.
We will not live where it is unsafe. This paternalistic attitude is a sham and a spin doctor's invention. The benefactor of this section is the government and community care providers. They can just pass their people's problems on to the tribunal. Will the service provider be accountable for their inability to meet the needs of the individuals? Will the government be accountable for the lack of funding to community service to meet the needs of individuals? Can the tribunal and the landlord force an individual into an institution by taking them from their home? Will tenants be given legal counsel through this process, and who will pay? The right to transfer people is illegal and unethical and does not belong within Bill 96 or any housing legislation.
Another side-effect of Bill 96 is that it keeps people in their place. The threatening power of the service provider as landlord is re-established. The people who complain or speak up for his or her rights are placing themselves at risk. The unwritten rule is that troublemakers may get evicted or transferred, thus increasing the sense of vulnerability.
Look again at the pages of our local newspapers, where individuals from Toronto were afraid to give their names or have their picture taken for fear of being labelled a troublemaker. You do not know this fear. You find it hard to believe it's there. It was not your intention to create it, but it is part of this bill. By giving the service provider the expanded power to evict, you have increased the vulnerability of the individual. You have protected the powerful, and this is called the Tenant Protection Act. I just don't see the protection in the Tenant Protection Act.
Instead, all we see is the nightmare of boarding-homes. You fear them in your neighbourhood. We fear being forced to live in them. This bill hastens that possibility and increases the probability that vulnerable groups will be pushed, cornered, into the boarding-homes and housing ghettoes. Don't let this happen. We have much to contribute to the community and your neighbourhoods and should not be pushed away. It is my hope that, closing with the following words, I can awaken this government to how frightening and scary a world it has become for those of us with disabilities.
Welcome to a boarding home in Aylmer
Such a lovely place, such a lovely place
Welcome to a boarding home in Aylmer
You will find us here any time of year
There are dark, lonely stairways
There are flickering lights
You know we all are victims
Of the landlords' limitless rights
So now we sit on the sidelines
Until a brand new day
When our voices will matter
Then we'll have our say.
Mr Robert Sexsmith: My name is Robert Sexsmith. Bonnie and I share many of the concerns for our neighbours and how they are being affected by the fundamental changes to their lives by government decisions. Changes have been and continue to be necessary to provide fundamental protection for people who, because of economics, cannot purchase a home.
It seems to me that relatively little research has been conducted to identify the issues underlying the means of overcoming marketplace inequities in housing. There are provable linkages which exist between housing, health, immigration, child poverty, social and family disruption. Too many citizens have incomes that do not allow them to compete in the marketplace either for rental housing or for home ownership. These households are in desperate need of housing which they can afford and will give them security of tenure.
I would witness the consequences of the income information. This will not only affect those on social assistance but will affect many and any wage earners, senior adults who wish to sell their homes and move to an apartment, or those who have taken early retirement because of downsizing from employers.
1110
Changes in definitions, some formerly applied and some new definitions, will have new and possibly unexpected impacts. For example, to change "tenant" to refer to who pays instead of "occupant" denies others in the household. "Residential premises" could preclude use of services and facilities such as parking, pools or a tenant's front door. The loss of a defined meaning of "spouse" denies the real world of living arrangements of people.
You should know that 47% of Londoners are tenants and that landlords usually implement the annual allowed increases when renewing or rewriting new leases. The new units' permanent exemption will not increase rental accommodation. There are primary reasons for that, but the main one is that the treatment of shelter as a commodity puts housing beyond the reach of too many people. I went into some detail in the presentation about using the 30 percentile and the income required to rent an affordable unit in London.
In London the utilization of emergency shelters has increased substantially since 1993, by 28%. The Tenant Protection Act is housing policy, and it is much more about the management of the existing housing than it is about anything else. Given this government's concern for personal taxes of individuals, why would you ignore the second-greatest percentage of total expenditure by urban families and individuals, called shelter?
I have listed a number of specific concerns. Rather than try to read them all in the time -- I'd like to allow time for some questions -- I would ask that they be included even though they are not read, and I would answer questions specifically on them.
The Chair: Mr Sexsmith, the written presentation you've given to us has been made available to all members of the committee and forms part of the record of the committee.
Mr Sexsmith: In the interests of time, rather than trying to read them all out loud, I thought it would be easier to answer a couple of questions.
The Chair: We have a few minutes for a question from each caucus.
Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. Your reference to part IV of the act has been brought up in a number of hearings throughout the province. I want to explore it a little more with you, the notion of the landlord and the service provider being one and the same and the problems with that, particularly from a harassment perspective, a fear perspective.
I take it you're familiar with the Lightman report that was done some years ago. Could you expound on what Mr Lightman recommended with respect to the relationship between a tenancy and service provider and landlord and service provider?
Ms Quesnel: You mean about the tenants having their own protection, and therefore separate from the service they are given?
Mr Duncan: That's correct.
The Chair: We have to move on to the NDP.
Mrs Boyd: Let's continue with that. The whole purpose of Professor Lightman's report was to look at what is happening to people in these unlicensed, unregulated situations. It was his very strong recommendation, as you have recommended, that the service needs of people be completely separate from their rights as tenants so that you not have a double jeopardy situation.
Ms Quesnel: That's right, very much so.
Mrs Boyd: You've been very eloquent about the very immediate problem of the folks who were arbitrarily moved from Toronto to Aylmer. That's of real concern, I know, to the community. I had probably more phone calls on this issue in my constituency office than almost any other with respect to this act. There's real concern now that people actually see how vulnerable people are to that kind of arbitrary action.
Mrs Munro: Thank you very much. I know the time is very brief. I want to ask two very specific questions. The first one relates to the presentation given by Mr Sexsmith. On page 9, you say that care homes would be better regulated under community health care. Are you referring there to the community care access?
Mr Sexsmith: Yes.
Mrs Munro: It's my understanding that that is in fact their mandate.
Mr Sexsmith: Not when it's included here. It's very specific right now under the TPA that there's going to be this component. I really don't understand why it's included under the TPA.
Mrs Munro: I just want to assure you that the community care access does take precedence in this particular kind of issue.
Mr Sexsmith: Will that be communicated to the landlord?
Mrs Munro: Absolutely. They will have that understanding, that that is the legal position of the community care access. I want to assure you of that.
The Chair: Mr Sexsmith, Ms Quesnel, we are out of time, unfortunately. It's too bad we couldn't have more time, but we've run out. Thank you for coming.
1120
BILL ARMSTRONG
The Chair: The next presenter is Bill Armstrong, councillor of the city of London. Good morning, sir. You may proceed.
Mr Bill Armstrong: Good morning. First of all, I was supposed to have a co-presenter, but she'll be presenting this afternoon, so unfortunately my presentation won't be as long as I would have liked, but that will give you an opportunity, I hope, to ask some questions.
I guess the reason I'm here this morning is that I've had extensive experience with rent controls going back to 1985. From 1985 to about 1993, I represented tenants in front of the rent control here in London, mainly in the area of illegal rents, but I also handled full building reviews, and I would estimate probably handled close to a few thousand cases under the Rent Control Act and the Residential Tenancies Act, its predecessor. From 1993 to today, I handle both rent control issues and landlord-and-tenant issues in front of the Rent Control Board and in front of the courts. So I feel I have quite a bit of experience and knowledge of the rental situation in London.
I recently had an opportunity to participate in a forum here in London where we listened to the concerns of tenants about this particular bill that's being proposed. One of my concerns and one of the concerns I heard from tenants here in London was the fact that there would be no more rent controls, and it's my belief that in fact that's what this bill proposes. With this bill, each time a tenant moves out and another tenant moves in, it's my belief that landlords will take that opportunity to go to the maximum possible rent that they can get for those units.
What this will create is inequity. You will have tenants moving into buildings paying perhaps as much in this municipality as $100, $150 more for a unit that down the hall another tenant is paying much less for. This will obviously create some real concerns when tenants realize they're paying so much more for a unit than their neighbour.
The other area I have a concern with is that this bill is going to create a situation where unscrupulous landlords are going to be acquiring buildings where the rents have been historically lower than perhaps they could have been because of controls. These landlords are going to take advantage of every opportunity to encourage tenants to move out of their units, and of course out of the building, so that they can go to the maximum possible rent. I hate to use an example, but I feel that this will be like a New York scenario where people are going to again harass tenants for profit. That's what's going to happen with this proposal.
Another area I had concerns with was poor maintenance. As you are aware, where a landlord hasn't been maintaining a unit properly, rents could be withheld so that the landlord would comply with work orders. I think that system works well. Not having that system will discourage many landlords from maintaining the buildings to the standards that they should be.
Again, a rent registry: Obviously, there won't be a need for a rent registry if there's no rent control. I think the rent registry worked well. It made the information available to tenants so they could make sure they were paying legal rents. I did have some problem when the registry was changed so that -- back I believe it was 1985 when the registry came into existence, I did have some problem that a lot of illegal rents were made legal. I was concerned about that happening back then and I thought I would mention that today.
The use of an administrative tribunal and taking matters in front of a tribunal rather than the courts I see as a step that may be positive. That's one of the only things, from my reading, I can see will be a positive step with regard to these proposed changes. This might make it easier for tenants to represent themselves to do with landlord-and-tenant issues. I also support the idea of a mediation process or mediation service. Again, obviously, mediation is a route that would make it easier for both parties to resolve their differences.
Those are all my comments for now. I'd be happy to entertain questions.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much, Bill. I know that our mayor was one of the mayors who went yesterday to Toronto to talk to the Premier about the issue of the download and the effect of that on property taxes. Throughout these hearings, there has been a claim by the government that the Who Does What kinds of actions that the government is taking will make it possible for property taxes to actually go down on rental units and that, therefore, it will be an incentive for landlords not to charge as high a rent as they might otherwise, and also possibly to build new buildings. Can you comment on your sense, as a councillor and as someone who is familiar with rentals, on what the effect of the download is likely to be and whether you think that will in fact improve the position of landlords who are willing to provide lower-cost housing?
Mr Armstrong: My experience has been that, first of all, landlords, if given an opportunity, always charge the maximum possible rent available for the unit. Again, with the downloading, obviously there'll be additional costs, overhead to apartment buildings, and I have no doubt that those costs, whether it be through increased taxes or whatever area those costs may come from, will be passed on to the tenant. This is a business and landlords are in the business to make money and to maximize profit. Again, that's what troubles me with the idea of taking off rent controls. I don't believe this will suddenly create a huge number of new units, and certainly taking off controls the way that you're proposing will eliminate a lot of affordable units very quickly. As I mentioned earlier, the inequity in one tenant paying a huge amount of money more for the identical unit, I can just see where that's going to create some real problems.
Mrs Boyd: Can I ask you, as a councillor, the analysis that the staff of our city council has done has been very clear that we have two choices under the download, either increased property taxes or drastically lowered services, which people would then have to purchase probably privately. In either case scenario, if this download goes ahead, would you see this as being simply passed on to tenants, under those circumstances, whether it's property taxes or whether it's -- for example, if in order to keep taxes without rising, if the government refuses to let you raise your taxes, then you'd have to lower services. People would then have to purchase those services. Am I correct on that?
Mr Armstrong: That's correct. In either case scenario I would be of the belief that those increases will be passed on to tenants. There's no doubt in my mind that will happen. Again, if in fact the scenarios that have been set out to go -- there has quite frankly been no information. It's hard to comment on something because there's a lack of information we've received. We don't really know what the future will unfold.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you for your presentation. I suspect the membership in the flat-earth society is growing exponentially. The numbers were released, August 7. Your municipality was told precisely to the penny what the worst-case scenario would be, and as your mayor herself was told again yesterday by the Premier, no tax hike. London will not be going up.
In fact, as you are well aware if you read those numbers, depending on what the municipalities tell us, not the other way around, on how they would like the education tax to be set, either 50% of your current tax or an average of 50% of all current taxes across the province, the entire county could drop $2.9 million on day one. But let's leave that issue aside, because Ms Boyd was trying to cloud the issue to some extent by asking about what would happen if there was a tax increase or a decrease.
The issue I would put to you, Mr Armstrong, is that right now there is an imbalance in the taxation between single-family homes and apartments, and it doesn't matter if that differential continues to move up or down, it still exists, and in this community, you and your fellow councillors have perpetuated a system where apartments are paying over two times as much as they would if they were single-family homes.
1130
Would you not agree with me that if rolling those property taxes back to fairness drops, on average, every apartment in London by $600 a year or more, $50 a month, that would have a dramatic increase on the affordability, particularly in entry level apartments in London?
Mr Armstrong: The thing is, and I won't debate you today --
Mr Gilchrist: I'm not surprised we don't get any straight answers to our questions.
Mr Armstrong: I always try to give straight answers to real questions. But I guess the fact is I'm here today to speak on this act and what your proposals are here.
I don't see this as the Tenant Protection Act, far from it. I see rents going up. I see affordable housing disappearing very quickly. Again, I really think you're going to need an anti-harassment unit. The fact that you would even suggest that you need an anti-harassment unit suggests to me that you already are aware of the possible implication of landlords raising rents and evicting tenants so that they can raise low rents and increase their profit margin, increase the value of their properties. It seems if you can't see that --
Mr Gilchrist: Is it your submission that the current act today is perfect? Are you're telling us that under the current act we don't have waiting lists; under the current act, there isn't harassment; under the current act, there aren't people being discriminated against? Is that what you're sitting here telling us today?
Mr Armstrong: I've not only dealt with this act, I've dealt with its predecessor and I've dealt with its predecessor, which was I believe administered by your government many years ago. I'm suggesting to you that harassment has always gone on, but I'm suggesting that --
Mr Gilchrist: Precisely, and that's why we think it's a step forward to have an anti-harassment unit.
Mr Armstrong: I think you're setting the stage where there's going to be far more harassment go on in this province.
Mr Gilchrist: We disagree.
Mr Armstrong: I'm sure that down the road, we'll be able to measure that by the number of evictions that are going to be proceeding across the province. But obviously, the fact that you need an anti-harassment unit speaks for itself.
Mr Gilchrist: As another protection for tenants, I hope you take the tools available, deliver to tenants not rhetoric this fall but give them the $60 per month, $50 per month reduction that is their right, that is their due and start bringing fairness back to property taxation in London as across all the rest --
Mr Armstrong: That will never happen.
Mr Gilchrist: It will never happen? Well, there's an admission for you.
Mr Armstrong: Not under this act.
Mr Gilchrist: The power is in your hands, sir, to do that.
The Chair: We'll move on to Mr Duncan.
Mr Duncan: Thank you, Councillor Armstrong, for your presentation. Just a couple of brief points. The numbers that were released this month are the third set of numbers the province has released, and virtually everything they did in January in terms of the download has been changed in a dramatic fashion, because the numbers they gave out then were wrong, and we would submit these numbers are wrong. That's what municipality after municipality is continuing to say.
The province could have dealt with the apartment issue and they chose not to. They chose to leave it to you, because the kind of bullying you've just seen is part of government policy. They've been very effective, as I'm sure you know as a municipal councillor, I'm sure school board people know right across the province. They put you into an untenable position and they say, "Don't raise taxes; cut taxes," knowing full well that won't happen. I would suggest that the arguments that Mr Gilchrist has put forward are wrong. The numbers are wrong and have no credibility because your own numbers --
Mr Gilchrist: So these numbers are wrong also.
Mr Duncan: I would submit the mayor of London may not be entirely correct, because your own numbers have changed three times in eight months across a variety of municipalities. Nobody trusts your numbers. Nobody does.
But back to the question of harassment because I think that's one of the major points you've made. Mr Gilchrist has argued, not very well in my view, that harassment will decrease. Your experience, as somebody who has represented tenants under three different pieces of legislation now, is that harassment could increase, that this will give landlords a greater edge.
Mr Armstrong: There's no doubt in my mind, and I might mention, I also currently represent not just tenants but some landlords. As a matter of course, there are going to be landlords out there who are going to see this as a windfall, who are going to be out there looking for buildings where the rents have been historically low, and they can see where the rents can be raised. They're going to acquire these buildings with one thought in mind: "I can now, as these tenants move out, raise the rents and, again, increase revenue." It increases of course the value of the building. It's going to happen, there's no doubt, because there are people out there who are going to use this as an opportunity.
Mr Duncan: Would it be fair to paraphrase what you said that the supply of affordable low-rental units will decrease as a result of this bill?
Mr Armstrong: Absolutely. And I might point out, earlier I think there were some figures -- I didn't catch them all -- in the last year or so there appear to be more vacant units. There's a good explanation for that. There are a lot of people, because of what happened with the amount of moneys received on social assistance, who literally had to move out of their units. Where they've gone, I don't know, perhaps out of province, perhaps they've had to move in with other individuals. This may have temporarily artificially inflated the vacancy rates across the province, because literally people could no longer afford their units.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Armstrong, for coming.
ONTARIO OWNED-HOME LEASED-LOT FEDERATION
The Chair: The final presentation of the morning is the Ontario Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation, Phyllis Baker, chair.
Mrs Phyllis Baker: Good morning. I very much appreciate the opportunity of being here this morning, even if I did have to come from Newcastle. What I'm going to attempt today is to try to explain to you and hope that you will understand a little bit better what a planned land-lease community is and what a mobile home park is. There are two different components.
Our federation was established in 1987 to provide a forum for residents of land-lease communities to present concerns about assessments, taxation, leases, and to respond to proposed legislation at provincial and municipal levels. At the present time, we have twelve homeowner or tenant associations as members and we represent approximately 5,000 people.
The major task for the federation's board has been to deal with the provincial government on all matters dealing with rent controls and other legislation, and we do collect all information and share this with the members.
We have found that the concept of a land-lease community and land-lease homes is not yet understood by members of the Legislature, municipal politicians, real estate agents, lawyers and others, and question very much why we were combined in the definition with the mobile homes.
A land-lease community is not a mobile home park. The homes are site-built or modular and are fully maintained by the homeowner. Some of the older-established communities have evolved from seasonal mobile parks with upgrades and permanent housing.
In the mobile home parks now that are classified along with the land-lease communities in that they pay rent on the land, there are no facilities for the residents there, and the standards are not up to municipal standards, so they've sort of grown like Topsy over the years.
The land-lease communities are planned and built by developer-landlords according to a site plan approved by the municipality. Internal roads, water sewers and the maintenance of same are the responsibility of the landlord. Structures and facilities for recreational purposes, clubrooms, tennis courts, swimming pool, golf clubs and others are built and maintained by the developer-landlord. Municipal property standards do not apply but other standards do, such as environment etc.
1140
In appearance the planned communities are no different from a subdivision. The homeowner pays rent according to the guideline. This includes the land rent, the land tax, our share of common expenses, maintenance and house taxes. Any over- or underpayment of the house tax portion is rectified at the end of the year.
Under mobile home parks and land-lease communities, part V, we find sections 97 and 102 are acceptable. Section 103, regarding maintenance, we felt that had no impact on our land-lease community. We felt it was for apartment buildings. You may question that. The maintenance costs are paid for by the tenant in the rental package.
In some communities these costs have risen considerably because of poor planning in building the infrastructure. The landlord can then request an increase over the guideline. I think of our 12 members. We have all faced major rental increases over the last few years. The additional cost can adversely affect the tenants, most of whom are retired and living on fixed incomes.
Section 107 is acceptable to us. Section 108 we feel does not apply to land-lease communities, in my definition, as the homes are not mobile. Section 109(1) and (2),we agree with this section that the tribunal may determine a time frame for the cost of a capital expenditure.
In the legislation it says "ordered by the municipality or the province." At the present time I don't know whether it would ever happen that the provincial or the municipal people would come in and say to the landlord of a planned land-lease community, "You have to do so and so and so." This may happen in the future, so it's covered here. In previous submissions we commented on matters related to capital expenditures, and these are all in the Ministry of Housing file.
Part VI: There has been much concern expressed that under Bill 96, landlords will increase rents to the maximum allowed for new tenants. We wonder what criteria will be used to determine the lawful rent without regulatory restrictions. In some land-lease communities the rent for resale homes is higher than rent for new homes because of the percentage increases over the guideline. This means that the home cannot be sold, and in some communities the value of the older home is much less than the original cost.
We believe that rent increases over the guideline for a specific purpose should take into consideration the life term of the asset, and this is covered in some respects with the option to the tenant of a one-time payment or monthly amount. We dealt with this last year when we submitted our comments on the working paper.
The tribunal: We endorse the creation of a tribunal to deal with disputes because the present system is much too unwieldy and time-consuming. Whether this will be any better I don't know.
Some of the long-term leases that are now being negotiated -- we have 20-year leases in a land-lease community -- include a section to deal with disputes and arbitration. Landlords have taken this into consideration; not all of them but some of them.
Land-lease communities are unique in that they include a certain lifestyle which appeals to retired persons or persons nearing retirement. The residents have organized homeowners' or tenants' associations. These associations, with an elected board of directors and committees, plan activities, provide a driver service for hospital and doctor visits, provide space for foot and blood pressure clinics and much more. Residents serve as volunteers for the local hospitals and other community organizations, and, I might add here, have a terrific impact on the income generated in that community.
We communicate the residents' concerns to local, provincial and federal groups. We stress the need for specific legislation for land-lease communities dealing with guideline increases, on one hand. It's our understanding, and I would like a response from Mr Gilchrist on this, that the land-lease residents may be charged an additional amount of up to $50 above the guideline. We need clarification.
The Chair: The questions will start with the Conservatives.
Mr Gilchrist: I'm pleased to respond. Thank you very much for your presentation. We've certainly had the opportunity all across the province to hear from the owners of the parks and many tenants as well. We appreciate your drive, I take it, from Wilmot Creek.
Mrs Baker: I came on the train.
Mr Gilchrist: That's a long haul. Thank you for coming all this way. First off let me just say that we appreciate your specific comments on the other sections. There will be a test of reasonableness. You asked about the time frame for capital expenditures and that sort of thing. The same test of reasonableness would be applied by the tribunal if anyone was to dispute an improvement. The tribunal would be sensitive primarily to something where a municipality ordered the landlord to hook up to municipal sewers if you hadn't previously been on that, or municipal water.
Mrs Baker: I think last year when I presented my brief -- I sent it to the minister -- one of those questions was that within one of our communities, there was this matter that part of the park was on the sewers and the other part wasn't. That's why that was --
Mr Gilchrist: That was a park near Ottawa, as I recall.
Mrs Baker: No, not in Ottawa. This was in Simcoe county.
Mr Gilchrist: There's another one in Ottawa where the older portion is still on septic and the new one is not.
The final point in your question: The land-lease communities will not be subject to the same sort of vacancy decontrol that apartments will be. In the regulations that will be drafted -- it won't be in the bill itself but in the supporting regulations -- there will be a formula developed that if you've moved out or sold your home, the landlord could on a one-time basis increase the rent.
The minister has already said, "There's no way we're going to let that be over $50," and it could quite conceivably be lower than that. But we recognize, and I think even many of your members have commented to us that they know, there are some parks where we have seen rents as low as -- the lowest one we saw anywhere was $87 a month.
Mrs Baker: The rent was $87, or was the maintenance $87?
Mr Gilchrist: No. We had three presentations from Dryden. In fact, the average of those three was $132 they were getting up there. They recognized -- one of the tenants spoke at the Thunder Bay hearings -- that they know the landlord can't afford to pay for anything. They can't fix up anything with that little amount of money coming in, a very different cost structure than you have at Wilmot Creek, I accept that.
The bottom line is that we recognize that in that very chronically depressed area there may be a need to get it up a bit. But as you correctly pointed out, today in most of the parks in southern Ontario, many new sites are rented for less than the existing ones. The landlord quite frankly is going to have to recognize that and bring the existing rents down.
Mrs Baker: I'm sorry to interrupt you. I should point out that some of these people actually have paid, in the newer houses that are being built now, a lot more than we paid for our home 11 years ago. It's a different model and probably all the upgrades are bigger, some of them have basements and all this kind of thing. It may have been an incentive to the people to buy and they would get a lower rent.
Mr Gilchrist: That's quite possible.
The Chair: We have to get moving.
Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. We have no questions today.
Mrs Boyd: I was curious: You made a comment in the course of your presentation that a lot of your member groups have seen very large increases in rent in the last few years. Can you help me with that? You don't mean that they're actually illegal?
Mrs Baker: No.
Mrs Boyd: You're talking about them being, because of improvements in the property, over guideline as allowed.
Mrs Baker: Not improvements in the property, Ms Boyd, but certainly the landlord applied to the rent control and was given a certain percentage over the guideline. The last one we got in my own personal community was 24%.
Mrs Boyd: What was the rationale for that, if you remember?
Mrs Baker: We have found that at the beginning of this new concept of land-lease communities -- they weren't called that; there was no other word for them so they were called mobile parks -- they low-balled the maintenance cost portion, just like they did in the condominium field when we started in the condominium field.
Now what they are attempting to do is for everybody in a given situation to pay a different maintenance rate. When a lot of these places were built in 1987, 1988 and 1989, there was a bit of a boom on so it made a difference then, but now the landlords are attempting to equalize the maintenance costs. At the end of every fiscal year you get a statement saying what everything cost you. You can't say there are 625 homes and you're going to divide that into the overall cost. That's not right, but they're trying to get it so that everybody would pay the same maintenance cost.
Mrs Boyd: The way they do in a condominium?
Mrs Baker: Yes.
Mrs Boyd: You have a rent cost?
Mrs Baker: Yes, a rent cost.
Mrs Boyd: Say that's $100. Is it conceivable that your monthly maintenance cost could be $200? Could it be twice as much as your rental cost?
Mrs Baker: I don't know of any place where the rent is only $100.
Mrs Boyd: I was puzzled too.
Mrs Baker: Yes, but in a mobile home park the rent might be up to $150. It could be that the maintenance cost would be much higher than the rent if the rent was $100. Some of our people pay $800 a month, but that includes their property taxes too. At the present time, the way it's set up the maintenance costs are quite different. Your rent depends on the size of your home, how much land you have to have for it to sit on and where it's located in the park. In Wilmot, where I live, since we're located on Lake Ontario, the people who live facing the lake, closest to the lakehead, pay more.
Mrs Boyd: The maintenance costs at the present time, though, might be different depending on that, so your next-door neighbour, who also faces the lake, might have the same sort of rental cost but might be paying a higher maintenance cost.
Mrs Baker: Depending on when they came in --
Mrs Boyd: When they came in. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Baker, for coming such a long distance.
That concludes the presentations to the general government committee this morning. Before I recess until this afternoon, I wish to inform members that the checkout time at the hotel is 1 o'clock. There will be a room available if you wish to leave your baggage there until the conclusion of the hearings this afternoon. This meeting is adjourned and we'll reconvene at 1:30 this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1154 to 1330.
DAVID WINNINGER
The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We'll reconvene the proceedings. This afternoon our first presenter is David Winninger, who, members of the committee should be aware, is a former MPP who represented -- I'm sure he'll tell us -- one of the London ridings and was a member of the New Democratic caucus in the last government. It is good to see you again, Mr Winninger. You may proceed.
Mr David Winninger: Thank you, Mr Tilson. It was London South.
The Chair: London South. How could I forget?
Mr Winninger: As a lawyer and former MPP, I've represented tenants and tenant associations in the past and also in the present. I also recently became a small landlord after acquiring my office building with two residential units.
I presented to this committee in response to the government's discussion paper entitled Tenant Protection Legislation: New Directions for Discussion. I'm very disappointed this government has chosen to ignore the many representations made on behalf of tenants at the earlier stage of these proceedings. Abolishing rent controls for new buildings, and for older buildings once tenants vacate, and watering down protection from wrongful eviction is going to force more and more tenants into homelessness.
While 15 minutes is a short time to address all of the myriad issues involved in the legislation, I will address a number of my concerns within the time available to me.
Firstly with regard to rent control, social housing has already been dealt a mortal blow with termination of funding for co-ops and non-profits. Public housing is being downloaded to the municipalities, where funding can compete with roads and sewers. People on social assistance have already had their benefits cut to the extent that an unacceptably high ratio of their income is spent on housing. For many tenants, there will be nowhere to turn for affordable housing once this legislation is in place.
To name this legislation the Tenant Protection Act is, to my mind, a travesty. Many of the new tenants facing rent increases are people who benefit the most from rent controls, including seniors forced to move out of their homes due to massive property tax increases sanctioned by this government; students seeking housing to attend college or university, who are already facing huge tuition hikes again sanctioned by this government; and disabled people leaving institutions and seeking to live independently at a time when funding for community-based care remains in question.
Dr Applebaum, a professor of sociology at the University of California specializing in issues relating to housing, studied the impact of rent controls a few years ago. He determined that when Los Angeles introduced decontrol-recontrol provisions similar to Bill 96, the percentage of income spent on rent increased, with the highest increase for low-income earners. Further, the number of unaffordable units increased with the abolition of rent controls. Applebaum concluded that rent control provides a low-cost alternative to government subsidies without appearing to have an adverse effect on local housing markets.
This government's agenda is ideologically driven in favour of the private sector -- no surprise. Rent controls have already been fine-tuned to ensure landlords have sufficient income to maintain their buildings. For existing tenants, increasing the cap for capital expenditures and removing the cap completely for increases in taxes and utilities will create a recipe for escalating rents which the average tenant cannot afford.
Why put more money in the pockets of landlords? This will not create a building boom, as there is no incentive to expand the housing market when a low vacancy rate will tend to increase rents.
Further, the legislation allows landlords to continue to build the cost of capital repairs into the base rent long after the repairs have been fully paid for. Why should costs no longer borne be factored into calculation of the landlord's rent entitlement at the expense of the tenant?
The existing legislation ensures that landlords who do not properly maintain their buildings do not qualify for annual statutory increases. Bill 96 removes this protection for tenants and allows rent increases, notwithstanding that work orders issued by the municipality are being flouted. How can municipalities already hit with transfer cutbacks be expected to devote additional resources to enforcing maintenance when the province will allow landlords to circumvent work orders with a wink and a nod?
With respect to changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act, there is no provision for enforcing rights of tenants, such as the right to delivery to the tenant of a copy of the lease. Tenants should be allowed to pay withheld rents to the tribunal, which would be paid to the landlord only when the landlord complies with this obligation.
It should be a mandatory part of an order made by a tribunal that excess rents or abatements owing to the tenants be recovered in full or, if not, by deduction from rent. In Bill 96, this right under subsection 182(3) is merely discretionary.
Under existing legislation, a tenant's privacy rights were protected in that a landlord could enter to deal with emergencies or to show the premises to prospective tenants when a notice to terminate had been served by -- and there is an error here; it should read "served by the tenant" -- the tenant, absent consent by the tenant. Under Bill 96, a landlord who gives notice to terminate can show the premises to prospective tenants whether the tenant agrees or not. Thus, a tenant can be subjected to harassment by a landlord looking to evict a tenant for spurious reasons, possibly just to increase the rent once the unit becomes vacant.
Notices to tenants should state the grounds for termination with full particulars so that tenants will know the case they have to meet. Further, if notices are deemed to be served only five days after mailing, this will work a hardship upon a tenant who due to late mailing has little or no time to respond. Heaven help the tenant who happens to be on vacation when the notice is served.
Special provision also needs to be made for the visually impaired. I recall a former constituent who was evicted because he was unable to see the notice posted by his landlord on his door.
Formerly, a tenant could either file a dispute in writing or appear at the return date of the application. The requirement of a written dispute in Bill 96 will undoubtedly pose a monumental challenge for tenants who lack literacy skills or may be unable to write in the English language.
The provision in Bill 96 for enforcement of unwritten agreements to terminate a tenancy should be amended. This is open to abuse, as a landlord can apply to terminate on this basis without notice to the tenant, even when the alleged agreement may have been a preliminary one or a conditional one. To set aside the order, however, the tenant must give notice to the landlord, and within 10 days of when the order is made.
There needs to be a provision for relief against forfeiture or for a writ of possession available to a wrongfully evicted tenant or a tenant threatened by wrongful eviction. This protection, available from the court under existing legislation, is not directly included in Bill 96. The tribunal would have to respond very quickly indeed, or the tenant's right to a particular unit will be illusory. Requiring payment into the tribunal for payments other than rent arrears before the case is heard may bar many tenants from access to justice. Up till now, of course, a tenant can be required to pay rent arrears before a case is heard. Now that requirement can apply to all forms of applications.
For these and other reasons, tribunals need to be conveniently located for easy access to tenants. Fees or costs, if any, should be modest. Facilities need to be physically accessible, and interpreters and child care provided where necessary.
While a landlord may change the locks at will, a tenant can only do so with the consent of the landlord. The ability of a tenant to protect against crimes against person and property is compromised. If this government means what it says about getting tough on crime, it should take measures to protect the security of tenants.
Under Bill 96, landlords can seize a tenant's personal property and dispose of the property. A landlord can even dispose of a mobile home by gift or to recover expenses, with no requirement to act responsibly or reasonably. If a tenant dies, the landlord can dispose of the property after 30 days, before the estate of the deceased even has a chance to act. If the landlord disposes of the property before the 30 days are up, there is no remedy to the tenant. A remedy of relief against forfeiture must be available and a provision included that sale must be to a good-faith, arm's-length purchaser at reasonable market value.
1340
Lastly, mobile homes: There is no need to restrict the erection of For Sale signs to the windows of mobile homes. Under existing legislation, the Wessenger bill, these signs may appear anywhere on the residential premises. The alternative, involving the landlord displaying For Sale notices on a bulletin board, is simply inadequate. The landlord, who will make a profit selling his or her own mobile homes, does not have to display advertisements as prominently, or we may find that the advertisements may disappear from the bulletin board from time to time as the landlord seeks to dispose of his or her or its own mobile home units. Further, a tenant association will no longer have the say in the restriction on the placement of signs, as they do now.
Finally, purchasers of mobile homes will be interested in what the maximum for new rents will be. As you know, mobile homes will be exempt from the removal of rent controls. However, rent increases will be prescribed by regulation. Regulation not having been promulgated, we don't know what these rates are going to be. We hope they're not going to be punitive.
In conclusion, I would urge this committee to revisit many of the problematic aspects of this legislation, to take the time and care to ensure that if you are going to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act after these many years and amend the Rent Control Act and you do indeed want to ensure that there is at least an even balance between tenant rights and landlord rights, to draw back on some of these positions that the government has taken to ensure that the balance between landlord and tenant is a fair one. As you know, most of the legislation that now governs landlords and tenants was introduced under former Conservative governments. I do hope you will have the wisdom not to set aside some of the proactive measures that were taken at the time, for example, in part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act, to ensure that tenants weren't evicted without cause.
Those are my submissions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Winninger. We have time for one question. We will give that to Mr Duncan.
Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. One area that you didn't deal with and that I'm just curious to hear your views on is the tribunal itself. What are your views with respect to the tribunal in terms of a new body to resolve disputes? I'd like to get your sense of that part of the act.
Mr Winninger: Judging by existing experience, I think tribunals try to do an adequate job of adjudicating these disputes. One of the major problems is delay. Right now the tribunals deal with setting of lawful rents and applications for rebate of rent and some miscellaneous issues.
Time is not always of the essence in those applications, but when you're dealing with someone who has been served with a notice to evict, who has to respond in five days or who may have missed receipt of the notice and posting of the application and has to move very quickly, I just wonder how responsive tribunals can be when a tenant has to move within a day or two to have a default order set aside. I don't know how it's going to happen unless adequate funding is provided to the tribunal, and I don't see that being signalled at the moment. If anything, funding seems to be under attack in the area of housing.
The Chair: Mr Winninger, thank you for your usual thorough presentation. Thank you for coming.
JOHN TIMMERMANS
The Chair: The next presentation is John Timmermans. Good afternoon, Mr Timmermans.
Mr John Timmermans: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm John Timmermans from Strathroy. I am here as a landlord in the town of Strathroy. I didn't see Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act, and I don't know what's in it. I'm simply here to add some ideas that should be in the Landlord and Tenant Act.
The news seems to be always for tenant protection. I never hear of landlord protection. All those who are setting the rules for the Landlord and Tenant Act should have been a landlord themselves. Then they'd know what they're talking about.
Landlords seem to be the culprit: They never fix apartments and they're letting the buildings go down beyond repair. This is not really true. They neglect to print that many tenants leave the apartment in ruins when they move out, and then the repairs begin.
We should have the pet law changed. On my rental application it reads in big, fat, bold letters, "No pets allowed." They all sign on the dotted line and they tell me they don't have any pets. Then they bring them in afterwards. It has cost me many carpets, and the smell can be so bad that I have a problem renting this apartment out again. Some good tenants move out for that reason.
The new law, that landlords can up the rent when new tenants move in, wouldn't solve much in my case. It wouldn't help me. I look at it simply as supply and demand. I have lowered some of my rents.
I sent in my submission about 10 days ago, recently, on July 26. I'm reading this article in the London Free Press of July 29:
"City Rejects Rent Rule Lobby
"A provincial plan would allow landlords to refuse tenants who receive public assistance or whose income falls below the threshold. We must avoid having people living on the streets or in public housing but landlords must have reasonable assurance that the tenant can afford the premises."
This problem, the way I see it, could very easily be solved if the landlord would receive the rent directly from the public assistance office and then the balance should go to the person receiving assistance.
I would take any tenant, if they were good housekeepers, if I knew I was getting the rent. Both landlord and tenant would be happy. I have been trying to push for this proposal to Bruce Smith, Al Leach, Mike Harris, so far to no avail. I am sure many landlords would stand by this proposal. I don't believe the point is raising the rent. My point would be simply to receive what we deserve.
Bill Armstrong mentioned the difference in rent one apartment to another. I have this problem. I have a tenant paying only $260 per month, while on the same ground floor a two-bedroom apartment pays $425. There should be a rule made in this bill to have some rent updated to within reason. We also pay a much higher insurance rate than other people for a single dwelling house.
Many people who used to be good tenants now have bought a house. Therefore, we landlords are now stuck with tenants who are in a lower income bracket. The reason more people are buying a house is, number one, the economy has improved, and secondly, the low interest rate for the last few years.
The way I see it, the market for a good tenant is gone. I used to be in a business to look up to. Now, since the reduction in social service in the Mike Harris government, thousands of people have found a job. Many of them are buying a house. I know a man of my age should not be in this business but I can't get rid of my buildings. Nobody seems to want them.
MPP Bruce Smith, in my riding, writes me that, if we have a problem not getting rent, then the ministry of social services will review the situation to determine how we can ensure that social assistance paid to recipients for rent actually goes to the landlords. I'm really waiting for this to happen.
I found a letter in the paper the other day. The person was saying that with this new law the landlords could be chasing out the tenants and then raising the rent. I don't think that's the way it's going to work. That's not the way I see it. I think most landlords are interested in getting the rent they deserve. I thank you.
1350
The Chair: Mr Timmermans, we have some time for questions. Would you be prepared to entertain some questions from members of the committee?
Mr Timmermans: Any time, if I can.
The Chair: Let's try it. Mrs Boyd is first.
Mrs Boyd: Mr Timmermans, you were talking about the issue of wanting to be able to refuse a tenancy to someone on social assistance and that the answer you had got was that there might be a review of that by social assistance. Under the General Welfare Assistance Act, if people on social assistance have shown themselves to be unable to be faithful about their rent, there is a provision where they can arrange, with their consent, to have that rent deducted directly from their cheque. Have you ever gone through that process with Middlesex county?
Mr Timmermans: I haven't; I have tried. I also have a property in Lambton county. I have people out there -- as a matter of fact, one person we had to evict cost me $500 for a lawyer, and they owe me $4,600. Another one owes me $700. They were on welfare assistance. I have been trying to talk to the office in Wyoming; that's where the office is. They tell me it's impossible because those people have rights. Now, where do I stand? They owe me this money, and I can't get it.
Mrs Boyd: I understand your problem, but I also understand the other side of it, which is that the allowances that are paid are so low that unless someone agrees to have their amount deducted directly, it really means that people aren't managing their own money. Part of the objective is to try to get people to a point where they are able to be responsible and willing to take on that responsibility of being a tenant as well.
Mr Timmermans: I wish they would take on the responsibility of paying the rent. What I find, and I've mentioned this before, is that many people now have found jobs, they've bought houses. We're stuck with the lower end of it. I know the tenants I've had -- I don't know whether I'm a poor guy to screen them out -- buy vodka by the case, they buy beer, and they don't have the rent money. How long is this going to last? If we could get the rent directly from the office for people who are on social assistance, at least we could stay in business. At my age now, I might go broke, because I have money outstanding all over the country.
Mrs Boyd: That was the other question I was going to ask you. It just doesn't sound like a very good investment, does it?
Mr Timmermans: Well, many investments were made years ago. That's when I made my investment. At that time, it was not a very bad investment. But since -- I mentioned this before -- there are fewer people looking for apartments, because, you know, they've found jobs -- Mike Harris is doing a damn good job. A lot of people don't like him; I do. The former government screwed it up. The Peterson government increased the social welfare to these people by 20%. This province is still in much better shape than all the other provinces.
Mrs Munro: I want to come back to that issue. I believe the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Honourable Janet Ecker, did make reference this spring to the opportunity that would be available, as Mrs Boyd has referred to, that you as a landlord would be able to enter into an agreement where moneys would be paid to you directly. I'd certainly encourage you to explore that option, because clearly what you have suggested to us are the difficulties you've encountered in the past. We are making that opportunity available in order to, frankly, give security to those people on social assistance as well as their landlords. I'd encourage you to do that.
The other question you raised was the issue of damages. I just wondered if you could give us a sense, in any way, of a percentage in terms of how big a problem this is. Obviously any damage is a problem in terms of your being able to recoup the costs. But I think it's important for us as a committee to understand the degree to which this is a problem for landlords. I wonder if you'd comment on that for us.
Mr Timmermans: The damage issue, as I've mentioned before, is if they bring in pets, I'm not against pets, but I still think they belong on the farm. When I vacuumed out the room and I put in a new bag, within five minutes the bag was full. I was wondering if my vacuum cleaner broke down. It was solid full of cat hair. How can you present that apartment to new people? The same with the last people I had to evict; it cost me $500 for the lawyer. I had to clean up the whole business, throw out the carpet, because you could see the cat shit right in the carpet. There were six full bags of solid garbage. They weighed 50 pounds each. There was an inch of dust on every lampshade. We're stuck with those kind of people. Then you find them sitting in the bar every afternoon. I don't know how the people in London handle the situation, but I have a big problem. I want to get out as quickly as possible.
Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. I have no questions.
The Chair: Thank you, sir, for making your presentation to the committee this afternoon.
Mr Timmermans: Thank you. I hope we're getting somewhere with what I've been putting in here.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments.
GRAND COVE RESIDENTIAL RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next presenter is the Grand Cove Residential Ratepayers Association, Robert Ford, board member. Good afternoon, Mr Ford. We have your written presentation. You may start when you're ready.
Mr Robert Ford: Thank you, Mr Chairman and committee members. I have been asked to make this presentation on behalf of the Grand Cove Residential Ratepayers Association Inc. We're here to help. Perhaps the most important item I would ask you to consider today is the fact that homeowners in Grand Cove Estates and in similar owned-home, leased-lot communities are in a unique situation.
First of all, let's identify where we are located and who we are. It's a retirement community in Stephen township in Huron county. It's adjacent to Grand Bend, a small village on the west coast of southern Ontario, halfway between Goderich and Sarnia. There are a little over 360 homes built at the moment, with 30-odd serviced lots available for more homes. There's some construction going on at the present time. The project is 20 years old, having been constructed in four phases. The early phases were factory built. We understand they arrived on wheels in two halves; they were called "double wides." I think Bendix was the company that was producing some of them. They were put on to posts, foundations and what have you. The fourth phase, which is being constructed now, and some of the third phase, we believe, is what you would refer to as "stick-built" homes. These are built with dimension lumber, sheathing, panel boards, trusses, roofing etc. They're permanent structures. They're placed on concrete foundations, on either concrete block or poured walls, on crawl spaces or subbasements.
The homeowners own from the plate up. The landowner owns the land, the footings, the foundations, the property and the common facilities, which are the clubhouse, the pool, park areas, roads, maintenance, sheds etc.
The population of Grand Cove Estates is about 540 retired people; 140 of these current homes have one person in them, and over 100 of those have widows in them. It's a 20-year-old project, and this is quite understandable in that women normally live six years longer than men. It may be, we feel, that some of them may have some financial hardships, like my situation, in that I don't have a transferable pension.
Many of these homeowners have significant amounts of capital invested in the homes. If you put them together totally and look at the current assessed market value of the homes, homeowners in Grand Cove Estates have an equity of about $17 million; the landowner has an equity of about $8 million. We pay for the land, the maintenance, the taxes on the sites and the taxes on the house.
Looking recently at the August issue of CARP News, CARP being the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, it's a little disturbing as a retired person to see on the front that Canada may be one of the best places in the world to live but it's becoming one of the worst places in the world for retirement. I'm pleased to see this committee doing something that may improve this and change it.
1400
Also, there's an article in here: "Many Canadians...assume that seniors are well off financially. The truth is that even with public pensions" -- according to the studies done by CARP -- "46% of seniors have annual incomes of less than $20,000. And fixed incomes do not allow for...dramatic changes" in rents etc.
We support something that Phyllis Baker, chair of the Ontario Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation mentioned some time ago, that in many land-lease communities the land rent is in excess of $600 per month. Personally, I pay $443 and change every month. That is maintenance, land rent, site taxes and taxes on the dwelling. In addition to that, heat and light runs about $200 a month. In addition to that, if you look at depreciation, because we're living in a vehicle -- it's only a vehicle similar to a car, truck, bus or what have you; we just happen to be living in it -- they don't appreciate. They depreciate. Looking at the last two assessments, my depreciation is about $16,000 from what I paid for the house, which I calculate amounts to $180 a month, so my real rent is about $823 a month. Still, it's a very nice place to live. It's a nice project. It's well located, we get excellent service locally, the climate is pretty good, and boy, the traffic is light compared to where I used to live in the Metro area.
The other thing that is different is tenants in an apartment building, and I'm not sure -- it has been a long time since we have lived in apartments and rented -- but we suspect that renters have a shorter lease than we do, one or two years. You can correct me if I'm wrong. In our case, it's a 20-year lease. My wife and I went there seven years ago at 70 years of age and signed a 20-year lease. Were we ever confident we were going to live to be 90 years old.
But it's difficult to change your living accommodation and in most cases it would cause great hardship. These homes are not mobile homes. They could be moved -- any home can be moved -- but under very exceptional conditions and at considerable expense. The alternative to moving a home is to sell it, and this is not always the easiest thing to do because of the increases in rents and so on. We have instances where people could have sold their home, but potential buyers are deterred by high monthly rent.
The other difficulty we have with the current regulations, and we're not sure that we know enough to talk about these regulations, is that the rulings of the rent control program don't seem to work as we thought they would work. For instance, in April we had 18 applications for what we considered was excessive rent. We had 18 hearings with the rent control program officer, and they found in favour of all 18 of our members. The landlord is appealing those orders.
There's a fair amount of money involved, several thousand dollars, and it goes back to 1992. In addition to appealing them, he has also filed a motion to stay the orders and to stay any new applications for what might be excessive rents. As respondents, the homeowners are the ones apparently who have to respond to this appeal and to the motion rather than the rent control program. It's very costly to some of them, and some of them may not be able to afford to respond in a proper way.
The other thing about this is that next month we will probably be getting notices of the rents and the guidelines and so on for next year. With this stay, if it is granted, and with the appeal, which may take several months before it's heard, the calculations may be on a very different base than they should be.
Finally, with reference to some of the specifics in Bill 96, while we have looked at some parts, there are some misleading or what seem to be contradictory comments in the sections that we read. In the introduction, part I on page 8, definitions, "'land lease home' means a dwelling, other than a mobile home, that is a permanent structure...." Certainly that's exactly what it is. That's what we paid $110,000 to $125,000 for.
On page 48, section 101 currently, part V, the guidelines in there, there are four or five different items that list tenancies are to be handled as if in a mobile home park. We find this misleading.
As to sale signs in section 101, items 2 and 3, currently, although a bulletin board is provided, it is not always available to all the tenants and not always readily accessible to the public. I just looked at it before coming out. I think there are 43 resale units in our community at the moment.
With reference to part VI, on page iii, "This bill provides for agreements between a landlord and tenant to a rent increase if the landlord has carried out or will carry out capital expenditures" of some kind. Our problem with this might well be illustrated by the most recent change we've had, a so-called improvement, the so-called security gates that have been installed in Grand Cove Estates. We really believe that the sole purpose of these gates was to provide a control over prospective buyers for the house on the part of the land owner and to make sure that most of these sales go through the land owner's home sales management team. We're wondering if these capital expenditures should not be for the landlord rather than for the home owner, because they're for his benefit rather than ourselves.
1410
Part VIII, page iii of the bill: "The tribunal may charge fees for application, for furnishing copies of documents and for other services." To be charged to whom and what the charges will be are questions we have.
"Charging rent in the amount greater than permitted...harassing a tenant," part X on page iv: In the aforementioned motion on appeal, some of our members have followed the guidance given from the rent control program and in July and August paid that amount rather than the higher amount, and have since received invoices showing outstanding amounts. I believe specifically in Bill 21 it suggests that when an order is granted, an appeal does not stay the order that the rent control program gives.
In closing, I would express appreciation for your time and effort to help old people like us. I know we're not a large percentage of the population, we seniors and retired people, at the moment, but come the next 15 or 20 years, we are going to be, all of us. We approach it one year at a time, annually. I'm personally not really asking for anything for myself, because I'm not going to be around that long, but for my kids and my grandkids and my great-grandkids, and yours, the things you're doing should improve the situation so that it's better for both landlords and tenants, and land owners and homeowners. We wish you well.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ford. Questions?
Mrs Munro: Thank you very much for coming here today. Certainly you represent a group that is, as you point out, growing, and one for which this legislation attempts to make some changes.
I'd go back to the issues you raised on page 3. Section 103: You've asked whether it applies to you as well, and the answer is yes. If you look at section 97 in the legislation, section 97 tells you that everything in this section applies to both things, so that would then include section 103. Okay?
Regarding section 101, you point out that there is a bulletin board but it's not available to all tenants, not readily accessible. The legislation is very clear that all of those criteria must be met.
You refer to the issue of an appeal process and how this has dragged out for you as tenants. I wondered if you have any comment to make about the notion of the tribunal, whose mandate is to provide a timely and less costly process for people in your situation.
Mr Ford: We would certainly come down on the side of that, for sure, yes. All respect to the gentleman who made the presentation immediately after lunch, but boy, we're not that knowledgeable and skilful in those things. We certainly would hope that the tribunal would have some teeth to ensure, first of all, that the decisions are made, as the gentleman mentioned, quickly, correctly and are adhered to.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Thank you, Mr Ford, and good afternoon. I want to clarify something on the personal figures you've given on page 1. The $180 for depreciation is not an out-of-pocket expense. That's just an expense that you've included as a monthly --
Mr Ford: It's not an out-of-pocket expense until they sell the house. But my point is that it's really not a house and real estate as we normally understand these things. Many of us have bought and sold several, from coast to coast, in my case. It's just a vehicle, the same as any, the vehicle you drive in to come here. It does depreciate.
It's not an out-of-pocket in that sense, but when you have equity there, you're not gaining something with the equity, as we all have been romanced into with inflation over time. I'm afraid some of us, in our park and possibly others, seem to think from our past experience that it's an investment in a house. This land-lease business is not an investment. It's more like a piece of equipment, in my judgement.
Mr Crozier: When you first went into this, sir, and I ask this respectfully, did you realize that perhaps it would be the type of investment that you now recognize it to be?
Mr Ford: No, we did not. Nevertheless, it's been worth it. It's a good place to live. To have the things we have there, to have the neighbours and the friendship and the cooperation and the lifestyle and the sports and activities, we couldn't buy that for $825 a month. I just want it to be clear that it isn't an inexpensive place to live. I've heard figures mentioned that are quite small.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much, Mr Ford. It's helped me very much to understand a bit more about the concerns faced by people in terms of this whole issue of the investment. While I'd heard about some of the concerns around maintenance and around sewage and that sort of thing, I hadn't really got the picture of how this equity you have is in danger of being diminished. I guess for many of the folks, that's their major thing they're hoping to leave as a legacy to their children and grandchildren.
Mr Ford: That's right.
Mrs Boyd: Is it your experience that if someone put, say, $100,000 equity into one of these homes, when they are deceased and the property is sold that it's sold at a considerable loss?
Mr Ford: Very considerable.
Mrs Boyd: Could you give me a ballpark figure? Are we talking about a 20% decrease?
Mr Ford: We're talking about up to a 60% decrease, I suspect.
Mrs Boyd: And when they're sold does that then change the nature of your community? Is that another one of your concerns?
Mr Ford: Not particularly, no. But some of them are -- as I've told my kids: "Dutch auction the thing. Don't hang on to it." The reason I say that is that at $500 a month, and some of our rents are over $600 a month, you're dropping $6,000 a year. I've said to the family, put it on the market at whatever you think the price is and drop it $1,000 a month until it moves.
The Chair: Mr Ford, your time has expired, but on behalf of the committee, I thank you for making your presentation this afternoon.
1420
PENNY MOORE
KIM CAMPBELL
The Chair: The next presenters are Penny Moore and Kim Campbell. I might say, Ms Campbell, you certainly will have the attention of the Tory members even before you say anything. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Penny Moore: Be patient with me. This is the first time I've done this to a big group like this.
The Chair: That's all right. It's the first time for some of the committee members too.
Ms Moore: I am a person who is in receipt of a disability pension, classed as permanently unemployable, receiving the maximum of $930 per month on FBA or family benefits. The monthly cheque is broken down by social assistance. The maximum allowable for shelter is $414. This is to pay rent, utilities such as hydro, gas and water and the other utilities. The balance of it is $516, which is called Gains. The balance of the cheque, $516, is for food, medication not covered by the Ontario drug benefit plan, known as ODB, co-payments for prescription medication, clothing, transportation, items needed for basic living such as salt and toilet paper and many other things needed for day-to-day living.
For a person to be eligible to receive any form of social assistance, the person must have and show proof of a permanent residence they are living at or in. If this bill gets approval that landlords are able to deny anyone by income, there will be more people living on the street and probably more crime, since if a person does not have a permanent residence and is forced to live on the streets, they become ineligible for social assistance. They then have to find other ways to obtain money to live on. Some may be lucky to find affordable housing, but it may not be suitable, such as housing where repairs are not done or that are infested with pests such as mice and cockroaches. They are classed as slums.
For a person with a disability or a medical condition who is forced into living in substandard housing, their health could deteriorate to the point where they need more health care costing more in government funds. With the government forcing the closing of psychiatric hospitals, especially in our area, both London and St Thomas, the mentally ill will be taken advantage of by offering substandard housing for them for higher rent, since there is nowhere else for them to go. They will be living on the streets.
Most people on social assistance go without a lot of things. A comment was made before about buying beer. Not all of us spend our money on beer and things that are luxuries. We go without such things as basic cable, where we may have only one or two channels to watch on TV, if we have a TV. Some can't afford a telephone, which, to a disabled person with a chronic medical condition, is a necessity to be able to call for help when needed, such as an ambulance for a severe asthmatic having an asthma attack, which can prove fatal. Also, people on low income, below the poverty line, can't afford proper clothing such as boots and coats during the winter. People have died from freezing in the streets or lying on the street. Try using a newspaper for a blanket to keep warm.
When Harris was elected as Premier, he cut funding to affordable housing projects such as co-ops that were in the process of being built, and on starting new projects. Each day there are people waiting for subsidized housing because there is no affordable housing suitable to their needs.
An example: A couple of years ago, I had to apply for an apartment to move out of Ontario housing because of fear for my safety and health. With the restrictions on parking, I cannot have somebody stay with me. If I became ill and had to go in the hospital, their car would be towed away. I applied for an apartment that was more than 30% of my income. On the application it asked the type of income I am receiving and how much. Because I liked the apartment and needed to move, I gave this information and a $200 deposit, which I was told was to reserve the apartment until my application was approved or denied -- I had to borrow it from friends and had to pay it back -- and would then be given back to me. I waited about three weeks after submitting the form. I called about four days after submitting. I was told they didn't hear anything. After three weeks I asked for my money back. They told me that I need a co-signer. I got a co-signer that had $40,000 a year and guaranteed that I was going to pay my rent. I was still turned down. I did some more investigation and found out that a person had applied for the apartment and, within the next day, he was approved because he was not in receipt of public assistance.
If this bill is passed, I fear for my safety, my health and my state of mind, that I will be forced on the street. I would not like to see anybody on the street. Please think about this bill.
Miss Kim Campbell: I find that being on a disability is very debilitating to me because of the funds I receive of $930. My budget consists of: Out of the $930, I'm allowed $414 for rent -- my rent right now is $522.96 per month; I have a phone, which is classified as a luxury, but when you have emphysema, COPD and also neurofibromatosis, which are all life-threatening, you need a phone and therefore, it's a cost of $30 for me; transit money to get back and forth to and from the doctor's four times a week, $56; medication not covered by my drug card, $124; the co-payments I have to pay because of the $2 structure fee, $80. On top of this, I also have insurance fees for my apartment of $25. This brings me to a total of $836.96 out of $930, which leaves me $92.04, to be exact, for food and any emergencies. I feel that if you put this bill through, it will further jeopardize me.
I'm having problems as it is right now, that my landlord is forcing me out because of my income, because of what I'm on. I've got an infestation of ants. Property standards have been involved, the Landlord and Tenant Act has been involved, a lawyer has been involved, and also the health board has been involved. The landlord refuses to do any repairs. He figures if he puts me out then he can get a "better quality of person" to live in that apartment, as I was told. This is discrimination, and if this bill goes through there will be further discrimination. I will end up being forced out on to the street because there is no other affordable housing. I've tried other buildings in my area that are lower in rent. I've been told: "Sorry, we don't take people on welfare. We don't take people on FBA. They're bums. Go to a section of town you're welcome in."
Ms Moore: I would like to add that the Tenant Protection Act says in subsection 200(3), "The right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation with discrimination is not infringed if a landlord uses in the manner prescribed under this act income information, credit checks, credit references, rental history, guarantees or other similar business practices which are prescribed in the regulations made under this act in selecting prospective tenants."
1430
How can it be determined equal treatment if a landlord can refuse by income or tenant history? What happens with some of the students who are looking for housing for the first time? They want to make a living. They don't want to depend on their parents. I've been through it and it's hard. I think if this bill goes through, there'll be more students living on the street trying to get an education and also taking more funds from government and trying to get a job, which they can't because they don't have the rent to get an apartment so they can go to school and get a good education for a job.
Mr Duncan: Thank you for coming forward today. I know it's difficult to appear in front of a body like this. Vulnerable people today, even under the existing regime and a regime that admittedly has never been perfect under a variety of governments of different political stripes, you still find yourself vulnerable and exposed to the whims of any particular landlord. Is it fair to say that you don't buy a case of beer all the time?
Miss Campbell: I do not drink at all. I'm allergic to alcohol.
Mr Duncan: Is it fair to say that most people who find themselves in your position would prefer not to be there?
Miss Campbell: I would prefer to be elsewhere other than where I am now due to the fact that the infestation I have and the problems I'm running into with my landlord deter my health. Due to the problems in the apartment, I'm having to go in and have half a lung removed.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for coming and being prepared to share with us the details of your circumstances. I think it's only when we get a human face with real experience that it helps us to understand a bit better how tough this is and how vulnerable people are. I think you're right. I believe this bill is going to increase that vulnerability. It already sounds as though it must feel very tenuous to be in the situation you're in.
Ms Moore: Also, our rents go up every year but our income has never gone up. I have an education as an RPN. I love my work but I can't work because of health, and because of this I may be forced on the street and maybe to death.
Mrs Boyd: It's very frightening and it's a very real aspect of this. I know it's hard to talk about.
Miss Campbell: I face the same thing. I'm a trained and licensed riding instructor, horse trainer and jockey. I'm used to getting $30, $35, $40 per hour. When I went on to disability pension because of my health, because they found out I had, as they call it, the "elephant man's disease," for which I undergo surgery every week, I feel very jeopardized where I am living now. I have done everything I can within my power, within legal rights, to have the landlord fix the property up and he just goes, "No, I'll wait till somebody better comes in." That's telling me that I'm a piece of garbage. I am not garbage. I am human. I have feelings. I have a heart and soul. I have a right to be heard. The only way I would be heard is by coming here today, stating my opinion and how I have to live, because nobody else really knows unless they're there and in my shoes. Nobody has walked like I have in my shoes, and plenty of times I have had to go to my mother and say: "Can you cook this food up for me? I have ants in my apartment and I cannot keep food."
Mrs Munro: I want to add my thanks to you for coming here today. As people have suggested, it's really important as a committee that we have this opportunity to speak directly to people. I want to assure you both that the question of discrimination is one about which this government feels very strongly and that the need for human rights is as important today as it ever has been. Certainly there is that commitment to deal with these issues. As you pointed out, clearly the kind of experience you've had demonstrates the fact that regardless, there still exists discrimination.
I want to point out to you, because your comments centre around section 200, that there is nothing in there that relates to the 30%. I think it's extremely important to understand that if it has been used by landlords, it is certainly not within the legislative framework.
The other thing about it is that I'd like to have your comment on what is appropriate for a landlord to ask. I certainly have heard deputations by women who come to this situation and have no rental history, don't have a credit rating. You've mentioned for instance young adults, someone who may not have these things. What do you think is appropriate then for a landlord to ask?
Ms Moore: It's hard to say, because some people do not have family there that can back them up. Some people have just got out of high school. It's hard to say what the landlord can ask, but make it fair. Talk with the person. Get to know we're not a piece of garbage. If you respect us, we'll respect you.
Even though the 30% rule hasn't been written in law, landlords have used it for years. I've been out on my own for about 17 years. I've been in Ottawa; I've been in London in several places. I was denied this one apartment. I went into an apartment and I only lived there five months because I had no heat during the winter. I asked the landlord to come and fix it. He said, "It costs too much." I ended up being sick and in the hospital and almost in intensive care because I have severe asthma and he didn't think it was necessary to have heat.
The Chair: Unfortunately, we have run out of time. I thank you for coming and making your comments to the committee.
Ms Moore: I hope it helps.
Miss Campbell: I hope it helps. Have a good day.
UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA
The Chair: The next presenter is Susan Eagle of the United Church of Canada. Good afternoon, Ms Eagle.
Rev Susan Eagle: I'd like to begin by introducing myself. I'm a United Church minister here in the city of London. I also work in an outreach ministry for the East London United Church outreach cluster. It's in that capacity that I want to speak to you today.
I know that earlier today you heard from Neighbourhood Legal Services, which provided you with a fair overview of technical details and legal issues related to Bill 96. I would like to elaborate on that in terms of the context in which those legal agreements take place between landlords and tenants.
It seems to me that we need to look at housing from the perspective that it is not a want but a need and therefore we have people who have to acquire housing no matter what their income.
The context in which tenants often look for housing is a context of need, vulnerability and political imbalance, and I mean political in terms of the small "p," a sense of not having the same kind of power as others may have.
The United Church has for a long time taken the position that housing is an important issue for people in terms of stability for their lifestyle, that it affects them emotionally and spiritually and psychologically as well as physically. As well, the United Church has for many years taken a position around equity in relationships and the importance of justice when people are in a negotiated relationship.
As such, when I look at Bill 96, I see that there is an erosion of what little security tenants have now and an increase in insecurity around protection, around affordability and around maintenance issues.
I'd like to go through several areas of the bill that I have identified. Because time is short, I'm only going to pick some of those areas.
The issue of affordability: the loss of rent control for tenants moving for the first time into a rental unit, and I'm sure that many other speakers ahead of me have identified the problems connected with that. Not only is it rent increases for new tenants but rent deemed lawful after a year, illegal rents, a one-year time limit for tenants to take action.
1440
In this particular area I have personal experience as an outreach worker at the Cheyenne Apartments here in the city of London. It was after tenants who did not speak English had lived there for three or four years that we were able, first of all, to discover that they were paying illegal rents because of the language barrier, and then able to pull together the kind of documentation and information that was necessary for us to proceed with an application around ascertaining the proper rents. A one-year time limit would have made it impossible for those tenants to have justice.
There's a reference to the repayment of illegal rents in section 134, but it does not say in the bill whether the tenant would be provided interest on rent paid that they shouldn't have paid or whether any of their costs would be covered. I don't think it's anticipated in the bill that their costs would be covered, yet it is a cost for them, as it was at Cheyenne when they tried to get legal rents set.
I never lose a chance in front of any housing committee any government has to raise the issue that I think there should be a licence for landlords and that that licence should be revoked whenever a landlord is not performing their job as a landlord properly. We license elevators. Why wouldn't we license housing?
Around maintenance, the other issue I'd like to raise is intimidation of tenants. That's a very real experience in the community. I don't care what you put down in black and white on a piece of paper around the rights of tenants; intimidation of tenants is a very real thing and it goes on in this community every single day. That's not to say that all landlords are bad. In fact, we have very many good landlords. But again, if you remember the context in which I mentioned that poor tenants are often negotiating out of a position of powerlessness, it's not the affluent tenants who have the problem of intimidation; it's the poor tenants, and those are the ones I work with. This bill covers all tenants and it needs to take extra care to look at the vulnerability of impoverished tenants as they try to deal with maintenance issues and feel the intimidation of a landlord.
On security of tenure, I know that many folks have already raised the issue of the revision of the Human Rights Code, which would allow further discrimination around salary or income levels for tenants. I'm going to pass that on because I know that's been addressed by others.
There's another section in the bill, subsection 8(5), which talks about tenants not paying rent until they have received a copy of the lease, if there is a written lease, and that at such time as they receive the written lease, they are to provide any rent they have been able to withhold up to that point.
My question is, is there any time limit on how long it takes the landlord to provide that written lease? Also, why isn't a written lease required? Very often, when I've tried to sit down with tenants and sort through with them what agreement they have with the landlord if there's not a written lease, it is very confusing for them to understand what they agreed to, what they're supposed to be paying, what other conditions they've agreed to and the difficulties they have then in trying to unravel that. It's very difficult for someone who is trying to give them support to assist them in that.
Landlord access to tenant's unit: Bill 96 creates an atmosphere of access to tenants' space. There's emergency, repair and purchase. As access, those are acceptable, but consent -- "if the tenant consents to the entry at the time of entry." You're talking about tenants who may be quite intimidated.
Termination: if "one of them has given notice of termination to the other." I know the legal clinic brief also looks at the weaknesses of that.
There's another part in the act that says for whatever "other...reason for entry specified in the tenancy agreement." I'm certainly hoping that someone from the government side can give me an example of "whatever other...reason for entry" could be specified in a tenancy agreement. It seems to me that leaves the door wide open for all kinds of access.
Landlord access to tenant property: If "the tenant has vacated or abandoned," after 30 days the landlord has access to the tenant's property for personal use or sale. The tenant is to be paid minus the landlord's costs if within six months the tenant decides to ask for his or her valuables back. By whose calculation are the landlord's costs assessed? That's not made clear in the bill, but I also have a problem with the whole idea that the landlord can move in and access the tenant's personal belongings.
Resolution of disputes, landlord-tenant agreements to vacate: The tribunal can simply move on a landlord's coming in and swearing a statement saying that the tenant agreed to vacate, and hasn't. I think that's open to a huge amount of abuse, especially where you have an imbalance in the relationship between landlord and tenant.
The membership of the tribunal: I have some questions about whether or not there will be balance of landlord and tenant sensitivity for those who are on the tribunal. What kind of tenant experience will be expected of those who serve on the tribunal? Will there be an independent selection process? The tribunal is supposed to give notice to tenants and information to landlords and tenants. It is not made clear in the bill how this will be done. How will tenants be educated and kept informed?
Fees: Section 159 refers to fees for applications, forms, notices etc or "for other services." Are impoverished tenants who live on maybe $500 a month going to be asked to pay fees to access a justice system around their housing?
Mediation: I've taken training in mediation. I know that certain criteria must be in place for mediation to be effective. It presumes that you can create a balance in the relationship between those who are being mediated so that there can be something that is negotiated. How does the bill anticipate that mediation can proceed in a way in which power and balances are addressed? Will the tenant have an option of mediation or an option not to have mediation? How will their right of due process to perhaps go to court be protected? Will there be impartiality or independence of mediators?
I'm at a point where I wanted to say some good things about the bill. I don't know if I've got any more time.
There is the section that requires landlords to maintain their property in a good state of repair that I can affirm; that the landlord is not to "harass, obstruct or coerce" tenants, section 27, I can affirm. The power of the tribunal to authorize repairs: Historically it has been a great difficulty for us, in dealing with slum housing in this city, to get repairs done, so I can affirm that part of the act.
The vital services, section 136: Again our experience of trying to protect vital services for tenants in the community was very difficult and we had to have a private act that will then allow the city to pass a bylaw here for the Vital Services Act. I can support that, although I know that immediately after the city's passing a bylaw for vital services in this city, some of our worst slum landlords moved to sever the hydro from the rent so that the tenants had to pay the hydro themselves. In my personal opinion, the tenants were never compensated for the loss of hydro in their rent.
Something I can also affirm is the concept that the tribunal may view the premises. I think there are a number of places that it would be very educational for tribunal members to go and visit and see what kinds of conditions people have to live in.
Finally, I believe there's a need for written leases with tenant copies, a need for inspection forms when tenants move in. That's not even addressed in the bill. There is a need for rent control to protect tenancies, and I believe seniors and those on fixed incomes are most vulnerable when you take that away. I don't believe there should be a change in the Human Rights Code, and tenants must be able to access the tribunal without the deterrent of cost.
That's my submission.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Eagle. We have some questions, I'm sure.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much, Susan, for speaking out of your strong experience with the kinds of problems the most vulnerable tenants often run into. I would certainly agree with you that the real concern here has to be about the most vulnerable tenant. Many of these provisions are much less frightening if people can balance off the power of their landlord with the power of their dollar. It's people who don't have that power of their dollar who are most vulnerable and those are the ones we're most concerned about.
In the whole realm of things, can you tell us what you're most concerned about that creates a greater imbalance of power? Is it this issue of the discriminatory function around income or is it really the combination in the context of all the other things that have happened to the poor and vulnerable as a result of the policies of the government?
Ms Eagle: It's difficult to pinpoint any one thing out of the list I've given you. I was trying to pare it down so I had a manageable list, but I think it is the culmination. It's tenants knowing that when they go to see a landlord, first of all the rent may be jacked up, that they may have to take poor housing conditions as a tradeoff for affordable housing, that they may be turned away, that they may have to find co-signers etc.
Right now what's happening in this community is that landlords make deals with tenants. I can name a landlord in this city who jacks up the rent by $100 and then knocks $50 off if you don't complain about the conditions. But he also says you can pay your last month's rent over a period of time, and the tenant says, "Gee, that's the best deal I'm going to get." So they're actually paying over the legal rent, but because there are those other concessions by the landlord, they're prepared to accept illegal rents and do not complain about the conditions of the housing. They are also not prepared to complain because they don't dare. If they complain, they might lose some of those other benefits the landlord has made available to them, such as paying their last month's rent over a period of time, and they're scared about jeopardizing that relationship.
1450
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you for coming. I worked with the disadvantaged and the disabled in my community as well and some of the concerns that you have addressed are valid in each community. You spoke about equity, and you didn't say the word, but I would assume that in your position as a minister within your church you would want fairness as well. Have you spoken to landlords as well? You're advocating on behalf of tenants, and I can appreciate that. Have you spoken to landlords in your community with respect to what their concerns are? As you know, landlords aren't happy with this bill; neither are the tenants. Even though some might disagree, we've tried to find a balance, where that balance is. Have you spoken to landlords in your community with respect to the disadvantaged and what they're willing to do? Actually in your community what is their feedback?
Ms Eagle: I have spoken to landlords in this city. In fact, I chair the city's housing advisory committee, which is composed of many different sectors of the community. In fact because there are so many different sectors represented on the housing advisory committee, they were unable to come up with a position on Bill 96 in order to come and address this committee. So we do hear from landlords, as well as from tenant groups.
My experience in this city has always been that the good landlords are prepared to do a lot for their tenants, yet you have slum landlords who are prepared to use every loophole that it is possible for them to go through to maximize their dollar and basically to let tenants hang.
Yes, there are bad tenants. Nobody's going to say that there aren't bad tenants. There's always a tenant from hell somewhere who is conjured in somebody's mind and they say this bill will address that need. In fact I don't think it will, but I think what it will do is penalize a lot of other tenants who are just struggling day to day and are just really scared about whether or not they're going to pay the rent and feed their kids.
Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. Would it be proper then to paraphrase what you've said to us today as, first, you believe this bill will decrease the supply of affordable units from a broader perspective and, second, you concur with a number of the amendments that were proposed earlier by the Neighbourhood Legal Services with respect to aspects of the bill? Would it be fair to paraphrase what you've presented to us that way?
Ms Eagle: Yes, it would.
The Chair: Thank you very much for coming.
ST MONICA HOUSE
The Chair: The next presenters are from St Monica House, Bobbi Bryx, Linda Robson and Melinda McCooeye. Good afternoon. You may proceed when ready.
Ms Bobbi Bryx: Thank you for the opportunity to present concerns regarding part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act and the proposed Tenant Protection Act on behalf of St Monica House.
Let me introduce our team. Melinda has been a resident at Monica-Ainslie Place with her son, Austin, since 1996. Austin is 13 months old. Linda Robson is a housing assistant working at Monica-Ainslie Place. My name is Bobbi Bryx and I work in the position of finance and administrative assistant. Since none of us is an experienced speaker, we appreciate your patience. As you have noticed, English is not my first language. Please do not hesitate to interrupt in case I am not expressing myself clearly.
I will briefly outline the objectives and background of St Monica House and Monica-Ainslie Place. Linda will provide you with some examples of actual incidents which happened at Monica-Ainslie Place, prior to the Residents' Rights Act and after, which illustrate our concerns. Most importantly, Melinda will share with you some of the frustrations and fears of young single moms living at Monica-Ainslie Place. We have also prepared a submission in writing which describes our concerns in greater detail. We plan to leave some minutes at the end of the time allocated for our presentation in case you have any questions.
St Monica House opened in 1968 as a maternity home for pregnant adolescents in Waterloo. St Monica House is a charitable organization which operates on a not-for-profit basis. Our second location, Monica-Ainslie Place in Cambridge, opened in 1992. Over a 29-year period our services have expanded to include programs for single mothers and their children. We serve annually around 300 single pregnant women, young mothers and their children.
Being a first-time parent is never easy, less so for a young person who is often alone and without emotional support and financial resources. It is almost overwhelming. St Monica House is here to help. We provide a residential program for pregnant young women, new mothers and their children. Our programs focus on various concerns, including health and safety, nutrition, drug awareness, parenting and life skills, decision-making and problem-solving. We have an accredited school program operated by the Waterloo County Board of Education. We strongly believe that education and psychological support are important ways to help our clients and their children on their way to independence and a safe life as respected citizens in our communities.
Monica-Ainslie Place is a building constructed with close cooperation among the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the board of directors of St Monica House. The apartment building consists of 15 small furnished two-bedroom apartments, a resource room and a nursery. The building was constructed for the purpose of supporting single young mothers and their children. The average age of the residents in the building is only around 17.
Clients are encouraged to develop independent lives as they gain confidence in their ability to live on their own. We are primarily a provider of services, but we recognize that our clients need safe and secure housing for themselves and their children in order to benefit from our services and to be responsible parents.
We have four main concerns with part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act and the proposed Tenant Protection Act. They are:
First, current exemptions from the Landlord and Tenant Act. Our concern is the exemption currently defined as for the sole purpose of providing therapeutic and rehabilitate services if the average length of occupancy is less than six months. Six months' limitation is not appropriate, as most programs cannot have a real influence upon residents within such a short period of time. The Tenant Protection Act improves the scope of this exemption, including increasing the minimum length of occupancy to one year. However, it still refers to "therapeutic and rehabilitative" services, which do not have a clear legal definition and are often a matter of subjective interpretation.
Our recommendation is to replace the words "rehabilitative or therapeutic services" with the words "care services."
1500
Our second concern is visitors. St Monica House has currently very limited rights to restrict access to premises by visitors to Monica-Ainslie Place. Visitors often represent an external threat to the residents and can seriously disrupt life in the building. The client population we serve is extremely vulnerable, particularly as there is at least one infant or toddler and a young woman in each apartment.
Our recommendation is that a provider of care services in a care home ought to be entitled to restrict the time and circumstances visitors are permitted in the building and must be entitled to prohibit certain individuals from entering the building.
Our third concern is around eviction, because the current eviction procedure under the Landlord and Tenant Act is too lengthy and complicated to evict a resident whose lifestyle or whose visitors threaten the safety and security of other residents.
Our recommendation is to introduce a fast-track eviction process for the operators of a care home when a tenant in default is thought to be a threat to other tenants or staff of the landlord. In the alternative, an interim removal process along the lines suggested by the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association would be appropriate as per recommendation 23 of the June 15, 1997 submissions.
Our fourth concern is program attendance. Since Monica-Ainslie Place programs are the essential reason for living there, we would like to be able to evict those residents who have no intention of taking advantage of offered programs. The housing offered by Monica-Ainslie Place is very scarce. We believe the grounds for termination should be expanded to address the unique circumstances of our supportive housing arrangement. The demand far exceeds our ability to provide service and, as such, we must prioritize applicants. The various programs offered at Monica-Ainslie Place form the foundation of our care services and our inability to implement consequences for not participating in the programs negatively impacts the motivation of others to attend groups and/or the overall benefits to those who do attend. The description of our programs is in the written submission.
Allowing us to evict in this circumstance also creates an opportunity for other young women and their children to find a home that would not otherwise be available. Our recommendation is that the Tenant Protection Act must stipulate that the operator of the care home is entitled to evict a tenant who no longer requires or does not wish to participate in the program of services administered within the care home. In the alternative, the approach suggested by the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association may be appropriate as per their recommendation 19 of the June 15, 1997 submissions.
Linda, maybe you can provide the committee with some real incidents you have experienced during working at Monica-Ainslie Place.
Ms Linda Robson: I have been working at Monica-Ainslie Place since its opening in August 1992. I have experienced administration of the project before Bill 120, when we were exempt from the Landlord and Tenant Act, and our present operation under the act.
Before Bill 120, we had a situation when one resident who was on probation for drug abuse had a regular male visitor who was suspected of providing and selling drugs to various clients in the building. This situation constituted a huge problem for the building as some of our clients have a history of substance abuse. Further, this visitor and his accomplices intended to organize a prostitution ring where some of the clients would be driven to Toronto and paid for their services in drugs. We cooperated closely with the police department. After various counselling sessions with the resident, she was given a last chance to break up with her boyfriend and to stay away from the drugs. She knew that if she breached the contract, she would have to move out, and that's what happened. She left the building within three days of the last incident. She received support from our staff during these three days, and alternative accommodation for her and her son had been arranged in cooperation with her social worker.
The current prescribed process of eviction under the Landlord and Tenant Act -- mainly its length -- would have had extremely damaging results on all of Monica-Ainslie Place. We have learned in the five-year history of Monica-Ainslie Place that our program either is very much appreciated by our residents and they are sad when moving out -- and many of the past residents still keep in touch -- or our young residents do not want anything but housing and they are not willing to adapt and change their lifestyle.
Now I will be talking about the incident which happened after the Residents' Rights Act was introduced. One 16-year-old tenant befriended a group of very young males without a fixed address. She was letting them into her second-storey apartment window and they were terrorizing other tenants at all hours. They were living off the resident's family allowance, creating serious budgeting problems, leading to malnutrition of her infant son. It is of note that during this time period, a VCR and television intended for the use of tenants was stolen from the resource centre.
We had numerous meetings with the resident. We had tenant meetings where other tenants were expressing their discontent with the behaviour of her and her so-called friends. Family and children's services was involved. It took us over three months of intense work to have the resident move out after her baby had been apprehended by family and children's services. Our human resources are very limited and this incident preoccupied our staff, compromising other programs.
Now, Melinda, you might want to share with the committee some of your comments and concerns.
Ms Melinda McCooeye: The climate of everyday life at Monica-Ainslie Place can dramatically change with a new tenant or a new boyfriend or a new group of friends. While some tenants are working hard, learning as much as possible, finishing high school and planning their and their child's future, others do not do anything but party. It is so awful when they bring to the house anybody they meet in a bar or their visitors wake up the whole house at night, when you can smell drugs from their apartments, hear screaming, loud music, or when an unpleasant odour is coming out of their apartment due to lack of care. We have a system of written complaints but it is frustrating when we submit a signed complaint and staff is telling us that the process of eviction is so lengthy or that they simply do not have the right to stop someone from doing something that destroys my right to a peaceful and safe environment. I would like to tell you about one example.
Not long ago there was a boyfriend who we knew was a drug dealer. Some tenants overheard him doing drug deals over the phone on the main floor in the building. He threatened several tenants by saying he would break their legs if they reported his actions. Tenants asked the staff to prevent him from entering the building because we were afraid. In addition, he was abusing his girlfriend and her child. We tried to talk some sense into her but she would not listen. Staff served him with a trespassing notice prohibiting him from entering the building, but we knew that his girlfriend was leaving the side door open for him and was sneaking him in during the night. People who saw him were terrified to call the police because of his revenge. It took a long time but staff convinced the tenant that Monica-Ainslie Place was not for her or her lifestyle and finally, to everybody's relief, she moved out.
We were blaming staff for not caring enough until they explained to us the legal aspects of the eviction.
1510
It is very hard for me and the other residents to make a life for ourselves and our children. We do not want to be dependent and we want our children to have a better life. I really appreciate that Monica-Ainslie Place is available to me and other young women. However, I am really worried that even though public money and volunteer effort go into making Monica-Ainslie Place a home for us, the law does not give St Monica House the power to make sure that our rights are protected.
I and the other residents who want the help that St Monica House offers have the right to a safe and peaceful place to live. That is the purpose of St Monica House. I am asking you to change this law to make sure it will happen.
Ms Bryx: Before the end of our presentation, I want to stress that Monica-Ainslie Place is a partnership of volunteer time, public money and committed professional service providers who can work to improve the lives of the young women and the children we serve. However, this partnership cannot succeed unless we have the legal tools necessary to make our program work.
Monica-Ainslie Place is not an apartment building; it is a residential setting designed to implement a program of services. This program of services is the reason we exist and the reason we receive public money. We are asking that the government implement the changes we have suggested, because a balance only really exists if the rights of the individual tenant are properly balanced with the individual landlord and with the interests of the community of tenants within the building. An equitable balance can be struck only if the interests of all three parties are weighted.
I wish to express on behalf of St Monica House our appreciation for this opportunity to make this deputation and I invite any questions you might have.
The Chair: Thank you for coming. Thanks for bringing the fourth presenter too. The baby has livened the place up. We have time for one question and I will give that to Ms Boyd.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for coming to talk to us. As I think you know, when we put in the tenant protection, it was certainly alerted on behalf of the second-stage housing groups that there was this concern, and I think our party had made a real commitment that if experience showed that this was disruptive of the programs, that certainly wasn't the intention. I think you understand that our problem was trying to distinguish between your very specific needs in terms of that and the overall problem that people face in care homes, as identified by Ernie Lightman. It's a fine balance here.
My assumption is that what you'd really like to see is the kind of provision that is quite specific in terms of the kind of agreement you have with your residents and the kind of program that you offer.
Ms Bryx: Yes, that's true.
Mrs Boyd: Rather than the boarding-house situation that was so painfully outlined by Dr Lightman.
Ms Bryx: Yes. We have residents in Waterloo exempted from the Landlord and Tenant Act, and we have never taken eviction lightly. It's a policy which goes from direct care workers to case conference to the program supervisor to the program director up to the executive director and directors of the board. We are there to care for our clients, not to punish them. But unless clients themselves would like to be helped, there is no way to force them.
The Chair: Thank you for coming and making your presentation this afternoon.
Mr Duncan: Can I pose a question to the parliamentary assistant to the ministry at this time?
The Chair: I don't know where he is.
Mr Duncan: I can just place it and perhaps have it answered. The specific issue that was raised was a definitional issue and it related to clause 3(k). I will ask the ministry to give us a response to the issue that was raised on that definition. I went back to the definitions section in the act and we're talking about the difference between care service and therapeutic or rehabilitation service. If I could ask for the ministry to provide us with its opinion on that definition prior to clause-by-clause, that would be helpful.
LONDON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next presenter is the London Property Management Association, Brenda Trineer and Joe Hoffer. Good afternoon, sir.
Mr Joe Hoffer: Good afternoon, members of the committee. I'm Joe Hoffer and I'm appearing here today as a representative of the London Property Management Association. Brenda Trineer, president of LPMA, is seated to my left.
LPMA has a membership of nearly 300 landlords, property managers and other industry associates. The organization is 30 years old this year and is dedicated to the education of its members and to promoting professionalism within the landlord group in London and region. LPMA is also a member of the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, which is an umbrella industry group on behalf of landlords. LPMA participates with other regional landlord associations on issues such as a review of the proposed Tenant Protection Act. Because their members are so directly affected by this legislation, we thank you for the opportunity to come here today and make this presentation.
We're going to focus on those areas that LPMA has concerns with in the legislation, recognizing, and we'd like to at least express, that there are many positive aspects that we see with this legislation. But we're going to highlight a number of concerns for you at this point. The concerns can be divided into two groups. One is on the rent control side, the other is on the landlord and tenant side. I'll deal first with the rent control concerns.
The first deals with loss of maximum rent on tenant turnover. Those of you who have some familiarity with the London rental market will know that from a landlord's perspective London has one of the worst rental markets in the province. There are very high vacancy rates, there is ample supply of affordable rental housing and landlords are competing very aggressively with each other to secure tenants into their buildings.
This rental market is not the product of rent control legislation. This rental market is the product of economic and market forces, the laws of supply and demand and so on. In effect, London is a rental market that does not have rent controls. The submissions you've heard from other people about how this legislation is going to result in increased rents is a misrepresentation, in my submission, and anyone who studies the London market will learn that very quickly.
In any case, under the Tenant Protection Act, tenants entering into new leases with landlords are going to enjoy all the benefits of this soft rental market. They're going to have good rental incentives and they're going to rent at low rents. The problem that LPMA has with this legislation is that, once the tenants are in, they're subject to very strict rent controls and that depressed rent will remain that way as long as the tenant is in the unit. Any prospects for improvement in a recovering rental market are lost as far as those tenants are concerned. If the market is going up, those tenants will be less likely to vacate and so the landlord is in a position of having chronically depressed rents. That is a phenomenon that has been in this province for 20 years, particularly in the Toronto area.
For landlords, the decontrol-recontrol policy will frustrate the hope of any improvement. The only thing that would ameliorate that situation somewhat is if maximum rent continued to be a feature of this legislation. Because this legislation proposes to abolish maximum rent, there's no hope there.
What we're asking, particularly in light of the fact that landlords under the NDP legislation worked so hard to build their maximum rents, is that this committee recommend that maximum rent be preserved for all rental units not otherwise exempt from rent control so that landlords operating in depressed rental markets such as that in London are able to recover in future years, at least within the space given by their maximum rent.
Another area of great concern to London landlords is the rules which govern rehabilitation of existing rental housing stock. The rules set out in this legislation require a landlord to pay up to a three-month rent penalty if they want to make improvements to a building or repairs to a building which require vacant possession. They have to pay this rent penalty and they have to offer a right of first refusal to the displaced tenant to come back into the unit at the same rent that was there when they left.
1520
No landlord in their right mind is going to make these kind of improvements or renovations in the face of those policies. It's absurd. What we're asking is that the committee recommend that the proposed statutory rules governing renovation and repair where vacant possession is required be changed to ensure that landlords will not be penalized for undertaking such substantial investments.
The suggestion we've given to you in our written submission is that there be an expedited phase-in of the cost recovery for the expenditures that the landlords have incurred on those units, that part of the cost recovery include any rent penalty that you may deem appropriate and that the right of first refusal to the vacating tenant remains.
Another provision deals with a 4% cap on landlord and tenant agreements. LPMA is opposed to that 4% cap as a threshold. In situations where a landlord and a tenant agree to certain improvements and agree on the amount of rent increase that can be made, there should be no intervention by the government. There's no reason for it. The legislation contains ample consumer protection for sitting tenants in those negotiations and allows a cooling-off period. It provides for statutory notices and, in my submission, if a tenant wants and can afford those improvements, there should be no regulatory barrier to the tenant obtaining those improvements.
Another offensive feature of this legislation concerns an overlap between administrative offences and quasi-criminal offences. The classic example is the tenant harassment provision. Putting aside its vagueness, there is one provision in section 33 which allows the tribunal to impose up to a $10,000 administrative fine for a landlord who is found liable or guilty of an offence.
There is another section in the same legislation which for the same conduct will impose up to a $50,000 fine. That's double jeopardy. It has long been recognized in states which have a rule of law as being illegal and, in my submission, it's unnecessary. You can provide for adequate remedies to the tenant under the administrative provisions without imposing the fine. If a fine is thought appropriate and necessary, then you've got the quasi-criminal provisions in section 194 to impose that penalty. But the landlord should not be penalized under both sections for the same conduct.
LPMA fully supports the position taken by the Fair Rental Police Organization of Ontario with respect to the amendments which would allow landlords to use creditworthiness as a basis to assess tenants. The 30% rule that people have been touting is largely ignored. It's one factor. It's not 30%. It will vary depending on a lot of factors. But to suggest that landlords should not use creditworthiness as a basis for assessing prospective tenants is absurd, and I'd ask that you reject submissions that propose to do away with that provision.
Under the general heading of landlord and tenant issues there are three areas of concern.
The first deals with the provisions which water down the current requirement under the Landlord and Tenant Act for payment of rent arrears into court as a precondition of the hearing of a landlord and tenant dispute. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act today, our experience -- and this is with a small minority of tenants, believe me. It's not the tenant population generally -- but on those matters which go to a hearing tenants avail themselves consistently and the word gets out among that group that the way to really save yourself a lot of money is: File a dispute, don't pay the arrears into court, delay the process as long as you can. The landlord will get a judgement after three or four months, but so what? He can't collect. He can't do anything about that judgement.
Landlords, on the other hand, want to stop the bleeding. They want to deal with the process as quickly as possible and they want those arrears paid in. The existing provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act are working well in requiring that tenants pay the arrears into court before a dispute will be heard. This statute proposes to water that down, and we're asking that this committee recommend to the Legislature that the existing provisions of part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act be incorporated into the Tenant Protection Act so that tenants are required to pay arrears into court pending a hearing.
A second area of concern involves the proposal in the Tenant Protection Act which would allow the tribunal to stay indefinitely the enforcement of an eviction order. Our experience has shown that where that power exists it will be used and if an eviction order is stayed indefinitely, then that means the tenant can stay in the unit, they can pay their arrears into court or into the tribunal any time before the eviction takes effect and then they're able to stay there until the next time they go into arrears.
We're asking that there be a limitation with a maximum of 30 days within which the eviction order can be processed and that you not give to the tribunal the discretion to extend that amount indefinitely.
The third area under landlord and tenant concerns involves the tribunal. I am sure you've heard these concerns before. We just wish to reiterate that it is particularly important if the tribunal is to be effective that it be perceived as fast, fair and impartial. In order for that to occur, we believe there has to be a rigorous recruitment and training process before this tribunal takes up its functions under this legislation.
We also ask this committee to recommend that the TPA be amended to ensure that all decisions of the tribunal be based on the true merits and justice of the case. Right now, if we go in front of a judge on a Landlord and Tenant Act matter the judge has that discretion. That's being taken away in this proposed legislation. We ask that it be put back into the legislation so that where there are circumstances which aren't caught squarely by the legislation -- and those circumstances will occur -- then the tribunal will have the flexibility to deal with those issues in a fair and fast manner.
Those are the submissions we wish to make. Those are our concerns. If there is time, both of us would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr Duncan: Thank you very much for your presentation. It will be most helpful when we go to clause-by-clause and start looking at some amendments.
One very brief point and one question: The chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission in his presentation to the committee did not suggest that landlords -- I'm not going to use a double negative -- was not suggesting that landlords shouldn't have the ability to do credit checks. He was referencing specifically income source. The amendments that the official opposition will bring forward will reflect that position as well as other normal business practices that will be prescribed in the regulations in terms of checking into background.
I wanted to ask you a broader question, because a number of the issues you've raised have been well documented by FRPO and other landlords who have appeared before the committee. Because the London market is different from other markets -- and I'm given to understand that it's a difficult market to be in as a landlord in some instances -- the question I have, and I'm not trying to be argumentative here, is that the market is functioning under a rent control system in the manner of a free market. You've acknowledged that. Other landlords have suggested that rent control systems take away a free market. I am having trouble reconciling those views that have been put forward.
We see in a system like London -- and there are other communities: landlords in my own community of Windsor have put the very same case to me -- that we're not at maximum rents. I wonder if you could take a moment to expound on your views on that. I'm sorry I'm not being more precise. It's sort of a general question, but I'd like to hear your views on that.
Mr Hoffer: I think I understand it. I think you're asking me to reconcile the two perspectives that have been given to you. First of all, let me point out that London is like many other rental markets outside the Toronto area. The perception by the London landlords and many other landlords in other communities -- and we converse with them and consult with them -- is that this legislation is primarily targeted at the Toronto market, but because it's provincial legislation we all have to go along with it.
In terms of reconciling those two positions, it may be clearer if you have an opportunity to review my paper more closely, but essentially a landlord is by nature I think optimistic, like any other investors. They're hoping for improvements down the line. Today in London a landlord is going to rent well below any controls that have been put on by rent control.
The landlord is optimistic. There's a sense of hope for the future that some day maybe things will improve and that their investment will ultimately prove to be beneficial.
1530
Without rent controls, that hope would stay alive. With rent controls, especially these rent controls, that hope is gone because the tenant comes in, the maximum increase is 3%; forget about it. There's no prospect of recovering it in a depressed market. I think that partially reconciles the two positions you're concerned about.
The only other area I can think of is where you have a building that has historically chronically depressed rents. That is a small minority of buildings, but there, obviously, as long as rent controls continue to stay on, the landlord has no opportunity to really do anything to ameliorate the situation. For those landlords, and it's a very small minority, this legislation actually will be beneficial because when the unit does become vacant, at least they'll have the opportunity to catch up. Without rent controls at all, they could take advantage of that opportunity.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you for your presentation. This issue around maximum rents is one that obviously is going to be of concern. It was in the legislation that our government passed particularly because of the very strong representations that had been made about the need to deal with that if indeed the economy recovered to that extent.
I was interested in what you had to say about the tribunal. I just want to make sure I'm clear on the point that you were making. The "fast, fair and impartial" I think everybody wants, and we've heard that from most of the speakers. But I think I also heard you say that you want them to have quasi-judicial power in terms of fact-finding. Is that correct?
Mr Hoffer: Yes.
Mrs Boyd: That's the first time I've heard that stated quite as succinctly. I agree with you. I think that's a necessary part of the function. One of the concerns people have expressed about it being taken out of the court system is that the fact-finding ability might not be there for the tribunal, so I think that's a good point.
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): Thank you for the presentation. You spoke of the high vacancy rate in this area, but regardless of the situation, wherever that would occur in the province, certainly market conditions dictate the cost of apartments, right?
Mr Hoffer: Yes.
Mr Danford: Without exception. Any individual, regardless of their financial situation, could actually have the opportunity to have a higher level of accommodation at a lesser cost, regardless of where it is in Ontario. You'd agree with that, I presume.
Mr Hoffer: It opens the door for a higher quality of accommodation at a lower cost.
Mr Danford: The other point I'd like to make is that we talked about the tribunal and Mrs Boyd already mentioned some points. One of the other things that has been mentioned to us is that certainly the tribunal should represent geographically and not cause a problem that tenants or landlords have to travel a long distance. Would you agree with that principle?
Mr Hoffer: Absolutely. These concerns that I've listed aren't exhaustive, but it's very important that tenants and landlords have full access. If a single mother has to commute in order to go to the place to have a hearing, that person is not going to be able to go there, and before long it's a systemic problem that will have to be changed. That means more funding, more staff. Let's deal with it up front, recognize it, and solve the problem before it arises.
Mrs Munro: You made reference to the need for landlords to have information in order to make the assessment on the issue of a particular tenant's ability. Certainly this has caused a great deal of discussion within the hearings at this point. People have talked about credit rating and tenant history, as well as income.
I wonder if you see any kind of priority of one piece of information over another, given that there are circumstances where an individual may not have either a credit rating or a tenant history. Many people have raised the issue of their experience under the current legislation, which appears to allow for discrimination.
Mr Hoffer: People who don't have any credit history don't pose nearly the problem for landlords that people who have credit histories do. It's when you see a series of judgements on a credit report and people clearly having financial difficulties and also wanting to pay 60% of their income towards rent that flags go up naturally, for the landlord and they'll be likely to reject that person in favour of someone who has a better credit history.
I wouldn't say that the lack of a credit history has a large bearing. It's a significant factor if you're dealing with young people. That's inevitable, because what else are you going to use to determine whether this person is going to pay? But typically that's resolved through asking for guarantors or something of that sort.
The real experience is that if someone is working, they have a job, they don't have a bunch of judgements outstanding against them, it's most unlikely that a landlord, particularly in this market, is going to have any problems with them.
The Chair: Mr Hoffer, Ms Trineer, unfortunately your time has expired, but we thank you for coming.
LONDON COORDINATING COMMITTEE TO END WOMAN ABUSE
The Chair: The next presenters are the London Coordinating Committee to End Woman Abuse, Megan Walker and Laura Kovacic. Good afternoon. You may proceed.
Ms Megan Walker: My name is Megan Walker and I'm joined by Laura Kovacic on behalf of the London Coordinating Committee to End Woman Abuse. We're here to express concern with respect to Bill 96.
Specifically, the London coordinating committee recommends the following:
(1) Delete "income information" from section 200 of the bill. Section 200 would amend Ontario's Human Rights Code to allow landlords to refuse to rent to individuals on social assistance and other disadvantaged groups on the basis of income information.
(2) Amend section 200 to clarify that absence of credit records, credit references or landlord references would not be used to disqualify prospective tenants such as abused women whose records and references are in an abusive partner's name.
(3) Delete section 36 from the bill. Section 36 places the same provision into the Tenant Protection Act as section 200 places in the Human Rights Code. Adding this provision to the Tenant Protection Act is redundant and raises questions as to whether it would even be enforceable.
The London Coordinating Committee to End Woman Abuse is a network of organizations, groups and individuals in London dedicated to ending woman abuse through leadership and actions that achieve social justice for women. The London coordinating committee believes in a feminist approach to woman abuse. A feminist approach acknowledges that we live in a world where sexist ideas, attitudes and structures give rise to discrimination, violence and oppression of women. Ending sexism, along with other forms of oppression, requires that we all challenge abuses of power in individual and family situations, as well as within political, economic and structural systems. The London coordinating committee believes society promotes a fundamental inequity between men and women and that it is this inequity that leads to the abuse and oppression of women.
Section 200 of Bill 96 will further deepen this inequity by placing women, and more specifically women who are victims of violence, in an extremely disadvantaged position in terms of their ability to secure affordable housing.
Section 200 essentially authorizes the use of minimum income criteria in tenant selection. Current data illustrate that if the most common form of income criteria, the 30% rent-to-income ratio, was applied universally by landlords, women would be the hardest hit. Specifically, 92% of young, unattached women, 82% of young mothers, 51 % of single mothers and 50% of single women would be disqualified from affordable accommodation. The potentially disastrous impact on women by authorizing the discriminatory use of income information should not be surprising. As a group, women in Canada are disproportionately poor.
By reducing the ability of women to access affordable accommodation, section 200 of Bill 96 will create a situation where low-income women are forced into homelessness or, alternately, into inadequate housing at inflated rents. Section 200, if implemented, will force women to remain in life-threatening situations. It will create one more barrier to safety for women who are facing violence from a partner. With affordable housing options so greatly reduced, women in these situations may have no alternative but to remain living in a dangerous environment.
1540
The Ontario government recently released a document entitled Prevention of Violence Against Women: It's Everyone's Responsibility. The Honourable Dianne Cunningham, minister responsible for women's issues, states in the document that "Preventing violence against women and their children is a key priority for this government."
Now is the time for this government to prove that preventing violence against women and children is indeed a priority. Eliminate any reference to income information in Bill 96. Show the women and men of Ontario that this government is actually going to do something to prevent violence against women and their children.
Home sweet home. To abused women, home is anything but sweet. It is not the safe haven that home should be. It is a prison. Abused women are sentenced to a life where they are maligned, humiliated, shunned, screamed at, pushed, kicked, punched, assaulted, beaten, raped, disfigured, and tortured. Some are given a death sentence, murdered by a partner they are taught to respect.
Picture in your minds for a moment an abused woman: a woman who for years has lived in fear, a woman who finally finds the courage to leave her abusive partner. She has no money. Her only choice is to depend on social assistance. She's learned to be very good at budgeting money. Of course, she's had to. Her abusive partner never gave her what she needed to feed or clothe her children, but she survived, barely. She understands the importance of paying her rent. To her, rent equates freedom, her highest priority. She knows better than anyone that failure to pay rent means being sent back to a life with her abuser. That's not a life; that's merely an existence.
Section 200 of Bill 96 doesn't give her the chance to pay rent. She's been disqualified before she even gets to the starting gate. Section 200 denies her freedom from her own prison where she has received a sentence for the crime of being a woman.
One in four women experiences abuse by an intimate partner. These women are not strangers. They are our mothers, our sisters and our daughters. They are our friends and our colleagues. These women, those we know, those we may some day know, and those we continue to hear about, will suffer most if Bill 96 is passed as written.
There are many barriers that exist between women, particularly women facing violence, and access to decent, affordable housing. Bill 96 is just one barrier of many making their difficult circumstances significantly worse. Bill 96 is one barrier which can be easily removed.
On behalf of the London coordinating committee, I urge this government to take a proactive step in helping to end woman abuse. Delete section 36 in its entirety. Remove any reference to income information from section 200. Amend section 200 to clarify that absence of credit records, credit references or landlord references will not be used to disqualify prospective tenants such as women whose records and references are in an abusive partner's name. Do your part. The responsibility is yours.
We are happy to answer any questions and circulate our brief.
Mrs Boyd: May I ask how much time there is for questions, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Among he caucuses, 10 minutes.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for your brief. You certainly put very clearly the issues around the income issues. Also, I don't think we've heard today the same concern about the problem when someone is leaving an abusive home and all of the credit checks would be tied to that abusive partner, so it's very helpful to get that picture.
I want to ask you a little bit about some of the security issues in this bill, because this bill allows a lot of access by landlords into tenants' property and forfeiture of tenants' property. There has been some real concern that when people are vulnerable in the way that abused women are vulnerable, it may make them even more vulnerable to a landlord than they may have been to their previous abuser. Would you care to comment on that?
Ms Walker: That's a very real concern to the coordinating committee. I'll comment first and, Laura, you may want to respond as well.
Women who leave abusive relationships have often come out of that relationship in complete isolation. They have had no contact with any friend or family member. They have had no opportunity to make decisions on their own. It is a huge leap and requires a tremendous amount of courage and bravery on the part of an abused woman to leave that relationship.
To have a stranger who has the ability to enter her residence, which she is now trying to make into a safe haven for herself, is absolutely appalling and may be the one issue that would keep a woman at home in an abusive relationship. It creates yet another barrier to women's safety.
Oftentimes, because as a society we don't recognize woman abuse as the criminal act that it is, and because so many individuals in society fail to understand the issue, we feel as a coordinating committee that that provision will even allow the landlord to allow the abusive partner access to that apartment, which creates tremendous problems. There was a document recently released called Woman Killing, which was done through a number of different agencies, including the coroner's office. It indicated that an abused woman is most at risk of death immediately when she leaves the home. So those are some real concerns for us.
Did you want to add anything to that, Laura?
Ms Laura Kovacic: No.
Mrs Boyd: We've heard a fair bit from landlord advocacy groups about the rental situation in London and how available rental is. You've stated very clearly that, given the incomes that are available through social assistance, you don't see that as being the case. I know that not only as the director of the clinic and as a member of the coordinating committee but also as a city councillor you have some clear knowledge about what the rental situation is for low-rental housing. We're talking about affordable housing; we're not talking about the high end of the scale. Would you comment on that and how it affects the ability of women to protect themselves and their children in a safe home.
Ms Walker: First, there are so many contributing factors to keeping abused women in their homes currently. I must state that the coordinating committee has been quite disappointed with the current government's strategies in ending woman abuse. In fact, our public statement is that this current government has created more barriers which force women to stay in abusive relationships.
The 21.6% reduction in social assistance, as an example, creates huge barriers for women because it doesn't leave enough money for them to take care of their children adequately. Oftentimes there are children who require special assistance -- who, for instance, have special education needs -- and because those special needs are no longer available through the education system, they're having to put additional funds out to that.
I think you need to look at this in a more global package than on an individual basis. Certainly abused women need opportunities to access affordable, safe, secure housing and do not deserve to be discriminated against in accessing that housing.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Ms Walker, for your comments and your presentation here today. Perhaps you could help me. Clearly we have a different perspective on this section. As it stands right now, it is absolutely, positively 100% legal for a landlord to ask about income. There is no statute and there is no reference in the Human Rights Code that prohibits that. You cannot discriminate at present on the basis of the source of income, and this will not be changed in any way by this section.
1550
Let me ask you quite seriously about following scenario to take the example you have provided to us here: You have a woman who has left an abusive situation, who has perhaps not been able to develop much of a credit history herself -- maybe the credit cards were in the name of the spouse -- and similarly a tenancy history may or may not exist at all. Both opposition parties and certainly every presenter who has been asked the question so far in our hearings has said that the other business practices, asking for a credit check and asking for tenancy history, are reasonable. Would you agree with that?
Ms Walker: We don't object to that. What we object to is that because so many abused women, or we could expand that to include young people or recent immigrants, don't have a credit history. There is one additional point that needs to be made with respect to that: Because so many women living in abusive relationships are denied access to financial decision-making in their abusive homes, oftentimes it's the abuser who has created the bad credit rating, not the abused woman.
Mr Gilchrist: I accept, and as you have properly pointed out, it's a very complex situation. My question comes down to this: When the woman who is now seeking shelter turns to the two avenues that the other two parties have said are quite acceptable and would have absolute support for going forward, and the credit check comes back either non-existent or bad and the tenancy check comes back either non-existent or bad, do you not see the ability for the woman to say: "But by the way, I have been employed and I am currently employed. Here is what I make, and I would ask you to judge me by this third standard before disqualifying me on the basis of those other two"? Is that not an option that should be available to that woman?
Ms Walker: Of course that's an option that should be available. Unfortunately, with the amendment to section 200, you are restricting her in that involvement. If she is turned down on those grounds, she has no recourse to the Human Rights --
Mr Gilchrist: I'm going to have to --
The Chair: No. Excuse me. Your time is up.
Mr Gilchrist: You gave Mrs Boyd a lot longer.
The Chair: I'm not giving you any more.
Mr Gilchrist: Because you have to go to section 2 --
The Chair: Mr Gilchrist, it's Mr Crozier's turn.
Mr Crozier: Could you tell me very briefly me at what point your coordinating committee first comes in contact with an abused woman, or do you perform an educational function? Further to that, my specific question would be, do you then assist women who have been in abusive situations to obtain housing?
Ms Walker: Two questions. First of all, the coordinating committee is a body which represents 35 anti-violence agencies, so we are a leader in the field of anti-violence work. We're recognized internationally and we provide education and advocacy on behalf of the whole issue of woman abuse.
Specifically when do we assist women? Each agency would assist women in different ways. I am currently the executive director of the London Battered Women Advocacy Centre, which is a member agency of the London coordinating committee, and there are a few points that need to be raised. First of all, demand for service from our agency is so high that we're turning away about 131% more women than we turned away at this time last year. Our demand for service is up 82% over the first half of 1996. So when women finally make the decision that they would like to change the circumstances in their lives or when women finally have the courage to change, they can't access services like ours that could assist them in making those changes.
Yes, the battered women's advocacy centre does advocate on behalf of women in these situations. The unfortunate piece is that they often can't get in to be served; and secondly, because we're so shortstaffed as a result of provincial cutbacks, we can't see these women for as long as we'd like to see them.
Mr Crozier: So many women who are in abusive circumstances have to go directly to the rental market themselves without any advocacy or intervention?
Ms Walker: That's right.
Mr Crozier: Finally, I simply want to make the statement that when statistics are mentioned that 25% of women live in abusive situations, I, like everybody else find that appalling. I come from a small urban-rural municipality and I'm sure it exists notwithstanding the fact that we're not a big city. I just want to put on the record that I find that appalling. Anything that creates a barrier to preventing it or reducing it is something we need seriously to pay attention to.
The Chair: Ms Walker and Ms Kovacic, I know we could talk on and on but unfortunately our time has expired. I thank you very much for making your presentation to the committee this afternoon.
Ms Walker: We have a copy of our presentation and would like to know where we should leave it.
The Chair: You would give that to the clerk, and the clerk will distribute it to the committee members.
LONDON HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next presenter is the London Home Builders' Association: Ian Low, president, and Joe Hoffer, counsel. Mr Hoffer, we haven't seen you in 20 minutes.
Mr Joe Hoffer: Thank you, Mr Chair, members of the committee. I'm now here in the capacity of representative of the London Home Builders' Association. To my left is Ian Low, president.
The London Home Builders' Association was formed in 1952 and has a membership of approximately 220. The membership consists of builders, suppliers, renovators, developers, apartment managers and owners and other industry-associated members.
LHBA, first of all, supports the comments made by the Ontario Home Builders' Association at the Toronto sittings of this committee, but we wish to point out that LHBA is involved in all aspects of the rental housing sector, and from London's perspective, we want to focus today on those provisions which, if amended, would improve the situation for the constituency of the London Home Builders' Association, particularly those who are involved in the rehabilitation and renovation sectors of the construction industry.
If you saw the London Free Press this morning, you may have noticed that there were zero multiresidential construction starts this year and very few last year, and we don't expect that to change, given the existing rental market in London, with the oversupply and the lack of tenants. However, there is room for movement and for productivity in the renovation portion of the construction industry in apartment buildings. Our comments are directed at that particular sector.
As with the LPMA presentation, we have formulated areas of outstanding concern. Some of them mirror that which I gave a short time ago, and I won't go into great detail, but I would like to point out that from London Home Builders' perspective the policy of decontrol, recontrol and the loss of maximum rent is also a concern. It's a concern because it ensures that tenants moving in in a poor rental market will be able to preserve that chronically low rent indefinitely as long as they stay in the unit. From an investor perspective, an investor is far less likely in those circumstances to invest a lot of money in an apartment building because there is no prospect of a return. If you preserve maximum rent, at least there is a prospect of a partial recovery over the longer term when the market improves. That, in combination with maximum rent, is the first area of concern.
The other area, and I think this affects the home builders' constituency as much as anything, is the policies which deal with renovation and reconstruction of existing rental housing stock.
There is no question that there is a narrow band of buildings in London that need work done to them. There is also no question that the renovation policies that are enshrined in the Tenant Protection Act will discourage that type of investment from occurring. Basically what will happen is that there will be patch work done until such time as the Legislature sees the folly of these provisions and amends them. We are asking that this committee recommend that the Legislature do away with the three-month penalty, do away with the provision which requires the landlord to rerent the unit at the same amount after thousands of dollars have been invested into the unit and put in its place legislative provisions which would allow the rent to move more rapidly towards market with a right of first refusal to the tenant, some sort of phase-in, but not with the 4% cap or the long phase-in period that is set out in the legislation today.
LHBA feels at a substantial disadvantage here in not having seen the regulations to this statute. The statute, like much provincial legislation today, has a broad framework, but because so much is left to the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, it's very difficult to comment on the substance of the legislation. We just wanted to point out for the record that that is a disadvantage and we encourage this committee to recommend that regulations be formulated well in advance and that there be an opportunity for industry groups to be consulted when those regulations are being formulated.
1600
Again, we'll raise the issue of the need for a fair and impartial adjudication system. You have heard my comments on that. It's in this brief, so I don't go into that again as part of this presentation.
Finally, an item of great concern to London Home Builders' Association is the need to address fair tax increases and red tape reduction as part of an overall strategy to improve the health of the residential rental sector. If you look at the broader legislative strategy that we believe exists, we've got the Tenant Protection Act, which is addressing one area of concern, and we also have the Fair Municipal Finance Act and the work of the red tape commission. The work of the red tape commission has been started, and we fully support that work. We are asking that the Legislature ensure that the work continue and that any benefits that may be obtained through changes to the Tenant Protection Act and through this legislation not be offset by problems that are created by other legislation now before the Legislature. So, first of all we encourage the continued work of the red tape commission.
We also ask that the Legislature be vigilant to ensure that the municipalities don't abuse the benefits that have been obtained through the streamlining process. For example, if the province streamlines certain processes that developers have to comply with, it's not going to be much of an advantage if the municipalities turn around and impose fees for their services which effectively offset the benefits obtained through cutting red tape.
Second, the Fair Municipal Finance Act is one of great concern. It will give municipalities broad powers to determine the applicable tax rates for different property classes and, as I'm sure this committee is aware, for many years the multiresidential housing sector has borne the brunt of tax increases among the residential sectors generally. In fact, it may interest you to know that for many years it has been illegal for landlords, under provincial law, to levy property taxes directly to tenants. In those circumstances, tenants are less likely to equate property tax increases with increases in their rent. But as things stand today, the taxation level on multiresidential tenants is nearly double that on residential taxpayers. That situation has to be addressed, and we're asking that you ensure, when that legislation comes through, that it is addressed in the fair municipal finance legislation.
We also encourage the province to take a stronger role in facilitating greater property tax equity between classes, if it's demonstrated that municipalities are not setting fair tax ratios under the new property tax legislation, that the province retain some residential ability to deal with that in an effective way.
Finally, LHBA is concerned about the proposals for the new multiresidential property class. That has an eight-year life. Lending institutions lend on the basis of a 25- to 30-year life. They're not going to be impressed by the fact that there's a partial tax holiday for eight years, because at the end of the eight years that building could go down the tubes, especially if it's multiresidential, due to a substantial tax hike. There needs to be greater security for that particular class and we would ask that you keep that in mind.
That concludes the comments I wanted to make today. Mr Low and I would be happy to answer any questions if there is time.
Mr Gilchrist: I appreciate your presentation and your pointing out again that landlords also have concerns with the bill, that it is not one-sided. In fact, the purpose of these hearings is to glean from both sides ways that we can make this better.
I also want to thank you very much for pointing out that this is just one small piece of a far bigger puzzle: trying to ensure there is an adequate housing supply across this province. The reforms we have brought to development charges, that we'll be bringing forward this fall in the Ontario Building Code, will ensure greater access for the disabled, and a number of other improvements to help conform with the national building code, and as you mentioned, the red tape and the fair tax issues.
Let me ask you a question. Would your association have a problem, as new cost savings are found by municipalities, particularly those related to the Who Does What transfer -- and I pointed out earlier this afternoon that if one of two paths is taken by the municipalities, not us, in terms of the education tax, Middlesex county on January 1 automatically comes out $2.9 million ahead, not behind. They get a gift of $2.9 million ongoing as a result of these transfers. But leaving aside how much or whether it comes from municipal restructuring or as a result of the transfer from the province, do you have a problem with the concept that all the savings flow to the apartments until such time as the fairness is recognized? In other words, if you have a differential like this, Mrs Boyd and others would tell you it doesn't matter what happens and who does what, everybody should go up and down in lockstep together. My question to you is, recognizing that in some parts of this province tenants pay 6.2 times as much property tax as they would if they owned a single-family home, would there not be a case that the apartments should see those benefits before the homeowners until that point of balance is reached?
Mr Hoffer: That's more a question for the landlord constituency as opposed to London home builders, in the sense that it's the landlords who would bear the brunt of the costs of that tax reduction. But I can tell you, having worked with landlords for many years and listened to their representations before committees such as this, that the vast majority of landlords who have made submissions and are knowledgeable would have no problem with passing those savings on to the tenants.
Mr Gilchrist: Forgive me, because it's precisely on your constituency this does have an impact. Clearly, if everyone sees the city announce that there is a saving of X million dollars, everyone would expect their property tax to go down. I'm asking you whether the home building association, recognizing that you're building by and large single-family homes -- that saving would be forgone until such time as the tenant saw savings. By the way, just to pick up on your comment, the legislation will have in it an absolute proviso that any savings will flow right through to the tenant, so the landlord will see no benefit or no cost, regardless of what happens. Would you think that's a sellable thing in this community?
Mr Hoffer: I'll let Mr Low respond to that.
Mr Ian Low: If I'm understanding you correctly, as you have noticed, and you had the London Free Press there today, as well as Mr Hoffer's pointing out that there have been no rental units constructed in this vicinity in the last months -- we don't see any in the foreseeable future. The vacancy rate locally is posted at 6% by CMHC. That's down to six units and higher. The actual vacancy rate is anywhere between about 10% to 12% if you're talking to property managers.
As a result, in the foreseeable future it's rehabilitation of existing stock we need to be concerned about. When you start to talk about rebates of taxes back to the end user, if you will, our constituents are home builders or apartment building builders that put the product out to market to be purchased by others. So for us to talk with regard to rebates back to the tenants is out of our jurisdiction, because we are constructors versus the actual renters of properties. There's a very small constituency within our organization that is actually the property owners.
1610
Mr Duncan: The question of property taxes has been brought up, and there is clearly in equity between what a renter pays and what a property owner pays. I recognize that you're a home builders' association, so I won't go into that. What's the highest priority for you in terms of changes to the bill?
Mr Hoffer: From the home builders' perspective, it is relief from rent control, the decontrol provisions, the preservation of maximum rent or any legislative provisions that would allow the landlord to recover the costs of investment in apartment buildings. Those are items 1 and 2, decontrol-recontrol, in our submission, and maximum rent. The third item is also very important, because unless you change the provisions dealing with renovation and rehabilitation, landlords are not going to implement those provisions. They're unworkable. That has to be changed to encourage people to make the investments necessary to put the constituents of LHBA to work.
Mr Duncan: So you'd like to see the government withdraw this bill and just --
Mr Hoffer: Absolutely not.
Mr Duncan: Vacancy decontrol-recontrol is the heart of the bill, the essence of the bill. The question I'm asking is that a number of other groups have come to us with wording changes to the legislation that they see as significant, even though they may not agree with the thrust of the legislation. I wonder specifically about your priorities in terms of what's there now, without having to change the substance of the bill, whether you have anything specific other than the rent maximum.
Mr Hoffer: You can preserve the bill almost completely in its entirety by simply preserving the concept of maximum rent, that it does not evaporate on the turnover of a tenant. It exists under the TPA for sitting tenants and assignees of sitting tenants. What we're asking is that you also extend that to all rental units that have maximum rents. It's a minor extension of the current provisions of the legislation, and that would go a long way to relieving one of the main problems we have pointed out.
The second area has to do with the rules you have to follow if you need vacant possession to renovate a unit. To solve that problem, you don't repeal the bill. What you do is you allow the landlord to claim the three-month rent penalty as part of the capital expenditure, as part of the cost of doing the work; you extend the right of first refusal to the existing tenant, but you make it clear that when that tenant comes back into the rental unit that tenant is going to be subject to a higher rent, which will represent, in an adequate fashion, the opportunity for the landlord to recover the cost of doing the renovation work in that building. That's for improvements; it's not for necessary maintenance and repair. That's where there are going to be improvements to the rental unit.
It doesn't involve a repeal of the bill. In fact, our association supports the vast majority of the bill. We only have 20 minutes to make a presentation --
The Chair: And I've got to cut you off and let Ms Boyd ask a question or she's not going to get in.
Mrs Boyd: Ian, did I understand you correctly to say that you don't see anything in this bill that's going to encourage the construction of new low-rental housing?
Mr Low: What we see within the bill and what we've set forward today is that in the London area there is not a need for construction of new units. There is a need for rehabilitation of existing units, similar to Mr Gilchrist's earlier question. The one thing I overlooked there was that in the environment we have here in London, it is so competitive that if there are any advantages handed back to the rental market, they will have to be passed along or someone else will and landlords will be losing tenants; they'll be moving to upgraded facilities. I do not see, in the foreseeable future, construction of any new units, whether it be high end or low end. The low-end renters we see out in the marketplace are definitely gaining in the quality of the accommodations they're receiving, as well as the market rate they're having to pay for those accommodations.
Mrs Boyd: Do you see the provision in the bill that would allow the conversion of rental units to condominiums, reversing the hold on the ability of an owner to convert to condominiums, increasing conversions of current rental stock to condominium use? That is the same problem we saw a number of years ago here, where most of the conversions were low-rental housing, town houses in particular being converted to relatively expensive units, which now of course are selling at $20,000 less than they were at the time.
Mr Low: I think in the London market you've already seen the vast majority of that occur as far as the conversions go. We're registered for conversions. The London market is extremely competitive at that end. Even in the new housing sector, building new condominiums is extremely aggressive at the lower end. Some of the changes in the building codes will help us address that further.
The Chair: Mr Low, Mr Hoffer, thank you again for coming and making your presentation.
CITY OF LONDON
The Chair: The next presentation is the city of London. Speaking on behalf of the city of London are Martha Joyce and Sheila Davenport. Ms Joyce is a councillor, I believe. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Sheila Davenport: I am a councillor, too.
The Chair: Oh, we have two councillors.
Ms Martha Joyce: Good afternoon. Councillor Sheila Davenport is here in her capacity as chair of the housing subcommittee of the Mayor's Anti-Poverty Action Group. We decided to share this time. I'll be brief. From what I've heard of the presentations immediately preceding ours we have some points in common.
I would like to begin by saying that the city of London makes this submission on Bill 96 indicating that we are apprehensive because we, the municipality, are unclear regarding the mega-week changes and their impact for municipalities. When we make these suggestions, we know the municipality will likely be in a different role in the very near future in ensuring affordable housing for Londoners.
Second, I'm also chair of the Mayor's Anti-Poverty Action Group and a member of council. I'd ask the committee to note that we have a problem with an adequate supply of affordable housing in London. That's why I've invited Councillor Davenport to share this time to address this serious concern, and she will do so in her presentation. We appreciate your coming to London to hear from us and we look forward to seeing some of our remarks accommodated in your next brief.
You have in front of you the resolutions passed by the city of London. The resolutions are specifically stated in appendices A and B, but I will speak to the salient features of council's resolutions with respect to Bill 96, going to the first page of the resolution, under section 200.
The comments I wish to make with respect to what's stated on page 1 are that council opposes any changes to the Ontario Human Rights Code that would allow income information to be used in a discriminatory manner against low-income earners, students or people on public assistance. The city of London requests that the provincial government delete the words "income information" from section 200 of Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act. I remind you of the concerns expressed by the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Keith Norton. His five salient points are reiterated in our submission.
On page 2, I would like to bring to your attention four specific recommendations the city of London urges the committee to adopt. These are designed to ensure and protect a supply of well-maintained and affordable housing for low-income as well as other Londoners.
The first resolution, on vacancy decontrol: London is opposed to the vacancy decontrol measures proposed in section 116 of Bill 96. It effectively abolishes rent control. We're not against this because we oppose the rights of landlords to enjoy reasonable returns on investment, but rather because the proposal needs a great deal more study and consideration to ensure that the supply of affordable rental housing in this province is not quietly and relentlessly eroded through bringing back conditions that led to the inception of rent controls in the first place. We're concerned about pressures that may be placed on tenants to have them move in order to create vacancies so that the rent of their former premises could be increased for new tenants.
Under the section of rent increases and maintenance, the city of London asks that provisions in the Rent Control Act, 1992, that permit the issuing of orders prohibiting rent increases not be repealed as proposed. OPRIs have effectively complemented local property standards and have assisted in maintaining better physical standards for rental properties in municipalities.
The retention of the Rental Housing Protection Act: The city of London believes that the Rental Housing Protection Act should be retained since it has proven to be an effective review mechanism for ensuring that local supplies of affordable rental housing are not being threatened by conversions, by major renovations or by demolitions. In the alternative, the city of London asks that the government should consider giving local municipalities the authority to enact bylaws requiring municipal approval to convert, to make repairs that would lead to luxury accommodations, or to demolish residential rental housing.
There are improvements to the local property standards that the city of London welcomes, because they would enhance the municipality's ability to improve local property standards. Those are iterated in greater detail in the appendices accompanying our resolution.
I would ask Sheila Davenport to address the concerns with respect to the supply of affordable housing in our community.
1620
Ms Davenport: Mr Chair and members of the committee, I had intended to put my name down. I called your staff a month ago and was not present when they called back to confirm the time, so I'm very pleased to be doing this with Councillor Joyce.
I am here as a city councillor and in my capacity as chair of a housing subcommittee of the Mayor's Anti-Poverty Action Group. This is an action group dealing with a wide range of poverty issues in London, formed last December.
I thought I would like to tell you a little bit about London. London, in spite of its being a wonderful place to live and in spite of its reputation as a rich and upscale city, has some disturbing statistics when it comes to poverty. London has a higher percentage of people living with low income, that is 15.2%, than the provincial average, which is 13.4%. This often comes as a great surprise to people. We have a higher percentage of children under 14 living in poverty than in Ontario as a whole. That was why the mayor's group was set up, to address this problem.
There are some other features that make London unique. We are anticipating, as you will know, the closure of two psychiatric hospitals in the near future, which will present us with more challenges with regard to housing, particularly for discharged patients. We have a university here. We have students. We have a larger proportion of single mothers than the provincial average. We have a number of seniors. We need affordable housing.
London has a high vacancy rate in some areas, but it does not impact those at the lower end of the income scale. Let me give you an example: 87% of those in receipt of social assistance live in unsubsidized housing. That means 19,740 people are currently on social assistance benefits and are renting from the private market. They will be greatly affected by Bill 96 as it stands today. I have included in my presentation figures compiled by CMHC regarding average apartment rents and the chart of benefits received by social assistance recipients, if you would turn to the last page.
I personally have been very involved in the housing registry in London. I'm very aware that the rents for most one-bedroom or bachelor apartments are well above any 30% rule of thumb. If you take the rule of thumb and look at some of those figures, you will see that a single welfare recipient receives $520 and they can spend anywhere from $345 to $457 on accommodation. It is true that there is not sufficient low-income accommodation. We have a very long waiting list for our London housing authority. This vacancy rate just isn't percolating down.
We oppose any changes to the Human Rights Code that would permit landlords to demand income information other than credit checks and rental history, recognizing that even those present some difficulties but also recognizing the rights of landlords.
The London housing registry, an agency locating housing for low-income earners in the private market, reports that co-signers are often very difficult to find for those on social assistance, as many of their associates are in identical situations. But above all, granting landlords wide powers to refuse housing on the basis of income information alone will create difficulties for many low-income people, both those on social assistance and those living on the margins.
Mr Duncan: Thank you for your very thoughtful presentation. Both presentations have added some very useful information in terms of the whole debate.
I want to address Councillor Joyce first. In Toronto, we had a presentation from a gentleman from New York who gave very compelling testimony around what happened in New York when they went into a system of vacancy decontrol. Earlier today a presenter referred to a study by a professor from the University of California who did a study of Los Angeles subsequent to the implementation of vacancy decontrol.
You've indicated that the city's position is that it needs more study here. Have you had a chance to look at that? Have you had any preliminary discussions around that issue and the kinds of impacts it'll have on the city of London?
Ms Joyce: No, other than to recognize the disparity between what the market requires in terms of rent payments and the amount of public assistance available to individuals or families, or the level of income; low-wage earners have a minimum level of income and are still below the poverty line. I don't have specific information to provide you today in that regard.
Mr Duncan: Would it be fair to paraphrase one or both of you as saying that it would be the view of London council and yourselves individually that there is a problem with supply of affordable housing now and that the implementation of Bill 96 will exacerbate that problem?
Ms Joyce: Very clearly.
Ms Davenport: There is no question of that.
Mrs Boyd: I'm really very grateful that you brought the statistics forward, because of course we have been hearing from landlord groups that there is this huge overabundance of housing and that it's competitive and therefore there's no problem and we shouldn't be so worried about low-income folks.
One of the issues that hasn't really been dealt with, and it's a big issue for us in London, is the issue of student housing and how it impacts on that lower end of the housing market. You've given us statistics for the averages and for the people who are on social assistance, but students often are living on an allowance that is similar to the kind of basic allowance that people have when they're in those situations. We've got a large university; we've got a large college. Those students are competing for the same kind of accommodation as other residents who are of low income. Can you comment on how that exacerbates this problem and why the claims that we have a very competitive market really fall short when it comes to low-income people?
Ms Joyce: Having two students in university, I can appreciate how that impacts. There is definitely competition for the more modestly priced accommodation. Quite frankly, some of the rooming-houses barely meet the standards for habitation. I've had complaints where I've asked property standards people to go out and investigate the living accommodations. Some people accept it if they have to use a broom handle to keep the fridge door closed, that this is an acceptable way to live, and other people can't tolerate it. But I have complaints in that area, and I'm sure Councillor Davenport has. But given that we're a municipality with a large university and a community college which we've heard have a higher-than-usual record of enrolment, that competition for modest, affordable housing is going to be even greater. We're going to begin to see the impact within the next couple of weeks.
1630
Ms Davenport: Students certainly share housing and try and reduce their rents that way. I was speaking just before I came to the head of the student council, who unfortunately did not submit his name soon enough to come, or you would have heard some very specific anecdotes from him. Certainly they're in competition. The difference between people on social assistance and other low-income people is that students have hope they will come out of this, but some of the others simply don't have that hope.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you both, councillors, for coming before us here today. I don't profess to own a crystal ball, so for all those who have used words like "I know," and "It will," you'll forgive me if I take that with a grain of salt. I'll deal with the specifics as they face us.
Today's London Free Press has a total of 310 advertisements, not counting any geared-to-student housing. The total number with prices quoted, 205; the number of those renting at $400 or less, 38, or 19%; the number of two-bedrooms at $500 or less, 30. I take from your chart that that means every single possible scenario, save a single person -- all couples, a single parent with one child, a couple with one child -- every one of them could afford those 30 units.
If the bill on its face said today every rent in the city could legally be raised to $1,000, when you know -- I don't know if you heard the presentation earlier. Norquay Homes indicated they have 1,200 units; they don't have one unit at the legal maximum rent today. Speculating that you could add another $200, what leads you to believe that the market forces will not continue to be the predominant issue here in London and elsewhere in every other community in Ontario?
Ms Davenport: I have great fear -- and you're going to say I'm using a pejorative word -- that these market forces will not assist people at the lower end of the income scale. I appreciate the fact that you've read the Free Press and looked at the vacancies. I speak from my experience with a housing registry that has tried very, very hard to place people who come to them. It is not easy, if you are in one of these brackets, to find accommodation. The one I would make exception for is perhaps a single bedroom for a couple, and that would make it possible in some way to live on.
Mr Gilchrist: Councillor, I'm not trying to put you on the spot in terms of the specific numbers, but I think you would agree with me that over and above anything I would find advertised in the London Free Press, there will be other people who use the Renters News, there will be others who just put a For Rent sign in their window. Would you not agree that's a significant amount of choice today for any person who finds themselves in a situation, getting that $511, or $554 for a single parent with two children, or $602 for a couple with two children, that they've got quite a variety of choices facing them today? If you agree with that, would you also not say that as long as there is that supply of housing out there, you'll have that competition in the future, that you will see the artificial maximum rents as a non-issue? Nobody's at them today.
Ms Joyce: I see a great disparity in the numbers here. You're talking about how many units are available. We talked about 19,000 people on social assistance, and how many units are available in that affordable range? Did you say how many?
Mr Gilchrist: I'm saying there are 310 ads. Could we triple that for the number of people who don't advertise, who use other sources, so 1,000 units?
Ms Joyce: But there's a great disparity, and we have not been out to investigate those accommodations. They may sound great in the newspaper but they may not be appropriate for individuals, if you work in the east or northeast end of London and have to reside at the southeast end of London. You need accommodations close to your place of work.
I am fortunate in that I became interested in the anti-poverty action group, and I have teenagers who go out and work in all different sorts of jobs. I have a 16-year-old who's a high school student who's working with young men who are in their first jobs, and they bicycle to work. Already two of them have been struck on their bicycles, through no fault of their own. We have to begin to appreciate what people on low incomes are enduring to get to work, to get jobs, to participate in Ontario Works. I don't know how far they're cycling, but I drive my son. You have to accommodate people's needs, so even though there are those units available, it may not accommodate a family who wants a child to be able to walk to school, the husband to be able to walk to work or his wife to be able to hop on a bus to get to work or whatever.
The Chair: Councillors, unfortunately we're out of time. Thank you both for --
Ms Davenport: I had one more comment.
The Chair: I'm sorry, but we have other people to hear. Perhaps you can submit the other comments. You can always do that in writing. Thank you very much.
WATERLOO REGIONAL APARTMENT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next presenter is the Waterloo Regional Apartment Management Association; Robert Eby, who is the president.
Mr Robert Eby: I haven't prepared any written statement to hand out, so you could make some notes as we're talking. I have a number of questions to ask you. I'm here as the president of the Waterloo Regional Apartment Management Association. We're a group of landlords in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. We have about 250 members who have many thousands of units in our area. We've made briefs, and I'm sure you've got all kinds of writing and briefs from many people on the bill itself and proposed changes. I made a presentation the last time and everything I said then still holds true.
At this point, though, I had a look at the bill concerning mobile home parks. I don't know how many people have made presentations to you about mobile home parks, but I've been involved in managing two mobile home parks over the course of the last eight years. When I read some things in your bill -- for example, when it says a tenant in a mobile home park has the right to sell his mobile home without consent and can leave it on the leased lot, do you realize that you give him the right to make an exorbitant profit off the landlord's land and you restrict the land owner's right to use his land as he sees fit?
Let me give you an example. There is a mobile home for sale in a mobile home park. Let's say the value is $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000; in other words, if it sat in a used car lot they would realize something in the neighbourhood of $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000, and the purchaser, of course, has to take it away from that particular lot. But if the trailer sits on a mobile home lot, they could ask $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 for that mobile home that's only worth $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 and the new purchaser doesn't have to take it away. It's the landlord's land. He pays the expenses, he has to take any losses or whatever happens. Should he not have the right to use that land as he sees fit? If somebody decides they want to move or sell their trailer, give them the right to do that. I don't think there are any qualms there. But should you also give the tenant the right to make $20,000 or $30,000 off the landlord's land?
If you also look at a situation where you give the tenant the right to lease his mobile home to anyone he chooses without the consent of the landlord, why? Why do you, for example, allow apartment owners to deny consent but not to mobile home park owners? You're simply saying that if you happen to be living in a mobile home park and you want to rent your trailer and go away, you can do it; you can lease it to anybody at all and the landlord has absolutely no say in who comes and lives in the park.
In another area I looked at, it says you're going to void agreements that two parties have already entered into in terms of using the landlord as an agent to sell the tenant's mobile home. Why are you voiding the agreements that are already made as to, for example, the price they already agreed upon to sell the unit to the mobile home park owner? You want to void those agreements; I'm not quite sure why.
When a tenant abandons their mobile home and the landlord applies for an order to terminate the tenancy under section 73, he keeps the mobile home because you've given him the right to keep it. Let's say he keeps the mobile home and re-rents it to somebody else, gives them a lease, and the first owner, the abandoning owner, comes back and says, "I want my mobile home back." You say the landlord has to give him back the mobile home. The part that perhaps you're not looking at is if the mobile home park owner has leased the unit to somebody else and it's on a lease that doesn't expire for another eight or 10 months, when does this first owner get his trailer back? And when he gets it back, does he have the right to be back in your park as a tenant when he abandoned the place to begin with, and then you went to the tribunal and got an order to terminate the tenancy? There is nothing in the bill that talks about those things.
1640
Why do you not allow the landlord of a mobile home park the right to increase his rents above the guideline if a new tenant comes in? You give that right to every other landlord in the province because he's got an apartment building and so on, but you specifically say to the mobile home park owner that he doesn't have that right. The tenant wants to sell, the tenant makes thousands and thousands of dollars profit, the new owner comes in, but you can't negotiate a new rent with him?
When you limit entry and exit fees to reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, are you intending to allow for the landlord's own labour and the use of the landlord's tractor and equipment and so on? Let me give you an example. At a park I had in Mississauga, it was our staff and our equipment; if somebody pulled their trailer out of the park, we were the ones who took it to the road. But you're saying we can't charge him because it's not out-of-pocket expenses? What is your interpretation of these out-of-pocket expenses?
Does section 117 apply to the mobile home park? This section gives the landlord the right to negotiate a new tenancy agreement with the new tenant who has occupied the rented unit as a result of an assignment without consent. The mobile home park says the tenant can sell the trailer, a new tenant comes in, can't raise the rent, but does section 117 apply?
It might be wise, also, to look at section 27, where you've got the thing about obstructing, coercing, threatening, interfering, where the landlord can't do that to the tenant. That's good. But unfortunately you haven't also put in there that the tenant should not be able to do all those things to other tenants, nor should he be able to do those things to landlords.
Those are the brief notes I have. I would gladly leave the rest of the time to answer any questions you have.
Mr Duncan: I'd be curious to hear the answers to the questions posed to the government. I would yield my time for the government to respond to the specific questions that were raised.
The Chair: We'll proceed to Mrs Boyd.
Mrs Boyd: As will I, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Then we'll proceed to Mr Wettlaufer.
Mr Wettlaufer: Bob, I'm not going to respond to those questions. I'm going to leave that up to the PA, but I do have some questions of you.
We've heard a lot over the last couple of weeks about rights of tenants and rights of landlords. Only at one time, last Friday in Ottawa, did we hear from a tenants' group -- Mr McIntyre of the Federation of Ottawa Carleton Tenants Associations -- only at that time did we hear from a tenants' group as to what they thought the rights of the landlords were. One of those rights included the right to pursue a profit, not the right to a profit but the right to pursue a profit. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr Eby: I believe most small landlords enter into buying multi-unit residential properties because they believe it's a safe place to put their money. It's usually all the money they've got in the world. When I bought my apartment building, it was all the money we got from selling our house.
I know how to manage property. I believe we should have the right to make a profit, to do things so it's acceptable to our tenants and the tenants want to agree to pay the money. If we make more money as a result of it, I think we should have the right to do that.
Mr Wettlaufer: Could you give this committee an idea of the percentage is of immigrants who came to our region over the last 45 years or 50 years, after the war, and purchased these properties with the idea that it would be a good investment for their pension, for their retirement?
Mr Eby: I have no idea what the percentage of it is, but in our association we have a lot of immigrants who have purchased property. The reason they did it was that they brought the money from the old country that the government would have taken away from them and wanted to put it into something that was safe. Real estate is supposed to be the safest thing to put it in because nobody can take your land away. But maybe the ability to use your property as you see fit -- the government can and has taken that right away from us. We'd like it back.
Mr Wettlaufer: One of the comments I hear from some of these landlords is that they haven't made enough money over the last 10 years to renovate their properties properly to make them safe for their tenants. Would you concur with that?
Mr Eby: Over the last 10 years? I guess that puts us just prior to Bill 4 and the current legislation. I believe that if a landlord pre-1989 did what he was supposed to do and spent some money, he could have at that point got his money back through rent increases. Of course, since 1990 he has not been able to do that. In my opinion, he would have been a fool if he had put money into his building since then, because he only got 60% of his money back, if that.
Mr Wettlaufer: I'll turn it over to the PA.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Eby, for your presentation. I was scribbling furiously as you asked your questions. Let me start, in no particular sequence, except perhaps through the bill itself.
If I caught you correctly, you were asking if there's a conflict between various sections of the act which took priority. Subsection 2(3) says, "In interpreting a provision of this act with regard to a mobile home park or a land lease community, if a provision in part V conflicts with a provision in another part of the act, the provision in part V," which is the mobile home park, "will apply." So part V sections do take priority.
As a philosophical distinction between tenancy in an apartment and tenancy in a mobile home park, we believe there is a significant difference, given that over and above their other furniture the tenant has a vested interest in the value of the home itself. While the land continues to be under the control of the landlord, there is a difference that is not found in an apartment context. You don't own a portion of the apartment building, but in this case you do have the ownership of everything from the skirt up in the park. That leads to a different interpretation when you get to things like vacancy decontrol.
I would ask you, on the reverse, looking at this from the tenant's perspective, if you would agree that the unfettered ability of a landlord to raise the land rental price would decrease the value of the tenant's unit, if, for example, he or she is paying $150 a month right now and the landlord -- the act, as it's contemplated in regulation, would allow the landlord to increase up to $50 at the time of a move, but let's say that provision wasn't there and you could do whatever you want. Would you not agree that if all of a sudden you said the new rent is $400, that would very dramatically limit the tenant's ability to find a replacement buyer for his or her home? My question to you is, is there a need to strike a balance there? If you don't think this act has done it adequately with the wording there, do you have an alternative that I could take back to the minister?
1650
Mr Eby: If you indicate to the tenant who is selling the mobile home that he has the right to sell it and leave it there, you're indicating to him that he can make this gigantic profit. If that piece of land were vacant and I as the owner of the land were able to go and buy a $6,000 trailer, move it in and put it on the lot, then I would be able to make the $20,000 or $30,000. I don't know what the tradeoff is or what the answer is. I also don't believe that either side should be able to make this exorbitant profit as a result of selling a trailer. But I do believe it's the landlord's land, it's not the tenant's land, and there's no way tenants should be allowed to make that kind of profit. I don't know what the answer is. Maybe you have or have not talked about it. I don't know.
Mr Gilchrist: We have laboured with this one at length. Let me ask you this, because I think it's quite relevant. We've talked about the vacancy rates in apartments in your district, your part of the province. If the choice was given to a tenant that the landlord could recover whatever he thought the value of the land was at the time of that move, the tenant, faced with that increase and the impact it would have on the selling price, would then have the choice to move their unit. Are there options?
Mr Eby: Very few. But the different levels of government could make those options available. I believe there are probably many people out there with vacant land who would gladly convert it to a mobile home park if they were allowed to, but of course different municipalities won't allow you to do that.
Mr Gilchrist: That's the conundrum I hope you would see we face: Given that it is up to the municipalities -- and I'm not passing the buck when I say this -- they should have the right to do zoning. That is something that should be left to local decision-making. But if there is not an option for that tenant to move, would you not agree with us that we have to be even more careful about striking a balance that recognizes that lack of choice?
Mr Eby: Yes, you do.
Mr Gilchrist: As a general response to what you've said there, have you had an opportunity to formulate any alternative wording or consider how we could better strike the balance, if you see there isn't one? If you haven't brought it with you today, if that has not been the case yet, would you do that and get it off to us? I'd be more than happy to give you detailed answers and detailed responses to any specific suggestions you would care to make in this regard.
Mr Eby: I don't have one, and I don't want to make one up off the top of my head, but obviously it is something we both have to look at.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you. I appreciate your comments, Mr Eby.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We appreciate your coming this afternoon.
WATERLOO REGION TENANTS' COALITION
The Chair: The next presenter is Paul York of the Waterloo Region Tenants' Coalition. Good afternoon, Mr York.
Mr Paul York: Hi. Thanks for fitting me in at the last minute like that. The original presenter didn't show up.
The Chair: We're pretty cooperative here; we try to be.
Mr York: I signed on a long time ago, but I didn't get picked originally, so I'm glad for the opportunity.
My name is Paul York. I'm a member of the Waterloo Region Tenants' Coalition. I'm a tenant. That's largely why I'm here today. I am here to object to those provisions in Bill 96 which hurt tenants specifically.
Over 40% of the households in Waterloo region rent their homes, which is higher than the provincial average. Kitchener possesses the second-lowest vacancy rate in the province, less than 2%. Waterloo region has the fifth-largest concentration of rental housing in urban areas of this province, well over 100,000 tenants, and yet K-W was not chosen as a site for the public hearings. I believe this is because of the strong tenant presence in Kitchener. I suspect that had an influence on it.
The Waterloo Region Tenants' Coalition has hosted half a dozen successful public meetings over the last year to oppose this bill. Hundreds of tenants have attended these meetings and hundreds more have called to express their support. Currently we have, I believe, over 600 members in this coalition from Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo.
By not choosing Kitchener as a site for the hearings, tenants in Waterloo region have been denied a voice. It's very difficult to get over here. I just made it in time myself, and three other scheduled presenters didn't make it. This single deposition does not do justice to so many people, yet I will try to give you an impression of tenants' concerns there, because I've been in touch with many tenants.
During the last year I travelled to Cambridge and throughout Waterloo and Kitchener, talking to tenants and listening to their stories. I did this in the capacity of a volunteer with the coalition, distributing information.
Our coalition is largely made up of senior citizens. I would say 70%; that's a guess, but a lot of senior citizens. Many of those seniors are on fixed incomes. Those who live in private rental housing will be devastated by a 10% rent increase when that happens. Seniors' residences provide big profits for those who own them. I would not be surprised if the residents of Conestoga Towers or the Gresham buildings in Kitchener experience substantial increases. Many of the seniors I have spoken to have expressed outrage at this government's callous disregard for their wellbeing. Most have heard of the proposed changes and have told me they couldn't afford to pay more rent. One lady told me she wanted to "send Harris to the moon." Those are her own words. She was shaking her walker as she said this.
Several superintendents of seniors' buildings expressed their concern for the tenants they were caring for. One elderly superintendent, a man in his 70s, told me that the people in his building were too poor to successfully face another rent hike. He also told me that if he was a bit younger, he would want to teach some of the MPPs a lesson they'd never forget.
A woman outside a Holman building in Cambridge told me that if the rents went up again the landlord would have a war on its hands. Those were her words: "The landlord would have a war on its hands." Another woman in Waterloo said: "I'm afraid of being homeless. What am I going to do with my children if I'm homeless?" This was in Sunnydale Place. I don't know if Mr Wettlaufer is familiar with Sunnydale Place. It's in Mrs Witmer's riding. There's a very bad landlord there. He never repairs his property.
Everywhere I went I was greeted by people who already knew about the changes, and they were scared. They were also angry at the government for trying to impose such an onerous law on them.
A study from the Ministry of Housing has noted that more than two thirds of all tenants move at least once within a five-year period. Five years from now, with the aid of vacancy decontrol, the majority of rental apartments will be lost to unregulated and unyielding market forces. Unscrupulous slumlords, and I think I use that word correctly, will use this opportunity to gouge those tenants who can least afford it: seniors on fixed incomes; young couples just starting out; families new to this country, of which there are many in Kitchener; working-class families; the unemployed.
For students the end is even closer, since the majority move every year. Within a year or two, all the students' apartments will be decontrolled. Thousands of students at the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University will be adversely affected. This is at a time when tuition hikes, perpetrated by this government, have already threatened higher education substantially.
I want to address another area that not many people are familiar with; I came to know about it when I was living in Toronto in 1994: the warehouse residencies. There are many in Kitchener and Waterloo that I know of. These are industrially zoned areas. It's not very hard to imagine life without rent control or tenants' rights. People who live in warehouse studios already know what it's like. Despite the fact that they live in their studios, they are not considered to be legal residential tenants, because they are located on industrially zoned land. Their rents could be increased at any time, to any amount, and they can do nothing about it. Commercial leases offer no protection. These people are frequently the victims of harassment, extortion and intimidation tactics, such as turning the heat off in winter, but they have no legal recourse -- none.
1700
The existence of warehouse tenants highlights the terrible lack of affordable rental housing stock in Ontario's urban centres, including K-W. This shortage will be exacerbated with the loss of the Rental Housing Protection Act, not remedied, especially since warehouses are often gentrified to make into condos. For an example of what happens in the absence of equitable laws we have only to look as far as our industrial districts.
In terms of tenants' rights, there are several proposed changes in the TPA that I find highly objectionable. Landlords will be able to swear that a tenant verbally agreed to terminate the tenancy. This provision will encourage landlords to lie in order to bring in higher-paying tenants or to get rid of tenants whom they don't like personally. Tenants will have only five days to file a written dispute from the time they are served notice. This does not give tenants enough time to respond. Unfair evictions will result. Landlords who evict will be able to sell or throw out a tenants' belongings.
I have witnessed a landlord seize a tenant's property in an attempt to extort illegal charges beyond the monthly rental payment. In practice, the Tenant Protection Act, by allowing this last provision, will allow this kind of criminal behaviour to go unchallenged.
The Tenant Protection Act does not require the landlords to post their proper name and address, making it difficult to notify them of problems within the building. This will greatly serve absentee landlords, who routinely ignore their tenants' concerns, not to mention the work orders imposed by the municipality. This provision, which makes tenants afraid to organize to protect their legal rights for fear of eviction, I find especially beneath contempt. Justice is not served by these provisions. There is no sense of equity or fairness in them. I urge you to look at them again and amend them, please.
Bill 96 will do more to cause poverty and financial hardship in Waterloo region, I fear, than any other single piece of legislation put forward in the last two years. And for what? Developers have repeatedly stated that they have no intention of building affordable rental units. Professor Hulchanski of the Centre for Applied Social Research, whom you heard speak in Toronto, concluded that ending rent controls will have no positive impact on the rental housing supply. Any housing boom that results will not result in more affordable rental housing, due to the loss of the RHPA and developers' unwillingness to build such housing. In fact, rental housing stock will be lost through demolition and renovations. I fear that a plague of gentrification and displacement will result in increased homelessness and poverty and increased health problems, in Kitchener especially.
This is at a time when 15 proposed social housing sites in K-W have been cancelled and when, I've heard from some sources, social housing is going to be downloaded. I don't know if that's true, but I certainly hope not. If that were the case, in addition to these cancelled social housing sites, in addition to Bill 96, I ask you to think, where are people going to go? In terms of the motive, I suspect the motive for a lot of these changes has to do more with partisan political ideology against regulation than any common sense.
This attack on tenants' rights will facilitate the degeneration of private rental housing to a type of feudal arrangement in which the landlords have nearly absolute power and tenants are at their mercy, just as in the warehouses. Housing is not just another marketable commodity as some people here have suggested. Market failure requires us to regulate housing, as Professor Hulchanski noted. The conditions in which people live affect their health and wellbeing.
Safe, secure and affordable housing is a human right. This right should be upheld by law. If it is not, society as a whole will suffer. That is why we need to retain Ontario's existing rental housing regulations. I urge this government to reconsider its position and, where possible, amend the bill to reflect the need of tenants for affordable housing and for equitable rights.
A member of the Waterloo Region Tenants' Coalition will be submitting a written recommendation with specific amendments to this legislation prior to the 14th. I thank you for your time.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): Thank you very much, Mr York. We have about two minutes per caucus, beginning with Mrs Boyd.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much, Mr York. I share your regret that the committee was not able to go to the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge area because I think the issues there, as you present them and certainly as I have heard, are quite urgent in terms of the stock of low-cost, affordable housing. That really is where we are worrying about what is going to happen to people. When people have a lot of money they balance off some of the power that landlords have. When you don't have a lot of money, you can't afford to move. Then you're in real difficulty.
I was glad you talked about the complicating factor of student housing because I think it is a very serious problem there. I think it is London; I think it is in any university or college town. Where you have both universities and a college, you've got an added problem.
You're the first person I've heard talk about the warehouse problem in those frank terms. It's very helpful that that be out there in the open because it isn't just a problem in Toronto; it is a problem all over. I'm so glad you mentioned it.
Mr York: I've met many warehouse residents in Waterloo and Kitchener. Industry has left the inner core, so they are living there because of the housing shortage, which I don't believe will be solved by this bill, and they just have no rights. It strikes me that this is exactly what we're facing.
In Toronto, in one building on Sorauren, the city had to go to an enormous amount of trouble and cost -- I wouldn't be surprised if it was $100,000 -- to try to get this one landlord to make some changes in his building because there was no heat and electricity. It was a terrible situation. This is very costly. If you're trying to save money with this Common Sense Revolution, think about that, the cost of getting these landlords -- and with the end of rent freezes, the same sort of thing will happen. This is one of the few tools the municipalities have to enforce work orders, and you're taking it away from them. That's what Pam Coburn of Toronto building inspections said.
Mr Wettlaufer: Paul, are you aware that taxes on apartment units are considerably higher than on a corresponding detached home? In our city they could be as much as two and a half times.
Mr York: Yes.
Mr Wettlaufer: Now that the municipalities have the right to reduce those taxes, will you, through your association, make the tenants aware that they can now put pressure on the regional and the municipal councillors to reduce taxes on apartment units? You can get commitments from them prior to the next municipal election. Will you do that?
Mr York: I will consult with the coalition and whatever is best for tenants is that region, we will pursue that actively.
1710
Mr Wettlaufer: That could significantly reduce rents. Also, I've heard you talking about the rights of tenants and I'm not trying to say for a minute that tenants don't have rights. What we've tried to do with this legislation is steer a very thin line through a maze of rights. Do you not think that landlords have rights too? They own the properties; it's their investment.
Mr York: Yes, they do. They have rights and responsibilities, and I believe landlords and tenants should both comply; they both have rights. Some of my own relatives are landlords and I've talked to them about this legislation. For example, my mother owns about 10 houses with tenants. She doesn't feel it's necessary to raise the rent. She gets along with her tenants very well. I think the majority of landlords are fairly good, like her, and existing laws serve both parties well. It's the landlords who have enormous properties and where many abuses have been recorded that are problematic in this, I think.
Mr Wettlaufer: But they're in the minority, right?
Mr York: It seems like the majority of tenants are in their places.
Mr Wettlaufer: Eighty per cent of the rental buildings in this province are 10 units or less and most of them are owned by the small landlord. You heard me ask Mr Eby the question before, but 65% of these buildings are owned by single landlords, are single buildings, and they are largely immigrants who came over here after the war: Poles, Italians, Germans and Jews. This represents their life savings. I think we have a very delicate balance here that we have to deal with.
Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. I just wanted to confirm again to make sure I can paraphrase you: You're saying, again, it will be the lower-income, affordable units that will be most impacted by this. It will do nothing to create more supply. In fact, it will decrease the supply of existing affordable units.
Mr York: From what I understand, I fear that places like Conestoga Towers, although they're not necessarily low-income, will face increases as well. It's just that the low-income tenants will be least able to pay.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr York, for coming here and making your presentation today.
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTRE, LONDON AND AREA
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Steve Balcom from the Independent Living Centre.
Mr Steve Balcom: Good afternoon. I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. I realize it's getting late in the day. I probably won't take all the time needed.
Today my opportunity has arrived to represent the Independent Living Centre, London and Area, in an address on some features of Bill 96. Our centre and its members believe in the independent living movement. We endorse people making their own decisions and charting their own course in life.
People with disabilities are capable individuals who make a positive difference in our communities. In light of these facts, let's take a look at the effect Bill 96 will exact upon us.
Bill 96 will take away a human right, and we will never agree to the destructive removal of our human rights. We will never agree to let someone else move us, invade our privacy or harass us. The human rights movement marched on through blood and tears to reach its goal. Only a fool would toss away their human rights without a fight.
In the discussion paper on Bill 96 a faster, more accessible system is proposed. This new system would resolve landlord-tenant disputes more quickly. Wait a minute. Who said that the system in place is broken? We didn't. Who said that faster is better? If this new system is faster and more accessible, does that mean it is going to be better and any more fair for the tenants who go there? Pardon me if cynicism paints this picture, but does this new system put landlord-and-tenant disputes above the law, below the law or outside of the law?
This new picture of dispute resolution looks like a revolving door. The door is spinning fast with people going in, people going out. It is fast, it is quick but it is no better. It may be cheaper to operate, but no better. If lawyers and judges take a lengthy time to prepare their cases for court, they set an example of good preparation. "Quick and dirty" does not serve justice. We suspect it will serve landlords. We suspect it will serve service providers. We suspect it will not serve us.
We'll become sitting ducks in a carnival show, waiting to be knocked off in the sights of landlords and service providers whose bottom line is dollars and cents. Let me give you an example akin to the examples in your discussion paper, then I am sure my analogy will make sense to you.
Let us say Al Leach is 25 years old and has a physical disability that calls for attendant care services. That's why he lives in an SSLU, support service living unit. Nowadays we refer to those units as supportive housing units. The staff come in morning and night to help him get up and go to bed. His landlord is his service provider, who sublets his unit from the building's landlord.
One fine day, after Bill 96 was passed, Al told his service provider that he would like a little more attendant care to do a few tasks for him. That's when it happened. Without knowing it, Al just grew feathers and should start quacking. His service provider may decide that he crossed the line of no return. The service provider can apply to the tribunal for Al to be transferred, or as we would call it, evicted. Will Al know what's going on or will he just be bobbing in the water unaware of his future disaster? Will anyone tell him he is about to be displaced by management? Will anyone tell him that his life is about to be rearranged without his permission or knowledge or will they just show up and say, "We are moving you today"?
What recourse does Al have? You didn't talk about that in the discussion paper. You did talk about "special rules" for care homes. Pardon me, but every time we hear that word "special," we know someone is about to do something to us, not for us.
The "care homes" label is a category that includes boarding homes, nursing homes and a variety of situations in between. This unusual category is not subject to any government regulation. People may need services, other people may not. When the landlord is also the service provider, the tenant's insecurity is real and not imagined. Security of tenure should not be influenced by the tenant's service needs. If service needs change, eviction ,or "transfer," as you call it, should not be a possible option to the landlord. Security of tenure is a strong, positive factor that contributes to good health and wellbeing.
If the tribunal is the answer to all our possible troubles, they'd better be good, they'd better know what they're talking about and they'd better care about human beings, not the almighty dollar or political power. After all, where are all these people going to be "transferred" to? I shudder to think of the possibilities. Everyone knows that the need for affordable, accessible housing is far greater than the supply. It would be difficult to put our trust in a new type of system when that system has not been clearly designed and presented to us for assessment. Any governing body that affects such a basic human right must be an independent body and expert in its knowledge of landlord and tenant rights and obligations. We are certain of that.
The fact remains that we value our rights as tenants and as citizens of Ontario. We came here today to express our concerns about Bill 96. We want our human rights back. We want to choose where we live and make our own decisions about affordability and location. We do not need Big Brother watching over our shoulders telling us what we can afford or where to go. We do not want to be sitting ducks waiting for the inevitable death of our personal rights as citizens of this province.
Do not do it. We want to move forward too, so let's move forward together, ensuring that an individual's renting options will be protected and secured. Put the protection back into the Tenant Protection Act.
1720
Mrs Munro: Thank you very much for bringing our attention to this particular issue. I was wondering if you are familiar with the community care access centres and their mandate.
Mr Balcom: I've been here at the hearings all day except for the first two this morning, so I'm aware of what you said earlier today. But it begs a question. The control is with the CCACs, and everybody is in agreement that's where it should be. It begs the question, what is it doing in this legislation?
When it comes to care homes, as it sits now in this legislation it is too broad and too vague. It paints a broad brush. It should not be in there. It should not be part of this legislation. It doesn't belong there. I heard an earlier presentation where it did apply and this is where it should be taken on a case-by-case basis, the individual merits looked at and judged that way. You don't create a broad category under care homes that could be interpreted five ways to Sunday. If indeed it is under the CCACs, then fine, but it should not be part of this legislation.
Mrs Munro: Do you think then, in response to your concern, that there should be a recognition of the superior position, if you like, of the CCAC?
Mr Balcom: I have a problem with that too, but that's another discussion. If you want to do that, we'll discuss it, but that's not what these hearings are for. I have a whole host of concerns about the CCACs but that's under long-term care. That's another hearing and that's another subject.
Mr Duncan: Just so that I understand, you believe that the entire part IV ought not to be in this statute, that the whole issue of care homes or how we want to eventually define them needs to be dealt with in separate legislation?
Mr Balcom: It's a double-edged sword for us. It has already been stated today that the current rent-geared-to-income units are not the greatest in the world. There are problems, yes, but at least we have human rights protections and tenant protection. You should not take service provision issues and put them as an adjunct into a rent-geared-to-income situation. The two do not belong together.
Mr Duncan: What about the argument that if you didn't have this type of section in the bill, there would be no protection? You're saying that a separate bill would have to be developed at the same time.
Mr Balcom: I beg to differ with you in the sense that if you're saying care homes are seen as a source of protection and that's why you're putting them in this piece of legislation, it doesn't make sense because it doesn't do what you intended it to do, if that was your idea in doing it. I don't just mean recipients of attendant services. There's a whole host of community agencies and community health services that this could pertain to.
What it does is, it adds another level of vulnerability to us. We're already under the gun because we're dealing with a very limited -- presenters today have said when you look at low-income housing, you're looking at a very small percentage of the overall picture. When you look at accessible affordable housing, you're talking about an even smaller percentage of available housing. So when you put these service provision issues on top of an even smaller available stock of accessible affordable housing, let alone low-income housing, it ends up being two barriers at once. Potentially what you're setting up, especially when you take away the rights, is that you're giving landlords and potentially service providers another weapon to use against us. We're already vulnerable, and if we are in receipt of community services, we're going to be even more vulnerable. It doesn't make sense.
Mrs Boyd: Steve, it's not just young disabled people who are affected by this but seniors perhaps even more. In the Free Press this morning there was an article from the Middlesex-London District Health Unit about a senior who was in a declining mode of health, and at what point could someone step in and decide that something needed to be done to them rather than for them? That is a real concern, isn't it? Many of those seniors may live in somewhat supported housing circumstances, and maintaining their independence is a similar kind of issue in those circumstances.
Mr Balcom: Yes, many of them, and I'm not naïve about this whole issue. As you may know, I'm involved on a number of committees, so I'm very much aware of what the issue is. Part of the issue as I perceive it is that as the population ages, and this goes for anybody in this room, not just young adults with disabilities, your needs change. That's the issue they were trying to address through this home care issue. But inadvertently or whatever you've created another level of vulnerability, because especially if you take away the human rights that go with it, we would have virtually nothing. We would be totally at the mercy of the landlords and/or the service providers, with no recourse.
Mrs Boyd: It's a double-jeopardy issue just exactly as was identified by Ernie Lightman in the first place, and that the Tenant Protection Act was put in to try and resolve it.
Mr Balcom: Yes. It's a boomerang effect. In the very thing you intended to protect you're helping to create a higher degree of vulnerability, because at the very time that you're doing this, you're stripping away the protections that were already existing without proposing to put anything back in its place. I realize there's a whole debate around the issues of long-term care and community care access and everything else, but that --
Mrs Boyd: And health care consent.
Mr Balcom: And health care consent, the whole issue around informed consent and all that stuff, and the substitute decision-makers act. We also have an issue -- because it's really been watered down, but you certainly don't put it in this venue. You're not doing is any favours by doing so and you're not really dealing with the issue anyway.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Balcom, for coming and making your presentation.
1730
Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Mr Chair: On a number of occasions the parliamentary assistant and, just recently, Mr Wettlaufer, have talked about the disparity between taxes for residential properties that are multi-unit and those that are not and said explicitly or by implication, depending on the particular time, that tenants would benefit as a result of the change in the municipal taxation and assessment issues.
I think it's important for us to have a much clearer idea of how the government plans to ensure that any changes in the taxation for multiresidences would actually flow down to the tenant as opposed to simply being absorbed in the form of a higher rent, particularly if there's still a maximum rent on some of these units.
I wonder if I could ask that the parliamentary assistant table with this committee before we go to clause-by-clause the very clear plan by which the government plans to ensure that tenants actually get any benefit of any presumed tax drop that might occur.
The Chair: Okay, I'm sure Mr Gilchrist has heard you, and we'll have to wait to see what he will do.
LONDON AND ST THOMAS REAL ESTATE BOARD
The Chair: The next and final presenter is the London and St Thomas Real Estate Board, Nancy McCann, first vice-president. Ms McCann, good afternoon. We have your written presentation before us and you may proceed.
Ms Nancy McCann: This submission is presented by the London and St Thomas Real Estate Board in conjunction with the Ontario Real Estate Association with respect to Bill 96, the government's proposed tenant protection legislation.
The London and St Thomas Real Estate Board is an association of 1,400 realtors committed to providing its members with the structure and services to ensure a high standard of business practices and ethics and to serve effectively the real estate needs of the community. Because of the impact legislation often has on our business, we communicate frequently with politicians and civil servants on a wide variety of issues affecting realtors and real estate in general.
As the chairman of the political action committee of the London and St Thomas Real Estate Board and vice-president of the board of directors, I would like to assure the commission that the London and St Thomas Real Estate Board both welcomes and thanks you for the opportunity to submit its views on Bill 96.
With regard to the support for Bill 96, our board supports the government initiative in this policy area. The current regulatory system governing rental housing is clearly not working, for either landlords or tenants. Without a change in approach new private rental construction will remain at a virtual standstill and the existing stock of rental buildings will continue to deteriorate. In short, maintaining the status quo is not a viable option and simply ensures that a balanced rental market in most urban areas will remain an unfulfilled goal.
Bill 96 lays a solid foundation for the rebirth of the private rental housing construction in Ontario, a rebirth that is essential if tenants are to have adequate choice in terms of price and location. But more needs to be done. In particular, the bill does not address the very serious problem of high rental construction costs -- costs for which governments collectively bear much responsibility. While there are promising signs regarding property tax reform, new development charges legislation in Bill 98 and in recent building code changes, the high cost of new rental construction remains an impediment to the future growth of the rental housing stock.
The London and St Thomas Real Estate Board and OREA are pleased with the general thrust of Bill 96, including the following provisions:
Protection for sitting tenants: Rents will continue to be controlled for tenants who remain in their current units.
Simple rent determination: The guideline rent increases will continue to be calculated in the same manner as in the past and there will be an allowance for rent increases to cover capital expenditures.
Vacancy decontrol: When a tenant moves out, the landlord is free to charge whatever rent the market will bear. The new tenant then enjoys protection from rent increases beyond the guideline, plus allowances for any capital expenditures.
Abolition of the rent registry: Under the new system, there will be no need for the registry and the administrative burden it now imposes on landlords and the costs it imposes on taxpayers.
No controls on new rental projects: New rental projects will not be subject to the guideline rent increases.
Abolition of the Rental Housing Protection Act: Tenants will enjoy significant protection in the event that buildings are demolished or converted to condominiums.
Specific comments:
Penalties for inadequate maintenance: The consultation paper suggested heavy penalties on landlords for "inadequate maintenance." OREA commented then that the proposed system needed balance to ensure that landlords are treated fairly. LSTREB and OREA are encouraged that the new package contains substantial changes in this area that appear much fairer than the proposals in the consultation paper.
Rent control: In its submission on the consultation paper, OREA had expressed concern with the rent reduction proposals, particularly as they pertained to "inadequate maintenance." LSTREB and OREA are encouraged that Bill 96 includes some relaxation of these proposals.
Protection of tenants against harassment: In commenting on the consultation paper last August, OREA noted its support for protection for sitting tenants against unscrupulous landlords who may be tempted to force a tenant to vacate. The association also raised a concern that landlords require protection against tenants filing false or frivolous accusations against them. In Bill 96, the harassment provisions continue to apply only to landlords. There is no provision for penalties against tenants who ignore their responsibilities. LSTREB as well as OREA believes that this is unjust and should be addressed through an amendment to Bill 96.
Tenant evictions: The association notes the government's proposals do not fully address the problem of tenants who do not pay their rent. Bill 96 does include further details on the dispute resolution system but eviction procedures will not be clear until the regulations are finalized. LSTREB and OREA both encourage the government to build in additional protections and procedures to support landlords faced with tenants who do not pay their rent.
Dispute resolution system: The real estate board supports the proposed dispute resolution system outlined in Bill 96. The system will be independent of the courts, will have application fees and will provide mediation services as well as rulings on matters such as rent increases, abatements and evictions. However, complete details on the new system are not yet available. With this in mind, both our organization and OREA will reserve final comment until the complete system has been developed.
Rental Housing Protection Act: Realtors have long opposed the Rental Housing Protection Act as a violation of owners' property rights and applauds its proposed abolition. However, the association supports the measures in Bill 96 to ensure protection of sitting tenants and purchasers of units being converted, as does OREA.
Property tax reform: LSTREB and OREA remain concerned with the negative impact of property taxes on rental housing. Rental properties pay much more in property taxes than comparable ownership accommodation. This is unfair and will continue to be an impediment to new investment in rental construction. The impact of the government's recent property tax reform, removing parts of education and adopting actual value assessment, is as yet unclear. We support the provisions in Bill 106 that will allow municipalities to place new apartment buildings in a new property tax class with a lower tax rate. We are concerned that municipalities may not be willing to forgo the taxes such a change would entail.
In summary, the London and St Thomas Real Estate Board, along with OREA, strongly supports Bill 96. If adopted, it will redress many of organized real estate's long-standing concerns. While more needs to be done to encourage multiresidential construction, particularly reducing costs and reducing property tax inequities, we believe the tenant protection legislation will aid in restoring balance between landlord and tenant interests.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms McCann. Mr Duncan?
Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. I have no questions.
1740
Mrs Boyd: I am curious. Why do you think municipalities charge higher taxes for multiresidential properties than for single dwellings? What's the rationale? There must be one. Most of our municipal politicians are quite business oriented.
Ms McCann: I'm not aware, Marion, of why that precedent has been set.
Mrs Boyd: Let me suggest to you it's because municipalities have to provide services to people, and that if you have, as in the apartment building where I live in the city of Toronto, 1,000 tenants, those 1,000 tenants are using the services of the city. If the property tax were charged as it if were a single dwelling, that wouldn't be very fair, would it?
Ms McCann: No, and it obviously isn't going to be charged at the rate of a single dwelling, but the cost per unit could be reduced substantially as opposed to the rate that it's at now.
Mrs Boyd: It depends entirely on the municipality, doesn't it? There are quite substantial changes. I'm just curious about that, because the government members keep saying that municipalities should jump at the chance to change this, and my sense is that municipal councillors all over the place are as anxious to have a supply of affordable housing as anyone else is.
Ms McCann: Certainly.
Mrs Boyd: Yet they have certainly not been eager to look at that change in property assessment and must have some reason for it, and I'm always curious that the reason for the differential is never mentioned.
Ms McCann: As I said, I'm not qualified to answer specifically what that is. I think that our concern relative to municipalities being reluctant perhaps to move forward on this is simply, as we all know, with downloading situations that are occurring from one government level to another, property tax is one of the last areas that the municipalities have to raise their funds. We recognize that the door is being opened for this to be rectified. We would just like to be sure there is some assurance that there will be some benefits from this.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Ms McCann. I appreciate your coming forward to make your presentation. I feel forced to follow up on Ms Boyd's comments. I think there is a pretty good rationale. Let me just read you a little quote, November 10, 1994, from the then prospective mayor of the city of Toronto, every tenant's friend, Barbara Hall:
"I am outraged that you pay a significantly higher rate of property taxes than anyone else. You don't even know how much tax you're paying because it's hidden in your rent. This must change. I voted to send you clear information on the property taxes you pay as part of your rent because I believe you have a right to know."
It's unfortunate that in the three years she has been mayor, Ms Hall has not seen fit to enact that provision or in fact to bring fairness back.
I will give you another scenario to that posited by Ms Boyd. It was an easy, opportunistic, tax grab against people who are perhaps less politically involved, and in particular, because it's hidden in their rent, less aware it's even taking place. I share your concern about the impact, and I guess I'm frustrated by something else.
Here we are, within two days of the hearings wrapping up. We have had well over 100 presentations. Only one tenant group has ever put it on the record that they've ever even championed this issue, yet, at the same time, they're concerned about affordable housing. Well, if you take off all units, not just the top end, that same disparity, which here in London would average I would guesstimate somewhere between $50 and $60 a month, obviously for those paying $400, that's the biggest percentage from any source. Imagine a 12% reduction in your tax overnight, and not one penny of that would go to the landlord; 100% of that will flow through, thanks to this bill, to the tenants. I appreciate your raising the issue.
The only other thing I'd like to comment on is you address a couple of points, outstanding concerns, and I must say, we are sensitive, we've heard a number of presentations across the province from both sides that there are areas in this bill where the treatment of one party was not identical to the treatment of others.
In your case, you single out the issue of harassment, that there are very explicit clauses dealing with the harassment of tenants by landlords, but there's nothing that comments about harassment in reverse, particularly in the context of people holding up an eviction or abusing the court process currently, which would in future be the tribunal process. We're very sensitive to that, and I'm confident that we'll make sure that, for all those areas of disparity that have been raised, by the time you see the amendments tabled, you'll see further movement towards a balance there.
Ms McCann: I think balance is the key to the success of the system. It has to be good, both for the landlords and the tenants, and our association certainly recognizes that.
Mr Gilchrist: That is certainly our goal as well. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms McCann, for your presentation.
Mr Duncan: Could I place a question?
The Chair: Yes, Mr Duncan.
Mr Duncan: I'd just like to place a question to the parliamentary assistant. It's not necessary to answer it now unless he chooses to, but some time before clause-by-clause. What sections of the bill ensure that any decreases in municipal property taxes will be passed through to tenants?
Mr Gilchrist: As you're aware, Mr Duncan, I'm sure, having read the bill, presently a landlord can flow-through an increase. Very early on in the process, in fact I think even before we went to committee hearings, the point where it said that decreases would be responded to on the basis of a request by a tenant, we saw the ability to procedurally improve that. I can tell you, you will see amendments brought forward that would make it just as clear for decreases as well as increases.
Mr Duncan: But they're not presently contained.
Mr Gilchrist: By the time we get to clause-by-clause, you will see that.
Mr Duncan: But you had indicated that the bill already provides --
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Duncan, Mr Gilchrist, I'm going to allow questions but I'm not going to allow a debate. We'll have to save that.
Mr Duncan: I'm sorry. I hate to do things like that.
The Chair: I understand that, but we'll have to wait. That goes for you too, Mr Froese.
Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the public hearings here. These proceedings will reconvene in Windsor tomorrow. Accordingly, I adjourn the proceedings until tomorrow at 9 am at the Windsor Hilton.
The committee adjourned at 1748.