CONTENTS
Thursday 9 June 1994
Land Lease Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993, Bill 21, Mr Wessenger / Loi de 1993 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les terrains à bail, projet de loi 21, M. Wessenger
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
*Chair / Président: Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)
*Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
Johnson, David (Don Mills PC)
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
*Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
*Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND)
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND) for Mr Morrow
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Mammoliti
Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC) for Mr David Johnson
Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND) for Mr White
O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND) for Mr Morrow
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Housing:
Lyle, Michael, legal counsel
Morris, Noah, policy adviser, existing housing stock, housing policy branch
Clerk / Greffier: Carrozza, Franco
Staff / Personnel: Filion, Sibylle, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1018 in room 228.
LAND LEASE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TERRAINS À BAIL
Consideration of Bill 21, An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases / Projet de loi 21, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les terrains à bail.
The Chair (Mr Michael A. Brown): The purpose of the committee meeting this morning is to deal with the clause-by-clause examination of Bill 21, An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases.
As members know, we have a number of sections that have been stood down. I believe we were discussing Mr Wessenger's amendment to section 11.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Before we proceed, Mr Chair, through you, could I ask the sponsor of this bill, Mr Wessenger, to respond or try to provide us with an answer to a letter sent to him by our Housing critic, Mr Cordiano.
The Chair: This relates to section 11?
Mr Grandmaître: It doesn't relate to section 11. It relates to the bill. And I'll be very honest with you, Mr Chair. If I don't get a reasonable answer, I am willing to walk out of this meeting. I think it's a waste of time.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): What is the answer about the Liberal Housing critic's letter to the proponent of the bill? Is that going to be part of the record of these hearings?
Mr Grandmaître: Can I ask a question, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Yes, whatever question you want to ask, but it should relate to section 11.
Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): In response, I would suggest that we should deal with the amendments before we vote on the bill as a final --
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chair, I'm trying to ask the proponent of the bill a question concerning our Housing critic, Mr Cordiano, because it represents the Liberal caucus view. I think it's very important that it should be on the record, and if a satisfactory answer is not coming, I think it's a waste of time for the Liberal caucus to be here. Can I ask my question?
The Chair: Members can ask questions about section 11.
Mr Grandmaître: I'm dealing with the bill. It deals with section --
The Chair: And Mr Wessenger's amendment.
Mr Grandmaître: Not exactly. It's to the bill.
Mrs Marland: Actually, it does relate to section 11, so you can proceed. It relates to the impact of the bill, which includes section 11.
Mr Grandmaître: The bill includes section 11.
Mr Wessenger, on June 6 of this year, Joe Cordiano, our Liberal Housing critic, sent you a letter expressing the views of the Liberal caucus concerning the process, or the lack of process, dealing with this private member's bill. We realize that this bill is a very important one, so important that it should be a government bill. If I can refer you to the last paragraph of this letter:
"The Liberal caucus believes that any legislation pertaining to land-lease communities must protect both the residents and the economic viability of their communities. We encourage the Minister of Housing to bring forward government legislation which, based on a thorough consultative process, would more adequately address the concerns of the thousands who reside in land-lease communities across the province."
Mr Chair, I bring this to your attention because this is the Liberal caucus view, and it's very important, before we proceed, that an answer must be forthcoming from the proponent of this private member's bill.
The Chair: Thank you. Further discussion?
Mr Wessenger: Seeing we are on section 11, I will refer to section 11, but perhaps in my comments on section 11, I'll very shortly deal with it.
To remind members of the process here, first of all, this is a private member's bill, it's my bill. I would suggest that the member look at Hansard. This matter was extensively discussed with Mr Sean Conway at the clause-by-clause hearings, and if I recall correctly, Mr Conway seemed to be reasonably satisfied that this bill should go forward. Those were his comments that he expressed on the record, and I would just ask the member to take a look at them.
It's a private member's bill, not a government bill, and it's not a bill that's designed to deal with a comprehensive approach to the whole question of land-lease communities. The structure of the bill is not such to provide for a comprehensive approach. It's a limited approach.
To remind the member of what the bill does, the bill basically deals with three acts. The bill deals with the situation in the Landlord and Tenant Act, and what the bill does under the Landlord and Tenant Act is three items.
One item is that it brings the land-lease communities under the provision of the Landlord and Tenant Act, which equates the situation exactly the same as it is for mobile home parks. It was a technical problem, I would suggest, when the amendments were made with respect to mobile home parks. That's one thing it does.
The second thing it does is that in section 11, the two substantive items are the question of controlling the exercise of the first right of refusal, which was section 11, which we're dealing with, and the third item it deals with under the Landlord and Tenant Act is the question of the right to place a sign.
Those are the substantive items under the Landlord and Tenant Act, three items.
Under the Rental Housing Protection Act, there is one substantive item. It brings the Rental Housing Protection Act to apply to mobile home parks and land-lease communities throughout Ontario. That is substantive.
The Planning Act one is very minimal in the sense that it requires that to be developed, mobile home parks and land-lease communities go through the site plan process of approval if they're going to proceed.
As you can see from the substance of the bill, there are basically five substantial items in the bill, and that was the intent. It's a private member's bill, it's not a government bill. All the decisions with respect to the bill have been made by this committee and by myself. I've had the assistance, it's true, of legislative counsel to a large extent in dealing with the technicalities, and also the Ministry of Housing has offered technical advice with respect to many of the provisions, which I appreciate.
With that, now that we're dealing with section 11, this provision has been stood down. It provides in effect that the normal provisions that usually are used in contract law with respect to first right of refusal shall apply with respect to mobile home parks. In other words, it allows the mobile home park owner or the land-lease community owner to have a first right of refusal to purchase from the tenant when they wish to sell their property, on the same terms and conditions as contained in the offer.
I might add that I've received no comments of criticism with respect to this provision. The amendment was drafted on the basis of the hearings, and the representations were made by both tenants who are owners of mobile homes --
Mrs Marland: Could you just repeat that in case I missed what you said? You've received no questions or concerns?
Mr Wessenger: I received no concerns with respect to this amendment, that's right. I've had no concerns expressed to me by any person with respect to the wording of this --
Mrs Marland: What's the number of the amendment?
Mr Wessenger: It's 125.1.
The Chair: It has a 9 on the corner of it.
Mr Wessenger: It seems to be something that's very acceptable to all concerned. It amends the provisions in the original bill, which I think were unacceptable. This is one of the issues that was raised at the hearings. The original provisions of the bill prohibited first rights of refusal, and that was criticized quite soundly in the hearings.
What it in effect does is protect the equity interest of the tenant to ensure that they get the full market value of their property when they sell. It also protects the position of the owner of the park, that they have some control over who lives in the park.
Mrs Marland: In speaking to section 11, including section 125.1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, I think it's fair to report to the committee that we did have a meeting on Monday with some of the parties to the bill. We had essentially a two-hour meeting and we did discuss this section, the first right of refusal, and we did discuss the signage problem.
What I think was very significant at the meeting on Monday -- unfortunately, this was significant -- was that we didn't get to discuss the next section. Has the Rental Housing Protection Act section been voted on?
1030
Mr Wessenger: Most of it has been voted on. There is one outstanding item. Section 16 still remains to be voted on.
Mrs Marland: Section 16. Unfortunately, we didn't get to discuss that at the meeting on Monday.
The Chair: Just for your information, the sections that are open are section 11, section 16 and section 26.
Mrs Marland: I see. So if section 16 of the RHPA is open, that means we could discuss any part of that section, right? I'll leave my comments on that till then.
I have had some phone calls from some of the tenants since the meeting on Monday, and they've certainly been a benefit to me. I haven't had any phone calls from the landlords since the meeting on Monday but I have talked to some of the tenants. What I have learned -- and it does apply to the amendment that's on the floor. In one case, one of the tenants I talked to lives in a park where, frankly, the property owner must be, to put it nicely, a rather unfortunate individual in terms of his inability to deal with people, his inability to deal fairly with people.
I have said all along that there are rotten operators in this business in this province, as there are in every business. My concern is that the public -- to use Mrs Mathyssen's words of a few minutes ago, she said a lot of old people. The majority of people who are in this form of living accommodation are older people, and I agree with her on that score. But what I heard at the meeting on Monday, and what I've learned since Monday, in fact, speaking to one of Mrs Mathyssen's constituents as well, is that first of all there is a lot of misunderstanding in the province of what protection exists today for people who are in this kind of accommodation and what remedies there are available today for those people with problems.
I've also learned that it becomes imperative, in my opinion, that the government act immediately to bring government legislation and the strength that comes with government legislation, rather than a private member's bill, to protect the interests of people who have made that particular kind of investment to address their living and accommodation needs.
Where we have unscrupulous intimidation tactics by some of the property owners against the innocent tenant of the property who has made a substantial investment in their home, their built-form home, I think it's very unfair for us to vote on this bill as a whole or this section as an individual section because, to use the words of I think Mr Mitchell, who's the president of Twin Elm Tenants Association in Strathroy -- he's your constituent, isn't he, Irene?
Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Yes, he is. He's actually the past president of the association, but certainly my constituent.
Mrs Marland: This gentleman, as past president, said at the meeting on Monday that this bill was a Band-Aid approach. He thinks --
Mrs Mathyssen: Excuse me, Mr Chair. That's not quite accurate.
Mrs Marland: No, let me finish.
The Chair: Through the Chair. I can put you on the list, Mrs Mathyssen.
Mrs Marland: The unfortunate thing is that we won't have a Hansard of what was said on Monday, nor will we have a tape recorder. But he said it was a Band-Aid approach. If you listen, Irene, I'll tell you what he said and then you'll know whether you have to --
The Chair: Through the Chair. It would be most helpful to have the debate structured through the Chair.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Everybody just calm down. Everything will be okay.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mammoliti, for your help.
Mrs Marland: Through the Chair, I don't want to misrepresent Mr Mitchell, so I don't want his MPP to think that's what I'm doing. He said it was, in his opinion, a Band-Aid approach, but with the problems out there, he felt it was better than nothing.
In this particular case, this gentleman has had to move out of the park because he couldn't take the pressures of coping with the presidency and living in the park. Probably that's why he's now past president; he made that decision because of the situation he found himself in.
His concern, which was shared, I have found in the last two days, by a number of tenants, is that some of these people in different parts of Ontario are frantic to get some remedy. What they think is that Bill 21 will provide that remedy and the protection, that it is better than nothing.
Even Mr Leo Bouillon, who's from the London and Area Tenant Federation -- he's an executive director, so he's not an inexperienced person. If he's executive director, he's a paid, salaried person who would be very knowledgeable of the problems, I would suggest, and even he said that this bill has a very narrow scope.
What really concerns me is that if we proceed with this bill, we will never get the legislation, at least from this government, that is needed to protect everybody in Ontario. It's needed, frankly, as of last week, last year, two years ago, whatever.
As the option of living in land-lease retirement communities or all-year-round trailer parks, all the different categories of accommodation, expands and grows -- because realistically it is, as I've said, a good option for people -- it makes it even more imperative that these people are protected.
One of the problems these people face -- it's one of the problems the people in Ms Mathyssen's riding have faced, and two other ridings that I spoke to -- is that the Rent Control Act is really what at the moment is putting them in the greatest box, because they have appeals going back five years. They're faced with the fact that if their appeal is lost, they may have to pay five years in back rent.
Five years in back rent for their lots, for most of those people, would be beyond what they could pay. So then they're in a position where they can't pay their rent. It brings us, actually, to this section, because then what do they do with their unit?
The questions I have on the section dealing with the Rental Housing Protection Act relate to this section, and maybe Mr Wessenger wants to answer them. If somebody decides they've just totally had it and they want to remove their unit from an existing lot and therefore reduce the number of rental units available, would they have the option to do that under the amendment to the Rental Housing Protection Act that is in Bill 21? I'm asking the proponent of the bill.
1040
Mr Wessenger: My understanding is that under the Rental Housing Protection Act there's nothing prohibiting an owner from removing his own unit from the site.
Mrs Marland: Can you show me where it says that?
Mr Wessenger: I'll ask legislative counsel, or the Ministry of Housing people might be able to --
Mrs Marland: Maybe that's a question we should ask the staff.
Mr Wessenger: I recall reading it. Perhaps the ministry staff could just refer to the number, rather than have to read the whole section through, but I do recall it being in there.
Mr Michael Lyle: My name is Michael Lyle. I'm a legal counsel with the Ministry of Housing.
Mr Noah Morris: My name is Noah Morris and I'm a policy adviser with the Ministry of Housing. I have policy responsibility for the Rental Housing Protection Act.
Mr Lyle: In answer to Mrs Marland's question, the Rental Housing Protection Act only covers rental properties. In fact, the mobile home owned by a tenant would not fall within the definition of rental property under the Rental Housing Protection Act and therefore would not be subject to approval by the municipality under the Rental Housing Protection Act for any removal of the mobile home.
Mr Morris: The only situation where it would apply is where the tenant actually rents the home and rents the land, because the home itself is not a rental unit.
Mrs Marland: What you're saying is that the reverse works also, so why are we talking about the protection of the Rental Housing Protection Act?
Mr Lyle: I'm not sure what you mean by "the reverse works." The intention of the bill is to ensure that leased lots receive the protection of the Rental Housing Protection Act.
Mrs Marland: That the lot receives the protection.
Mr Lyle: That's correct, because the lot as well is being rented.
Mr Morris: So the lot cannot be demolished or severed.
Mrs Marland: Right, but if there isn't a unit existing on the lot, what does that do for accommodation?
Mr Morris: It would be the same as a vacant rental unit.
Mrs Marland: So is it only in this legislation that a piece of ground is a unit?
Mr Lyle: No, that's also the case in the Rent Control Act where you have a leased lot. The lot itself is subject to the Rent Control Act.
Mrs Marland: I can see, almost, renting the ground, but when you're talking about housing protection, how does that protect a unit when it's only a piece of ground? Are we saying that if you put a tent on it we're maintaining the integrity of the act?
Mr Lyle: As I understand the intent of the bill, it's intended to ensure that the landlord cannot take a piece of ground which he is renting to someone out of the rental stock and use it for some purpose other than rental.
Mr Morris: The services which go into providing the services for that land cannot be removed without application.
Mrs Marland: I understand that, but I'm simply saying that to protect only the ground is a bit questionable.
Mr Wessenger: If I might just interject here, the whole purpose of this Rental Housing Protection Act applying is to protect the security of the person who owns the unit that's situate on a site. That's the whole purpose of making the Rental Housing Protection Act, just to give security of tenure for that relationship with the owner of the land, to ensure that the owner of the unit is not forced to move their unit without going through the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act. It's giving security of tenure. The major difficulty right now is a situation with respect to many mobile home parks, that the mobile home park owner can decide to close the park unilaterally, and there are no restrictions on it, no approval process. I think we're getting off topic; I think we should really reserve this discussion.
Mrs Marland: They are related.
Mr Wessenger: Just to clarify, it's to ensure that they have security of tenure, that there has to be municipal approval if there's going to be a closure of a mobile home park or land-lease community.
Mrs Marland: But don't they have security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act as long as they're paying their rent?
Mr Wessenger: The situation is such that, first of all, land-lease community homes have no security because until this bill goes through they're not under the Landlord and Tenant Act unless a court were to construe them as being mobile homes. So there's certainly that problem for a land-lease community.
With respect to mobile homes, the situation is such that a landlord can decide to change the use of the park unilaterally. For instance, he could decide, "I'm going to just make it vacant land," that's a change of use, and then give four months' notice to the mobile home owner who leases the land or who rents the land to leave the premises. There are several court applications presently under way in the province of Ontario. That's why the urgency of this act getting passed, because until this act is passed, there's no protection for those persons who own mobile homes who are under the immediate danger of losing their tenure.
The reality is that if the park is closed, they have in effect lost the equity of investment in their mobile unit. That's the whole intention of the Rental Housing Protection Act. It's not absolute protection, but it does mean that the municipality and the owner have to meet certain tests if they're going to close the park and basically have to meet the test of there being reasonable alternative accommodation available, which would be construed to mean that there would be another site to which the mobile home could be relocated.
Mrs Marland: How is it that --
Mr Wessenger: Mr Chair, I do think we're getting off topic with respect to this section relating to first right of refusal.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Hans Daigeler): At the moment, Mrs Marland still has the floor. I've given some latitude to you in terms of back and forth. I did have Mrs Mathyssen on here still, but seeing that she's not here, we're still with Mrs Marland.
Mrs Marland: Actually, I don't believe you have a quorum, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: There's no quorum. We'll be adjourned for 10 minutes, and if there's no quorum within 10 minutes, we'll adjourn for the day.
The committee recessed from 1048 to 1058.
The Vice-Chair: It being two minutes to 11, as I had indicated, 10 minutes --
Mrs Mathyssen: Mr Chair, I was on the list.
The Vice-Chair: Just a minute.
Interjection.
The Vice-Chair: A moment, please. The 10 minutes being over, do we have a quorum present?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): There is a quorum.
The Vice-Chair: Mrs Mathyssen was next on the list.
Mrs Mathyssen: Just very briefly, I think I'd like to correct some of the things that Mrs Marland said. She said in her conversation with Mr Mitchell that he talked about this being a Band-Aid. What she neglected to add to that was that he said it was a Band-Aid to stop an infection, because, as was alluded to, there have been significant problems in this park because of the conduct of the landlord in question. By virtue of the fact that we need this bill desperately for the vulnerable, I say, let's vote on this section. Let's get on with it.
The Vice-Chair: Anyone else who wants to speak on section 11? Seeing none, all in favour? Opposed? Carried.
I understand that on 125.2 of section 11 of the bill there's also an amendment.
Mr Wessenger: I move that section 125.2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, as set out in section 11 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"For sale signs
"125.2(1) A landlord shall not prevent a tenant who owns a mobile home that is situated in a mobile home park from placing on the mobile home or the residential premises a sign that the home is for sale.
"Alternative method of advertising a sale
"(2) Despite subsection (1), a landlord may prohibit tenants of a mobile home park from placing a sign that the home is for sale on the mobile home or the residential premises if the following conditions are met:
"1. In the case of a mobile home park where the tenants have not formed a tenants association described in subsection (4),
"(i) the landlord provides a reasonable alternative method of advertising that a mobile home is for sale in the mobile home park,
"(ii) the alternative method of advertising is provided free of charge, and
"(iii) the landlord ensures that the public has access to the advertisement at all reasonable times.
"2. In the case of a mobile home park where the tenants have formed a tenants association described in subsection (4),
"(i) the conditions listed in paragraph 1 are met,
"(ii) a prohibition on the placing of for sale signs has been accepted by a vote of the members of the tenants association, and
"(iii) reasonable notice of the vote has been given to all tenants of the mobile home park.
"Same
"(3) A landlord shall not prohibit tenants from placing signs on their mobile home or residential premises under subsection (2) unless,
"(a) the prohibitions apply to all tenants in the mobile home park; and
"(b) the alternative method of advertising is available to all the tenants of the mobile home park.
"Tenants association
"(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), `tenants association' means a tenants association of which all tenants of the mobile home park are eligible as members.
"Application
"(5) Despite any agreement or waiver to the contrary, this section applies to tenancies under tenancy agreements entered into or renewed before and subsisting on the day the Land Lease Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993, receives royal assent or entered into on or after that day."
Mrs Marland: I have a question. My question continues about the point of what the remedy is by any of these amendments for the people who have the problem. Actually, I need to ask the staff this question, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: Is that agreeable, Mr Wessenger?
Mr Wessenger: Is that the question, what happens if someone with respect to --
The Vice-Chair: The question is whether, since you're the mover, you're agreeable to have the Ministry of Housing officials come.
Mrs Marland: We're dealing with section 11?
The Vice-Chair: Yes, and 125.2.
Mr Wessenger: I think I'll answer the question first and then we'll see if we require any clarification.
Mrs Marland: You don't know what my question is. I just asked -- we're still dealing with section 11?
Mr Wessenger: Section 125.2. We're dealing with section 11.
Mrs Marland: Have you passed section 125.1?
Mr Wessenger: Yes, we have.
The Vice-Chair: Yes. We're on 125.2.
Mrs Marland: Did you pass that after two minutes to 11?
Mr Wessenger: Yes, we did.
Mrs Marland: Very interesting. Okay.
The Vice-Chair: Mrs Marland, you have the floor.
Mrs Marland: My question then will apply to section 11, 125.2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, to the staff.
Mr Wessenger: I will give the preliminary reply and if you require any --
Mrs Marland: Well, I haven't asked the question.
Mr Wessenger: You're going to ask the question. Okay. If you'd like to ask the question --
Mrs Marland: To the staff.
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Place the question.
Mr Wessenger: Place the question and then we can see whether it requires --
The Vice-Chair: I have asked Mr Wessenger, since he's the mover of the bill, whether he's agreeable to have Ministry of Housing staff come to the table at this point.
Mr Wessenger: I would like to know the question before I --
The Vice-Chair: Well, the question is yes or no.
Mrs Marland: You see, what's interesting, Mr Chair --
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry. Mr Wessenger, yes or no?
Mr Wessenger: No, unless she tells me what the question is.
Mrs Marland: Okay. You see, this is very interesting. Last week when you were not here in the morning, Mr Wessenger, as the proponent of the bill, we had a little difficulty being able to ask the staff questions, because we were told that it was a private member's bill and we couldn't ask the staff policy questions but we could ask them technical questions. You have access to the ministry staff, as you do to legislative counsel staff. I really would like to know what is the difference between your status on this committee and mine. Maybe you could tell me that.
Mr Wessenger: My position, Mrs Marland, is that I am the carrier of the bill and, as the carrier of the bill, all questions are put to me. I have the obligation to answer them. If I feel that I cannot answer those questions adequately, then I call on either legislative counsel or Ministry of Housing people to answer. But certainly any bill I've ever carried, I've always taken that position, that I want to hear the question. If I feel I can't give the answer, then I obviously am going to --
Mrs Marland: Okay. I just hope --
Mr Wessenger: It's just a process. No matter how it occurs, it's always the process that the question should be directed to the person carrying the legislation.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, my rights as a member of this committee are being vetted by a government member of this committee, and I take strong exception to that. It makes it a farce for me to sit here as a member of the committee if the proponent of the bill has to decide whether he can adequately or not answer the question, to use his own words. I think it is totally insulting and outrageous for me to sit here as a member --
Mr O'Connor: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I just wondered if Mrs Marland was going to place the question that she had now, at this point. She had a question she wanted to place.
Mrs Marland: Oh, this is wonderful. There is absolutely no point in my staying in this committee. First of all --
Mr O'Connor: You had a question.
Mrs Marland: First of all, the proponent of the bill is going to decide whether he can adequately answer my question and then -- Mr Chair, I will try to talk to you, because I'm hoping you will look on this fairly -- based on whether Mr Wessenger decides whether or not he can answer my question fairly, then follows whether or not I have access to ministry staff who are employed for the benefit of everyone in this province and certainly, as ministry people, are accessible to every member of this Legislature. I will not sit here and continue this farce of having to go through Mr Wessenger, the proponent of the bill, about whether or not I can ask a question.
What it really points up is the fact that what we have going on here is a charade which is not in the best interests of the people in this province.
Mr O'Connor: You tell that to --
Mrs Marland: I heard at the meeting on Monday -- and it's unfortunate that Mr O'Connor wasn't at the meeting on Monday because we don't have a Hansard about what was said at the meeting on Monday. But one of the things that was said at the meeting on Monday was that this is a Band-Aid piece of legislation, but it's better than nothing. It was also said that it had a narrow scope.
What I'm simply saying is that this bill, if it were to pass in its present form, is going to apply to everything that falls within its jurisdiction in Ontario, whether or not today everything that is there is even legal to start with. I will give you an example, which is where we have had seasonal, summer mobile trailer parks that have evolved into all-year-round parks, with no special services or improvement in those services. They are illegal operations now within their municipalities, because they were seasonal parks.
What this bill will do is legitimize something that today is illegal. The tragedy is that if you're sincerely concerned about protecting those people -- and for the most part those are the parks that have the people in them with the least amount of this world's worldly goods, because it's the least expensive access. They're not the $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 trailer homes that people who have been able to invest in beautiful places like Sandy Cove Acres and Wilmot Creek and some of the other well-run parks that I know the government members are familiar with. I'm trying to think of another one that was represented at this meeting. Tecumseth Pines is another one that falls into the category of well-run parks, where there were two outstanding items.
1110
The two outstanding items for Wilmot Creek and Sandy Cove Acres, which Mr Mills and Mr Wessenger represent, were concerns about signage and first right of refusal. What has happened is that they are at the point of signing an agreement where those two items are going to be resolved in those parks. So to proceed with this bill, which gives a blanket statute applying to everybody, including all the rotten operators and the illegal operators and the illegal parks, is not in the best interests of the people of this province.
I'm here as the Housing spokesperson for our PC caucus in Ontario and now I am being vetted about what kind of questions I can ask. I have never heard of anything so outrageous in my life. As a matter of fact, the Housing critic for the Liberal caucus has written a letter, of which we had to force quotations to be read into the record this morning. The Housing critic for the Liberal Party has long since said this must be a government bill to be effective to enact the protection that's needed for these people.
One of the most passionate people at this committee on behalf of her constituents has been the member for Middlesex, yet most of the problems that the member for Middlesex's constituents have are with the Rent Control Act. The Rent Control Act exists today, and the backlog in the hearings is as a result of the inaction of the government to throw enough resources in terms of staff into getting those hearings proceeded with, and puts the tenants at risk with back rent settlements when appeals are finally settled.
So I'm here saying, as I have said at least a dozen times in the process of these hearings, I'm here hoping that this amendment that's on the floor now and the ultimate passage of any legislation will protect the interests of people who choose this kind of lifestyle. My concern is that the lifestyle is most desirable. The concept of land-lease communities is as desirable for those people who choose it as the concept originally was for condominium living.
What we did in this province when condominium living became a choice of thousands of people and indeed a very successful form of accommodation was the government passed the Condominium Act. It was a government bill that protected the interests of people in this province who chose to live in condominiums.
This amendment of this bill is amending a bill which is not a government bill; it amends a bill which is standing in the name of a private member, Mr Wessenger. Mr Wessenger is now going to decide what questions I can ask of the government staff. Well, I'm sorry, but that is not in the best interests of the people of this province. If I have questions that I wish to ask the staff as a result of the meeting we had on Monday and the conversations I've had with those people since Monday, I am not going to sit here and have those people insulted by the fact that Mr Wessenger says, "I have to answer the question first, and if I can't reasonably answer it, then I may refer it to the staff."
Who is going to decide whether his answer is reasonable or not? It is so ludicrous. I ask you, Mr Chairman, whether you think a proponent of the bill has the right to decide whether another committee member can have access to government staff.
The Chair: I believe I answered that question last week, and my answer is the same this week: If you have a question, you can place a question, but the committee will decide if the ministry can be helpful, not any particular member.
Mrs Marland: So the committee, with a majority of government members, is now going to decide whether I can speak to my own staff.
The Chair: Just to be helpful, last week I think this problem was resolved without a vote of the committee.
Mrs Marland: Yes, it was resolved without a vote, but now we have different --
The Chair: I might suggest you place the questions. Rather than deal with this in the hypothetical, we could maybe deal with it in the concrete.
Mr Wessenger: That's all I'm saying, Mr Chair.
Mrs Marland: No, all you're saying is that you want to hear my question and then you're going to decide whether I can ask it.
The Chair: Mr Wessenger isn't going to decide whether the staff could be asked. The committee will decide that.
Mr Wessenger: That's right.
Mrs Marland: Well, you've changed your mind then.
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): We do that with government bills, Margaret. If I'm the PA, you ask me. If I can't answer it, I ask staff to answer it. That's the way it goes, for goodness' sake. That's how I've always handled it when I've been here for the minister.
Mrs Marland: Gord, I haven't been here for nine years that I don't know how it goes with government bills. I know how it goes with government bills. The point is that we all wish this were a government bill. The unfortunate thing is that for all the time we spend on this bill, we still don't know, if it were passed, whether the government will proclaim it or what action the government will take. That was one of the questions I was going to ask the staff last week, not about the whole bill. Maybe Mr Wessenger can give us some direction. Has he discussed this amendment, section 11 of the bill, section 125.2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, with the Minister of Housing?
Mr Wessenger: This amendment was drafted on my instructions as a result of the discussions that arose out of the hearings and subsequent discussion at the meeting with particularly the tenants of the land-lease communities, and it was at their suggestion that the clause was drafted. On that basis, I gave instructions to legislative counsel to prepare the amendment. I will say that I did send a copy to the Ministry of Housing so it could comment on it.
Mrs Marland: And did they comment on it?
Mr Wessenger: They indicated they had no problem with it.
Mrs Marland: And did you discuss it with the Minister of Housing?
Mr Wessenger: No, I didn't discuss it with the minister. I just used the resources of legal counsel of the Ministry of Housing in order to ensure it achieved what I thought the tenants wanted it to achieve. I must say this also has some support from owners as well as tenants, the suggestion that a tenants' association should have the say with respect to the issue. As I said, it was as a result of the public hearings, as a result of the input that this amendment has been drafted, very much a reception to what was said.
1120
Mrs Marland: At the meeting on Monday, Ms Phyllis Baker, the president of the Ontario Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation, which is the tenants' association, did tell us they have a number of concerns with the bill and with some of the amendments. One thing she said, which certainly concerned me because it isn't addressed anywhere in this bill, is, "We've had a really difficult time to get municipalities to understand what kind of beast we are." And when it comes to section 16, which is the Rental Housing Protection Act, the next section we'll deal with, that's where there is a direct involvement with the municipality. So we can't throw out the fact that all the tenants are happy, I would say to the proponent.
I would also say that early on in the public hearings there was some reference to the fact that the people in Sandy Cove Acres and Wilmot Creek had a great deal of concern about two areas. Those two areas, they told us on Monday, are about to be signed. They do have written, legal contracts they are about to sign between their lawyers and the owners of Wilmot Creek and Sandy Cove Acres. If I'm not repeating that correctly, maybe Mr Mills could correct me.
Mr Mills: They are in the process. This right of first refusal, I agree, is not a problem any more at Wilmot Creek and not a problem in any properties owned by the Rice brothers, and that was said. It's just a question of signing an agreement which is contingent upon this, I believe, being passed.
Also, you spoke about Phyllis Baker. I had some extended conversation with her after the hearing the other night when we had that discussion, and I believe they've written a letter to the leader of the Conservative Party imploring the Conservatives to get on side and pass this legislation as soon as possible. We also understand that Mrs Baker, in her capacity, has written to Lyn McLeod, the Leader of the Opposition, imploring her to influence her members to pass this.
I believe, as Mr Wessenger said, that in the hearings we had earlier, Mr Conway -- and it's on the record in Hansard, I'm sure -- said words to the same effect: "What is the delay here? Why don't we do this?"
Mr Grandmaître: If I may, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Mrs Marland actually has the floor.
Mrs Marland: I'm happy to relinquish.
Mr Grandmaître: He's talking about the opposition and he's also referred to Mr Conway. To get the record straight, when Mr Conway said these things, he said them before you introduced 25 amendments.
Mrs Marland: And now it's 40.
Mr Mills: I'm not going to argue about the amendments, which are purely technical. You know that.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, could Mr Mills define "purely technical"?
The Chair: It appears to me we would be better confined to discussing the actual elements of the amendments proposed by Mr Wessenger.
Mr Wessenger: Yes, the questions should refer to that. Mrs Marland asked when this bill would come into effect. I refer to section 25, which has been amended to say that this act comes into effect from the day it receives royal assent, so it does not require proclamation.
Mrs Marland: It doesn't require proclamation because it's a private member's bill.
Mr Wessenger: It's stated right in the act, and whatever the act states is what applies with respect to when an act comes into effect. In this case, the act, once it's given royal assent, is law.
Mrs Marland: Where does it say that? It was going to be retroactive. In the printed version I have --
Mr Wessenger: Section 25 has been amended to read as follows: "This act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent."
Mrs Marland: I guess that was one of the amendments that were dealt with at the meeting that wasn't supposed to take place when I wasn't there. So it's no good my looking at this. Section 25 is a new section. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Wessenger: No, it was an amended section. Section 25 was amended.
Mrs Marland: Section 25 what?
Mr Wessenger: Just 25.
Mrs Marland: There are six subsections to 25 that I'm aware of.
Mr Wessenger: They were all deleted.
The Chair: Mrs Marland, in your package it would have 33 in the upper right-hand corner, these yellow sheets.
Mrs Marland: Thank you.
To return to the amendment that's before us, this is an amendment dealing with the Landlord and Tenant Act, so where this amendment refers to a mobile home in a mobile home park, it has to match up with a definition in the Landlord and Tenant Act. Correct?
Mr Wessenger: Although it refers to mobile homes, there is a further section in Bill 21, section 125 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, a provision that --
Mrs Marland: What section are you in?
Mr Wessenger: I'm trying to find it, Mrs Marland. It's section 12 of the bill, which says:
"Sections 125, 125.1, 125.2...apply, with necessary modifications, to tenancies for possession of land,
"(a) intended and used as a site for a land lease community home used for residential purposes; and
"(b) situated in a land lease community."
Mrs Marland: Are you reading from page 4 of the printed bill?
Mr Wessenger: Yes, I am. That section, 128.1, makes all the provisions with respect to mobile homes apply also to land-lease community homes.
Mrs Marland: But where does that section refer to the Landlord and Tenant Act?
Mr Wessenger: It's part of the Landlord and Tenant Act. There's the "Landlord and Tenant Act" heading, and then it refers to the sections, so all these sections apply to the Landlord and Tenant Act up till the end of page 7.
1130
Mrs Marland: I see what you're saying. Is that correct, that all those interpretations are still dealing with the LTA, because that's where it starts, on page 1?
Mr Wessenger: Yes, that is correct.
Mrs Marland: All right. Where it says the definition of "residential premises" is "land that is situated in a non-seasonal mobile home park," I have two questions I would like to ask the staff.
Mr Wessenger: First of all, you should be aware that all the provisions with respect to non-seasonal mobile home parks have been deleted from the act.
The Chair: Would you like to place your questions, Mrs Marland?
Mrs Marland: I'd like to ask the staff a question on this.
Mr Wessenger: Perhaps you could indicate what your question is.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, I would like to ask the staff a question.
The Chair: If you place your question, if the answer that you might get or might not get isn't satisfactory, then the committee, if it chooses, can ask the staff to come forward.
Mrs Marland: All right. I'd ask the committee if I can ask the staff a question.
The Chair: That's legitimate. Would the committee permit the staff to come to the table and answer a question from Mrs Marland?
Mr Wessenger: With respect to this section?
Mrs Marland: With respect to the amendment that's before us.
Mr Wessenger: If the questions are purely with respect to the section, we'll allow it, as long as the questions are addressed to this section.
The Chair: I hear agreement.
Mrs Marland: We would be better off in Russia. Why are you so defensive?
The Chair: Order.
Mr Wessenger: Margaret, that should be very easy for you to determine.
Mrs Marland: There is a reference to "non-seasonal mobile home parks." If it is a seasonal park that has become a non-seasonal park through use but not through legal zoning, how will this act and this amendment apply?
Mr Morris: I believe all provisions dealing with non-seasonal mobile home parks have been removed in a previous amendment that has been carried, so there is no reference to non-seasonal mobile home parks currently in the bill.
Mrs Marland: So what you're saying is that every section of this bill applies to seasonal mobile home parks as well.
Mr Morris: No. The definition of "mobile home park" under the Landlord and Tenant Act still applies. The requirement is for four continuous months of residence, after which it becomes a mobile home park, as defined in the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Mrs Marland: So if people are using their homes from May till September -- May, June, July, August, September -- all the provisions of this bill apply to them.
Mr Morris: Where a park is used and intended for use for more than four months, this bill and the Landlord and Tenant Act apply to it.
Mrs Marland: Right. So the calls I've had from operators of what exist today as seasonal parks in this province are now going to be under the Landlord and Tenant Act and all the other provisions of this act.
Mr Morris: My understanding is that this act has not changed the current situation. The current situation is, in cases where they are occupied for more than four months and the intent of the landlord is to rent it for more than four months, the Landlord and Tenant Act does apply. It does apply now and it will apply after Bill 21, if Bill 21 becomes law.
Mrs Marland: I guess it isn't in here, but is the interpretation of "occupancy" that the building, the vehicle, the tent trailer is on that site for more than four months and isn't occupied full-time? An example that might help is that if you have a cottage, there are two qualifications under the Assessment Act that you will be assessed as an all-year-round resident or a seasonal resident with a cottage, which is a permanent building. I realize it's not dealing with tenancy, but it's dealing with another provincial statute and an interpretation of what is seasonal and non-seasonal. That's the point I want to be clear about, that if it's not occupied all-year-round, it's seasonal. I think what you're telling me is that in this case, if it's occupied for more than four months, it's viewed as being all-year-round.
Mr Morris: No. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the definition of "mobile home" is quite clear in terms of its provisions around construction, and the definition of the mobile home park is contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act under section 79.
Mrs Marland: I think I have the act here, because I know you gave me a copy before. I don't seem to have my Landlord and Tenant Act with me. I know I asked this question on another section of the bill. Can you give it to me? I don't have it. I'm sorry.
Mr Mills: Mr Chairman, I wonder if members could stay on topic. I wish you'd enforce that, please, because we're getting way, way away from the amendment that's before the committee. I don't think it's right.
The Chair: Mrs Marland.
Mrs Marland: Thank you. This is the definition of "mobile home park": "the residential premises and the land, structures and facilities of which the landlord retains possession and that are intended for the common use and enjoyment of the tenants of the landlord where two or more occupied mobile homes are located for a period of 60 days or more."
This is very interesting, Mr Chairman, because it says "of which the landlord retains possession." Do you realize what that says? This motion before us refers to "mobile home park." Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, "mobile home park" means "the residential premises and the land, structures and facilities of which the landlord retains possession and that are intended for the common use and enjoyment of the tenants of the landlord where two or more occupied mobile homes are located for a period of 60 days or more."
So if the tenants own their building and they rent it out, this would apply, but if they own it and they don't rent it, how does it apply?
Mr Lyle: If they own the unit, the mobile home itself?
Mrs Marland: Do you have your copy in front of you?
Mr Lyle: Yes, I do.
1140
Mrs Marland: Okay. The definition of "mobile home park" is "the residential premises and the land, structures and facilities of which the landlord retains possession and that are intended for the common use and enjoyment of the tenants of the landlord where two or more..." etc. In other words, it becomes a mobile home park with a minimum of two mobile homes. Right?
Mr Lyle: That's correct.
Mrs Marland: Is there also a definition in here of "mobile home"?
Mr Lyle: Right behind "mobile home park" you'll find a definition of "mobile home."
Mrs Marland: Okay. "`Mobile home' means any dwelling that is designed to be made mobile, and constructed or manufactured to provide a permanent residence for one or more persons, but does not include a travel trailer or tent trailer or trailer otherwise designed."
Mr Chair, how can a bill that applies to seasonal parks also fit the description of mobile home when it says here "permanent residence"?
Mr Lyle: Perhaps I can try to clarify. The regulations to the Landlord and Tenant Act provide that something is exempted from the definition of "residential premises" and therefore not subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act if it's occupied for less than four months.
Mrs Marland: So what we have is an act that defines "mobile home" and then we have a regulation that comes along and changes that because it has exemptions.
Mr Lyle: The regulation modifies the definition of "residential premises" not just with respect to "mobile home." That's correct.
Mrs Marland: If this amendment refers to a mobile home that's situated in a mobile home park, to get that definition we have to go to the act, which I just read, and you're saying that the exemptions are less than four months, in terms of seasonal, correct?
Mr Lyle: That's correct.
Mrs Marland: And yet they are compelled to be under this act if they're there more than four months. What I think is terribly interesting here is that if they're there more than four months, they don't get the exemption, but if they're there more than four months but it's not their permanent residence, then it doesn't apply.
Mr Lyle: I guess you could get into a discussion of what is intended by the term "permanent residence." If you look at it, I think it refers back to the design of the structure.
Mrs Marland: No. Let's just deal with what is printed here.
Mr Lyle: That's what I'm dealing with. The definition of "mobile home" says, "any dwelling that is designed to be made mobile, and constructed or manufactured to provide a permanent residence for one or more persons." So the key is the nature of the construction or manufacture of the mobile home. It's not whether it's being used as a permanent residence but whether it's designed to allow for permanent residence.
Mrs Marland: Okay. We certainly have heard that this legislation is going to apply to the development in Guelph by the University of Guelph, where they are permanent structures. Unfortunately, Mr Eades is not here this morning, but he did actually on the record, when he appeared as a deputation, describe the development of the Guelph university, and those are permanent structures. If someone can help me, are they not townhouses with numbers of floors?
Interjection: Some of them are. There's a variety of designs.
Mrs Marland: In any case, they're permanent structures; they're not mobile. So why would this bill apply to a development such as that new concept that is now -- actually, I think they're opening it this weekend at the Guelph university.
Mr Lyle: That would be because of section 1 and section 2 of the bill. Section 1 of the bill adds the term "land lease community" to the definition of "residential premises," and then section 2 --
Mrs Marland: Just a second. What page are you on?
Mr Lyle: That's the first page of the bill.
Mrs Marland: And where are you reading?
Mr Lyle: I'm reading subsection 1(2) of the bill. It says "land intended and used as a site for a mobile home or a land lease community home used for residential purposes," etc.
Mrs Marland: Okay, so they come under land-lease community homes for residential purposes.
Mr Lyle: That's correct.
Mrs Marland: So then what happens when we go to the amendment that's on the floor and find that the definition for the amendment on the floor refers to -- I've lost it. My page flipped over. What section is it again that gives the definition in the Landlord and Tenant Act?
Mr Lyle: It's section 79 of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Mrs Marland: Okay, thank you. Then how is it that the bill, Bill 21, applies to two things, yet when you go to the definition of "mobile home," it doesn't apply; it doesn't jell together?
Mr Lyle: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
Mrs Marland: Section 79 of the Landlord and Tenant Act says under definitions, "`mobile home' means any dwelling that is designed to be made mobile, and constructed or manufactured to provide a permanent residence for one or more persons" -- is that referring to the size of the building when it says "one or more persons"? I suppose it is -- "but does not include a travel trailer or tent trailer or trailer otherwise designed."
Mr Lyle: Perhaps it would be of assistance if you'd look at section 2 of the bill, which adds a definition of "land lease community" and "land lease community home" to the definition section of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Mrs Marland: Is section 2 of Bill 21 quoting the Landlord and Tenant Act or is it an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act?
Mr Lyle: Section 2 of Bill 21 is an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act. I should point out that section 2 of the bill, as it's been carried by the committee, has deleted the definition of "non-seasonal mobile home park."
Mrs Marland: It's deleted?
Mr Lyle: The definition of "non-seasonal mobile home park." If you look at section 2 of the bill, it sets out three new definitions that were not previously found in the Landlord and Tenant Act. Section 2, as carried, deleted the definition of "non-seasonal mobile home park" and only added to section 79 of the Landlord and Tenant Act a definition of "land lease community" and a definition of "land lease community home."
Mrs Marland: Right. So it comes back to the question I've asked. Now that "non-seasonal" is deleted, it means all mobile home parks. Correct?
Mr Lyle: Subject to the regulation that we discussed earlier.
Mrs Marland: Right. And the regulation says that if it's occupied more than four months --
Mr Lyle: Then it's subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act.
1150
Mrs Marland: You don't have the regulation with you, I guess, do you?
Mr Lyle: No, I'm afraid I don't.
The Chair: Given that we've passed those various sections regarding definitions, you could maybe apply your questions more directly to the section in front of us.
Mrs Marland: Yes, you're right, Mr Chairman, but the amendment before us is pertaining to a description in the definitions that I think there's a loophole in. That's why I think it's good that places like Wilmot Creek and Sandy Cove Acres and Tecumseth Pines and these other good operations are having their own agreements with their own clients, therefore their own tenants, because I think that loophole is going to put an unscrupulous landlord in a position of power over a tenant who wants this alternative method of advertising a sale. I think what is going to happen is that we're going to have different classes of tenancy established by the fact that there are different classes of protection under this amendment.
I haven't got the amendment that was at the committee on Monday, but is this the reworded --
The Chair: What amendment are you discussing?
Mrs Marland: The one that's on the floor.
Mr Wessenger: There have been minor changes, but in substance it's the same amendment that was circulated at the Monday meeting with respect to signs. Legislative counsel have made certain changes to it, but not in substance.
Mr Mills: Mr Chairman, on a point of order, when does anyone else get a chance to say anything here? I've listened now for two hours, virtually, to Ms Marland, and I'd like to ask a question. Do I get that opportunity?
Mrs Marland: I'll yield the floor to you. Go ahead.
The Chair: Yes, you may do that, because Mr Daigeler is at the moment not in his seat.
Mr Mills: Mr Chairman, thank you for that. I think the amendment before us has had ample debate and I'd call the question.
Mrs Marland: I yielded the floor for Mr Mills to ask a question, so I think that's a little disappointing. I don't want to say "underhanded," but that's a little disappointing. I thought you had a question.
Interjection.
Mr Mills: I understand there's a procedure problem, so we'll withdraw that, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Do you have further questions, Mr Mills?
Mr Mills: Yes, Mr Chair. What I would ask you then is, do you think there has been ample discussion on this amendment? How about the sign --
The Chair: As you know, Mr Mills, the Chair has no mind of his own on these matters. The committee decides those questions.
Mr Mills: Okay, Mr Chair, I've still got the floor. I want to ask legal counsel if this amendment is a workable solution, as she sees it, with the signs and the whole thing.
The Chair: You may ask legal counsel, but she can give you a legal opinion, not an opinion as to -- she can say what's workable, I suppose.
Ms Sibylle Filion: From the standpoint of the drafting, certainly from the point of view of the instructions that I received, this does what it was intended to do. You might want to speak to legal counsel as to the --
Mr Mills: All right, thank you. Does this do what it's intended to do, then? That's my next question.
Mr Lyle: Yes, as I understand what it was intended to do, it does.
The Chair: Further questions or comments regarding Mr Wessenger's amendment to section 11?
Mrs Marland: In the case where there isn't a tenants' association, that's addressed in paragraph 125.2(2)1. To read paragraph 125.2(2)1:
"(2) Despite subsection (1), a landlord may prohibit tenants of a mobile home park from placing a sign that the home is for sale on the mobile home or the residential premises if the following conditions are met:
"1. In the case of a mobile home park where the tenants have not formed a tenants association described in subsection (4)" -- that subsection (4) is on page 2, I assume?
Mr Lyle: That's correct.
Mrs Marland: "(i) the landlord provides a reasonable alternative method of advertising that a mobile home is for sale in the mobile home park,
"(ii) the alternative method of advertising is provided free of charge," -- that's a good thing -- "and
"(iii) the landlord ensures that the public has access to the advertisement at all reasonable times."
My concern here is where there isn't a tenants' association -- well, maybe I'll wait to see if they share my concerns.
On Monday at the meeting, one of the points that I asked was how much control was being given to the landlord where there wasn't a tenants' association about these signs, and that was the point at which Mr Mills referred to one example that he gave where there could be a book in the office.
Mr Wessenger: Mrs Marland, if I can comment on that, at the present time, if a landlord has a prohibition on signs, the tenant has no recourse to object to that prohibition. If that's what's in the lease, then the tenant is bound by it.
The same thing, no matter what restrictions the landlord might place on advertising, the tenant again is stuck with not being able to advertise in the land-lease community in any manner whatsoever.
So the landlord, at the present time, could restrict the right of the tenant to have any type of advertisement in the land-lease community or any notice of any type. That's the present situation.
Mrs Marland: In a mobile home park, you mean?
Mr Wessenger: And a land-lease community, both of them. In fact, in a land-lease community the landlord could practically do anything because they're not subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act.
What the bill does is create a right of a tenant to advertise their own premises unless the landlord provides a reasonable alternative method within the mobile home park. A new right is created for the tenant in a land-lease community or a mobile home park. That's a new right.
What happens if the landlord breaches that? If the landlord breaches that, the tenant has two possibilities. The tenant could, first of all, bring a court application under the Landlord and Tenant Act for an order permitting them to advertise their mobile home.
Mrs Marland: Can I ask you a question there, Paul?
Mr Wessenger: There is a second remedy too. There is a penalty provision in the act that if the landlord breaches the provisions of the section he is subject to a fine. So there are two remedies.
Mrs Marland: Does the Landlord and Tenant Act address signs?
Mr Wessenger: No, the Landlord and Tenant Act does not address signs.
Mrs Marland: You said their remedy is to bring a court action under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Mr Wessenger: Well, Bill 21 addresses the problem; Bill 21 does, yes.
Mrs Marland: So you didn't mean what you said.
Mr Wessenger: Yes, I did mean what I said. Bill 21 addresses the problem of signs. It creates a statutory right and at the same time provides a penalty provision for anyone who breaches the provisions of the act.
The Chair: I think this may be an appropriate time to call the committee to adjourn, it being 12 of the clock.
Mrs Marland: I don't mind us adjourning, but I just want to clear this up with you, Paul: a court application under the Landlord and Tenant Act. That's what you said.
Mr Wessenger: Yes, they can.
Mrs Marland: In order to take a court application under the Landlord and Tenant Act, does the Landlord and Tenant Act not have to address that area that the court application applies to? I'm asking you, does the Landlord and Tenant Act address signs?
Mr Wessenger: It does not at present; it will only address it with Bill 21.
The Chair: We are in recess till 3:30 this afternoon or directly following routine proceedings.
The committee recessed from 1201 to 1559.
The Chair: The standing committee on general government will come to order. When we recessed this morning, we were discussing Mr Wessenger's amendment to section 11, and I believe I had Mr Daigeler and Mrs Marland on the list.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): If I remember what I was going to say, it was really with regard to the fundamental question as to whether this bill ought to go forward or not. I tried to get some assurance last week from the government that the Ministry of Housing was supporting it and I was enthusiastically assured that it would. Frankly, today when I heard Mr Wessenger talk I was less assured, because he clearly said it's his bill and the Ministry of Housing is only in support of it or providing resources as much as he needs it as a private member.
I think this is really the difficulty. I think on principle private members' ideas are a good idea and should be supported if we can, but this experience I think has been a difficult one.
I'm prepared, as I was last week, and I think my caucus is prepared -- you know, the government is the government. If that's what they want to do, they have the majority. I really don't want, through procedural wranglings and somewhat extraneous tactics, to hold up the will of the government, if that's the majority.
I will be voting against it, but if the government carries it, well, it's their responsibility. It's the Minister of Housing's responsibility ultimately, and I think that's what we have said and kept saying, that this is really what it is. I think that's one of the difficulties.
Our Housing critic clearly has said that given the nature of this bill, it would have been the proper thing to do to introduce a government bill because it's of significance. It addresses an important concern that I think merits to be dealt with in that way. But since the government, I guess, is continuing to let the bill go forward, it's the responsibility of the government to proceed.
The Chair: Further discussion? Shall Mr Wessenger's amendment to section 11 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 11, as amended, carry? Carried.
Now we come to section 16.
Mr Wessenger: There's one outstanding amendment that has been moved. Mr Chair, you did ask some questions concerning --
The Chair: This one's my fault.
Mr Wessenger: That's right. You're the one why this still exists and hasn't been passed. It's your question. I'd be very happy to have Ministry of Housing people answer, if you'd like, but I have discussed it with the Ministry of Housing, and basically the difficulty is that the Minister of Housing does have an interest in this bill, I think it's fair to say. She wants to preserve the power over the question of exercising the powers under the Rental Housing Protection Act in her own ministry. Otherwise, it would be under the appointments of the boards or under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. That's the reason for it, so I would ask that the section be supported.
The Chair: That's sounds reasonable to me, but perhaps the staff could just help me understand how this works in the unorganized areas.
Mr Wessenger: Certainly.
Mr Morris: Just to give you a sort of overview of the local planning board process, the local planning boards are constituted to control planning in unorganized territories and where there are collections of municipalities.
The Planning Act greatly limits their powers. They are limited to the power of solely adopting official plans. They cannot approve official plans; they can adopt them. They have no zoning authority whatsoever. They're appointed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs for a period, which is similar to a municipal council, which is about three years.
Zoning in unorganized territories takes place through minister's zoning orders, and in a very limited number of cases, I don't exactly know how many, the local planning boards in unorganized territories in Ontario are given delegated authority to administer the minister's zoning orders.
Under proposed changes to the Planning Act, in theory, planning boards will have full zoning approval, but those have yet to be adopted.
The Chair: I happen to be familiar with the Manitoulin planning board, for example, which administers four or five unorganized townships, and they, in the name of the minister I think, have the power delegated for minister's zoning orders, if I recall correctly. All I'm really asking is if this doesn't create some difficulty for the local authorities to change that.
Mr Morris: No, not really because, as Mr Wessenger said, the Rental Housing Protection Act currently is administered through municipalities, through elected officials, and elected officials make decisions. Ultimately, the responsibility under planning orders is the Minister of Municipal Affairs'. The Manitoulin board is an exception. It does administer minister's zoning orders, but in the name of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
The Chair: Just so members might understand, minister's zoning orders or amendments to minister's zoning orders actually are building permits in some instances.
Mr Morris: Often, that's right.
The Chair: I'm happy if you're happy, Noah. Further questions, comments, amendments to the amendment?
Mr Daigeler: Just to put on the record that some of the procedures that were followed, frankly, I don't really recommend to be followed in the future, like these private meetings that were being called are rather unhelpful, I think. If Mr Wessenger wants to hold meetings, he of course is free to do so and should probably, but I don't think in any way, shape or form these external meetings to the committee should be considered part of the committee because some of the presenters now feel that we on the opposition side should have been at some of these meetings, which were strictly private meetings. I didn't think that was too good and I certainly wouldn't want to recommend that to any other committees in the future. I think if the presenter wants to hold meetings, that's fine, but clearly there was a confusion that arose. People thought it was an official meeting of the committee and then why weren't you there and everything else. I just don't think we should mix up the proper, formal meetings of this committee with any private meetings that individual members might want to call on their own behalf, which of course they're free to do.
Mr Wessenger: Thank you, Mr Daigeler. I would concur. It was not my intention to have these meetings. I was sort of pushed into it.
The Chair: Just to clarify for the record, these were not official committee meetings that are being spoken of and are not related to the committee, other than the proponent was holding meetings.
Mr Daigeler: I understand. We understand sometimes the procedures and the public doesn't quite and when they hear --
Mr Wessenger: I concur with you, Mr Daigeler.
Mr Daigeler: In fact, we have received letters that said they were sorry that the Liberals weren't there. Then I get a bit nervous.
The Chair: Thank you. Really, we're dealing with the amendment to 16(5). Further comments?
Shall Mr Wessenger's amendment to 16(5) carry? Carried.
Shall section 16, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 26, questions, comments? Shall section 26 carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be reported to the Legislature? Agreed.
The committee will stand in adjournment till the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1610.