Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

CONTENTS

Thursday 28 August 1997

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

Leach

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland PC)

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Tom Prins

Staff /Personnel

Ms Elizabeth Baldwin, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1000 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'll call the meeting to order. This is the clause-by-clause portion of the committee hearings. I would like to remind members of the committee of what we will be doing in the next two days, this Thursday and the following Thursday. I'm going to read to you, to assist the committee, what the order of the House said. I'm just going to read the portions of the order that deal with the clause-by-clause portion of the debate:

"That the committee be authorized to meet to consider the bill for two days of clause-by-clause during its regularly scheduled sessional meeting times; and that the committee be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on the second day until completion of the clause-by-clause considerations;

"At 5 pm on the second day of clause-by-clause deliberations, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a)."

I'm pausing because I notice the members of the New Democratic caucus aren't here. Out of courtesy to them, we should probably wait. I know we had an arrangement with the public hearings part of this that we didn't need all three parties here, but I'm going to recess the meeting for five minutes so we can determine when a representative from the New Democratic caucus is coming.

The committee recessed from 1003 to 1006.

The Chair: We're going to reconvene, ladies and gentlemen. I believe subcommittee members are aware, and I don't know whether all committee members have been aware, of the drafting errors in the current package of amendments that has been distributed to members of the committee. These errors affect all three caucuses, through no fault of individual members of those caucuses. There is no question that each caucus filed their amendments at the scheduled time and was not late in filing those amendments.

I am proposing that these errors be rectified by seeking unanimous consent to substitute the amendments that were drafted incorrectly with a properly drafted package. I understand that these new amendments do not contain anything that was not intended in the improperly drafted amendments previously distributed.

Before I seek that unanimous consent, legislative counsel wishes to address the committee, and I have agreed that she could. Her name is Betsy Baldwin.

Ms Elizabeth Baldwin: I would like to make an apology with respect to technical errors that appeared in several motions that were tabled last Thursday. One of the errors affects one government motion, three Liberal motions and eight NDP motions. The purpose of those motions was to remove subsections of the bill. The motions were framed as recommendations to vote against the subsections rather than as motions to strike out the subsections.

The other error was a typographical error that affects one government motion. In a motion to strike out certain words in a provision and substitute others, the words "and substituting" were deleted.

As the legislative counsel responsible for Bill 96, I apologize personally and on behalf of the office of legislative counsel to the members of this committee and to all three parties for any problems or embarrassment these errors may have caused you.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): We will agree to unanimous consent under one condition, and that is that we deal with sections 36, 116, 146, 200 first in terms of our hearings, given the time limits that have been imposed by the House motion. It's our view that these are the sections where we had considerable representation from the public and therefore we ought to deal with those first, in that order. If that is the case, we would be prepared to grant unanimous consent.

The Chair: I'm going to ask you to repeat those sections slowly.

Mr Duncan: Okay. Do you want me to place a motion?

The Chair: I've been informed that we need unanimous consent to stand sections down. The motion would probably be out of order unless there's unanimous consent to stand the other sections down in advance of those. I can give you an opportunity to request that. I'm seeking unanimous consent for these amendments, and that's where I'd like the focus of the debate to be, if there is debate.

Mr Duncan: Then we will not grant unanimous consent.

The Chair: Then that ends it.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Chair: I just want to be on the record, given that we won't have unanimous consent, that I was prepared and am prepared to give unanimous consent without conditions.

I agree with Mr Duncan when he says that sections 36 and 200 and the others he mentioned are of particular importance and that we should try and deal with those, if not at the beginning, to make sure we get through the bill in time that we deal with those sections. I find it somewhat strange that we would deal with what has been clearly described as an error on the part of the drafters of legislative counsel and try to tag on to that another obviously important issue. I would ask my Liberal colleagues to reconsider, because one does not tie in with the other at all.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I must, on this occasion, agree wholeheartedly with my colleague from the NDP that this is really not the appropriate occasion to be lumping in other issues. Legislative counsel has been very forthright in admitting that these are purely typographical errors. I don't think this is the sort of thing that should be held up for any kind of unfortunate bargaining.

What is quite ironic is that I can indicate to you, Chair, that there are a number of Liberal amendments we're prepared to accept as we go through the hearings on these next two days. They would, ironically, be depriving themselves of the opportunity to lobby and do that.

Having said all that, I have absolutely no problem with which sections of the bill we deal with first. Having sat through over a dozen bills so far in the last two years, I know full well that opening comments rarely relate to section 1 of the bills anyway.

Given that there's nothing that constrains us from standing down those other sections, and having already heard the same thing from Mr Silipo, I really think it is quite unfortunate that you've chosen to take this route and I would ask you to reconsider.

Mr Duncan: If the government is agreeing that we will deal with sections 36, 116, 146 and 200 first, in that order, at the beginning of clause-by-clause, we will agree to unanimous consent.

Mr Gilchrist: We don't care.

Mr Duncan: You don't care? If the government's prepared to do that, we will grant unanimous consent.

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I just want to say that this was an honest mistake with a very graceful apology. Why are we making an issue of this? Let's get on with it.

The Chair: Let's see what happens if we ask for unanimous consent for both issues.

Mr Duncan: I just want to say one thing. This has to do with the ramrod effort of the government on its House motion. Sections 200 and 146 are well into the bill, and you've given no guarantee that the key sections of the bill will get any debate. We recognize that this was a simple error, an honest mistake, but given the fact that you've chosen to ram through your resolution in the House, restrict public debate, restrict public access, we wanted to be certain that the most important sections of the bill get a thorough debate. The parliamentary assistant has indicated that the government will agree to deal first with those sections, section 36, 116, 146 and 200, at the beginning. If that's the case, we will grant unanimous consent.

The Chair: Can I ask you to repeat those sections again, just so we're clear?

Mr Duncan: Section 36, section 116, section 146, section 200.

The Chair: I'm trying to keep this thing moving so we can get into clause-by-clause. I'm going to try another tack. Do we have unanimous consent on both requests, that the new package as presented for clause-by-clause debate be accepted for debate, and that the sections proposed by Mr Duncan be dealt with in priority to the other sections? That will require unanimous consent from members of the committee.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Mr Chairman, may I have a five-minute recess for caucus?

The Chair: The meeting is recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 1015 to 1019.

The Chair: I'm going to ask for unanimous consent again as to whether the committee will authorize two things: (1) the redistribution of the package with the changes as suggested by legislative counsel to correct the technical errors, and (2) the bringing forward of sections 36, 116, 146 and 200, which will require unanimous consent. Do I have unanimous consent to do those things? Agreed. There is unanimous consent.

We will therefore turn to section 36. The clerk is in the process of handing the package to you. Mr Duncan, the first proposed amendment is from your caucus.

Mr Duncan: I move that section 36 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Selecting prospective tenants

"In selecting prospective tenants, landlords may use, in the manner prescribed by section 21 of the Human Rights Code, credit checks, credit references, rental history or guarantees. Landlords may require income information of prospective tenants where such information is not used in a manner which results in discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code."

We wanted to debate these four sections because they are at the heart of the bill. Given the time allocation that constrained us and the rules that constrained us, we felt it very important to deal with these issues, particularly the human rights issue, first and foremost. To leave this discussion to later in the day when there might not be time we felt was inappropriate. We are glad that the three parties have consented to deal with these sections, because they are at the heart of the bill.

This particular section goes to the question of human rights. We had representations from both landlords and tenants on these particular sections, section 36 and section 200. The question becomes what information a landlord can use in selecting a tenant.

Throughout the hearings, the government has suggested that they are not exposing potential tenants to income discrimination. We do not agree. We are concerned with preserving the integrity of the Human Rights Code's current protections. We want to ensure that landlords are not permitted to circumvent the current protections in the Human Rights Code for young families, people with disabilities and people on social assistance simply by disqualifying applicants on the basis of unreasonable income requirements.

We do not object to landlords doing credit checks, asking for landlord references and asking about income. We do not object to landlords refusing to rent to someone who cannot reasonably be expected to pay the rent. We do object to landlords disqualifying all social assistance recipients and virtually all single mothers, young families and persons with disabilities on the basis of the common 30% rent-to-income ratio.

Some members of the committee have stated that they want to ensure that landlords are able to ask for income information and to use it in a reasonable way, but they do not agree with the 30% rule and have no intention of allowing landlords to discriminate or to undermine existing protections. If that is in fact our intent, we should be supporting this amendment and an amendment to section 200 along these lines.

We feel that the way the bill was constructed originally was designed to allow landlords to use income information in a manner that we don't feel is appropriate. We do, by proposing this amendment and an amendment to section 200, believe that landlords have a right to that information. The question becomes one of how they use it. Therefore, we've put this particular amendment.

Mr Silipo: I will be supporting this amendment. As you know, we have a similar one which follows. I certainly agree with Mr Duncan when he says this is one of the issues at the heart of this bill. The damage this section of the bill, if not amended along these lines, would do to people on social assistance, to seniors, to single parents, would just be incredible.

I found it startling to read the letter that I believe we all received from the chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, Mr Keith Norton, the letter dated March 10, 1997. He says very clearly, looking at the way the bill is drafted: "Any regulations that may be promulgated to this effect" -- that is, the effect of introducing changes that will allow landlords to screen tenants using income information that is used to evaluate ability and willingness to pay rent -- "will raise serious human rights issues for seniors, single parents and persons who are receiving public assistance."

He goes on to say, and I find this really startling, that allowing this kind of information to be provided to landlords "will effectively authorize discrimination against people on public assistance." It wipes out the protection that already exists in the code and that should continue to be in the code, in our view.

It is just incredible that the government would be going to this extent to try to deal with what may be a problem in some cases. There is, as I understand it, no particular information that validates the theory that people who are poor tend to not pay their rent any more than people who are more well off. There is therefore no reason to do what the government is trying to do here, which is to put in place legislation that will effectively allow discrimination against some of the poorer people in our society. It's just plain wrong.

I haven't been here during the hearing process, because it is not my main area of critic responsibility, but the government representatives, I gather, particularly through Mr Gilchrist, have indicated in the past that this is not their intent. I would like them to explain to us, particularly Mr Gilchrist, why they are persisting, unless they are prepared to adopt this amendment or the very similar one we have put, in restructuring the law in a way that the head of the Human Rights Commission says is going to bring about discrimination.

I'd just ask Mr Gilchrist to comment on that. If that's not their intent, I need to understand why it is they're persisting, if they are persisting, in maintaining the bill as it is drafted as opposed to taking either our amendment or the Liberal amendment.

Mr Gilchrist: I'd be pleased to respond and thank my colleague Mr Silipo for the opportunity. I don't think there's any doubt that both the Liberal and the NDP amendments have embodied within them exactly the same spirit as the wording that's currently in the act. We've made it very clear, I think, in both sections 36 and 200 that we will be ensuring through the regulations that there cannot be an abuse of that information.

But let's get something very clear. It is currently the right of a landlord in Ontario to ask income information. That is an existing right, an existing part of the negotiations that take place every day between landlords and tenants. This bill merely recognizes that fact. It really is quite remarkable to us that people don't see that this is adding a power and adding a right to tenants. Currently the Human Rights Code does not mention income information at all.

1030

You're right that it does specifically say you can't discriminate on the basis of receiving social assistance. As the member knows full well, that section of the Human Rights Code remains in the Human Rights Code. It is not being amended in any way by this piece of legislation, so that right continues to be there. But landlords could have, if it had been their intent, found a way around that prohibition by saying, "No, I didn't discriminate because they are on government assistance; I discriminated because their income is too low."

We're now making it very clear that this too will not be allowed. We are saying you must meet the test of reasonableness in all the business dealings between a landlord and a tenant.

We've heard a number of people come forward, including tenant groups, saying they don't think it's reasonable if somebody on government assistance gets a $3,000-a-month condo on Bay Street; that's just not realistic. Yes, that's the far end of the spectrum, but I think we would all agree there is a point at which you're not doing the tenant a favour to lock them into a lease they cannot afford.

However, by the same token, landlords must demonstrate that their criteria are purely fair and reasonable. I find it quite remarkable that both parties continue to say it's okay to have credit checks. Just before these hearings started, and without even considering the significance vis-à-vis this bill, I responded to an article in the newspaper, and it suddenly struck me I'd never asked for my own credit history. So I sent a letter to Equifax, supplied the two pieces of information they require, and back came the documentation. It not only shows where my employment is -- I think it would be fairly easy for people to find out the salary of an MPP, but it saves you the trouble; the credit check tells your income.

That in the motion you can suggest that asking for income information is inappropriate but it's okay to ask for a credit check that includes income information I think bespeaks a lack of awareness perhaps of exactly what is contained in credit checks. That is embodied in both of your amendments. You'll forgive me, Mr Silipo, but taking the words "income information" out but allowing one of the other words to still capture the same information I don't think really changes our bill at all. That's why I would defend it.

Let me go a bit further. It's quite interesting that we've spent two of the last three days in the House debating another bill, Bill 136, and a common refrain from the opposition benches about the tribunal that's proposed to be set up to deal with municipal restructuring and labour negotiations -- your party and you personally have consistently taken the position that appointees are nothing more than political hacks and they don't know what they're doing. Yet you continue to trumpet Mr Norton as some kind of authority on human rights.

Let's instead go back to the testimony of Professor Michael Trebilcock, faculty of law at the U of T. He has decades of experience in the field of human rights, and his was absolutely the most detailed submission we've received on the subject in all the weeks of hearings. He has written books on discrimination. He was the expert witness at Human Rights Code inquiries. He made it very clear, in a brief filled with precedents, that human rights laws are not appropriate vehicles for dealing with discrimination of an economic nature in the marketplace. While he said it would be totally inappropriate for landlords to rely solely on income information, he believed it was just as inappropriate to suggest that this was some kind of discrimination, recognizing that some people in the province can afford different assets than others.

Having said all that and having one of the, if not the, most respected authorities and experts in the field say that this bill does not infringe the rights of tenants, it does recognize a current business practice.

We are also challenged with the fact that throughout the hearings, having heard landlords say they currently asked information about income, we also heard a number of groups, ostensibly taking the position that this was an inappropriate section, tell us that there are over 450,000 tenants in this province currently paying more than this artificial 30% rule and 150,000 paying more than 50%. I would ask the member to somehow demonstrate factually and empirically, if landlords already have the right to ask the information and, having asked the information, have rented to those tenants, why clarifying that relationship in the code would drive landlords to conduct themselves differently. Obviously, the landlords will keep those tenants there. This is not going to prompt them to throw someone out. If it's the suggestion that the landlords don't know, I think that's really quite condescending. I think landlords will continue, by and large, to be fair and reasonable and tenants will continue, by and large, to ask for accommodation they know they can afford.

There is a mechanism now in this act to ensure that if a landlord abuses that information he can be dealt with under the Human Rights Code. That is something that cannot be done today. This adds a new prohibition, adds a new right for tenants. I think it couldn't be clearer, particularly in section 200, that this really closes a loophole and adds new powers and rights to the tenants in this province.

The Chair: Mr Duncan and then Mr Silipo.

Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, I just asked a question. Do I have the floor still?

The Chair: No. Mr Duncan and then Mr Silipo.

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I simply asked a question of Mr Gilchrist. I had not yielded the floor.

The Chair: The clock is running. I might add that each member, which would include questions, lasts a duration of 20 minutes. My understanding of the rules is that each member has a 20-minute block of time; that is part of your block of time, if you don't have any problem with that. You're right. You did ask a question, Mr Silipo.

Mr Silipo: I won't take long. I just want to say in response to what Mr Gilchrist said that I would agree with him on one point. He has obviously spent more time looking at these sections than I have. I'm prepared to grant that. That may be the problem here, because I don't think I need to look at this too long to know that when you take a right that now exists and modify that by virtue of section 200 and further say you're going to modify it by regulations which are yet to come and which none of us has seen, what you are doing is taking away an existing right. I don't need to get into a lot of the words to know that's just a basic tenet of legislative drafting. In and of itself, that very act, when you bring that back to section 36, tells me that what you're doing is something to be looked at, and when I look at it, what you're doing, in my view and in the view of many other people, is wrong.

The interesting thing is that, yes, it's possible now for landlords to run credit checks. That begs the question, why do you need to change the legislation? Yes, I do rely on what Mr Norton says, because he's the head of the commission. You appointed him; we supported his appointment. But I'm not talking here about Mr Norton; this is not his personal opinion we're getting. Presumably Mr Norton would not write the kind of letter he wrote on March 10 simply because that's how he personally feels about it. It's because he writes on behalf of the commission, on the basis of case history, on the basis of law, on the basis of what has happened. He says himself that in terms of requesting information such as credit checks and rental histories, the commission recognizes that landlords have legitimate business reasons for requesting that. He says himself that he believes these are far better indicators than income information of a prospective tenant's ability or willingness to pay.

This is not the issue. The issue is that you are beginning to tamper -- and you're not just beginning; you are tampering here -- with a basic right that people, particularly people on public assistance, have. I don't think you should do that. If you're true to your word that you don't want to do that, you should not be putting into place section 36 and particularly section 200 -- when we get to that we'll deal with that as well -- that pick away at the basic rights people have and makes those subject to regulations that you're then going to be able to change at whim, through cabinet, as opposed to the protection that exists now in the law of the province, that one cannot discriminate on the basis of one's income. That should continue to be the case.

Mr Gilchrist: It will be.

Mr Silipo: I'm not sure it will be and the commission is saying that they don't believe it will be.

Mr Duncan: We concur on one point, that there is considerable confusion around this whole issue. Having heard the expert testimony throughout the province, what we are saying and what we believe now is that the Human Rights Code does not prohibit landlords from requiring information about prospective tenants, nor does it prohibit landlords from reasonably assessing a tenant's ability to pay the rent. Since there's confusion about it, we are proposing an amendment which establishes that landlords may require income information and may use it in a non-discriminatory manner. The code does not prohibit landlords from discriminating on the basis of receipt of public assistance. Some members, we believe, are confusing this protection with the protection from discrimination because of source of income.

1040

When the Conservative government introduced an amendment to the code in 1981 to prohibit discrimination because of receipt of public assistance in housing, some landlord organizations pressured to have receipt of public assistance changed to source of income. They wanted to ensure that landlords could refuse to rent to people on welfare because of their income level. That Conservative government realized that if landlords were allowed to refuse to rent to people on social assistance because their income is low, then the protection from discrimination would be meaningless. They refused to change the provision, and for 16 years it has been illegal to discriminate on the basis of receipt of public assistance in Ontario.

Some members of the committee throughout the hearings have said they don't understand Keith Norton's statement that the amendment will effectively wipe out the current protections for people on social assistance because landlords will still be prohibited from invidious discrimination against social assistance recipients because of their source of income. The important point is that if landlords are permitted to use income level to disqualify applicants, this will provide a universal justification for refusing to rent to social assistance recipients. The formal protection that remains in the Human Rights Code will be illusory if landlords are permitted to use these types of income criteria.

We think what we're suggesting is in line with what the government wants to do, only we are clarifying it in the legislation. We think it makes infinite sense to clarify the legislation unequivocally in section 200 and section 36 so that there is a clear understanding. I suspect that if we get into a regulatory environment where we define and clarify these issues, nobody is going to be happy. I say, with respect, to the government that you will be creating a situation that doesn't solve anybody's problems and creates a situation that won't benefit either landlords or tenants.

The amendments we've proposed to these two sections we feel are reasonable and balanced and afford landlords the opportunity to use income information but prohibit them from using it in a discriminatory fashion. It's a fine point. The testimony we've heard throughout the hearings, what the government said and the amendments the government is proposing, indicates that we all want to be going in the same direction. The chair of the Human Rights Commission put very compelling testimony. Other testimony has been given by many sources that has persuaded us that the amendments we are proposing will achieve what I think the government wants to achieve and at the same time will provide reasonable protection for both landlords and tenants. The amendments we've put forward we believe will do that.

We think the wording of the current bill is not good wording. We don't believe tenants will be properly protected under the regime the government is proposing. The wording we've proposed we think clarifies matters, clarifies it in the statute and will allow for landlords to reasonably use income information but not use it in a discriminatory fashion, and we won't have a scenario where regulations will become very onerous, will be confusing and ultimately inefficient, and we'll be back at it again.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I concur with my colleague totally. I think the amendment as proposed goes a long way in clarifying the situation. I just want to add the comment that all the tenants, especially those receiving social assistance, are being lumped together. If you recall, during the lengthy presentations we heard from many tenants receiving social assistance that they want to get out from certain situations and they were willing to pay even more than the 30% as long as they could get out from a certain place and a certain situation. That indicated to us that there are many tenants out there receiving social assistance who are trying very desperately to improve their situation. Leaving the legislation the way it is is tantamount to legalizing discrimination, and I think the government would do well to think seriously about the implications of the legislation as it is written. The amendments proposed by my colleague are quite acceptable, make sense, and I think the government should support them.

The Chair: Further questions? Further debate? There being no further questions or debate, I will ask for a vote on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment by Mr Duncan? All those opposed? The amendment is defeated.

We will move to Mr Silipo.

Interruption.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, please. I need your assistance. We can't have interjections from the audience. We've got to keep order somehow in here. It's tough enough.

Mr Silipo has a New Democratic motion which I believe is similar but I believe it is in order to make.

Mr Gilchrist: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I believe the only difference is the addition of the word "and." I would suggest that under our procedures in this chamber, that makes it identical to the motion that has just been defeated. It is not substantially different.

Mr Silipo: The structure is different, Chair. I'd rather just put it. We're not going to have the debate again, I can assure you of that. I would prefer to deal with it that way, but I'll obviously abide by your ruling.

The Chair: The Chair holds that your amendment is in order.

Mr Silipo: Thank you.

I move that section 36 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Selecting prospective tenants

"36. In selecting prospective tenants, landlords may, in accordance with section 21 of the Human Rights Code,

"(a) use credit checks, credit references, rental history or guarantees; and

"(b) require income information of prospective tenants so long as that information is not used in a manner that results in discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code."

I will add one point briefly. I know Mr Gilchrist earlier made a point of relying on the evidence by Professor Trebilcock. My understanding is that even he was critical of the government setting in place a process of decision-making by regulations. One of the essential differences of course between this amendment and what's now in the bill is that it continues to ensure that what landlords can do has to be done in a way that does not result in discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, not to any regulations that may be made thereunder.

The Chair: Discussion? Debate? Questions? There being none, all in favour of Mr Silipo's motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Shall section 36 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 36 is carried.

The committee has agreed to proceed to section 116. There are some proposed amendments, if you could you turn to page 126. There are quite a few. The first motion is a government motion.

1050

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 116 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"New tenant

"Subject to section 113, the lawful rent for the first rental period for a new tenant under a new tenancy agreement is the rent first charged to the tenant."

This is simply an amendment to clarify the amount of rent the landlord and the new tenant negotiate under a new tenancy agreement is the lawful rent. It eliminates the possibility of overriding this provision through a regulation. The revised wording will ensure that it cannot be subverted in some other way and that will bind both parties to the lawful rent.

Mr Silipo: I won't be supporting this amendment. As you know, we have an amendment coming up and I'm not sure how you're going to deal with that, so I'm going to put my views on the record now.

I want to be really clear that to me this is one of the major, major flaws with this bill and it of course is one of the major new directions that this government has taken, which is that they are in effect getting rid of real rent controls and they're doing it through this section particularly, and obviously through the whole act.

What they're saying is that once a new tenant moves in, there will be a new rent that can be established by the landlord. Yes, subject to agreement, but we know that means in effect the landlord will be able to increase the rent. That really is the effective end of rent controls.

When you look at the turnover in tenancies with the fact that a significant number of people move, if we take any five-year period, many of the tenants would end up moving during that period of time. What you've got is a situation in which, without removing the whole structure of legislation that presently exists, the government is in effect getting rid of the protection that tenants would have.

Right now, the laws that exist would continue to allow the same rent, the same decision that would have been made in an existing tenancy, to continue even if there is a new tenant who comes in. This of course changes that significantly and lets the landlords charge whatever they wish, whatever they obviously feel they can get at that point.

It's just plain wrong, it's just plain unjust and it's not even necessary; that is the other incredible thing about this. There is no evidence I have seen and that I think any reasonable person can point to which says when you get rid of rent controls, as this government is doing, we're going to see any more affordable rents or that we're going to see, for that matter, any more units being built by the private sector, because obviously the government isn't interested in building through the public sector.

Even on that level, there is no justification for what the government is doing. It is clearly a philosophical direction that they are taking which breaks what I think has been -- with, yes, some needed modifications -- but what has essentially been a very useful and good balance between the rights of landlords and the rights of tenants in the existing legislation, legislation that has been around for some years, legislation that obviously has in the past had the support of the three political parties, but legislation which now in the Mike Harris world is no longer acceptable because in the Mike Harris world you have to pit one group of people against another.

On this particular issue, the government is choosing very heavily to take the side of landlords, give them rights which in some cases they may not even want to have, but which in some cases they will discover will not be particularly helpful, but which will lead tenants into a situation in which they will have to pay higher rents because that will be the only avenue left open to them when landlords are able to simply, particularly under this provision, increase the rent.

Through the rest of the sections which are affiliated with this, where the government is making it easier for landlords to evict tenants through a variety of changes in the law, it will lead to growing confrontation between landlords and tenants. That is something we don't need. It's something that is going to make our society meaner than it is today. That's not something we should be supporting as legislators. It's certainly something that we as New Democrats do not support.

We believe that the present structure should continue, particularly on this issue, that the rent that is there when a tenant moves should continue to be the rent that is there when a new tenant moves in, subject, as we say in our amendment, to all of the lawful and proper avenues that a landlord has to seek increases in the rent, but not subject to the fact that all of a sudden there is a vacancy and the landlord can decide what the new rent will be.

Mr Duncan: The reason we wanted to get to this section is because this is the heart of the bill. This defines the government's position.

Let me start by stating, as we have said throughout the hearings, that we believe there should be a regime of price control in the rental housing market. We believe a system has to be implemented that strikes a balance and we don't believe that this does.

When I saw this amendment I was intrigued because the amendment ties this section back to section 113, which is the section that deals with discounted rent. We've heard some compelling testimony from landlords in communities where there is an oversupply of rental accommodation, that they want to keep the rent maximum in place. The fatal flaw in this bill, both from a landlord's perspective, in my view, and from a tenant's perspective is that by adopting this system, it compels those who believe in a price regime to oppose the rent maximum concept.

What is that? Let's envision a very simple scenario. A unit becomes vacant. A landlord at that point sets a new rent. The landlord can in effect set a new rent at that point where he thinks he wants to have it, subject to rules that will be prescribed. We'll anxiously await those rules. If you're a landlord, of course you're going to set the rate quite high and then you could possibly offer discounts which will effectively allow you in the future to circumvent even the minimal protections that are afforded by keeping somebody protected.

Let me be unequivocal. In two years this will be repealed. We will introduce a system of price control. We think it's fair and we think it's right. We support some of the initiatives the government has taken in this bill. We've said it throughout the hearings. We're particularly intrigued with respect to dispute resolution. We don't think the system has served either landlords or tenants well.

The government, I am given to understand, has even broken its promise to landlords during the election about completely getting rid of rent control. But what you've done, we think, is set up a system that's fundamentally flawed, and this section is at the heart of it.

The only amendment we could even propose to this section was simply to not support it, to vote against it, because it's the heart of the bill. Since it's the heart of the bill and it's a bill that we believe does not find balance, does not protect the interests of both landlords and tenants, we can't support an amendment to it. We certainly cannot propose an amendment to this section. We have to vote against it.

Because of the way the government has set this up, we can't even deal with those market situations in a price-regulated environment where supply does exceed demand. At the very heart of it, this section and this approach to public policy -- and we've heard compelling testimony from witnesses from other jurisdictions that says unequivocally -- New York, Los Angeles: We had written testimony on Los Angeles, we had a delegation here from New York on what happens. What happens? Yes, the supply of rental accommodation, the upper end, will increase. There is no question in my mind that will happen.

The question has become, what happens at the lower end? Right now, we are in a period where there is an inadequate supply, in our view, of affordable rental accommodation. This bill relies on some notion that if you increase the supply of higher-end rental accommodation, somehow down here there will be more affordable accommodation. We simply don't agree. In the history in this province, the history in other jurisdictions, that does not occur.

The government has gotten out of non-profit housing entirely. It's introducing, on a trial basis in two locations in the province, we believe, a system of shelter allowance. We think ultimately the government's objective, and we believe the government's objective is to create more rental housing, but we don't believe you will achieve it with this. We don't believe you'll achieve it at the lower end.

1100

We look at other US jurisdictions. I challenge the government members of committee to go into the downtown cores of American cities and look at what is meant by rental accommodation. Where I come from, you don't have to go far. There's no question that we have a crisis in terms of development of affordable rental accommodation. There's no question that the private sector has not been able to come forward, for a whole variety of reasons, not the least of which is the regime that has been in place. But this is not, in our view, the answer.

The objective of government ought to be to protect tenants, ensure an adequate supply of rental accommodation for all income levels, and to find that balance we think you need a system of price regulation. You need a system that will ensure an adequate supply of affordable accommodation. This does not achieve that. This, in our view, does not find the balance that is needed.

We will vote against this section. We do not propose an amendment to it because this section is at the heart of the bill. We will be introducing a bill of our own, subsequent to finishing these hearings, that we think is a better alternative that will provide for new affordable housing; second, protect tenants; and third, create an investment climate that enhances a landlord's desire to invest in this province in rental accommodation.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I want to emphasize as best we can in this last gasp in terms of trying to get some attention raised to the plight of people looking for housing. The area I'm most familiar with is Metropolitan Toronto. It's ironic that yesterday John Jagt, who is the director of Metro hostel services, said that there is an unprecedented demand for hostels in the Metro area to the point where, for the first time, they've had to try and place families outside of Metro's boundaries. There is no more room in the Metro hostel services and it's not because of the talk you've heard about gypsies flooding in. The fact is that a lot of people are falling through the cracks.

This bill, and this section of it especially, widens those cracks because it puts more pressure on the affordable housing that exists for those prices to be raised, and to be raised for people who are generally on fixed or on limited incomes. That is the type of pressure. I know the amount of money may not seem to be significant, that it could potentially go towards higher rent asked for by a landlord. But I have a case where two days ago in my own riding a single disabled woman in her 50s, who had worked 20 years in a hospital and is no longer able to work, was told that she had to move out of her apartment because social services would not pay for the $20 increase in rent. This 52-year-old woman with chronic arthritis is now faced with being forced to move out of her accommodation.

These are the types of pressures that exist out in the real world, certainly in Metropolitan Toronto; this is the type of pressure that will escalate. There are a lot of good, affordable units in very good neighbourhoods throughout Metropolitan Toronto. This bill, as someone said, will give more incentive to those landlords, and not all landlords -- but we know that some of them may want to take advantage of unfortunate people. Those are generally the elderly or people who are on some kind of assistance who don't have family support.

As you get into this decontrol, as you get into the rent increasing in a unit as the tenant moves out, which this section begins to give the power to landlords to do, it's going to put enormous pressure on a system that especially in Metropolitan Toronto is very, very fragile. We have families that don't have a place to stay in Metropolitan Toronto. They're being forced out into the 905 area because there are no hostel spaces left, and this is quite unprecedented. That is why my colleague Dwight Duncan, who is the critic of this, is trying to emphasize the fragility and almost the smoking gun this bill is going to put to the heads of a lot of people who are living on the margin. That is the perspective you have to put on this section, and the government's attempt to respond to what they see as a housing problem from another perspective.

There is a housing crisis because affordable housing was stopped dead two years ago by this government -- dead in its tracks. Now you're adding another immense amount of pressure on this basic right, which is reasonable housing, and I think you're really playing Russian roulette with a lot of people. Maybe not some of the people who you think make up the majority, but a good portion of Metro's population is going to be affected and threatened by this bill and forced to be out on the street, literally, and now we find out that there is not even hostel space for them. That is what is happening.

That is why we're opposed to this amendment. It begins to take any kind of control protection from people who need more protection and the protection that has existed for tenants for the last couple of decades.

Mr Sergio: I want to something else. My colleague is quite right that you cannot add or change meaningfully the clause in any particular way, and the only way is to vote against it.

I think Mr Leach put it best not too long ago when he said that last year only four new rental units were built. Probably those four units were built on some commercial building and they had no other choice of building anything else to gain the commercial space and their needs and provide some rental units on top.

The government has made it quite clear that they will not get involved in providing any more affordable housing units. It's not their business. I don't know why they are saying that, because I think they should make it their business. Private industry is not going to build any affordable rental units, never, unless we give them the sun and the moon and then something else too.

It has been said, and it can be proven, that it is not 30% that people nowadays use as the median for rental accommodation. I think it goes between 50% and 60%, and God knows some people even pay up to 70% of their total income. What does this tell us? That people want some reasonable accommodation and they will go to any extent, even to sacrificing many other things, in order to get some rental accommodation.

Why is the government bent on eliminating rent control totally? The approval of this clause does exactly that. It is the beginning of the end of rent control as we now know it, as it now exists. The passage of this clause will start the elimination of rent control. If the government is so sure that they're saying, "To all you moaners out there who are saying rents will skyrocket, this will not happen," then why are they doing this? Granted, the way it is is not the best we can have, but at least we have some controls in there. It is some protection for tenants, some peace of mind for tenants, who can say, "Well, at least up to a point we have some protection here."

1110

If the government is so sure that rents are not going to skyrocket, then why are they doing this to the market? Why don't you leave it to the open market and let landlords and developers make a killing when the market is great, but leave it to the open market? If tenants can't afford the lowest on the market, they have to move up as they are doing now. They are paying 50%, 60% or 70%; they will be doing so.

If the market should slow down a bit, we have to protect those people as well. Why can't we say that? I think that would be fair. I think the members on the government side would agree that this would be a fair playing field, that when the market is slowing down, people will get the best they can on the market and landlords will try and get as much out of the situation. I think that would be fair. Would they agree? I don't think so.

The government is bent on eliminating whatever protection now exists within the present legislation, right or wrong or whatever it is, and tilting the balance completely towards one side. I don't have to tell you, Mr Chair, because you were here all along, that we have heard some of the biggest developers in town, people who have been in business for 30, 40 or 50 years who have built practically every rental unit we have on the market, deriding the government with the introduction of this legislation. They said: "This does not give us anything, no incentive. There is no incentive for us to go on the open market and build rental units unless you eliminate provincial tax, federal tax, give us cheaper land, give us cheaper interest rates, eliminate development charges and stuff like that."

Something interesting happened when we had some hearings, I believe it was in Milton or somewhere in the southwest end. We had local municipalities coming to us and saying: "You know what? You didn't have to tell us, Mr Government. We did it ourselves." Those were the local municipalities. When things were tough, in order to attract development and developers, they eliminated 100% of their own development charges. We didn't have to impose anything on them. We did it in Metro here; North York did it. We eliminated all development charges. What did the government do? Nothing.

On top of that, now we have a government that in one way says municipalities have done a heck of a good job, that what they've been doing is good. So if they've been doing that good a job, why are we hitting tenants so hard and disregarding the good job local municipalities have done in hard times and tilting the balance towards one particular group in our society, the big developers? I think it's totally unnecessary.

This piece of legislation must be driven by a very small-spirited group outside and inside the government, which is totally unnecessary. It's totally unfortunate that the government is taking this position at this time. It's so sad that there is such a large number of unemployed young people trying so desperately to get into the job market. I'm talking about those who are 25, 28 or 30 years old, people who are dying to start a family of their own and get in their place, and they can't. Many of them are holding back because they are worried that they cannot bring up a family in the proper way because of the economic situation and because of the government's attitude.

What message is the government, you people, sending to our people out there when it is saying, "It's not our business," when we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing saying, "It is not our business to be in the housing business"? What is the message we are sending out there? "Hey, you guys, rich and poor, you're on your own." The only difference is that the rich don't need the government. They can look after themselves very well. What the government does on behalf of the poor people is to turn its back on them. Usually governments are there to assist the people who cannot help themselves.

I think it's quite appropriate that the motion that has been introduced calls for a total rejection of the clause as presented by the government, because the crux of the matter is that with the passage of the clause we will see the end of rent control. You know better than anybody else, Mr Chair -- you've been around long enough -- that once you change something, it's very hard to change it later on or improve it in such a way to make a difference. The only thing we can look towards is the next election, a new government, new directions and new hope for the tenants in Ontario; as well, to the providers of accommodation, that there will be enough incentives and government support in some ways to make it attractive enough and create the balance the government is now taking away.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm not going to rehash the history of rent controls but I must correct a couple of things the member for Yorkview said. It's unfortunate that he didn't travel with us across the province and hear the submissions we heard in places like Ottawa, where Minto, the largest landlord in that city and one of the largest in Canada, indicated that purely and simply as a result of this bill, they dedicated an additional $25 million to expanding and adding to their rental housing stock. In fact, they said they were tipping us off, and when the announcement was actually made a week later, it was $31 million.

I don't have to go as far as Ottawa. I would direct the member up to Yorkville, where there is a building being converted to rental housing; and over to Spadina, where there are two buildings under construction by the private sector to add new rental accommodation. So when he says the private sector won't do anything, he only has to walk five minutes from here to see that because of this change in direction, landlords will invest and tenants will benefit from new accommodation at competitive rates in a marketplace where the vacancy rate has more than doubled -- it has almost tripled since we were elected -- in keeping with almost every community in Ontario.

Rent controls didn't work. Professor Larry Smith told you that, with empirical data to back it up, someone far more expert in the field than any of the politicians sitting at this table. I didn't hear anyone contradict his numbers. The fact is that rent controls haven't worked. If they did, you wouldn't have a seven-year waiting list in this city for affordable housing. Clearly there has to be a different answer.

The answer is, we believe, the vision we've put forward in this bill. I would suggest to the member that he might want to do a bit more research about what's happening out there across this province when it comes to construction before offering such bald-faced statements that the private sector won't be investing.

Mr Duncan: I think you have to use quotes selectively. We also had testimony from other landlords. I refer to Tim Fuerth in Windsor, from Danzig Enterprises, who said that this bill will do nothing to stimulate landlord investment.

There is no question that there has not been development of affordable rental units -- no question about that. In our view the issue is one of consumer protection and supply of affordable units. We believe there will be development in the upper end; there's no question. But we don't believe there will be development of new supply at the lower end.

We believe that a proper regime, a proper public policy with respect to the housing market, is one that will afford price protection to tenants and be an efficient system. That's why we've repeatedly said that we support parts of the bill with respect to tribunal, with respect to dispute resolution. At the base, we had contradictory testimony from landlords with respect to development. Our sense is that the government's objective of providing more affordable housing will not be met by the bill you've put forward.

1120

Mr Sergio: Just to add briefly, I was in Ottawa as well and I heard Minto at the first public hearing, but you cannot compare the market in the Ottawa area with the market in Metropolitan Toronto and many other areas in Ontario. That is a totally different market. With respect, these are from Metro. You cannot compare someone building a rental unit on Spadina downtown, when I have said specifically those units are market rents. There is nothing being created with respect to affordable units, which I mentioned in my presentation. Nothing.

I would challenge Mr Gilchrist to show me that a two-bedroom unit on Spadina Avenue will rent for anything less than $1,500 a month. You tell me, for anyone making less than $50,000 a year, who can afford a $1,500-a-month two-bedroom in Metropolitan Toronto? That's what I call affordable units.

He is trying to mislead the facts that rental units will not be built on Spadina Avenue, in that particular area, for the people on social assistance or those making $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 a year. I'm talking affordable units, not something that maybe people like you can afford.

The Chair: I'd ask members to try and keep the discussion parliamentary, Mr Sergio.

Mr Silipo: Briefly, the problem as we see it with respect to the question of whether there are sufficient units out there, the issue is one of affordability. It is not that people have not been building because they haven't been able to because there have been rent controls. They haven't been building because they haven't been able to build and establish a rent that most people could afford to pay, so it comes back to this question of affordability.

You could look at Mr Gilchrist's examples and say that Minto could build today under the current law, establish the rent that they feel is appropriate, because they have under the current law a five-year period within which to do that and get whatever they feel is an appropriate rent for whatever units they're building, and then rent control kicks in.

Of course, that is being changed by this government under this bill, but it's not the removal of rent controls that's going to engender the building of more units; it's whether those units are going to be there at an affordable rent for most people of modest means. That's going to continue to be the issue. There's nothing in this bill that tells me, and there's certainly nothing in this particular section that's going to ensure anything other than that rents are going to increase. If that's the objective, then obviously the Tory members are achieving that objective, but if the objective is to ensure that there will continue to be more affordable housing provided at affordable rents for people of average means, for the average family out there, this section isn't going to do it and this bill certainly isn't going to do it. In fact, the opposite is going to be true: Rents are going to be more, and more and more people are going to have a harder and harder time paying for their rent.

The Chair: Further debate? Questions? I'll ask for a vote on Mr Gilchrist's motion. Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion carries.

I believe the proposed New Democratic motion is in order.

Mr Silipo: I move that section 116 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"New tenant

"116. The lawful rent for the first rental period under a new tenancy agreement is the last lawful rent for the previous tenant adjusted by any of the grounds for an increase or decrease in rent set out in sections 118 to 134."

Briefly, what this section does is attempt to maintain the system that we have in place today, which says that when there is a new rental period, that is, a new tenancy agreement, a change in tenants, the last lawful rent that was there continues to be there, and of course that is subject to being changed, adjusted upwards or downwards, by any of the provisions that exist now. Sections 118 to 134 are those provisions that provide for the lawful increase or decrease of rents for the various reasons set out in the legislation.

We believe that is the course that should be taken. We believe that's the way to ensure the balance that needs to be there between tenants being able to rent at affordable rates and landlords, obviously, being able to have the right to seek, through the lawful routes, increases under the guideline and as appropriate. But that should be the way that the balance should be maintained, not by simply allowing landlords to simply increase the rent because there is now a new tenant in place.

In fact, we know that will lead to further harassment by landlords -- certainly not all landlords, but some landlords -- as a way to increase the rent. It's ironic that the government has had to deal in other parts of this bill with that prospective occurrence. They themselves acknowledge that that likely will happen, because they've brought in provisions to tighten up some of the rules around discrimination by landlords towards tenants. It's ironic that they had to go that route of setting up a structure to deal with increased harassment, when in fact what they should be doing is leaving in place the basic tenet of the law that says the rent is the rent that's charged on the unit.

There are all sorts of provisos that allow for that to go up or down, that give both landlords and tenants avenues to seek. If there are issues to be dealt with, that's the way it should be done, not by tilting the scale so far towards landlords in this way that then will create more problems that the government itself has admitted will be there, by virtue of them having to now put in place more anti-harassment measures in the bill.

Mr Duncan: The only amendment we've provided to this section is one that simply would not vote for 116. We have proposed a number of amendments to sections 122 and on. These are fairly significant sections of the bill that deal with questions such as tenant-landlord ability to negotiate a rent increase.

The Chair: Perhaps we can talk about that when we come to that section.

Mr Duncan: It's salient to this motion because this motion references sections 118 to 134. I don't intend to debate the future amendments, but we believe the only appropriate motion to support in this section of this bill is to vote against 116 because it's the heart of the bill. We will be proposing amendments to some of the sections that are referenced here later on but feel that section 116 is not amendable. We understand what the third party is trying to achieve. We don't believe they're achieving it by this particular amendment.

Mr Silipo: I appreciate Mr Duncan's stated intent. I just would say to him that in fact it surprises me. I assume from what he said that they will not be supporting this amendment. He didn't say that, but I assume from what he said that they will not be. I find that a bit troubling because what this amendment does is allow more or less the current structure to exist. When we get to the other amendments that he has, I believe I'm going to be supporting all or most of them, so that should give him some comfort.

We agree with respect to how wrong section 116 in the bill is, and if this amendment fails, certainly I will be voting against section 116. But if there is a way -- and obviously there is, because this amendment is in order -- to amend the legislation in a way that continues the existing balance and the existing protection that tenants have if they walk into an apartment that was previously rented and are able to do so at the last lawful rent as opposed to an increased rent that the landlord will decide, I am having a little bit of trouble understanding why my Liberal colleagues would have trouble supporting that amendment. I understand why the government members aren't going to support it. I'm having increasing trouble understanding why the Liberal members would have some trouble supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Mr Duncan, I will give you the floor, but just so you're clear, you've referred to your proposed amendments for 116, which are 128 and 129. You'll have time to speak. I will tell you that I will be saying that those motions are out of order.

1130

Mr Duncan: I understand.

To my colleague in the third party, you're proposing in this section "adjusted by any of the grounds for an increase or decrease in rent set out in sections 118 to 134." But later on in your amendments you simply say, "Vote against all those sections." We understand and support your intent, but there are some issues we would like to discuss later on in those other sections.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I just have to make one comment on a comment that Mr Silipo made. The comment was "Maintain the system as we have it today." I guess that's classed as status quo. If you look back at what's happened over the last five years, and longer than that, there have not been a lot of units being built by the builders. So I would suggest to you that the present system may not necessarily be working very well as far as increased new accommodations are concerned. I'm a great believer in making some change that might enhance that, and I believe this will do that.

The other comment I'd like to make is that I don't know why we all believe that landlords are stupid. Are landlords going to leave their apartments vacant for long periods of time because they don't feel they can get this so-called increase in rent that you're suggesting is going to happen? I don't believe landlords are stupid. I believe landlords are going to try and rent those units. They're going to be able to negotiate -- and I use the word "negotiate" -- the rent between the new prospective tenant and themselves.

The other thing I believe it will do is it may well indeed keep the rents down because tenants will not be moving in and out of apartments two or three times over a period of a couple of years. Every time a tenant moves out, you know that the landlord has to refurbish that accommodation as soon as they move out. I believe this type of legislation may suggest to tenants: "Hey, you've got to stay where you are. You're getting a good rent, you're getting good accommodations." The idea of going in for a couple of months, paying a couple of months' rent and then stopping and leaving and looking for the next one may be deterred.

I can't go along with maintaining, as you comment, the system as we have it today because I believe the system as we have it today is not working.

The Chair: Further debate? I'll ask for a vote on the motion by Mr Silipo. Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Mr Duncan, as I indicated, I don't believe the next two proposed amendments are in order. I think you have acknowledged that.

Mr Duncan: We acknowledge that. We appreciate the opportunity to have debated this section of the clause in the time we have had, based on the government's amendments.

The Chair: Shall section 116, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 116, as amended, carries.

Mr Duncan, you're going to have to help me. The committee has agreed to debate section 146. I assume that includes the amendments set forth on pages 162, 163, 164, 165 and 166.

Mr Duncan: That's correct.

The Chair: I'm going to have to ask for consent on that, to clarify it, because we did say section 146, not section 146.1. I ask for unanimous consent that we debate section 146 and the amendments in the package from page 162 through to 166. All in favour? There is unanimous consent.

We will then proceed to debate on section 146, to which there are no amendments. Is there debate on section 146?

Mr Duncan: We are proposing an addition. We're proposing to add a section.

Mr Gilchrist: That would be a new section.

The Chair: I believe that would be a new section.

Mr Duncan: All right.

The Chair: If there is no debate on section 146, shall section 146 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 146 carries.

We will now proceed to the proposed motion of the Liberals by Mr Duncan which is on page 162, section 146.1.

Mr Duncan: Thank you to the government and the third party for supporting unanimous consent to deal with this. That was the original intent this morning when we discussed it.

This is the so-called OPRI issue, that is, outstanding work orders on apartments and an ability of a landlord.

I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Withhold rent

"146.1 If there is an outstanding work order under section 15.2 of the Building Code Act, 1992 with respect to a rental unit and the landlord has not complied with it within the time required under it, the tenant of the rental unit may withhold his or her rent from the landlord until the landlord complies with the work order."

Simply put, we believe that the so-called OPRI, that is, when there's an outstanding work order, the ability to withhold a rent increase with outstanding work orders will help force compliance with the Building Code Act. There were many submissions made by different organizations with respect to this issue and we felt those submissions made good sense. This is a tool that allows both provincial and municipal authorities, I suppose, the opportunity to enforce another government statute, the Building Code Act, in a more meaningful sense.

We believe doing away with this particular right, or this particular clause or ability, if you will, is detrimental -- not only strictly speaking from the rental housing market's perspective, but also to the ability of municipalities to effect, implement and maintain the building code. Therefore we have proposed an amendment to this section of the bill to deal with that issue and respectfully submit that this is the appropriate section and the appropriate way to do that.

Mr Gilchrist: If I may paraphrase, Mr Duncan, this would be another attempt to reinstate what are called OPRIs in a slightly different form; in fact, go beyond the current system of orders prohibiting rent increases that is being replaced in this bill with large fines for landlords who fail to comply with certain orders.

Let me just share with Mr Duncan some of the statistics that might clarify why we will be opposing his amendment. In 1996, for example, there were 1,678 OPRIs issued. However, 48% of them were still in effect early this year, in February 1997. Of all 11,000 OPRIs that have ever been issued under the Rent Control Act, which is now five years old, 27% still remain outstanding. Ninety per cent of the OPRIs that take effect are in effect for more than 90 days, if they're cleared at all. That indicates the limited success OPRIs have had in encouraging landlords to comply with work orders in a timely fashion.

1140

Quite frankly, your amendment goes further in interfering with the rent stream of landlords, which may very well be the source of income to do the work orders you're asking them to carry out, to fulfil. It also fails to recognize that if the landlord's penalty in the alternative, as we're proposing in this bill, is $50,000 for an individual or $100,000 for a corporation -- my tradeoff is to forgo a few hundred dollars and to pay $50,000 and be in contempt of an order. Personally and on behalf of the government, we believe landlords will be far more likely to follow any order that's issued by a municipality, or by the province for that matter.

We've put other changes in place. For example, property standards officers will no longer have to issue a warning or a notice of violation if there's non-compliance; they can immediately issue a work order. The clock starts ticking on the ability to levy that fine.

In a far more timely fashion, and with far bigger teeth, the government will be able to go in there and ensure that any health and safety aspect of operating a building can be dealt with, and we believe in a means which will be far more likely to encourage the timely acknowledgement of the landlord's obligations in that matter.

We honestly believe your amendment would weaken the powers that are available and would take us back close to the status quo, which, as I have read with those numbers, has clearly not been working.

Mr Duncan: Had there been a commitment to a minimum fine, there might be some compelling reason to support your point of view. We had evidence presented to us with respect to fines, and fines that have been provided, that in fact you can set them as high as you want, but if there's no minimum, then the teeth that you've alluded to, in our view, will not suffice.

I think the other point that needs to be made here is that from the presentations we've heard from building officials, from municipal officials, our view is that you can leave in the OPRI system and put in whatever additional protections you want. You've argued that there hasn't been good enforcement. We would agree. Municipalities have difficulty enforcing their bylaws and the building code in the best of circumstances. Given the huge cuts that municipalities have had from the provincial government and given the huge property tax increases that they're faced with in the future, we think this is a cost-effective way of trying to enforce bylaws.

Those around the table who have sat on municipal council, who have participated in discussions around bylaw enforcement, know that in the best of circumstances bylaw enforcement is difficult. The fact that there has not been, I suspect, the kind of enforcement that the government envisioned in 1992 when it originally introduced this is not in my view logically justifiable in terms of removing it.

Adding the sections you've proposed, in our view, will not substantially increase compliance, number one. Number two, had you put minimum fines in -- and we'll be dealing with minimum fines in another section -- we might have supported it, but they're not there. As a consequence, we think that maintaining OPRIs is just another tool that municipal officials will have in terms of enforcing the building code, and we think it's a mistake to not provide for them.

The Chair: Debate? I'll ask for a vote.

The motion of Mr Duncan on section 146.1: Shall it carry? All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

We will proceed to the New Democratic motion, which is one motion that goes for quite a few pages.

Mr Silipo: It's a long one.

The Chair: Well, Mr Silipo, we have to go through this, so the floor is yours to read the motion.

Mr Silipo: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following sections:

"Order prohibiting rent increase

"146.1(1) The director shall issue an order prohibiting a rent increase respecting a residential complex or a rental unit in it if,

"(a) the director has received a work order under section 34, the period for compliance with it has expired and the minister has not commenced a motion under the Residential Rent Regulation Act in respect of that work order;

"(b) the director has received a work order under section 35; or

"(c) a work order under section 37 is in effect and the period for compliance with it has expired.

"Idem

"(2) The order shall provide that while it is in effect,

"(a) the rent charged for the residential complex or the rental unit, as the case may be, shall not be increased;

"(b) if a notice of rent increase respecting a rental unit affected by the non-compliance with the work order was given before the order prohibiting a rent increase takes effect and no increase has been taken under that notice, the notice is void; and

"(c) no notice of rent increase shall be given respecting the residential complex or the rental unit, as the case may be.

"Effective date

"(3) Subject to section 146.2, the order is effective 30 days after it is issued.

"Contents of order

"(4) The order shall contain,

"(a) the municipal address or legal description of the rental unit or residential complex affected;

"(b) reasonable particulars of the work order that is the subject of the order prohibiting the rent increase; and

"(c) the fact that the order prohibiting the rent increase is effective 30 days after it is issued unless it is stayed or rescinded before that time.

"Order stayed

"146.2(1) The director shall stay an order prohibiting a rent increase if he or she is advised before the order is issued that an appeal of the work order that is the subject of the order prohibiting a rent increase has been filed.

"Effect of staying

"(2) If an order prohibiting a rent increase respecting a residential complex or a rental unit in it has been stayed, the landlord may increase the rent charged for any affected rental unit or give a notice of rent increase respecting any affected rental unit in accordance with this act.

"Stay lifted

"(3) The director shall lift a stay of an order prohibiting a rent increase if the appeal of the work order is withdrawn or discontinued or if,

"(a) the director receives the decision of the appeal of the work order that is the subject of the order prohibiting the rent increase;

"(b) the appeal decision confirms the work order, changes its terms or changes the time for complying with it;

"(c) all avenues of further appeal are exhausted or the director does not receive a notice of appeal within 15 days after the date the appeal decision is issued; and

"(d) if the appeal decision changes the time for complying with the work order, the new time period has expired.

"Amendment

"(4) If the appeal decision changes the terms of the work order, the director may amend the order prohibiting the rent increase to reflect that change.

"Effective date

"(5) If the appeal decision changes the time for complying with the work order to a period that expires more than 30 days after the order prohibiting a rent increase was issued and the director lifts the stay of the order prohibiting a rent increase, for the purposes of subsection (6), the order prohibiting a rent increase shall be deemed to be effective on the day the director lifts the stay and not as provided in clause (6)(a).

"When stay lifted

"(6) If the director lifts the stay of an order prohibiting a rent increase,

"(a) the order shall be deemed to have been effective as of the day that is 30 days after it was issued;

"(b) any notice of rent increase respecting an affected rental unit issued during the period that the order would have been effective but for the stay shall be deemed to be void; and

"(c) any increase in the rent charged for an affected rental unit that took effect during the period that the order would have been effective but for the stay shall be deemed to be rent charged in excess of that permitted to be charged.

"No offence

"(7) Subsection (6) does not operate to make a landlord who increased the rent charged for a rental unit in accordance with subsection (2) guilty of an offence.

"Rescission of order

"146.3(1) The director shall issue a notice rescinding an order prohibiting a rent increase if,

"(a) he or she receives notice from the issuer within 30 days after the day the order prohibiting the rent increase is issued and that notice states that the work order was lifted before the day the order prohibiting the rent increase came into effect;

"(b) he or she receives a decision on an appeal of a work order that is the subject of the order prohibiting a rent increase and the decision quashes or rescinds the work order; or

"(c) he or she is satisfied within 30 days after the day the order prohibiting the rent increase is issued that there is a clerical error in it and that if the order is not rescinded a person will be unfairly prejudiced because of the clerical error.

"Idem

"(2) The director may issue a new order prohibiting a rent increase if he or she rescinds an order because of a clerical error and the period for compliance with the work order has expired.

"Withdrawal of order

"146.4(1) The director shall issue a notice withdrawing an order prohibiting a rent increase if he or she receives notice from the issuer after it comes into effect and that notice states that the work order was lifted.

"Idem

"(2) A notice under this section shall provide that the order is of no further effect as of the date the notice is issued.

"Effect of notice

"(3) A landlord who receives a notice withdrawing an order under this section may issue a notice of rent increase and increase rent in accordance with this act any time after the notice is issued."

A long amendment, but the essence of it is to maintain what I guess in the jargon are known as OPRIs. For the general public, they are orders prohibiting a rent increase. Those are things that this legislation that the Conservative government has introduced and seems to be bent on passing is removing. They are getting rid of orders prohibiting a rent increase. These orders freeze rents, prohibiting all increases while landlords have committed a property standards violation. What the government is doing we believe will further reduce the incentive of landlords to comply with property standards.

When you couple that with the fact that, as a result of the downloading on to municipalities, the municipalities are going to have less money to put into enforcement, what we're likely to see, if the legislation stays as the government has drafted it, is more property standards violation with less enforcement.

What we are attempting to do is to bring back into the system, to maintain at least, some semblance of order, to maintain a balance that provides for appropriate avenues of appeal or recourse where the landlord feels that is justified, but to continue the essence of prohibiting rent increases while there are outstanding orders and while there are outstanding property standards violations.

That is something that we believe has worked well. There certainly can be some improvements to that; there can always be some improvements. But simply disbanding it, simply going, as the government is going, to the fine system without any kind of minimum fines, as has been pointed out, I'll wait to see the day when those increased fines will have any impact on this whole issue.

What we need is a system that says that if there are property standards violations, the landlord is going to suffer until he or she gets those in place by not being able to get increases in the rent. If they feel those orders are unjust, they have recourse and would continue to have recourse under this amendment to all of the appropriate vehicles of appeal to deal with those issues in the way they should be dealt with, and not by simply throwing out that whole process and just relying on some notion of fines as the way to do it.

The Chair: Debate? Shall the motion, as put forward by Mr Silipo, carry? All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Ladies and gentlemen, the next section which we have agreed to proceed with is section 200. Without showing bias one way or the other, I expect the debate on that will be substantial. I'm in the committee's hands. We've got about five minutes left. We can start, or we will perhaps recess until 3:30.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Were we not supposed to vote on 146?

The Chair: We did that, Mr Froese.

Mr Froese: We did?

The Chair: Yes.

The committee is recessed until 3:30.

The committee recessed from 1153 to 1531.

The Chair: We'll reconvene the meeting. I believe the last section we had agreed to move ahead on was section 200. To assist members of the committee, if you could turn to page 210 of your binders, there are three motions put forward with respect to section 200, the first being Mr Duncan's motion.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 21(3) of the Human Rights Code, as set out in subsection 200(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Prescribing business practices

"(3) The right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation without discrimination is not infringed if the landlord uses credit checks, credit references, a rent deposit, or rental history in selecting prospective tenants, or if a landlord requires guarantees on the basis of these criteria. Absence or unavailability of such credit records, credit references, or rental histories shall not be used as a factor in selecting prospective tenants.

"(4) The right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation is not infringed where a form of application for residential accommodation is used or a written or oral inquiry is made of an applicant's income where such information is used in a manner which does not result in discrimination contrary to this act."

We had a good discussion of this issue earlier in the day. We have listened to the arguments that have been put forward both by the government in this case and by delegations that have appeared before us. We have attempted through this amendment to preserve the integrity of the code's current provisions, which is what the government indicated its objective was.

Again I want to stress we do not object to landlords doing credit checks, asking for landlord references and asking about income. We do not object to landlords refusing to rent to someone who cannot reasonably be expected to pay rent. We do, however, object to landlords disqualifying all social assistance recipients and virtually all single mothers, young families and persons with disabilities on the basis of the common 30% rent income ratio. Our intention here is to clarify what the government has said and to provide clear direction in the statute. Members of the committee have heard how the differing interpretations on this can result in differing opinions.

We think this amendment is fair. We think it's balanced. We think it provides for the needs of landlords. We think it provides adequate protection for tenants and adequate protection for prospective tenants who may be on social assistance or some other form of limited income. Accordingly, we've put this motion forward believing that this attempts to achieve what the government has said is in place. We think it does it in a manner that will clear up any confusion that could result from regulatory changes that will be forthcoming from the government, and we think it says clearly in legislation what we believe the government has said is its intention.

Mr Silipo: Could I start with a question? I have some comments to make but I want to be clear first of all. It's a question to Mr Gilchrist. The government seems to be relying a lot in dealing with the concerns we've expressed -- and particularly various groups appearing before the committee have expressed on this issue in terms of the discrimination against people on social assistance. The government continues to say that they don't want that to happen, that what they will do is deal with these concerns through regulation. I would like Mr Gilchrist to please explain to us when we might see these regulations. Is he prepared to commit to those regulations being released in draft form for public consultation prior to being adopted by the cabinet, and what other light could he shed on this whole process?

Mr Gilchrist: I am indeed pleased to tell you that we have had discussions and we're quite open to the idea of circulating draft regulations to allow people time to digest the specific protections we will have put forward and to offer any improvements they care to at that time.

Just as a general comment about this motion, and in response to your comments, if anything we think this motion as put forward by the Liberals is probably not detailed enough in terms of being able to assure both sides that there will be a process that is fair and reasonable. The motion embodies that as one of its intentions but I don't think it goes far enough in delineating precisely how the assessment would be made that the landlord is not discriminating.

I will tell you categorically, Mr Silipo, it is not our intention, nor will we allow it to happen in any way, shape or form, to reduce the protections currently afforded to tenants in the sections of the Human Rights Code that deal with prohibition on the basis of receiving social assistance. In fact, I am 100% positive we will be able to satisfy your concerns both in that regard and in regard to the fact that we will be adding another protection. The way we will do that I am sure will be detailed enough to satisfy any reasonable person in terms of how the existing code will not only continue to afford the protections it has now but offer new ones.

I will certainly undertake to circulate those draft regulations prior to their acceptance by cabinet and I would welcome your comments at that time.

Mr Silipo: Just further, is there any sense about the timing, as to when those draft regulations might be available?

Mr Gilchrist: Aside from later this fall, Mr Silipo, I couldn't offer a specific time, no.

Mr Silipo: I have to say that in the whole big picture that section 200 is, there is at least a relatively small amount of comfort that I take from what Mr Gilchrist has said in the sense that at least the regulations will be out there. People will have a chance to see them and do what is clearly a far second best to what we should be doing here, which is to not proceed with the section as the government has drafted it and at the very least to adopt either the amendment that the Liberal caucus has put -- although I have to say I have some concern and some questions about why they include rent deposit in their motion or their amendment -- or the one that we have put.

But if the government is not prepared to adopt either of those, I want to, without belabouring the point too long, because it doesn't seem to be making any difference, still underline the very real concern that exists. You can't adequately deal with this issue through regulations. Obviously we are all honourable members here and so we have to take each other's words, at least on the public record, at face value as they are given. While you may be completely sincere in your efforts to detail the protections here, what you are doing -- and again, it's not because I'm saying it but because the experts in the field from the tenants' organizations and particularly the Human Rights Commission have said to you and are saying to you that this is not the way you should do it. First of all you should not deal with these basic protection issues under regulation, you should deal with them under legislation. As legislators, we all know the big difference therein.

1540

Second, what you are doing in going through the regulation is first of all creating a problem and then having to go to a whole convoluted set of regulations to fix the problem. It's like the harassment issue we were talking about, although this is probably even more complex. What you are doing, as I understand it -- and again I say this with all due respect -- is misinterpreting. If your intent is what you've stated, then you're misinterpreting what section 21 of the Human Rights Code does and what section 200 does in amending that. As people who are far better experts at this than I have explained, section 21 of the Human Rights Code, which you are amending here, permits discrimination under particular circumstances. There are already two particular ways in which some discrimination, to use the legal term, is allowed through section 21 of the Human Rights Code. You are adding a further area for discrimination.

Now, you're going to say you're going to qualify that through regulations, but the basic premise you are passing if you adopt the legislation as you have it is to add another means, in effect, of discrimination, because you take actions that are otherwise discriminatory under section 2 and you make them legal. You do that by stating that using income information would not be considered to be an infringement of the Human Rights Code, rather than stating what would be an infringement. I assume from what Mr Gilchrist has said and what all of you I gather have said on this that the regulations are where you're going to sort out what is an infringement and what isn't. It's not just a backwards way of doing it; it's a way of, as I say, creating a problem, creating an issue, creating an additional area of discrimination, and then trying to qualify that, if you will, through regulations.

It's not good legislative drafting, but more important than that -- this is not about neatness; this is about people's basic rights -- what you are doing is opening up the door to further and greater discrimination by landlords, particularly for people on social assistance. That's wrong, and if you believe, as you say, that you don't want to do that, then what you should be doing is not dealing with this through regulations, but taking another look at this. If you're not prepared to just withdraw the section as you have it, then probably even better than just withdrawing the section as you have put it, take the amendments that either we or the Liberals have put forward, both of ours based on what CERA and other groups have said to us, and in effect listen to what is being said, not just by the tenants' groups but by the experts whom we all have to abide by in this area, in terms of the Human Rights Commission, what the head of the Human Rights Commission is telling us.

This morning I found Mr Gilchrist's comment with respect to Mr Norton to be a little odd in saying, "Are we considering Mr Norton now to be an expert in the area of human rights?" Well, yes, that's his job, that's what you appointed him to. That's what we supported his appointment for, because we thought he was eminently qualified for that, not just personally because of his whole background, but because, as I said this morning, when Mr Norton writes the kind of letter he writes, when he makes the kind of presentation he does, when he points out that what you are doing here is adding another ground of discrimination which you then are going to try and qualify through the regulations, what you are doing is in effect nullifying what's in section 2 of the Human Rights Code, which prevents discrimination against people on social assistance.

Now you're allowing it under this area, because the only people who will be affected in this way under this income information system will be people on social assistance. He and we and people who have appeared in front of this committee have been very clear that none of us is saying that landlords should not have the right to do credit checks, to ask for references to satisfy themselves that tenants are reasonably going to reasonably be expected to pay the rent. We're not opposed to that. We're not saying that shouldn't happen. That exists now, we believe, and what you are doing here is disqualifying all social assistance recipients, and within that virtually all single mothers, young families and persons with disabilities, on the basis of what has been used up to now, this common 30% rent-to-income ratio, and that's a major problem.

What we're saying to you is, you don't have to create that problem. You could still fix this now. I don't know what you're going to do. I'm assuming if this morning's track record continues that you'll simply vote against this Liberal motion and the one I will put, but I hope you will at the very least reflect some more on this. I know, Chair, that we will meet again as a committee to deal with this bill next week. I wonder, almost as a last resort here, if there is any chance of the government members -- I ask this of Mr Gilchrist -- agreeing perhaps to set aside this particular issue and this section until the committee meets next week, with a view to the government members reflecting on this a little bit more so that maybe there can be some way to convince people about how wrong what you're about to do is.

Mr Gilchrist: Mr Silipo, we've had plenty of opportunity to reflect on the comments you and other have made throughout the hearings, to reflect on what legal counsel has offered in terms of the merits one way or the other, to reflect on the points raised by Professor Trebilcock, a nationally noted expert on human rights issues, and we are very confident that the framework we've put out here will guarantee that all of the objectives you've stated will be met. I don't think there's a need to reinvent the wheel.

The Chair: Mr Gilchrist, if I can just interrupt you, just so I'm clear, are you asking that section 200 be stood down?

Mr Silipo: I was asking Mr Gilchrist if there was any chance that that could happen, that that might in any way leave open the door that the government members would reconsider. If he's saying no, I'm not going to push the point in terms of making a formal request, but I was making the request to him, as the spokesperson for the government, yes.

Mr Gilchrist: Just to conclude, I have every confidence that we will be able to satisfy those concerns. I genuinely disagree with you that this takes anything away from the Human Rights Code. We have heard no one in all of the hearings, nor yourself, suggest that it is not absolutely positively legal today for landlords to ask about income information. You can cite no statute, you can cite no prohibition anywhere that precludes a landlord asking that question today. You also cannot draw any reference to the existing Human Rights Code where asking that question is adjudged in any way to determine whether the information which has been ascertained is then misused and has become the source of discrimination. We are adding another section to the Human Rights Code. We are adding the ability for the commission to now intervene in a case where income information is used to discriminate. They do not have that power today.

Each of us will not convince the other, but I can assure you that genuinely is our perception and it genuinely is our goal that we preserve all the existing protections and add a new one, namely, that the use of income information, which is currently legal, will not give rise to discrimination once this bill is passed.

1550

Mr Silipo: That obviously is a no, and I hear that. I don't like what I'm hearing. I just conclude at this point by reminding Mr Gilchrist, as I'm sure he already knows, that even the expert that he referred to, Professor Trebilcock, I understand pointed out to the committee that "addressing this important issue through regulation is at variance," to quote him, "with accepted norms of transparency and accountability in a representative democracy." So even the person you are relying on has said to you that going to this issue by regulation is not what you should be doing. This is a basic issue that should be dealt with in terms of the protections in the legislation. By going the regulation route, you are diminishing the rights of a certain group of Ontarians and you are also going to have to set up, if your intent is correct, an incredible set of regulations to try and define virtually every particular circumstance, which I think is just going to be untenable.

Mr Duncan: We simply believe that the regulations are conflicting with what you've said in other parts of the act in terms of wanting to simplify processes. I would submit to the government members that when you get down to defining these regulations -- take, for example, "income criteria when used in combination with other measures." How are the regulations going to address that? Why not simply clarify it in the statute?

Mr Silipo is quite correct when he quoted Professor Trebilcock. He said the regulation is not the appropriate way to go; it's not clear, it's not transparent. So if your intent is to clarify and to make the process simpler, to make dispute resolution simpler, go by the act.

I'll stand down my amendment if you propose wording to the act to this effect that you think makes more sense. We have consulted experts as well about this. If you're not prepared to accept this and your intention is to make the whole housing market regulation clearer, simpler, as you've made the point, then accept this. The regulations will become cumbersome and complex, and I really feel bad for landlords who are going to be stuck in this system. We're attempting to protect how income is used in decisions in a way that's clear and transparent, to use Professor Trebilcock's presentation. We think it's reasonable and we ask the government, given your stated intention, if our wording's inadequate and you see problems with our wording, then stand this down and bring back wording and put it into the legislation if that's your intention.

The Chair: Are you making a request that this be stood down, or are you simply asking --

Mr Duncan: No, I'm just saying --

The Chair: It's a statement?

Mr Duncan: That's a statement.

The Chair: Further debate? If there is no further debate, I will ask for a vote on Mr Duncan's motion.

All those in favour of Mr Duncan's motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

We will move to page 211, which is a New Democratic motion.

Mr Silipo: I move that section 200 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Human Rights Code

"200. Section 21 of the Human Rights Code is amended by adding the following subsections:

"Business practices

"(3) The right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation without discrimination is not infringed where a landlord uses credit checks, credit references or rental history in selecting prospective tenants or where a landlord requires guarantees on the basis of these criteria.

"Same

"(4) Subsection (3) does not permit a landlord to use the absence or unavailability of credit records, credit references or rental histories as a factor in selecting prospective tenants.

"Same

"(5) The right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation is not infringed where,

"(a) a form of application for residential accommodation is used or a written or oral inquiry is made of an applicant regarding that applicant's income; and

"(b) that information is used in a manner that does not result in discrimination contrary to this act."

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Silipo. Do you have any comments?

Mr Silipo: Just briefly, Chair, again, we have put this amendment on the basis of the advice we have received, that the committee in fact has received, that reflects I think what CERA and others have said to this committee. It clarifies what landlords can do and that they can in fact seek certain information but that has to continue to be done subject to the restrictions in the Human Rights Code. So it continues to provide the basic protections and it would obviate the need for this to have to go through the regulation process. It would quite frankly simplify as well as continue to provide the basic protection that we say tenants should continue to have.

From what I'm hearing you as government members say you want to continue to see there, the way you're going to do it will not work. This will.

The Chair: Debate? Questions? If there is no further debate or questions, I will ask for a vote on the motion. All those in support of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

We will move to page 212, which is a Liberal application. Mr Duncan, you have a motion?

Mr Duncan: Mr Chair, I move that clause 48(a.1) of the Human Rights Code, as set out in subsection 200(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out "income information, credit checks, credit references, rental history" in the second and third lines and substituting "credit checks, credit references, rental history, a rent deposit."

There's not much more to add. This is really consequential to the other amendment that we have proposed. We will vote in favour of it.

The Chair: Debate? If there's no further debate, I will ask for a vote on Mr Duncan's motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Shall section 200 carry? All those in favour of section 200? All those opposed? Section 200 has carried.

Many members wish to move ahead, so we will revert to the beginning of the binder that I hope is before you. There are some amendments with respect to section 1, page 1 of the package that's before you. It is a government motion. We all have the same package, I hope?

Mr Gilchrist: No. We've already discovered one missing from the package we got.

I move that the definition of "mobile home" in subsection 1(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"'mobile home' means a dwelling that is designed to be made mobile and that is being used as a permanent residence. ('maison mobile')"

If I could just speak briefly for that, it ensures that the definition of "mobile home" clearly differentiates between the actual use of a dwelling and the intended use of a dwelling based on its construction, and that the coverage of the act focuses on the actual use of the dwelling rather than the intended use. This came up a number of times in the hearings and to the best of our knowledge it has the support of both the residents and the landlords in mobile home communities.

The Chair: Discussion? Debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Page 2 is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that the definition of "non-profit cooperative housing corporation" in subsection 1(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"'non-profit housing cooperative' means a non-profit housing cooperative under the Co-operative Corporations Act."

Again, very briefly, this is a technical amendment that reflects terminology used in the Co-operative Corporations Act, so that the definitions are identical.

1600

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Page 3 is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: Subsection 1(1). French definition of "règles."

I move that the definition of "règles" in subsection 1(1) of the French version of the bill be amended by striking out "la Commission" in the second line and substituting "le Tribunal."

Again, this is simply an amendment to correct the French translation of that provision.

The Chair: Discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried. Page 4.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 1(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following definition:

"'discounted rent' means rent in an amount below the current lawful rent."

This is related back to section 113 which we discussed earlier and our fears about how this statute in our view ultimately undermines the ability of tenants to be protected in an unfettered manner from increases even in the post-decontrol period, a period that some have called "recontrol." We think the provisions contained in sections 116 and 113, taken together, will allow a scenario to be set up where, once a unit becomes vacant, a landlord can set a new rent at any amount and then discount the rent.

Let's say, for argument's sake, you set the new rent at $10,000 a month -- it's currently $600 -- and then you discount it to the first tenant at $1,000 and then you can raise it as you want up until that maximum. So the definition of "discounted rent" to the government members in terms of understanding the concerns of tenants' groups with respect to vacancy decontrol -- because I believe a number of government members honestly and sincerely feel they're providing control under a new scenario -- will in our view result in a scenario where that new rent that is established, no matter what it is, can be discounted back to some other level, which will give a lot of leeway in terms of what increases can and cannot occur.

We think it's important for all concerned to understand the significance of those two points, and therefore would suggest, as we did earlier -- it's too late. We provided this definition of discounted rent so that the issue could be discussed, but clearly the government is intent on proceeding with the definitions of discounted rent and sections 113 and 116. We think it's important to understand that and we think that ultimately this bill effectively removes all form of price regulation from the market.

The Chair: Discussion? Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 1, as amended? Opposed? Section 1, as amended, has carried.

We will turn to page 5.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 2(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "other than" in the second line and substituting "except."

The intent of this amendment has already been debated in sections 36 and 200. In the event that the government wasn't prepared to deal with sections 36 and 200 at the beginning of the hearings, we wanted to put this in to force discussion around those issues. We've done it. I'll move it.

The Chair: Discussion? Debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Shall section 2 carry? Section 2 is carried.

Page 6.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that clauses 3(a) to (c) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) living accommodation intended to be provided to the travelling or vacationing public or occupied for a seasonal or temporary period in a hotel, motel or motor hotel, resort, lodge, tourist camp, cottage or cabin establishment, inn, campground, trailer park, tourist home, bed and breakfast vacation establishment or vacation home;

"(b) living accommodation whose occupancy is conditional upon the occupant continuing to be employed on a farm, whether or not the accommodation is located on that farm;

"(c) living accommodation provided by a non-profit housing co-operative to tenants in member units."

This simply clarifies that there are a number of situations in the province, including properties owned by the Ministry of Natural Resources, that are provided to the travelling or vacationing public on a seasonal basis. We think it would be inappropriate to constrain the operators of those seasonal camps by somehow suggesting that this is permanent accommodation subject to the other protections of the Tenant Protection Act. It provides a possible exemption for seasonal trailer parks if that is their sole use, and an exemption for living accommodation provided for farm workers during the season they're employed on a farm.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Page 7, a Liberal application.

Mr Duncan: I move that subclause 3(k)(ii) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(ii) the average length of the occupancy of the occupants of the building or structure in which the accommodation is located does not exceed six months; and."

You'll recall that we had presentations made to us by St Monica House. I believe they appeared in Hamilton. This revolves around the period of occupancy and gives more clarification to it in terms of those situations where there are exemptions. These representations were made to the committee by groups that deal with people in these sorts of circumstances. Subsection 3(k) deals with "living accommodation occupied by a person for the purpose of receiving rehabilitative or therapeutic services agreed upon by the person and the provider of the living accommodation." This deals with those particular circumstances.

The Chair: Debate? Mr Silipo. I might alert you that yours is identical.

Mr Silipo: Yes, that's exactly my point. We have an identical amendment, so obviously I'm supportive of this one and we believe strongly that the six-month period is much more appropriate than the one-year period that's in the present bill.

Mr Gilchrist: We were quite surprised that the two parties brought that forward because we had a number of groups suggest that the wording that's in the bill right now did not go far enough. For women's shelters and people who are patients at drug rehabilitation clinics, we had some people suggest that instead of one year, it should be extended to two years. I certainly recognized there was one group that thought they would be somehow constrained by having it one year, but we really believe, particularly in the case of women's shelters, that the one-year period would be more appropriate.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of Mr Duncan's motion? Opposed? Mr Duncan's motion fails.

Mr Silipo, I think your motion is repetitive. We'll turn to page 9, which is Mr Duncan's motion.

Mr Duncan: Clauses 3(l) and (m). I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out "and" at the end of clause (1) and by striking out clause (m).

These were technical amendments. We felt that clause (m) should be taken out, that it's too broad, and that if the government intends to prescribe any other class of accommodation, they ought to do so publicly now. We just felt that it left too much scope.

Mr Gilchrist: I would simply offer that the first section deals with respite homes, but (m) is designed so that at any point in the future -- and the first thought that comes to mind might be different classifications for student housing. The member will remember we had a number of presentations dealing with that topic, and it just affords some flexibility in the years to come for governments to create different classifications of housing to deal with specific concerns, such as student housing.

The Chair: Debate? I will ask for a vote on Mr Duncan's motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion fails.

Shall section 3, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 3, as amended? All those opposed? Section 3, as amended, carries.

We'll turn to page 10 with proposed amendments to section 4.

1610

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 4(2) of the bill be amended by inserting after "unit" in the third line "for a period of five years commencing on the day the first rental unit in the residential complex is first rented."

This will keep the five-year exemption from rent controls to newly constructed apartments. We believe that is appropriate and we believe the position the government has taken is incorrect. Again, this is key to the bill, the centrepiece of the bill, and we're prepared to move that.

The Chair: Mr Silipo, it's identical to yours.

Mr Silipo: Yes. As you know, we have an identical amendment to this. We believe strongly that the five-year time line that in effect exempts new buildings for five years from the provisions of rent control is the appropriate period of time rather than holus-bolus forevermore, as the government is doing. We think that's the system we should continue to keep.

The Chair: Debate? I'll ask for a vote on this motion. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion fails.

Turn to page 12, a Liberal application.

Mr Duncan: I move that clause 4(2)(a) of the bill be struck out.

This is the clause that puts a lifetime exclusion on new rental apartments. It's consistent with our last amendment, lifetime exclusion for rent controls, and as we indicated in the last amendment, we think the five-year provision is more appropriate.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion fails.

Page 13, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Exemptions from rules relating to rent

"4(1) Sections 52, 53, 55, 56, 56.1, 87, 94 to 109, 113, 115 to 118, 121 to 133 and 178.1 do not apply with respect to accommodation that is subject to the Homes for Special Care Act or the Homes for Retarded Persons Act.

"Same

"(2) Sections 94, 107, 109, 113, 115 to 117, 121 to 129, 132, 133 and 178.1 do not apply with respect to a rental unit if,

"(a) it has not been occupied for any purpose before the day this subsection comes into force;

"(b) it is a rental unit no part of which has been previously rented since July 29, 1975; or

"(c) no part of the building, mobile home park or land-lease community has been occupied for residential purposes before November 1, 1991.

"Developmental Services Act

"(3) Sections 52, 53, 55, 56, 56.1, 87, 94 to 109, 113, 115 to 118, 121 to 133 and 178.1 do not apply with respect to accommodation that is subject to the Developmental Services Act and that is not otherwise exempt under clause 3(e)."

The amendment to this subsection is a consequential amendment to 56.1, the lifetime security of tenure, and 178.1, the tribunal's authority to correct a rent or related information incorrectly deemed lawful under the Rent Control Act or the Residential Rent Regulation Act. The amendment to subsection 4(2) is a consequential amendment to section 178.1.

The amendment to clause 4(2)(c) clarifies that the exemption from rent rules not only applies to rental buildings occupied before November 1, 1991, but also applies to mobile home parks or land-lease communities. It parallels the coverage in the Rent Control Act which provided for a lifetime exemption for these properties.

Mr Duncan: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could explain to me 56.1 and 178.1 again, more clarification on them. I wasn't sure I understood how this differs.

Mr Gilchrist: We're adding the reference to mobile home parks or land-lease communities basically.

Mr Duncan: What about the section 56.1 that you're proposing?

"Security of tenure, severance, subdivision

"Where a rental unit becomes separately conveyable property due to a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act or a plan of subdivision under section 51 of that act, a landlord may not give a notice under section 49 or 50 to a person who was a tenant of the rental unit at the time of the consent or approval."

Mr Gilchrist: For example, if a mobile home park was converted to an individualized piece of property, we're giving the same protection that we have to tenants living in apartment buildings. You will recall we had a number of presentations, including a very poignant one in your community by someone who believed that the act as it was currently written did not protect her parents in a mobile home park where something like this took place. We believe this is in response to her appeal and to others we heard.

Mr Duncan: And 178.1?

Mr Gilchrist: We have also added a protection in mobile home communities that if it is discovered that an order made for a rent increase previously in the rent registry is found subsequently to be incorrect, based on incorrect information that was supplied, that could be rolled back or reversed for a tenant in a mobile home or a land-lease community as well.

The Chair: Debate? Questions? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion carries.

Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Section 4, as amended, carries.

Page 14, we're moving on to section 5. It's a New Democratic motion.

Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "134" in the fifth line and substituting "131."

This amendment would ensure that social housing tenants would be able to apply for rent reductions under all the other provisions of the legislation.

Mr Duncan: We support this amendment in principle, but I say to the government members of the committee, what you're doing in Regent Park and in the Glengarry units right now is moving to a form of shelter allowance. You're beginning to implement your shelter allowance commitment that was contained in the Common Sense Revolution. We think that's a bad direction to go in; we believe that there will be a forum for a larger debate on this. We will support the third party on this amendment, given what they are intending to do, but we submit to the housing communities out there and public housing that it's quite clear, based on what is happening in the pilot project in Regent Park and the pilot project in the Glengarry units, that we are now moving to a system of shelter allowance in Ontario, without a full public debate, without legislative change, without regulatory change.

The ministry just confirmed last week in the case of the Glengarry units that if a private developer comes forward with a proposal, the new landlord will be the private sector developer. That can only lead us to conclude that those 800 families who will be moved out of public housing into these new units will be given shelter allowances. We think it's a pilot project. It's an important debate, and we think we should have the debate, and we look forward to the government bringing forward legislative or regulatory changes that will allow for that debate in a more detailed form. We will, however, support the third party on this, given what they intend to do with this amendment.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

We'll move to page 15, which is a government motion.

1620

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 5(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Exemptions related to social, etc, housing

"5(1) Sections 17 and 18, paragraph 1 of subsection 30(1), sections 31, 52, 53, 55, 56 and 56.1, subsection 76(2) and sections 77, 84, 85, 87, 90, 94 to 96, 101.1, 107, 109, 113, 115 to 117, 121 to 129, 132 and 133 do not apply with respect to a rental unit described below:

"1. A rental unit located in a residential complex owned, operated or administered by or on behalf of the Ontario Housing Corp, the government of Canada or an agency of either of them.

"2. A rental unit located in a non-profit housing project that is developed under a prescribed federal or provincial program.

"3. A rental unit provided by a non-profit housing co-operative to tenants in non-member units.

"4. A rental unit provided by an educational institution to a student or member of its staff and that is not exempt from this act under clause 3(g).

"5. A rental unit located in a residential complex owned, operated or administered by a religious institution for a charitable use on a non-profit basis."

This section provides exemption to social housing units from most of the rent control provisions. The proposed amendment makes two changes. The first is that subsection 5(1) no longer exempts social housing units from section 108, entrance fees for mobile home parks, section 130, illegal charges, section 131, rent deemed lawful, and section 134, money collected illegally. Covering social housing with these provisions is meant to provide consistent treatment for all tenants.

Subsection 5(1) also parallels amendments elsewhere in the act by citing sections 56 and 101.1. Paragraph 5(1)2 sets new parameters for exemption for non-profit housing projects. It creates the authority to prescribe a list of federal and provincial housing programs for determining exemptions. This amendment will eliminate the chances of housing units which are not recognized by the government as being non-profit from receiving the parcel exemption. In other words, we are guaranteeing that all the tenants in social housing now are protected by those sections I cited earlier, 108, 130, 131 and 134, which I believe partially at least address the concerns you had cited in your previous proposed amendment, Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan: The principal purpose of this clause, I understand, is that it will allow tenants in social housing to apply for money illegally collected by landlords. Is that correct?

Mr Gilchrist: That is correct.

Mr Duncan: Would tenants in these types of units still be frozen out from appearing before the tribunal or going to the tribunal?

Mr Gilchrist: They can go to the tribunal for those sections.

Mr Duncan: They can go to the tribunal for those sections?

Mr Gilchrist: For any of the sections that we have exempted here, yes.

The Chair: Questions, debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion carries.

Shall section 5, as amended, carry? Section 5, as amended, carries.

We will move to section 6. Questions, debate on section 6? Shall section 6 carry? All those in favour of section 6 carrying? Opposed? Section 6 is carried.

We will move to section 7, which is page 16 of your package. This is an application by Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 7(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

"(c) what the maximum rent is for a rental unit and the date on which it takes effect."

What we're attempting to do is say that the concept of a maximum rent is appropriate. Unfortunately, because of sections 113 and 116, we lose that concept. Not only do we lose protection for tenants in markets like Metro Toronto, but we also lose protection for landlords in markets where, even in a price-regulated system, we're operating in a free market, that is, where market rents don't make the maximum. We think that's another major flaw in your legislation. We are of the view that in a price-regulated market, where a guideline is fairly implemented, where there is a fast and efficient and fair system of dispute resolution, that the concept as originally envisioned, which would allow a landlord in effect to rent out below a previously determined max but go back to that max if market conditions changed, is in our view fair and in our view will contribute to the supply of affordable rental accommodation.

It's a bit frustrating putting the amendment forward, given what's contained elsewhere in the bill, but we are simply stating that that particular concept has some appeal to us. We believe in real tenant protection and real, balanced, fair legislation, that in terms of regulating the housing market that concept should be preserved.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion carrying? Opposed? The motion is defeated. It appears the next amendment is section 14.1.

I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen. Shall section 7 carry? All those in favour of section 7 carrying? All those opposed? Section 7 carries.

We'll see how this next one goes. Shall section 8 through to and including section 14 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed?

We're on to page 17, a New Democratic motion.

Mr Gilchrist: Excuse me, Chair, but you have to declare that sections 8 through 14 carried.

The Chair: You're absolutely right. I declare that sections 8 through 14 have carried.

Mr Silipo has a motion on page 17.

Mr Silipo: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Provision re rent

"14.1 Despite section 116, no tenancy agreement between a landlord and a new tenant shall provide for rent in an amount greater than the last lawful rent for the previous tenant adjusted by any of the grounds for an increase or decrease in rent set out in sections 118 to 134."

By way of explanation, Chair, sections 118 to 134 are the various sections that set out grounds for lawful rent increase. We had drafted this amendment in an attempt to put as early as possible in the bill the issue of vacancy decontrol, ensuring that in fact there was preventing of landlords being able to simply increase the rent when a new tenant comes in. We wanted to put that into the bill as early as possible, given how strongly we felt and tenants feel about this issue, and this was the first opportunity that we had. Obviously we dealt with this issue elsewhere, but the amendment still is valid.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is defeated.

Shall section 15 carry? Section 15 is carried.

We're on to page 18 of the package, a New Democratic motion.

Mr Silipo: I move that section 16 of the bill be amended by striking out "Subject to section 171" at the beginning.

Section 171 of the bill, as I understand it, allows the landlord and tenant to contract out of the provisions of the act and this would prevent that from happening. We believe that what should guide the relationship between the landlord and the tenant is what is in the law and what is a provision of, hopefully, as we would have it, the present provisions, not the new provisions, but whatever those provisions are going to be. We think that should not be superseded by the ability of parties to contract out of the act, because we know that what that entails, when that course of action is taken, is in fact, in some cases, undue pressure being put by the landlord on to the tenant to make changes.

We know that through the whole history of landlord and tenant legislation one of the basic tenets has been that you codify the law, you put the rights and responsibilities that landlords and tenants have in the legislation and then you ask both parties to abide by that. You don't say, "If you don't like it you can change this or change that or change that other piece." That's the framework and we think that has served the province well and should continue to be the way in which we do business.

1630

Mr Duncan: We will support this particular amendment. However, I do want to say with respect to section 171 that we think the direction of mediated settlements is one that is a positive step forward. We have some difficulty in the wording of the particular section that we don't think goes far enough in defining that, but in terms of being consistent with what we have heard from tenants as well as landlords all over Ontario with respect to dispute resolution, we think the mediation, if done properly, can be effective. We don't believe the government has dealt with it adequately in section 171. Consequently, because of that and the way the bill is set up, we can support this particular amendment, but we will be offering further discussion on this whole concept of mediation in a way that we think protects both tenants and landlords.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Shall section 16 carry? Section 16 is carried.

We'll turn to page 19, dealing with an amendment to section 17.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 17(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Charges

"(4) A landlord may charge a tenant only an administrative fee as prescribed for giving consent to an assignment."

The Chair: Any rationale or statement, Mr Duncan?

Mr Duncan: We have looked at the government's wording, "A landlord may charge a tenant only for the landlord's reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in giving consent to an assignment," and this issue didn't really receive any adequate discussion, I felt, during the hearings. This is a situation where we're trying to spell out how much a landlord can charge for agreeing to a subletting situation. We heard compelling arguments that it's difficult for landlords to specify what that is.

This wording goes back some time, I believe. It was in the law previously. Tenant groups do oppose the particular wording we've put forward in some instances; however, we think government can deal with that issue in regulation. We are persuaded that this wording will give equal protection to tenants and at the same time, where there's a subletting situation occurring, provide greater certainty for landlords.

Mr Silipo: This is actually one piece where I believe the words that are in the bill are better than what the amendment suggests. I think it puts a better and fairer onus, in my view, on the landlord, as set out in the bill, to charge only for "the landlord's reasonable out-of-pocket expenses" as opposed to a broad administrative fee. So I prefer the wording that's in the bill.

The Chair: Debate?

Mr Gilchrist: How could I top that?

Mr Silipo: It will happen once in a while.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 17 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Assignment of tenancy

"17(1) Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (6), and with the consent of the landlord, a tenant may assign a rental unit to another person.

"Landlord's options, general request

"(2) If a tenant asks a landlord to consent to an assignment of a rental unit, the landlord may,

"(a) consent to the assignment of the rental unit; or

"(b) refuse consent to the assignment of the rental unit.

"Landlord's options, specific request

"(3) If a tenant asks a landlord to consent to the assignment of the rental unit to a potential assignee, the landlord may,

"(a) consent to the assignment of the rental unit to the potential assignee;

"(b) refuse consent to the assignment of the rental unit to the potential assignee; or

"(c) refuse consent to the assignment of the rental unit.

"Refusal or non-response

"(4) A tenant may give the landlord a notice of termination under section 46 within 30 days after the date a request is made if,

"(a) the tenant asks the landlord to consent to an assignment of the rental unit and the landlord refuses consent;

"(b) the tenant asks the landlord to consent to an assignment of the rental unit and the landlord does not respond within seven days after the request is made;

"(c) the tenant asks the landlord to consent to an assignment of the rental unit to a potential assignee and the landlord refuses consent to the assignment under clause (3)(c); or

"(d) the tenant asks the landlord to consent to an assignment of the rental unit to a potential assignee and the landlord does not respond within seven days after the request is made.

"Same

"(5) A landlord shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably refuse consent to an assignment of a rental unit to a potential assignee under clause 3(b).

"Same

"(6) Subject to subsection (5), a landlord who has given consent to an assignment of a rental unit under clause (2)(a) may subsequently refuse consent to an assignment of the rental unit to a potential assignee under clause (3)(b).

"Charges

"(7) A landlord may charge a tenant only for the landlord's reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in giving consent to an assignment to a potential assignee.

"Consequences of assignment

"(8) If a tenant has assigned a rental unit to another person, the tenancy agreement continues to apply on the same terms and conditions and,

"(a) the assignee is liable to the landlord for any breach of the tenant's obligations and may enforce against the landlord any of the landlord's obligations under the tenancy agreement or this act, if the breach or obligation relates to the period after the assignment, whether or not the breach or obligation also related to a period before the assignment;

"(b) the former tenant is liable to the landlord for any breach of the tenant's obligations and may enforce against the landlord any of the landlord's obligations under the tenancy agreement or this act, if the breach or obligation relates to the period before the assignment;

"(c) if the former tenant has started a proceeding under this act before the assignment and the benefits or obligations of the new tenant may be affected, the new tenant may join in or continue the proceeding.

"Application of section

"(9) This section applies with respect to all tenants, regardless of whether their tenancies are periodic, fixed, contractual or statutory, but does not apply with respect to a tenant of superintendent's premises."

If I can speak briefly to it, this amendment clarifies the wording of section 17 which expands and codifies the rules for an assignment. An assignment is where the tenant does not intend to return to the rental unit and wishes to transfer all interest in the rental unit to another person on the same terms and conditions of the original tenancy agreement. This amendment provides further clarification of a tenant's rights if they are refused consent or are not provided with a response to a request to assign a rental unit. Specifically, it clarifies that an assignment must be in accordance with provisions dealing with a landlord's options in these situations, ie, refusal of assignment, and that the section applies to all tenants, including those in periodic, fixed, contractual or statutory tenancies.

Mr Duncan: The proposed subsection (5) that you've added, "A landlord shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably refuse consent to an assignment of a rental unit to a potential assignee under clause 3(b)," we think is a good step.

I do have a question for the parliamentary assistant with respect to subsection (6): "Subject to subsection (5), a landlord who has given consent to an assignment of a rental unit under clause (2)(a) may subsequently refuse consent to an assignment of the rental unit to a potential assignee under clause (3)(b)." Could you explain why you've put that in there?

Mr Gilchrist: Potentially, in a very general sense, you could indicate to your tenant that you have no philosophical problem with a sublet. Then when the prospective sublessee is introduced to you, you may very well find that for any number of reasons that person would be an inappropriate tenant or simply would not have met the criteria that you established in the first tenancy.

I'm sure you could envisage a wide range of circumstances that that could include, not the least of which -- again, just to pick an example, we've had considerable comment from those who own student housing in places like Kingston. You might very well have said that you operate a house solely dedicated to student housing. Your student, after the first term's report card came back, has decided that perhaps they aren't going to make the grade and has requested to be relieved from the obligations under the lease to the extent that they have found a replacement tenant. However, when the prospective new tenant, sublessee, is introduced to you, you ascertain it is not a student. For example, in all the housing owned by Queen's University, that would be a very reasonable prohibition they could then bring forward.

1640

Mr Duncan: We have proposed other amendments with respect to that. We were persuaded by that particular delegation as well. We did have some concerns about this particular amendment and the scope of latitude it gives the landlord in terms of choosing who can be sublet to. We felt that it's pretty wide open in this particular definition. Unfortunately, had the House motion allowed us to bring forward other amendments, we might have brought something forward a little different than this, but we can't do that at this point, and accordingly, we think that the scope is just too wide on this particular section.

Recognizing the government is attempting to deal with the issue that was brought forward by the Kingston landlord group, this subsection, we think, will just simply allow a landlord in many instances to refuse subletting, and we think it goes too far.

Mr Gilchrist: Mr Duncan -- if I may, Chair?

The Chair: If it's in a direct response.

Mr Gilchrist: Absolutely. I would just point out to Mr Duncan, this is the status quo right now, the wording that we are putting in here. The original version perhaps had abbreviated too much so we've gone back to something that is under the current act.

Mr Duncan: Thank you.

Mr Silipo: That last comment surprises me. That's why I was doublechecking to my left here. That's not our understanding.

Mr Gilchrist: Forgive me, one second, Mr Silipo. I may have misunderstood staff. Forgive me. I misspoke myself. The status quo in terms of accepting potential assignees: All of the other sections of the act will continue to apply and the same standards that a landlord would be held to in the original assessment of a tenant would apply in this case. So it merely clarifies the other possible scenarios that could take place. It adds further definition. I'm sorry, as I say, I misunderstood the staff.

Mr Silipo: I'm glad we've got that clarified, because if the government is interested in putting words that maintain the present provisions, we would certainly be able to support those. But we can't support this particular amendment because essentially it restricts the tenant's right to assign unduly we think, and therefore, allows the landlord to vacate a unit faster. With the new provisions of the act, there would be even greater incentive for the landlord to do that, and we think that's not appropriate.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

Shall section 17, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 17, as amended? All those opposed? Section 17, as amended, is carried.

We will move to section 18 on page 23, which is Mr Duncan's motion.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 18(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Charges

"(3) A landlord may charge a tenant only an administrative fee as prescribed for giving consent to a subletting."

This is similar to the previous amendment we put forward. It reflects wording that was in the first five years of the 10 lost years, but obviously it's not the agreement of the committee that this should continue on.

The Chair: Debate? Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion fails.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 18(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Application of section

"(6) This section applies with respect to all tenants, regardless of whether their tenancies are periodic, fixed, contractual or statutory, but does not apply with respect to a tenant of superintendent's premises."

This is a technical amendment clarifying what is meant by the nature of a tenancy by referring to "periodic, fixed, contractual or statutory" tenancies.

The Chair: Rationale?

Mr Gilchrist: I just gave that. I'd be happy to give it to you a second time.

The Chair: I'm having a bad time here, aren't I? Debate? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion carries.

Shall section 18, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 18, as amended, is carried.

Debate on section 19? All those in favour of section 19? Opposed? Section 19 is carried.

We're on to section 20, page 25.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 20(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "without written notice" in the second line and substituting "in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry," by adding "and" at the end of clause (a), by striking out "and" at the end of clause (b) and by striking out clause (c).

We felt a very compelling argument was put forward by tenant groups that a tenant ought to have the benefit of written notice that a landlord intends to enter a unit and felt that the proposed amendment that we put forward is reasonable from a tenant's perspective and fair from a tenant's perspective. I simply think back to, when I was a tenant some years ago, how messy my apartment could be. I would probably not want somebody walking in without the benefit of some kind of formal notice, written notice, prior to that occurring. I think it's reasonable, if one thinks of one's own home, if someone could walk in without written authorization beforehand, there would probably be circumstances where that wouldn't be reasonable, so we think this gives reasonable provision protection of tenants.

The Chair: Debate?

Mr Silipo: Yes, Chair, as you know, we have a similar amendment to this. I certainly continue to feel strongly that the present provision, which requires written notice, is adequate. It's not particularly inordinate, I think, upon landlords to have to provide written notice if they wish to enter the premises. We are dealing here with people's homes, as Mr Duncan has indicated, and that is, I think, something that should continue to be the case.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Mr Silipo, I believe your motion is in order.

Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 20(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "without written notice" in the second line and substituting "in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry."

The Chair: Do you have a rationale? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Shall section 20 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 20 is carried.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to be slightly out of order. We'll turn to page 28 first and that is a government application.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that paragraph 3 of subsection 21(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"3. To allow a potential purchaser to view the rental unit."

This amendment clarifies the wording of section 21, which already sets out the circumstances in which a landlord may enter a rental unit with 24 hours' prior written notice. Specifically, it strikes out paragraph 3 of the Tenant Protection Act and removes the reference to the complex being listed for sale. The amendment reflects the fact that there may be situations in which someone may wish to view a rental complex that is not actually listed for sale. You may not have actually signed a listing with a broker but have decided to sell.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion carries.

We will return to page 27, which is a New Democratic application.

1650

Mr Silipo: I move that paragraphs 2 and 3 of subsections 21(1) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: Debate? Discussion? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Shall section 21, as amended, carry? Section 21, as amended, is carried.

We will turn to section 22. Is there any debate or discussion on section 22? No. Shall section 22 carry? Section 22 is carried.

Page 29, section 23, which is a Liberal application.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 23(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "the consent of the landlord" at the end and substituting "giving the landlord replacement keys."

We've proposed this amendment because it basically gives tenants the same rights as landlords.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

We will turn to page 30, which is Mr Silipo's motion.

Mr Silipo: I believe that's identical, Chair.

The Chair: It is identical.

We will move on to section 23. All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 23 is carried.

Shall sections 24, 25, 26 and 27 carry? All those in favour of those sections carrying? Opposed? Sections 24, 25, 26 and 27 are carried.

We are now moving on to page 31, which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that the bill be amended by striking out "Responsibility" in the heading before section 28 and substituting "Responsibilities" and by adding the following section:

"Tenant not to harass, etc

"27.1 A tenant shall not harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a landlord."

The purpose of this amendment is to provide landlords with protection from harassment. It recognizes that landlords can be victims of tenant harassment just as tenants can be victims of landlord harassment. It ensures that in the bill they are each afforded equal treatment in the eyes of the law.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.

We're moving on to page 32, which is a Liberal application.

Mr Duncan: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Receipt for rent

"27.1 A landlord shall provide, at the time of payment, the tenant or prospective tenant with a receipt for any rent payment or security deposit received."

We could have supported the previous amendment, had the government dealt with this particular issue. We think this is a matter of good business practice from a landlord's perspective and are surprised the government didn't bring forward amendments to this section with regard to that. We are curious as to why not. We think it's good form. We think it will make eventual proceedings before a tribunal function more efficiently and we're really quite surprised the government did not do this.

We also support the concept of conspicuous posting of who the landlord is. As a result of being an MPP and as many of you have, I have a rental accommodation here in Toronto that the taxpayers have generously supplied me with. I noted that it is very difficult to determine who my landlord is from what is currently posted in the building. As a matter of fact, the corporation name refers to witchcraft.

The Chair: What a story.

Mr Duncan: Having had a dispute with my landlord, I might add that it was very difficult to determine who the landlord was. We would have enjoyed seeing those amendments, which we think are good business form. We believe the vast majority of landlords are good landlords and that would have been good business form and would provide for a more efficient running of the tribunal, should disputes arise.

The Chair: Mr Silipo, I'm going to rule that yours is similar, so I don't know whether you wish to comment at this time.

Mr Silipo: Just to say briefly that we think this certainly is good business practice, as Mr Duncan has said.

The Chair: Debate?

Mr Gilchrist: Mr Duncan, you've left yourself wide open on this one, I'm afraid.

Mr Duncan: It wouldn't be the first time.

Mr Gilchrist: We're ones to read all the amendments, you would discover, not to get ahead of ourselves, but I think for the edification of Mr Duncan, section 112.1 is a new section we have proposed.

"A landlord shall provide free of charge to a tenant, on the tenant's request, a receipt for the payment of any rent, rent deposit, arrears of rent or any other amount paid to the landlord."

I would also point out to you, sir, that section 8 of the act already makes it mandatory; the landlord must inform every tenant of the formal name of the corporation as well as of the mailing address at the time of the tenancy agreement. We agree with you and that's why we made sure both those sections are in the act. But with the greatest of respect, I think we'll probably vote down yours and vote for ours because it's just a bit more definitive --

Interjection.

Mr Gilchrist: No, Mr Silipo, to be fair, it also talks about receipts for other things that Mr Duncan does not propose. It talks about getting a receipt for arrears in rent.

The Chair: Why don't we do that then, Mr Gilchrist?

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Chair. I'd be more than happy to.

Mr Silipo: I'm just waiting to see all those amendments the government said that they were going to adopt from the opposition.

Mr Gilchrist: Coming up. The bold print.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

We are on to page 33, which is out of order. It's identical or almost identical, Mr Silipo. Page 34, which is Mr Duncan's application.

Mr Duncan: Again, I addressed this a moment ago. I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Landlord to post name and address

"27.2 A landlord shall post conspicuously and maintain posted the legal name of the landlord and the landlord's address for service."

I didn't detect a similar government amendment, but if there is, perhaps the parliamentary assistant could tell us where that is.

Mr Gilchrist: As currently drafted in the bill, section 8 goes further: Never mind just posting it, they must actually give that name and address to the tenants.

Mr Duncan: We thought that a clearer definition under this section would make sense and provide greater clarification than that which is provided in section 8. Therefore, we propose this amendment. If it is consistent with what the government is doing in another section, we imagine the government would be amenable to the amendment.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion fails.

Page 35 is out of order. Page 36 is a New Democratic motion.

Mr Silipo: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Rent for new tenant

"27.2 No landlord shall require a tenant to pay rent in an amount greater than the last lawful rent for the previous tenant adjusted by any of the grounds for an increase or decrease in rent set out in sections 118 to 134."

We've made our views on the issue of vacancy decontrol clear and we thought this was another appropriate place to put the concept into law.

The Chair: Debate? Shall the motion carry?

Mr Duncan: No. Or yes. I'm sorry, I apologize to the third party.

The Chair: Welcome to the club. All those opposed?

Interjections.

The Chair: Let's try it again, shall we? All those in favour of Mr Silipo's motion? All those opposed? The motion fails.

We're on to page 37, which is a government application.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Tenant's responsibility for damage

"28.1" --

The Chair: Excuse me, I'm remiss. We have to deal with section 28. Debate on section 28? Shall section 28 carry? Section 28 is carried. Mr Gilchrist, you may continue.

1700

Mr Gilchrist: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Tenant's responsibility for damage

"28.1 The tenant is responsible for the repair of damage to the rental unit or residential complex caused by the wilful or negligent conduct of the tenant, other occupants of the rental unit or persons who are permitted in the residential complex by the tenant."

It sets out the tenant's statutory responsibility not to cause damage to a rental unit. A similar provision is contained in subsection 94(3) of the existing Landlord and Tenant Act.

Section 28 of Bill 96 as originally drafted is silent in respect to the tenant's responsibility for the repair of damage caused by wilful or negligent conduct of the tenant or any persons they let into their premises or the building, and we think it clarifies that responsibility.

Mr Duncan: We heard compelling testimony, particularly from small landlords, around this issue. Were this issue addressed in a different, broader context and were it addressed, in our view, in a more in-depth way, we could look at it. We can't support this because it's dealt with in a context that we think overall takes away tenant rights.

I'm sure all of us in our constituencies have run into small landlords who have had tenants who have caused them extensive damage. These are not wealthy, big people at all. These are people who have taken their life savings and have invested them in a small rental property and have found themselves in very difficult circumstances.

We want to say clearly that tenants have responsibilities as well and we support the principle of that. In the context of this bill, however, we can't support this particular amendment because of the general flow of the bill, number one; number two, because we see some real problems in looking at this particular amendment in terms of what the tribunal will do in determining what "wilful or negligent conduct" is. We think the wording is broad in scope and would need greater clarification. Perhaps it's the government's intention to do that in regulation. We don't think that would be sufficient.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion carries.

Shall section 29 carry? All those in favour of section 29 carrying? Opposed? Section 29 is carried.

We will move to page 38, which is section 30. A government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 30(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraphs:

"8. Where a notice under section 49 has been given in bad faith and the tenant vacates the rental unit as a result of the notice, an order determining that the notice has been given in bad faith and neither the landlord, the landlord's spouse nor a child or parent of one of them has occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after that termination.

"9. Where a notice under section 50 has been given in bad faith and the tenant vacates the rental unit as a result of the notice, an order determining that the notice has been given in bad faith and neither the purchaser, the purchaser's spouse nor a child or parent of one of them has occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after that termination.

"10. Where a notice under section 51 has been given in bad faith and the tenant vacates the rental unit as a result of the notice, an order determining that the notice has been given in bad faith and the landlord has not demolished, converted or repaired or renovated the rental unit within a reasonable time after that termination."

This amendment is intended to provide greater protection to tenants against unjustified evictions under Bill 96's termination provisions, "landlord's own use," where a purchasing landlord personally requires the unit or where a landlord wishes to repair or renovate. The amendment creates a new tenant application to address situations where the landlord failed to occupy the premises for residential purposes or failed to demolish, convert, renovate, repair after eviction, through notices for the landlord's own use or demolition, conversion, repair or renovation.

The remedies would be the same as for causing the tenant to vacate the unit, such as damages for moving expenses, abatement of rent, an administrative fine and any other administrative remedy the tribunal would find appropriate. In other words, we believe that if tenants are unfairly asked to leave a unit, if a landlord is not being honest when he suggests that he wants the unit back for his own use or because he is going to renovate or repair a building, the tenant should have the ability to come back and seek remedy from the tribunal.

Mr Duncan: While we believe these amendments are good and do provide greater tenant protection and we're glad the government is bringing them forward, in light of the context of the bill it's like giving a fan to somebody going to hell to keep them cool. But we applaud the government for bringing these amendments forward. Because of our general opposition to the thrust of the bill, we will vote against them, but let's say that these particular amendments do, in our view, provide for greater tenant protection and we are glad you are putting them into this bill, even though the overall thrust of the bill certainly does not provide greater protection for tenants.

Mr Silipo: I have no problem in supporting these amendments, because they provide greater protection to tenants. We'll obviously be opposing the overall thrust of the bill.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion carries.

Page 39.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 30(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "one year" in the second line and substituting "six years."

Subsection 30(2) deals with the enforcement of rights under tenant applications. We are attempting here to provide tenants the same amount of time that landlords are provided with. This was testimony that was brought forward to the committee by a number of groups here in Toronto, and I believe we heard it while we were on the road also. If the intent is to strike balance, we think the government would be in favour of this particular amendment.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion fails.

Yours is identical, Mr Silipo. We'll turn to page 40, which --

Mr Gilchrist: First we have to vote on the sections.

The Chair: Please be patient with me. I'm doing my best.

Shall section 30, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 31 carry? Carried.

Shall section 32 carry? All those in favour of section 32? Opposed? Section 32 is carried.

We will move to section 33, which is page 41, a New Democratic motion.

Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 33(2) of the bill be amended by adding at the end the words "and shall order that the rent charged to the new tenant shall not exceed the rent that could have been charged to the former tenant."

This is another place where we thought the potential range of penalties to be applied to the landlord in cases of harassment should also include the inability to raise the rent.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Page 42, which is a Liberal application.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 33(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(2) If the tenant or former tenant was harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with in such a manner that he or she was induced to vacate the rental unit at any time before the order is issued, in addition to the remedies set out in subsection (1), the tribunal,

"(a) may order that the landlord pay a specified sum to the tenant as compensation for,

"(i) all or any portion of any increased rent which the tenant has incurred or will incur for a one-year period after the tenant has left the rental unit; and

"(ii) reasonable out-of-pocket moving, storage and other like expenses which the tenant has incurred or will incur; and

"(b) shall order that the rent to be charged to the new tenant shall not exceed the rent that could have been charged to the former tenant."

We are attempting here to clarify in greater detail orders under the tribunal and what the tribunal may order with respect to tenant application.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion fails.

We will turn to page 43, a government motion.

1710

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 33 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"33(1) If the tribunal determines that a landlord, a superintendent, or an agent of a landlord has done one or more of the activities set out in paragraphs 3 to 10 of subsection 30(1), the tribunal may,

"(a) order that the landlord, superintendent or agent may not engage in any further activities listed in those paragraphs against any of the tenants in the residential complex;

"(b) order an abatement of rent;

"(c) order that the landlord pay to the tribunal an administrative fine not exceeding the greater of $10,000 or the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court in the area where the residential complex is located;

"(d) order that the tenancy be terminated;

"(e) make any other order that it considers appropriate.

"(2) If in an application under any of paragraphs 3 to 10 of subsection 30(1) it is determined that the tenant was induced by the conduct of the landlord, the superintendent or an agent of the landlord to vacate the rental unit, the tribunal may, in addition to the remedies set out in subsection (1), order that the landlord pay a specified sum to the tenant as compensation for,

"(a) all or any portion of any increased rent which the tenant has incurred or will incur for a one-year period after the tenant has left the rental unit; and

"(b) reasonable out-of-pocket moving, storage and other like expenses which the tenant has incurred or will incur."

If I can just speak to that, throughout the hearings we heard a number of suggestions made and this amendment reflects changes to the existing section 30. It corrects an earlier reference to the section. But primarily, the amendment includes additional activities that can be carried out by a landlord that would result in orders being levied by the tribunal against the landlord.

In addition to those remedies, the tribunal can order a landlord to pay compensation if in an application it was found the tenant was forced to vacate a unit as a result of the landlord, superintendent or agent's behaviour.

Quite frankly, as Mr Silipo I believe very wisely pointed out in reference to the last government motion, we genuinely believe this gives the tribunal further powers to deal with any inappropriate behaviour by a landlord or any of its agents.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Shall section 33, as amended, carry? Section 33, as amended, is carried.

Shall section 34 carry? Section 34 is carried.

Shall section 35 carry? Section 35 is carried.

Section 36 we have dealt with.

We're moving along to section 37, page 47, which is a government application.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 37(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "part" at the end and substituting "act."

This is a technical amendment which strikes out an incorrect reference. The TPA wording stated that the tenancy can only be terminated in accordance with part III of the TPA, when it should be referring instead to the entire act.

The Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Page 48.

Mr Duncan: I move that clause 37(3)(a) of the bill be struck out.

This was our attempt to address the issue that was raised with the committee in Kingston. The government has attempted to deal with that particular issue in an earlier section of the bill. We felt this would be a better place to deal with it. However, I believe the government has adequately dealt with the question earlier on in the bill.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Shall section 37, as amended, carry? Section 37, as amended, is carried.

Moving on to section 38, page 49, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 38(2) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "with the same terms and conditions that are in the expired tenancy agreement and subject to any increases in rent charged in accordance with this act."

This is a technical amendment that clarifies that an automatic renewal of a tenancy will be on the same terms and conditions that are in the expired tenancy agreement and that any rent increases charged must be in accordance with the act. That has obviously been the intent all the way along. We think this clarifies it.

I would note for the record that, with the exception of one word, the Liberals had a motion that was identical.

Mr Duncan: This is a good amendment albeit in a bad bill. When in opposition, government members opposite wouldn't know this, but one of the difficulties as you approach these bills is whether you try to fix something that's fundamentally broken, and we put these forward in the hope that the government would accept this. I am pleased to see that the government has. I applaud the government. As I say, once again, supporting the government is an awkward position for us to be in at any time; however, this particular amendment makes infinite sense and amends what is fundamentally bad legislation in a positive way.

Mr Froese: We were listening. We heard you.

Mr Doyle: Well, we heard part of it.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.

You're withdrawing page 50?

Mr Duncan: Yes.

The Chair: Shall section 38, as amended, carry? Section 38, as amended, is carried.

Shall section 39 carry? Section 39 is carried.

We're on to section 40, page 51, a government application.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 40 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Disposal of abandoned property, unit vacated

"40(1) A landlord may sell, retain for the landlord's own use or otherwise dispose of property in a rental unit or the residential complex if the rental unit has been vacated in accordance with,

"(a) a notice of termination of the landlord or the tenant;

"(b) an agreement between the landlord and the tenant to terminate the tenancy;

"(c) subsection 64(2); or

"(d) an order of the tribunal terminating the tenancy or evicting the tenant.

"Where eviction order enforced

"(2) Despite subsection (1), where an order is made to evict a tenant, the landlord shall not sell, retain or otherwise dispose of the tenant's property before 48 hours have elapsed after the enforcement of the eviction order.

"Same

"(3) A landlord shall make an evicted tenant's property available to be retrieved at a location proximate to the rental unit for 48 hours after the enforcement of an eviction order.

"Liability of landlord

"(4) A landlord is not liable to any person for selling, retaining or otherwise disposing of a tenant's property in accordance with this section.

"Agreement

"(5) A landlord and a tenant may agree to terms other than those set out in this section with regard to the disposal of the tenant's property."

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify provisions relating to the disposal of a tenant's property. The amendment extends application of these provisions to situations where the tenant vacates a superintendent's premises as well.

This amendment also adds a new provision to section 40, requiring landlords to hold on to a tenant's property for at least a period of 48 hours after an eviction order of the tribunal has been enforced. So again, this is not a case of someone just leaving at the end of their tenancy; this is where the tribunal has heard all the evidence and has issued such an order.

The landlord must also provide reasonable access to the stored property during this 48-hour period and can charge only out-of-pocket expenses for the storage of the property, if he or she has incurred any. This is intended to deal with situations where the tenants may not have been given prior warning of the enforcement of an eviction order and would not have had the opportunity to make all the necessary arrangements to remove their property from the premises. As the bill is currently drafted, landlords are under no obligations in these circumstances, and we believe that this amendment extends one extra opportunity to tenants to make sure they can order their affairs even after the tribunal has caused an eviction order to be issued.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion carries.

Mr Duncan, on page 53, you have an application.

1720

Mr Duncan: Rather than read this whole thing, I will not put the amendment -- this deals with the same section -- and just simply say that this section, section 40, is very indicative of the act itself and what we believe is the imbalance that is being imposed. Our view is that the government has moved an inch where I would have preferred to see it go further. But our view is that this is very indicative of situations where greater tenant protection could be afforded and at the same time not unreasonably prejudice landlords.

Landlords put a compelling case about their needs, as have tenant groups, and I suspect these clauses will be dealt with by other governments in ways that we perhaps can't even contemplate at this moment. The significance of section 40 is, however, that it indicates a mindset of the whole legislation. We don't believe there is any balance here. We think this tilts the scales far too much one way, that is, in the direction of landlords.

The Chair: Pages 53 and 54 are being withdraw. Page 55.

Mr Silipo: I move that section 40 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Disposal of abandoned property

"40(1) Unless a landlord and tenant have made a specific agreement providing for the storage of personal property, where a tenant leaves personal property in a rental unit or residential complex that he or she has vacated or abandoned, the landlord may remove the personal property and, on removal, shall store and dispose of the personal property in accordance with this section.

"Same

"(2) Where a landlord has good reason to believe that an item of personal property removed under subsection (1) would be unsafe or unhygienic, the landlord may dispose of the item.

"Same

"(3) Property that has not been disposed of under subsection (2) shall be stored in a safe place and manner for a period of not less than 60 days.

"Same

"(4) Where the tenant or owner of an item of personal property stored by the landlord pays the landlord the cost of removing and storing the item, the landlord shall give the item to the tenant or owner.

"Same

"(5) Where a landlord substantially complies with this section, he or she is not liable to the tenant or any other person for loss suffered as a result of the storage, sale or other disposition by the landlord of the abandoned personal property.

"Same

"(6) Where, on the application of a person claiming to be the owner of an item of personal property, the tribunal determines that the landlord has wrongfully sold, disposed of or otherwise dealt with the item of personal property, the tribunal may make an order,

"(a) requiring the landlord to compensate the owner for the wrongful sale, disposition or dealing; or

"(b) requiring the landlord to give the property to the owner."

The basic concept here is that landlords should be required to keep property that belongs to a tenant for a period of not less than 60 days. We think that's more reasonable than the 48 hours suggested in the direction the government is taking. We think the other provisions provide the kind of protection that needs to be there for both landlords and tenants.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion has failed.

Shall section 40, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 40, as amended? All those opposed? Section 40, as amended, carries.

We are on to section 41, page 57.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 41(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "reasons for" in the second line and substituting "reasons and details respecting."

We're proposing this particular amendment as almost evidentiary in nature in the sense that we think it's good business practice. We think this type of amendment will actually benefit both landlords and tenants in terms of future appearances at a tribunal. By requiring that details about why the tenant is being evicted be presented, we think this will provide for more efficient functioning of the tribunal down the road. The government will probably suggest they can deal with that in regulation, but we did want to make the point.

Mr Gilchrist: Mr Duncan, you keep setting yourself up. This is the second time you've walked into the minefield. Actually, we are more than happy to accept this amendment you've put forward. Let me just say for the record that it's identical to an amendment put forward by the NDP. We agree with you. We think it will provide greater clarity and will make the tribunals work easier.

Mr Silipo: Note the time.

Mr Gilchrist: Indeed. Who says we don't take sage counsel when it's offered?

We particularly look forward to the landlord specifying issues such as what month the rent was missed and that sort of thing. There's no doubt that both the landlords' and tenants' business dealings will be improved as a result of this, so we will be accepting this amendment.

The Chair: Further debate?

Mr Duncan: Do I have time to get water?

The Chair: Let's just have a little vote first, and then we'll see how the water situation is.

All those in favour of this motion? This motion carries.

The next one is duplication, Mr Silipo. We will move to section 41.

Shall section 41, as amended, carry? Section 41, as amended, carries.

We're moving on to section 42, page 59.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 42 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exception

"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to a notice based on a tenant's failure to pay rent."

This amendment simply sets out that a landlord's termination notice does not become void in 30 days if it is based on non-payment of rent. It maintains the existing provision of the Landlord and Tenant Act and recognizes that landlords and tenants often enter into repayment schedules that could extend beyond 30 days. We've basically brought back into this act the status quo from the Landlord and Tenant Act.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? This motion carries.

Shall section 42, as amended, carry? Section 42, as amended, carries.

Shall section 43 carry? Section 43 carries.

Shall section 44 carry? Section 44 carries.

We're moving on to section 45, page 60, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsections 45(1) to (4) of the bill be amended by striking out "or 57" in the first line of each of them and substituting in each case "57 or 90.1" and by inserting after "before" in the third line of subsection (3) "the date the termination is specified to be effective and that date shall be on."

The amendment is a technical one. It clarifies that prescribed notice periods for termination by a landlord under section 57 also apply to terminations based on section 90.1, a new section that we are proposing to add to allow for terminations when a tenant's stay in rehabilitative and therapy programs has expired. There is also a technical amendment in subsection 45(3) clarifying the effective date of terminations for yearly tenancies.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.

Shall section 45, as amended, carry? Section 45, as amended, is carried.

We're moving to section 46, page 61, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 46(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Notice by tenant

"(1) A tenant may give notice of termination of a tenancy if the circumstances set out in subsection 17(4) apply."

It's a technical amendment that reflects changes in the wording of rules for an assignment which we dealt with earlier.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.

We move on to page 42.

Mr Gilchrist: It's page 62.

The Chair: Uh-oh. Section 62, Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan: Page 62. What a day.

The Chair: I know. I really appreciate members of the committee bearing with me.

Mr Duncan: And Gilchrist and I agreed on two things. I can understand your disorientation.

I move that subsection 46(2) of the bill be amended by inserting after "be" in the second line "at the end of the month following."

This would change the time required for notice by tenants terminating or subletting. This amendment, we believe, will provide more balance in all the relationships.

Mr Gilchrist: Unfortunately, the amendment as it is drafted, Mr Duncan, has the potential to cause even more confusion if the tenancy isn't based on a monthly rent. If it's weekly or biweekly, the end of the month could fall in the middle of a tenancy period. In addition, depending on long how the landlord took to deny the sublet, it could actually take up to two months, depending on how the calendar fell. Unfortunately, because not all tenancies are monthly, we can't support this motion.

Mr Froese: With that explanation, will you withdraw?

Mr Duncan: No.

The Chair: No further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion fails.

Shall section 46, as amended, carry? Section 46, as amended, is carried.

We're moving to page 63, section 47, a Liberal application.

1730

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 47(1) of the bill be amended by inserting after "terminated" in the third line "at the end of the month following."

This gives the relatives of deceased tenants more time to move an apartment's contents. I think anybody who has been through this sort of tragedy where you're left having to do this sort of thing would agree with this. Also, it probably wouldn't pose problems for most landlords, who, in my experience, have been very accommodating in these matters.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion fails.

We're on to page 64, which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that clause 47(2)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) afford the executor or administrator of the tenant's estate, or if there is no executor or administrator, a member of the tenant's family reasonable access to the rental unit and the residential complex for the purpose of removing the tenant's property."

It clarifies who can remove property in the event of the death of a tenant and certainly adds a number of people who could possibly assist in that regard if a tenant dies in the middle of a tenancy.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? The motion carries.

Shall section 47, as amended, carry? Section 47, as amended, is carried.

We're on to page 65, a Liberal motion to section 48.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 48(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "retain for the landlord's own use" in the first and second lines and by striking out clause (b) and substituting the following:

"(b) otherwise, 60 days after the tenancy is terminated under section 47."

This would again give relatives more time to claim a deceased tenant's property. It would also prohibit landlords from potentially unfairly claiming a deceased tenant's property for their own use.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour? Opposed? It fails.

I think the next one is identical, Mr Silipo. Counsel says it's not. I think it is.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm afraid it is.

Mr Silipo: Sorry. The wording is slightly different.

The Chair: If it saves time, we'll proceed.

Mr Silipo: I move that clause 48(1)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) otherwise, 60 days after the tenancy is terminated under section 47."

The Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? This motion fails.

Page 67, which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsections 48(3), (4) and (5) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(3) If, within six months after the tenant's death, the executor or administrator of the estate of the tenant, or if there is no executor or administrator, a member of the tenant's family claims any property of the tenant that the landlord has sold, the landlord shall pay to the estate the amount by which the proceeds of sale exceed the sum of,

"(a) the landlord's reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for moving, storing, securing or selling the property; and

"(b) any arrears of rent.

"Same

"(4) If, within the six-month period after the tenant's death, the executor or administrator of the estate of the tenant, or if there is no executor or administrator, a member of the tenant's family claims any property of the tenant that the landlord has retained for the landlord's own use, the landlord shall return the property to the tenant's estate.

"Agreement

"(5) A landlord and the executor or administrator of a deceased tenant's estate may agree to terms other than those set out in this section with regard to the termination of the tenancy and disposal of the tenant's property."

This is an ancillary amendment made to the amendment made in clause 47(2)(b), which stipulates who may remove property in the event of the death of a tenant.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? The motion carries.

Shall section 48, as amended, carry? Section 48, as amended, is carried.

We're moving on to section 49, page 68.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 49(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(2) The date for termination specified in the notice shall be at least 60 days after the notice is given and shall be the day a period of the tenancy ends or, where the tenancy is for a fixed term, the end of the term."

This sets out when a notice of termination for a landlord's own use may take effect. This is a technical amendment that clarifies that a notice must take effect the day the fixed-term tenancy ends or, if there was not a fixed term, then the day the period of tenancy ends.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? The motion carries.

We're on to page 69.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 49(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "10 days" in the second line and substituting "30 days."

This gives tenants more notice when a tenancy agreement is terminated.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion fails.

Shall section 49, as amended, carry? Section 49, as amended, is carried.

We're on to page 70, a New Democratic Party motion.

Mr Silipo: I move that clause 51(b) of the bill be amended by striking out "or a unit in it" in the second line and substituting "or the unit occupied by the tenant."

This is an attempt to clarify which particular unit this would apply to.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

We're on to page 71, a Liberal Party motion.

Mr Duncan: This is identical to the NDP motion, I believe, or at least the intention is the same, so I withdraw it.

The Chair: It's withdrawn.

Page 72.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 50 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Where purchasing landlord personally requires unit

"50(1) A landlord of a residential complex that contains no more than three residential units and that is subject to a tenancy agreement may give notice to the tenant on behalf of a purchaser of the residential complex to terminate the tenancy if,

"(a) the landlord has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale to sell the residential complex; and

"(b) the purchaser in good faith requires possession of the residential complex or a unit in it for the purpose of residential occupation by the purchaser, the purchaser's spouse or a child or parent of one of them.

"Period of notice

"(2) The date for termination specified in the notice shall be at least 60 days after the notice is given and shall be the day a period of the tenancy ends or, where the tenancy is for a fixed term, the end of the term.

"Earlier termination by tenant

"(3) A tenant who receives notice of termination under subsection (1) may, at any time before the date specified in the notice, terminate the tenancy, effective on a specified date earlier than the date set out in the landlord's notice.

"Same

"(4) The date for termination specified in the tenant's notice shall be at least 10 days after the date the tenant's notice is given."

The amendment sets out the size of residential complexes in which a vendor-landlord may evict, on behalf of a purchaser, for the landlord's own use. A residential complex with a size limitation of no more than three residential units is specified, unlike the current drafting, which did not put any number. This is thought to be a realistic maximum size of what a purchaser might actually require for his or her own use.

There is also a technical amendment in subsection (2) clarifying that where the period of tenancy is not for a fixed term, the notice of termination should be the day the period of tenancy ends.

This primarily would be in the case where somebody buys a house that might previously have been occupied by no more than three tenants.

Mr Silipo: When I first looked at this, I thought it was clarifying the wording. But now that I look at it again, I wonder why, in 50(1)(b), it says "the purchaser in good faith requires possession of the residential complex or a unit in it." This would mean that if you have three units, if the purchaser requires, say, only two of those units for his use or family use and would continue to rent out the third, why is the government wanting to allow a situation in which as a result of that the existing tenant would be evicted?

Mr Gilchrist: A possible scenario might be a house that currently has two basement apartments. You'll recall that even from your legislation, Mr Silipo, there are provisions that where there are shared kitchen or washroom facilities, different rules apply. Depending on the layout of the house, it's quite appropriate that there could be a situation where someone buys a home and because of shared accommodation or any number of other circumstances, it would be appropriate that they have full possession of that house.

Mr Silipo: I understand that situation, but you don't need this wording to achieve that, I would suggest. This allows you to do more. It would allow a purchaser, in a situation where there are three units and the purchaser wants to live in, let's say, two of those units, to evict the tenant who is living in the third unit, which was completely separate. I find that troubling in here. I'm not sure if that's the intent. If it is, I oppose the intent. If it's not the intent, I suggest to the government that there's a problem with the drafting.

1740

Mr Gilchrist: I think it would be more a case the other way, where if I as a single person bought a home and there are three rental units in there right now, to not specify it this way, someone could allege that I only need one bedroom, that it's inappropriate for me to have the right to have a house to myself.

Mr Silipo: I'm not opposed to the notion of a purchaser coming in and saying they require occupation of the whole entity. That's why I'm suggesting that maybe the problem here is that the wording is wrong. If that's the case, you catch that by simply saying "requires possession of the residential complex," which you defined earlier on. But when you say "the residential complex or a unit in it," I suggest you're leaving open the possibility that if the new owner only requires two of the three units in the complex, they can still evict the third tenant even if that third unit has nothing to do with the personal needs of the new purchaser, which I think is the thrust of what you're trying to do here.

Mr Gilchrist: I hear your concerns, Mr Silipo, but basically what we were considering was that in most cases, when it's three or fewer, it's going to be a single-family home or was at one time. In terms of the conversion back, you're right; if I only require possession of one bedroom, is it still inappropriate for me to want the house to myself? There may be circumstances where the purchaser does not require possession to greater than one but I think should still be entitled to look at that entire building as a single housing unit.

Mr Silipo: I don't want to belabour this unnecessarily, Chair, but I do want to be clear. I'm not disagreeing with Mr Gilchrist in the situation in which a new purchaser says he wants to have occupation of the entire entity, which we'll say for the sake of this discussion is three separate units when the person purchases the property. What I'm getting at is that in a triplex situation, this section allows a purchaser who is only intending to use two of the three units, but will continue to rent the third unit, to evict the tenant who is occupying the third unit. I'm suggesting it's unnecessary.

As I understand it, if what you want is to allow the purchaser to take possession of the property if they intend to use the whole thing, all you have to do is take out the words "or a unit in it" in (b) and that would still allow you to do that. In other words, if the purchaser wants to have occupation of the whole house for himself or his family, that's fine. I'm not opposing that. But if he or she only wants to occupy a part of the property and continue to rent part of it, why should they have the right to automatically evict the previous tenants?

Mr Gilchrist: As a final point, Mr Silipo, in looking again at the preamble, I think I would disagree with your interpretation on other grounds as well. That the landlord of a complex that contains no more than three units is being treated under this particular section, we'll agree with that. "May give notice to the tenant on behalf of a purchaser" if the purchaser requires the unit: In that case, I think it's saying the landlord would notify the unit occupant, up to three, that they are out.

Not being a lawyer, I won't presume to know the nuances, but I am told that the intent from the preamble is to say that if one needs to be out, the landlord has the right, when they sell the property, to move one out. If all three need to be out because I'm going to take possession of all three, then that right would be there, but only in buildings up to three. That's why we thought it was important to clarify, because you rarely would have a single-family home divided into more than that. Even if it were, we think that has probably fallen more into the category of a rooming-house and should be accorded different treatment.

Mr Duncan: First of all, to Mr Gilchrist, Robert Nixon, the last Treasurer of Ontario to balance a budget, used to say, "Never apologize for having to say you're not a lawyer."

I think this is a question of, is the cup half full or is it half empty? I think the government's intention with this wording is to deal fairly. What I find absolutely amazing is that you would use a section of the legislation to attempt to define this but you wouldn't deal with trying to define human rights issues in the legislation. It's sufficient to put human rights issues into regulation but this stuff here we're defining in the law.

I suspect the government's intentions are good here. I think Mr Silipo has certainly raised some good questions around the wording. I just find it amazing that we would use the legislation to try to define something as precise as this and at the same time, on the same day, we would say we would not use the legislation to define human rights issues more clearly.

Mr Sergio: Normally, unless the purchaser specifies in the offer to purchase that he wants vacancy of the entire building, be it a house with a basement apartment or a threeplex, why would the landlord have to give notice to the tenant?

Mr Gilchrist: Actually, we're agreeing with you. If the new purchaser doesn't want them out, they won't. It would only be where the new purchaser does want that existing -- as you just specified, many times as it applies right now, someone will say, "I'll buy your house if I have vacant possession."

Mr Sergio: But the wording in here now gives the landlord the right to order the tenants to vacate.

Mr Gilchrist: Oh, no. Only when the purchaser wants it.

Mr Sergio: Only when the purchaser wants it? Okay.

Furthermore, on your three units or less, a basement apartment would have to be self-contained to be an apartment, at least within the city of North York.

Mr Gilchrist: Legal ones, yes.

Mr Sergio: So if you have them that nobody knows they are sharing the basement, three or four rooms, they are not legal apartments.

Mr Gilchrist: I agree with you there. They are not legal apartments.

The Chair: That's it? All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? The motion carries.

Shall section 50, as amended, carry? Section 50, as amended, is carried.

We'll move to page 73, which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 51(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(2) The date for termination specified in the notice shall be at least 120 days after the notice is given and shall be the day a period of the tenancy ends or, where the tenancy is for a fixed term, the end of the term."

This sets out when a notice of termination for demolition, conversion or repair may take effect. This technical amendment clarifies that a notice must take effect at the end of the period of a tenancy where the tenancy is not of a fixed term.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Shall section 51, as amended, carry? I heard a no. All those in favour of section 51, as amended? All those opposed? Section 51, as amended, carries.

We're on to section 52, page 74.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsections 52(2) and (3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Proposed units, security of tenure

"(2) Where a landlord has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale of a rental unit that is a proposed unit as defined in the Condominium Act, a landlord may not give a notice under section 49 or 50 to the tenant of the rental unit who was the tenant on the date the agreement of purchase and sale was entered into.

"Non-application of section

"(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply with respect to a residential complex until the day set out in subsection (3.1) if no rental unit in the residential complex was rented before the date prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.

"Same

"(3.1) The day on which subsections (1) and (2) begin to apply under subsection (3) is the day that is the later of,

"(a) two years after the day on which the first rental unit was first rented; and

"(b) two years after the date prescribed for the purposes of this subsection."

This amendment clarifies that a landlord wishing to sell a rental unit slated for conversion to a condominium but not yet registered as such cannot give a notice of termination of tenancy for the landlord's own use outside of specified time frames. The amendment also clarifies what the time frames are when those provisions can take effect.

1750

Mr Duncan: On the whole issue of condominium conversion, one of the essential issues the government has to address in any housing policy is one that deals with the question of supply, not only supply of the higher end but supply at the lower end. In our view, the provisions with respect to condominium conversion will put additional pressure away from supply of rental housing. Accordingly, recognizing that these amendments are somewhat clarifying in nature and not substantive, we still find all the sections dealing with condominium conversions difficult to deal with in light of the government's objective vis-à-vis the creation of affordable rental housing.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? The motion carries.

Shall section 52, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 52, as amended? Opposed? Section 52, as amended, is carried.

Shall sections 53 to 56 carry? All those in favour of sections 53 to 56? All those opposed? Sections 53 to 56 are carried.

We're moving to section 56.1, page 75, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Security of tenure, severance subdivision

"56.1 Where a rental unit becomes separately conveyable property due to a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act or a plan of subdivision under section 51 of that act, a landlord may not give a notice under section 49 or 50 to a person who was a tenant of the rental unit at the time of the consent or approval."

The reason for this amendment is to provide sitting tenants of rentals, where units become individualized pieces of property after a severance process -- so particularly a town-house complex that may be converted from rental to freehold -- with the same security-of-tenure provisions as sitting tenants of residential complexes whose units undergo condominium conversion. In other words, we're ensuring that no matter what happens to that former apartment -- it doesn't matter whether it becomes a condo or a freehold -- we're guaranteeing that the same protections apply.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? The motion carries.

We're moving to section 57, page 76, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 57(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Period of notice

"(2) The date for termination specified in the notice shall be at least the number of days after the date the notice is given that is set out in section 45 and shall be the day a period of the tenancy ends or, where the tenancy is for a fixed term, the end of the term."

It sets out when a notice of termination under subsection 57(1) may take effect. It is a technical amendment that clarifies the notice must take effect at the end of the period of tenancy if it's not a fixed term.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? The motion carries.

Shall section 57, as amended, carry? Section 57, as amended, is carried.

We're on to page 77, which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 58(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "If a tenant fails to pay rent in accordance with a tenancy agreement" at the beginning and substituting "If a tenant fails to pay rent lawfully owing under a tenancy agreement."

This sets out when a landlord may serve a notice of termination for non-payment of rent, what information the notice must contain, and that the notice is void if the tenant pays the rent before the landlord applies to the tribunal. This technical amendment to the section relates to the landlord's right to apply for eviction due to non-payment of rent. It changes the reference to the rent owing under a tenancy agreement to rent that is lawfully owing, reflecting the possibility that the rent under the tenancy agreement could be unlawful. We would not want a landlord to be able to go to the tribunal and seek remedies for rent which is deemed to be unlawful.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

Shall section 58, as amended, carry? Section 58, as amended, is carried.

We're on to section 59, page 78, a Liberal motion.

Mr Duncan: I move that clause 59(3)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) set out the reasons and details respecting termination."

This builds on our earlier amendment, again specifying details on why a tenancy is being terminated. If I understand the government correctly, they may have dealt with this in another section. Our reason for putting this forward is that we think it provides better protection for tenants and at the same time ensures that the government's objective with respect to facilitating a more efficient process to resolve tenant-landlord disputes is put in place.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour? Opposed? This motion fails.

Mr Silipo, I think page 79 is identical. That motion is out of order.

Shall section 59 carry? All those in favour of section 59? All those opposed? Section 59 carries.

Members are pointing to the clock.

Mr Gilchrist: The bells haven't rung yet. If I may suggest, we're supposed to rely on the table. That's my understanding.

The Chair: I'll tell you what. The Chair is always five minutes behind, and we have another five minutes left so we'll proceed with section 60. We're on page 80, which is a Liberal application.

Mr Duncan: I move that clause 60(2)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) set out the reasons and details respecting termination; and"

It's similar to our earlier amendment.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour? Opposed? This motion fails.

Page 81 is identical.

Shall section 60 carry? Section 60 carries.

Page 82, a Liberal application.

Mr Duncan: I move that clause 61(3)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) set out the reasons and details respecting termination; and"

Again this is evidentiary in nature. We think this will facilitate the better functioning of the tribunal when disputes arise.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour? All those opposed? This motion fails.

Page 83, Mr Silipo, is out of order.

We're on to page 84.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 61 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Termination for cause, reasonable enjoyment

"61(1) A landlord may give a tenant notice of termination of the tenancy if the conduct of the tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted in the residential complex by the tenant is such that it substantially interferes with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex for all usual purposes by the landlord or another tenant or substantially interferes with another lawful right, privilege or interest of the landlord or another tenant.

"Notice

"(2) A notice of termination under subsection (1) shall,

"(a) provide a termination date not earlier than the 20th day after the notice is given;

"(b) set out the grounds for termination; and

"(c) require the tenant, within seven days, to stop the conduct or activity or correct the omission set out in the notice.

"Notice void if tenant complies

"(3) The notice of termination under subsection (1) is void if the tenant, within seven days after receiving the notice, stops the conduct or activity or corrects the omission.

"Termination for cause, act impairs safety

"61.1(1) A landlord may give a tenant notice of termination of the tenancy if,

"(a) an act or omission of the tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted in the residential complex by the tenant seriously impairs or has seriously impaired the safety of any person; and

"(b) the act or omission occurs in the residential complex.

"Same

"(2) A notice of termination under this section shall provide a termination date not earlier than the 10th day after the notice is given and set out the grounds for termination."

This amendment clarifies that termination of a tenancy for cause, reasonable enjoyment, can be given in situations where the conduct of another occupant of the rental unit's behaviour substantially interferes with the reasonable enjoyment of the premises by the landlord and the tenant. There is no reference in the current drafting of the TPA to another occupant of the rental unit. As well, the amendment that clarifies this provision can apply in cases where a tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted into the complex by the tenant substantially interferes with another right or privilege of the landlord or another tenant.

The amendment in section 61.1 provides for a fast-track eviction process for acts or omissions of a tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a guest who seriously impairs the health or safety of the landlord or any person. The amendment is intended to deal with infractions that are so serious they cannot be remedied and need to be speedily addressed.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? The motion carries.

Shall section 61, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 61, as amended, is carried.

It being 6 of the clock, I remind members that this committee is adjourned until September 4th, next Thursday, at 10 o'clock.

The committee adjourned at 1800.