Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

CONTENTS

Thursday 4 September 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 remplacants

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph PC)

Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Tom Prins

Staff /Personnel

Ms Elizabeth Baldwin, legislative counsel

Mr Jerry Richmond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

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): Ladies and gentlemen, we will convene the meeting. This is the standing committee on general government and we are reviewing Bill 96. This is the final day for clause-by-clause. Just to remind you, I will read one paragraph from the order of the assembly. This is the second day of clause-by-clause, and so I'll read the order; many of you have this.

"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)."

My records show that we have voted on and passed all the sections up to section 61, with the exception of sections 116, 146 and 200.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I think you mean "with the addition" of sections --

The Chair: Yes. So if you have your books before you, we are now on page 86, which is a proposed amendment by the Liberal caucus to section 62.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I move that clause 62(2)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

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

This is the same as the amendments we put forward earlier. We feel this would provide better evidence for later tribunal hearings and will cause the hearings to work more efficiently.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Chair, as you know, we have an identical amendment which follows. We support the need to have a clear obligation set out upon the landlord in this case which would require them to set out the reasons and details respecting termination.

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

You're right, Mr Silipo. Your amendment is identical.

Shall section 62 of the bill carry? All those in favour of section 62? All those opposed? Section 62 carries.

Shall sections 63 and 64 carry? Sections 63 and 64 carry.

We're now on page 88, which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 65 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Application by landlord

"65(1) A landlord may apply to the tribunal for an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant if the landlord has given notice to terminate the tenancy under this act or under the former part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

"Same

"(2) An application under subsection (1) may not be made later than 30 days after the termination date specified in the notice.

"Exception

"(3) Subsection (2) does not apply with respect to an application based on the tenant's failure to pay rent."

This amendment removes the 30-day limitation period for making an application after giving a notice of termination for arrears of rent. It is consistent with the current provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act. As drafted in Bill 96, if a landlord failed to make an application within this 30-day period, the notice of termination would have become unenforceable. Concern had been raised that the current provisions of the bill will force a landlord to make an application even though the parties have agreed the tenant will pay for arrears in instalments, because otherwise, if the tenant breaches their agreement, the landlord would have to re-serve the notice, and the process evicting the tenant would be further delayed. So this allows for an agreement to pay rent arrears through instalments and we think it is an improvement over the current wording in the act.

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

Shall section 65, as amended, carry? Section 65, as amended, carries.

Shall sections 66 and 67 carry? Sections 66 and 67 are carried.

Page 89 is a government motion to amend section 68.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 68(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Discontinuance where rent paid

"(2) If an application is brought under section 65 based on a notice of termination under section 58 and if before an eviction order under the application becomes enforceable the tenant pays to the tribunal or the landlord all the rent in arrears and compensation owing under section 43, any costs ordered by the tribunal and the fee for making the application, that part of the application relating to arrears of rent, compensation and eviction of the tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent is discontinued and any order under it is void."

This amendment stipulates that in situations where a landlord applies for an eviction based on non-payment of rent, a tenant could pay the rent arrears, application fee and any other costs associated with the application directly to the landlord or to the tribunal. Current drafting requires that it be paid only to the tribunal. This amendment is intended to streamline the process for collecting rent arrears and reduces the administrative burden on the tribunal.

The amendment also clarifies the point in time at which such payment must be made in order to void the order. This is when the eviction order becomes enforceable. Current drafting, which refers to when the order becomes final, is ambiguous. We believe this revision clarifies matters.

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

Shall section 68, as amended, carry? Section 68, as amended, is carried.

Shall section 69 carry? Section 69 is carried.

We're now on page 90, a proposed amendment to section 70. It's a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 70(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "claiming substantial interference with the reasonable enjoyment of a residential complex is based on" in the first, second and third lines and substituting "based on a notice of termination under section 61 or section 61.1 is grounded on."

This is an ancillary amendment which parallels amendments made that propose termination based on impairment of safety and interference with reasonable enjoyment and deals with applications for termination based on pets where safety has been impaired or there has been interference with reasonable enjoyment.

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

Mr Silipo, you have a proposed amendment on page 91.

Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 70(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "claiming substantial interference with the reasonable enjoyment of a residential complex" in the first, second and third lines.

We believe this would actually be a preferable way to go than the amendment that's just been passed, but given what's happened, I assume this won't carry. But we think this is a better way to do it.

1010

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

Shall section 70, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 71 carry? Section 71 carries.

We are now on page 92, which is a Liberal motion.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 72(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "without notice to the tenant" in the first and second lines and by striking out "an agreement" in the second line of clause (a) and substituting "a written agreement."

This would require landlords to give tenants notice if they go to the tribunal. Two, it would require arrangements to break a lease to be in writing. We think once again that this is a matter of good form. I suspect most landlords would probably do this in any event, and we think it would speed up any applications later on to the tribunal.

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

Mr Silipo, I believe page 93 is out of order. It's identical to the former application.

Page 94.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 72(2) of the bill be amended by inserting after "application" in the second line "a copy of the agreement or notice and."

This builds on the previous amendment. Again it's compelling that things be done in writing where there's agreement to terminate a tenant's notice.

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

Mr Silipo, your motion on page 95 is identical to the Liberal application, so it's out of order. We'll turn to page 97, which is a Liberal application. We'll come back to page 96.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 72(6) of the bill be amended by striking out "10 days" in the third line and substituting "14 days."

This gives more time for tenants and landlords to understand a tribunal ruling.

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

We'll return to page 96. Mr Silipo, I don't believe this is in order. I think it's not --

Mr Silipo: Excuse me. Wasn't it one of the ones corrected? I think this was one of the ones provided in --

The Chair: Excuse me. I've just to confer with the clerk for a minute.

I'm sorry, Mr Silipo. I apologize. The motion is in order. Members of the committee will recall that this page has been replaced. You may proceed.

Mr Silipo: What I think I'm moving then is, I move that subsections 72(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of the bill be struck out.

Just briefly, I would indicate that we find it particularly objectionable that the process here would allow a landlord, without notice to the tenant, to apply for and get, particularly under subsection 73(4), an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant without any notice being given to the tenant. That's the crux upon which we believe that this whole section shouldn't exist.

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

We will now turn to page 98, which is a proposed government amendment.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 72 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Agreement to terminate, tenant's notice

"72(1) A landlord may, without notice to the tenant, apply to the tribunal for an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant if,

"(a) the landlord and tenant have entered into an agreement to terminate the tenancy; or

"(b) the tenant has given the landlord notice of termination of the tenancy.

"Same

"(2) The landlord shall include with the application an affidavit verifying the agreement or notice of termination, as the case may be.

"Same

"(3) An application under subsection (1) shall not be made later than 30 days after the termination date specified in the agreement or notice.

"Order

"(4) On receipt of the application, the tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant.

"Same

"(5) An order under subsection (4) shall be effective not earlier than,

"(a) the date specified in the agreement, in the case of an application under clause (1)(a); or

"(b) the termination date set out in the notice, in the case of an application under clause (1)(b).

"Set aside order

"(6) The respondent may make a motion to the tribunal, on notice to the applicant, to have the order set aside within 10 days after the order is issued.

"Same

"(7) An order under subsection (4) is stayed when a motion to have the order set aside is received by the tribunal and shall not be enforced under this act or as an order of the court during the stay.

"Same

"(8) If the tribunal sets the order aside, the tribunal shall hear the merits of the application.

"Application based on previous order, mediated settlement

72.1(1) A landlord may, without notice to the tenant, apply to the tribunal for an order terminating a tenancy or evicting the tenant if,

"(a) the landlord had previously applied to the tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy or evicting the tenant;

"(b) with respect to that application, an order or a settlement mediated under section 171 provided that the landlord could apply under this section if the tenant did not meet specified conditions of the order or settlement; and

"(c) the tenant has not met those conditions.

"Same

"(2) The landlord shall include with the application a copy of the order or settlement and an affidavit setting out what conditions of the order or settlement have not been met and how they have not been met.

"Same

"(3) An application under this section shall not be made later than 30 days after a failure of the tenant to meet a condition specified in the order or settlement.

"Same

"(4) Subsections 72(4) ,(6) and (7) apply, with necessary modifications, with respect to an application under this section.

"Same

"(5) If the tribunal sets the order aside, the tribunal shall consider whether a failure to meet the conditions occurred."

Amendments to clauses 72(1)(a) and (b) will allow a landlord to apply for an eviction order prior to the termination date set out in the notice. A landlord will be able to make an application if it is on the basis of the landlord and tenant agreeing to terminate or the tenant giving notice to the landlord.

The amendment in section 72.1 allows the landlord to apply to the tribunal for an eviction order based on a previous application to the tribunal which resulted in a consent order or a mediated agreement which the tenant did not abide by.

The process the landlord would follow to terminate and evict a tenant would be the same as the one set out for terminating a tenancy and evicting tenants who do not leave after the agreed end of the tenancy or after a tenant has given notice of termination. No hearing will be scheduled unless a tribunal member considers it necessary, and the tribunal would then issue and mail the order to the landlord and tenant. The tenant would have 10 days in which to request a set-aside. If the tenant does not request a set-aside, the order is enforceable on the 11th day after it is issued.

The ability for the tribunal to issue such an order or deal effectively with breaches in landlord and tenant agreements is not currently available under Bill 96. Although there is not specific authority for issuing such orders under the Landlord and Tenant Act, many courts have issued them and the proposed amendment recognizes that current practice.

Mr Duncan: Again, we feel that the government, in proposing this amendment, has not dealt with a fundamental concern raised in the committee hearings and which we think, quite frankly, is a matter of good form. Subsection 72(1) still contains the line "without notice to the tenant." We think that not only in the interest of fairness but also in the interest of good form, the interest of good business practice, written notice ought to be given.

A landlord can still break a lease without doing it in writing, based on our read of this amendment. We heard considerable testimony throughout the hearings around this section and believe the government's motion does not address those concerns that were raised. We attempted to do that in our motion, which the committee subsequently defeated.

1020

Mr Silipo: The question of not providing notice to the tenant is really at the heart of the problem in this whole section. I want to say to the government members that while you may think this is, on the one hand, a fairer way to go and, secondly, an administratively faster way to go, you're not achieving either objective because it certainly isn't fair, because the tenant, whether he or she may be in the wrong, is not given the appropriate remedy at the first instance to be able to know that the landlord is seeking this order. Secondly, where the tenant then chooses to exercise the right that he or she may have, you're going to run into the same kind of problems in terms of the process being slowed down from the perspective of the landlord, so you're not achieving anything other than heightening the tension between landlord and tenant in a particular situation.

That could be done away with by a simple change in this which would ensure that tenants have to be given notice when a landlord is proceeding. It doesn't affect the landlord's rights to do that. It means that the parties are both aware of what's going on and tenants then would have the choice of deciding if it's a case that they want to dispute and do so before the fact rather than after. That just would lead to a much fairer way, and the fact that you're insisting on not providing that right to the tenant in this instance makes this particular section very problematic.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): It's very clear in clauses 72(1)(a) and (b) here where there is an agreement between the landlord and the tenant. If there is an agreement, then what is the purpose of applying beforehand to the tribunal? I expect it was the intent of the government to expedite things for both without using a sledgehammer, if you will, to kill a fly. You're doing exactly that in this particular case, especially in (b), where the tenant is demanding to terminate the lease. Especially in that instance, why would the landlord go ahead of time and apply to the tribunal, when I, the tenant, want to get out of the unit? There is absolutely no reason to apply to the tribunal.

If you have, let's say, a large landlord who's got thousands of units, you may just clog the tribunal with thousands of applications on a yearly basis from one particular landlord for no reason whatsoever. Who is to say that a genuine tenant has been asking the landlord to terminate the lease and he's going to abandon the unit, he's going to vacate that unit -- why would the landlord apply to the tribunal? As a tenant, it doesn't make sense. It's like you want to go to the OMB prior to a rezoning application having been dealt with by the local municipality. It just doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps the assistant can explain that.

Mr Gilchrist: I'd be pleased to clarify matters for members. Let's look at 72(1)(a) and (b). The only time anything in this section applies is if the landlord and the tenant have already agreed to part. The tenant has said, "I'm leaving at the end of the month." Okay. So the end of the month comes and the tenant doesn't move out. That is why we think it isn't appropriate to deal with things such as notice; obviously the tenant is in breach of the agreement. So this isn't a matter of going to the tribunal before that. This succeeds an agreement which then is not fulfilled.

Obviously if I'm a landlord and you're the tenant and I take you at your word that you'll be leaving at the end of this month, and a couple of days into the next month, you still haven't left but in the meantime I relet your apartment, I've got a problem. I think you would recognize that. I obviously can't accommodate both the old tenant and the new tenant. That's why we believe it's appropriate that without any delay in that scenario a landlord could apply to the tribunal for an order to declare that tenancy over. But 72(1)(a) and (b) are preconditions to all of that.

Mr Duncan: Save and except, and I stand to be corrected on this by the parliamentary assistant, my understanding of the bill in earlier sections is that this agreement can be written of any written agreement and it therefore becomes the word of one versus another. We attempted to put an amendment earlier in the bill that would have provided that protection.

Our fear with this particular section is that if there is no written agreement to break the tenancy, if there's no evidence of that, it becomes the word of one versus the other, putting the tribunal in an awful position and we think ultimately creating a situation where you're going to have more time spent in hearings, more time trying to resolve these disputes, whereas if the proper form, proper business practice had been agreed to earlier, that may not occur.

The only other point I would like to make is that throughout the hearings we heard the concern expressed around the whole notion of harassment, what we believe is the general theme of the bill that removes tenant protection and makes it easier for that small percentage of landlords who are bad to harass a tenant into something like this. The tenant may have second thoughts about it.

I stand to be corrected, but if my understanding of the bill is correct, the agreement to terminate could have been done without writing. It could have been based on the word of one versus another. We frankly think that you're subverting your own objective of providing for faster dispute resolution by setting the bill up in this fashion.

Mr Sergio: This may be right, but I just don't read it so. If that was the intent, that there is an agreement, especially on the asking of the tenants themselves, I would have incorporated in 72(1) "only in those particular cases." That's what I would have said, that even though there is an agreement under those conditions, the landlord would apply to the tribunal. I don't see anything in there; I really don't. It adds to any subsequent clauses but does not detract from the main objective of 72(a), where the landlord is being given carte blanche to say, "Yes, just in case you're pulling my leg and you're not going to vacate the unit, I have already applied to the tribunal."

I don't have to tell you that in most every other case there is a grace period, as we call it, and in this particular case tenants are not getting anything whatsoever. When a landlord is being given the power to say, "You have asked me, the landlord, to vacate the unit, but even so I go ahead and apply, just in case you turn out to be sour at the end of the lease," I don't read it that way and I don't think we can support it the way it is.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I think we're falling into the trap of looking at this from the point of view of a landlord versus a tenant. I see this provision as something that protects tenants. It protects the next tenant who wants to move into the unit.

Say you're a tenant who has bargained in good faith with a landlord to move into a unit that's about to become vacant in his building. Say it's my building. I'm the landlord; you're the tenant. The existing tenant has agreed to move out. You've made a deal with me to move in. You have vacated your apartment. You are without a place to live if you can't move into the unit that we bargained for. The existing tenant who has agreed to leave then, for whatever reason, by whatever means, refuses or fails to vacate. You, as the new tenant, are the person who's out of luck. The landlord isn't out of luck. The landlord can continue to collect his rent from the tenant who refused to vacate. The tenant who refused to vacate is protected. It's the tenant who intends to move in, who has in good faith abandoned his existing apartment, who's disadvantaged by the status quo. He's the one who's protected by this amendment.

Mr Duncan: What if the existing tenant goes to the tribunal and says, "I never agreed to that"? Then what do you do? You've got a mess. So you're not protecting the so-called subsequent tenant. Had you accepted amendments that would have provided for what -- I quite suspect that most thoughtful landlords will put it in writing, and most of them are, in my view, thoughtful. Had you agreed to those amendments, there might be some consistency in your argument, but there's not.

What you've done, in my view and in the view of the official opposition, is set up something that not only doesn't protect the existing tenant, it certainly doesn't protect any subsequent tenant or tenant waiting for vacant possession. It certainly doesn't benefit the landlord who may have in good faith, following the law, said that he has an agreement. Then he or she is exposed to this notion that the tenant can just simply say, "I never agreed to that." In my view it's simply bad form, removing all of the considerations about whether a tenant's good or a landlord's bad or vice versa.

1030

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

Shall section 72, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 72? Opposed? Section 72 carries.

Shall section 73 carry? Section 73 carries.

We are on to page 100, which is a government motion proposing an amendment to section 74.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 74(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(1) A landlord may dispose of property in a rental unit that a tenant has abandoned and property of persons occupying the rental unit that is in the residential complex in which the rental unit is located in accordance with subsections (1.1) and (1.2) if,

"(a) the landlord obtains an order terminating the tenancy under section 73; or

"(b) the landlord gives notice to the tenant of the rental unit and to the tribunal of the landlord's intention to dispose of the property.

"(1.1) If the tenant has abandoned the rental unit, the landlord may dispose of any unsafe or unhygienic items immediately.

"(1.2) The landlord may sell, retain for the landlord's own use or otherwise dispose of any other items if 30 days have passed after obtaining the order referred to in clause (1)(a) or giving the notice referred to in clause (1)(b) to the tenant and the tribunal."

If I may speak to the amendment, this section sets out the rules for landlords to dispose of property remaining in a unit abandoned by the tenant. The amendment allows the landlord to dispose of abandoned property without first having to obtain an order terminating the tenancy. In this situation the landlord is required to send a notice to both the tenant and the tribunal setting out the landlord's intention regarding disposal of the property.

Mr Duncan: I wonder, before I use up my time, if I can put a question to the parliamentary assistant.

The Chair: You can do whatever you wish, Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan: I'd like the floor back after I get the answer. Is that acceptable?

The Chair: The clock is ticking.

Mr Duncan: Sections 73 and 74 taken together, how does the government view the notion of abandonment? It's undefined in the bill in section 73. It says, "If a landlord believes that a tenant has abandoned a rental unit, the landlord may apply to the tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy." How do you view abandonment? Will you specify that in the regulations?

Mr Gilchrist: First and foremost, the existing case law and the court treatment of the existing Landlord and Tenant Act would give any number of precedents on which the tribunal would be able to rely, but basically speaking, your ceasing to pay the rent and your ceasing to occupy the unit would be the two most important criteria to determine abandonment. So if all of a sudden you disappear and the rent stopped being received by the landlord, then I think he would have a fair reason to believe that you have abandoned that unit.

Mr Duncan: Will the government specify the cease-to-pay-rent notion in the regulations? I think the wording in section 73 is really loose in terms of abandonment. If it's the government's intention that a unit not be used -- what if a unit were vacant and the rent was being paid? I can't envision a scenario --

Mr Gilchrist: Then it's not abandoned.

Mr Duncan: Then it's not abandoned?

Mr Gilchrist: Absolutely.

Mr Duncan: Okay. The case law supports that?

Mr Gilchrist: More than the case law; we'll say categorically that if you're paying your rent, it's your unit. There's no law that says that a tenant has to be in their unit on any given day or even month.

Mr Duncan: It's an unusual situation and I don't want to be splitting hairs, but what about that scenario where somebody isn't in an apartment? What causes me to think about this is my own situation here in the apartment the Legislature rents for me. A landlord could have realistically thought that I had abandoned the apartment in July if he or she wanted to. By opening up the notion of removing the rent control once a unit is abandoned or is vacated, that definition of "abandonment," even though the rent may be paid and it's up to the landlord's interpretation -- we would urge strongly that the government look at defining that in the regulations, the notion of a definition of "abandonment." We think it'll provide greater clarity to the issue, given what you're doing with decontrol after somebody vacates.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm pleased to give you that undertaking, Mr Duncan. I have no problem, I'm sure the ministry will have no problem, ensuring that the definition makes it very clear that as long as you're paying your rent, in no way, shape or form could you be considered to have abandoned the unit just because you're not there. The payment of rent will be seen as an absolute invalidation of the concept of abandonment.

Mr Duncan: That addresses my question.

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

Page 101.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 74(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "paragraph 2 of subsection (1)" in the fourth line and substituting "subsection (1.2)."

This amendment merely parallels the amendment that we just passed.

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

We are now on to an amended page 102. Mr Gilchrist, it's a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 74(5) of the bill be amended by striking out "the day" in the first line and substituting "the date the notice referred to in clause (1)(b) is given to the tenant and the tribunal or."

The reason for this amendment: This allows a tenant to claim from a landlord, within six months after issuance of a termination order, property that the tenant has abandoned. This technical amendment reflects the proposed amendment for subsection 74(1), which we just voted on, in situations where a notice of the landlord's intention for disposing of the property is given. In those cases, the tenant has six months after giving the notice to claim property.

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

Mr Duncan, page 103 is a recommendation and not an amendment; it's out of order; the same with Mr Silipo's proposed motion on page 104. It's a recommendation, not a proposed amendment, so it is out of order.

Shall section 74, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 74, as amended? All those opposed? Section 74, as amended, carries.

Shall sections 75, 76, 77 and 78 carry? Sections 75, 76, 77 and 78 carry.

We are now on to page 105 of the materials, which is a proposed Liberal application.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 79(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Power of tribunal, eviction

"(1) Upon an application for an order evicting a tenant or subtenant, the tribunal may, despite any other provision of this act or the tenancy agreement, order that the enforcement of the order of eviction be postponed for a period of time."

This removes the part of the section that forces the tribunal to accept an application to evict unless it would be unfair to refuse. We believe that this is better wording in the section.

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

Shall section 79 carry? All those in favour of section 79? All those opposed to section 79? It carries.

Shall sections 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 carry? Sections 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 carry.

We're on to page 106, which is a government motion.

1040

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 85 of the bill be amended by striking out "and 82" in the first line and substituting "82 and 93."

It clarifies that a tenant who has sublet a rental unit may make application as a landlord under sections 58, 63, 65, 81 and 82. This amendments also includes the landlord's application as permitted under section 93, which is an application to transfer a care home tenant.

Mr Duncan: We will vote against this amendment simply because we believe that everything you're doing with respect to care home tenants is wrong and is flawed. We'll have an opportunity to debate that later on.

The Chair:. All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? This motion carries. Shall section 85, as amended, carry? Section 85, as amended, carries.

We are now on page 107, which is a Liberal application. Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan: I move that section 86 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Care homes"

"86. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing shall consult with the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services before introducing legislation with respect to care homes."

We have had ample testimony around the whole issue of care homes. This bill, we believe, and we are persuaded by the testimony, has dramatic impact on care homes. We haven't even clearly defined in this bill what a care home is, let alone how they ought to be regulated, or whether or not they should be regulated. It is the view of the official opposition that the government should be dealing with care homes in separate legislation when all of the issues around care homes can be discussed.

We are of the view that there ought to be a full discussion. We've seen things such as the Lightman report; we've had testimony before this committee; we see bylaws in a couple of cities in Ontario. I think most thoughtful analysts in all political parties agree that at the very least these issues should be dealt with in a more complete fashion. The intent of this motion is to say we do not support dealing with care homes in this bill. Recognizing what the government is trying to achieve with respect to landlord-tenant relationships, the issue ought to be addressed. It ought to be addressed more completely.

Other governments have failed to address the issues that have been raised. We are not suggesting this in a partisan fashion. At the end of the day we probably will not agree with the government in many instances, but we think that to deal with this whole area in this fashion, without a full discussion around all of the issues that make care homes or lodging homes or rest homes unique, and their needs unique, is a mistake. We would prefer to see the government deal with this question separately and deal with it in the context of the health and social service issues that impact not only on the residents of those homes but also on the owners of those home and the providers of the service.

Mr Silipo: We disagree with our Liberal counterparts in their approach in this area of tenancies with respect to care homes. We believe that while there are clearly issues in the relationship between landlords and tenants as they apply to people who live in care homes and the whole array, and I think we know what those are, that relationship in our view is based upon the typical relationship of a landlord and tenant situation. As I say, while there are modifications that one could argue need to be done in the present legislation, many of the features of which I know are reflected in this part provide for and recognize that that relationship needs to be set up clearly in law on the basis of understanding that there is at the heart of the matter a landlord and tenant relationship.

We believe very strongly, for example, that the provisions of subsection 86(1), which state that there shall be a written tenancy agreement relating to the tenancy of every tenant in a care home, absolutely need to be in legislation. I was proud to be a member of a government that brought in those changes. I would be the first to say I realize that there still are ongoing issues with respect to this whole area of law, but I don't think you deal with those problems by taking this whole thing out of the landlord-tenant relationship. To do so would be to say that there isn't at the heart of the relationship here a landlord and tenant relationship. I believe and we believe that there is, therefore whatever legislation exists that relates to tenancy is the place to deal with that.

I'm not sure where the Liberal Party is going with this in terms of what they mean by setting up something differently or by not proceeding with these sections. If they're talking about maintaining the current law, then obviously that's something we would support. If they're talking about doing away with some of the basic protections that tenants have in the present circumstance, then that's not a position that we could support.

There are clearly pieces of this part, part IV that we are now entering into through section 86, particularly when we get to sections 93 and, I believe, 94, that we have some real problems with in terms of the rights that are being given to the landlord to transfer tenants unilaterally, and I'll talk more about that when we get to them. But the basic premise which is reflected in section 86 and which recognizes that there should be a written tenancy agreement relating to the tenancy of every tenant in a care home and that that agreement should also set out under subsection (2) what's been agreed to with respect to care services and meals and the charges for those services, that that needs to be part of the agreement is at the basis of the kind of relationship we need to have set out in law that applies to people who live in a care home.

Whatever else the care home is for those individuals, it's their home and that needs to be recognized in law and the protections afforded to all of the tenants need to be provided to them as well.

Mr Gilchrist: I'd like to thank Mr Silipo and follow up on his comments. I think he has hit the nail right on the head. While we will understandably have points of disagreement as we go through any piece of legislation, there's no doubt that it is fundamentally important to ensure that every tenant of every kind of facility, whether it's a private home or a care home, be afforded those same protections as a tenant. More to the point, we think we've added a number of features, a number of improvements to the existing legislation, and again while those are debatable points, we believe this is still a work in progress.

I don't fundamentally disagree with you, Mr Duncan, that in the fullness of time we could continue to work on the nuances. Another argument could be made similarly for owned-home, leased-lot communities and mobile home parks, that they too are unique enough to at some point warrant their own legislation and evolve out of a catch-all bill such as this one, to address in even more detail the idiosyncrasies and the different issues that are in those facilities. But at its root we think it's fundamentally important that the basic protections that were brought in by the previous government are maintained. We believe the act does that and in fact expands upon them.

Mr Duncan: I don't know how you can have it both ways. You can't on the one hand argue that part IV protects people in care homes and then later on argue against another section in the same part of the bill that says it doesn't. By not dealing with this here does not take away those protections, in our view, that have already been put into law and it forces us to deal with the issues that weren't addressed. Frankly, Professor Lightman addressed the question of whether tenancy and care ought to be in the same arrangement. There are thousands of vulnerable individuals in this province, and I respectfully submit to the parliamentary assistant that it's not the same as dealing with mobile homes or trailer homes. You're dealing with vulnerable people; you're dealing with people who don't have the full protections that they've needed.

Two municipalities in this province have moved through bylaw to address at least some of the questions. We believe section 93 undermines everything that has been achieved by previous governments. We believe to consider section 86 in the same part of the bill as section 93 fundamentally says you don't comprehend the fullness of the issue. The government has had reports; the government's had studies. Mr Gilchrist says "in the fullness of time." Frankly, previous governments had time to deal with these issues and didn't deal with them. Ours was one of them. I believe the government's missing an opportunity now to act in a more complete way. Frankly, further in this part, section 93 we think is setting back the protection that people in care homes desperately need.

I can tell you -- I helped draft one of those two bylaws -- that they are needed right across the province. Professor Lightman has argued persuasively about the need for these protections. It's a shame, and we acknowledge that we didn't deal with it either when we had the opportunity. I say that we should deal with it completely. The amendment we're proposing does not undo those other protections and we think that all parties should come together and deal with this in a substantive fashion very quickly.

1050

Mr Sergio: I have to add some thoughts on this as well, and I will tell you why I agree with my colleague Mr Duncan. I find the answer in 86(2), which addresses the tenancy agreement -- and I don't dispute that there should be a tenancy agreement -- but more specifically in clause 89. It deals with providing services and care according to that tenancy agreement. That's the crux of the matter here. It is providing the service and the care according to that tenancy agreement. This is not what the tenants of care homes and other homes are getting today. I don't have to tell you why, Mr Chair. It is because of the cuts the government has been doing, solely.

I am only going to mention the home care under question, but there is an investigation going on in a particular care home, and I speak of that as I am involved with seniors a lot, where there were three particular nurses or assistants taking care of 10 seniors, if you will, or tenants, and now they are down to one. I don't have to tell you that sometimes it takes half an hour to feed a couple of spoonfuls to one of those seniors in a care home or other institution. I have to tell you that those seniors are not getting nearly the attention, the care, the supervision they are entitled to according to the agreement as specified in this particular brief legislation here. That is why I think it is important to have a particular act revised, addressing the needs of that group.

When you have family members attending those homes, they have no idea where their relative is. When you ask a question of the home care, they say: "You have to go and look for yourself because we don't have time. We can't go and look. They move all over the place." Seniors are found in other people's bed.s They keep losing clothes, shoes, whatever, because they don't remember any more where they leave them, where they go. They go unfed because an attendant or nurse cannot spend those twenty minutes to feed a particular senior. They are battered and bruised. They keep falling. They are not being helped. We have proof of that. We do have proof of that. That is why I have to agree with Mr Duncan that this is an area that deserves attention on its own.

For the sake of a tenancy, I agree, But I think we have to go further than that and I think we have to address that.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion fails.

Shall section 86 carry? Section 86 carries.

Shall sections 87, 88, 89 and 90 carry? All those in favour?

Mr Duncan: Just on the question before we vote, we want to specify very clearly that we think the issue of care homes ought to be addressed separately, and in its entirety. These sections in this bill are tied into the same sections, sections 93 and so on, that we think are dangerous. Not only do they not look at the broader question, but we believe they're dangerous. We believe the bill is fundamentally flawed at this section. We believe the whole issue of care homes and the regulation of care homes, as well as tenancy and other service issues, should be addressed separately.

The Chair: Mr Duncan, I apologize. I did ignore page 108.

Mr Duncan: I just assumed that was out of order.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Silipo: Just briefly before we vote on these, I don't disagree with my Liberal colleague that this bill is fundamentally flawed. However, that having been said, when there are sections of the bill that set out basic protections for tenants who live in care homes, we find it necessary to support those sections, despite the fact that we are opposed to the whole structure of this new piece of legislation and fundamentally opposed to some of the basic premises that allow, in the broad picture, landlords to evict tenants in a much faster way and are providing incentive for them to do that.

When we get to particular sections in this part of the act that allow landlords to unilaterally transfer tenants, we are going to be opposed to those and continue to show our strong opposition to those. But I guess we come at it from the perspective of saying that when there are particular pieces in the bill that provide basic protection for tenants, in this case tenants who live in care homes, it's important that those be supported.

The Chair: All those in favour of sections 87, 88, 89 and 90? All those opposed? Those sections have all carried.

We are on to page 109, which is a government-proposed new section 90.1.

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

"Notice of termination

"90.1 (1) A landlord may, by notice, terminate the tenancy of a tenant in a care home if,

"(a) the rental unit was occupied solely for the purpose of receiving rehabilitative or therapeutic services agreed upon by the tenant and the landlord;

"(b) no other tenant of the care home occupying a rental unit solely for the purpose of receiving rehabilitative or therapeutic services is permitted to live there for longer than two years; and

"(c) the period of tenancy agreed to has expired.

"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."

This amendment creates a new eviction ground for rehabilitation and therapy facilities where no one in the building is permitted to stay for a period longer than two years and the period of tenancy agreed to has expired. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, as amended by the Residents' Rights Act, this ground for eviction is already available. This provision is not included in the current drafting of the Tenant Protection Act and that oversight is addressed by this amendment.

You'll recall we had a number of presentations from drug rehabilitation and mental health rehabilitation facilities across the province, as well as women's shelters, that asked that this provision be included in the Tenant Protection Act. They argued the provision allows them to better ensure that accommodation is directed to those requiring residency in their centres.

Mr Duncan: We understand the need to look at this issue very carefully, and I can tell you, as somebody who was for seven years the administrator of an alcohol and drug recovery facility that was involved in the provision of residential services, not only to people who recently were trying to get sober and straight but also people who required longer-term care, it is important that those resources be directed where they are needed the most, particularly in an era when government is cutting back, for whatever reason, politics aside. But again this comes to a fundamental flaw in this section of the bill: that care decisions ought not to be based on issues involving tenancy.

It's not an easy question to address and it has been studied time and time again. We're not arguing that there be another study. We're arguing that in the issues around care homes, whether they be lodging homes, alcohol and drug recovery programs, homes for people who are challenged in some way, we believe that you have to look at the broader context of care, not strictly from the perspective of a landlord and tenant relationship, and we believe that requires separate legislation.

1100

This gives yet another ground for eviction. I would imagine the government will deal by regulation with some of the more fundamental questions that come out of these issues, but the way this is worded, as the parliamentary assistant said, you are providing another means of eviction. The parliamentary assistant is quite correct. Organizations did ask for that, no question about it. If we were dealing with this in the context of not only the landlord and tenant relationship involved between a care provider and a resident or a client or a patient, however you define it, but in the broader context, and could have a fuller discussion, looking not only at the landlord and tenant aspects but at the health and social service aspects of the questions, we might be able to support it.

The fact that we're dealing with this in the context strictly of a landlord and tenant relationship does not, in our view, serve either the care providers or the people in those care homes. I should tell you, when you review past studies and reports, that the question of separating landlord and tenant issues from health care issues, social service issues, is fundamental; it's at the root of many of the recommendations, for instance, that were contained in Professor Lightman's report.

I think the government is making a mistake and missing an opportunity in not dealing with these issues in the broader context.

Mr Sergio: Just for clarification, if the parliamentary assistant can answer: 91(a) and (b), what would happen at the end of the two years if there is no other place one of those tenants can go? If there are no other agencies, no other hospital beds, no other accommodations, where would patients go?

Mr Gilchrist: You will recall, Mr Sergio, that one of the conditions about eviction is that mandatory mediation is one of the provisions we afford under this act. So there would be an opportunity for the tribunal to ensure that there had been a full discussion, that the landlord and tenant had both participated in an attempt to resolve that situation. At the end of the day it would presumably be referred by one party or the other to the tribunal to rule, and the tribunal would judge on the merits.

If they thought it fell into the category covered by section 93, then they would apply the test of making sure appropriate alternative facilities were available. If on the other hand it was somebody who had just plain abused the trust of a women's shelter that had said, "Fine, you can stay here for up to six months or a year or two years" or whatever the time period is, and the person overstayed, or if somebody goes into a rehab centre and has just decided that for reasons that may not be related -- they may be, but maybe not as well -- to the actual reason they checked themselves in in the first place, they may have just decided it was the most affordable place to live in that town.

So there is any scenario one could posit, but the bottom line is that if there are still genuine health concerns, that would be taken into account by the tribunal. On the other hand, if it's somebody who has simply violated an agreement that was entered into and has violated the tenancy provisions in that facility, then I don't think it's inappropriate for the caregiver or the operator of that rehab centre to be able to say, "Our resources are for those people who need them most," and as Mr Duncan correctly pointed out, they should have the right to allocate those resources as they see fit.

Mr Sergio: I'll put two questions. We're not talking about occupants, tenants who are abusing the system or staying in there because it's the most affordable rent. We're talking about, or at least I'm addressing, the issues of tenants who at the end of two years are not fully recuperated and still need medical care. We are not talking about people abusing the system or staying in there because it's the most affordable place. We are talking about people still in need of that particular care. If they are bounced off because now the rent is going up, where are those tenants going to go: 250 miles north, east, west? That's the question.

Nowhere in the legislation is this particular situation addressed. We are now saying, "At the end of two years, good or bad, abusing it or not, you're gone." Why should we have to send a particular tenant who is in dire need of care to a tribunal when we know medically -- there are reports and whatever -- that this should not go to a tribunal, that this is the case of a tenant who should be allowed to stay in there for another six months, another year, until conditions prevail for that tenant to go? There's nothing in this legislation about that.

Again I have to go back to what Mr Duncan was saying, that it's a situation where we have to address this more in depth. It's using the sledgehammer and giving the power to the landlord to say: "You know what? I don't like you in this house any more. You've got to go."

There's not even protection for somebody who needs extreme care, if you'll please understand.

The Chair: Are you asking a question?

Mr Sergio: Yes.

Mr Gilchrist: Mr Sergio, this section is in addition to 90; it is a new section. It says there will be a different consideration if you go into a transitional facility that has as one of its rules, before you ever get there, that nobody gets to stay for more than two years. So nobody gets checked into a facility like that in the circumstance you're describing. If someone is in that dire a situation, they don't get checked into a transitional facility. You don't go to a women's shelter and argue, "I have to be here for the rest of my life."

This is quite reasonable for women's shelters and other rehabilitation centres that are dealing with specific ailments. They know the recuperation time, and in the case of women's shelters they have the ability to judge within their community what an appropriate time period is to allow women to look for alternative accommodation, to resolve whatever legal matters there are. It's shelters and rehab centres that came to us in the committee hearings and said, "Do not allow somebody to abuse our trust and break our rules."

The way the bill was written, somebody could simply say: "I'm not moving. I'm going to use the other definitions of care home and I'm going to stay here forever." But we're not talking about care homes in general, Mr Sergio. Section 90 stands the way it's already written. This is a new section, 90.1, and it merely says that when you go into a facility, if they have as one of their rules that nobody gets to stay for more than two years, then we don't think it's appropriate to abuse that trust or abuse the rules and take resources away. If it's the case of a women's shelter, that room should go to somebody who has just left an abusive situation and needs accommodation today. If you've been there for two years already and the shelter said as one of their rules that two years is more than enough time to order your affairs and to find alternative accommodation, we don't think it's inappropriate for the shelter to be able to enforce those rules. This is not long-term care; this is purely and simply to deal with the different issues in a transitional shelter.

Mr Sergio: I thank the assistant for his effort in explaining. I'm not satisfied, but that's okay.

Mr Silipo: I think that on the one hand Mr Gilchrist makes the case quite clear for the need for this kind of provision, but on the other it creates, I think, a problem in this magical two years. I know the debate that has gone on and continues to go on around this issue, but I and our caucus come down more on the side of saying that there's nothing magical about the two-year period. There may very well be instances where more time than that is needed and that should be dealt with in the individual cases. That's something this particular amendment would prevent from happening. That is why we're going to be opposed to this.

I should just add again that the basic premise that we come at this with is that in care homes, just like in other areas, we are dealing with a person's home, and whether that's temporary or long-term is up to the individual situation. While they are there, people need to have the basic protections as tenants. I guess on this point we differ, and that's fine. We differ even from the way our Liberal colleagues choose to approach this. I heard Mr Duncan say earlier that they don't see the issue of care homes as a landlord and tenant issue or concern or approach. We have a basic difference on that point. So for those two reasons, Chair, I won't be supporting this particular amendment.

1110

Mr Gilchrist: Not to go back on my earlier compliments to Mr Silipo, but I would just remind him that throughout the hearings we heard groups ask for time periods such as six months and one year. In fact we thought two years not only went well beyond what most of the groups had asked for, but I would remind him that it is precisely the time period your government put in under the Residents Rights Act for facilities such as this and for treatment in these exact same circumstances. I certainly respect the right of your caucus to take a different view today, but in the legislation that is in place today you people made it a two-year time period as well.

Mr Duncan: I could support the amendment if we were talking strictly about a women's shelter, for instance, the one you used. But if you go back to the definitions section in your own bill and you look at the definitions of "care home" and "care services," let me put some very simple contextual cases for you. Let's say you have a resident in a lodging home who needs a catheter who has been there for two years. What do you do? Get rid of them. The question was asked rhetorically, "Where do they go?" Let me tell you where they go. They go to the street.

A good service provider attempts to get a client to function independently and live independently. I urge you, if you haven't already been, to go into your community and to some of the lodging homes that fall into this category. We're not dealing with a residential program for alcoholics that may have a 28-day program where people come in and go out. That's why I say this section has to be viewed in the context of care services, not exclusively in the context of landlord and tenant relationships.

If your definition were different and more restricted, and I checked -- you use the words "care home" in this and it goes well beyond the definition of a shelter for battered women, whose intent is to provide a transitional setting. It goes well beyond that and it deals with those people who are the most vulnerable.

I can tell you that there are very simple issues. One there is great debate around is the use of restraints. You're right: In the context of two years that is exactly what these homes said. Frankly, most good providers would have a much shorter time frame than two years.

I urge the government strongly to look at this in the context of your own definition in the act. If you do that, I think it changes the way this section can be used.

Mr Gilchrist: Not to belabour the point, but just to Mr Duncan's last comment: I agree that at the outset of the bill we define what a care home is, but I remind him that right in this very section we further refine and clarify precisely what facilities we are talking about here. This section applies to care homes only if they are occupied solely for the purpose of receiving rehabilitative or therapeutic services. It is not a care home in general. This isn't what happens to a patient in a care home. This is an entire facility. Your comment was, "This doesn't apply to a centre that has a 28-day alcohol recovery." Yes, it does. This is precisely for those groups. It does not cover somebody who needs a catheter in a nursing home.

If you're in a nursing home or lodging home where there is no defined program time, then this section doesn't apply. The original section 90 applies. So everyone in the facility must be covered by that same tenancy time limit or else this section does not apply.

With the greatest respect, I don't think you could find a scenario, whether it's an alcohol or drug recovery program -- if everyone in that building is covered by the program, then this section would apply, and we think it is appropriate that the care giver be allowed to allocate their resources to those people. If you've set for example 28 days as the time period, then I don't think it would be appropriate a year later to have that same person in there. I suspect you would be hard-pressed to find a care giver who would disagree with that. The bottom line is that this in no way changes anything else in section 90. This clarifies that only if 100% of the facility is dedicated to rehab or therapy programs with a set time limit, then there is a different treatment for those.

Mr Sergio: I don't want to dwell on it long either. Just two things if you can explain briefly: (1) whether there is any assessment of the tenant's condition at the end of two years; what if the condition of the tenant has deteriorated instead of improving over those two particular years? Are we saying then, "Sorry, the tenancy agreement is two years and you've got to go regardless"? I don't know the ins and outs of all the legislation, but if that were to be the case, is there an assessment as to the condition of a particular tenant? And if for whatever reasons during the course of the year, 18 months, two years the conditions deteriorated, what then?

Mr Gilchrist: I think it could fall into a number of circumstances, Mr Sergio. First off, we'd have to break it into two different categories. There are programs you can check yourself into and that you pay for privately. I think in those circumstances at the end of the 28 days, if you and the operator of the rehab facility thought there was need for a longer stay, you would negotiate the rate and you would continue that.

That is very different from the circumstance where you're checked into a facility with genuine health concerns that are covered by OHIP. I would think in that circumstance there would not be a scenario where you'd see somebody, when the circumstances deteriorate, merely allowed to go back out on the street. In fact, in all likelihood you'd be talking about a situation now where you would need to move them to a facility that can handle those greater challenges.

I think there are so many scenarios you could put forward, I'd be hard-pressed to cover them all. I would expect that if it's something covered by OHIP, of course the doctor who would be overseeing your treatment would have a responsibility, both professional and practical, to ensure that your care continued appropriately. Again I think that falls outside what the overwhelming majority of people covered by this program would be. As Mr Duncan points out, it would be things like alcohol recovery programs, and in most cases it's something you check yourself into and pay for privately.

Not to dwell on any one here in Ontario and single them out, but if you went into the Betty Ford Clinic, you'd pay for X number of weeks of treatment, and when that's done, I don't think you would argue with me that you don't have a right to stay there any more than you have a right to stay in a hotel or anywhere else. The bottom line is that if it's voluntary, that's something you negotiate. If it's involuntary and covered by OHIP, I would have absolutely every expectation that yes, there would be an assessment and yes, appropriate care would continue.

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

Shall section 91 carry? Carried.

We are on to a New Democratic Party motion on page 110.

1120

Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 92(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "make reasonable efforts to" in the third line.

The point of this amendment, by taking out those words "make reasonable efforts to," is that it would then put upon the landlord an obligation to find appropriate alternative accommodation for the tenant, not just to make reasonable efforts, and to ensure that where there is notice given by the landlord of a care home -- under section 51, which is the section that deals with demolition, conversion or repairs, you'll recall, it is imperative that the landlord in those circumstances have an obligation to find alternative accommodation for the tenant. Again, we're talking here about people with particular needs and we think that it's reasonable, therefore, to place that obligation upon the landlord as opposed to the wording in the present bill, which simply says "shall make reasonable efforts to." We think there needs to be an outright obligation for the landlord to find alternative accommodation for the tenant.

Mr Duncan: We think it's extremely naïve to believe that even a good landlord with the opportunity -- I want to focus on the kinds of folks we're dealing with here. I suspect what's going to happen now in most lodging homes is that there will be automatic two-year agreements. At the end of two years a lodging home guest, who is there and being paid for by welfare -- remember that -- generally at a rate that is below a sustainable treatment rate, becomes harder to deal with for whatever reason. You've got a fundamental issue: What do you do with that person?

In many cases there's no support of family, or where there is, they're not involved. Agencies and organizations are increasingly being asked to act for individuals because the public guardian has not been able to. Speak to good owners of lodging homes who take in people on welfare and they will tell you that inevitably the amount that is paid through welfare is not enough. I suspect they're probably accurate. These people wind up on the street. They wind up not only without proper care, but throughout this part of the bill they wind up with less protection than they had before.

I'm being charitable. I don't believe that any member of this government wants that. I don't think so. I honestly believe that you want to find good protection. Obviously we will differ on how that happens, but I won't ascribe to you mean-spiritedness. I am trying to suggest, however, that you're not going to achieve what you want to achieve through this.

You have a very serious problem in this society. It's a problem we've all been too silent on. Again I urge you as strongly as I can to try to come to terms with this. No landlord is going to be able to find alternative accommodation. I know what the government is saying when it says "reasonable effort" -- anybody who's been out there knows -- and the bad landlord will want to get rid of that tenant -- I don't like to use the word "tenant"; "patient" and "client" are probably better terms -- because of the cost. The provision of human service is extremely expensive, and in the era of limited welfare payments, which most of these people collect, care homes won't take those people in. They have others who can afford to pay a full rate or what have you.

So if we don't deal with these issues in the broader context, I fear we're just muddying something up worse than it has been all the way along and I believe that every member around this table in all three political parties wants to address this in a substantive fashion.

Mr Silipo: I don't necessarily disagree with the overall point Mr Duncan is making, but I would remind him that our amendment deals with situations in which the landlord is seeking to evict, not situations in which the landlord is deciding to take in. I share his concerns with respect to landlords deciding to take in tenants in this area. But presumably the landlord he was describing would know, upon taking the tenant in, what moneys the tenant would be able to pay. Obviously, under the other provisions of the bill, the landlord would now know, as he and I both objected to, whether a person is on social assistance and what kind of income etc.

This is a case, however, where the landlord is seeking to end the tenancy agreement because of wanting to convert or demolish the premises. We think in that case there needs to be an absolute obligation upon the landlord to find an alternative accommodation for the tenant rather than simply make reasonable efforts.

Mr Gilchrist: This is getting downright scary. I happen to agree with a lot of what Mr Silipo has said and I too will remind Mr Duncan that this section refers back to only those circumstances where a landlord either intends to demolish the building -- and that in all likelihood would be a function of its age or an order from the municipality that it's no longer safe; most people don't demolish perfectly good buildings, so I think it's a safe assumption that it will be more likely older and less serviceable buildings -- or he converts it to a purpose other than residential -- it's not too likely you would convert a residential building to an office building, but it could happen -- or he does repairs or renovations that are so extensive that you have to move people out in many cases to make fire and other health and safety improvements.

If it's the first two circumstances, demolition or conversion, tenants are hardly left high and dry. First off, they're given three months' rent or placement in other facilities, in other residences. So the landlord has a three-month rent inducement to make those reasonable efforts. That will certainly, multiplied by the number of units in the building, give any landlord pause to consider that it is quite appropriate for them to make the effort to find alternative accommodations. On the other hand, if it's simply for repairs and renovations, then they only have to find a short-term alternative accommodation, because they have a right of first refusal to move back into that unit at the existing rent.

We're saying that care homes should not be treated like other buildings in the marketplace. If a building is being demolished, we have to recognize that fact and we have to deal with the people who are in it. We think that section 51 of the act makes it very clear that the landlord has a financial responsibility to help relocate those tenants either in the short term or, if the building is being demolished, in the long term.

While I know you have other causes for concern in the whole issue of care homes in general, I think section 51, which is subject to the amendment we're debating right now, does afford the appropriate protections for any tenant.

Mr Duncan: I remind the committee members of the presentation we had from Legal Assistance of Windsor the day we were there. Mr Silipo wasn't there and wouldn't be aware of this. I'll refer to Dana Manor, which is being converted to a hotel, because it's right behind the casino. When we were there we had testimony from the lawyer from Legal Assistance of Windsor that alternative accommodation had not been found for the tenants.

I'll say quite publicly, and differ with Legal Assistance of Windsor, that in my view the landlord was making reasonable efforts. That I think points out why this whole part of the bill, part IV -- and I certainly agree with what the NDP is attempting to achieve with this, but we had a presentation that very day in Windsor about Dana Manor, most of whose clients are paid for by the city of Windsor social services department. They are losing their home because the home is being converted to a hotel for the casino.

This Tory bill certainly leaves those people much more vulnerable. The NDP amendment will certainly, if it were realistic -- but when all lodging homes in the city of Windsor are booked full, if you're not going to allow them to convert it, take out that section of the bill, section 51. That's how I read the sections taken together. I thought that testimony was quite compelling. Again, I don't believe it's the government's intention, but I think these issues cannot be dealt with, and we've been told time and again by previous studies that you can't deal with these issues independently of one another.

1130

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

Shall section 92 carry? All those in favour of section 92? All those opposed? Section 92 carries.

Shall section 93 carry? Debate?

Mr Silipo: This is the section of this part that we find most offensive.

The Chair: If I could just correct this, and I apologize, page 111 is a recommendation, not an amendment, so it's out of order. You may continue with the debate.

Mr Silipo: I thought this might have been one of those that would have been replaced with a motion that it be struck out, but we'll deal with that through the vote on it. This is a section we find very troubling, because it allows landlords to apply to the tribunal for an order to transfer the tenant. We think this gets to the heart of providing landlords with powers they shouldn't have.

I note with some interest the attitude that was provided here. Earlier in the summer, in one of the discussions between tenant leaders and Minister Leach's staff, one of his assistants, Anne Dundas, I believe, said words to the effect that when there was a group of people shipped from Toronto to Aylmer, these tenants got shipped to Aylmer under existing laws; maybe they shouldn't have any tenant rights at all. This seems to be very much following in that vein of saying that people ought to be able to be shipped around when they're in care homes.

We don't think that should exist. The basic premise we come back to is that these are people's homes. They ought to have the basic right to live there. While there may be reasons in various circumstances for landlords to want to evict, those are areas where that should be done according to the law and procedures and safeguards that are given to tenants, not by allowing landlords here additional rights to simply transfer people out as they deem appropriate. That's something we find particularly troubling. That's why we think section 93 is wrong and shouldn't exist in the bill.

Mr Duncan: Even if you agree with the government's rationale for this section, if you look at your objective of providing for faster dispute resolution, a tribunal that can deal with issues quickly, you're now setting up a situation where the tribunal's going to have to deal with medical issues, ethical issues, social issues. I can tell you that there are landlords out there who are very good landlords and provide very good services that wrestle with these questions all the time: Can we provide the level of service this person now requires? I submit to the government that those are not easy determinations.

We have heard testimony related to other parts of the bill around the qualifications of tribunal members. I raised the issue, and it sounds like something very simple, of catheters, of who can put in a catheter. A registered nurse has to. Many of these lodging homes don't have registered nurses. What's the tribunal going to do? There is just a whole range of issues.

I submit respectfully to the government, if it is your intention to provide a dispute resolution mechanism -- which is what you have stated, what the minister has said, what the PA has said -- that's more efficient and serves the interests of both landlords and tenants, you're doing precisely the opposite, because if a situation arises where somebody requires a higher level of care or a level of care that's not present in the facility or the facility believes it cannot provide, those questions are not often cut and dried.

What about a scenario where you have an elderly husband and wife living in the same facility and the husband requires a greater degree of care? What do you do? I'm not trying to split hairs here. I'm not trying to give you the most bizarre cases. These are cases that are happening. I submit to the government that if your objective is to provide a tribunal and a dispute resolution mechanism that's more fair and efficient both for tenants and landlords -- putting aside the differences we have on those issues for a moment, if we can even agree on that, we've said time and again we agree with your intention there -- you're not doing that with this.

You're setting up a scenario where tribunal members are going to have to make some pretty sophisticated decisions around health care, social issues and ethical questions. We think this is the wrong place to do it. That's why we recommended pulling Part IV from the bill and dealing with it separately, dealing in a more complete text with the entire issue of care homes.

I suspect, and I think most thoughtful members know, that this problem is likely going to become bigger in the coming years, certainly before the government has an opportunity, or a subsequent government has the opportunity, to deal with these issues again.

I urge you, please reconsider Part IV. This, to us, is a very offensive section of the bill, for the testimony that's been given. I say to the government members that in terms of your own objective, you won't be meeting that objective.

Mr Gilchrist: I must disagree with the suggestions Mr Duncan has made. First off, we don't see this as being something that will be used an awful lot, but to have no transfer provisions [failure of sound system] all landlords, and we're talking care homes by and large here, and have no ability for them to recognize the fact that, with various ailments and as we all age, in many cases our care needs increase.

If your current residence does not have the ability to deliver a particular service, there has to be a means to address that problem: if you move into a facility as an able person, and as you deteriorate it reaches the point where you need 24-hour nursing but you won't move. You talk about the tribunal being faced with challenges. Under the current act, it's a landlord that has to make every one of those decisions you just talked about. What's the landlord supposed to do? Under your scenario, if this provision was not here, in theory the landlord could be required to provide, as a condition of your residency, 24-hour nursing at no cost.

Speaking just for myself, I can't see how anybody would see that as fair. It's not the landlord's fault that you need 24-hour nursing. It may very well be that there will be a demand on the health care system but that's not the issue here.

1140

The reality is, if someone's care needs increase, there has to be a mechanism to ensure those needs are met. If you need to be in a chronic care facility but you're not there today, how could anybody with a conscience suggest that to deprive you -- I really think you can phrase it that way because you may not be in a mental state, in some cases, to be able to make that decision on your own or there may be other circumstances. As you say, a husband and wife would like to be together. Unfortunately, there are times when medical requirements demand otherwise.

This makes it very clear in a number of ways. First off, if the landlord fails in any of these requirements, section 5 says the tribunal will dismiss the application. So if the landlord cannot prove, absolutely, positively, that the care can't be delivered, not won't, can't be delivered in his or her facility, then it fails right there.

Second, as to the actual health decisions -- we went over this during the committee travels but I'll reiterate it again -- the community care access centres, the Ministry of Health will have the lead role in doing the assessments, in making the health decisions. Nothing in this act supersedes the legislation that gives the CCACs the power to be the final arbiters of care needs. As you've heard in the House, there is an absolute requirement that care must be available in a community or it will be created once the demand is recognized.

This bill merely says that if there is a circumstance where someone's care needs increase and the landlord cannot provide them, then the landlord has the ability to go to the tribunal and, working with them, find alternative accommodation where care needs can be met. I, for one, don't understand how anyone sees a negative in that because at the end of the day, if the bottom line isn't finding the appropriate care and delivering it to the tenant, in this case -- it seems to me all other things are subordinate to that. The bottom line is we've got to make sure they are in the appropriate facilities, and without a transfer provision such as this one, that circumstance cannot be addressed in the current act.

Mr Sergio: This really begs the question to have this section dealt on its own. What is it? Is it 93 or is it 86? We have seen very clearly and forcefully, with all due respect to the parliamentary assistant, in his attempt to explain the puzzle here, that this is an agency giving a particular service. You're going to go in for two years. You know when you're going there and you've got to go. That's what explicitly he has said: At the end of two years, you've got to go. It says here the landlord has just to try and make a reasonable attempt to find another accommodation. Well, good luck.

What is it? Is it 93 or is it 86? Under 86, we see that this particular type of service is two years, no more, no less; hopefully less. If you require further assistance, goodbye, Charlie, you're gone. You're on your own. In 93, we are giving the landlord the power to either transfer or move. If under 86 that particular occupant has got to go, why are we giving the landlord the power to go to a tribunal? Again, we ask some of the previous questions.

I know what the government is trying to do, but it's not being addressed properly in this particular section. It's not complete. The puzzle doesn't have all the parts. Unfortunately, the consequences are being suffered by the occupants, who have no other alternative. We have heard from the parliamentary assistant, "Oh yes, we'll see assessment and stuff like that," and then we see that under section 86 there is no such thing. It is an agreement, a tenancy agreement. That's all it is, and you know very well that if you feel better or you feel worse, "You took that upon yourself, Mr Tenant or Mr Occupant, so you've got to go."

In plain words, that's the way it is. When I now see another section here, that regardless of those sections in 86 here, the landlord again has been given the extra, unnecessary power, and unfair I should say, to go to a tribunal regardless, and the power to even transfer, which means if you find a particular situation, that maybe one of the tenants is disturbing some other tenants, or they don't like them, or it's taking too much time, it's taking too much care, whatever, and the landlord says, "We want this guy out, this person out of here," we are giving them the power.

You know what happens when you're trying to assess a particular situation and stuff like that. I don't have to tell you. I think this is practically discriminatory against many occupants of this particular type of user.

No explanation will suffice, but I feel totally uncomfortable with the section here.

Mr Silipo: Mr Gilchrist asked earlier what the negative is that we see in section 93, and essentially it's the ability of a landlord to seek an order transferring a tenant where the needs of the tenant with respect to the care services have changed.

Mr Sergio referred to section 86. I want to go back to section 86 and under subsection (2) remind Mr Gilchrist and government members that part of the written tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant in care homes is to provide what's been agreed to with respect to care services and meals and the charges for those services. So Mr Gilchrist shouldn't worry that if section 93 didn't exist, the landlord would be obliged to provide additional services where the needs of the tenant changed.

The tenant would only be entitled to those care services that are stipulated in the written agreement. A tenant couldn't come along and say, "Because my needs have changed, Landlord, you have to provide those services." They could amend the agreement. Presumably, if the landlord is able to provide and is willing to provide those services, then that would happen. But if the landlord cannot, the tenant then has the choice of remaining in the care home and continuing to receive those services that have been agreed to with the landlord, and presumably be able to try and get those other services from elsewhere, if they were able to. But they have the choice. They would not be able to place any additional requirements upon the landlord, but on the other hand, they would have the safety of knowing that it's them and not the landlord who decides if and when they should move out of the care home.

That's the basic problem. Others have referred to the situation of two people who might be married, and yes, that's a situation where it's important. In fact, it might in the tenant's view be more important that they be in the same building, in the same place, in the same apartment perhaps, depending on the relative care, the needs of the two individuals, than that one be moved to another apartment. But the bottom line is it's a decision for them, and that's just one example that could apply in cases where we have single tenants.

But the point is that it's the tenant who should be making the decision, or the people responsible for the care of the tenant, and not the landlord. That's why we find section 93 troublesome and that's why we believe it should be taken out. But we also make the point that in taking it out, you're not placing any additional, undue obligations upon the landlord. The landlord would still be protected in so far as they would only be obliged to provide those services that they had already contracted with the tenant to provide.

I just want to finish my comments by just asking one question: If, as it seems, the government is intent on proceeding to have this section in the bill, I want to go back to something Mr Duncan addressed, with which I also agree, and that is the issue of now having to have people among the tribunal members with some understanding of these concerns, if they are going to be called upon, albeit we all hope in not too many instances, but they will be called upon if this section is going to exist, to make decisions about questions of levels of care. I'd just like to ask Mr Gilchrist what attention is going to be paid to this issue in appointing the members of the tribunal.

Presumably, if you look outside this area of the act, you would be looking for people with certain skills in terms of being able to make judgements, to make decisions, to understand, for example, the particular way of weighing what is appropriate in terms of increases in rent or not. Here you are calling for some assessment of what is an adequate level of care. I think it is therefore incumbent that there also be some expertise on that among the tribunal members. It's obviously a bit of a rhetorical point, but it is also a real question to Mr Gilchrist in terms of what the government is going to do to ensure you have people on the tribunal who are able to provide this kind of expertise.

1150

Mr Gilchrist: More than being concerned about the background of the individuals on the tribunal would be making sure the appropriate resources are available to the tribunal. I hardly have to tell you that even sitting in this room as we are now, we have legal counsel, we have any number of other staff people who are here to advise us and assist us in our deliberations. I think the tribunal would operate in exactly the same way. As I mentioned earlier, the community care access centres will have a lead role in ensuring the identification and assisting in the relocation where appropriate, and giving that feedback to the tribunal.

I would be far more concerned, and I will certainly give you this undertaking, that the tribunal will have the resources necessary to appropriately assess every case that's brought before it. In those cases that deal with section 93, the resources would clearly have to be of a medical nature. In all our discussions to date, in terms of how this will function once the bill is passed, I've included consideration of the fact that there will have to be coordination between the tribunal and the CCACs in a particular community to ensure that there is just no chance that, based on a lack of expertise or lack of awareness of health care in general, the tribunal is going to make ill-considered moves. I will certainly give you that undertaking.

The Chair: The Chair has a question to either Mr Silipo or Mr Gilchrist, and that is, with respect to this issue, the care home in its wisdom, rightly or wrongly, decides that it can no longer care for the client or the person who is the tenant. It may be, for example, that they can no longer provide that service because the care home believes that person should be in a chronic facility. The patient or the person who is responsible for that patient disagrees with that assessment. My question to Mr Silipo, because you seem to be taking opposite sides on this, or to Mr Duncan, is, what would happen in that situation? How is that resolved?

Mr Silipo: I don't profess to be an expert in this area, Chair, but if there is an issue of a change, if what you're saying is that there's a change in the level of care a tenant needs, then that's an issue that has to be dealt with, in our view, first of all vis-à-vis what does the tenancy agreement say? Presumably what you're saying is that's outside of what's already been contracted between the tenant and the landlord with respect to what the landlord is obliged to provide, and with respect to this law I think the question that has to be first asked is, what is the obligation then upon the landlord? Is there an obligation to provide additional care?

I think the test of that would be that it should be within the range of care the landlord is equipped to provide. If the level of care that's provided clearly falls outside of that sphere, and more importantly if it falls outside of what's been contracted -- you've got to go back, as I understand it, to what's in the agreement, because the agreement sets out what's been contracted -- then I think you've got an issue there to be dealt with. But it doesn't affect, and this is the point we're making, it shouldn't affect the right of the tenant to continue to live there.

The Chair: The reason I ask that question, Mr Silipo, and others may wish to comment, is that I could foresee a situation where the care giver, the landlord, and the patient or the client or the tenant disagree. The landlord for liability purposes says, "I can no longer provide this service, the service we originally contracted for."

Mr Silipo: That's a different issue.

The Chair: Well, that's what I'm raising.

Mr Silipo: That's not what section 93 affects. Section 93 is about where there is a change in the level of care required by --

The Chair: That's right. That's exactly it. The care needs can no longer be provided. In section 93 the tenant no longer requires the level of care provided by the landlord; well, it needs other care. My question is, how do we solve this dispute? However, perhaps it's inappropriate for me to even be asking questions. Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan: That is the whole point of why we have concerns about this whole part of the bill. Those decisions are being made all the time today. It may be with the individual involved. It may be with the substitute for the person involved. I raised the issue of the catheters, an experience I had. I sat on the board of a municipal non-profit home for the aged, and in the old days -- even to this day -- those homes were not licensed for that type of nursing service.

The point is that the tribunal is contemplated to be dealing with landlord and tenant issues and these issues go far beyond that. I do not agree with those who say that this consideration should not be dealt with. Clearly it has to be. The problem, as we see it, is that you're dealing with it as part of a tenancy issue as opposed to a care issue. You are setting up a tribunal and the community care access centres, respectfully, will not have the resources, in our view, to deal with these. Certainly they don't today. We think they ought to be dealt with separately. Subsection 86(2) provides for a contractual arrangement. Presumably that contract will be tight, and yes, changes can happen.

This bill provides for mediation prior to this kicking in. We don't believe this is the proper place to have that. I don't want to be splitting hairs, but these issues are significant. The final point I want to make is with respect to the parliamentary assistant's comments, and I will refer him to 93: "A landlord may apply to the tribunal for an order transferring a tenant out of a care home and evicting the tenant if...the level of care that the landlord is able to provide when combined with the community-based services provided to the tenant in the care home cannot meet the tenant's care needs." This raises another situation which frankly isn't consistent with what the parliamentary assistant said.

If you are a tenant in a care home and you're getting help from the outside, the landlord can still apply to evict you, even if that protection is there. It's quite clear: "the level of care that the landlord is able to provide when combined with the community-based services...."

It's saying that even if your contractual obligation doesn't meet the need, if the tenant can therefore go out and get the service from whoever else, be it the VON, whatever, he'd evict. That's not right. We don't dispute for one minute, and I said that up front, that there's a need to address these issues and we think it has become more acute as time goes on. The law is very fuzzy right now. Anybody who deals in it knows that. The question becomes the appropriate mechanism and where you deal with it. We believe this is tied to the proper mechanism or the right way to go about it. The question of where a person lives has got to be fundamental to the whole equation. Here it's not.

Mr Gilchrist: I'll be brief. Chair, first off the answer to your question is, in a situation like that the landlord may apply to the tribunal if there has not been the ability, either first with face-to-face negotiations with the tenant, or with mediation. Then the tribunal may have this as another option available to it.

I also have to address Mr Duncan's final point. I don't know whether lawyers are born or whether they are created, it's an interesting psychological question, but to leave out clause 93(2)(a) is really being somewhat disingenuous. There are a myriad of circumstances where even with the community care providers, your current facility could not be deemed to be an appropriate venue. You may very well need to be in a hospital. So to leave out (a), "appropriate alternate accommodation is available" -- it has to be read in the same sense.

The bottom line, in answer to your question, Chair, is that if all of those other attempts to find a common ground and to have the tenant move on their own accord fail, then the landlord may apply and the tribunal, only with appropriate medical evidence and the determination that there is appropriate alternate accommodation, could issue an order.

The Chair: Shall section 93 carry? All those in favour of section 93? All those opposed? Section 93 carries.

I believe it would be appropriate to recess these proceedings until 3:30 this afternoon.

The committee recessed from 1201 to 1533.

The Chair: We'll reconvene. We had completed and voted on section 93. Shall sections 94 --

Mr Duncan: I have something to ask the parliamentary assistant. I meant to ask him this morning.

The Chair: Certainly, Mr Duncan. I hope it's on what we're talking about now.

Mr Duncan: Oh, absolutely. It's on the substance of the bill.

The Chair: Well no, not the substance of the bill. I hope it's on the sections that we're dealing with.

Mr Duncan: Oh, absolutely. Which section, I'm sorry?

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr Duncan: Are you advising Mel Lastman on his position on rent control?

Mr Silipo: That's Mr Gilchrist.

Mr Gilchrist: No, that's Mr Colle. He's manager of Mr Lastman's campaign.

The Chair: Mr Duncan, you have a very concise question, I know.

Mr Duncan: I just asked.

The Chair: That's it. Shall sections 94 to 101 carry? Sections 94 to 101 have carried.

We are on to page 112, a government amendment.

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

"Assignment

"101.1 A landlord may not refuse consent to the assignment of a site for a mobile home on a ground set out in clause 17(2)(b) or 17(3)(c) if the potential assignee has purchased or has entered into an agreement to purchase the mobile home on the site."

This is a new provision to eliminate a landlord's right to refuse the assignment of tenancy in a mobile home park or land-lease community where the potential assignee has purchased or will be purchasing the home on the leased lot.

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

Shall section 102 carry? Section 102 is carried.

Shall section 103 carry? Section 103 is carried.

We are on to page 113, a government motion to section 104.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that the French version of subsection 104(7) of the bill be amended by inserting after "responsabilité" in the second line "à l'égard de quiconque."

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

Mr Duncan: I'd like to hear him say that again.

Mr Silipo: Put more amendments in French. They might be more amenable to him.

The Chair: Mais oui.

Mr Gilchrist: Now you tell us.

The Chair: Shall section 104, as amended, carry? Section 104, as amended, is carried.

Shall section 105 carry? Section 105 is carried.

Page 114 is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 106 of the bill be amended by striking out "not be before the end of the period of the tenancy" in the sixth and seventh lines and substituting "be the day a period of the tenancy ends".

It's just a technical amendment clarifying that a notice of termination based on conversion, demolition or repair must take effect the day the fixed-term tenancy ends or, if there is not a fixed term, then the day a period of tenancy ends.

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

Shall section 106, as amended, carry? Section 106, as amended, has carried.

We are on to page 115, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 107 of the bill and the heading immediately preceding it be struck out and the following substituted:

"RULES RELATED TO RENT AND OTHER CHARGES

"New tenant

"107(1) Despite subsection 17(8) and section 116, if a new tenant of a site for a mobile home has purchased or has entered into an agreement to purchase the mobile home located on the site, the landlord may not charge the new tenant a rent that is greater than the last lawful rent charged plus the prescribed amount.

"Same

"(2) If an assignee of a tenant of a site for a mobile home has purchased or has entered into an agreement to purchase the mobile home located on the site, the assignee shall be deemed to be a new tenant for the purposes of subsection (1).

"Exception

"(3) Subsection 128(10) does not apply with respect to a site for a mobile home if there is a new tenancy agreement with respect to the site and the new tenant purchased or has entered into an agreement to purchase the mobile home located on the site."

The reason for this amendment is to clarify the anti-gouging provisions, to make sure they're intended to apply to mobile homes and land-lease homes owned by tenants, not to homes owned by the landlord. The landlord's ability to reset rent on a home he or she owns would not be limited to an amount prescribed by regulation. Subsection 107(2) is a new provision which treats the assignee of a tenancy agreement who has purchased the home or entered into an agreement to purchase a home as a new tenant and allows the landlord to reset the rent for the site by the amount prescribed by regulation. In other words, it gives the assignee the same rights and responsibilities as the original tenant.

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

Shall section 107, as amended, carry? Section 107, as amended, carries.

We are on to section 108, page 116.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 108 of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:

"5. The testing of water or sewage in a mobile home park."

Quite simply, this is an amendment to remit a landlord who charged tenants out-of-pocket expenses incurred for the testing of water or sewage effluent in a mobile home park or land-lease community. A landlord would be allowed to collect this money directly from tenants.

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

Shall section 108, as amended, carry? Section 108, as amended, is carried.

Shall sections 109 and 110 carry? Sections 109 and 110 are carried.

We are on to section 111, page 117.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 111(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "be" in the first line and substituting "not be more than."

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that a landlord cannot charge more than first and last month's rent as a deposit.

1540

Mr Gilchrist: Much to the delight, I'm sure, of Mr Duncan, the government will be pleased to support his amendment. We think this in fact does --

Mr Duncan: I want to rethink this amendment.

Mr Gilchrist: Hey, it's not the first one. You're on a roll now. This allows landlords greater flexibility and we think it really is an improvement to the bill, so we applaud your bringing it forward and we will be voting in favour of this amendment.

Mr Silipo: Maybe I'll want to read it again.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? Unanimous. The motion has carried.

We still have another Liberal motion.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 111(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "after the landlord has received a rent deposit" in the first and second lines and substituting "after a tenant has paid a rent deposit."

This clarifies that no rent increases are allowed after a tenant has paid a deposit.

Mr Gilchrist: Two in a row. The government will be supporting this. We think this is a substitute trigger mechanism for the landlord. It's a fairly technical change and we think it does clarify the issue, so we're pleased to support this one as well.

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

We're on to page 119.

Mr Silipo: Better not three.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Three in a row and we're out.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 111(6) of the bill be amended by striking out "at the rate of 6% per year" at the end and substituting "at the prescribed rate."

This would allow the interest paid by landlords in a rent deposit to be more in tune with the market rate.

Mr Silipo: I will be opposing this amendment. I believe that the present 6% is appropriate, and I hope the government members will continue to support that portion of the bill. Certainly we can get into a long discussion about the ups and downs of the market, but landlords by and large have these deposits for some period of time and they're able to do what they will and can in terms of investing them etc. I think that 6% continues to be reasonable and I won't support the Liberal amendment.

Mr Gilchrist: Just to prove we listen to both opposition parties, we're going to be agreeing with Mr Silipo on this one and oppose the amendment, quite frankly because, for any year in which the rate may be seen to be too high, there will be another year in which it seems to be too low. It tremendously streamlines accounting for both the landlords and the tenants. They can calculate that the rate of interest they received is a set amount, and that, I think, should be seen in the overall context of the fact that most landlords are small operators with fewer than 10 units, and to put in something that requires them to track something year by year on what could be a 10- or 20-year tenancy would be just a staggering workload. At the end of the day, for any year, as I say, that there might be an advantage, there will be another year where there's a disadvantage.

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

Mr Duncan on page 120.

Mr Duncan: I move that section 111 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(6.1) Where the landlord has failed to make the payment required by subsection (6) when it comes due, the tenant may deduct the amount of the payment from a subsequent rent payment."

This would allow tenants to deduct any interest payments not made by landlords directly from their rent.

Mr Gilchrist: Well, having demonstrated we support the Liberals and then support the NDP, we want it duly noted that they have each presented an identical amendment and this time we'll be supporting both of them. The government will be voting in favour of this. This would allow the tenant to deduct the interest payment on the last month's rent from the rent where the landlord has failed to make that annual payment himself, and in fact it's something that is quite appropriate, so we're pleased to support this amendment. You have three out of four.

Mr Duncan: Just given the good turn, I wonder if we could review some sections we've already done.

The Chair: As you can guess, Mr Silipo, the next motion will be out of order. I don't know whether you had any other comments to make.

Mr Silipo: No, just that I'm glad that the spirit of it was supported and the letter of it as presented by a Liberal amendment.

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

Page 121 is out of order.

Shall section 111, as amended, carry? Section 111, as amended, is carried.

Shall section 112 carry? Section 112 is carried.

We're on to page 122.

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

"Receipt for payment

"112.1 A landlord shall provide free of charge to a tenant, upon 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."

As we mentioned on our first day of clause-by-clause, the other two parties had, back I think it was around section 36, proposed a similar amendment which would have dealt with just a receipt for rent. The reason we opposed that one, as we told you last week, was that ours also includes the ability to demand a receipt for rent deposits, arrears of rent or any other payment for any special charges or services done by the landlord.

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

We are on to page 123.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 113(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Discounted rent

"(2) The only discounted rent that a landlord may offer is a period of one or more months where no rent is charged."

This comes back to the issue that we discussed the last day. It comes back to our fundamental difference of opinion with respect to the issue of vacancy decontrol and the landlord's ability to set the new rent once a vacancy has occurred. Our concern is that a landlord, acting as a rational economic actor, would merely set the new rent at an amount way above the market and discount back the amount to whatever the market will bear, which will, in effect, allow the landlord to be exempted from the recontrol that some landlords have referred to and what the government has referred to as the protections that are afforded once a vacant unit has become reoccupied.

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

We are on to replacement page 124.

Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 113(2) of the bill be struck out.

The rationale for this amendment is essentially the same as the one that Mr Duncan provided for the previous one. We certainly supported that amendment. Given that that didn't pass, we think that this subsection shouldn't exist.

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

Page 125, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 113 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Lawful rent where higher rent for first rental period

"(3) Where the rent a landlord charges for the first rental period of a tenancy is greater than the rent the landlord charges for subsequent rental periods, the lawful rent shall be calculated in accordance with the prescribed rules."

The reason for this amendment is that it authorizes the development of regulations to determine the calculation of lawful rent in situations where the landlord charges the tenant a higher rent for the first month of the tenancy than is charged for the remainder of the tenancy, ie, premiums.

1550

The Chair: Debate? Shall this motion carry? Opposed? I'll try it again. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion fails. No? The motion carries. We're going to try that again, just so we're clear of the wreckage. All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion carries.

Shall section 113, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The section, as amended, carries.

Shall sections 114 and 115 carry? Sections 114 and 115 are carried.

We have dealt with, I believe, section 116.

We are on to page 130, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 117(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "or 77" in the second line of clause (b), by adding "and" at the end of clause (b) and by adding the following clause:

"(c) neither the landlord nor the tenant applies to the tribunal under section 77 within 60 days after the end of the subtenancy for an order evicting the subtenant."

The rationale: This is an amendment that provides consistency with section 77 of the act by making reference to a landlord or tenant applying for an order to evict an overholding subtenant within 60 days after the end of the subtenancy. It previously made reference to 60 days after the landlord discovering the unauthorized occupancy.

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

Shall section 117, as amended, carry? Section 117, as amended, is carried.

Shall section 118 carry? Section 118 is carried.

We're on page 131, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 119(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Notice of rent increase required

"(1) A landlord shall not increase the rent charged to a tenant for a rental unit without first giving the tenant at least 90 days' written notice of the landlord's intention to do so.

"Same

"(1.1) Subsection (1) applies even if the rent charged is increased in accordance with an order under section 128."

This is an amendment to clarify that the 90-day notice a landlord must provide before a rent increase can be charged must be in writing. This amendment also clarifies that the written notice is required when the rent is increased by an order granting an above-guideline rent increase. So even when an order is granted, there must be a written 90-day notice.

The Chair: Debate? Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion? The motion has carried.

Shall section 119, as amended, carry? Section 119, as amended, is carried.

Shall section 120 carry? Section 120 is carried.

Page 132 is a Liberal motion.

Mr Duncan: I move that paragraph 3 of subsection 121(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "2 per cent" in the last line and substituting "1 per cent".

This again refers back to the guideline allowing the rent increases calculated at operating cost plus 2%. We believe that it should be operating plus 1%.

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

Mr Silipo, I think we just voted on yours, so that's out of order.

We're on to page 134, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 121(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Guideline for 1997, 1998

"(4) The guideline for the calendar year 1997 and for the calendar year 1998 shall be the rent control guideline for each of those years established under the Rent Control Act, 1992."

The reason for this amendment is it authorizes the calculation of the 1998 rent control guideline under the existing Rent Control Act, 1992. The guideline was announced on July 17, 1997, published in the Ontario Gazette on August 2, 1997, and has been set at 3%.

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

The Chair: Shall section 121, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 121, as amended? All those opposed? Section 121, as amended, is carried.

Mr Duncan, page 135.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 122(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Agreement

"(1) A landlord and a tenant may agree to increase the rent charged to the tenant for a rental unit above the guideline if the landlord has carried out or undertakes to carry out a specified capital expenditure in exchange for the rent increase."

This is the whole notion around what a landlord and tenant can negotiate outside of the purview of the act. We believe that something intangible like services, which the act contemplates now, is open to far too much interpretation and, we believe, will potentially unfairly expose tenants to increases above the guideline. We believe, however, that if you can have something hard, a capital thing, a new floor or what have you, where that can be negotiated that flexibility should be there for landlords and tenants.

Mr Silipo: I won't be supporting this amendment. As I think I've stated on a couple of other occasions when similar proposals were made, we believe that both the landlord and the tenant need to stay within the landlord and tenant legislation and not be able to contract outside of that. We think that provides both assurance and protection for both landlords and tenants, and that's an important principle we should adhere to.

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

Page 136, Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan: I move that section 122 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exception

"(3.1) Subsection (3) does not apply if the landlord and the tenant jointly appear at the office of the tribunal to file their agreement in person and answer questions posed by an officer of the tribunal as to the consensual nature of the agreement and that officer certifies the agreement and provides a copy to both parties."

Again we are recognizing, we believe, particularly in the area of capital, rent increases above the guidelines if all parties agree. We believe presenting this particular amendment allows the spirit of rent control to be maintained and we believe it allows an opportunity for special arrangements to be made that are -- I don't like to use the word "supervised" -- overseen or at least approved by the tribunal. If somebody wants something special done to their apartment in discussions with the landlord, it will allow the tribunal to approve that.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion fails.

Mr Silipo, page 137 is out of order.

Shall section 122 carry? All those in favour of section 122? Opposed? The section carries.

Shall sections 123 to 126 carry? Sections 123 to 126 have carried.

The next motion is Mr Silipo on page 138.

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

"Parking space

"126.1 Where a tenant no longer requires the use of a parking space, the tenant may, upon 60 days' notice to the landlord, terminate any agreement for use of the parking space and, after the termination date, the tenant is no longer liable to pay for the use of the parking space."

I think that is self-explanatory.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion fails.

We are on to section 127, page 139.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 127 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Increase to maximum rent

"127(1) A landlord may increase the rent charged to a tenant of a rental unit up to the maximum rent determined under subsection (2) if the tenant of the rental unit has been a tenant of the rental unit since the day before this section is proclaimed in force.

"Maximum rent

"(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the maximum rent is the amount determined by,

"(a) determining the maximum rent under the Rent Control Act, 1992 on the day before this section was proclaimed in force;

"(b) adding to that amount any increases in maximum rent resulting from an order issued under section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 1992 or a notice of carryforward issued under section 22 of that Act; and

"(c) subtracting from that amount the amount of any decreases in maximum rent ordered under section 28 or 33 of the Rent Control Act, 1992.

"REDUCTION OF RENT -- MUNICIPAL TAXES REDUCED

"Municipal taxes reduced

"127.1(1) If the municipal property tax for a residential complex is reduced by more than the prescribed percentage, the lawful rent for each of the rental units in the complex is reduced in accordance with the prescribed rules.

"Effective date

"(2) The rent reduction shall take effect on the prescribed date, whether or not notice has been given under subsection (3).

"Notice

"(3) If, for a residential complex with at least the prescribed number of rental units, the rents that the tenants are required to pay are reduced under subsection (1), the local municipality shall, within the prescribed period and by the prescribed method of service, notify the landlord and all of the tenants of the residential complex of that fact.

"Same

"(4) The notice shall be in writing in a form approved by the tribunal and shall,

"(a) inform the tenants that their rent is reduced;

"(b) set out the percentage by which their rent is reduced and the date the reduction takes effect;

"(c) inform the tenants that if the rent is not reduced in accordance with the notice they may apply to the tribunal under section 134 for the return of money illegally collected and;

"(d) advise the landlord and the tenants of their rights to apply for an order under section 127.2.

"Same

"(5) The local municipality shall give a copy of a notice under this section to the tribunal or to the ministry on request.

"Application for variation

"127.2 (1) A landlord or a tenant may apply to the tribunal under the prescribed circumstances for an order varying the amount by which the rent charge is to be reduced under section 127.1.

"Same

"(2) An application under subsection (1) must be made within the prescribed time.

"Determination and order

"(3) The tribunal shall determine an application under this section in accordance with the prescribed rules and shall issue an order setting out the percentage of the rent reduction.

"Same

"(4) An order under this section shall take effect on the effective date determined under subsection 127.1(2).

1600

The reason for this amendment: Section 127 has been amended to clarify that the landlord can only increase the rent charge up to the maximum rent if the current tenant occupied the unit prior to this section of the Tenant Protection Act being proclaimed. If the tenant occupies the rental unit on or after the date this provision is proclaimed the maximum rent established under the Rent Control Act for the unit no longer applies.

Sections 127.1 and 127.2 have been provided to authorize automatic rent reductions due to tax reductions greater than the prescribed amount. Local municipalities would be required to notify tenants and landlords of any rent reductions, which would be calculated according to the prescribed rules. The landlord or tenant would be entitled to apply to the tribunal to vary the rent reduction calculations, but an application would not delay the automatic rent reduction.

We believe this goes a long way to clarifying the issue that was raised at almost every day's hearings, people who suggested somehow there was not a certainty that tax decreases would show up in the tenant's pocket. This section now makes it mandatory for the municipality to notify every tenant in the affected units and the landlord as well and to point out to them very specifically how much the rent will be reduced. We think nothing could be clearer and we'll guarantee every one of those affected tenants will see the benefits of the property tax reduction.

Mr Duncan: Well, we --

Mr Froese: Agree.

Mr Duncan: No, because you forgot to amend subsection 133(2) when you go to a tribunal, and the word "may" is used in there instead of the word "shall." We think if the government was serious they would have looked at 133(2). We've provided an amendment to that section and perhaps the government will consider adopting that particular amendment. If you read 133(2), you'll find that it deals with this issue as well and you will find that the wording is quite distinct when it gives direction to the tribunal. It uses the word "may" instead of the word "shall," which means that a tribunal doesn't have to order that a tax decrease be passed on.

That being said, this is all a red herring, because we also know that property taxes in every municipality in Ontario will go up in 1998. You may guffaw now. You are not listening to your own mayors. You are not listening to your backbenchers, like Mr Skarica, who said he would not participate in these lies. I don't know if that was his word -- perhaps I'm quoting him out of context -- but the point remains that this government is raising property taxes across Ontario. They will go up substantially, anywhere from 5% to 10%. You will attempt to blame municipalities but the people of the province understand full well what is going on. So this is really an empty exercise, section 127, and even if you believe that this would achieve what you hope it will achieve, if you were serious about it, you would have amended 133(2) as well, to direct the tribunal to order that where there is a dispute property tax decreases get passed on to tenants.

For those two reasons, one, it's a red herring because property taxes will go up -- they are going to go up for homeowners across the province, they are going to go up for tenants -- and, two, if you were serious about it you would have amended section 133(2) as well to direct the tribunal to order tax decreases to be passed on to tenants, we don't believe you are sincere in this. We think this is empty political posturing. We believe very firmly that property taxes will go up across this province in 1998 and 1999.

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

Mr Silipo, I believe that the motion on page 141 is out of order.

Shall section 127, as amended, carry? Section 127, as amended, is carried.

Mr. Silipo, page 142.

Mr Silipo: I move that paragraph 1 of subsection 128(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "or utilities or both" in the second and third lines.

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

Page 143.

Mr Duncan: I move that paragraph 128(1)1 of the bill be amended by inserting after "complex" in the fourth line "or one or more of the rental units in the complex."

This allows landlords to pass on extraordinary increases in the taxes or utility charges on specific units. We think that the landlords put a fairly good case for this particular amendment and it is consistent with other sections of the bill.

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

Page 144, which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 128(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(1) A landlord may apply to the tribunal for an order allowing the rent charged to be increased by more than the guideline for any or all of the rental units in a residential complex in any or all of the following cases:

"1. An extraordinary increase in the cost for municipal taxes and charges or utilities or both for the whole residential complex.

"2. Capital expenditures incurred respecting the residential complex or one or more of the rental units in it.

"3. Operating costs related to security services provided in respect of the residential complex by persons not employed by the landlord."

The amendment in paragraph 3 permits the landlord to apply to the tribunal for an above-guideline rent increase based on increased operating costs related to the provision of security services provided such services are from an outside security firm and therefore eliminates the ability to artifice costs as "security" that might really be related to other things within the landlord's control.

We believe this clarifies that paragraph.

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

We are on to a replacement page 145, a New Democratic motion.

Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 128(5) of the bill be struck out.

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

We are on to a government motion, page 146.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsections 128(7) to (9) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(7) In making findings in an application under paragraph 2 of subsection (1), the tribunal may disallow a capital expenditure if the tribunal finds the capital expenditure is unreasonable.

"Same

"(7.1) The tribunal shall not make a finding under subsection (7) that a capital expenditure is unreasonable if the capital expenditure,

"(a) is necessary to protect or restore the physical integrity of the residential complex or part of it;

"(b) is necessary to maintain maintenance, health, safety or other housing related standards required by law;

"(c) is necessary to maintain the provision of a plumbing, heating, mechanical, electrical, ventilation or air-conditioning system;

"(d) provides access for persons with disabilities;

"(e) promotes energy or water conservation; or

"(f) maintains or improves the security of the residential complex.

"Limitation

"(8) The tribunal shall not make an order with respect to a rental unit that increases the lawful rent with respect to capital expenditures or operating costs related to security services in an amount that is greater than 4 per cent of the previous lawful rent.

"Same

"(9) If the tribunal determines with respect to a rental unit that an increase in lawful rent of more than 4 per cent of the previous lawful rent is justified with respect to capital expenditures, operating costs related to security services or both, the tribunal shall also order, in accordance with the prescribed rules, increases in rent for the following years in an amount not to exceed in any year 4 per cent of the lawful rent for the previous year, until the total increase has been taken."

The reason for this amendment is that it removes the phrase "of no benefit to tenants" as a ground for disallowing a capital expenditure, and it has established strict criteria to provide a degree of certainty when the tribunal is determining what capital expenditures should not be considered unreasonable.

Subsections 128(8) and (9) are consequential amendments to paragraph 3 of the amendment we've already voted on in subsection 128(1), operating costs related to security services.

Mr Duncan: We feel the amendment proposed to subsection (7) does not benefit tenants and, second, the proposed (7.1) we think illustrates the point we attempted to make when we debated the issue around human rights, that is, the government is very prepared in the statutes to define "reasonable" here, which in our view benefits the landlord, but in the statute it argued that we ought not clarify the definitions in the human rights issues. So we think this points to what we believe is a fundamental problem with the bill, and that is that it alters the relationship between landlords and tenants in a way that we believe overall prejudices tenants. With all those things in mind, we'll be voting against this particular amendment.

1610

Mr Silipo: I'm also going to be voting against this amendment. We think the provision that's now in the bill, that allows the test to also be whether the capital expenditure is of benefit to tenants, needs to continue to be in the bill, and we're opposed to the government taking that out.

Mr Gilchrist: Just briefly, I would draw to the attention of Mr Silipo that, for example, as it's worded right now, if you don't require wheelchair access, you could probably make a case, and win, that the landlord should not be allowed to put in a ramp to make a building wheelchair accessible, given that would not be of benefit to you, and we don't think that's appropriate. By codifying the requirements -- if you look at that list, if you can tell me one thing on there that is not a reasonable standard to measure the capital expenditures against, I would welcome your constructive criticisms, but we think every one of those things accrues to the benefit of the tenants and would allow the tribunal a lot more clarity in approaching this issue.

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

Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 128(10) of the bill be struck out.

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

Shall section 128, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 129 carry? Carried.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that the French version of clause 130(1)(b) of the bill be amended by striking out "et" in the fifth line and substituting "ou".

This is an amendment to correct the French translation of the provision.

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

Shall section 130, as amended, carry? Section 130, as amended, is carried.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 131 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Rent deemed lawful

"131(1) Rent charged one or more years earlier shall be deemed to be lawful rent unless an application has been made within one year after the date that amount was first charged and the lawfulness of the rent charged is in issue in the application.

"Increase deemed lawful

"(2) An increase in rent shall be deemed to be lawful unless an application has been made within one year after the date the increase was first charged and the lawfulness of the rent increase is in issue in the application.

"Delayed effect

"(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not take effect until the day that is six months after this section is proclaimed in force.

"Section 123 prevails

"(4) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to deprive a tenant of the right to apply for and get relief in an application under section 123 within the time period set out in that section."

This amendment clarifies that both the rent charged and the rent increase, which is the change -- they just said "rent charged" so we've added "rent increase" -- are deemed lawful one year after the date the rent amount or increase was first charged unless the tenant has made an application to the tribunal. This ensures consistency with section 123 by confirming that deeming under this section does not interfere with the right of a tenant to apply to the tribunal if the landlord has failed to meet obligations set out in an agreement under that section.

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

Page 151 is out of order. Page 152 is out of order.

Shall section 131, as amended, carry?

Mr Duncan: We're on section 131. We're voting on 131. Are we not allowed to discuss section 131?

The Chair: Yes, Mr Duncan. Go ahead.

Mr Duncan: The reason we had recommended voting against this section is, again, this is an example of where tenants and landlords are treated differently. We think this section points that out very clearly and tilts that balance. It's always a difficult balance to find between landlords and tenants, but this clearly tilts it the other way and affords a different standard of treatment for landlords versus tenants. That's why we had recommended voting against this section.

The Chair: Further debate? Shall section 131, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 131, as amended? All those opposed? Carried.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 132(3) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

"(c) that the rent charged be reduced by a specified amount for a specified period if there has been a temporary reduction in a service."

This is an amendment that allows the tribunal to order a rent reduction for a specific period of time if there has been a temporary reduction in a service.

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

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 132(5) of the bill be amended by striking out "one" in the second line and substituting "six."

Again we come back to the issue of fairness. This treats tenants, gives tenants, six years to apply for unfairly collected rents which makes it similar to what landlords are given in terms of going back after tenants. We think that if you're interested in striking a fair balance, the appropriate figure there should be six years.

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

Page 155, Mr Silipo, is out of order.

Shall section 132, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 132, as amended? All those opposed? Carried.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 133(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "may" in the second line and substituting "shall."

I will refer government members to section 133 in the bill as it is. This section deals with reduction in rent, reduction in taxes:

"(1) A tenant of a rental unit may apply to the tribunal for an order for a reduction of the rent charged for the rental unit due to a reduction in the municipal taxes and charges for the residential complex."

"(2) The tribunal shall make findings in accordance with the prescribed rules and may order that the rent charged for the rental unit be reduced."

We suggest if the government is serious about passing on reductions in taxes to tenants, it will change "may" to "shall."

Mr Gilchrist: I'm not going to presume to be a lawyer, I'll leave that to Mr Duncan, but clearly the tribunal must make its finding first before it then issues an order. "The tribunal shall make findings in accordance with the prescribed rules...." That's the opening part of that sentence. If in fact municipalities cut taxes and the rules say that when a municipality cuts taxes the tenant gets the proceeds, the tribunal shall make a finding on that basis only.

I'm sure you would agree with me that the application does not trigger the order. The finding triggers the order. You could very well have a circumstance where a tenant makes an application that is not true, is not founded in fact, the municipality really didn't cut their property taxes, the tenant thinks they did and makes an application to the tribunal. That is why the tribunal obviously would have the ability to say, and may order, that the rent charged for the rental unit be reduced, but that does not presume they have the ability to deviate from the prescribed rules.

The opening part of that sentence makes it very clear, and I can assure you that the prescribed rules will specify that when the municipality cuts the taxes, that will be the thing that binds the hands of the tribunal.

1620

Mr Duncan: If you go through other sections of the bill that direct the tribunal, you will find in a number of sections that the word "shall" is used, particularly in issues that involve a benefit or a potential benefit to a landlord, and we think you've been inconsistent in this.

With respect to the prescribed rules, we don't understand why you wouldn't be clearer in the bill itself. We feel and believe that if you were serious in your commitment, then you would amend this section accordingly. I suppose we can dispute the wording, but we as well had this looked at and we compared it to other sections where you've given very clear instructions to the tribunal and think that if you were serious you'd give very clear and unequivocal instructions to the tribunal in the statute, that where there is a municipal property tax decrease it shall be passed on to the tenant.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion fails.

Mr Duncan: I move that section 133 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Reassessment

"(3) Where the property tax for a residential complex has been reduced as a result of a reassessment of properties in a municipality under the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997, the municipality shall notify all landlords and tenants affected by the reduction of the amount of the reduction for the residential complex and for the rental units the tenants own or rent, and the rent for each rental unit shall be decreased by that amount on the effective date specified in the notice.

"Same

"(4) Where the property tax for a residential complex has been reduced as a result of a reassessment by the Assessment Review Board, the board shall notify all landlords and tenants affected by the reduction of the amount of the reduction for the residential complex and for the rental units the tenants own or rent, and the rent for the rental units shall be decreased by that amount on the effective date specified in the notice."

I'm not sure -- I'll allow the parliamentary assistant to address the wording you provided in the past, earlier -- whether this is similar in context, but we are attempting, through these sections, where there's an application made by a tenant to the tribunal, to be very clear, especially under the Fair Municipal Finance Act, that any decreases in property taxes be passed on to the tenant.

Mr Silipo: I think you know, Chair, that we have an identical amendment, and the other important point that's in here is a requirement to the municipality and the Assessment Review Board, as the case may be, in either circumstance, to notify landlords and certainly tenants of any reduction in the assessment and therefore in the property taxes to be paid for the complex.

We think that's important. I hope the government can accept it, because I don't think that this concept was picked up by the earlier amendment the government proposed and passed.

Mr Gilchrist: To both my colleagues: The interpretation we've got is that it is in fact covered under the section we've amended, that for example a ruling by the Assessment Review Board would be communicated to the municipality and they would in turn be required to pass it on to tenants. I would point out to you that unlike our amendment, you limit automatic rent reductions to tax decreases only related to a reassessment of rental property. For example, any tax changes due to municipal amalgamations, the educational funding changes, all of those things would not accrue under yours. So you would be limiting the number of scenarios under which tenants could possibly get a tax decrease.

Mr Silipo: You've already taken care of that elsewhere.

The Chair: Any further debate? All in favour of this motion? All opposed? The motion fails.

Mr Silipo, this motion of yours on page 158 is out of order.

Shall section 133 carry? All those in favour of section 133? Opposed? Section 133 carries.

We are on to section 134, a replacement page for Mr Duncan, page 159.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 134(4) of the bill be struck out.

This section only gives tenants one year to get money improperly collected by landlords. It relates back to the amendment we placed with respect to six years the other way. Accordingly, we believe that this should be struck out. Landlords and tenants should be treated equally in the statute.

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

Mr Silipo, that's identical on page 160; that's out of order.

Shall section 134 carry? Carried.

Shall sections 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 and 144 carry? Sections 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 and 144 are carried.

We have reached section 145, which is a replacement page of the government.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 145(3) of the bill be struck out.

The reason we're proposing this: This subsection would give the province the authority to issue work orders against a condominium corporation where the following conditions apply: the condominium corporation operates a building containing rental units; the building is covered by the provincial rental maintenance standards; violation of the provincial maintenance standards have been identified which relate to the common elements of the building. However, concern was expressed that it is not appropriate to issue provincial work orders against condominium corporations because such corporations are not landlords per se. This concern would be addressed by the motion which recommends that we delete this section.

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

Shall section 145, as amended, carry? Carried.

We have dealt with section 146; we have dealt with section 146.1. The pages are just flying through here, aren't they?

Shall sections 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 and 157 carry? Sections 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 and 157 are carried.

We are now at section 158, which is page 167. It's Mr Duncan's motion.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 158(1) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "and an annual summary of significant decisions."

This would require the tribunal to table certainly significant decisions in its annual report, which is consistent with other government agencies and tribunals, and we believe will assist in future deliberations of both the landlords and tenants.

Mr Gilchrist: We agree that the preparation of a summary of those sorts of decisions is significant and we will expect the tribunal to do so. However, we think it unnecessary to prescribe a formal requirement and in particular to specify that there's only a fixed time at which they would prepare that summary. We would expect that copies of decisions be requested from the tribunal at any time. So we will be opposing this motion.

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

Shall section 158 carry? All those in favour of section 158? All those opposed? Carried.

Shall sections 159, 160 and 161 carry? Sections 159, 160 and 161 are carried.

We are now at page 168, which is a government motion.

1630

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 162(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "contain" in the third line and substituting "be accompanied by."

The reason for this amendment is that the Tenant Protection Act as originally drafted requires the prescribed information be contained in the application. The amendment identifies that information as accompanying the application and relieves the applicant from having to serve that information on other parties.

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

Mr Duncan, page 169.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 162(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "may" in the third line and subcommittee substituting "shall."

This would require that if an applicant to the tribunal authorizes an agent to act on their behalf, that authorization must be filed with the tribunal.

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

Shall section 162, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 162, as amended? All those opposed? Section 162, as amended, is carried.

Shall section 163 carry? Section 163 is carried.

We are on to section 164. It's a Liberal motion on page 170.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 164(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall."

This gives stronger powers to the tribunal to add or remove additional parties to a tribunal hearing.

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

Page 171, a New Democratic Party motion.

Mr Silipo: I move that section 164 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(3) If, on conducting a hearing, the tribunal believes that the rents of one or more rental units in the residential complex would be directly affected by the issues raised in an application for a reduction in rent, the member shall add the tenants of those rental units as parties to the application."

This amendment just clarifies an important concept, we believe, which is that when there are hearings that affect one or more of the rental units in a particular complex, all of the tenants should be added as parties and that in fact there's an obligation put on to the tribunal to do that.

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

Shall section 164 carry? All those in favour of section 164? All those opposed? Section 164 is carried.

Shall section 165 carry? Section 165 is carried.

We are on to page 172, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 166(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(2) The tribunal may extend or shorten the time requirements with respect to any matter in its proceedings, other than the prescribed time requirements, in accordance with the rules."

It's fairly self-explanatory. It sets out the power to alter any of their proceedings except the time and notice periods.

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

Shall section 166, as amended, carry? Section 166, as amended, is carried.

We're on to page 173, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 167(1) of the bill be amended striking out "Le requérant" at the beginning of the French version and substituting "L'intimé" and by adding the following paragraph:

"2.1 A tenant's application under section 84 (compensation, overholding subtenant)."

This amendment adds to the list of applications which must be disputed by a respondent in order that a hearing is held. The added application is compensation for an overholding subtenant. There's also an amendment to correct the French translation provision, on the assumption that my pronunciation did correct it.

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

Page 174.

Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 167(1) of the bill be amended by inserting after "tribunal" in the third line "attending at the office where the application was issued and advising a member or employee of the tribunal that he or she disputes the applicant and such attendance shall constitute the filing of a dispute."

We believe there may be instances where requiring the respondent, likely the tenant or it could even be the landlord in some cases, to provide that in writing may be unreasonable, and if we allow also a situation in which the person is prepared and able to attend at the office where the application was issued and advise an employee of the tribunal that they dispute the application, that should be sufficient grounds for them to have been considered to be disputing the application.

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

Page 175.

Mr Duncan: I move that clause 167(2)(a) of the bill be amended by striking out "five" in the third line and substituting "14."

We are moving this because we believe that the amount of time allowed for filing an appeal to a dispute in an application to the tribunal isn't sufficient. We heard that testimony from a number of practitioners, people who are experienced in dealing with this. We have recommended 14. The third party has recommended 20. I think the message here is that the current five days is just too short a period and we believe the government ought to revisit that whole issue.

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

Page 176.

Mr Silipo: I move that clause 167(2)(a) of the bill be amended by striking out "five" in the third line and substituting "20."

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

Shall section 167, as amended, carry? Section 167, as amended, is carried.

Page 177, section 168, there's an amendment to that.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 168(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "a reasonable time before the hearing" at the end and substituting "the required time period."

This is part of the procedural rules setting out the procedure which the tribunal will follow. The tribunal may find a document delivered, if it was given to the person for whom it was intended within the adequate period of time before a hearing, even if the method of delivery used was not one set out subsection 168(1). Under the amendment, the tribunal would determine whether the document was served within the time required in the act instead of "a reasonable time."

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

We're on to replacement page 178.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 168(2) of the bill be struck out.

Again, we believe that this confuses the notice requirements for an issue that goes before the tribunal and believe that things should be done in writing and, therefore, believe that this section should be struck out.

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

Replacement page 179 is identical, Mr Silipo, so it is out of order.

Shall section 168, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 168, as amended, carries.

Shall section 169 carry? Section 169 carries.

Shall section 170 carry? Section 170 is carried.

We're on to replacement page 180, a New Democratic motion.

Mr Silipo: I move that subsections 171(2) and (3) of the bill be struck out.

These subsections would allow for a settlement or exceptions to be made outside of the legislation and we believe, again as we've said throughout, that the legislation should guide the arrangements and the agreements between landlords and tenants.

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

Shall section 171 carry? Section 171 is carried.

We are on to section 172, page 181, a Liberal motion.

Mr Duncan: I move that section 164 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exception

"(4) Despite subsection (3), the tribunal may refuse to consider the evidence and submissions of a tenant only if, as a dispute to a claim for arrears of rent, the tenant is alleging that the landlord is in breach of the landlord's obligation to the tenant and, after being informed of his or her obligation to do so, the tenant fails to pay the rent in arrears to the tribunal."

We are attempting through this just to give more clarity to what can and cannot be paid to the tribunal.

1640

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

Mr Silipo, your motion is out of order; it's identical.

Shall section 172 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 172 carries.

Shall section 173 carry? Section 173 is carried.

We're on to page 183, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 174 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exception

"(2) Subsections 5.1 (2) and (3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act do not apply with respect to an application under sections 127.2 or 133 or an application solely under paragraph 1 of subsection 128(1)."

This section sets out that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act applies to proceedings under this act. This technical amendment exempts proceedings under this act from two provisions dealing with written hearings. Subsection 5.1(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act prohibits the tribunal from holding a written hearing if a party objects. This amendment would allow a tribunal to hold a written hearing if it seems the circumstances are appropriate. Also, if a written hearing is held, it will not be the tribunal's responsibility to provide copies of all documents submitted; rather it will be the responsibility of the parties themselves to obtain copies. The purpose of this amendment is to allow for written hearings to be conducted efficiently.

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

Shall section 174, as amended, carry? Section 174, as amended, is carried.

Shall section 175 carry? Section 175 is carried.

Shall section 176 carry? Section 176 is carried.

Shall section 177 carry? Section 177 is carried.

Shall section 178 carry? Section 178 is carried.

We are on to page 184, a government motion.

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

"Correction of deemed rent

"178.1 In any application made under this act in which rent for a rental unit is in issue, the tribunal may correct an error in deeming the amount of rent, the date it took effect or the inclusion of a service in rent and may take into account the rent, the effective date or the service that ought to have been deemed if,

"(a) the amount of rent or date it took effect was deemed to be lawful or the service was deemed to be included in the rent by the operation of the Rent Control Act, 1992 or the Residential Rent Regulation Act; and

"(b) the tribunal is satisfied that an error or omission in a document filed by a landlord or tenant led to the error in the deeming."

The reason for this amendment: It's part of the procedural rules for the tribunal to follow. In deciding what the rent should be for a rental unit, the tribunal will have the authority in certain circumstances to correct a rent or related information incorrectly deemed lawful under either the Rent Control Act or the Residential Rent Regulation Act. It essentially allows the tribunal to correct errors made by landlords and tenants when they submitted rent information to previous boards.

The Chair: Shall this motion carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? This motion is carried.

We are on to replacement page 185, which is a Liberal motion.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsections 179(2), (3) and (4) of the bill be struck out.

Those sections deal with what a tribunal may order a party to an application to pay. Again, the assignment of cost is at issue here. We're recommending these be struck out.

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

Mr Silipo, replacement page 186 is identical and is out of order.

Shall section 179 carry? Section 179 is carried.

Mr Duncan: No.

The Chair: I'm afraid you're a little late, Mr Duncan. We're on to page 187, which is section 180, a Liberal motion.

Mr Duncan: I move that section 180 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(4) An order providing for monthly instalments shall not provide for more than 12 monthly instalments."

This ensures that any payments ordered by the tribunal be paid within one year.

Mr Gilchrist: Further buttressing our argument that we indeed listen, the government will be supporting this amendment. We think it's quite appropriate to limit the instalments to no more than 12 months. So we're pleased to vote along with Mr Duncan on this one.

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

Shall section 180, as amended, carry? Carried.

We're on to page 188, section 181, a Liberal motion.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 181(1) of the bill be amended by inserting after "paragraph" in the fifth line "but no order shall be made under this subsection unless the material filed with the tribunal discloses on its face that the applicant is entitled to that order."

This ensures that the tribunal does not automatically accept an application not disputed without ensuring that the applicant is entitled to that order.

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

Page 189 is a New Democratic motion, Mr Silipo, and it's out order. It's the same as page 188.

Page 190 is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 181(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Default orders

"(1) The tribunal may make an order with respect to any of the following applications without holding a hearing if the application is not disputed:

"1. An application to terminate a tenancy or to evict a person, other than an application based in whole or in part on a notice of termination under section 61.1.

"2. A landlord's application for arrears of rent, compensation, damages or for the payment of money as a result of misrepresentation of income.

"3. A tenant's application under section 84 (compensation, overholding subtenant).

"4. A tenant's application under section 134 (money collected illegally).

"5. A tenant's application claiming that a landlord unreasonably withheld consent to an assignment or subletting of a rental unit."

The reason we opposed the previous amendment which was duplicated by the two parties is that obviously we have removed the entire section 181.1 and replaced it with a very clear delineation of the types of application under which the tribunal may issue a default order, if the application is not disputed. This amendment adds to the list an application made under section 84 for compensation for an overholding subtenant.

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

Page 191, a Liberal motion.

Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 181(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "issued" in the second line and substituting "served on the respondent."

This will ensure that the respondent to a tribunal decision is actually notified of the tribunal's decision.

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

Mr Silipo, your motion is out of order as being identical to the one we just voted on.

Shall section 181, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 181, as amended, is carried.

We're on to section 182, a government motion on page 193.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 182(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Monetary jurisdiction of tribunal

"(1) The tribunal may, where it otherwise has the jurisdiction, order the payment to any given person of an amount of money up to $10,000 or the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court in the area where the residential complex is located, whichever is greater.

"Same

"(1.1) A person entitled to apply under this act but whose claim exceeds the tribunal's monetary jurisdiction may commence a proceeding in any court of competent jurisdiction for an order requiring the payment of that sum and, if such a proceeding is commenced, the court may exercise any powers that the tribunal could have exercised if the proceeding had been before the tribunal and within its monetary jurisdiction."

The reason for this amendment: It provides that the monetary jurisdiction of the tribunal is $10,000 per person, so in the case of a joint application it clarifies that they could now apply for, obviously, $10,000 times the number of people applying, or the monetary jurisdiction of the local Small Claims Court, whichever is greater, rather than the $10,000 per application, as was the case before.

It also clarifies that a person whose claim exceeds the tribunal's monetary jurisdiction may apply to court, and further, that the court may assume fully the tribunal's power to proceed on the claim.

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

Shall section 182, as amended, carry? Carried.

1650

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

"Notice of decision

"182.1(1) The tribunal shall send each party who participated in the proceeding, or the party's counsel or agent, a copy of its order, including the reasons if any have been given, in accordance with section 168.

"Same

"(2) Section 18 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act does not apply to proceedings under this act."

The reason for this amendment: This amendment requires the tribunal to send a copy of its decision to all parties who participated in the proceeding. It clarifies that the rules for delivery contained in the Statutory Powers Procedure Act do not apply, as the act sets out its own rules regarding delivery. This act sets out rules which are more flexible for the parties and for the tribunal to use. Further, having two sets of rules for delivery of documents would have caused confusion.

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

Shall sections 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189 and 190 carry? Sections 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189 and 190 are carried.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 191(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Inspection powers of inspector, investigator

"(1) Subject to subsection (2), an inspector or investigator may, at all reasonable times and upon producing proper identification, enter any property for the purpose of carrying out his or her duty under this act and may,

"(a) require the production for inspection of documents or things, including drawings or specifications, that may be relevant to the inspection or investigation;

"(b) inspect and remove documents or things relevant to the inspection or investigation for the purpose of making copies or extracts;

"(c) require information from any person concerning a matter related to the inspection or investigation;

"(d) be accompanied by a person who has special or expert knowledge in relation to the subject matter of the inspection or investigation;

"(e) alone or in conjunction with a person possessing special or expert knowledge, make examinations or take tests, samples or photographs necessary for the purposes of the inspection or investigation; and

"(f) order the landlord to take and supply at the landlord's expense such tests and samples as are specified in the order.

"Samples

"(1.1) The inspector or investigator shall divide the sample taken under clause (1)(e) into two parts and deliver one part to the person from whom the sample is taken, if the person so requests at the time the sample is taken and provides the necessary facilities.

"Same

"(1.2) If an inspector or investigator takes a sample under clause (1)(e) and has not divided the sample into two parts, a copy of any report on the sample shall be given to the person from whom the sample was taken.

"Receipt

"(1.3) An inspector or investigator shall provide a receipt for any documents or things removed under clause (1)(b) and shall promptly return them after the copies or extracts are made.

"Evidence

"(1.4) Copies of or extracts from documents and things removed under this section and certified as being true copies of or extracts from the originals by the person who made them are admissible in evidence to the same extent as and have the same evidentiary value as the originals."

As background, as a result of the Tenant Protection Act, the authority for municipal property standards enforcement would be transferred from the Planning Act to the Building Code Act. In the process, municipal property standards officers would be given additional powers of inspection so that these powers would be equivalent to those available to building inspectors. These additional powers include the authority to be accompanied by a person with expert knowledge who can make tests and collect samples. The proposed revision would give provincial inspectors responsibility for enforcing the provincial maintenance standards and give them the same powers as those available to property standards officers.

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

Shall section 191, as amended, carry? Carried.

I wish to tell the committee that the Chair's clock, contrary to the clock before you -- we have exactly five minutes.

Shall sections 192 and 193 carry? Carried.

Mr Duncan: I'm going to put this motion. I believe it may be out of order.

I move that subsection 194(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:

"30. Contravenes section 27.1 or 27.2."

The Chair: You're right. I haven't a clue what it means. It's out of order.

Mr Duncan: I can tell you why it's out of order: because our proposed amendments were defeated. This would have required landlords to give receipts and would have established a penalty or an offence if they didn't give receipts. The amendments we put were in fact defeated.

The Chair: Are you withdrawing it?

Mr Duncan: If that makes your life easier, Mr Chair, I will withdraw it.

The Chair: It makes my life a lot easier when we've got two minutes to go. Excellent.

We are on to page 199, which is a Liberal motion.

Mr Duncan: I move that section 194 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"5(1) In the case of a person, other than a corporation, who is guilty of an offence under paragraph 22, 23 or 24 of subsection (1) or under subsection (2), the fine shall not be less than $1,000."

This would set up a minimum fine for landlord harassment and coercion. We believe that if the government is serious about addressing this issue, no matter how high you set a maximum, if the maximum fine is never levied, then it's really nothing but a political exercise. We think that if the government is serious about dealing with harassment, having acknowledged that it will create an environment for much more harassment, a minimum fine would be appropriate and we've recommended $1,000.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion fails.

Mr Silipo's is identical and it is out of order.

Mr Duncan: I move that section 194 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(6.1) In the case of a corporation that is guilty of an offence under paragraph 22, 23 or 24 of subsection (1) or under subsection (2), the fine shall not be less than $1,000."

Again, we're attempting to establish a minimum fine.

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

Mr Silipo, your motion is out of order as being identical.

We have a government motion on page 203. Mr Gilchrist, you've got about enough time to read it.

Mr Gilchrist: I will do my darnedest here, Chair.

I move that section 194 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Offences

"194(1) Any person who knowingly does any of the following is guilty of an offence:

"1. Restrict reasonable access to the residential complex by political candidates or their authorized representatives in contravention of section 22.

"2. Alter or cause to be altered the locking system on any door giving entry to a rental unit or the residential complex in a manner that contravenes section 23.

"3. Withhold reasonable supply of a vital service, care service or food or deliberately interfere with the supply in contravention of section 25.

"4. Harass, hinder, obstruct or interfere with a tenant in the exercise of,

"i. securing a right or seeking relief under this act or in the court,

"ii. participating in a proceeding under this act, or

"iii. participating in a tenants' association or attempting to organize a tenants' association.

"5. Harass, coerce, threaten or interfere with a tenant in such a manner that the tenant is induced to vacate the rental unit.

"6. Harass, hinder, obstruct or interfere with a landlord in the exercise of,

"i. securing a right or seeking relief under this act or in the court, or

"ii. participating in a proceeding under this act.

"7. Seize any property of the tenant in contravention of section 29.

"8. Obtain possession of a rental unit improperly by giving a notice to terminate in bad faith.

"9. Fail to afford a tenant a right of first refusal in contravention of section 52 or 54.

"10. Recover possession of a rental unit without complying with the requirements of sections 53, 55 and 56.

"11. Coerce a tenant of a mobile home park or land lease community to enter into an agency agreement for the sale or lease of their mobile home or land lease home or to require an agency agreement as a condition of entering into a tenancy agreement.

"12. Coerce a tenant to sign an agreement referred to in section 122.

1700

"Same

"(2) Any person who does any of the following is guilty of an offence:

"1. Furnish false or misleading information in any document filed in any proceeding under this act or provided to an inspector, investigator, the minister, a delegate of the minister or any employee or official of the tribunal.

"2. Enter a rental unit where such entry is not permitted by sections 20, 21 or 89 or enter without first complying with the requirements of sections 20, 21 or 89.

"3. Contravene an order of the tribunal under paragraph 4 of subsection 32(1) or clause 33(1)(a).

"4. Unlawfully recover possession of a rental unit.

"5. Give a notice to terminate a tenancy under section 49 or 50 in contravention of section 52.

"6. Give a notice of rent increase or a notice of increase of a charge in a care home without first giving an information package contrary to section 87.

"7. Increase a charge for providing a care service or meals to a tenant in a care home in contravention of section 95.

"8. Interfere with a tenant's right under section 99 to sell or lease his or her mobile home.

"9. Restrict the right of a tenant of a mobile home park or land lease community to purchase goods or services from the person of his or her choice in contravention of section 102.

"10. Require or receive a security deposit from a tenant contrary to section 110.

"11. Fail to pay to the tenant annually interest on the rent deposit held in respect of their tenancy in accordance with subsection 111(6).

"12. Fail to apply the rent deposit held in respect of a tenancy to the rent for the last month of the tenancy in contravention of subsection 111(7).

"13. Fail to provide a tenant with a receipt in accordance with section 112.1.

"14. Charge rent in an amount greater than permitted under the Act.

"15. Require a tenant to pay rent proposed in an application in contravention of subsection 128(4).

"16. Charge or collect amounts from a tenant, a prospective tenant, a subtenant, a potential subtenant, an assignee or a potential assignee in contravention of section 130.

"17. Fail to comply with any or all of the items contained in a work order issued under section 145.

"18. Charge an illegal contingency fee in contravention of subsection 187(1).

"19. Obstruct or interfere with an inspector or investigator exercising a power of entry under section 191.

"Same

"(3) Any landlord or superintendent, agent or employee of the landlord who knowingly harasses a tenant or interferes with a tenant's reasonable enjoyment of a rental unit or the residential complex in which it is located is guilty of an offence.

"Same

"(4) Any person who knowingly attempts to commit any offence referred to in subsection (1), (2) or (3) is guilty of an offence.

"Same

"(5) Every director or officer of a corporation who knowingly concurs in an offence is guilty of an offence.

"Same

"(6) A person, other than a corporation, who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $10,000.

"Same

"(7) A corporation that is guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $50,000.

"Limitation

"(8) No proceeding shall be commenced respecting an offence under paragraph 1 of subsection (2) more than two years after the date on which the facts giving rise to the offence came to the attention of the minister.

"Same

"(9) No proceeding shall be commenced respecting any other offence under this section more than two years after the date on which the offence was, or is alleged to have been, committed."

The Chair: Mr Gilchrist, members of the committee, I'm bound by the order of the House to declare that the deliberations must cease and we must start to vote, because it is now 5 o'clock.

Shall the motion just read by Mr Gilchrist carry? The motion is carried.

Shall section 194, as amended, carry? Section 194, as amended, is carried.

Shall section 195 carry? Section 195 is carried.

I'm not going to read these motions, ladies and gentlemen. I'm going to refer to the page numbers, because you all have the pages in front of you.

Shall the government motion on page 207 carry? All those in favour of that motion? All those opposed? That motion is carried.

Shall section 196, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 196, as amended? All those opposed? Section 196, as amended, is carried.

Shall sections 197, 198 and 199 carry? All those in favour of sections 197, 198 and 199? Opposed? Sections 197, 198 and 199 are carried.

We have debated and voted on section 200.

Shall section 201 carry? All those in favour of section 201? Opposed? Section 201 is carried.

The proposed amendments on pages 213 and 214 are out of order.

Shall section 202 carry? All those in favour of section 202? Opposed? Section 202 is carried.

There is a government motion on page 215. Shall that motion carry? All those in favour of that motion? Opposed? That government motion on page 215 is carried.

Shall section 203, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 203, as amended? All those opposed? Section 203, as amended, is carried.

Shall sections 204, 205 and 206 carry? All those in favour of sections 204, 205 and 206? Opposed? Sections 204, 205 and 206 have carried.

The Liberal motion on page 216 is not a proper amendment and I would deem it out of order, as I would the New Democratic motion on page 217.

Shall section 207 carry? All those in favour of section 207? All those opposed? Section 207 has carried.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm having a tough time up here and I can't have this carrying on, so I'm going to have to ask your cooperation to stop the heckling. Thank you.

Shall sections 208, 209, 210 carry? All those in favour of sections 208, 209 and 210? All those opposed? Sections 208, 209 and 210 have carried.

There is a government motion with respect to section 211 on page 218. Shall that motion carry? All those in favour of that motion? Opposed? That motion is carried.

Shall section 211, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 211, as amended? All those opposed? Section 211, as amended, is carried.

There is a government motion on page 221, which is a proposed amendment to section 212. Shall that motion carry? All those in favour of that motion? All those opposed? That motion carries.

Shall section 212, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 212, as amended? All those opposed? Section 212, as amended, is carried.

Shall section 213 carry? All those in favour of section 213? All those opposed? Section 213 is carried.

There is a government motion on page 222 with respect to an amendment to section 214. Shall that motion carry? All those in favour of that motion? All those opposed? That motion carries.

Shall section 214, as amended, carry? All those in favour of section 214, as amended? All those opposed? Section 214, as amended, carries.

Shall sections 215 and 216 carry? All those in favour of sections 215 and 216? All those opposed? Sections 215 and 216 have carried.

There is a New Democratic proposed amendment, on page 223, to section 217. Shall that motion carry? All those in favour of that motion? All those opposed? That motion fails.

Shall section 217 carry? All those in favour of 217? Opposed? Section 217 is carried.

We're on to the long title. The New Democratic Party has a proposed amendment on page 224. I'm going to rule that amendment out of order because no amendments have been passed in the bill that would warrant such a motion.

Shall the long title of the bill carry? All those in favour of the long title of the bill? Opposed? The long title of the bill is carried.

Shall Bill 96, as amended, carry? All those in favour of Bill 96, as amended? All those opposed? Bill 96, as amended, is carried.

Members of the committee, shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? All those in favour of my reporting the bill, as amended, to the House? All those opposed? I will report the bill, as amended, to the House because that is carried.

I guess that's it. Unless there are any other questions, this committee will be adjourned to the call of the Chair.

The committee adjourned at 1712.