Red Tape Reduction Act,
2000, Bill 119, Mr Hodgson /Loi de
2000 visant à réduire les formalités
administratives, projet de loi 119, M.
Hodgson
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair /
Président
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East / -Est L)
Mr Brian Coburn (Ottawa-Orléans0
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland PC)
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre / -Centre L)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff /Personnel
Mr Michael Wood, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1536 in committee room
1.
RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 VISANT
À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES
Consideration of Bill 119, An
Act to reduce red tape, to promote good government through better
management of Ministries and agencies and to improve customer
service by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two
new Acts / Projet de loi 119, Loi visant à réduire les
formalités administratives, à promouvoir un bon
gouvernement par une meilleure gestion des ministères et
organismes et à améliorer le service à la
clientèle en modifiant ou abrogeant certaines lois et en
édictant deux nouvelles lois.
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): Good afternoon. I call the committee to
order for our final day of hearings and clause-by-clause
consideration on Bill 119. Obviously the protocol is to do this
section by section. Mr Marchese has indicated he would like to
make all of his comments up front, so I'll ask if there are any
amendments to section 1. Any debate? Mr Marchese.
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the
generosity of the Chair, as usual, in terms of allowing me to
make the remarks that I want and need to make. I'll do that in
the beginning and then at the end, of course, I'll be as brief as
I need to be in order to expedite the affairs of this
committee.
I will start by reading from
a letter I received from Mohan Srivastava, who writes,
"Dear Ms Stokes,
"I was told that I should
send this written submission on Bill 119 to you so that it would
be considered by the committee on general government that is
discussing the bill this week."
I wanted to read much of what
she said because I'm not sure how many of the members had an
opportunity to read the letter. As you know, we diligently ask
people to make submissions so they would be considered along with
everything else we have to read. Given that I didn't think they
might have had an opportunity to read it because they're busy
members, as you understand-I'm not sure about others-I wanted to
put it in for the record so we could consider it as we make these
amendments. I support of a lot of what she says. "Mohan"-he or
she? It's hard to say.
This person writes,
"Dear Mr Hodgson,
"I am the owner of a small
business and can assure you that I recognize and appreciate the
importance of reducing red tape. I am also a landlord who rents
two suites in a house that I own."
I'll skip certain parts
because you don't need to read the whole thing.
"...a landlord who rents two
suites in a house that I own, and am well aware of the importance
of strong legislation that protects the interests and rights of
landlords and tenants.
"So why is a businessman and
a landlord worried about changes to the TPA? Through my work in
one of Toronto's Out of the Cold shelters I have become concerned
about the issue of homelessness...."
I was interested in that
right away, so I continued reading.
"I know that, like myself,
many of the volunteers who have supported the Out of the Cold
shelters over the past decade are starting to wonder if we're
doing the right thing. As the number of people using the shelter
system grows each year, many of us now believe that our efforts
should not be directed at temporarily alleviating the difficulty
of life on the streets by throwing a bun and a blanket at the
problem.... Parts of Bill 119 do the exact opposite-they will
certainly open the tap further and force more people on to the
streets."
"Lack of public consultation"
is one of the things that the writer is against.
"When I learned that Bill 119
included proposed amendments to the TPA, I was eager to make a
submission to the committee that would be holding public
hearings. As someone who is both a businessman and a landlord,
yet who has some insight into the difficulties faced by the poor
and marginalized in this society, I felt that I had something to
offer to your deliberations. I was stunned to learn that
opportunity for such submissions had already passed and that
there had been only a few hours scheduled for them. This is not
the `common sense' that the government had promised to Ontarians:
instead, it is a transparent attempt to sneak through a large
amount of controversial legislation with a minimum of public
input.
"I am told that there is
still an opportunity to make a written submission, so I am taking
advantage of this final opportunity." I'm happy this person did
that.
"Failure of purpose: I have obtained a copy of Bill
119 and am struggling to understand how some of these proposed
amendments fulfill the stated purpose of Bill 119-`to reduce red
tape, to promote good government ... and to improve customer
service.'
"The Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal is not burdened by red tape." I agree with that. "In
processing several thousand eviction applications each month,
securing `default orders' on well over half of them, this
tribunal is a testament to bureaucratic efficiency." In other
words, this tribunal is doing a good job of kicking people out of
their homes, and I suppose you want to make it better. But the
person has made, I would say, a very sound observation that the
tribunal is very proficient. "Granting a hearing to people and
families struggling to make ends meet is not `red tape'; it is
due process to which all citizens should be entitled.
"It cannot be `promotion of
good government' to weaken a piece of legislation whose stated
purpose is to protect tenants." There's so much more. I'm almost
tempted to read the whole thing, but I'll have to skip certain
paragraphs and get to other points.
"Even if illegal drug
activity is taking place in a rental unit, it may be done by
someone other than the tenant who signed the lease. If no one
else in our society suffers the risk of losing their home when
someone else uses their property for illegal drug activity, then
why should the poor and marginalized suffer this penalty?" which
is something you are including in this red tape bill.
It goes on to say other
things: "Which leads us to the final stated purpose of Bill 119:
`to improve customer service.' It is clear to me that this bill
recognizes the landlords, and not the tenants as its customers.
How is a tenant better served by amendments that increase the
likelihood that they will be evicted without a hearing, that make
it more likely that the decision will be made by a single
untrained clerk, and that reduce the minimal recourse that they,
the soon-to-be-evicted tenants, currently have? If you're going
to make these amendments to the TPA, then surely in the name of
transparency and good government, you should also amend the name
of the act to the `Landlord Protection Act' or to the `Rental
Profitability Act.'" I think this person is right and we said as
much when we debated the Tenant Protection Act, but the
government doesn't listen to us.
"Why not sever the TPA
amendments from Bill 119? I encourage you to consider dealing
with the proposed amendments to the TPA separately from the rest
of Bill 119. A good government has nothing to fear from public
consultation on important issues."
I wanted to say that I agree
with the submission a great deal and tell you that even we, as an
opposition, as small a caucus as we are, with very few resources,
are left to our own instincts to be able to react to some of
these things. I'm the critic for housing. I'm not a critic for
all of these things that you have included. There are 77 bills, I
believe, that you're amending. So imagine how difficult it is for
us, as an NDP caucus, not to have the resources to at least
provide some critical remarks about the things you are doing, let
alone a public that doesn't have a clue what you are
doing-doesn't have a clue, would never have a clue, would be
informed very late about some of the changes that might affect a
constituency. By the time they are aware of the changes you're
making, they simply don't know what to do.
The person said that they're
against the process that you have initiated to make these
amendments. The person says that if you want to make the changes
to the TPA, you should do it separately so that it would become a
transparent process and it would permit people who have an
interest in these things to come and make submissions, as they
should.
We had two days of hearings
on the changes made in the red tape bill. I think it's shameful
that the government continues to make many changes in this form.
It's shameful because it doesn't give the opposition or the
public an opportunity to be critical, to offer changes or
amendments. It doesn't give them an opportunity to be heard. I
think it's wrong. What you are doing as a government is
profoundly undemocratic, and more and more people are beginning
to see that.
I want to read for the record
from another group who made some good suggestions regarding
schedule K of Bill 119. They are submitted by the Homeless Action
Group. These are some observations they made.
"The Tenant Protection Act
and the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal process have made it more
difficult for low- and fixed-income tenants such as seniors and
students to remain in their present accommodations. Rents have
increased by as much as 20% over three years in Toronto and
eviction rates have grown from 9% to 12% since June 1998 when the
TPA came into effect....
"We would like committee
members to remember that 80% of eviction applications are for
non-payment of rent. There are many reasons for which tenants can
fall behind in paying rents, but at base it is due to inadequate
income. Please keep in mind that according to Statistics Canada
one third of children in Toronto are in families living below the
poverty line. Picture single parents and working poor parents
trying to juggle expenses to pay the rent and cover food and
other bare essentials. It is no wonder that families are one of
the fastest growing homeless groups.
"Several sections of schedule
K, Bill 119 have the potential and even likelihood of sending
eviction rates and homelessness rates even higher. Bill 119
redefines `sublet' and amends section 140 of the TPA which
prevented a rental unit from being sublet to one or more tenants
for a rent greater than that lawfully charged by the landlord.
This opens the door to rent increases in the case of sublet
arrangements.
"Section 62 provides that
notices of eviction will be heard by the tribunal in 10 rather
than 20 days, if `grounded on' illegal acts and activities. This
is particularly disturbing language for several reasons. Minister
Clement implied in his remarks in the Legislature that only those
breaking the law are affected. However how do we know that a
tenant is actually breaking the law? There is no requirement for him or her to be
charged with an offence. Tribunal adjudicators are acting in the
place of judges yet the hearings lack the standards of due
process that apply in a court of law. It would seem that a tenant
could be evicted merely on the suspicions of the landlord. The
reduction in time lag until hearing would result in the eviction
of the tenant even more quickly.
"We are very concerned by
section 187 which allows ORHT employees to act as default order
officers. The default rate has already been very high at least in
part because of the inadequacy of the notification process from
the tenant's point of view. It rose from 56% in 1998 to 64% as of
last month. Allowing politically appointed tribunal adjudicators
to sign eviction orders was bad enough. To give employees this
power is to further deprive tenants of their right to a hearing.
This change will very likely lead to an even higher rate of
evictions following default orders and thus to more people made
homeless.
"According to section 187
tribunal adjudicators can, giving notice to the parties, amend an
eviction application if they think it appropriate and if doing so
wouldn't be unfair to any party. This strikes us as giving very
broad and undefined power to adjudicators. What kind of
amendments and in what situations? Who is to judge fairness? This
change would be used in ways very prejudicial to tenants.
"The final change we want to
comment on replaces subsection 52(1) of the TPA with a provision
that landlords of no more than three units are allowed to apply
to evict tenants on behalf of a purchaser of the units if the
latter requires them `in good faith' for his own or his family's
use. Since the current rather than future owner makes the
application, this will have the effect of speeding up
evictions."
1550
It's a bit longer, but I will
stop at that. I wanted to say several things by reading them on
to the record. One, people have concerns about the changes that
are being proposed through this bill. It is, in my way of
thinking, wrong to make serious changes of this kind,
particularly in a way that hides the real substance of some of
these changes by inappropriately calling them "reducing red
tape." Some of these people wanted to be heard. What you are
providing is one or two days of hearings on most bills. I think,
and they've been telling you, it's inadequate. It doesn't give
people an opportunity to respond, and even when they come in
front of this committee urging you to make changes, you don't
listen to them. You haven't made any changes that I have
seen-maybe there are some to come; I'm not sure-that in any way
respond to the criticism levelled against your government and
this bill from the legal clinics. So one wonders what the point
is of having hearings when you don't make any changes whatsoever.
Why not simply say, "We don't need to have any hearings. We are
omnipotent and omniscient. We know what's best for everybody. And
there's no point having any hearings, one day or two days, enough
to do in a couple of hours, because we're not going to listen to
you anyway."
The poor folks, the Ontario
projectionists and video technicians, came making a submission
which I thought was very sound in terms of suggested changes. I
don't see any amendments proposed by the government to deal with
what I heard; I don't know what you heard. But clearly you didn't
hear a thing; you weren't listening. So I'm saddened by the lack
of democracy that we are getting from this government, but
encouraged by some of the Liberal amendments, because they voted
against the Rent Control Act we brought in when we were in
government, encouraged by the changes because in their modest way
they're trying to reach out to the tenants when they couldn't
support us when we introduced the Rent Control Act. So I will
support most of the changes except one where it appears to be
favouring landlords. But I'm always happy to see the Liberals on
the same side as New Democrats, fighting for tenants as opposed
to landlords.
I'm glad Phil Dewan is on
board, the fellow who supported landlords against the Rent
Control Act, because I'm sure he's providing some balance to
Liberal concerns that they have with tenants and landlords.
So I wanted to tell you I'll
be voting against this bill, quite obviously, supporting most of
the changes made by the Liberal amendments and decrying the fact
that you haven't made any changes based on what we heard. I would
say that there's nothing new in this process. We've got three
more years for people to learn what you're all about, and we hope
they will make changes then.
The Chair:
Any further debate on section 1? Seeing none, I'll put the
question. Shall section 1 carry? All those in favour? Opposed?
Section 1 is carried.
Before we go any further, I
was remiss at the outset to not recognize that we've been joined
today by Mr Bruce Jamerson, the Clerk of the Virginia
Legislature. Good afternoon and welcome to our humble proceedings
here.
With that, we'll move on to
section 2. Any debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall
section 2 carry? Section 2 is carried.
Any debate on section 3?
Seeing none, shall section 3 carry? Section 3 is carried.
Shall sections 1 to 16 of
schedule A carry? All those in favour? Contrary? Sections 1 to 16
of schedule A are carried.
Shall schedule B, sections 1
to 8, carry? They are carried.
Mrs Munro, I believe you have
the first amendment.
Mrs Julia Munro (York
North): I move that subsection 133(2.1) of the
Corporations Act, as set out in section 9 of schedule B to the
bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Exemption
"(2.1) Despite subsection
(1), section 96.1 does not apply to a corporation referred to in
subsection l(2) of the Charities Accounting Act.
"Conditions for
indemnification
"(2.2) Despite subsection (1) a corporation referred
to in subsection 1(2) of the Charities Accounting Act cannot
provide the indemnification referred to in section 80 unless,
"(a) the corporation complies
with the Charities Accounting Act or a regulation made under that
act that permits the provision of an indemnification; or
"(b) the corporation or a
director or officer of the corporation obtains a court order
authorizing the indemnification."
The Chair:
Any debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in
favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Shall section 9 of schedule B
carry, as amended? It's carried.
Schedule B, sections 10 to
15, any debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall those
sections carry? They're carried.
Schedule B, section 16.
Mrs Munro:
Schedule B to the bill, subsection 16(7), subsections 56(2.1) to
(2.4) of the Personal Property Security Act:
I move that subsections
56(2.1) to (2.4) of the Personal Property Security Act, as set
out in subsection 16(7) of schedule B to the bill, be struck out
and the following substituted:
"Removal of collateral
classifications
"(2.1) Where a financing
statement is registered under this act and the person named in
the financing statement as the secured party has not acquired a
security interest in any property within one or more of the
collateral classifications indicated on the financing statement,
the person named in the financing statement as the debtor may
deliver a written notice to the person named as the secured party
demanding a financing change statement referred to in section 49
to correct the collateral classifications by removing any
collateral classification in which the person named as the
secured party has not acquired a security interest; the person
named as the secured party shall sign the financing change
statement and give it to the person demanding it at the place set
out in the notice.
"Limiting the scope of
collateral classifications
"(2.2) Where a financing
statement is registered under this act and where the person named
in the financing statement as the secured party has not included
words limiting the scope of the collateral classification within
the meaning of subsection 46(3) and has acquired a security
interest only in particular property within the classification,
the person named in the financing statement as the debtor may
deliver a written notice to the person named as the secured party
demanding a financing change statement referred to in section 49
to add words limiting the scope of the collateral
classification.
"Response of secured
party
"(2.3) Upon receipt of a
written notice under subsection (2.2), the person named in the
financing statement as the secured party shall,
"(a) sign the financing
change statement described in subsection (2.2) and give it to the
person demanding it at the place set out in the notice; or
"(b) provide the person named
as the debtor with a financing change statement referred to in
section 49 to add a reference to the security agreement or
agreements to which the financing statement relates, together
with words limiting the scope of the collateral claimed to the
collateral described in the security agreement or agreements.
"Interpretation, security
interest
"(2.4) For the purposes of
subsections (2.1) and (2.2), a secured party is deemed to have
acquired a security interest in property when the person named in
the financing statement as the debtor is a party to an agreement
that grants the secured party a security interest in present or
after-acquired property of the debtor of like description or a
present or future right to acquire a security interest in such
property."
1600
The Chair:
Any debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall the
amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Shall schedule B, section 16,
as amended, carry? Carried.
All those in favour of
sections 17 to 20? Opposed? The sections are carried.
Shall schedule B, as amended,
carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Schedule B, as amended, is
carried.
Schedule C, sections 1 and 2,
any debate? Seeing none, shall schedule C, sections 1 and 2,
carry? They are carried.
Schedule D, sections 1 to 3,
any debate? Seeing none, shall schedule D, sections 1 to 3,
carry? They are carried.
Schedule E, sections 1 to 6,
any debate? Shall schedule E, section 1 to 6, carry? They are
carried.
Schedule F, sections 1 to 19,
any debate? Shall schedule F, sections 1 to 19, carry? They are
carried.
Schedule G, sections 1 and 2:
Do you wish to speak to that?
Mr Monte Kwinter
(York Centre): I thought this was under section 115.
Mr David Caplan (Don
Valley East): It's schedule G.
Mr Kwinter:
So we can speak on any parts of schedule G?
The Chair:
Absolutely.
Mr Kwinter:
I would like to briefly state my position when it deals with this
issue that is covered in schedule G. That has to do with viatical
settlements. As you may know, in 1996 I sponsored a bill that
provided for viaticals. I think it's something that serves a
purpose, but I have some very grave concerns as to the way this
is being handled. At the time, in 1996, I think it came to this
same committee and the committee decided it was really not in
their purview to even discuss it because it was such a basic
change to the way insurance was, if you want to use the term,
"trafficked," where people could sell their insurance policies to
a third party, who would discount it, give them the money, because they
were either in a terminal AIDS situation or for whatever reason,
and then on the death of the policyholder, the purchaser of the
policy would get the proceeds.
It was felt at the time by
this committee that the implications were so great-not that they
were opposed to it-that it should be dealt with maybe by the
finance and economics committee, which could then look at it and
make sure there were sufficient safeguards.
I think the same concerns are
there. I think viaticals serve a purpose. They can be of great
benefit to people who can't wait until after they're dead to get
the use of the money. That could be very useful. Having said
that, there is a long history of problems if there isn't proper
regulation. When it gets sort of tacked on to a red tape omnibus
kind of bill, and suddenly this basic policy change is
implemented without having any real input and discussion as to
what safeguards are required, that could create a problem.
I would suggest, and actually
I agree with a letter that was sent by the Canadian Association
of Insurance and Financial Advisors, that this section either be
omitted or, if it is included, that it not be proclaimed until
there is sufficient investigation and sufficient safeguards to
make sure that people on both sides, those people who are
investing in viaticals-there are people who will be approached by
people saying, "Here's a good investment. We're going to discount
the policy to 80%. You've got a chance to get a 20% return on
your income in a relatively short term." In most cases, these
people are terminally ill. There's lots of room for fraud and
lots of room for people who are at their most vulnerable being
taken advantage of if there aren't proper safeguards.
My recommendation would be
that this section either be withdrawn at this time or, if it does
get included, that it not be proclaimed until a proper
investigation, a proper canvassing of the various problems that
could develop is done, so we have an absolute guarantee that we
protect citizens at their most vulnerable stage.
Mr Marchese:
Obviously we had a submission from that group. I'm not speaking
to the substance, because I think Mr Kwinter obviously has the
experience and knowledge and raised it very fairly here in a way
that it should hopefully interest the government members in being
somewhat reserved in the position they might want to take.
I don't think they will
withdraw it-that's my sense. I'm not sure what the members are
discussing there, and I'm not sure how well in tune they are with
this issue. But Mr Kwinter raises a way to deal with this issue
that permits you to have time to consult people in the field. I
urge the members to exercise some independence and support what
Mr Kwinter has suggested by way of a process to deal with that.
Otherwise, I think the members would again be making a mistake
and are not taking into account some of the concerns that have
been raised by Mr Kwinter and the group that came to make a
deputation two weeks ago.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): Basically this element of the bill,
from what I understand, is really enabling legislation. What it
does is allow the Ministry of Finance to get into consultation
with the insurance industry to be able to develop the framework
by which these viatical settlements can be made. They can't do
that under current legislation. What this is really about is
removing that barrier.
Mr
Kwinter: What this really does is use virtually one
clause in a red tape reduction bill to address a very important
aspect of the insurance business. The whole point of its being
enabling-to me the minute it's enabling it means it's enabling;
people can start going out and trafficking in viaticals.
It would seem to me that
before that happens-and I don't think we're fulfilling our
responsibility if we say, "We'll leave it to the bureaucrats to
figure out what safeguards should be there." I think we should,
at the very least, have an opportunity to hear from
organizations-I'm just subbing on this committee, but I see the
Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association has this huge
presentation of all the abuses of the viatical market in the
United States where it's allowed. You read page after page of
news reports talking about the serious problems.
1610
It would seem to me that a
red tape reduction bill should be just that: get rid of needless
legislation that has outlived its purpose, streamline the
process, get to the point where people who are trying to deal
with legislation are not put to unnecessary, useless procedures
that have been there since the beginning of time and have
outlived their usefulness. I have no problem with that.
I do have a problem with a
total change in policy that could have a very serious impact on
citizens of this province when they are in their most vulnerable
state, when they are literally in palliative care or in a
position where they're terminally ill and make decisions that are
proper for them in the short term but could lead to abuses. To
put this in a red tape reduction bill-I can see, if the whole
area of viaticals was canvassed and there was deliberation and a
bill was passed, and 10 years from now through experience you
said, "Do you know what? We put certain safeguards in, but our
experience has shown that those safeguards are no longer
required, and as part of red tape reduction we're going to modify
it."
I don't see a red tape
reduction bill introducing a totally new concept in the way
insurance policies are traded. That's really something totally
new. Normally the insurance companies themselves are restricted,
and now you're providing another element. I have no problem with
that, as long as there are safeguards. I do have a problem when
it's an add-on to an omnibus bill that covers many ministries and
is supposed to be red tape reduction. How can you have red tape
reduction on a concept that has not even been fully examined and
all the pros and cons of it addressed?
I introduced the bill in
1996, so I'm certainly in favour of viaticals; I think they serve
a purpose. Having said that, I think we have an obligation to
make sure it's done properly and that we don't create more
problems than we're trying to solve.
Mr Spina: Mr Kwinter, this is
exactly what we're trying to achieve, and this part of the bill
does not end up being proclaimed until a regulatory environment
is structured for it and until the framework is put in place.
That cannot be done unless it's done in consultation with the
industry. As I said earlier, the fundamental reason for this
being in this bill is that at this point there is a barrier:
viatical settlements are not permitted. It's to address the very
people you indicated, who truly are in a difficult situation
where they have their money invested in an insurance policy and
they require the funds. The new structure, such as it will be
struck, would allow them to have access to those funds.
We also must ensure that
under the regulatory environment we create a strong and firm
enough framework that will not permit the trafficking, as it is
called, that was presented to us in a very cogent way by the
industry, and we appreciate that. This barrier had to open the
door for us to be able to create that framework, that
environment. That's why it's in this bill.
Mr
Kwinter: Mr Chairman, if I could get assurances from the
Ministry of Finance that this section of the bill will not be
proclaimed until that investigation and review and that setting
out of regulations with input from the industry, I'd have no
problem.
The Chair:
Do you wish to respond to that, Mr Spina?
Mr Spina:
I can give you my personal assurance, sir, that that's what we
will be doing.
Mr
Kwinter: With respect, I'd be a lot happier if I had the
Minister of Finance's personal assurance.
Mr Spina:
I'm only the PA to Management Board, I'm sorry.
Mr
Marchese: Would it be helpful to have a staff
person-because I'm convinced they're not all housing applicants
he has here-to comment on this as a way of calming some of the
fears Mr Kwinter has?
The Chair:
I'd be happy to ask the committee that question, but I want to
remind all the members that at 4:30 all questions will be deemed
to be put. In fact I was going to suggest that when we're done
this debate, if you would like to jump to your page 21, because
that will need some input; otherwise, the question will have to
be put as written.
Mr
Marchese: I'm quite happy to just move along, if that's
what you want.
The Chair:
OK, if Mr Kwinter is satisfied? Thank you.
Any further debate on
schedule G?
All those in favour of
schedule G, sections 1 and 2? Opposed? Schedule G, sections 1 and
2, is carried.
Any debate on Schedule H,
sections 1 to 4? Seeing none, all those in favour? Opposed?
Schedule H, sections 1 to 4, is carried.
Schedule I, sections 1 and
2: any debate? Seeing none, all those in favour? Opposed?
Schedule I, sections 1 and 2, is carried.
Schedule J, sections 1 to
5: any debate? All those in favour? Opposed? Schedule J, sections
1 to 5, is carried.
Schedule K, sections 1 to
5: all those in favour? Opposed? Schedule K, sections 1 to 5, is
carried.
Now, on schedule K, section
6, with the unanimous consent of the committee-
Mr Caplan:
Actually, there were a couple of drafting errors as well in the
amendments. On page 6-
The Chair:
I will accept the other two that were just drafting errors.
Mr Caplan:
You'll accept those?
The Chair:
I will accept those.
Mr Caplan:
If I could inform the committee then.
The Chair:
Perhaps, because of limited time-
Mr Caplan:
You want to do the other one first?
The Chair:
-I'd ask the committee for unanimous consent to move to page 21.
Agreed.
You'll have to read it into
the record first.
Mr Caplan:
In the section which defines, it says, "fine, fee or cost does
not include money that is paid into the tribunal pursuant"-
The Chair:
I'm sorry, you'll have to start with "I move."
Mr Caplan:
I move that section 182.1 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, as
set out in subsection 6(25) of schedule K to the bill, be amended
by adding the following subsection:
"Definition
"(2) In subsection (1)
"fine, fee or cost does not
include money that is paid"-and in the amendment that you have in
front of you it says "into." That wording should be changed to
"in trust," and I need unanimous consent to be able to make that
one change.
The Chair:
Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.
Mr Caplan:
Then it continues, "-the tribunal pursuant to an order of the
tribunal and that may be paid out to either the tenant or the
landlord when the application is disposed of."
The Chair:
So it's actually "in trust to the tribunal." Any debate? All
those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? It's carried.
If we can revert back to
page 3.
Mr Caplan:
I move that section 6 of schedule K to the bill be amended by
adding the following subsection:
"(1.1) Subsection 1(1) of
the act, as amended by the statutes of Ontario, 1999, chapter 6,
section 62, is amended by adding the following definition:
"`tenant's property'
includes property that the tenant is storing for a third party,
for which the tenant is liable to that third party and for which
the tenant receives no benefit or reward."
The Chair:
Further debate? All those in favour of Mr Caplan's amendment?
Opposed? That amendment fails.
Mr Caplan:
Well, well, well. I thought we had all of this as well. Shall we
move on, Mr Chair?
The Chair:
On page 4, I must draw to the attention of the committee that
it's an established principle that an amendment is out of
order-
Mr Caplan:
I haven't read the amendment yet.
The Chair: But I have, and it's
beyond the scope of the bill or beyond the scope of the clause
under consideration. The reference I would give you is Erskine
May, 22nd edition, page 525, or Beauchesne, 6th edition, page
207, or Marleau, page 654. "In an amending bill, the scope of the
bill has been interpreted to mean only those sections that the
ministry has chosen to amend. Second reading of the bill
establishes the parameters of the bill that may be considered by
a committee. Therefore, an amendment is out of order if it seeks
to amend a section of an act when that section is not open to the
bill."
There are actually five
amendments that will fall into this category, but I'm ruling that
because the amendment found on page 4-
Interjection.
The Chair:
I'm just drawing to your attention that that one is out of
order.
Page 5.
Mr Caplan:
I move that subparagraph 4.1 i of subsection 34(1) of the Tenant
Protection Act, 1997, as set out in subsection 6(6) of schedule K
to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"i the costs that the
tenant has incurred or will incur in repairing or replacing
property of the tenant that was damaged, destroyed or disposed of
as a result of the landlord's breach or breaches of the
obligation under subsection 24(1), and".
The Chair:
All those in favour of the amendment? It's carried.
1620
Mr Caplan:
Two for three. Can we move on, Mr Chair?
The Chair:
Please do.
Mr Caplan:
Oh great. I move that subclause 35-there is a drafting error
here, Mr Chair; it says 35(a) and it should be (a)(i).
The Chair:
It actually says 35(1)(a)(i).
Mr Caplan:
It says 35(1)(a) and it should be (a)(i).
The Chair:
Right.
Mr Caplan:
OK. I move that subclause 35(1)(a)(i) of the Tenant Protection
Act, 1997, as set out in subsection 6(7) of schedule K to the
bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(i) the costs that the
tenant has incurred or will incur in repairing or replacing
property of the tenant that was damaged, destroyed or disposed of
as a result of the landlord's superintendent or agent having
engaged in one or more activities listed in those paragraphs,
and".
The Chair:
Debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour
of the amendment? The amendment carries.
Mr Caplan:
Jeez, will wonders never cease? Maybe and we'll get them all done
here.
The Chair:
Page 7.
Mr Caplan:
I move that subsection 6(7) of schedule K to the bill be amended
by striking out "clause," by substituting "clauses" and by adding
the following:
"(d.1) order that the
landlord return the portion of the tenant's property that is in
the landlord's possession."
The Chair:
Thank you. Any debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All
those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment
fails.
Mr Caplan:
Hold on. I saw that.
The Chair:
There seems to be some discussion here. All those in favour?
Opposed?
Mr Caplan:
Oh, Mr Galt.
The Chair:
The amendment fails.
Mr Caplan:
I move that section 35 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, as
amended by subsection 6(8) of schedule K to the bill, be amended
by adding the following subsections:
"Application for interim
order
"(3.1) A tenant who files
an application under paragraph 4 of subsection 32(1) may make a
motion to the tribunal without notice to the landlord for an
interim order allowing the tenant to recover possession of the
rental unit and preventing the landlord from renting the unit to
anyone else.
"Interim order
"(3.2) The tribunal may
make the interim order if the tenant provides the tribunal with
an affidavit setting out the details of the landlord's conduct
that would allow the tribunal to make an order under subsection
(3) and specifying whether the rental unit is vacant.
"No interim order
"(3.3) The tribunal shall
not make an order under subsection 3(2) if, within the six months
preceding the making of the motion,
"(a) the tribunal has made
an order evicting the tenant from the rental unit, or
"(b) there has been a
mediated agreement to dispose of an application to evict the
tenant from the rental unit.
"No hearing
"(3.4) The tribunal shall
not hold a hearing when making an order under subsection
(3.2).
"Setting aside interim
order
"(3.5) If the tribunal make
an order under subsection (3.2), the landlord may, at any time
before the tribunal hears the tenant's application under
paragraph 4 of subsection 32(1) and on notice to the tenant, make
a motion to the tribunal to have the order set aside.
"Same compensation
"(3.6) On a motion under
subsection (3.5), the tribunal shall hold a hearing and, if it is
satisfied that the landlord's conduct would not allow it to make
an order under subsection (3), shall set aside the interim order
and award the landlord compensation for any costs or loses the
landlord has suffered as a result of making the interim
order."
This is a very important
amendment. It's to protect tenants' possessions and property when
there has been an inappropriate or illegal eviction.
The Chair:
Any further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those
in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment fails.
Mr Caplan:
Oh, have a heart. Shall we move on?
The Chair: Mr Caplan, please.
Mr Caplan:
I move that subsections 35(4) and (5) of the Tenant Protection
Act, 1997, as set out in subsection 6(8) of schedule K to the
bill, be amended by striking out subsection (3) wherever it
occurs and substituting in each case (3.3) or (3.2).
I believe this amendment is
redundant with the failure of the previous amendment-correct?
The Chair:
Yes.
Mr Caplan:
So moving to number 10, I move that section-
The Chair:
So you're withdrawing that?
Mr Caplan:
Why?
The Chair:
We'll simply rule that one as out of order. That's fine.
Mr Caplan:
I move that section 6 of schedule K-
The Chair:
I'm afraid the one on page 10 also affects a section that was not
part of the bill, so I'm ruling that the amendment on page 10 is
out of order.
Mr Caplan:
OK, then I'll move on.
I move that clause 61(3)(a)
of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, as set out in subsection
6(14) of schedule K to the bill, be struck out and the following
substituted:
"(a) the amount of rent
arrears specified in the notice; and".
This is a very important
protection for tenants where there has been a dispute between a
landlord and tenant so that they're not, in fact, being penalized
and leading things to the subsequent month; that they're having
to make up the arrears that is the subject of the action that has
gone to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. I move that
amendment.
Mr
Marchese: Just a quick question, David. This replaces
the section that says the notice to terminate can be avoided by
paying the rent that is in arrears under the tenancy agreed?
Mr Caplan:
Yes, but say-
Mr
Marchese: My concern is that this amendment would appear
to favour the landlord by requiring that the tenant, to avoid
eviction, pay the amount of arrears specified by the landlord's
notice rather than the amount actually owed. That's my concern in
terms of what you've done here.
Mr Caplan:
No. What you would have is, if it was the amount actually owed-so
let's say the arrears happened in a subsequent month or it was
brought forward, a tenant would have to pay off both the amount
in arrears plus whatever was currently owed as well in order to
be able to clear the notice at the Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal, as according to this amendment. The amendment that I
propose would deal simply with the application at the Ontario
Rental Housing Tribunal.
Mr
Marchese: David, let's not debate it, because I don't
think they'll support it. Let's vote.
Mr Caplan:
It's better for tenants this way.
The Chair:
Any further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
All those in favour of the
amendment? Opposed?
The amendment fails.
Mr Caplan:
I convinced you on that one.
The Chair:
With that, I would draw the committee's attention to the fact,
that it is 4:30, and under the order from the House at 4:30 on
the final day those amendments that have not been moved shall be
deemed to have been moved and the Chair 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.
Therefore, they will not
even be read. You take your direction from the page number at the
top.
The next amendment up will
be a Liberal motion on page 12.
All those in favour?
Opposed? That amendment fails.
Page 13: all those in
favour? Opposed? The amendment fails.
Page 14: all those in
favour? Opposed? That amendment fails.
Page 15: all those in
favour? Opposed? The amendment fails.
Page 16: all those in
favour? Opposed? The amendment fails.
Page 17: all those in
favour? Opposed? That amendment fails.
Page 18: all those in
favour? Opposed? The amendment fails.
Pages 19 and 20 are out of
order.
We've already dealt with
page 21 and it was, just to remind everyone, approved.
Page 22 is out of
order.
Page 23: all those in
favour? Opposed? That amendment fails.
Page 24: all those in
favour? Opposed? The amendment fails.
Page 25: all those in
favour? Opposed? That amendment fails.
Shall schedule K, section
6, as amended, carry?
All those in favour?
Opposed?
Schedule K, section 6, as
amended, is carried.
Mr
Marchese: Can I recommend we vote on the whole thing
right now, unless there are other objections? There's no point.
We're just going through the motions, right?
The Chair:
Shall schedules K through-
Mr
Marchese: No, Mr Chair, I'm serious.
The Chair:
I'm doing that. I'm asking the question of the committee.
Shall schedule K, section
7, through to schedule P, sections 1 to 9, carry?
All those in favour?
Opposed?
Schedule K, section 7,
through to schedule P, sections 1 to 9, are carried.
Shall the title of the bill
carry? The title is carried.
Shall Bill 119, as amended,
carry? Carried.
Shall Bill 119, as amended,
be reported to the House?
All those in favour?
Opposed?
Bill 119, as amended, shall
be reported to the House.
Thank you all for your
participation. The committee stands adjourned.
