TENANT PROTECTION ACT,
1996
LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
BARRIE ACTION COMMITTEE FOR WOMEN
MAROULLA ANDREOU
HARRY ANDREOU
RAGAVAN SUBRAMANIAIYER
SINNATHURAI SINNATHAMBY
FAIR RENTAL POLICY ORGANIZATION OF ONTARIO
FEDERATION OF METRO TENANTS' ASSOCIATIONS
TORONTO REFUGEE AFFAIRS COUNCIL
GREATER TORONTO HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO COALITION OF SENIOR CITIZENS' ORGANIZATIONS
CANADIAN UNITARIANS
FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
UNITARIAN FELLOWSHIP OF NORTHWEST TORONTO
CONTENTS
Thursday 19 June 1997
Tenant Protection Act, Bill 96 Mr Leach / Loi de 1996 sur la protection des locataires, projet de loi 96 M Leach
Ontario Human Rights
Commission
Mr Keith Norton
Barrie Action Committee for
Women
Ms Sherrie Tingley
Gardiner, Roberts
Ms Carol Albert
Maroulla Andreou; Harry Andreou; Ragavan Subramaniaiyer; Sinnathurai Sinnathamby
Fair Rental Policy Organization of
Ontario
Mr Alan Greenberg
Mr Philip Dewan
Federation of Metro Tenants'
Associations
Mr Howard Tessler
Ms Janet Morrison
Mr Tim Collins
Toronto Refugee Affairs
Council
Ms Consuelo Rubio
Mr Abdul Rahimi
Greater Toronto Home Builders'
Association
Mr Sheldon Libfeld
Mr Robin Bookbinder
Jessie's Centre for
Teenagers
Ms Maureen Callaghan
Ms Sandra Fortin
Ms Michelle Lightfoot
Ms Martina Aponte
Ms Angel Robinson
Ontario Coalition of Senior
Citizens' Organizations
Ms Bea Levis
Mr Andrew Madden
Advocacy Centre for the
Elderly
Mr George Monticone
Canadian Unitarians for Social
Justice; Unitarian Fellowship of Northwest Toronto
Mr Wey Robinson
Ms Eileen Smith
Mr Joseph Hacohen
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 present / Membres
remplaçants présents:
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Also taking part / Autres
participants et participantes:
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale ND)
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles
L)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Tom Prins
Staff /Personnel: Ms Susan Swift, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1001 in room 151.
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. We are reviewing this morning Bill 96. We are hearing a number of depositions with respect to this bill. I might advise committee members, I'm informed the clock that's in the committee room is about four or five minutes fast, but I'm told that it is now 10 o'clock, so we will start.
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
The Chair: Our first delegation this morning is the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Mr Keith Norton. Good morning, Mr Norton. You have 20 minutes to make a presentation to the committee.
Mr Keith Norton: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and honourable members. I want to thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you this morning to make some submissions with respect to Bill 96.
Perhaps at the outset I could briefly indicate what I see is the role of the Human Rights Commission in being here. I want to emphasize that we are here independently. The Human Rights Commission's obligation is to be objective in the advocacy of the advancement of human rights in the province of Ontario, and it's in that context that we are here, although I suspect that some of my submission you will have heard, or very similar submissions, from other people.
We are not part of any coalition; we are here independently as the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
I will during the course of my submission make some reference from time to time to statistical data which are drawn from research done by others, some of whom will be appearing before you or have already, and I'm thinking in particular of Dr Ornstein, who I believe appeared last week, and Dr Hulchanski, who I believe is on your list of delegates for next Thursday.
I'm not here in any attempt to make it more difficult to do business in Ontario, but rather to share some concerns I have about the possible impact of section 36 and section 200 of Bill 96, as they are now drafted, on some of our most vulnerable citizens in the province.
Subsection 2(1) of the Human Rights Code provides that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to occupancy of accommodation without discrimination because of, among other things, the receipt of public assistance. I want to cast my comments a little more broadly than just receipt of public assistance to include all of those with lower-than-average family or individual incomes.
I have prepared a more scholarly statement which will be tabled with you and you can read it, but I'm going to try to keep my remarks a little less formal and refer to some handwritten notes that I have before me. But I would invite you to read the longer submission. It is footnoted, with authorities cited for the data that are included.
The protection against discrimination in housing was included in the code to reflect that international covenants to which Canada is a signator recognize that such items as food, clothing and shelter are three of the most fundamental needs and indeed rights of human beings. I know as one who has been involved in several business ventures myself over the years and who has advised others in business that it's important when making a business decision to have reliable, valid and relevant information available, and I'm certainly not here to submit that the people in the rental housing business in Ontario be denied reliable, valid or relevant information.
But I do have concern specifically with respect to the inclusion of income information in Bill 96 in section 36 and section 200. I would ask, what is the income information intended to provide to landlords? I suppose superficially it's a seductively simple concept. One would immediately, I'm sure, jump to the conclusion that you would ask a prospective tenant how much they make so that you can decide whether they will be able to pay their rent. It seems very logical.
But how, having that information, do you decide whether or not they can afford to pay their rent? The most common current practice is not to ask for a monthly budget showing how the individual would allocate their resources, but it's to apply an arbitrary rent-to-income ratio. I say "arbitrary" advisedly. Since the 19th century, there have been a series of arbitrary percentages of income that one is deemed to be capable of paying in rent, starting with, in the latter part of the 19th century, one week's pay for one month's rent.
But it's always been someone else's arbitrary estimate, not the individual's estimate, of what they can afford or what they can budget for their rent. It reflects no consideration of individual differences, such as the individual capacity to budget, capacity for self-discipline or different individual priorities.
Considering for a moment the current popularity of a 30% ratio, let's look at what that means in terms of the marketplace. By the way, as I was thinking about this a couple of evenings ago, it suddenly dawned on me that in all my years as a tenant, prior to owning my own home, as a young teacher and as a youngish lawyer starting out, I don't think there was any time, except for one year I can think of, when I paid less than 30% for my rent. The longest stretch of time during which I was a tenant and I didn't pay 30% of my income, and it was a 10-year stretch, was when I was a member of the Ontario Legislature and had a housing allowance. However, I digress.
The 1991 census indicates that 35% of all Canadian renters, 1.2 million households, paid at that time 30% or more of their income in rent. In Ontario in that same year, one third of all rental households, 430,000 households, paid more than 30% of their income as rent. Some 15%, or 195,000 households, paid 50% or more. If we just look for comparison as well at home owners, close to 30% of home owners in 1991, those people with mortgages, paid 30% or more of their income for accommodation, and 10% of those, 115,000 households where the home was owned, with a mortgage, paid 50% or more of their income for accommodation.
Obviously, if the 30% ratio -- as I say, I'm using that because that seems to be the popularly used one these days -- is applied uniformly across the board, based on 1991 data, and it could be even higher now, 430,000 individuals and families who are now renting or were then renting and paying more than 30% of their income could be denied access to accommodation. We would obviously have the worst housing crisis in our history if that were to be the case. There would be an enormous increase in the demand for rent-geared-to-income housing and, I would venture to say, a collapse of the rental housing industry in the province.
What does this tell us? I think one thing it tells us is that ratios are not a reliable indicator. Obviously, if 35% of renters pay more than 30%, which is what the conventional wisdom dictates, it's not a reliable indicator of ability to pay. Ratio is not a valid indicator. It doesn't tell you what you think it will.
1010
What does it do? It treats all families and individuals with lower-than-average incomes as if they are high-risk tenants. It doesn't respect individual characteristics such as thrift, self-discipline, willingness to sacrifice, individual rental histories. It treats everyone the same based upon a common characteristic, which is lower-than-average income. This is prejudice. This is discrimination. Income may not be a prohibited ground in the code, but you're certainly pre-judging people based upon a common and, I suggest, irrelevant characteristic and treating them differently.
It's based upon, I suspect, assumptions which are often made about people who are on public assistance or low-income people: that they more frequently default in the payment of rent; they're less responsible in the management of their money; they have more children. There are a whole host of assumptions that are made about those individuals.
I commend to you some research that was done by John Stapleton. I don't know whether John is still an Ontario government employee, but when I was Minister of Community and Social Services, he was an employee at that time. He has debunked those assumptions and demonstrated that in fact they are false. It's not true that people with low income and on public assistance default more frequently. It's not true that they are less responsible in the management of their money. I have no problem nor does the commission with the use of references, rental histories, credit ratings, provided that the absence for such individuals as young people starting out or immigrants who haven't had an opportunity to establish those records cannot lead to an adverse assumption.
What is the problem that the legislation is trying to address on behalf of landlords with the inclusion of income information? Is it to eliminate their default in payments? Is it to minimize the loss of income because of delays in eviction proceedings after default? I've often heard that complaint from landlords and if that's the case then perhaps there should be some review of the legislation with respect to procedures leading to eviction following a default. But you don't fix a procedural problem in one piece of legislation or in the courts by placing a whole category of people, those with lower-than-average income, be they elderly, disabled, women, or people on public assistance at risk of being arbitrarily denied access to accommodation.
I've heard people trying to draw an analogy between requiring income information in this instance and applying for a consumer loan from a financial institution. I think they're quite different things. I hope it is clear to everyone that in the case of a consumer loan one is asking a financial institution or an individual to advance to them, up front, cash, creating immediately an indebtedness. You want to know whether they have the capacity to repay that.
In the case of a tenancy arrangement, it's quite different. The landlord is entitled to require two-months' rent -- first and last months' -- in advance and every month of the tenancy arrangement, the tenant pays before they have used the facility. In other words, there is no indebtedness at the time the rent is paid. It's paid in advance every month of the agreement, so there's no great indebtedness at the time of a default. There may be debt incurred as a result of delays, but they're quite different arrangements.
I've also heard some suggestion that maybe just fixing a higher ratio than 30% might resolve the concerns. I suggest it doesn't really address the concern. It might reduce the size of the group affected, but it only targets more narrowly an even more needy group.
My recommendation to you is that you seriously consider removing income information from both section 36 and section 200. As long as income information can be used as a screening device, people of lower incomes, disproportionately the handicapped, the elderly, women and certain minority groups, will be at risk of being subjected to having their decisions dictated to them by someone else based on what I think the research shows quite clearly is an irrelevant factor, their income level, and also based upon on someone else's sense of what their priorities ought to be. That's paternalistic. I suggest it's demeaning and it certainly discourages individual responsibility. Furthermore, it doesn't respect the free market. In fact, it fetters the decision-making of a very significant number of players in the marketplace.
In conclusion, I would like simply to say that the current method of using income information is not reliable, valid or a relevant indicator. It is not a sophisticated measure at all and in fact it discriminates. It does so in a critically important area, and that is access to housing.
I would, finally, remind you that Canada is a signator to an international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights which cites food, clothing and housing as basic rights recognized by the signators. I would urge you not to intentionally or otherwise, and I'm sure it would not be intentional, place any additional barriers to access to adequate housing before these individuals.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Norton. I'm sure members of the committee will have some questions for you.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Mr Norton, thank you for your presentation. I know you sent the minister a letter earlier outlining your concern on this particular issue. In fact I asked him a question in the House based on the letter that you sent and he acknowledged that, yes, there were some problems related to this section and I got the impression that he was amenable to responding positively, meaning that this would be taken out.
It's a fairly straightforward issue in my opinion. However, what would happen in the event that this section did stay in this piece of legislation and yet the Human Rights Code clearly shows that it's a discriminatory issue? What would that mean? Would you have to amend, then, the Human Rights Code?
Mr Norton: It wouldn't be for me to amend the Human Rights Code.
Mr Patten: No. You know what I mean.
Mr Norton: I suppose it would depend upon the nature of any regulation that might be promulgated pursuant to the provisions in this legislation.
I can't imagine a regulation being formulated in a way that would not be in conflict with the current provisions of the code. If it were to restrict, for example, the use of income information only to determine access to assisted housing, for example, that would probably be all right. The only problem I would have then is that the bill would then permit the collection of income information without restriction. It would only be restricted as to how it was used.
My concern then would be -- and the cases we have seen often have been cases where it appears that income information is used as a method of screening out people on public assistance. If people are enabled to collect the information, even if they're restricted in the use of it, once you have it, my concern is it can be used in order to screen out individuals on public assistance. It's very difficult to police that if the legislation says you can collect it.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Norton, thank you for coming. I want to ask you two quick questions, if I can. First of all, Bruce Porter from the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation very much said what you're saying today, and that was his sole concern, and Michael Ornstein, professor at the Institute for Social Research, said very much what you have been saying. Has the minister written back to you in response to your concerns? Have you had any correspondence from them since you've written to them?
Mr Norton: I haven't at this point, no. I had an acknowledgement of my letter, but I have not had any sort of follow-up on the substantive issues.
Mr Marchese: I want to move on to another matter that is of great concern to me as well and that's section 93, which allows landlords to apply to transfer their tenant somewhere else if their tenant's health changes or the landlord is unable to provide or chooses not to provide the extra services the tenant may require. I'm not sure if you'd had an opportunity see that.
1020
Mr Norton: I don't happen to have that before me at the moment. I'm sorry. Section 93?
Mr Marchese: People are very concerned that this allows the landlords or the caregivers in this regard to just transfer people when their health changes. We believe there's a contractual agreement between the two parties. For the landlord to then say, "Well, we're not able to provide for you any more and you've got to go," that too is an infringement, we believe, and there's protection in human rights for seniors and people with disabilities, two groups who are most affected by this. Obviously if you haven't had an opportunity to look at that very carefully --
Mr Norton: I haven't really contemplated that, but on first blush, since it's an application to a tribunal, there would be some oversight for any such decision. If there were any area in which it might impact upon the Human Rights Code, it might be in the area of disability possibly. But without having given it more thought, I wouldn't like to make any --
Mr Marchese: I would appreciate it, Mr Norton, if you had the time to reflect on that section.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Good morning, Nr Norton. Good to see you again.
First, I would just like to correct for the record Mr Patten's suggestion there would be a contradiction. The bill would amend the code; there would be no contradiction. In fact, the very inspiration for having this suggestion in there is to clarify the relationship between tenants and landlords, to clarify a problem that exists right now.
I would remind you that 80% of the rental units in this province are in buildings of six units or less. They're primarily owned by people who have put their money in there. That is their pension. In many cases they live in the same building, they look out at the same lawn and they park in the same parking lot. The suggestion is that they should have lesser rights in protecting their assets than the bank when they lease you a car.
I don't dispute for one second your suggestion about consumer loans, but I would suggest that leasing a car is identical in your context: that you pay in advance for an asset that you then have use of for the next month. The suggestion that banks be accorded the ability to do checks and yet someone whose sole assets are being exposed should not have the same right I find inconsistent.
Let me make one other point, Mr Norton. I'd like your response to this. Your very own submission would seem to rebut the entire case. You've said that at present 195,000 of the tenants in this province pay over 50% of their income towards rent. That means 195,000 landlords, or units under the authority of 195,000 landlords, have made that concession. They're not arbitrarily applying a 30% rule. Why would you expect landlords to operate any differently in terms of their appraisal of tenants and the decisions they make simply because we clarify that it is now a right to ask that when you and I are both aware that it is common practice and they are doing it right now?
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gilchrist. Unfortunately, our time has expired.
Mr Norton: I don't get a chance to respond to that?
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): On a point of order, Mr Chair: The questions that have been raised by Mr Norton are so fundamental and so important, and the comments by the parliamentary assistant are so fundamental to this issue, that I move we have unanimous consent to extend Mr Norton's time by 10 minutes.
The Chair: I guess someone who will be following Mr Norton will not be able to make a presentation, but if that's --
Mr Colle: We'll just extend the time.
Interjections.
The Chair: There is not unanimous consent, Mr Colle.
Mr Marchese: Mr Tilson, 10 minutes is a bit excessive, clearly, because the members don't want that.
The Chair: Is this a point of order, Mr Marchese?
Mr Marchese: On a point of order: Mr Gilchrist has made a statement. All we want from Mr Norton is a response. It shouldn't take longer than two minutes, I suspect. Would that be agreeable to the other members, unanimous consent, for a two-minute response?
Interjection: No.
The Chair: There's not unanimous consent. Yes, Mr Duncan? A point of order?
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question to place to the government.
The Chair: A question?
Mr Gilchrist: We said that they would be in writing.
The Chair: I'd prefer we do that either in your time for asking questions or --
Mr Gilchrist: Or in writing.
The Chair: In writing, yes.
Mr Duncan: We never agreed to that.
Mr Gilchrist: Yes, we did.
Mr Duncan: No, we didn't. We agreed at the last meeting --
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I need your assistance. We're already five minutes past the time for --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order. Thank you, Mr Norton.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): You're muzzling everybody all over the place.
Mr Colle: Point of order, Mr Chairman.
Mr Sergio: You want to shut us up in the House; you want to shut us up in the committee here.
Mr Gilchrist: You voted for 20 minutes instead of 15.
Mr Sergio: No, we didn't vote. You don't want us to talk even in the House. What the hell are you talking about?
The Chair: Could we have some order? Mr Colle on a point of order.
Mr Colle: Mr Chairman, I've asked that there be an extension of time so that Mr Norton could at least address that critical issue put to him by the parliamentary assistant. Is it my understanding that we cannot even give Mr Norton two minutes?
The Chair: The next delegation is to start at 10:20. It is now 10:25.
Mr Colle: Mr Chairman, is that your problem with the next delegation? The next delegation, I am sure, would concede two minutes of their time.
The Chair: If the next delegation wants to talk for only five minutes, that's fine.
Mr Colle: Yes, two minutes less.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent? There is not unanimous consent.
Mr Colle: Two minutes of your time; we'll sit here beyond the 10 minutes.
Mr Sergio: Use your common sense. Come on. Use your common sense.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Norton, thank you for appearing before us this morning. The next --
Interjections.
Mr Colle: Two minutes.
Mr Norton: Perhaps I can respond in writing.
The Chair: Thank you.
The Chair: The next delegation is the Barrie Action Committee for Women, Sherrie Tingley.
Ms Sherrie Tingley: I'd like to give two minutes of my time here to Mr Norton to respond, please.
The Chair: Actually, you don't have two minutes to give. You've got about three minutes to make your presentation.
Ms Tingley: I've got 20 minutes. I have 20 minutes.
Interjections.
Mr Sergio: It's not her fault.
Ms Tingley: I haven't even started.
Mr Duncan: She has 20 minutes.
Interjections.
Mr Sergio: It's not her problem.
Mr Gilchrist: No, you're her problem.
Mr Duncan: She has 20 minutes from the time she's called.
The Chair: Could we have some order?
Mr Duncan: So that means she's got 17 minutes.
Ms Tingley: I haven't started.
The Chair: Can we have some order?
Ms Tingley, if you wish Mr Norton to participate in your presentation, I have no problem with that.
Ms Tingley: Thank you.
Mr Norton: Perhaps I can very briefly respond to Mr Gilchrist's two questions. I'll try to recall them. I didn't mean to create such controversy.
With respect to the appropriate checks, I agree with you, Mr Gilchrist, that all relevant information should be available to a landlord. My presentation attempts to set out that income information is demonstrably not a valid indicator. Credit checks, tenant histories, those kinds of things I have no problem with. They would appear to be much more relevant indicators of one's willingness and ability to pay.
The 195,000 households that you refer to, yes, I think does indicate that not all landlords are rigidly applying it. But then it raises another question: How are they exercising their discretion as to when they apply it? Is it being used to screen out people they deem to be "undesirable" because they are on public assistance? It's dangerous information, I think, and I think once it is enshrined in the legislation, you will see its use increase substantially because then it will be condoned by the Legislature of Ontario.
1030
BARRIE ACTION COMMITTEE FOR WOMEN
The Chair: Ms Tingley, the floor is yours.
Ms Tingley: I was going to end my presentation with a video, but I'm going to start it with a video. This is a video from the women's and children's shelter in Barrie, out of Toronto, and I wanted you to have a look at some of the people who will be affected by the changes you're making in this bill.
Audiovisual presentation.
Ms Tingley: I know some of you don't ever go to your women's shelter or get inside to see the faces of the people who are there. We feel very strongly that these are the very people you are affecting with your bill. I'm not sure if you are listening, so that's why I brought a video -- maybe if you see it. It seems that instead of listening to the presentations in August -- we presented in August -- and the concerns speaker after speaker raised, they were just ignored. The bill is the same as the proposal. I am shocked, just shocked.
I am just wondering who you are really listening to. I looked through the 10 days of hearings and could not find one person asking for the amendment to the Human Rights Code. I guess now your chief commissioner didn't ask for it either, so I don't know who asked for this, who you're listening to.
I guess you'd be wondering what interest I am representing and you would say it was a special interest. I don't think it's a special interest to talk about the women and children who live in our communities in Ontario. I think you're listening to the vested interest groups or that special interest group of -- you're talking about protecting investment, so hopefully I am giving you a different view.
Speaker after speaker said it would not create housing, that it's a disaster, it's a disaster for tenants. Section 200 would exclude almost all in my community, all the young families, everyone on social assistance, most of the families with children, a lot of elderly on fixed incomes. It just boggles my mind that you would go ahead with that.
In my community there are 3,000 single mothers on FBA. Of those, 624 are caring for disabled children who get a disabled child benefit. In total, that's 4,500 students. So next time you go out and visit a classroom, maybe you can look at the classroom and think of all those kids who will be excluded from housing.
What happens is, people have to get scuzzier housing when they're excluded because of discrimination, and they end up paying more, so they have less money for the needs of their children.
During the debate of the bill I was there to witness Dianne Cunningham heckling the opposition, screaming: "They choose to move. They choose to move. They're protected if they stay." You know, they're protected with rent controls. They don't really have to worry about access, I guess.
I don't know anybody who chooses to move. Rarely do we sort of sit around and say, "Gee, next week I feel like moving." In my community, in the work that I do with women, women choose to move because they're being battered; they choose to move because they've been raped by a neighbour, a superintendent; they choose to move because their children need something different or their children have been victims of violence. To think that these are the people who will be expected to negotiate a new rent -- you can't negotiate when you're desperate. These will be the people you will be excluding from the market; these will be the people who aren't protected by rent controls. It just boggles my mind.
I welcome your questions, I guess. I've given you my submission and maybe we can talk about it. Maybe you'll listen.
Mr Marchese: Thank you, Ms Tingley, for your ongoing interest and involvement in this issue. I know that you've been following the debates in the House and I know you also made a deputation the last time around.
We've been saying what you've been saying. Some 70% of the people who made deputations said, "Don't touch the rent control," that we put into place.
They come back later on saying: "We listen. We are listening. We listened. We always listen." They're always listening. Our concern is that they're not listening to the people who are very concerned about what's happening with this legislation.
I really get very worried about the Conservative view of property rights and landlord rights at the cost of the human rights of people who really don't have much of a choice, sometimes, as to where they go. I worry about that, because if you listen to Mr Gilchrist, these people have a right to essentially do what they like. We're worried that a lot of the people who are tenants earn such a low income that they have very little protection. If governments aren't there to protect them, who will?
You have a great deal of experience in this field, obviously. Do you have any other stories about how tenants will be affected? You comment on the fact that people are protected if they stay, but we know they're not protected. Do you want to comment on that part of it or other parts of this?
Ms Tingley: On the view of human rights versus property rights, I suppose there are some employers who would say that they can put someone who is black in the back of the shop, but we know that's discrimination. We're talking about discrimination, which should be illegal. I suppose employers maybe would say they should have rights to discriminate and various groups should have -- I mean, we're not asking for anything special. We're just saying you should not be able to discriminate against whole groups of people with no valid reason.
Mr Marchese: I agree.
Dianne Cunningham says people are protected if they stay. We know there is already a 2.8% guideline increase. These Tories have increased the capital expenses from 3% to 4% and these guys have added now property taxes and utilities on top of that. Do you know any of the people you work with who get increases of that kind that would allow them to keep pace with those types of increases?
Ms Tingley: I know a lot of people I work with saw a decrease of 21% in the money they had to pay rent and had to take their food money to make that up. No, I don't know anybody who gets those kind of increases. And I understand that if property taxes go down, the tenant still has to apply -- well, number one, find out their property taxes went down, and then apply, and each person in the building has to apply.
1040
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Ms Tingley, I see that you're the housing coordinator for We Care Non-profit Homes Inc in Barrie.
Ms Tingley: I was.
Mr Beaubien: You were. What's your definition of non-profit housing? Whom should it cater to? Could you enlighten me on that subject matter?
Ms Tingley: Who should live in non-profit housing?
Mr Beaubien: Yes. What is non-profit housing designed for?
Ms Tingley: I don't know how much time we have. I think it creates jobs, which we've seen.
Mr Beaubien: It creates what?
Ms Tingley: It creates jobs in construction. It creates good stock.
Mr Beaubien: But I thought we were talking about rental units.
Ms Tingley: Well, you're asking me.
Mr Beaubien: Isn't that what we're concerned about? I'm not talking about jobs. What was non-profit housing designed for? What was the original purpose of non-profit housing? Was it to create jobs?
Ms Tingley: Well, that was one part of it. It was to create wonderful communities. In my community we have about 17 non-profit sites that are close to schools, that are beautiful housing, that are diverse. I think it was meant to create a nice thing in the community -- neighbourhoods. I'm not quite sure what your question is. Do you have non-profit housing in your community?
Mr Beaubien: Yes. I'm chairman of one.
Mr Colle: Just to be quite clear, Ms Tingley, as you know, Keith Norton said that if this bill is passed, women, the poor, the elderly and the disabled will basically be discriminated against in their ability to find housing. Do you agree with Mr Norton's assertion or do you agree with Mr Gilchrist's assertion that this is a business function?
Ms Tingley: I think people will be discriminated against. Our experience is that people are already discriminated against, and it'll just open the door. Now they can, so they will.
Mr Colle: But who will be discriminated against? Which groups specifically?
Ms Tingley: The people on social assistance. In my community it'll be families with children. We'll see adults-only buildings because people with children who rent are poor in my community because of the lower housing costs. So we'll see adults-only buildings. Some of the nicer-quality housing that's in the better neighbourhoods will not be open to women and children and the seniors.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Tingley, for your presentation.
GARDINER, ROBERTS
The Chair: The next presentation is, I assume, by the law firm of Gardiner, Roberts and the presenter is Carol Albert.
Ms Carol Albert: I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear again and present some thoughts and concerns to the committee. I attended last August and I am pleased to see that some of the concerns I had expressed in the paper I presented at that time have been addressed in Bill 96.
Just for the committee's benefit, my own background so that you know from where I come and what I speak about, I am a practising lawyer and I've been practising in the field of residential tenancy law for 15 years, so I've seen how the system works or doesn't work in various aspects, and my client base is the landlord community.
I speak to you both from the perspective of a practitioner in the judicial system, or quasi-judicial system, as well as a practitioner who speaks for landlords. I also practise as a mediator and I have mediation experience that I bring with me as I speak to you. I also speak with a hat that I've newly assumed and that is my current role as a member of the board of directors of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority which has allowed me to see a different perspective on housing as well.
The paper that I present today is much less formal and technical than the paper I presented in August. What I have done for this committee today is take 10 points about Bill 96 that I submit are significant points that need some consideration and that address some specific issues. I will take the time to address a few of those points with the committee today. I don't think the time permits all of the 10 points to be addressed.
I'll begin with the first point in the paper. This is a point that deals with merits and justice in decision-making. We have had, in the past 20 years of rent regulation legislation in Ontario, for all of that period of time except the period of the Rent Control Act, since 1992, a provision in the legislation that provided that the decision-makers must make their decision on the real merits and justice of the case. That clause or that provision was removed by the past legislation. It has not been put back in under this proposed bill. I submit and I recommend that it ought to be.
The merits and justice provision allowed the tribunal members to make decisions on the true issues before the tribunal and not defeat the applications on technicalities. That is how the court dealt with that provision and the tribunal members. Its absence could result in unnecessary litigation in the courts to try and correct irregularities. It's a simple amendment to make and it ought to be put back and restored.
The next point that I will address verbally to you deals with number 4 in my paper, in conjunction with number 3. That deals with the mediation process. I applaud the legislation for moving forward with the times in invoking a mediation process at the tribunal. I think that mediation is a very powerful and necessary part of the adjudicative process in the 1990s, and if done in a way that it has an opportunity for success, it will vastly reduce the bureaucracy of the decision-making process. But I have some concerns about the mediation process as we've seen it in action currently in its pilot project and as it might play out in the new legislation. Mediation -- and the time allotted here is not quite enough to go into a discussion of mediation styles and mediation models, but mediation can be one of several types.
It can be a rights-based mediation, where a mediator takes two parties and says to one of them, "You're going to lose when you go to the hearing so you may as well settle now." That's a rights-based approach, and it ends up with a winner and a loser. That is what we've seen in action in the pilot projects, both at the court in landlord-tenant and in the tribunal in the Rent Control Act. That does not make full use of the opportunities that mediation can present.
Another model of mediation, the interests-based model, where one looks at the interests of the parties and sees whether there's a way to accommodate those interests and the needs of the parties, provides much greater opportunity for success of the system. Let me give you an example. On an eviction case, a rights-based model would say tenants are in arrears of rent; they owe the money; they lose; the landlord wins; they need the money because they're entitled to it.
However, it may be that the need of the tenant is some time, or the need of the tenant might be some assistance on budgeting. An interests-based mediation can look at those other factors and determine whether there's a way to bring the parties to a solution that will meet the needs of both parties. My recommendation here is that the mediation process be implemented but with enough training and enough resources for the mediators to really make a difference and perform their function effectively.
The third approach to mediation would be a transformative style, and this forum is certainly not long enough to get into that. But a transformative style looks at the ongoing relationship of the parties. How can these parties live together in the future? In landlord-tenant relationships that's often what's needed, and I urge this government to make sure that when this is brought into play those opportunities are provided in the mediation process. I'd be happy to expand on that when time permits.
1050
This brings me to the portion of the paper, number 3, on the freedom to agree. While having on the one hand a mediation opportunity in the legislation, we have tremendous restrictions in the legislation as proposed on what agreements can be entered into, a somewhat paternalistic approach to a concern that any agreement over a certain threshold is assumed to be a coerced agreement.
What I'm suggesting is freedom to agree, but where there may be a threshold that is exceeded, then that agreement can be run by one of the mediators or an adjudicator so that there can be a checkpoint as to whether the agreement was entered into freely. The opportunity for mediated solutions would certainly be enhanced if the box around what can be agreed to is removed but there is some check and balance on the question of whether or not there's a free and willing entering into of the agreement.
The next points that I'll take a couple of minutes to address deal with numbers 6 and 7 in my presentation, the proposed adjudication process. In my earlier presentation in August, I had made a strong recommendation that the landlord and tenant court function remain in the courts. I'm not going to repeat any of that. I think we've seen clearly the direction that this legislation is going and that it's going into a tribunal and all of the landlord-tenant conflict will be determined by tribunal adjudicators.
I repeat the concerns and the caution that these adjudicators be selected in such a way that they are independent, they are impartial not only in perception but in reality, as far removed from the ministry as possible; that their terms are such that these are allowed to support the impartiality both in fact and in perception; and that they receive the necessary training in process, in controlling the process and in the substantive area of law, and in dealing with the diversity issues of the people who will appear before them. Training in the human element is going to be critical in dealing with the kinds of issues that are before them.
I think if we see very careful attention paid to the selection process and the training, then we can have an adjudicative system that functions well. But in the absence of those things, we will see some of the horror stories we've seen in the past where hearings spin out of control. The adjudicators are unable to control the process, they are unable to control the people in the room; they are clearly, in the way they speak and the remarks they make in the hearings, showing bias; and they essentially end up with hearings that run three, four, five, 10 days. I've had hearings that ran 10 days of hearing time spread out over a year, and a good part of that was due to the inability of the adjudicator to control the process. These are the kinds of things that need to be avoided, and there are ways to do that.
The other concern on the adjudicative process, the tribunal that's being set up, is a concern in the operations side in trying to determine how many adjudicators, how many locations, all of those, how many cases the system will be able to process a day, a week, a month or a year. My concern is that unrealistic assumptions might be forming the foundation upon which this is being based. Assumptions are being made that hearings should only take a certain number of minutes, when in reality that's not going to be the case. People need to be heard. People who are in situations where their accommodation is in issue need to be heard. I submit that 20 minutes, for example, is not enough time to hear a case. We need to have realistic expectations.
I don't know what the actual foundation is. I do know, though, that the court system is able to process cases because judges take authority and they cut people off. They say to people, "That's not relevant, move on." In my experience in 15 years in front of the tribunal, the laypeople who are adjudicating do not have that same confidence. They have a concern about natural justice and fairness and they're afraid to cut people off. Therefore, you end up with hearings that are much longer than they might be in a court. When you take a whole pile of cases out of the courts and put them into a tribunal, you're not going to see the time shortening to deal with these cases; it will lengthen. I just ask that realistic expectations for time be taken into account.
The next point I'll raise deals with vacancy decontrol. We know that one of the key elements of Bill 96 is partial vacancy decontrol; decontrol on turnover but then control comes back into play for the duration of the tenancy. That's an important message. That does send a message to the community that there is going to be a movement back towards a free market economy. Tenants are landlords' customers. In my years of representing landlords tenants are their customers and they want to treat them well. They want their customers to stay.
The vacancy decontrol element is a very important part of the confidence that the development community needs and the landlord community needs to put large infusions of money into creating new stock and restoring existing stock. That being the case, there is a phrase at the beginning of the section, and it's section 116 of the bill, that potentially undermines the confidence that would otherwise be there in vacancy decontrol as a concept. Those words are "unless otherwise prescribed," which suggests that with the stroke of the pen of the Lieutenant Governor in Council vacancy decontrol could be eliminated. That is a concern that I submit could undermine the message that this portion of the legislation is otherwise transmitting.
There's also a concern I'd like to raise regarding the fact that vacancy decontrol was not extended to include mobile home and land-lease home sites. It is suggested in the act that there will be a different system for them based on a threshold number rather than vacancy decontrol. But in the absence of regulations, so that there can be an evaluation of that number, it's very difficult for that community to evaluate what this legislation means to them and how they'll be able to continue to operate their parks.
Again, I bring the committee back to remembering landlords are in the business of providing accommodation, of providing housing units or, in mobile home cases, sites. They want to be able to continue to provide those sites and need to be able to do so in an economically responsible way, in a way that they can go to their financial institutions and obtain the necessary cash to do the necessary improvements and certainty is required.
For mobile home and land-lease communities the absence of any understanding whatsoever of what their rules might be is quite difficult and having the regulation at least in draft form would assist them in evaluating this legislation.
Point 9 on my paper --
The Chair: You have about two minutes left.
Ms Albert: Thank you. Postponing the eviction order: Right now the courts have the power, on eviction, to postpone the eviction order for a period of up to one week. The tribunal members are proposed to be given the discretion to postpone an eviction order for an undetermined length of time with no discretion. I am suggesting that for some certainty there needs to be a time limitation put on that and I make a suggestion in my paper.
I'll take the last few moments and deal with transition provisions. The transition provisions provide that applications commenced under the Rent Control Act continue and be determined under that act. We are seeing a flurry of applications where tenants apply for rent reductions, to which all tenants in the building are generally added in certain kinds of cases, creating a vastly increased workload in a number of the offices for cases that take a long time to adjudicate and seem to be driven by the sunset of the current legislation.
I'm suggesting that as a transition provision any application for rent reduction that began after the date of introduction of Bill 96, any application filed on or after November 21, 1996, be terminated if the hearing has not been completed and that's without prejudice to the individual who made the application reapplying under the new legislation. In the absence of such a transition provision, we're very much going to see the current system spinning on for several years while these cases go on and on and on. Those are certain transition provisions that could put an end to the current system.
1100
I'm going to take the last 30 seconds and address the question that was raised regarding section 93 of the Rent Control Act. That dealt with the transfer of residents who needed additional care that the landlord could not provide.
I'd like this committee to be aware that that is a provision that's not in the general portion of the legislation. The section 93 provision was a specific care home provision. It deals with people who are in accommodation in care homes where they're getting care services and who are no longer mobile enough to be cared for in accordance with the services provided by the operator. This act puts in place an opportunity for those people to be placed in facilities where they can be properly cared for, and that's what section 93 was directed at.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. I know that all members of the committee, or all sides, have expressed a wish to ask you questions, but unfortunately we're out of time.
Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I just have a question to place to you. It is the practice in many committees that at the end of all presentations and questions by all three caucuses, all three caucuses can have the opportunity to place a question either to the researcher or to the parliamentary assistant for a written response at a later date. Is it not your intention to allow that to occur in these hearings?
The Chair: I have no problem with your putting questions to the parliamentary assistant or the researcher. You can do it in two ways. You can do it in writing or you can do it during the time in which your caucus is allowed time for questions. But our problem is that the committee, all three parties, has agreed that there are time slots to hear deputations from members of the public, and I think it would be unfair for members of the public to take up the time to have a debate or lengthy questions or lengthy answers from members of the staff.
Mr Duncan: If I may, on Monday you accepted those questions. A check of the transcripts from Hansard showed that. Most other committees permit that. It is not an obligation that the response be forthcoming, but it has been the practice in every committee I've sat on, indeed a committee that I sat on that Mr Gilchrist had chaired, that at the end of the allotted time for responses and at the end of the allotted time for caucuses to place questions to delegations, there be a moment that each caucus, if they choose, can place a question for a further response later on in writing by either the researcher or the parliamentary assistant. Indeed we are now just gathering up the minutes from Monday, at which time you did permit that.
Finally, in other committees, I'm gathering up now situations where indeed the committee researcher provides a list of those questions on an ongoing basis so that they can be responded to. Those questions are normally taken outside of the time that's allotted to ask questions of delegations so that in fact caucuses can use that time appropriately to ask questions of delegations.
It would not be the opposition's perspective that we should use a lot of time to do that. Rather it would simply be an opportunity to place a very brief question. It would be noted and then allowed to be responded to at a later time.
The Chair: I have no problem if the procedure is to be changed. I'm in the hands of the committee. The procedure that we have before us now was agreed to by all parties. My ruling stands. If you wish to ask a question -- I'll repeat it -- you can ask it during the time that's allotted for questions of the delegation or you can put it in writing.
The next delegation is Maroulla and Harry Andreou.
Mr Sergio: Just for clarification, Mr Chair, on the same point: If those are the rules, I will abide by the rules, but are you saying that if we have a question on some things that the presenter has said that need information or clarification, we can't have a question of staff or the parliamentary assistant so that we provide the right information to our deputant? Are you saying that we cannot ask staff for that information to clarify a point made by a deputant?
The Chair: I'll do whatever this committee wishes. All I'm saying is that we've allowed these people, for example, 15 minutes to speak and already we're late.
Mr Sergio: No, no.
The Chair: We'll do whatever you wish.
Mr Sergio: Mr Chair, you're not answering the question. To clarify a point made by a deputant, can we ask a question of staff to clarify --
The Chair: During your time, Mr Sergio, yes. During the time allowed for questions.
Mr Marchese: I don't want to take away time from this deputation, but I think you're being unnecessarily restrictive in your judgement of this issue. We have done what Mr Duncan has been saying in the past. You're changing the rules a little bit because you were here in the last Parliament when we did exactly what he was suggesting. I'm saying to you, you're changing the rules unnecessarily, making it restrictive, for the record.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, we're free, if the committee wishes me to perform in a certain way -- as I say, this deputation was supposed to start five minutes ago and it is now five after 11.
Mr Marchese: Go right ahead, Mr Tilson. Don't waste any more time.
The Chair: Good morning. Please proceed.
MAROULLA ANDREOU
HARRY ANDREOU
RAGAVAN SUBRAMANIAIYER
SINNATHURAI SINNATHAMBY
Ms Maroulla Andreou: My name is Maroulla Andreou and I have with me Mr Ragavan and Mr Sinnathurai to tell you a similar story like mine, and my son is here. He's coming in a second.
In 1985 I was a single mother and I looked for a two-bedroom apartment to live with my son. In 1987 I found one on the main floor in the building. I went there to rent it. The property manager there told me: "Don't bother making an application because you're on mother's allowance. The building here, we don't take people on mother's allowance." I got into the building anyway with somebody else's name, and in 1988 the building was sold.
I went to the new owners. I explained my story in the office. They said, "We don't see a problem." I gave them six months' post-dated cheques. They were cashing my cheques but they never changed the lease under my name. So after the six-month period I went back and I asked why the lease wasn't changed under my name. The new property manager said: "We don't want you in the building. You're on mother's allowance. Pack up and leave." While they were cashing my cheques for six months, it was fine, and then all of a sudden I wasn't good in the building. I was paying my rent on time. I never was late. Like I said, they had post-dated cheques. I was strong enough to answer to her and say, "I'm not going anywhere," because I knew my rights. What was going to happen if I didn't know my rights? Be in the streets with a child?
So this Bill 96, section 200, income information, I don't think is right for people on welfare. Now I'm successful. I went to school. I did not stay on mother's allowance. I went to school, I found a job, I moved out of there because I'm a homeowner. Am I a better person now? No, I'm the same person.
So please don't include section 200. Single mothers are going to be homeless. They're going to be on the street. My son is going to tell you how he felt when this happened to us. It affects young children, this situation. Single mothers always pay their rent and then they live on the rest of the money. It's not necessarily they are going to stay on mother's allowance. If they become single parents, it doesn't mean they are bad people. Income information is going to leave all single mothers homeless and living in shelters, and young kids suffer.
Harry, can you tell how you felt when the property manager in the building wanted us out of the building?
Mr Harry Andreou: I felt very angry because the property manager didn't want me or my mother in the building because she was on mother's allowance. I was scared that if we left the building, we had nowhere to live. I lived with that fear until we moved.
The Chair: Thanks, Harry. Now we have two other speakers who don't seem to be identified. Perhaps you could identify them.
Ms Andreou: Mr Ragavan and Mr Sinnathurai. I brought them with me to tell you that they had a similar story like mine, and I would like them to tell you their story. It's my time and I thought it's good if you hear someone else.
The Chair: Absolutely. Please proceed.
Mr Ragavan Subramaniaiyer: I am Ragavan. I am married. I have two kids. I came from Sri Lanka in August 1989 because of my country's problem. When I came to Canada, I was trying to get an apartment. They were screening me because I didn't have a steady income or a bank balance. It took me nearly a year. Four of us -- me, my wife and two kids -- were sleeping in an 8 by 10 room. I was living with my brother. I have gone to more than 100 apartments to look for housing. When they asked me how much yearly income, I told them approximately $20,000. They asked for more than $35,000 to give me an application. Finally, in August 1990 I got an apartment and the rent was suddenly increased by $200, and luckily I got Metro Toronto Housing accommodation. I moved there in April 1991.
1110
When I was looking for a house that one year, when they refused to give me an application, my wife started to cry on the road. I didn't know what to do. In my country I have a big house with four rooms, phone, car, everything, all the facilities. I came here only because of what, as you know, is happening in Sri Lanka. I don't want to explain that.
If you change any rules here, it will be very difficult to get housing and other things because the people are screened by their income and bank balance. So far I've never been late to pay my rent or had any violations at my apartment. Don't change the rules and give the right to discriminate against us by apartment owners.
Mr Sinnathurai Sinnathamby: My name is Sinnathurai. I am from Sri Lanka. I came here in 1994 as a refugee claimant. When I came here, I lived with my brother-in-law because we are looking for an apartment because at that time I can't work here. I am political refugee claimant. I applied for a lot of apartments and they said if you are on welfare, they don't give me the apartment because of the welfare.
After, I found a job and I got an apartment, but it took me almost three months to get into the apartment. Until then I lived with my brother-in-law in one room with my daughter. Three persons lived in that room. If I went to an apartment, for payment there is no problem because the welfare pays my rent, but they don't accept the welfare people in the apartment. I applied to around seven apartments. Everybody, they don't give me the apartment because of the welfare. At one apartment he -- sorry.
Mr Subramaniaiyer: He's my brother-in-law. I went to all the apartments and they asked whether I can sign an agreement with them. Also they asked my income, and after a week I got a letter from them that, "According to your income, we are not willing to give you it," because I was getting at that time about $19,000 a year. But after a few months he got an apartment and he never failed to pay rent before the third of the month. The apartment owners are happy with him because he's never late, but if they start to screen like this, he won't get an apartment. Still after six months he started work and until today he's working in Canada. The only thing is, he's getting less than $25,000 a year, because I prepare tax for him. If they ask $25,000, $30,000, he won't get another apartment.
Mr Sinnathamby: Thank you for listening.
The Chair: I'm afraid we've run out of time, but thank you very much for your presentation.
FAIR RENTAL POLICY ORGANIZATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair: The next delegation is the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario.
Mr Alan Greenberg: I want to thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. My name is Alan Greenberg. I'm chair of the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario. With me is Phil Dewan, the president of Fair Rental.
In the 12 years since Fair Rental was formed, we have participated in hearings on Bill 51, Bill 11, Bill 4, the NDP green paper, Bill 121, the New Directions consultant paper and now Bill 96. Throughout that time, one of the few constants has been Fair Rental's commitment to reducing the unnecessary regulatory burden on landlords and finding balanced solutions to Ontario's housing needs.
I would like to start by going back to the year of our founding, 1985, to quote a statement which is as valid today as it was then.
"The availability of affordable housing for low-income families is a serious and growing problem. There are many families that can't even afford the rent they must pay under controls, but the solution to their plight does not lie in a program guaranteed to limit availability, to produce shortages and a deterioration in our housing stock. If the Ontario government is really interested in meeting Ontario's future housing needs, it would abandon its ill-conceived proposals and move instead to phase out the existing scheme of rent controls."
There are two aspects of this statement which deserve comment. The first is its timeliness. Though the quote refers specifically to the Liberals' 1985 promise to extend rent controls to previously exempt units, it could have applied equally to Bill 51, the retroactive Bill 4, the Rent Control Act under which the province suffers today and, yes, the proposed Tenant Protection Act. In all cases, a clear commitment to move away from a regulated regime would have served the province better.
The other major point of interest is that the statement did not originate with Fair Rental, nor with any other landlord organization. The quotation comes from an editorial in the Toronto Star, the very paper which helped drive the province into controls 10 years prior to that.
The Star's editorial position, which it maintains today, is emblematic of a general shift in society. Virtually every major newspaper in Ontario agrees rent controls are harmful. Economists are united in their consensus. Jurisdiction after jurisdiction in North America has moved to eliminate or reduce controls: Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New York, Massachusetts, California.
In the past five years, only two political parties have unwisely bucked this trend and moved from lesser to greater control. The NDP approach in BC was modest and included vacancy decontrol and free negotiations. That leaves the NDP in Ontario as the one entity so misguided as to introduce rigid rent controls despite ample evidence of the harm they cause.
It is to this government's credit that they've introduced a comprehensive package to reform landlord and tenant law in the province. But let there be no mistake: Bill 96 still maintains rent controls, however much the opposition parties and the tenant advocates may say otherwise.
The evidence of the effects of rent control in Ontario is all too clear. There is no new supply coming on stream despite lower building costs. There is a massive deficit in capital expenditures in existing buildings because the existing Rent Control Act restrictions have prevented ongoing renovation. The ultimate solution to these problems is dependent on the long-term elimination of rent controls.
In this respect, Bill 96 is far too limited. It preserves rent control as a permanent feature of the legislative landscape and makes no commitment to the phase-out of controls. In comparison to the ideal, it is sadly lacking. In comparison to the current act, however, it's a significant improvement. In that light, I would like to comment on a few specific aspects of Bill 96.
The biggest improvement with Bill 96 is simply that it will replace the Rent Control Act. Rarely has the province seen a piece of legislation so one-sided, ill-considered and damaging to the long-run interest of those it purports to protect. Both the current government and the official opposition opposed passage of the RCA, and their opposition was well founded.
I would like to first speak to three beneficial changes included in the bill. I will then briefly move on to some flaws and omissions and our suggestions for amending them.
Much of the debate around the bill has focused on the potential impact of generating new rental housing. FRPO agrees that Bill 96 is the first step needed on the regulatory front to create an environment for new development. Along with this must come changes in taxation, the planning process and so on, as laid out in the Lampert report. In the interest of time, I will let other organizations address these issues in more detail.
1120
There has been far less comment on the significance of the new proposals relating to the ability to conduct capital expenditures, yet preservation of the existing stock is the critical issue for the future. The RCA imposed a punitive regime which had the effect of preventing landlords from investing in major capital programs in their buildings. That is not a statement of political rhetoric; it is a point of fact.
The number of applications under the Rent Control Act provides damning evidence. In 1995 there were just 177 landlord applications for above-guideline increases and many of these applications were based on extraordinary operating costs, not capital. Quite simply, it is impossible to conserve the 172,000 rental buildings in the province with that kind of performance.
In Bill 96 the minister has recognized the importance of stimulating capital spending to preserve the aging housing stock. There are a number of substantial improvements over the RCA, including the removal of the 2% dilution, elimination of the cost-no-longer-borne provision, increasing the cap from 3% to 4%, and allowing full carry-forward until the costs are recovered.
With an estimated $10 billion in accumulated capital work needed on apartment buildings and virtually no work done for the past five years, addressing the capital deficit is critical. The changes in Bill 96 will facilitate preservation of existing stock, create tens of thousands of jobs and ensure quality accommodation for tenants. They should be supported by the committee.
The second change I would like to address is the introduction of vacancy decontrol. Vacancy decontrol is a mechanism which will protect sitting tenants by maintaining limits on increases while allowing a rent adjustment on vacancy. For the majority of units, vacancy decontrol is a valuable linkage to the market but will have little impact in the short term.
Tenant advocates claim that the rents in the province will go up by 20% or 30% as a result. Let's be clear: There is no support for such statements -- no evidence, no studies, no reasonable basis for the arguments that have been offered. It will not happen.
In most large urban centres and almost all small ones, vacancy rates in Ontario today are far above CMHC's declared 2% to 3% equilibrium rate: 6% in London, 4.9% in Ottawa, 5.6% in St Catharines-Niagara, 6.8% in Sudbury. In these markets, vacancy decontrol will have no impact on average rent increases. To quote CMHC in London, "The advantage is now to the tenant, so overall rates will not increase." Even in Metro Toronto, where the rate is 1.2% and rising, more than 50% of the units have rents well below their legal maximum. As economist John Todd's study demonstrated, in such circumstances even the complete removal of controls would have minimal impact.
The experience of other jurisdictions with vacancy decontrol proves the point. To cite just one example, the average increase for a 2-bedroom unit in Vancouver last year under vacancy decontrol was 2.3%, or half a percent less than the rent control guideline in Ontario. So much for the threat of vacancy decontrol.
At this point, I'd like to ask Phil Dewan to address the third issue, the human rights provisions in the bill.
Mr Philip Dewan: The chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission and others have claimed that sections 36 and 200 will allow an unprecedented ability for landlords to refuse tenants on the basis of income, leading to the exclusion of virtually all social assistance recipients, single mothers and other protected groups. Neither of these statements is true.
(1) There is no new right being granted to landlords. There is no protection being taken away from tenants. The bill will maintain the status quo. Landlords will merely have the continued right to do what they have been doing, which has resulted, for example, in almost 90% of social assistance recipients living in private rental housing.
(2) The credit practices of landlords are no different from those of any other business sector. When anyone applies to purchase or lease a product on credit, be it a house, a car, an appliance or an apartment, income must be a consideration. Removing the right to consider income from the business equation for landlords could only be justified if it is removed from all businesses. This may be the long-term goal of some -- CERA has already launched a case against a trust company for refusing a mortgage based on income -- but it is not a policy any province, state or country has endorsed, and neither should Ontario.
(3) There is ample evidence that income is relevant to ability to pay. This is only common sense. Without the means to pay, the best intentions in the world are irrelevant. Dr Ornstein, who argued vociferously before this committee that using income information would be unnecessary and exclusionary, presented very contradictory evidence in a recent court case. In Masse v Ontario, Dr Ornstein was a witness for a group suing the Ontario government over the cutbacks in welfare rates. He testified under oath that as a result of reduced welfare rates hundreds of thousands of low-income people would be "forced out of their present accommodations," many because they would "go into arrears of rent and thus trigger the eviction procedures under the Landlord and Tenant Act."
They cannot have it both ways. If reducing tenants' income will directly lead to inability to pay rent, resulting in eviction, then it is disingenuous to claim that income is irrelevant to a landlord's evaluation of prospective risk in tenant selection.
The point of using income information is to allow landlords to assess the risk in selecting a specific tenant. Some landlords can or will accept higher risks than others because of their particular financial or market circumstances. No one has ever said a rent-to-income ratio should be mandated for all landlords. It is one of several tools needed.
FRPO has always said we would be quite happy to embrace a policy such as that of the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, where landlords must consider a basket of different indicators. Income criteria would not be used in isolation.
What Mr Norton and his colleagues have glossed over is the key issue: what to do when an applicant has no credit rating, rental history, guarantor etc. The response of the commission and CERA is that in such circumstances the landlord should still not be able to use income to determine eligibility. He should be obliged to rent to the applicant on good faith, without any indication of ability to pay. In other words, a 16-year-old with a part-time job at McDonald's or even with no source of income at all could apply to rent the most expensive penthouse on the Toronto waterfront. The landlord would have no legal right to question his ability to pay.
Mr Porter of CERA told the committee that there will never be a human rights challenge to a refusal of tenancy to a perspective tenant who clearly does not have the means to pay the rent, but a landlord cannot determine if an applicant clearly does not have the means to pay the rent unless he evaluates those means: the amount of income, the amount of the rent, and the relationship of the two. Ironically, Mr Porter is supporting the use of a rent-to-income approach. He just doesn't want to give it that name.
Obviously, some objective rules are needed. We have proposed a two-part test: (1) Where the landlord has access to financial records such as credit rating, rental history, employment history, bank references etc, income should be used as only one factor, along with these other criteria, to determine eligibility; (2) where credit records and rental are not available, by reason of non-existence or inaccessibility, the absence of such information should not be held against the applicant. In that, we agree with Mr Norton.
However, absent credit or rental information, the landlord must be allowed to make a determination based on the income of the applicant, that being the only information available on which a judgement of ability to pay can be reached. The combination of these reasonable regulations on use of income criteria, along with proposed reforms to welfare rules to allow direct payment, would benefit low-income tenants in obtaining housing while protecting the rights of owners.
Let me move on to FRPO's proposals for changes in the bill. Later this month we'll table with the committee a detailed submission concluding some 85 proposed amendments. A brief summary highlighting some of the most important is appended. I'm just going to touch on a couple of them briefly so we have some time available for questions.
The first issue concerns landlord and tenant negotiation. Bill 96 allows for modest recognition of the principle of negotiation but limits it to the 4% cap even where the tenant is agreeable to pay more. The concern seems to be that without a cap in place some tenants would be coerced into accepting larger increases than they really desire. We have proposed a simple alternative to ensure that there can be no element of coercion: that in order to obtain an increase above the 4% cap, both parties would have to appear at the tribunal in person, sign an affidavit and be available to be questioned.
Next, I would like to address one of the major concerns we had when we appeared last summer before the committee: the elimination of legal maximum rent. As much as we would like to preserve the concept of legal maximum, we recognize that the government is not likely to change on this issue. Therefore, it becomes critically important to ensure that the discounting rules which are to be prescribed relative to section 113 of the bill work effectively. We'd be happy to work with the government and the committee on trying to make sure that does happen.
Finally, I turn to changes to improve landlord and tenant law. Too little attention has been paid to the proposed changes in the landlord and tenant regime. The government has committed that the new system will be faster and more efficient than the current approach. This is certainly welcome news. When it takes three or four months to obtain a hearing date on a routine matter but when a professional tenant from hell can manipulate the system for 10 years while refusing to pay rent and ignoring court orders, changes are desperately needed.
1130
That's why we were somewhat surprised that amid some of the positive changes are some proposals which will inevitably make the system less efficient than today. One is allowing the discretion to the tribunal to refuse or postpone eviction indefinitely, which goes beyond the current provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act, which allows a seven-day limitation. Another is the discretion to the tribunal to require a tenant to pay in the amount in dispute only at the discretion of the tribunal member. This should be mandatory, as it is in the Landlord and Tenant Act. Failure to correct these omissions will encourage abuse of the process and result in unnecessary workload for the tribunal.
Bill 96 is far from perfect. However, we believe that with amendments in these areas the government has the opportunity to create the environment for the ultimate protection for tenants: a functioning market for rental housing in Ontario.
We'd be pleased to answer questions.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Mr Dewan, I want to thank you for appearing here again this year. I have some sympathy with landlords, but I also have some sympathy with the tenants. I've been both. One thing I noticed last year through the course of our hearings, and I've noticed it again already this year, is that the tenant groups come from one perspective, the landlords come from another, and never the twain shall meet. Both groups want it all their own way. What we have tried to do is achieve a balance, recognizing that both have needs.
You talk in your presentation about landlord and tenant negotiation, that Bill 96 limits the agreements of landlords and tenants to the 4% cap on capital improvements in spite of the fact that some tenants would want more improvements and would be willing to pay more. I don't know of too many tenants who would be willing to pay more than the 4%, albeit some will, I agree, but not too many would. I think we have been fair, allowing the 4%. Would you agree with that?
Mr Dewan: I would agree that's an improvement on what we have. We're suggesting it should go further, in that if landlords and tenants can come to an agreement, why would the government be concerned about what they agree to if both parties are happy?
Mr Wettlaufer: How many would come to an agreement?
Mr Dewan: I'm not sure there would be a whole lot, but there are examples, and that should be encouraged by the government. That's what we're trying to do, to get the parties together, as you said. If they can do that, why in the world would you want to prevent it?
Mr Duncan: Mr Greenberg and Mr Dewan, your presentation was very self-explanatory, but in terms of the issue of generating more rental accommodation, you have cited a number of jurisdictions where they've either eliminated or reduced rent controls. Do you have information on the development of additional rental accommodation after the decontrol or removal of rent controls, the evidence that would say there has been an increase in the rental units?
Mr Dewan: In a number of the jurisdictions -- and these are relatively recent -- if you look at the situation in Nova Scotia, for example, Halifax in I believe 1995 had about 630 new units built in a market that already had a 7% vacancy rate. In Toronto, with a 0.8% vacancy rate and many times the population, we had 37 units built that year. Those kinds of numbers reflect partly, not entirely but partly, the changes in the regulatory environment.
Mr Greenberg: I think the second part of that equation is that, as has been well studied, rent controls are only the first step to creating a psychological environment to start building. There's a lot more that's needed, but without this first step there will be no building.
Mr Duncan: So the issue goes well beyond simply rent control and the issues of taxation and other issues you've raised that create the environment where --
Mr Greenberg: The first step is creating an environment where --
The Chair: Mr Marchese. Oh, I'm sorry. Finished?
Mr Marchese: There are a lot of questions I would have if we had the time, but I'll limit it to two quickly. A lawyer who came earlier on represents the landlords, and she says very much what you say. "The proposed legislation has taken a first step towards restoring a business relationship between landlords and their customers," and you talk about "the modest recognition of the principle of landlord and tenant negotiation." But you must admit, both of you, that it's not an even relationship between those who own buildings and the many who are on low income, 33%, people who don't understand the language very well, immigrants, recent refugees, people with disabilities, citizens. Do you think that relationship is even, in your view, or that somehow it seems fair to you?
Mr Greenberg: First of all, your government changed the whole relationship between our customers and ourselves. You created a barrier of communication and took away our ability to serve our customers. This program of trying to encourage some negotiation and bring in some of the free market systems prevalent throughout the world will help restore those relationships.
Mr Marchese: I understand.
There is the matter of orders prohibiting rent increases. In my view they've been very effective in dealing with maintenance problems in the majority of situations. Would you agree or disagree that OPRI, the orders prohibiting rent increases, are a less costly way of dealing with outstanding maintenance problems?
Mr Dewan: The big problem with orders preventing rent increases is that they take away the discretion which really lies at the municipal level, with the individual property standards officer, to go in and determine what needs to be done and work out an arrangement between the parties that will make sure the work can be facilitated. There are more than adequate powers in this bill in terms of the penalty clauses if a landlord does not comply, but the people at the grass roots, the property standards officers in the field, are the ones who should be making those determinations.
The Chair: Mr Greenberg, Mr Dewan, thank you for coming this morning.
FEDERATION OF METRO TENANTS' ASSOCIATIONS
The Chair: The final deputation this morning is the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations.
Mr Howard Tessler: My name is Howard Tessler. I'm the executive director of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations. With me today are Janet Morrison, the secretary of our board of directors, and Mr Tim Collins, a former executive director and counsel for the New York City rent guidelines board. Mr Collins has graciously donated his time to join us and share his expertise on the subject of vacancy decontrol.
I would like to thank the standing committee on general government for allowing us to comment on Bill 96, a piece of legislation that will not only affect Ontario's millions of tenants but will affect our economy. Tenants pay $10 billion annually in rent and $1.5 billion in property tax. This government cannot strip away the legal rights of one third of this province's residents without causing a serious tear in the social fabric, and this is exactly what you're doing with Bill 96, ladies and gentlemen.
This legislation is much more than the simple consolidation of various pieces of landlord and tenant legislation. It is not simplifying legislation so that landlords and tenants can easily understand the rules that govern their legal relationships. It is not the cutting of red tape that has grown into legalistic barbed wire, as Mr George Goldlist and the previous FRPO representative would like us to believe, that separates the benevolent, caring landlord from his tenants. Bill 96 is nothing less than the destruction of almost 30 years of consumer protection legislation in the residential rental industry.
What Bill 96 ultimately means for landlords and tenants is the regression into a relationship as described by Mr A.F. Lawrence, a member of the Progressive Conservative government in 1969. Let me quote him from Hansard:
"The body of law governing the relationship between a landlord and his tenant was probably best described as feudal in origin. In spite of some modifications, it has perpetuated a relationship in which the landlord ruled like a medieval baron over his tenants. The rights allowed him by law, even though they have been resorted to less and less, were greater than those of any other class of persons involved in commercial dealings with the public."
1140
Ms Janet Morrison: We've asked Mr Collins to join us because vacancy decontrol lies at the very heart of Bill 96. Vacancy decontrol is a smokescreen by which this government intends to deregulate the rental housing market. The government needs a smokescreen to avoid the adverse media attention that Mr Greg Lampert warned would occur if full decontrol is allowed. In the government-subsidized commission study of 1995, Mr Lampert warned that such adverse publicity might well force future governments to reinstate rent control.
On October 17, 1995, staff and members of the federation met senior Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing staff who stated categorically that it was the intention of this government to end price controls in the residential rental market by the end of its mandate. They concede decontrol will do just that.
At another meeting with senior staff we asked what research had been done on the possible effect of ending rent control. A senior policy advisor stated that the ministry had very little money available for research on that subject.
The federation does not find such answers acceptable. One third of the population of this province deserves better than policy built on pie-in-the-sky speculation. If Mr Leach wishes to fantasize, let him fantasize about being re-elected, not about our homes.
Mr Tessler: I must reiterate that Bill 96 is the destruction of 30 years of consumer protection legislation in the rental housing market. Vacancy decontrol of the industry here will produce the same or very similar results it has produced in other jurisdictions: higher rents, increased harassment by landlords and increased degeneration of the existing housing stock.
Mr Collins, you have the floor.
Mr Tim Collins: It's a pleasure to be here. I should say at the outset that it's kind of an honour to be up here, but I'm a little disconcerted. Many of us in the States think of Canadians as being wiser or our somewhat more prudent and stable elder sister, but I think you have some of the same problems we've witnessed, certainly in New York, where we have recently witnessed probably the most serious threat to our rent regulations in the last 50 years.
I have to commend this process. I see a lot of thoughtful people here, and I see individuals who are interested in hearing testimony from a lot of different viewpoints. Unfortunately, in New York state, the leader of our assembly, the leader of our Senate, and the Governor met in closed session at the 11th hour and cut a deal that I think was very harmful to tenants and has been widely criticized in the press. I think they're going to pay a very heavy political price for that. I hope you have a more professional and thoughtful process.
Let me speak briefly about the history of New York's rent laws. You may know that they were started initially in the Second World War as a result of a shift of resources to the war effort. There was no new housing construction. The Roosevelt administration basically froze rents for a time, and the state of New York took that program over in 1950.
What is interesting about the New York experience is that during the period from 1947 to 1966, when New York had very strict rent controls, it was also a period when we had one of the biggest housing construction booms in our history. New construction has always been exempted from the rent laws in New York. The biggest housing construction boom occurred in the 1920s, also a period when we had strict rent controls.
There has been no connection that I'm aware of between housing construction and rent regulation, and the reason for that is simply that housing construction in the city is very expensive. It's driven by the economy largely, employment conditions, effective demand, the relative incomes of the tenant population to create the demand that would cause developers to build new housing.
One thing I've noticed about Toronto's situation that I think is something you have to be deeply concerned about is that you have a very, very low vacancy rate here. In New York City, we're still under a housing emergency; our vacancy rate is 4%. I believe that in Toronto, it's somewhere around 1%.
Mr Tessler: It's 1.2%.
Mr Collins: I wouldn't describe that as an emergency; I would describe as a calamity. It seems to me that tenants are at a very severe market disadvantage when bargaining for housing in the city of Toronto.
Let me talk about the experience that New York had with vacancy decontrol. As I mentioned, there were strict rent controls in effect through the 1960s. In 1971 Nelson Rockefeller, who was governor at that time, decided that it was time to begin to dismantle the system. Vacancy deregulation was adopted. There was a hope at the time that abandonment, which was a widespread problem in the city, and new construction, which had been depressed, would be turned around as a result of vacancy decontrol.
Three years later, in 1974, Nelson Rockefeller commissioned an assembly committee to examine what had in fact happened and to consider whether changes needed to be made. The findings were essentially that vacancy decontrol had been a disaster. Rents had gone up in the city by about 52%. There were widespread complaints of harassment from many quarters. There was no beneficial impact on new construction. There was no change in the abandonment situation. As a result, the committee recommended an immediate abrogation of vacancy decontrol.
I will read one of the major findings of the committee, one of their major conclusions. It basically summarizes the sentiment of the committee as a whole.
"Vacancy decontrol has neither stimulated new building construction, stopped abandonment, spurred renovation, nor has it brought substantial new money into the city's housing stock. It has led to tenant insecurity over tenure and harassment. Vacancy decontrol has placed an extreme hardship on the tenants of this state, particularly on the elderly and the poor. The policy of returning vacant apartments to the free market has failed because the free market does not exist in the metropolitan area."
That was a time when I believe the vacancy rate was around 2% in the city. You actually have a lower vacancy rate in Toronto.
To quote a few sections of the report with regard to things like capital investments:
The commission "measured the effects of vacancy decontrol on the initiation of capital improvements. The purpose of the study was to investigate the validity of the contention that such investments had increased as a result of vacancy decontrol.
"The study found that the number of buildings renovated in each borough has decreased to a level of half that of 1969. The expenditures on such renovations, although increasing steadily prior to vacancy decontrol, decreased to a level of approximately $1 million per month lower than during rent control.
"The study found that appliance sales had decreased in the boroughs of Brooklyn and the Bronx but had increased somewhat in Queens and Manhattan, suggesting that the sale of new appliances is limited to those areas where the owner can enter the luxury housing market.
"The commission examined various data that may be indicators of the rate of abandonment of rental structures in New York City. The continuing increase of interim actions -- that is, tax foreclosure actions -- and the increased proportion of uncollected tax levies both signify that there has been no decrease in the rate of abandonment since vacancy decontrol.
"Further, the steep and increasing rates of abandonment in other cities across the country that do not have rent controls would make any claim correlating abandonment to rent controls a highly tenuous one."
I'll read just briefly testimony of the commissioner of the state's housing department at that time.
"Two other results of vacancy decontrol have seriously impacted tenants: an increase in the motivation to harass tenants and the elimination of the protection previously afforded tenants under rent control.
"There has been a serious increase in the incidence of harassment since the inception of vacancy decontrol. While the majority of owners are responsible and do not engage in attempts to secure vacancies by deliberately reducing services or engaging in other prohibited acts, it is a fact that since the implementation of vacancy decontrol, the incidence of harassment has more than doubled.
"In 1970 our enforcement office took in 533 harassment complaints. In 1971 the figure jumped to 1,132, three quarters of which came during the months immediately following the enactment of vacancy decontrol. The same accelerated pace continued during 1972 and 1973.
"We have thus found it necessary to step up our campaign against harassment, stiffening fines and referring appropriate cases to law enforcement authorities for prosecution."
I think the commissioner's statements at the time understated the problem with harassment, quite frankly. What often happens in a vacancy decontrol situation is that owners who are concerned about the stiff penalties the state might impose in the event that they get caught harassing tenants will attempt to move the tenants out by exercising every claim of legal right they can under existing leases. If the tenant installs an air conditioner and the lease prohibits it, instead of trying to work it out informally, there'll be an immediate action for eviction. Sometimes spurious claims will be generated.
My partner, who was around at the time representing low-income tenants in New York City, recalls defending an elderly couple who were accused of throwing wild parties all hours of the night. He also recalls a situation where a tenant was informed that some work would be done on her apartment and that she should be advised that the owner could not be responsible for any damage that would occur. When the tenant arrived in her apartment about a week later, she looked out, not a window in her kitchen, but out the back wall of her kitchen and could see her yard because the whole wall had been taken down.
1150
You have both the overt kind of harassment that occurred -- in terms of hiring thugs to move in next door, cutting off essential services -- and you have what I would describe as white-glove harassment, which is somewhat more subtle, pressuring tenants to constantly come into the city's housing court. In New York 85% of tenants cannot afford attorneys. They're unrepresented. They run the risk of a technical default. They have problems with their employment situation because they can't take time off to go to court. More often than not, they're put in an untenable situation of having to make some kind of deal with the landlord and move out quietly. That's the kind of harassment I would be most concerned about.
One thing I was very impressed with is that I think Toronto has a very enlightened and effective code enforcement situation. New York links rent increases to code enforcement for a very, very small sector of the housing stock. It's the older rent-controlled stock, only 71,000 units in a universe of over 1,000,000, that is under rent stabilization. In that stock, the linking of rent increases to code enforcement has been very effective, but due to budgetary cutbacks and a change in the political leadership of the city, we don't have as many inspectors as we used to have and the laws have been weakened by allowing owners to self-certify corrections. Often it's done fraudulently.
But for the vast bulk of the housing stock, where we don't have a link between rent increases and proper repairs and maintenance, the state of New York is frankly in a disastrous situation. It's in a state of meltdown. We have over 3,000,000 outstanding housing code violations of record. The system simply doesn't work except for the most extreme kind of situations where someone is deprived of heat or hot water or there are cascading water leaks or something like that. Linking code enforcement with rent increases is probably one of the most effective, low-cost mechanisms one can use to improve the housing stock.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that New York has also had experience with the idea of rent registration. Until 1983, the owners of the rent-controlled and rent-stabilized stock were not obligated to register their apartments. It created a tremendous number of problems in terms of deciding disputes between owners and tenants as to what the appropriate rent was.
The investment the state's housing department had to make in adjudicating these disputes had become ridiculously high, and cases were drawn out, took many years to resolve, so a rent registration system was established in 1983. It's proven to be very effective and there is no opposition in the state at this point from owners or tenants to that system of registration. I am not sure why anyone would want to get rid of a rent registration program.
That's about the extent of my testimony. I'd be happy to answer questions. I am sure you all have questions or impressions about what's happened in New York. I was with the New York City rent guidelines board for seven years, where I oversaw a research staff. We looked into the economics of rental housing. I heard testimony from literally thousands of tenants and owners about conditions and about many of the same issues you're facing here today.
I think that more often than not, rent regulation is mischaracterized. It's not a perfect system. It's certainly not an elegant way of preserving the ability of tenants to have affordable and decent housing. But it's proven very effective in the city, where we do have a shortage and where, in the absence of that system, many middle-class and low-income people would be forced to leave the city.
The Chair: Mr Tessler, does that conclude your --
Mr Tessler: If there aren't any questions.
The Chair: There are, I am sure. Mr Colle, very briefly; we have about a brief question per caucus.
Mr Colle: Thank you very much for coming from New York City, Mr Collins. In brief, this experiment of decontrol was tried in the early 1970s in New York and you're basically telling us it was a disaster.
Mr Collins: I would characterize it as a disaster. We can get into hyperbole. It certainly did not work. It did not create new construction, it did not stem abandonment. There was a rising concern about harassment, and the evidence of that was mounting.
Mr Marchese: Thank you, Mr Collins, and thank the federation for their advocacy. You heard the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario just before they left, or maybe you didn't.
Mr Collins: I saw the end.
Mr Marchese: This is what they say: There is no supply coming on stream, despite building costs much lower than in the late 1980s. There is massive deficit in capital expenditures in existing buildings because of The Rent Control Act. Restrictions have prevented ongoing renovation. The ultimate solution to these problems is dependent on the long-term elimination of rent controls. Your response?
Mr Collins: I would categorically disagree with that. One of the things I am really concerned about in the New York situation is that as a result of a hasty and ill-advised deal made in Albany in the 11th hour over our rent control laws, rents are going to be allowed to go up 20% upon vacancy. It's not full vacancy decontrol, but it is a very large hike.
The consequence will be that more rent-controlled apartments are going to end up in the high-rent sector. That is exactly the sector that developers look to to decide whether to construct new units. If you have a massive rise of rents, you have a larger number of apartments in that high-rent sector and you're going to get somewhat of an oversupply in that group. While you may have a severe shortage overall, you are going to have a lot more housing available in the luxury end of the stock. If developers see that, they're not going to build anything, so vacancy deregulation could easily lead to a decline in new construction.
In fact, it's interesting. The state of New Jersey adopted a number of rent control ordinances in the early 1970s and about half the municipalities did not adopt rent regulation. In those that did adopt rent regulation, new construction fell by 52%. That was often pointed to by the critics of rent regulation as evidence that rent regulation depresses new construction. But in the uncontrolled municipalities, which is over more than half the state, new construction fell by 88% by the mid-1970s.
There are many factors which overwhelm the effects of rent regulation on the issue of new construction, but there is no evidence that new construction and new investment in housing is depressed by the presence of rent regulation. The owner organizations in the cities have spent millions of dollars in studies and campaign contributions in New York state, trying to discredit rent regulations. One of the people they hired was Anthony Downs, who is with the Urban Land Institute, a fairly respected economist who is basically a critic of rent regulations, but one of his findings, to paraphrase him, is that temperate rent controls in the United States have not been shown to significantly impact on construction rates.
With regard to investment in housing, clearly if you're linking rent increases to improvements and you then allow owners to increase rents dramatically in the absence of making any investment in the apartments, that's going to be a powerful disincentive to making investments.
Mr Wettlaufer: Mr Collins, I'd like to address something you said in your presentation, and that is that there are 3,000 code violations in New York.
Mr Collins: Three million outstanding.
Mr Wettlaufer: Three million? Isn't that interesting. The legislation we are proposing here addresses that, because right now the average return on equity for a landlord in the province of Ontario is between 2% and 4%. Eighty per cent of the buildings have six suites or less. These are owned by small landlords who simply can't afford to carry out repairs or carry out maintenance when they're getting 2% to 4%. What we have done -- and keep in mind that the necessary repairs in the buildings in Ontario are estimated to be $10 billion, $1 billion of which are on things such as balconies and garages only.
Safety is very important, and it's being addressed by this legislation. If I were a tenant I wouldn't want to live in a building where the balcony is unsafe. I wouldn't want to walk out on to a balcony that could fall out below me.
Mr Collins: Is that a question?
Mr Wettlaufer: No, it wasn't a question.
The Chair: Whether it's a question or not, we're out of time. I think we have to vote in the House, so the meeting is recessed.
Thank you very much, Mr Collins, Mr Tessler and Ms Morrison for coming this morning.
The committee recessed from 1159 to 1530.
TORONTO REFUGEE AFFAIRS COUNCIL
The Chair: Our first delegation this afternoon is the Toronto Refugee Affairs Council. Present with us this afternoon are Consuelo Rubio, Abdul Rahimi and Katehba Rahimi. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Consuelo Rubio: I will not read the submission our group has already prepared. I'll just recap some of the most salient points of our presentation. The Toronto Refugee Affairs Council is a group of organizations that work with refugees and newcomers to Canada. Altogether we serve a very large group of both newcomers and refugees. We're very concerned about the amendments to the Human Rights Code contained in section 200 of Bill 96, as we feel they will have a detrimental impact on the ability of newcomers to obtain decent housing.
As I said, I'm not going to read through my presentation, but I'll just give you some idea of the difficulties that newcomers have when they come to Canada. I will relate a bit of personal experience I had with a refugee claimant who had come to Canada with a young daughter. She lived in this cramped room full of cockroaches with her daughter who was getting sick quite a lot. As she was walking one day she saw this apartment building which looked quite nice. She had a friend who spoke some English call and find out about the rent and what kind of apartment they had. Sure enough, there was a one-bedroom apartment available.
When this woman went to the apartment to actually see it, the superintendent asked her whether she was on welfare -- and she was -- and told her there were no apartments available. When this woman came to see me at my office, she asked me to call and find out whether the apartment was really available or not. I called, pretending I was a tenant. I speak English fairly well. I was asked whether I was employed. I said yes, and immediately that superintendent told me that there were both one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments available in the building.
When landlords are allowed to do this, even when the legislation says they cannot do it, you can imagine what it's going to be like when that protection that now exists is removed. I don't want to be patronizing and say that these communities are vulnerable communities, because the fact is that they survive and they do very well against tremendous odds. But you have to remember many of these people -- two of the indicators or two of the things that many of the refugee claimants who come to Canada need to succeed are good housing and good jobs. I've seen survivors of torture thrive once they become stabilized. Again, it's only when they have solid housing for themselves and their families that they're able to finally set their roots in Canada and contribute to this society.
I brought with me two people who have gone through the experience. They can tell you at first hand. Mr and Mrs Rahimi, who are refugees from Afghanistan, have been in Canada now for two and a half years. Mr Rahimi would like to talk to you a little bit about what it was like to find housing for himself and his family.
Mr Abdul Rahimi: My name is Rahimi. I came to Canada in 1994 with my wife. When we first came to Canada we hoped that, because in our country there was fighting and a very, very bad situation, our lives would change. In our country we had a good life, but because of the fighting and war, we couldn't stay longer. We had many, many problems.
When we first came to Canada we had problems with the building owner, the landlord. We wanted to rent an apartment to live there. He asked us, "You receive welfare?" We said yes, and he said: "Welfare isn't too much money. We cannot give you the apartment." We know somebody who has lived in Canada a long time and has a business in Canada. He is a Canadian citizen. He said: "I support these two people. I'll sign for you what you want. I work. I have money. Every month I'll give you your money. They do not have any place to live. Give an apartment to these people."
This is a long history because several times, more than one month, we went to the office and were turned down. One time we went to the office, he said, "I'll give it to you." Then after one week we went again and then we asked about renting but finally, after more than one month, he said, "We cannot give you an apartment." For more than two months we lived with a friend I know from Afghanistan. He has two children. He lives with his wife; that's four people. We lived with this man for more than two months; that is six people in a one-bedroom apartment. That's our experience, that the landlord make too much problems for us.
After that, somebody in charge in Canada helped us and found an apartment for us. This is a problem because we get money every month if I'm a receiver from welfare. If I get money, then I pay for rent. But I didn't understand why they didn't give me then apartment for rent. That was our problem, a very big problem.
1540
Ms Rubio: Our point is that the money one gets, or how much money you get in income one way or another every month, is not an indicator of whether or not you're going to be honest and you're going to pay. I think the presumption that someone who has low income is not paying is totally incorrect. In fact, in our experience, most people are paying half of their income or so in rent, not 30%, and they still manage to hang on to the apartment and pay.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them now.
Mr Marchese: I thank you all for coming. It's important to get the personal testimony from individuals who are affected by the various policies of government. One of the things in your brief, "Finding stable accommodation which is affordable, accessible to required services and the appropriate size, is widely considered to be essential to the successful settlement of refugee claimants."
That's the case with a lot of people too, of course, who are here, who are on low income, because 33% of all tenants, and there are about 3.3 million, earn less than $22,000. These people are looking for affordable, decent, accessible housing. It's a point I make in this regard because this government says they are not going to build any more. The private sector is not going to be building affordable housing, accessible and decent housing for people of low income, because there's no money to be made by them. So we have a problem, and refugees are going to have a problem, it seems to me.
Ms Rubio: I work at the Centre for Spanish Speaking People, and just to give you an idea of the incomes that our clients, the users of our services have, most people who are working and use our centre earn between $10,000 and $18,000 a year and still they are paying rent. They're living somewhere. They're not defaulting on their rents. They manage to have access to some good apartment, or whatever, and they're keeping it. Again, the money you have is not an indicator of the kind of person that you are and whether or not you're going to default on your rent.
Mr Marchese: The other question has to do, and of course you touched on this, with section 200 and the use of income information. We know it's practised by some people, but the point you make is that this change would universalize this practice and, in effect, legitimize it. You're concerned that people are going to be discriminated against as a result of this, more so than is the case at the moment.
Ms Rubio: I think we're in good company in terms of not being happy with this particular amendment. I understand the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Norton, has said the same thing to you, that he's very concerned about the impact that removing this protection would have on communities that traditionally have been considered at a disadvantage in terms of having access to good housing or whatever.
Mr Marchese: You probably would agree with the statement that human rights, for people who are on low income, refugees, should somehow be put ahead of the rights of landlords. Is that a fair way to put it, or should we be worried about the human rights of individuals as it relates to housing?
Ms Rubio: I guess what we should be looking at is who is most at a disadvantage: a landlord who has been in Canada for a period of time who owns a business and who is more or less established -- he has costs etc, but he has certain recourses -- or someone who is new with no money in his or her pocket and who has come to Canada perhaps after going through adventures, for lack of a better word, or who has escaped torture or war? Just look at it that way: Who is in a better position to handle this? I think that would be giving the landlords an advantage that I really don't think they should have. It's a weapon that will be used against people.
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I want to thank you for coming here and particularly when you are able to bring to our discussion the personal experiences of individuals.
One of the issues that we're faced with as legislators is always the question of trying to find a balance. You yourself talked about the issue of a landlord and what is available to him and what you perceive as the need for that playing field. One of the things that has been brought out in much of the discussion was the fact that we have to have people who see an incentive, that is, a reason to rent and therefore a reason to build more rental units. At the same time, one of our presenters this morning talked about the need for a landlord, in making a decision, to have sort of a basket of information -- I think that was the term used -- in making a decision based on whether or not this individual has a credit rating, a job, whatever it is, the criteria.
Ms Rubio: If I may interject, the problem with credit rating, for instance, is that immigrants and refugees who come to Canada don't have any credit rating in Canada.
Mrs Munro: That is precisely my point.
Ms Rubio: So that is used against them too. Whether you've been great in your country, who cares? Right?
Mrs Munro: Exactly. I guess that's really the point I was going to come to, in the sense that if you remove those other things, for reasons I completely understand, what do you see as a way of offering some kind of legitimacy, credibility, whatever? Are we talking about --
Ms Rubio: If I can sort of wear a different hat and talk to you about my experience as a landlady, I have a small house and I rented it out a number of years as I was paying it. I could never tell who was going to be good or who was going to be bad. Okay? I once rented my upstairs apartment against my best judgement to a couple of actors and I figured, "Oh, actors, unemployed, no money." They were delightful tenants. They always paid their rent on time etc. I again rented the apartment upstairs once to a couple who were both employed. The apartment was a mess. I was always after them for their rent. You can never tell who's going to be good and who's going to be bad.
When you talk about having a basket of choices, I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think that this particular fruit should be in the basket of choices for landlords to pick on. I really think it's going to be used against people who really need housing and who would make perhaps good tenants. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. You never know who's going to be good and who's going to be bad. Using this particular rent geared to income to select tenants I don't think is the right way.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Thanks for coming. I can certainly appreciate exactly what you're saying because I've been involved through our church and personally helping immigrants coming to and finding housing, so I understand the situation. I was also in banking, and you're absolutely right. If you go strictly on the ratios of what has been proposed, the bill's not proposing that. I think we should be clear that the bill does not say the income ratio is the rent geared to income. It's just that people have been bringing studies forward saying things like: "This is what you're going to do. This is going to be a problem."
But how do you protect the landlords' interests in that they should have a right to have access to information? Credit ratings, we've got that now. That's not in the bill. I think what you're saying is, you're concerned about the income, that if they're going to use income on that basis alone and turf people out, that's a problem, and I understand that. But what would you suggest an alternative might be? It's the landlords who own the building. You own the building, you have a right to that building. So how do you balance that off by saying you --
The Chair: That's a long 30 seconds, Mr Froese.
Mr Froese: Yes, I know.
Ms Rubio: Again talking as a landlady, I felt I got a lot out of the deal because at the end I owned the building and they didn't. I think landlords have tremendous economic advantage at the end. I didn't lose any money. I had tenants for years, so I feel that there is enough protections for landlords as it is, that they don't need this extra one.
1550
Mr Colle: I want to thank you, Ms Rubio, for coming here. I also want to congratulate the Rahimis. I want to thank you for showing the courage to come here. As you know, this is an intimidating process, coming to this Legislature and coming to the committee, being new to Canada. It's very difficult for people who have lived here all their lives and so forth, fluent in English etc, to come here. You've shown a lot of courage, and I think you're doing the right thing by being here. I certainly don't want to let that go. I know it's not easy to be here, so thank you for going out of your way to speak on a very important issue. I don't want to make light of that.
I guess the essence of your issue is that you can't really tell a book by its cover, that just because a person is perhaps a new immigrant or a refugee or maybe doesn't seem to have a great job, the critical thing is not to rule that person out as being a good tenant. I guess the question is, how are people in those conditions who are new, maybe don't have a good job, have language problems, able to make ends meet and pay the rent as they do in almost -- as it says here, it's amazing the number of newcomers who are able to pay these rents. What's the secret?
Ms Rubio: Are you asking me?
Mr Colle: Yes, or the Rahimis, whatever. How is it possible to cope and how do they do such a good job at basically making ends meet?
Ms Rubio: Mr Colle, I don't know what your background is, but for those of us who come from immigrant backgrounds, I think we come here prepared to make a lot of sacrifices. We don't want anything free. We work for whatever we've got. I don't think people going to an apartment are hoping: "Ha, I'll get it. I'm not going to pay the rent and I'll keep the money." I mean, they're honest. They do whatever they can. People do it; I don't know how.
The Chair: Our time has expired, Ms Rubio. You've given the committee members lots of time to ask questions and we thank you and the Rahimis for coming to the committee and expressing your views.
GREATER TORONTO HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next delegation is the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association, Shelley Libfeld, director, and Robin Bookbinder, member. Welcome to the committee.
Mr Sheldon Libfeld: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Sheldon Libfeld and I'm here in my capacity as a member of the board of the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association. Joining me today is Robin Bookbinder, who will also be making a few remarks on behalf of the GTHBA.
The GTHBA is the voice of the residential construction industry in the greater Toronto area and has been so since 1921. We represent the residential home builders, whether they build single detached homes, semis, town houses or apartments. We also represent infill and custom home builders, as well as professional renovators. Our membership includes suppliers, subcontractors and many service, professional and financial institutions associated with the industry. All told, our organization has more than 850 member companies. Last year, GTHBA members developed more than 20,000 new housing units, representing more than 55,000 person-years of employment.
While I'm a fairly large builder of both new homes and condominiums, my family is also directly responsible for over 750 rental apartments throughout the greater Toronto area.
In approaching today's presentation, I need to take you back approximately two years to one of the first decisions of the Harris government relating to non-profit housing. Not long after his appointment as Minister of Housing, Al Leach imposed a 30-day moratorium on non-profit housing construction, pending a final decision on the future of the program.
At that time, the GTHBA wrote to the minister expressing our full support of the decision. In the same letter, however, we expressed an important caveat: "While we recognize the importance of moving quickly, we would also emphasize that it is important to take rapid action on the necessary process of developing a housing supply policy for the province which will ensure that the housing needs of the province can be cost-effectively satisfied."
What we were essentially saying to the minister was that you can't just yank the non-profit programs without knowing what you're going to do to make sure that people have access to decent, affordable housing.
Rental accommodation is obviously a key component in the overall continuum of housing supply. On that basis, we are here today to say that we support Bill 96, and Robin will be speaking to some of the specifics in just a moment. Before I turn it over to Robin, however, I want to talk further about housing supply.
Housing economist Greg Lampert wrote an excellent report for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing which summarized several steps which the government could take to promote a healthy rental housing market in Ontario and the development of new rental housing. Changing the rental regulation system in Ontario was identified as a critical step.
In addition, the report referred to the need to reduce other costs of development, such as excessively high development charges, a streamlined building code, planning and development regulations, a reduction in excessive property taxes for rental housing, reduced CMHC insurance fees and a reduction in the GST applied to new rental housing.
These other issues are critical to re-establishing a healthy rental housing market and in fact a healthy housing market, period. Whether they affect the cost of building a new rental housing unit, a new condominium unit, a new town house or whatever the case may be, excessive development costs have an impact on all those who most need affordable housing.
The rental housing market does not operate in isolation from the rest of the housing market. Excessive development costs increase the cost of housing and put new housing units out of the reach of both renters and owners. This keeps people in the existing housing stock and dampens the supply of new housing. Expanding the stock of new housing, whether through rental or ownership development, has benefits that ripple through the whole economy.
On one of these issues, the development charges, the government has recently announced its intention of revising the legislation. Ontario currently has the highest level of development charges in Canada and, in fact, North America. While it is not perfectly clear what will happen under the new legislation, Ontario is not expected to lose its status as the highest-development-charge jurisdiction. Unfortunately, this is one rather important component of Lampert's recommendations which has not been followed.
As we said in our letter to Al Leach almost two years ago, we need a plan to ensure that the housing needs of all Ontarians are met. There are three tools available to the government to achieve this: They can subsidize construction, they can give people an income subsidy, or they can take steps to reduce the cost of development. Given the fiscal realities of the 1990s, it seems unlikely that there will be much in the way of construction subsidies or new income subsidies. Therefore, I would ask each of the committee members to keep in mind, in looking at the remainder of Lampert's recommendations, that we will all benefit from policies which help reduce the cost of development.
I will now turn our presentation over to Robin.
Mr Robin Bookbinder: My name is Robin Bookbinder and I am vice-president of Pinedale Properties. Our organization owns and manages residential and commercial properties, in addition to our involvement in land development and housing. Pinedale has 3,500 rental housing units in its portfolio.
I would like to start by commending the government for tackling this difficult issue. I think we are all aware that unfortunately rent controls have become a highly polarized issue. It's difficult to reach agreement as to what needs to be done to restore a healthy rental housing market in Ontario. Therefore, there is no one policy approach which will make everyone happy. It would be easy for the government to ignore this issue since it is guaranteed to cause grief for any government that attempts to tackle it.
Hopefully we can all agree that a healthy rental housing market where there is an ample and diverse supply of apartments is a worthwhile and achievable goal. It certainly exists in other jurisdictions within Canada and in the United States, where there continues to be new development in spite of much higher vacancy rates than exist in Ontario.
1600
To this end, I believe that Bill 96 is a step in the right direction. I would like to take a few moments to go over what it is that our organization views as positive in the bill and why we think that these elements of the bill must be maintained.
Firstly, allowing landlords to set a market rent when a unit becomes vacant is an excellent way to restore badly needed confidence and market forces in the rental housing market while at the same time providing comfort to sitting tenants who have become used to the extremely restrictive regulatory regime. This is critical for two reasons: (1) It will promote investment in the existing stock of housing, since it will allow landlords to see the potential for returns on their investment. (2) It sends the message to potential investors that, as with any other investment they might consider, rental housing will have both upside and downside market risk.
Under the current system, investors in the rental market have very strict limits on potential returns, but they still have all the downside risk potential that other competing investments have. It's easy to see how the current system has been a significant factor in driving investment away from the rental housing market.
Another positive aspect of the bill is the exemption of new rental housing units from rent controls. This sends the right message to potential investors in the rental housing market. A rental investment is a very long-term investment and a five-year exemption, which currently exists, is simply inadequate. Any mortgage provided by a financial institution for the investment will certainly exceed five years in amortization.
Repealing the Rental Housing Protection Act will promote improvements and repairs to the existing stock and better use of existing sites. At the same time, sitting tenants will be given the opportunity to purchase the unit, something many of them will likely take advantage of.
The proposal for a new dispute resolution system is an attempt to streamline the resolution of landlord and tenant disputes. It is a laudable goal, given some of the difficulties with the current system, but it remains to be seen whether the new system will be effective. The current lengthy process makes it difficult for landlords to properly run their businesses. This, in turn, impacts upon investor willingness to enter into the rental market. If these reforms are successful in helping disputes get resolved more quickly, this will again also improve the investment climate.
Finally, we are supportive of the changes the government is proposing in the area of capital repairs. Allowing a slightly higher cost pass-through and getting rid of bureaucratic rules, such as "the costs no longer borne" rule, will lead to increased capital improvements to the existing stock. In fact as a result of these changes, Pinedale Properties will be initiating significant capital investment in its properties. I am sure that many of my colleagues in the industry will be doing the same. This will lead to job creation and in some cases will improve the energy efficiency of our buildings.
One area where we would like to see changes to the bill is in the area of allowable capital repairs. The bill does not now allow a landlord and tenant to agree on an above-guideline increase to allow for capital improvement which a tenant wants. I find it difficult to believe that it's in tenants' interests to have legislation which prevents them from negotiating improvements to their units which they may desire. This is also an impediment to the improvement of the existing stock and the corresponding job creation that goes along with capital improvement.
While we would have liked to have seen further movement towards a free-market approach through this bill, we understand that this is a highly controversial issue. Therefore, the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association supports this bill as a much-needed step in the right direction and would like to see its key elements preserved.
In closing, I would like to thank the committee members for their time and attention. Shelley and I would be happy to take any questions that you may have.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate you coming before us here today. I'd like your comments on a couple of things. When we were elected, there was seven-year wait for public housing in this province. Many of the people who are coming before us, and I suspect will continue over the rest of these hearings, will suggest that the current bill and the status quo is somehow perfect. They ignore the fact that there was a seven-year wait. I'm proud to say it's down to four years now, but even that's unacceptable by any standard.
I guess I have a couple of questions to you. You mentioned in your presentation that the current bill has constrained you from doing repairs. Would you say that is something that has been province-wide and industry-wide, that in terms of creating new buildings and repairing existing ones, the current law has actually been a disincentive and as a result the quality of life for tenants has probably suffered?
Mr Bookbinder: I'll take that first question. I think definitely that is the case, Mr Gilchrist. There is no doubt that landlords have had very little incentive from a financial point of view, and lenders who are lending them money have very little incentive to lend them money to do very necessary repairs that are both in the landlords' and in the tenants' interests under the current regime. Only where you have some sort of possibility of achieving some return on that investment, and where we're not even necessarily talking about a full return, will you have any hope of doing the types of necessary repairs and creating the types of jobs in this industry that are important to both landlords and tenants.
Mr Gilchrist: Indeed in all of Metro last year there was a grand total of 37 apartment units built, and 20 the year before; 1,420 in all of Ontario and yet 120,000 more people moved here. How anyone could suggest that the current law is working in protecting the interests of tenants is utterly astounding.
Much has been said this morning asking about income checks and things like that. I think a lot of people are confusing the issue of public housing and those who require that sort of assistance from the government and the reality in the free market. In fact, let me just go on this tangent. The Minister of Community and Social Services just last week announced that one of the changes she intends to make in government assistance, the social assistance program, is to pay the rental portion directly to landlords. Would you believe that will actually increase the incentive for landlords to rent to those people on government assistance, given that you now have absolute surety of being paid?
Mr Bookbinder: I'm the technical guy so I'll answer the question. I think yes. I know that you've spent a lot of time today, and I've heard even on the radio that a lot of the issues have been raised around this whole question of the income questions that landlords ask. I don't particularly want to discuss that issue, although I will, but generally I feel that it's important that landlords get tenants that they're comfortable with, and that tenants have landlords -- a you know, a landlord's interest is to rent suites. That's what we're in the business for, to rent suites, and not renting suites is not a satisfactory situation for us, so we want to have good tenants in our buildings.
The question that you raised, Mr Gilchrist, of paying the subsidy directly, obviously that would have a major influence on a landlord getting that comfort level that at least the rent is paid. We don't know about the quality of the tenant in terms of whether the tenant will tear up a suite or not -- that will be judged on other situations in terms of the quality of the people -- but, yes, it would sort of move that issue away in many respects from the type of debate you're having today.
Mr Colle: Thank you for coming, both of you, today. The question I have is, given that one of the first things this government did was basically say it was getting out of the housing business, and given that one of the first things this minister said was that rent control has got to go, how come this government has not been able to encourage people like yourselves to build anything in the rental area when they gave very clear signals they weren't going to do it themselves?
Mr Libfeld: The rental rates and the ability to have confidence in a government has been hurt drastically for many people in the industry. We're not sure what's going to happen next week or the week after or a subsequent government. I can say for myself that we put in major capital improvements under the Liberal government's policies of allowing you to recover the capital costs in the buildings, and the second the NDP government came in, although the money was spent, it was paid for, we could not recover a dime. It's very important that we have assurances that we can have confidence that the policies will continue and not be yanked from underneath us.
Mr Colle: The other question I have is in terms of looking at supplying rental accommodation. Given that for two years this government has done whatever they've done and you haven't responded in terms of building rental accommodation, given that they pass this act, which obviously they can do because they've got the majority, let's say there are other market factors that change -- interest rates go up, unemployment goes up, other factors -- are you going to be able to build housing if those factors change?
1610
Mr Libfeld: Yes, I think we still will --
Mr Colle: So if interest rates go up --
Mr Libfeld: -- because the commitment of the financing and the decision to make the project go is made on the day you decide to go ahead with the project. It's not made when interest rates are changing. If I go out and do a building today, I'm committing today for that financial rate and building that project based upon those costs. If costs come down, if we can have some of these policies in the Lampert report come forward, and we can have the costs reduced and it makes it more feasible to go ahead with the projects, then for sure we will go ahead with projects.
Mr Marchese: I have a few comments and then some time for questions, I hope.
The Chair: Be careful, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: I realize, but we've got to divide the time equally, right?
Mr Colle: Yes, let's have the time divided equally between the three parties.
Mr Marchese: Otherwise it's a problem.
The Chair: I'm always equal with all three parties, Mr Colle.
Mr Marchese: Just a few quick statements. I disagree with most of what you have presented here, of course, but there's something I respect you for and that's a comment you made on the first page, which says, "What we were essentially saying to the minister was that you can't just yank the non-profit program without knowing what you're going to do to make sure that people have access to decent, affordable housing." I respect that because you communicate through that that you have concerns about the availability of housing for people who obviously need housing.
There is a problem, however, in terms of what you do then to create it, and you referred to the Lampert study, which I often refer to as well. I disagree with some of this stuff, but even if we did all of this stuff, it's going to take a long time to get to it because that $3,000 gap that Mr Lampert speaks of is going to be difficult to get to. You would agree with that, probably.
Mr Libfeld: I'd have to see the number but --
Mr Marchese: No, quickly.
Mr Libfeld: The report was done a while ago; interest rates have reduced; some of the policies have come into effect. It may come a lot more quickly than we ever anticipated.
Mr Marchese: I'm not sure that's the case. I'll read it to you. He says, "Reduce development charges" -- they've only reduced that by 10% or so, so that's not going to be very helpful to you guys -- "equalize property taxes" -- municipalities are not going to do that, that's $1,200, because there's a whole lot of politics in equalizing taxes; you probably agree with that -- "halve the GST payable" -- I'm not sure the federal Liberals are going to do that -- "streamline regulations on building...halve the CMHC mortgage insurance fee" -- it's $110 -- "and lower administration due to the reform of rent regulations" -- that's $200. Even if we ever got to this, in spite of the fact that I disagree with some of this stuff, it's going to be a long time before we're going to see any building of affordable housing.
Mr Bookbinder: Mr Marchese, can I answer the question?
Mr Marchese: This is what I want you to react to, though, this is my question --
The Chair: Very quickly.
Mr Marchese: There's a fellow who came from New York who said this: "They concede decontrol was a disaster when New York tried it from 1971 to 1974. A commission set up by the Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller recommended that vacancy decontrol be scrapped. It said that decontrolled apartments saw rent increases of 52% over a three-year period while landlords' operating costs went up just 8%. Complaints of landlord harassment doubled" between that period. "Capital improvements actually decreased. Housing construction is driven by the economy and tenant income, not rent controls." What is your response to that?
Mr Bookbinder: I'll respond to that but I also want to respond to the other point. I don't know about Nelson Rockefeller in 1972. I know that there are a lot of jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, British Columbia being one example, that have gone to a system that is much less restrictive than the system that was put in by the NDP and more along the lines of the system that's being proposed here, where the system works a lot better than it does now in terms of construction and development.
But I also want to raise the point that you made before about taking a look at specific numbers and saying whether this is going to be a short time or a long time. I think you have to look at the broader picture than that. The points you raise about costs, yes, this is what's raised in our submission as well, that cost factors are important. But you have to create the environment. You have to start first principles. You have to create the environment that builders will even look at building apartment buildings as compared to building condominiums or commercial buildings or anything else. If you don't start with creating that environment, you won't even get to second base, without going to first base.
I think this is mainly, the way I see it anyway, an attempt to get to first base so that landlords can look at restarting development.
The Chair: Mr Libfeld, Mr Bookbinder, thank you very much for coming this afternoon and making your presentation to us.
JESSIE'S CENTRE FOR TEENAGERS
The Chair: The next delegation is Jessie's Centre for Teenagers, Maureen Callaghan. It looks like she has a bunch of beautiful babies with her too.
Mr Wettlaufer: On a point of order: It is so cold in here those babies are freezing. That's probably why they're crying.
The Chair: I'll tell you, my first granddaughter was born two months ago. I spent Father's Day with her and I'm just as helpless today as I was then. But I wish you all luck and I welcome you to make your presentation.
Whoever is speaking, if you could identify yourself, please.
Ms Maureen Callaghan: I'll start. My name is Maureen Callaghan. I'm actually on maternity leave from Jessie's Centre for Teenagers, but I have worked there since 1986 and I've been a housing counsellor there for a long time. I wanted to be back to organize and work on this type of presentation because I feel I have had a lot of experience in this area and feel deeply about this issue.
Jessie's works with teenage parents. We work with women who are 18 years of age and younger. They are either pregnant or they have children and obviously housing is of great concern. We have many young parents here with us today who will speak directly to that, so what I would like to just highlight at this point is to make the point that we've got many concerns about Bill 96 and how it will affect young parents in a way that we believe will be very detrimental.
The proposal that rent controls would come off apartments once they're being re-rented is of concern to us because the teens that we're working with are often first-time renters. That means they would be affected by that rule and would be faced with paying a higher rent than perhaps couples that have higher incomes and more stability and have lived in a place for much longer periods of time.
The other point we want to make is that for young parents who are renting for the first time, they obviously aren't able to come up with a landlord reference. Often young people don't have a credit rating, but that doesn't mean they should be told that they should go out and secure credit as a way of coming up with their credit worthiness. They often don't have access to guarantors, so we're very concerned about this particular group and how they will fare out there in the market when they have to find housing. Obviously many of them have had to move out of the family home, for any number of reasons, once they become pregnant or have had their babies. We're trying to work with them to ensure that they can have access to the most affordable and the most appropriate housing that's available.
If the income-to-rent ratio of 30% was used for young parents on social assistance, then we would be expecting them to find an apartment at $191 a month if their basic needs were $446. Most of us would understandably know that you could not find an apartment for that rate here in Metro Toronto.
It's been our experience that teen parents are responsible. They are out there in the community paying their rent, trying to budget and to survive each month. I think most of us would recognize that this is a challenge, but they have to have a roof over their heads. So it has been our experience that they are responsible and pay their rent in full and on time.
1620
The other thing is, if income criteria were to be used, the effect often is that the most affordable apartments in this city are being denied to young parents, and because they still have to find a place to live, they then have to go out and find a more expensive apartment.
So if this committee or if this government was putting this issue forward because it was going to be a cost-saving measure to this government, then we might be able to consider why it's being put forward. But in fact it has been our experience that the best apartments, those one-bedrooms for $500 or $550, are being denied to young people because of income criteria, and then they go out and say: "I've got to get that rooming house for $450 and it's a deplorable situation. If I could have just had that one-bedroom apartment for $50 more," or "I've got to get a much worse place for $600."
We're concerned that young people have to have access to the most affordable apartments, and the most appropriate, and that Bill 96 would be detrimental to young people. I'd like to turn it over so that there's time so that you can hear from the teens themselves. Sandra, maybe you would start.
Ms Sandra Fortin: My name is Sandra Fortin. I'm 20 years old and I have a two-year-old daughter. I'm a single parent, full-time college student, and I've had a few apartments since I moved out on my own when I was 17.
It was very difficult at first: I got a lot of landlords who didn't want to rent, either because of my age or because they were worried about my income. A lot of them wanted cosigners; I got turned down many times. I was lucky I did find one landlord who was willing to trust me. I took care of that place very well and always paid my rent on time. I'm a clean, quiet tenant. I've never had any problems with any of my apartments.
It's been hard, but I have made it through. I just think if this goes through, it's going to make it very difficult for myself and for anybody else in the future. When it comes time for me to decide that I want a bigger apartment or just something different or my lease expires and my landlord would prefer me to go somewhere else, I'll be stuck doing I don't know what. Where am I going to go? What am I going to do? I have a daughter. I don't want to lower my standards to a one-bedroom or even go down to a rooming house because I don't think that's an appropriate environment to have your children in. I would much rather be able to afford my apartment. I get by and I manage and, like I said, my rent is on time.
Ms Michelle Lightfoot: My name is Michelle Lightfoot. I have a 17-month-old daughter. I haven't had the experience of living on my own yet. I still live with my parents. I'm a full-time student as well, finishing my OACs, and I intend to go to university.
If this bill goes through, I'm really worried about having to look for a place where I'm going to need cosigners. I want to be an independent parent with my own family and not having to rely on my parents. I want to be able to go into the world, having my own family, like my parents did, and not having to depend on other people to be there for me.
I'm raising my daughter. I'm a mature young lady. I'm taking on the responsibilities and I want to go out and be able to live on my own with the choices of not having restrictions put on me. We should be able to live in a clean environment, not something that's going to be endangering our children. I want the best for her and I don't want to have this bill against me because it will just make it more difficult than it already is.
Ms Martina Aponte: I'm Martina Aponte and this is my daughter. She's six weeks old.
I just moved out on my own last September. My sister and I live together. It took us about three months to find a place and when we did find a place, we had to settle on a bachelor. So there was her, her daughter and me, pregnant, living in that place that had roaches, crackheads in the stairwells, people peeing in the stairwells. It wasn't a great environment; I didn't want to raise my daughter there. So I found a place quickly only because my boyfriend had a friend who moved out and was willing to let us stay at his place for a while.
It was hard for us to find a place, and if you guys do this bill, it's going to make it worse. It was even hard for us to come up with first and last month's rent. I want the best for my daughter, and I go to school full time. I made the honour roll and I plan on finishing my school year next year. That's about it.
Ms Angel Robinson: Hello, my name is Angel Robinson. I have a one-and-a-half-year old daughter. I'm 20 years old. I go to school. I work occasionally at part-time jobs when I can find one and I'm also on government assistance.
Right now I'm living in a two-bedroom apartment paying $657 plus hydro, so that's more than two thirds of my cheque, plus all my bills. I pay my rent on time. After that, I worry about my phone bill and my food and whatever else.
Trying to find places in Toronto right now is hard enough being a teen mother or a young mother on social assistance. A lot of times I've been turned away because of either my age or my race. In fact a lot of people think that I'm not mature enough to handle paying my rent on time. I've been told already, "You're going to be having wild parties, have guys coming in and out all the time, and your daughter's going to cry non-stop."
My daughter is very well mannered, usually, and I pay the rent on time. I'm not just waiting for my cheque every month, waiting by the mailbox. I'm looking for jobs. I'm going to school. I'm trying to do better for my daughter and for myself. By passing this bill, if I want to look for somewhere nicer -- because where I live now is okay but it's not the best place. It's not something like I was raised in, not something I want my daughter to stay in. But trying to find somewhere nicer later on is going to be harder than it is now.
I do want to work so it's not just that I'm waiting for my cheque. I want to go to school. I'm plan to go to Seneca College next September and study law, but the way things are going, money problems and whatever else, it's already hard enough right now to be a young, single mother in this environment.
A lot of people already have turned us away. Many of us have been having trouble finding places, and we lower our standards just to afford a place. On welfare, you get $511 for rent. You cannot tell me that you can find a place for $511 for a one-bedroom apartment, at least that has no roaches or nothing wrong with it, things falling off, the ceiling leaking.
I pay $657. I paid more at one time. Living in a house I paid $700 plus utilities sometimes. So I had like $200 left over for the month, but I did that because my daughter deserves the best and I'm willing to sacrifice my needs for my daughter. She has everything she needs, but again, being a single mother you cannot afford a place under $500 and say that it's suitable, no matter what the circumstances and why you have to be there. You shouldn't have to.
The Chair: Ms Callaghan, did you have any further comments?
Ms Callaghan: Just that in our submission, on page 5 there is a budget that we tried to put together where we listed the rent at $575 because we thought that was still low but a bit more realistic in terms of what's available in Metro Toronto.
I think you've probably been thrown a lot of figures here since these hearings have started, and it can be quite shocking to try to think about how people on social assistance really survive each month. We wanted to just show those figures to let people know that it's difficult but people do manage and it's important that they try to have access to the best housing that's available out there.
There's one other point. I'd love to be able to say to these teens that their problems could be solved because they'll just get into Metro Housing or Cityhome or the other forms of non-profit housing. We know what the waiting lists are for those types of housing, particularly since the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority went to a chronological waiting list. It's a five-year waiting list at this point -- previously, teens used to do fairly well on that point rating system -- so they simply cannot expect in their teen years that they're going to access subsidized housing. They have got to rely on the market.
The Chair: Ms Callaghan, thank you for coming and bringing all the other speakers. We appreciate your remarks.
1630
ONTARIO COALITION OF SENIOR CITIZENS' ORGANIZATIONS
The Chair: The next deputation is the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations, Bea Levis. Good afternoon.
Ms Bea Levis: It's really interesting for me to follow these young people. A part of our concerns are of course centred around seniors, but we're also very concerned about the problems that particularly low-income families and young people find when we're looking at the housing picture.
I'll just start with the brief we have presented. The Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations is an association of seniors' groups and social service organizations focusing on programs to benefit the senior citizens' community. We represent the concerns of over 500,000 senior citizens in more than 110 seniors' groups from across Ontario. We have submitted our views on rental and housing options for Ontario to previous provincial and municipal government committees. We believe Ontario needs to implement housing legislation that ensures the development and protection of safe, affordable and accessible housing in Ontario. The Tenant Protection Act, Bill 96, we believe discriminates against seniors, low-income families and young people when they look for affordable housing.
For seniors, aging in place is the preferred way to live their lives. The Ontario government is jeopardizing that intention by implementing the new Tenant Protection Act. Without the protections that were in the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Rent Control Act, the Residents' Rights Act and the Rental Housing Protection Act, it will make for higher rent increases, discrimination against low-income individuals and unfair and unreasonable evictions plus an increase in poor maintenance and repair.
The Tenant Protection Act makes it even more difficult than before for individuals on social assistance, seniors on limited incomes, the disabled and young people to afford suitable housing options. While the province is changing its mandate on cooperative and non-profit housing programs in Ontario, it's putting in jeopardy another housing option that thousands of vulnerable Ontarians rely upon each year. OCSCO believes that housing policies must have a larger vision and social purpose than the current trend among governments. Our government has a responsibility to maintain and develop a comprehensive housing strategy which fulfils the needs of all Ontario citizens.
The Tenant Protection Act removes many financial protections tenants had in the Rent Control Act. Once a tenant leaves, the landlord is allowed to charge whatever rent they want. A tenant has no legal right to challenge that increase. The one saviour they had in the past to challenge landlords who charged too-high rents was the rent registry. This currently is being disbanded. Essentially, then, the Tenant Protection Act will eliminate protection from arbitrarily high rent increases for all tenants who decide to move.
It is low- and moderate-income people such as many of our province's seniors who are unable to compete for the few rental units available when vacancy rates are low. The original intent of the Rent Control Act was to protect vulnerable tenants at the low-end rental market who can't afford arbitrary and high rent increases. This protection was especially important for seniors who live on fixed incomes and who often cannot afford huge increases in basic living expenses. Under the new legislation, as soon as a tenant needs or chooses to move, they will experience a rental market fraught with high rents regardless of the quality of the housing. Seniors on fixed incomes will be held hostage for fear that moving will leave them vulnerable to abuses by unscrupulous landlords. For those seniors who do move, we can expect more poverty, ill health and social isolation, since they will be forced to choose paying higher rents over food, medication and transportation.
Under the Tenant Protection Act, a landlord can negotiate with a tenant for a rent increase up to 4% higher than the annual guideline without a rent control hearing. The Tenant Protection Act also allows landlords to collect rent increases before they are approved by the new tribunal. OCSCO does not believe that vulnerable seniors will be able to discuss new rents with their landlord in a fair and equal manner. Landlords and tenants do not have equal power: people need housing and landlords have more than their fair share of tenants who need to rent. During the proposed "negotiation" process, low-income seniors will be easily outbid by other tenants who can afford a higher rent for a unit. For a senior on a fixed income, every dollar counts.
One of the most damaging aspects of the Tenant Protection Act is how it undermines certain guaranteed protections in the Human Rights Code. Section 200 of the Tenant Protection Act amends the Human Rights Code to allow landlords to refuse to rent to individuals based on income information. According to the Human Rights Code, it is illegal to discriminate against a potential tenant based on income. However, in the Tenant Protection Act landlords can refuse to rent to members of this disadvantaged group by disqualifying them based on low incomes.
Section 200 permits landlords to use the minimum income criterion, which is a 30% rent-to-income ratio, to disqualify applicants with low incomes. Income discrimination is the most serious barrier facing low-income households in the search of adequate, safe and affordable housing, particularly since alternative affordable housing will not be available.
The new Tenant Protection Act will not persuade landlords to put money into building maintenance. There is no requirement in the new legislation that high rents will be attached to improved building maintenance. Even where the landlord and tenant negotiate a higher rent based on repairs and improved maintenance, this system may or may not result in new investment in the building. It may also result in the eviction of seniors who cannot afford higher rents.
I might just mention that one of the most common fears expressed by seniors, who phone our office continually, is this fear that they will be bullied by landlords who are trying to get them out by not putting money into maintenance, and/or that if they have spent money on maintenance they will be harried into moving out. It's all right to say, "Well, these are fears," and they certainly are fears, but we have found that many seniors are really frightened about the possibilities coming up on this score.
The Tenant Protection Act is proposing to take the Landlord and Tenant Act disputes mechanism out of the courts and have the issues settled by a quasi-judicial tribunal. Under any new system, it is essential that the decision-makers are knowledgeable and neutral in landlord and tenant issues. OCSCO believes that for this system to work, the tribunal's appointees and decision-makers should not be political appointments. OCSCO is concerned that the tribunal's powers to dismiss certain applications without a hearing is discriminatory. To demand that tenants pay a fee to the tribunal before they are given a hearing will prevent those who cannot afford to pay an opportunity to protect their rights.
1640
Changes to the Rental Housing Protection Act will mean that current rental housing may be lost through demolition to other uses or conversions to condominiums. These changes will result in an increase in unaffordable housing units. Low-income individuals and seniors who cannot afford to buy property will have even fewer housing options. Many seniors, we fear, will be forced out of their homes as provincial rental housing stock is depleted through demolition and conversion.
Tenants of care homes used to have security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Rent Control Act and the Rental Housing Protection Act, just as any other tenant in Ontario. OCSCO is very concerned that the Tenant Protection Act will result in arbitrary and unaffordable rent increases for new tenants in care homes and the loss of affordable housing for special needs tenants as a whole. Seniors and other adults with special-care needs will be devastated by the impacts of these changes. Under the Tenant Protection Act fewer care homes will be covered by the legislation and tenants therefore will lack the benefit of basic tenant protections.
The Tenant Protection Act will also allow care home operators to transfer tenants to alternative facilities when the level of care needs change, subject to certain protections. The only acceptable tenant protection from arbitrarily being transferred to an alternative facility is the consent of the tenant. Otherwise, landlords will arbitrarily evict a tenant who no longer needs the level of care provided or if a tenant needs a level of care that the landlord is not able to provide. We support the position of the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, who have expanded, in their submission to you, on the problem of care homes.
The government must acknowledge that income, housing availability and housing affordability are major determinants of people's health and choice of housing. Where there is a lack of affordable housing, low-income people are often forced to live in substandard housing since they don't have the purchasing power and cannot buy or rent units in the upper end of the housing market. The Landlord and Tenant Act, the Rent Control Act and the Rental Housing Protection Act exist to protect tenants and to provide diverse housing options for Ontario's citizens. Low- and moderate-income seniors are especially dependent on these protections. Therefore, OCSCO urges the province to seriously consider the social as well as the financial impact to Ontario's citizens before any amendments are made to the original statutes. We thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns and recommendations today.
Mr Colle: Thank you very much for coming. As you know, one of the really objectionable parts of this bill, among many others, is that it puts a cloud over the heads of all seniors. As you know, if a person moves out of their apartment, the landlord can basically reap the benefits and increase the rent to whatever he or she wants. Seniors especially are going to have this threat over their heads.
On top of that, the other threat is conversions. As you know, there are some very nice small apartments units up and down the Yonge Street corridor and Avenue Road. You may have a small apartment building on a beautiful lot near Yonge Street. There's going to be enormous pressure for that landlord to convert that to condominiums.
What kind of advice can you give this government in terms of removing these threats that this bill puts over the heads of seniors across Ontario and Metro especially?
Ms Levis: All we can do is say that, by all means, the housing stock that exists somehow has to be preserved. I don't know if you can force landlords not to convert, but it seems to me that you have to make sure that if on the one hand affordable housing stock has been depleted, somehow or other you have to make up that lack in another way. This is why -- although it's not the subject today -- we're also very concerned about the government's intention to step out of social housing, because this is the one thing that has made such a tremendous difference to seniors in the province in the last 10 or 15 years. It has really made it possible to have a very enjoyable quality of life for seniors who otherwise would be completely isolated and unable to afford anything.
Mr Marchese: Ms Levis, I want to thank you for your untiring activism as it relates to your concerns about policies and how they affect seniors.
Two questions, one short and one long: First, you've obviously made a deputation before. How do you feel about the fact that the government didn't listen at all to some of the concerns you've raised earlier?
Ms Levis: All I can say is that we need to keep trying. We'll keep relaying to the government the concerns we get from the seniors who are in touch with us continually.
Mr Marchese: We had a Mr Collins, who was the executive director of the rent control in New York City in the late 1970s early 1980s. Here are some highlights.
He said vacancy "decontrol was a disaster when New York City tried it from 1971 to 1974. A commission set up by the Republican Governor Nelson Rockerfeller recommended that vacancy decontrol be scraped. It said that decontrolled apartments saw rent increases of 52% over a three-year period while landlord's operating costs went up just 8%. Complaints of landlord harassment doubled between 1970 to 1971 when vacancy decontrol was brought in and capital improvements actually decreased."
That's what this fellow says, an expert in this field. What is your response to that? It relates very much to this bill, right?
Ms Levis: It certainly does relate to it. All I can do is repeat the concern, the real fear seniors have that they just don't know how they're going to manage. They honestly are really scared because they do fear, from the experiences of other places, that rents go up so high they don't know how they're going to manage.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you very much, Ms Levis, for your presentation today. I'd just like to say, though, to Mr Marchese, it's my understanding we made three significant changes based on your last submission: the care home tenants give 30 days' notice if they want to terminate a tenancy and no requirement that the notice take effect at the end of a fixed term. Landlords will be required to provide tenants of care homes with a care home information package before entering into a tenancy agreement. We're provided for a five-day cooling off period if tenants in care homes change their minds, and the requirements for written care home tenancy agreements will continue under the proposed legislation.
All those things are based on your submission based on the new directions. I would thank you for your past visit and for your time here today.
Let me just say that rather than be a prophet of doom and gloom -- we absolutely respect your views, but I'm here to tell you today that these fears are unfounded. For example, Mr Colle's supposition can't happen. The bill provides for guaranteed lifetime tenancy if any building is converted. If a senior is living in one of those buildings on Yonge Street and someone decides to convert it to a condominium, that senior never has to move. They are guaranteed by law that they can keep that.
In your submission, you suggest that landlords could arbitrarily evict a tenant. Not true. They would have to go to a tribunal and prove to that tribunal that there are alternative care facilities out there that better meet the needs of that person. The bottom line is, we are very conscious of this. I don't think there's anyone more respected, in terms of their needs for housing, than seniors. I assure you that the government's goal will be to absolutely maintain all the protections that are there today.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): We appreciate you being here today for us.
1650
ANDREW MADDEN
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Andrew Madden. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee.
Mr Andrew Madden: I'm a little nervous now after Mr Gilchrist's last comment to the seniors group, but as it applies to seniors, I definitely agree.
My name is Andrew Madden. I'm President of Diral Development Corp. I'm educated in both law and planning and have approximately 20 years of experience in the real estate development business. I currently run a development consulting firm that specializes in land development and condominium conversions.
I'm here to address you today regarding section 52 of the proposed Tenant Protection Act, which deals with the conversion of rental properties and particularly the security of tenure for existing tenants. I requested to appear before you because of my experience under the current Rental Housing Protection Act and the Condominium Act.
I applaud your actions in removing the restrictions created by the Rental Housing Protection Act. In my business I've discovered that many municipalities feel the conversion of rental property to condominium provides a substantial opportunity to rejuvenate an aging housing stock. Landlords have been unable to obtain financing to do substantial renovations, particularly to units. However, by converting same to condominium, funds become available through the sale of units to improve rental stock without necessarily eliminating it from the market. In fact, what happens is that rental stock becomes affordable housing and tenants can purchase their current accommodation, renovated, at a monthly price that is often equal to or less than what they're currently paying in rent.
I recently successfully completed the conversion of a 143-unit townhouse complex in the Guildwood Village community in Scarborough. Because of that experience, I reviewed the legislation to see whether that type of project could continue. What I discovered is that what you've given on the one hand -- the ability to convert -- you've taken away on the other by granting lifetime security. Basically you've eliminated the economic opportunity for conversions to occur. What you have done is, rather than making conversions occur on an open dialogue basis, you've created an opportunity for unscrupulous landlords to take action to try and force tenants out. Hopefully this is not what the legislation intended.
Our success in Scarborough demonstrates that conversions can be done to the benefit of all parties. The conversion process must respect the tenants and it must understand their need to be informed and educated about conversions, home ownership and condominiums.
We began the process by meeting with each tenant individually, 143 tenants, to find out if they might be interested in owning their home and what improvements they'd like to see to their unit and their rental complex. We let them establish the priorities. By determining the level of interest in home ownership, the landlord got a clear picture of whether the conversion could be successful. After all, if the tenant wouldn't be interested in buying, why would the public be interested in that project?
With the successful approvals in hand for that conversion, we then gave the tenants a 90-day lead time to buy their unit before it was offered to the public. This gave the tenant the opportunity to discuss home ownership with their family, their lawyer and their banker and to negotiate methods for coming up with a down payment, which is usually the single biggest issue for tenants buying today.
In your proposed legislation, you've given the tenant a 72-hour right of first refusal. I truly believe this is inappropriate. You're asking them to make the biggest buying decision of their life without appropriate legal advice. You're making them incur a legal expense, by reviewing the agreement of purchase and sale with a lawyer, when they might not be ready or may not have the money. In all likelihood, they will make a decision hastily and without the proper advice.
My recommendation is that you eliminate the right of first refusal and instead give all tenants a 90-day right of first opportunity. In Scarborough, we even went so far as to offer the tenant the unit at a price below that offered to the public.
Scarborough also agreed with us that a two-year security of tenure was appropriate for this project. There was not one tenant who objected to the security-of-tenure time frame, and not one tenant objected to the conversion before the public meeting at Scarborough council. This demonstrates the importance of communication with tenants throughout the conversion process.
Instead of granting a reasonable security of tenure, you have given all tenants a lifetime security. The length of security of tenure is a key economic issue for the landlord in making his decision to convert. Our experience demonstrates that in converting rental stock the landlord is required to bring that unit up to like-new standard. The tenant and the public will not buy a rental product in an "as is" condition.
Granting life-time security also creates a conflict if the product is converted for the new homeowner. Under the Condominium Act, the new homeowners, once they own 50% of the units, form the board of directors and manage their property. This is something they generally take significant pride in. It allows them to control the expenses which form part of their monthly maintenance fees. They are very conscious of these expenses and want no surprises in the future.
With life-time security it could take years for the owners to gain control of the board. This causes a dilemma because they feel the tenants may not have the same sense of care towards common facilities and that they could be burdened with greater capital costs. Also, the landlord continues to incur capital expenses to keep the property looking new for sales purposes. It creates a risk that the landlord could abandon the project if he's not successful, leaving both the homeowners and tenants at risk.
Finally, from a business perspective, to sell a home you must advertise. A full-page ad in the Toronto Star runs over $25,000 per day. If you don't have enough units for sale, you can't economically promote your project and you can't be successful, and you can't have this happen if tenants have life-time security of tenure. You have no idea when they will be departing.
However, before I make my recommendations, I would like to point out that not all conversions are the same. They differ along economic lines. Units with higher rents make more sense to convert than those with lower rents. As a result, my recommendations on security of tenure differ based on the rental rates of the units and offer greater protection to those tenants who need it more; that is, those with lower rents who have less flexibility in relocating and less chance of buying a home.
Therefore, my recommendations are as follows:
For all units with rents in excess of $1,000 per month, the security of tenure should be two years. This is more than ample under the circumstances, and our Scarborough project is a clear example. All of our tenants in that project, with the exception of eight, have either chosen to purchase or to relocate. When you pay more than $1,000 per month in rent, you have sufficient flexibility in choice of where to rent, where to live, or the choice to buy.
However, with those units that rent for less than $1,000 per month, I am proposing that you tie the length of future security with the past security of the tenant; in other words, the length of time that the tenant has lived there. If a tenant has been there five years, give them another five. If they have been there 25 years, give them another 25 years. If they've been there less than two, give them the minimum of two. In other words, it allows the conversion to reflect the makeup of the building. If the rents are low -- the building may appeal, for example, to seniors -- the historical tenancy will show they have generally been there a long time. Give them the future protection, but don't leave them open to the risk that everybody has life-time security and that a landlord may take inappropriate action.
Those are my changes that I would request with regard to section 52 on security of tenure.
As discussed earlier, I would also recommend that you delete the right of first refusal, as it is a burden, not a benefit. Make it a right of first opportunity, make the landlord offer the price to the tenant first before it goes to the public for 90 days, and make sure he doesn't offer it at a lower price to the public later. If he does, take it back to the tenant and offer it to them again at the lower price.
1700
In conclusion, the ability to convert rental properties serves a number of useful purposes. It allows for the rejuvenation of an aging housing stock. It provides affordable housing, often in very desirable areas and often well serviced by transit. The renovated condominium market gives tenants an opportunity to purchase their own home, often at the same cost as rent, it can help improve community relationships, and of course it can be of benefit to the economy by creating new jobs.
I thank this committee for allowing me to address them today.
Mr Marchese: Thank you, Mr Madden, for your presentation. Just a few questions.
If a building is converted into a condominium and you have 85% or 90% where people actually buy their units and 10% decide not to, I think what you suggested in your paper on the first page is that there would be a great deal of pressure by the condominium corporation, or by the people who were part of the condominium, to squeeze the other 10% out one way or the other. Is that possible?
Mr Madden: No, I didn't suggest that at all.
Mr Marchese: Okay, but do you think that might happen?
Mr Madden: Actually, I have the condition now where we still have a minority of tenants in this complex. The tenants who are still in possession tend to be a little older, and they're better at maintaining the properties than some of the new homeowners are. There isn't a conflict between the tenants and the homeowners. The conflict comes where the homeowners can't get over that 50% hurdle and so they can't control the board, they can't control the monthly expenses, and that's a fair dollar out of their pockets every month. That's where you get a problem, when you cannot control the conversion.
Once you get over that 50%, it's personality. It's you and I being neighbours, and if we get along, it doesn't matter whether you're renting the house next door to me or whether you own it. It becomes a personality situation, not a question of ownership.
Mr Marchese: Is it fair to say -- and it's good to have your reaction. If you do convert the particular building into a condominium, my suspicion is many will not be able to afford it, so they've got to go.
Mr Madden: They don't have to go. Remember that security of tenure doesn't mean they have to leave after it's over.
Mr Marchese: This is true. I appreciate that, and that's why I raise the concern that we're not likely to give the same treatment to those people who are there as those who bought their units. That's why my sense that the people who have lifetime tenure, who didn't buy as part of the condominium, may not get the same treatment in terms of repairs of their buildings as the other folks who bought the building. That's why I raised that concern earlier with you, with my previous question.
Mr Madden: I think that's a lack of confidence in people if you feel that way.
Mr Marchese: I see. It won't be that way, in other words?
Mr Madden: What happens is, the renters who stay on continue to have the interior of their unit maintained by their landlord. If he was a good landlord -- and he would have had to be to get the conversion to be successful -- he'll continue to look after the repairs of their unit.
The outside is a common maintenance; therefore the condominium board will maintain the flowers and the pool, so that wouldn't distinguish. But interior-wise, if you own your unit, you would have to look after it yourself. If I were a renter, the landlord would maintain it.
Mr Marchese: I understand that.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry. We have run out of time. We'll go to Mr Gilchrist.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you very much, Mr Madden. I appreciate your coming before us. In fact, that project is just down the road from where I live and I'd like to compliment you for what you have done down there. It had become somewhat run down and it's now one of the nicest additions to the Guildwood community.
But I'm taken by one of your comments. First off, let me thank you. You've made two excellent suggestions and I'll certainly give you an undertaking to take them back to the ministry and give them due consideration. I appreciate that you've come to us with specifics and not rhetoric, and the fact that by working together with the tenants you were able to accomplish something that I think a lot of people who have been coming before us have been saying just wouldn't take place. The dynamic out there right now is very much that, with interest rates having fallen, far more tenants can afford home ownership right now -- not all of them, but far more. Given that the rents in that unit were not exactly at the lowest end of the spectrum before, I think it's not inappropriate that you took the steps you did.
My question to you, though, is in terms of the issue of lifetime tenure. If you had found the same results you have that have actually turned out, or if you had anticipated that eight out of the 143 would not ever leave -- let's say those eight who are one year later still tenants continue to stay there -- would that have changed your approach to the project? Would it still have made financial sense and would you have still persevered?
Mr Madden: I would have promoted it to the owners. Obviously I was not the owner of the project. Economically the project would still have made sense. The key was reaching a sufficient number, because the first situation you've got to do is deal with your banker. He has the mortgage on the property. He has to be prepared to allow you to discharge those mortgages on a per unit basis rather than perhaps waiting the five years remaining on your mortgage.
Once you get past the discharge stage and that mortgage is eliminated, if the developer is collecting rent, it's free and clear rent basically. Part of it goes to the common expenses but basically it becomes cash flow.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry. I must cut you off and go to Mr Colle.
Mr Colle: Thank you, Mr Madden. I think you gave a very objective and a very insightful presentation. I appreciate that. It's been helpful.
I guess the thing that struck me the most is that the present bill, the way it's structured -- and you're coming at it from a business perspective. You're saying essentially that it's a recipe that puts tenants at tremendous risk from unscrupulous landlords. For me it's déjà vu. I don't know if you remember the case on Tichester-Heath in the city of Toronto, where there was a beautiful old building where essentially an unscrupulous landlord, as you said, came in and brought in motorcycle people to get the tenants out of the building.
That's what I fear most, that in good locations where you've got the potential to upgrade or improve an existing building, you're going to have, not in all cases but in some cases, especially older tenants faced with these unscrupulous landlords who are going to try and take advantage of them, the way this bill is structured right now.
Mr Madden: I agree. That's why if you can stagger the tenure periods so that people are leaving and you know that certain ones are going to leave in two years and in four years and in six years, if there are seniors who never want to leave, that's fine. It allows you to start getting revenue in, as you sell the unit, to start upgrading the project and upgrading the units. Remember, it doesn't take a lot of money out of your pocket because as you sell it, as you get the closing proceeds from the sale, you pay for the renovations. As you get homeowners in place instead of these bikers and these other tenants, the seniors who are still in the building become at less risk. Because the building is being improved, you get homeowners who take pride in the building and they're not going to force the senior tenants out of the building. You end up with a far better market.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Madden, for bringing your ideas forward today.
ADVOCACY CENTRE FOR THE ELDERLY
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Mr George Monticone, the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee.
Mr George Monticone: I should note before I begin that I have asked individuals who live in care homes and some family members whom I'm acquainted with to be here with me today. They declined. They were concerned about how this might compromise their situation in a care home. I think that's an important fact to remember as I speak today.
The Tenant Protection Act, Bill 96, will in our opinion severely compromise the tenants of Ontario. There are many large issues raised by Bill 96 which there is simply not enough time to comment on today. So what I would like to do is to endorse the submission in its entirety of the Coalition to Save Tenants' Rights. That submission was made here last week, on June 12. In particular we endorse the coalition's position with respect to the introduction of vacancy decontrol, its opposition to that. We endorse its opposition to the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act. We endorse its opposition to the severe limitation periods imposed on tenants and not landlords. We also endorse its opposition to sections 36 and 200 of Bill 96, which appear to open the door to discrimination against low-income people by landlords.
Having said all of that, what I would like to concentrate on today are care homes. The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly is a legal clinic for low-income seniors. We are part of the community legal clinic system funded by the Ontario legal aid plan. Over the years we have had many clients who live in care homes, and as a result I would like to restrict my comments to the impact of Bill 96 on care home tenants.
1710
A care home is defined in legislation as a residential complex that provides accommodation as well as care. Care needn't be the primary purpose of the occupation.
Care home tenants are a diverse lot, and that's very important to understand. They range from young adults with disabilities to senior citizens who may or may not have disabilities. Care home tenants span the economic range, from the very poorest on social assistance to those who are wealthy. The health status of care home tenants also varies tremendously, from those who are active and well to those who have severe illnesses or disabilities.
The government should not assume that all is well in Ontario's care homes. Arbitrary garbage bag evictions and large rent increases took place before the introduction of the Residents' Rights Act just a few short years ago, but many problems still exist.
Our mothers and fathers are dying in care home fires due, in part, to poorly trained staff and understaffing. There are fly-by-night operations staffed by unqualified individuals. Tenants are moved from one home to another in the middle of the night. The quality of care is sometimes and often poor or non-existent, and a lack of information constantly results in surprises for tenants and their families.
Even if there are some good care homes, there are some that are not, and the government has an obligation to pay attention to this fact if it is to govern for all of the people of Ontario.
Today I would like to concentrate on two matters: One is the care home information package, which I'll refer to as CHIP -- forgive the acronym -- and I would like to also talk about section 93, the new grounds of eviction.
Let me begin with the CHIP. The CHIP is an instrument that a landlord is required to provide a care home tenant to explain what types of services and accommodation are available there; what sorts of packages of service are available; how much they cost; what kinds of services are mandatory and which ones are optional; what the minimum staff levels and qualifications of staff are; details of the emergency response system, if there is one; how the tenant may make complaints and also some statements regarding the tenant's basic rights. These I submit are details that everyone of us here would want to have if we or a family member were about to move to a care home.
We strongly recommend that the regulations governing what is to be included in the CHIP not take away any of these requirements. The CHIP is a powerful and cost-effective tool for educating consumers about their options and, minimally, it should remain as it is. Ideally, we would suggest a standard form of CHIP be adopted.
There is a problem with the CHIP. The main problem with it is that most landlords are not giving them to their tenants. We received many calls at the advocacy centre from seniors and their families who have difficulties over which care services they're supposed to be getting along with their rent and which are extra. These and many similar kinds of problems could and should be avoided if tenants were given a CHIP and a proper tenancy agreement was negotiated.
The Rent Control Act, as it stands now, gives tenants a remedy if a landlord fails to give them a CHIP. Subsections 9.1(1) and (5) make it illegal to give a notice of rent or service charge increase if the tenant has not received a CHIP. If the landlord does so, the notice is void. This protection has been removed in Bill 96 and it should be restored. As Bill 96 stands, the tenant who has not received a CHIP can only point to section 87 and say, "I'm entitled to one." We don't believe that's good enough for vulnerable seniors living in care homes.
In my written submission I have made reference to a couple of other things we think should be included in the CHIP. I'm not going to refer to those now. I'd like to move on to the question of termination of the tenancy in a care home.
I'd like to begin by commending the government for reducing the 60-day notice period to 30 days in the case of a care home. That's a very useful thing because care home tenants frequently have to leave quickly, either to be hospitalized or to accept a long-term care bed they've been waiting for.
I particularly welcome this change as I think it will put an end to the curious phenomenon of care home operators complaining about the legislation being bad for care home tenants because it requires them to give 60 days' notice. This is most curious since the legislation doesn't require landlords to charge for 60 days. If they are compassionate and concerned, they've always been free to waive the right to the 60-day notice.
Let me move on to eviction, section 93. Bill 96 introduces new grounds for eviction unique to care homes. If a tenant no longer requires the level of care provided by the landlord or requires a level of care the landlord is unable to provide, the landlord may apply to evict. We believe this section is draconian, unnecessary and contrary to human rights legislation.
This new ground of eviction is harsh as some landlords can and will use it in bad faith. If a care home tenant complains that he or she is badly treated by the staff, or that there's a problem with the food or that repairs need to be done, a landlord acting in bad faith can quietly remind the tenant that they can be evicted because their health is deteriorating.
It doesn't really matter that it would be difficult or maybe impossible for the landlord to succeed in such an attempt. Tenants won't always know that, most often won't know it. The fear of being put through such a procedure will cause virtually every one of our care home tenants to back down from their complaint. We believe this is the single worst aspect of section 93. It's a tool for care home landlords to silence complaints and, for this reason alone, should be eliminated from Bill 96.
Let's turn to the care home landlord who is acting in good faith. The health of a long-standing tenant deteriorates. The landlord can't provide what he or she see as necessary care. The landlord suggests the tenant apply for home care, but the tenant is either not eligible for it or it's not sufficient and the tenant doesn't have the money to pay for an outside agency to provide adequate care. So the landlord, in the interest of ensuring that the tenant will obtain adequate care, moves to evict under section 93.
Just as an aside here, it must be remembered that section 93 is not needed if the tenant is a safety threat to other tenants or if the tenant is interfering with the quiet enjoyment of other tenants. That's already taken care of. It's currently under section 107 of the Landlord and Tenant Act and is kept in the new bill.
What does the well-meaning landlord do to convince the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that they should evict a tenant whose health is declining? First, they have to show the tenant needs more care than the landlord and community-based services can provide; second, there must be appropriate alternative accommodation available.
Let's look at those two points. First of all, care needs that exceed the landlord's ability to provide them: The tribunal will be faced with assessing the care needs of a tenant with perhaps multiple and complex physical and mental problems. This is not an easy task. How is a tribunal with expertise in landlord-tenant matters going to do this? We believe it will be impossible. The only way around it is to hire a team of health experts as part of the tribunal.
The second issue here, by the way, is what is meant by community-based services. It's not at all clear in Bill 96. Is it home care available free through the newly established community care access centres? If that's what is intended here, it should be made clear.
Let's look at the second step: The landlord has to convince the tribunal that appropriate alternative accommodation is available. How is this to be done? What kinds of accommodation can the landlord point to? There are basically three: There are hospitals; there are long-term care facilities, such as nursing homes or homes for the aged; and finally there are other care homes.
Hospitals only admit persons with acute care problems and they discharge them as soon as that problem is dealt with. They are not accommodation in any ordinary sense of the word and they do not take persons in who need personal care such as help with eating, bathing, dressing and other activities of daily living. Hospitals are not an option here.
1720
What about long-term care facilities such as nursing homes and homes for the aged? These would seem to the most obvious candidates for a place that would provide greater care. I want to remind the committee that there is a process in place for gaining admission to a long-terms care facility. It's a complex process and there are four big steps: The tenant has to apply to the placement coordination service, now part of the community care access centre; second, the tenant has to be deemed eligible; third, the tenant must be accepted by the particular nursing home or home for the aged they want to get into; and last, a bed must be available in that home, and if it is, the tenants generally have two days to accept it or else they lose their chance.
You can't be admitted to a long-term-care facility unless you go through this process. Only the person seeking admission or their lawfully appointed substitute decision-maker can initiate that process and can give their final consent to go to a particular home. A care home landlord is not and cannot be part of that process; neither can the tribunal be part of the process. The tribunal can't order a tenant to apply for a nursing home bed. It can't order that they be eligible or that a bed be available. So unless the tenant or the substitute has already taken the necessary steps to secure a long-term bed, and the tenant is eligible and a bed is available, then suitable alternative accommodation in a nursing home will never be available.
It is important to note that even if a tenant applies for a long-term care bed at the time of a hearing, it's going to probably take two years before they actually get a bed. Practically speaking, this process will not ensure that people will be able to get to a long-term care facility.
What about another care home as a possible option? A landlord can try to convince the tribunal that there's another care home that will provide adequate care for this person. We think that's highly unlikely; if one care home can't do it, chances are no other one can. Care homes don't generally have resources to offer complex long-term care and they should not be operating as unlicensed nursing homes.
What about the rare case -- and I want to take this as far as we can -- where another care home might be able to cater to the care needs of a tenant? Does this mean that appropriate alternative accommodation is available? Only, I submit, if the tenant can afford the cost. If not, the other care home won't take them.
Suppose that XYZ care home can meet the tenant's needs and is willing to take them because the tenant can afford it. Does this mean that appropriate alternative accommodation is available? What if the new care home is too far from family and friends, in another county or another town? What if the home doesn't cater to specific cultural or ethnic needs that are of paramount importance to the tenant? What if the tenant simply doesn't like the new home, it has a bad reputation, it's not a place, as we say, where we'd want to put our cat? Will the tenant be evicted if any or all of these are true? We sincerely hope not.
Bill 96 gives no guidance to the tribunal as to what would be appropriate. As a result, a tribunal could say to the tenant: "XYZ care home is available in the next county. They'll take you and we hereby order you evicted from your present home." Is this what we really want for ourselves in the future, perhaps, if we become care home tenants, or for our mothers and fathers? I ask the committee to consider whether this strikes them as a morally defensible treatment of a person who is ill and in declining health.
Bill 96 authorizes a tribunal to make such a decision, to order an elderly person with a disability or illness to leave their home to move to another location because they have health care needs which their present landlord can't meet. We maintain that section 93 violates the security of the person guaranteed under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it violates the equality rights provisions, section 15, as well.
For these reasons, we believe it should be eliminated from Bill 96. If allowed to stand, elderly persons in declining health will live in continual fear of eviction from their homes. Section 93 will not work from a practical standpoint, it's morally repugnant and it's contrary to the fundamental law of Canada as enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In concluding, I'd like to remind you of the National Framework on Aging, which this government has participated in and supported. The National Framework on Aging was introduced in 1994. There is a vision statement and set of principles against which all governments that have signed on to this have agreed they will measure their legislation to see if it matches up to these principles.
The vision statement is, "Canada, a society for all ages, promotes the wellbeing and contributions of older people in all aspects of life." I ask this committee to consider whether section 93 and the other aspects of Bill 96 to which I have drawn attention can truly be said to promote the wellbeing of older people, especially those on modest incomes, with respect to where they live and their health needs. I suggest the answer to that question is no.
There are also five principles: dignity, independence, participation, fairness and security. I suggest to you that section 93 violates several of those principles. It compromises seniors' dignity and self-esteem, knowing that they can be singled out and told to move because of factors over which they have no control. It undermines their independence if they can be told where to live rather than to make that choice themselves. It's unfair, singling out only those with health problems for special treatment. Section 93 certainly compromises seniors' sense of security, knowing that as their health deteriorates, they may be forced to leave their home. If the National Framework on Aging is to mean anything, it surely should mean that section 93 must be removed from Bill 96.
I also urge members of the committee to think in terms of this framework in regard to all aspects of Bill 96. In that regard, I have set out the principles on the last page of my written submission for your consideration.
On behalf of all tenants in care homes, I thank you for this opportunity to speak on Bill 96.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Monticone. You have used up the time available today for you. We appreciate you coming and bringing forward these ideas.
CANADIAN UNITARIANS FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
UNITARIAN FELLOWSHIP OF NORTHWEST TORONTO
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Mr Wey Robinson and Ms Eileen Smith, Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee.
Mr Wey Robinson: I'm Wey Robinson, a member of the steering committee of Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice. Doug Rutherford is the chair of our organization. We're sharing our time today with Eileen Smith. She represents the Unitarian Fellowship of Northwest Toronto.
I'd like to draw the committee's attention to our statement of purpose for Unitarians for Social Justice, which is attached at the end of the brief.
Our organization is made up of individual Unitarians from across Canada but concentrated particularly in the Metro Toronto area.
Why would a church group want to comment on this bill? We are driven by our religious belief in the inherent worth and dignity of every person to protest strongly against the government's proposal to weaken or remove many of the rights to freedom from arbitrary eviction and unwarranted rent increases which tenants won in the 1970s.
Bill 96 is a clear attack on hard-won tenants' rights and represents one of a rapidly growing number of measures which collectively constitute not only a war on the poor but an attack also on large numbers of middle-class people who are being driven into poverty.
1730
From the early action of drastically reducing welfare benefits, which were not keeping pace with real housing costs as it was, through changes to labour law and environmental protection and severe reductions in most public services in health, welfare and education, including the cancellation of new non-profit housing projects, this government is systematically widening the gap between rich and poor and fomenting social unrest. Resulting peaceful demonstrations have been met in some cases with brutal and excessive force.
As Unitarians, we are shocked and outraged at the clear immorality of the bulk of the government's program. Although the Tories often pay lipservice to the values that we most cherish and uphold, including people's inherent worth and justice, equity and compassion in human relations, their actions regularly belie their words.
Removing basic rights from tenants is just one more measure calculated to increase the profits of the rich, in this case landlords who were already making higher profits than many other businesses, at the expense of the poor and to weaken further the ability of a growing segment of society to find and keep decent, affordable housing. Canada is a signatory to the international declaration of human rights, which cites housing as a basic human right. The Tories thus violate our national commitment to human rights.
It is clear to us that the government is deliberately undermining tenants' basic security of tenure in four main ways: vacancy decontrol; taking landlord-tenant cases out of the courts and into a so far ill-defined tribunal; allowing the existing inadequate stock of rental housing to decrease further by repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act; and doing nothing to improve the stock of affordable housing and jeopardizing the social housing that we do have by downloading it to the municipalities.
The bill also proposes to remove a basic right now enshrined in the Ontario Human Rights Code by allowing landlords to discriminate against prospective tenants by reason of income. This is a particularly vicious move and we echo the concerns of the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation expressed to you last week and picked up in Colin Vaughan's column in Monday's Globe and Mail.
Given that about one third of Ontario's people are tenants, and that of all tenants one third are on social assistance and another third at least are working poor, we can see that this bill targets the most vulnerable in our society and accelerates the housing crisis which is already upon us and is creating unendurable stress, family breakups and homelessness.
André Régimbald, one of the editors of an excellent new book called Open for Business/Closed to People: Mike Harris's Ontario, writes, "For the first time in decades, Ontario is faced with a Thatcher-Reagan populist social conservatism that seeks to colour economic and social problems with a moral dimension." He is referring here specifically to moral condemnation of those on welfare whose alleged dependency is said to corrupt them.
To us Unitarians, as custodians of a religious faith with a long tradition of "speaking truth to power" and battling social injustice, this is the really scary phenomenon, that true morality is replaced by an ideology that abolishes the idea of the public good, values only those with money and demonizes and criminalizes the poor, the disabled, the aged and people of colour.
One scene in the recent struggle against the megacity bill which stays etched in my memory is this: In a corridor upstairs here at the Legislature, John Sewell, who was walking away after kind of a confrontation with Minister Al Leach, who by the way is also responsible for this Bill 96, turns back suddenly, points a forefinger and shouts, "Repent." Somehow that is appropriate now, as with almost all the other Tory bills.
We Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice demand in the name of religion and our common humanity that Bill 96 be withdrawn and scrapped.
Ms Eileen Smith: My name is Eileen Smith. I represent the Unitarian Fellowship of Northwest Toronto in Etobicoke. As a Unitarian, as a member of the faith community and as a citizen of a civilized nation, I believe in the right of every person to a home, a decent and adequate place to live.
The idea of home embodies many things: shelter from the elements, security, privacy, stability and independence. A home which provides most or all of these things is essential to the dignity and self-worth of every human being.
I wonder how many people in Toronto live in places which lack many of the qualities I mentioned? How many people live on the streets, where all of those things are denied? How many live in places where they are harassed, live in fear of being evicted, live in overcrowded apartments, dangerous and unhealthy basement apartments or crowded rooming houses?
We have a vacancy rate which shows us how many apartments are vacant in the city of Toronto -- less than 1% at the moment -- but we don't have a statistic that measures the number of people who are without homes or who are inadequately housed. We should have a monthly unhoused rate, something like our monthly unemployment rate.
If we did try to determine the number of people actually in need of housing in Toronto, who should we include? First of all, the homeless. We should also include the 38,000 people whose names are registered in the housing register. How about the young people, six or eight sometimes sharing the same apartments; our sons and daughters living at home because they cannot find or cannot afford a place of their own; the working poor who pay their rent and then go to the food bank for enough food to last them to the next paycheque?
There is no question, plans and policies for housing in Toronto have fallen woefully short of filling the needs of our citizens. We have a shortage of decent adequate housing in Toronto.
The present legislation is not going to improve the conditions for low-income renters at the present time. I'm sure you folks have had a parade of people here over the past weeks -- I've heard a few of them already -- telling you what the effects of this legislation will be. There's no need for me to expand on the problems of renters in a tight rental market. The short-term effect will surely be for landlords to practise harassment policies, minimize maintenance costs, escalate rental rates and so on.
We are told that the measures included in Bill 96, together with the magic of the free market system, will solve our problems. Gradual removal of rent controls and deregulation of conversions and demolition of rental units will enable and encourage developers to build more rental units, it is supposed. But let us look a little deeper into the facts.
On June 11, the housing stakeholder panel under Councillor Dennis Fotinos made a progress report to the planning and transportation committee of the council for Metro Toronto. A consulting firm, N. Barry Lyon Consultants was hired to do an in-depth study of the conditions surrounding development in the city. Rental housing was the agreed top priority.
The consultant had investigated the opportunities available for developers if they wished to produce new rental housing in Toronto. He had many interesting facts to give us. For example: CMHC estimates that 4,000 to 5,000 units of rental housing must be built each year to maintain our present vacancy rate; the annual rate of return on old rental units under rent control is 7% to 8%; return on investment in new rental units is 4% in the first year; condominiums yield approximately 15%. Because of the low return, high initial investments costs and instability in long-term economic outlooks, investors are reluctant to enter into the construction of rental units.
The consultant went on to describe the prohibitive problems associated with construction. He noted the difficulties with obtaining land, high municipal charges on development, high costs of CMHC insurance, land transfer and other taxes, lengthy periods before a positive return could be expected, and so on.
He continued by outlining some of the positive measures that government could take to make the climate more conducive to rental construction. Some of the suggestions were: making tracts of land available to developers under long-term lease arrangements; innovative schemes to make financing available in ways that make building of rental units more attractive; adjustments to the killer costs of the GST and assurances that the harmonization of the GST and PST will not add to the burden of taxation on new construction.
1740
The committee expects to finish its work in the fall with a final report zeroing in on incentive to developers. Although their suggestions will be directed to the municipality, many of them will lend themselves to collaboration between the various levels of government.
Without doubt, the legislation under consideration today will in the short term cause hardship to many low-income renters, create disruption and instability in the rental market, and provide both the means and the incentive for landlords to begin a reign of terror against tenants. If it is enacted now, without measures being taken to encourage developers to build more rental housing, it will fail in both the short term and the long term in solving our housing problems.
I strongly urge you to delay this legislation until serious consideration has been given to measures to stimulate rental construction in Toronto and the GTA.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you all for coming before us here today. I appreciate the time you took to prepare and deliver your presentations. Ms Smith, I would just note to you that according to Seaton House, shelter use across Toronto was actually down 1.8% last year, and according to the Daily Bread Food Bank, food bank use is still well below its 1992 consumption rates.
Mr Robinson, I'd like your comments on another quote. Mr Marchese's been keen to quote Nelson Rockefeller and use an American example. I'd like to use something a little closer to home: "Many people assume that rent control is there to protect lower-income tenants in the units that they rent. In fact, it's upper-income tenants who get most of the benefits. They say the upper one third of the tenants get two thirds of the dollar benefits of rent control, and in fact the benefits don't flow to the people who are at the bottom end of the slate when it comes to rent." Would you agree with that statement?
Mr Robinson: No, I wouldn't. I think rent control has always been a blunt instrument and it was never designed to solve the housing crisis. It was just an emergency measure in the first instance when it was brought in in the 1970s to stem unwarranted huge increases, particularly for seniors, and it was maintained because it was seen to be necessary in the absence of adequate choice of housing.
It's never been a perfect system -- we've always had problems with it -- but it was certainly better than nothing. There is some tendency, I understand, in New York particularly where it's been around a long time, for rent control to offer a break to higher-income renters. But in Toronto, my experience has been -- and I've been in tenant advocacy and tenant advising in a legal clinic for many, many years -- that it's been indispensable to low-income tenants.
Mr Gilchrist: You might be interested to know that quote comes from Mr John Sewell in a Studio 2 interview on TVO. Mr John Sewell doesn't believe that rent controls benefit low-income tenants and the people that we hear, group after group, suggesting are there.
None of us has to be a builder to know that you don't build a building overnight. There's obviously going to be a lag time before new construction. Even if the developer today got very excited, you couldn't have a building open tomorrow. It will take 12 months, 15 months. Would you not agree with me that, with 50,000 more people moving to Toronto in 1995, to have only 20 new apartment units, and 37 new apartment units in 1996, the current regime, whatever its benefits, is not attracting the kind of new development to make sure people have an affordable place to live in Metro Toronto? Would you not agree with that?
Mr Robinson: We have stressed the shortage of housing and I applaud Mr Sewell's stand on the megacity. I disagree with him about the quote that you gave me from him. My colleague here has addressed the shortage of rental housing. She has urged the committee to suspend the operation of this bill until there is adequate rental housing. We've addressed that issue.
Mr Gilchrist: But what --
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gilchrist. Move on, please.
Mr Duncan: I'm reminded of Rudyard Kipling's poem If, "If you can bear to hear the truth that's spoken twisted by knaves that make a trap for fools."
With respect to the allegations about the Daily Bread Food Bank, I've met them and they don't agree with what you're saying. In fact, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Mr Gilchrist: Published report.
Mr Duncan: Of course it is, but you should read the next three paragraphs. You're comparing 1992; we were in a sustained recession in 1992. We still have an unemployment rate that's far too high. You ought not to use things out of context.
In terms of Seaton House, the same thing: You're comparing apples and oranges. If you're suggesting that a 1.2% decrease in the use of shelter in an economy that's growing like ours is, when banks are making billions of dollars in profits -- I think you ought to think through your priorities pretty carefully.
Finally, with respect to Mr Sewell, he wasn't making an argument with respect to getting rid of rent control; he was making an argument with respect to saying what's flawed in the current system. I suspect if you asked Mr Sewell, "Do you think there should be no rent controls," he'd probably not agree with you.
Mr Gilchrist: That's what he said.
Mr Duncan: You're taking it out of context. I spoke to him about that. You ought to be ashamed for misusing those quotes, and quit being so darn --
Interjections.
The Vice-Chair: Order.
Mr Duncan: I think we all agree there's a need for more affordable housing. I don't think anybody disputes that. We heard compelling evidence today from the state of New York. Just out of curiosity I phoned the Governor's office today and they didn't disagree with those arguments. I would ask you this: Would you be inclined to support policies aimed at developing more affordable housing, be it changes, provided there's protection on rents for tenants?
Mr Robinson: Sure.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. We must move on.
Mr Marchese: I thank all three of you for coming. I just want to give you an opportunity to respond to the comments that Mr Gilchrist was saying, because what he's saying is that in the last two years we haven't seen much building going on. We agree: The government stopped building and the private sector is not building.
His argument is: "We've got to change all that and it takes time. Once we've got rid of these ugly New Democrats who have stopped growth and building, then we can start building. You see now, we haven't been able to do it in the first two years and it's going to take some time." But you were saying, in terms of some of the other research that other people have done who are probably their friends, that it's a crisis now and it's likely to be a crisis in the future because we're not going to see much building. Isn't that the case? Do you think that they're on the right track, that maybe in a couple of years, once they create a better climate, somehow these builders are all of a sudden going to build affordable housing?
Ms Smith: The way the situation stands at the moment, developers are not encouraged to build housing, even with the removal of rent controls, because there simply is not enough leeway, enough yield on their investment to make them build. There must be other measures put in place to encourage them to do this.
Mr Marchese: I support the statement you concluded with, urging them "to delay this legislation until serious consideration has been given to measures to stimulate rental construction." It's a very good point; they should take that into consideration.
By the way, they think this bill is balanced and fair, that finally they've achieved some fairness for everybody, especially tenants. "The pendulum has been so far against these poor landlords that we have to do something." What do you say to that kind of argument?
Mr Robinson: The Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Control Act were both, in the 1970s, legislation designed to correct an imbalance of power because it was recognized by the government of the day, a Tory government, by the way, that there's a natural imbalance of power and that landlords have more than tenants, so they brought in remedial legislation to assist tenants to secure their legal rights.
What can I say to this bill? Simply, it shocks the hell out of me because it removes all the basic security of tenure which I fought so damn hard for in the 1970s and which I have seen the benefit of continuously in my work for the last 20 years. In principle, it removes all security of tenure, it eats away at it so seriously.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Robinson and Ms Smith, for making your presentations here to day. We appreciate the information you've brought to us today.
JOSEPH HACOHEN
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Joseph Hacohen. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee. You have 15 minutes in which to make your presentation.
Mr Joseph Hacohen: Good evening. Where's Mr David Tilson?
The Vice-Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. He had to leave. I'm the Vice-Chair.
Mr Hacohen: I'll start. My family and colleagues suffered tremendously as a result of the controls implemented under the NDP government and the delays in the implementation of the new rules by the current government. Currently I encounter problems such as rents below market value. I have units that legally are charged the maximum rent of $380 per month, including parking. In the same building we have many two-bedroom units which are legally registered at much lower rents than the one-bedroom apartments; ie, a one-bedroom that is more expensive than a two-bedroom. Air conditioners are legally not included in the base rent. However, many tenants agree to pay extra for the use of an air conditioner. The NDP government ruled that it would be illegal to charge extra even though both the tenants and the landlord agree, for the usage, as the use of an air conditioner is not included in the base rent.
1750
In reality I am subsidizing my tenants and accumulating losses at the same time. As a landlord I am forced to sell my product, which is shelter, to my customers, the tenants, below cost. Wouldn't you like to buy a hundred-dollar bill for $75? While this seems normal in the case of a non-profit organization, you must keep in mind that my company is still attempting to run a business hoping to make a real profit.
I have suggested several alternatives in the past. I agree that the best option is to scrap the NDP's destructive rent control legislation. Closing the rent control offices will help reduce the deficit, which would be an additional step towards the recovery of the economy, the province, the expansion of free enterprise and the downsizing of the government.
This government is suggesting to protect tenants rather than units. I welcome the proposal of the landlord and tenant negotiating the rent without regulatory restrictions. I would like to suggest that landlords and tenants may negotiate the structure of their own agreements, without restrictions, which would determine rent and annual increases, and separate charges such as parking and others relating to usage, such as air conditioners.
As a landlord, I feel I should have more of a say in the running of my business. I am not presently in the business of subsidizing my tenants. I pay the same amount of realty taxes, hydro, heat and water as other building owners. However, my income is much lower. My case may be unique, but I feel I deserve some rights too. The new legislation fails to deal with chronically depressed rents. The new legislation should include higher increases, say 5% above guidelines for three years for units which are 15% below the average rent, which is computed by CMHC on an annual basis.
I would like to remind certain members of the committee -- Mr David Tilson made some statements prior to the election -- as to the fairness of dealing with depressed rents. You may refer to my written submission, and I have attached a copy of a letter from Mr David Tilson.
The proposed new legislation claims to decontrol the current system. However, it will recontrol the unit as soon as it is reoccupied. Unfortunately, landlords may be worse off as a result of losing the current maximum rent. In most buildings, landlords charge rents which are lower than the maximum allowed due to current market conditions. This is done in the hope that one day a better return will be achieved on the investment.
This legislation is retroactive, as landlords are losing previous increases which were ordered and allowed by the Ministry of Housing due to losses and capital expenditures by allowing new tenants discounted rents. In discounting rents during hard times, landlords are caught in a downturn in the market without the ability to have future increases when a turnaround occurs. When a vacancy opens during the downturn of the market, the lower discounted rent will become the maximum rent. The new legislation should allow for total decontrol of the units upon vacancy or to have more favourable rules dealing with discounted rents.
The new direction of the proposed legislation deals with issues such as rent reductions, fines and penalties by the property standards officers and harassment enforcement units to protect tenants. Your legislation is called tenant protection legislation, while I believe that it is in fact the landlord who currently needs more protection than the tenants. As a landlord I am being harassed constantly. My property, the apartment building, is often vandalized by tenants. I believe that your proposal will lead to similar actions taking place in the future. Tenants will sabotage the property, then will be able to call the property standards inspector due to neglected, rundown property conditions. The inspector will impose a fine. The result is obvious: The landlord will be the loser once again. Protection for landlords is desperately needed and is long overdue.
The new legislation will also deal with subletting of units in a strict form, a direction which I welcome. However, I ask that you assist the landlords in the legislation on the subject of non-payment of rents as well as stricter rules concerning tenants who are consistently late with their rent payments. If I do not pay my mortgage, hydro, gas, water and other bills on time, a late penalty is imposed. Why are tenants exempt from being on time?
The final issue is the capital expenditures allowance. We need a fairer increase allowance for buildings with low rents that may require major capital expenditures now. This is an urgent issue for the tenants, the building and the various contractors. This specific issue may improve the quality of buildings and tenant and landlord relations and increase employment.
To summarize, I currently suffer low rents as if I were government-run housing. I have one-bedroom apartments which are rented at a higher rent than two-bedrooms, which means that tenants in the two-bedrooms don't move, but I get a high turnover in the one-bedrooms. Depressed rents are an issue that must be dealt with.
Finally, if you could give landlords a reasonable allowance for major necessary repairs, and I stress necessary.
If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer you.
Mr Marchese: Mr Hacohen, do you think that tenants have the same kind of power as you do in terms of negotiating whatever it is that you think you can negotiate?
Mr Hacohen: I believe that tenants have more power. They are consumers like any other consumers of any product.
Mr Marchese: So because they have more power, in your view, there shouldn't be any controls because they can negotiate for themselves.
Mr Hacohen: Absolutely.
Mr Marchese: In some buildings where you have a whole lot of immigrants or refugees, people who don't know their rights, people who are on low income, welfare, they have power anyway; even if they don't know their rights, they probably have a lot of power, more than you.
Mr Hacohen: They are still the consumers. I have in my buildings many tenants. Some are refugees and they seem to know their rights very well.
Mr Marchese: By the way, are you doing okay in terms of profits? Are you losing money?
Mr Hacohen: Yes.
Mr Marchese: So how do you operate your building?
Mr Hacohen: How do I operate my building?
Mr Marchese: Yes, if you're losing money.
Mr Hacohen: As I explained to you, very easily. Since I bought that specific building I've had to mortgage my home, I've had to mortgage my mother's home and that money went towards the building so we don't lose it.
Mr Marchese: Why did you buy that building if you knew there were such problems?
Mr Hacohen: I'll explain to you. I bought the building in 1989, with legal rents. Then the government came back and said, "Sorry, we made a mistake; those rents are illegal," and they reduced my rents.
Mr Marchese: Now that you have this ability, when you have decontrolling, because people eventually move for different reasons -- some die, of course, that's a natural thing, and maybe you're able to raise those rents as much as you think you can get for that unit -- is that going to help you or no?
Mr Hacohen: Absolutely, it's going to help me. If I'm renting an apartment for $380 or $400, this doesn't cover anything.
Mr Marchese: Okay, so you're happy with the decontrolling of rents. Maybe it doesn't go far enough for you. Is that it?
Mr Hacohen: Yes. But I would suggest to you that if you think we should control the rents, then you should also control the price of food. Food and shelter fall under the same category, as far as I'm concerned. They are both necessities.
Mr Marchese: I don't disagree with that.
Mr Hacohen: Also the basic cost of cars: They're too expensive. If you can get me a car for half-price, then I'll be happy to rent it to my tenants for half-price too.
Mr Marchese: Thank you, Joseph.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you very much, Mr Hacohen. I was tempted to let Mr Marchese continue to have our time because I think you, perhaps better than anyone we've heard in the first two days of hearings, have put a very human face to who landlords can be.
There is no suggestion that all landlords are saints, nor should there be a suggestion that all tenants are saints. There are good landlords and bad landlords, but I think you've painted a very clear picture of the kinds of pressures landlords have been under. You've illustrated very clearly why nobody is building new buildings.
Would you agree, Mr Hacohen, that restrictions on improving your buildings, because you can't pass the costs along, have left your building perhaps in a poorer state than it would have been if you could have passed along the costs of capital improvements?
Mr Hacohen: There are certain repairs I would love to do but I can't. I can't afford it. Then there is the other issue of a tenant and landlord relationship, that because of the NDP, every landlord is a devil. As soon as the tenant knows you are the landlord, you are the bad guy.
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Hacohen, throughout these first two days, you are right; there have not been very flattering comments made: "Everyone has got to be a friend of the Tories, you're a big fat cat, you're making a lot of money and you're doing it on the backs of tenants." I think, as you've just said, it's as compelling a case in the opposite direction as people who are struggling to find accommodation in some of the more densely populated parts of Toronto. But you've had to mortgage your house and your mother's house just to keep a building which is costing you money while still providing housing to others, and there's no accommodation from this side that that's a contribution to our society. There's no accommodation from this side that you're the one who is the loser in this equation.
I want to thank you very much for coming forward here today and demonstrating to us that there is a balance, and particularly for the fact in your presentation that you still have concerns about this bill not going far enough, that this isn't a sop to landlords; it's a bill that's very balanced. Landlords still have concerns, tenants may have concerns, but it's our effort to try and break this logjam that has left people like you, and tenants, in the situation we find ourselves in today. Thank you very much coming before us.
Mr Hacohen: You're welcome. I also argue that you're not going fast enough.
Mr Gilchrist: Duly noted. Thank you, Mr Hacohen.
The Vice-Chair: I think we have one minute for a quick question, Mr Wettlaufer.
Mr Wettlaufer: It won't be a question so much as a statement.
Mr Hacohen: I thought I was the one to make the statements. You are to ask the questions.
Mr Wettlaufer: Mr Hacohen, I wanted to compliment you on coming before us because I think your situation is so indicative of what the situation is in my riding of Kitchener, where the vast majority of landlords are immigrants. They're Polish, they're Jewish, they're Germans, they're Italians, who came here after the war, and the residences, the apartments they own, represent their life savings, their pensions. They have not been able to appreciate the value of their investment because of the low returns they're getting. Second, I notice they are not being kept up to par from a safety standpoint.
I want to thank you so much for coming here.
Mr Hacohen: Just one more comment: I was able to keep my building in more than decent shape. It's up to standards because I'm proud of my property, but unfortunately, and excuse my language, those idiots from the NDP made a big mistake.
Mr Marchese: God bless you, Joseph. Thank you for coming.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for appearing here today.
This committee stands adjourned until next Thursday at 10 o'clock.
The committee adjourned at 1803.