Red Tape Reduction Act,
2000, Bill 119, Mr Hodgson /Loi de
2000 visant à réduire les formalités
administratives, projet de loi 119, M.
Hodgson
Kensington-Bellwoods
Community Legal Services
Ms Barbara Hurd
Federation of Metro
Tenants' Associations
Ms Barbara Hurd
Canadian Wine
Institute
Mr Roger Randolph
Ontario Trucking
Association
Mr Barrie Montague
International Alliance
of Theatrical and Stage Employees
Mr Nelson Cross
Canadian Life and
Health Insurance Association
Mr Mark Daniels
Motion Picture
Theatres Association of Ontario
Mr Norman Stern
Vincor
Mr Bruce Walker
Henry of Pelham
Family Estate Winery; Wine Council of Ontario
Mr Paul Speck
Ms Linda Franklin
Clinique juridique
communautaire de l'Université d'Ottawa /
University of Ottawa Community Legal Clinic
M. Michel Landry
Mr Peter Keen
Parkdale Community
Legal Services
Ms Elinor Mahoney
Fair Rental Policy
Organization
Mr Vince Brescia
Coalition on the
Niagara Escarpment
Ms Linda Pim
Dundurn Community
Legal Services; Hamilton Mountain Legal and Community
Services;
McQuesten Legal and Community Services; Solutions for Housing
Action Committee
Mr Tom Cooper
Ontario New Home
Warranty Program
Ms Judith Howard
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 Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
The committee met at 1558 in room 151.
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): I call the committee to order. I'm sure the
other members will be arriving shortly, but we have
representation from each of the three parties. My apologies to
the audience members and witnesses. Unfortunately, the rules of
the House preclude our sitting until routine proceedings have
ended, as they just have. I think in order to accommodate
everyone, we'll probably be looking at eight, eight and a half
minutes per presentation, but I'll try and be flexible, depending
on the actual content and the questions from each of the three
caucuses.
KENSINGTON-BELLWOODS COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
The Chair:
Our first presentation will be from Kensington-Bellwoods
Community Legal Services. Would they come forward to the witness
table, please. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Ms Barbara
Hurd: I am representing Kensington-Bellwoods. My
colleague Tracy Heffernan was called away on a family emergency
and couldn't attend today, so I'll be presenting her
deputation.
Thank you for hearing us. I'm
going to focus on-
The Chair:
Forgive me, could you introduce yourself for the purposes of
Hansard?
Ms Hurd: My
name is Barbara Hurd and I'm representing Kensington-Bellwoods
Community Legal Services.
I'm going to focus on two
issues related to the proposed amendments to the Tenant
Protection Act: first, the issuing of default orders and, second,
the proposed changes to the definition of "landlord."
The purpose of a red tape
bill is to address procedural issues, not substantive ones. I
would argue that the proposed changes to both the process of
issuing default orders and to the definition of "landlord" are in
fact substantive changes which do not belong in a bill of this
nature. Moreover, these are draconian measures that will
substantially reduce the rights of tenants to security of tenure
in what is, after all, their home.
The current system allows the
Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to issue default orders evicting
a tenant should the tenant fail to provide a dispute in writing
to the tribunal within five calendar days. This means that if the
tenant is lucky enough to have overcome the hurdle of
understanding the convoluted notice of hearing to ascertain that
a written dispute is required-and few people, lacking either
education or English language skills, will manage this-they must
either have access to a fax machine or be physically able to
deliver their dispute so as to meet the five-day deadline. It is
unlikely to be met through the regular mail.
The good news for landlords,
of course, is that many tenants don't manage to file a dispute
and instead become part of the 64% of tenants receiving an
eviction based on a default order. Issuing a default order is a
legal decision. It could result in a tenant losing their home. It
could render a tenant homeless. Few decisions could have a graver
impact on a person. In issuing a default order, the adjudicator
relies solely on the information provided by the landlord. Given
the gravity of such a decision, it is to be expected that an
adjudicator will examine carefully the information provided by
the landlord and, in the event of any discrepancies or
inconsistencies, a default order will not be issued. In other
words, this is not a decision that should be made by a clerk; the
consequences are simply too grave.
Rather than erode tenants'
rights further, and given the focus of a red tape bill on
procedural issues, I would like to propose an amendment that
would reduce some of the red tape that tenants currently
confront. This would be a simple amendment: Get rid of the
written dispute requirement entirely or extend the time in which
it may be filed. Not only would this reduce red tape, it would
reduce the number of default orders issued and therefore the
number of adjudicators required to issue them.
The second issue I would like
to address concerns the proposed change to the definition of
"landlord" under subsection
6(1) of Bill 119. Our clinic is located at College and Bathurst
and covers a catchment area that stretches from Bloor Street to
Lake Ontario, from Ossington Avenue to Spadina Avenue. If you
think visually about this area just west of Queen's Park, you
will recognize that there are very few apartment blocks. The
rental housing consists primarily of houses converted into
apartments, and rooming houses.
Increasingly, tenants in our
area are unable to afford a rental unit on their own. This is the
result of vacancy decontrol, skyrocketing rents, cuts to welfare
and the failure to increase the minimum wage to meet the cost of
living. Thus, many tenants seek out other tenants with whom they
can share their unit. Often the head tenant collects the rent
from the under tenant and pays it to the owner. Approximately 70%
of the calls we receive at our clinic are from tenants in shared
accommodation situations. Approximately 30% involve a head
tenant-under tenant relationship.
Under the current definition
of "landlord" in the Tenant Protection Act, we can advise the
under tenant that the head tenant is their landlord. Thus, if the
relationship between the head tenant and under tenant sours in
any way, the under tenant cannot be evicted without cause and a
modicum of due process. This is a very basic right. All tenants
need to be provided with some safeguard so that they cannot be
evicted from their homes without notice or reason. Subsection
6(1) of Bill 119 would erase this right for a substantial number
of tenants in Ontario.
If the prevention of
homelessness is on the agenda at all-and unfortunately we have
seen little evidence of that to date-then this government should
be aware that these two proposed amendments to the Tenant
Protection Act will contribute directly to an increase in the
homeless population in Toronto. Thank you.
The Chair:
That leaves us about three minutes for questioning. We'll start
with the Liberals this rotation.
Mr David Caplan (Don
Valley East): I'd like to thank you, Barbara, for making
the presentation on Tracy's behalf. I thought it was very good.
One of the areas you covered was the whole area of default. The
Tenant Protection Act was proclaimed in 1998. I understand
defaults in fact have risen. Do you have any evidence of the fact
that default orders have been increasing from 1998 to the present
day?
Ms Hurd: The
basis on how I would answer that is I believe they have. I know
the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation has been tracking
that quite closely. They've got a very good project of keeping
track of applications made to the tribunal by landlords, and I
was able to take advantage of looking at some of the materials
they brought here on Monday to show that the default rate is
increasing.
Mr Caplan:
What does that mean for tenants in Toronto and in Ontario?
Ms Hurd:
It's very significant. It could mean that they don't understand.
It indicates that the process is not serving them and that they
may lose their homes in the process. A lot of them don't know how
to pull themselves back from the brink of losing their homes.
Mr Caplan:
So people are losing their homes in six days? That's pretty
quick.
Ms Hurd:
Yes, that could happen.
Mr Caplan: I
have the workload report from the Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal. It shows very clearly that since the tribunal started
tracking on July 17, 1998, there were over 125,000 applications
for eviction. In that time period, there have been, I would say,
over 70,000 default orders issued in the case of eviction. That's
very high: 70,000 people have lost their homes without even
having a hearing.
Ms Hurd:
Right.
Mr Caplan:
Have you had any experience in trying to get set-asides of
default orders?
Ms Hurd:
Yes, they're not something you can get automatically. First you
have to get an adjudicator at the tribunal to look at the
situation and then to give you-the decision process is, first,
will you get a set-aside hearing, and then once you get to the
set-aside hearing you have to prove that you didn't get served or
that you couldn't make it to the hearing date and that you
couldn't file your dispute. So it's a two-stage process, and you
may not get the hearing at all.
Mr Caplan:
It sounds very bureaucratic to me.
Ms Hurd:
Yes.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Hurd. I appreciate your taking the time to come
before us, and I appreciate your crafting that amendment as well
for our consideration.
Ms Hurd: I
think I'll remain sitting, because I'm on the next presentation
as well.
The Chair:
OK, a little exceptional, but we'll indulge you.
FEDERATION OF METRO TENANTS' ASSOCIATIONS
The Chair:
You're now representing the Federation of Metro Tenants'
Associations?
Ms Hurd:
That's right. We also contacted the committee to ask if we could
make a presentation. You know who I am. I am now sitting as the
chairperson of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations,
which was founded in 1974. Our membership is comprised of
tenants' associations, individual tenants and others who support
our aims. Our broad purpose is to organize and educate tenants in
the greater Toronto area.
We've been involved in all
tenant legislation in Ontario since our inception, and in the
last 10 years or so we have operated a hotline to advise tenants.
We produce publications such as the Tenant Survival Guide and
have trained front-line workers of community agencies to
recognize the warning signs of an impending eviction with the aim
of preventing their clients from being evicted. Both the training
manual and the survival guide are subtitled "Helping Tenants Cope
with the Tenant Protection Act."
Having had only a brief
opportunity to study and prepare a submission on this bill, my
remarks won't be extensive. The amendments seem to aim at making
the Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal more efficient, clarifying some rules and procedures. I
would like to speak about the changes that tenants need and want,
which we told this government about in the Tenant Protection Act
hearings in 1996 and 1997 and which have been submitted to
housing minister after housing minister and bureaucrat after
bureaucrat since then, all of whom have referred tenant advocates
back and forth between the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal and
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, resulting in no
one listening to tenant concerns. These concerns are many, but
with the limited time we have here I will confine my remarks to a
couple of those concerns.
As to disputing a landlord's
application, if the government were interested in reducing red
tape and bureaucracy they would look at the tenant dispute
mechanism. In the past, tenants would be notified that a hearing
will be held and that they could attend in person or dispute in
writing. If they didn't show up, a default order would be signed.
If they did show up, they could ask for a hearing before a judge
or settle the matter with the registrar.
Under the Tenant Protection
Act, a tenant receives a form called a Notice of Hearing, so the
tenant thinks that he or she has a hearing and can attend on that
day and make their case-a logical assumption. But that is not
what the Tenant Protection Act provides for. Its aim is to ensure
that tenants do not get their day in court. If the tenant does
not dispute in writing within five days of receiving the notice,
there is no hearing and tenants arrive on the day they believe a
hearing is scheduled to find that there is no hearing, the
decision had been made days ago. There is a statement on the form
that warns of the cancellation of the hearing if no dispute is
filed, but for anyone with limited literacy this message is
almost incomprehensible. Having been informed that an order has
been made against them, they then have to run around and apply
for a set-aside and serve the landlord notice of the set-aside,
which may or may not be granted, which Mr Caplan and I were
discussing. Is this not a waste of time and resources for the
tenant, the landlord and the tribunal? Is this not unnecessarily
bureaucratic and complicated?
1610
Your committee heard from the
Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, which discovered
that a 70% default rate is a goal of the Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal, confirming for us the observation we have made all
along, that the process of disputing an eviction is intentionally
exclusionary. For the tribunal, no hearing is a good hearing. The
government does not want tenants to defend themselves, and in
that way they help landlords evict tenants so landlords can take
advantage of the other major plum in the Tenant Protection Act:
vacancy decontrol, where rents can be raised legally to whatever
the market will bear. Those people on assistance or low wages are
facing unaffordable rents and are forced to live in substandard
housing or shelters for the homeless.
I wanted to speak on the
seizure of belongings by landlords once an eviction has been
carried out by the sheriff. In this matter, more time and more
red tape would help to protect tenants. When the sheriff puts you
out of your home, you have only 48 hours to remove your
belongings. If you don't, your landlord owns them, thanks to the
Harris government. In the past, you had 30 days. If the landlord
makes himself unavailable for two days, a tenant can lose all
their belongings, including identification, passports, personal
papers and mementos, irreplaceable photos, income tax papers, not
to mention furniture, food and clothing. Two days is not much
time to find the landlord, movers, trucks, storage, child care,
pet care, and at the same time find a place to live.
If this were a long-term
tenancy or a family, a lot of property could be lost and would
take a long time to replace. In addition, low-income tenants
would find few places to live that they could afford without
having to deprive themselves in drastic ways.
The red tape reduction bill
seems to fine-tune a lot of different matters in the Tenant
Protection Act, much of which the tenant community has not sought
out. Tenants appreciate clarity and simplicity and want, at
minimum, the government to look into the complexity and confusion
of the dispute process. They would also like a change in the
ferocious efficiency of the act that allows the landlords to
seize their goods after two days. We would like to see the end of
vacancy decontrol, which has given a green light to landlords to
pressure tenants out of their homes. The Tenant Protection Act
punishes tenants and unduly rewards landlords.
Other sources have raised
serious concerns about the Tenant Protection Act and the
favouritism of the tribunal toward landlords. Parkdale Community
Legal Services has produced a report, using the tribunal's own
statistics, to show that the tribunal operates for the benefit of
landlords. It can be found on their Web site at
www.parkdalelegal.org.
CERA, the Centre for Equality
Rights in Accommodation, was here two days ago and presented you
with tribunal statistics on default rates and the tribunal's
stated goal of a 70% default rate. If you are really interested
in a tribunal that is mandated to serve both landlords and
tenants fairly and efficiently, then you should read these
documents.
We believe that the whole
Tenant Protection Act and the operation of the tribunal need to
be thoroughly overhauled to establish and protect the rights of
Ontario's three million tenants.
The Chair:
Thank you, and that gives us about-I'll be generous and say two
minutes, Mr Marchese, for questions.
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): Ms Hurd, thank you for the
submission. You make the point that the government does not want
tenants to defend themselves. I'm assuming the Conservative
members would not agree with that, but I'm assuming there's a
basis upon which you make that claim. What is that basis?
Ms Hurd: The
very short period and the very unclear process of disputing. If
that's the start of the process, and if people miss out on that
and the whole process gets rolling, they're very much at a loss to stop the
process. So when you look at something like that, if that's the
start of the process and the time periods involved are so short
and the decision so drastic, it's what we call gatekeeping.
Especially if they've said, "We want a default rate; we have 70%
default as a goal," that's shocking. You would think, for justice
and fairness, they would be aiming for a goal of hearings so that
both sides could be heard, so the tenants being faced with the
loss of their home, their security and their stability would be
able to defend themselves.
The Chair:
That's our time. Thank you very much, Ms Hurd. We appreciate your
double presentation.
CANADIAN WINE INSTITUTE
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Canadian Wine Institute.
Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Mr Roger
Randolph: Good afternoon. My name is Roger Randolph. I'm
president of the Canadian Wine Institute. I'm clearly here to
address schedule P of Bill 119, the Wine Content and Labelling
Act. Thank you for giving the Canadian Wine Institute the
opportunity to provide input on this important act.
The Canadian Wine Institute
is a privately funded trade organization that is active
nationally and internationally on behalf of its members, who
represent 85% of all domestic wine sales and over 95% of wine
exports. The total retail value of national and export sales is
approximately $780 million.
Through our association with
the Wine Council of Ontario, many of whose members are also
members of the Canadian Wine Institute, we have been kept abreast
of developments regarding the new Wine Content and Labelling
Act.
The board of directors of the
Canadian Wine Institute is supportive of the provisions of the
act, which are generally consistent with the existing Canadian
General Standards Board national standard for wine which was
published in June 1996, and amendments to that standard, which
are now being reviewed in conjunction with the development of
national appellation standards for VQA and other Canadian wines
made from 100% Canadian-grown grapes.
Perhaps the most important
provisions of the standard that impact on or will be impacted
upon by the act are those relating to rules of origin. While many
wines already comply with these rules, the sector has set 2002 as
the date when all wines produced in Canada will be compliant. In
descending order, the main content aspects of these rules, which
are in keeping with practices elsewhere in the world, are as
follows. In order to shorten this, I'll just say that the first
three categories-estate bottled, vineyard designation and
viticultural area-are all existing categories in which the wines
must be made 100% from grapes grown in Canada, in the vineyard
designated or in the viticultural area that's been
designated.
Two new provisions are
provincial designation-any wine with a provincial designation
must be produced 100% from grapes grown in Canada, 85% of which
must have been grown in the province named-and the other
important new development is country designation-any wine with a
country designation must have been produced from 75% grapes grown
in the country named, for example, product of Canada.
Wines without a geographic
designation: Wines that are made or finished in Canada but do not
meet any of the above criteria must be labelled "cellared by"
followed by the winery name and the location name in Canada, from
imported or from imported and domestic wines, with the majority
content named first. This was a compromise reached with the grape
growers in completing the existing national standard and is
already being used.
In Canada, the revolution in
wine making, which spans the incredibly short period of only 12
years, has produced a succession of gold medal and double gold
medal winners at the most prestigious wine shows in the world.
Vineyard acreage, which declined dramatically to well below
10,000 acres following the Canada-US free trade agreement, has
been, and is continuing to grow at a significant rate. I estimate
present wine grape acreage in Canada at 20,000 acres, which I
believe is a historical high. It is a truly remarkable
achievement in any context, whether Canadian or worldwide, that
the Canadian grape and wine sector will have developed to such a
degree that in the space of 14 years, that is, by 2002-hardly a
blip in wine growing terms-it will be in a position to meet all
of the requirements of the above rules of origin on a
commercially viable and sustainable basis.
Our contribution to the wine
trade is recognized internationally, not only from a technical
perspective but also politically. Canada is an initiator and
founding participant of the New World Wine Group, which is
comprised of Canada, Argentina, Australia, Chile, New Zealand,
South Africa, the United States and Uruguay. As a result of wine
sector initiatives of the respective participants, the
governments representing the group are close to signing a mutual
acceptance agreement that will liberalize wine trade among those
signatories and preclude the application of any technical trade
barriers related to each other's wine making and labelling
practices.
1620
International trade obstacles
faced by the wine sector are numerous and are a constant threat
to its continued health. We are, therefore, especially pleased
that the provisions of the new Wine Content and Labelling Act are
trade-friendly and consistent with the image we have portrayed of
ourselves to our MAA partners. We would like to reiterate,
therefore, our support of the Wine Council of Ontario and others
who are advocating the adoption of the new Ontario Wine Content
and Labelling Act.
There is one other point we
would like to address, with your permission, Mr Chairman, which
is in regard to the type of language used in the act.
There is no doubt we would
all agree that wine is an agricultural product, with the
distinction that it is perhaps the only agricultural product that continues to
undergo biological change even after it is bottled. It is
therefore very much a living product and is not the result of an
industrial process, much as the Europeans would have the world
believe otherwise of wines not made in Europe. The custom,
however, of using terms and descriptions that are indicative of
an industrial process is relatively widespread in the New World,
and if it didn't give the Europeans the idea of referring to our
wines as "industrial," it certainly plays into their hands.
In the wine sector, we are
making a conscious effort to avoid industrialisms when we talk
about our product. This is not an attempt to dress our wines in
finery to which they are not entitled but to use the
agro-biological lexicon that is inherent in the product we
make.
With regard to the new Wine
Content and Labelling Act, we would urge that if at all possible
the word "manufacture" and its variations, which in English and
in translation has strong connotations of an industrial process,
be changed for the word "produce" and its variations, which in
English and in translation is the most widely used
internationally when referring to the making of wine. It is
important to note that the European wine-producing countries only
use the word "manufacture" when referring to New World wines.
Thank you.
The Chair:
That has used up our time, but I certainly appreciate your making
the presentation and particularly the amendment in your last
paragraph.
Mr Randolph:
My apologies for taking the full 10 minutes. I was hoping for
questions.
The Chair:
Actually, I think you took the full eight. As I said, because of
the rules, we're unfortunately going to have to make each
presentation a little shorter because this is the only day we
have to hear from people.
ONTARIO TRUCKING ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Ontario Trucking
Association, Mr Barrie Montague. Good afternoon and welcome to
the committee.
Mr Barrie
Montague: I'm going to help you out-a very short
presentation.
The Chair:
That would be a big help. Thank you.
Mr Montague:
I'm Barrie Montague, the vice-president of the Ontario Trucking
Association, with special responsibility for safety and
operations.
OTA presently has over
1,700 members and affiliates that represent all segments of the
trucking industry. Its members employ more than 140,000 people
and generate revenues of more than $7 billion.
OTA has an interest in the
HTA as it applies to the allowable weights and dimensions for
commercial vehicles, in particular, the proposed amendments to
section 110 of the HTA.
In the early 1980s, an
extensive weight and dimensions study was carried out in which
all the provinces participated. The result was a national
agreement on minimum standards for weights and dimensions and,
more importantly perhaps, the study provided performance
standards for the operation of commercial vehicles in such things
as their turning capability, their off-tracking and their
rollover threshold. These standards will be used to evaluate the
suitability of various vehicle combinations, both those that
existed at that time and possible future ones.
Shortly thereafter, the
eastern provinces started a series of discussions to harmonize
the weights and dimensions regulations in all those jurisdictions
and to consider gradually eliminating some vehicle configurations
that did not appear to conform to those previously agreed upon
national standards.
After much study and
analysis, in which the industry heavily participated, OTA is
pleased to acknowledge that as a first step Ontario and Quebec
have signed a memorandum of understanding on an agreement to
harmonize the rules as they apply to the movement of vehicles
between the two jurisdictions. The trucking industries of both
Ontario and Quebec are in full support of the proposals. This
agreement will maintain the productivity of the industry, which
will obviously be of significant assistance to the manufacturing,
mining and forestry product industries of Ontario. This agreement
has been achieved without increasing either the overall dimension
of any vehicle combination or the gross vehicle weight allowed on
a vehicle for a given number of axles.
Moreover, the performance
standards that were agreed upon as long ago as 1984, I think,
will be met. It will allow vehicles to be used safely and more
productively in two-way moves and eliminate some empty-trailer
movements, thereby reducing, hopefully, the number of trucks on
the highway.
In addition, it will
gradually phase out some vehicle combinations currently allowed
in Ontario, those combinations being detrimental to the
infrastructure. It has been estimated this will save the Ontario
taxpayers $100 million a year when this agreement is fully
implemented, with less damage to the infrastructure.
The changes to the HTA
proposed in the bill will allow MTO to implement the agreement
speedily through a system of permits which would be strictly
enforced. The permit system is necessary to allow certain
configurations to be operated for their full economic life. It is
anticipated that eventually the permit system will be removed.
Moreover, the changes will allow the province to consider
possible new vehicle combinations which would be beneficial to
the Ontario economy at large. These would be evaluated on a trial
basis against the standards which have been nationally
accepted.
OTA urges that the proposed
amendment be approved so that MTO can implement the changes as
soon as possible to allow carriers to purchase new equipment.
Many carriers have delayed equipment purchases for some time,
awaiting the outcome of this agreement.
That's really all I have to
say, and thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Montague. Unless there are any pressing
questions, if you don't mind, to help us get caught up and back
on schedule, thank you very much. I appreciate your taking the
time to come before us this afternoon.
INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL AND STAGE
EMPLOYEES
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the International Alliance of
Theatrical and Stage Employees. Good afternoon and welcome to the
committee.
Mr Nelson
Cross: Good afternoon. My name is Nelson Cross. I'm the
president of local 173 of IATSE. With me is Dominic Marconi. He
is the business agent for local 303, Hamilton.
Our concern is the
potential elimination of projection licensing under Bill 119 and
that's why we're here today to talk to you. I'm not going to read
100% of this. I've timed it and I know it goes too long. I'd like
to leave room for questions.
We used to have just over
300 members and now we've got down to around 160. This is due to
previous provincial legislation and hard bargaining. There was an
unfortunate five-month lockout by Cineplex Odeon in the fall of
1996. That resulted in quite a number of job losses, but prior to
that we had a 90-year history of no labour conflict with our
employer. In September 1995, we made presentations to the Ontario
Labour Relations Board, resulting in the reaffirmation of our
craft status. In February 1996, the Honourable Norm Sterling
introduced legislation that eliminated the requirement for
serving apprenticeship hours prior to undertaking projectionists'
exams.
Our organizational
objectives are to ensure adequate employment of our membership,
addressing health and safety issues within the workplace,
resolving workplace conflicts and improving the employment
conditions of our members via the collective bargaining
process.
Our members, despite the
lack of any government legislation dictating a minimum number of
apprenticeship hours prior to writing the Ministry of Consumer
and Commercial Relations, theatres branch, examinations,
typically serve a two- to three-month theoretical and practical
training program.
Since the elimination of
apprenticeship hours prior to writing the projectionists' exam,
the level of training provided by employers to the-we call them
non-bargaining unit employees in the collective agreements. They
are basically the people who are either management or supervisors
who look after the presentations when we're not there. Typically,
theatres run 96 hours a week. We are limited under contract to
40, so a majority of the hours are run by non-unionized
individuals. They do have problems, some of them very
rudimentary: circuit-breakers that don't work; they trip,
shutting off shows. It just shows a lack of basic understanding
of the trade.
Although our employers
would apparently have you believe that operating current
projection booth equipment is comparable to inserting a VCR tape
into a player or a DVD disk, it's far more complicated than
that.
We have addressed a number
of areas. Number one would be the high-pressure xenon bulbs. The
ones that are currently used are considerably more unstable than
ones that were used just a few short years ago. The size has more
than doubled. They were a 1-to 2-kilowatt size; now they're a 4-
to 6-kilowatt size and even higher than that in some locations.
The reason, to quote my employer, is "Big screen, big sound." The
screens are so large that you need a larger bulb with a higher
output. As you get into a higher output, you can imagine that
there is a higher temperature that goes with it. The dangers of a
higher temperature around oil possibly leaking from the
projectors and a dirt and dust combination are potential fire
hazards.
1630
The other thing too is that
the bulbs are more inexpensively made now than they were a few
years ago, and the potential for explosion-I think I've had at my
complex in the last two years eight blow up in use, which creates
quite a lot of damage to the equipment. Luckily, so far no one
has been seriously hurt by any explosions outside of the
lamphouse environment. No one has had a bulb, to the best of my
knowledge, blow up in their hands or anything like that, but the
potential exists because of the manufacturing methods.
We have a high-voltage
system. We're running a three-phase 220 volts into the
projectors. There are high-voltage capacitors and igniters that
are used to ignite the actual xenon bulb, the bulb that's filled
with xenon gas to give you your bright light on the screen. A
concern from the public standpoint is a safety consideration. To
my understanding, most projectors could be outfitted with a
safety interlock so that once the bulb extinguishes, the house
lights come up so the people are not sitting in the dark.
Unfortunately, the exhibitors have chosen not to put that on as
an option, so typically, if a bulb fails during a presentation,
the patrons are sitting in the dark. It's not so bad in the
theatres that were built in the 1960s and 1970s because they're
typically flat. Today's theatres are what they call stadium or
sightline seating. You have stairs. Someone going down the stairs
in a darkened environment to attempt to notify management or
staff of a problem could be in a serious situation.
As I say, we're only there
for less than half the time. When our members are there they're
typically doing maintenance to the equipment on an ongoing basis
to try to keep the equipment running. The people who are running
it when we are not there unfortunately are not as well trained
and time-wise just can't do it.
Flammable film stock: We
have a video, a trailer. I believe Robert McPherson was in on
Monday and showed you how it wouldn't break. This is a video of
the same trailer that he ignited in his garage yesterday. We
won't show all of it. It's about a minute and a half long. I
asked if I could do a live demonstration, but apparently not.
There we go. This was in no way altered or doctored at all. You
can see the barbecue lighter that Rob used to start the film. He
simply coiled it up in an aluminum foil pan. This is supposedly
called "no-burn" film. It's not no-burn. It's slow-burn. It does
burn. In your packages you'll find a two-page report of a fire
that occurred in a theatre in Kitchener last year. I guess we can
stop the tape.
The other thing we would
like to talk about is some of the exhibitors' arguments for
eliminating licensing. There is information here about the possibility of
doing training or licensing through another process, perhaps with
the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities skills centre
or MCCR regional offices. One of the problems they're complaining
about is the cost of bringing people down to Toronto to test
them. There are other ways to do it. Perhaps the examination is
not relevant to today's equipment and standards. We're ready to
help update the exam, if need be.
Finally, the last is
digital. This seems to be a big push. "Hey, we're going to have
digital, we're going to have DVDs, so let's get rid of licensing
right now." Most industry experts would say that's 10 to 15 years
away. You're looking at $100,000 per screen. In my complex I have
12 screens; 12 times $100,000 to renovate, on top of $44 million
which they spent two years ago to build the complex. The revenues
are just not there right now. This year in particular box office
receipts are down. I think everyone is aware of the situation
financially with Cineplex Odeon: a US$650-million default perhaps
sometime later this fall. AMC is not building any more theatres;
Famous Players Newmarket is the last complex. They're not
building any more. The investors have said, "Enough is enough.
Let's see a return." So I don't really see the situation of
digital coming up quickly enough to warrant changing the
legislation right now.
The Chair:
You've timed that perfectly. You have used up your time. I think
you indicated that same trailer was for Blair Witch 2. I wish
they had burned the entire film before I went in to see it last
week, but that's another story.
Thank you very much. I
appreciate the detail and I'm sure the members will have an
opportunity to read it in its entirety. Thank you for coming and
making a presentation before us here today.
CANADIAN LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Canadian Life and Health
Insurance Association, Mark Daniels. Good afternoon and welcome
to the committee.
Mr Mark
Daniels: Good afternoon, Mr Chair. The submission we've
put before you, and I think I've moved around to most members,
consists of two pieces: a thin piece and a fat piece in blue
covers. I'll just talk to them in my allotted time, or less.
This submission provides
comments on the proposed amendment to the province's Insurance
Act regarding viatical settlements set out in schedule G of the
bill.
A word or two about these
things: a viatical settlement allows a person to sell his or her
life insurance policy to a viatical settlement provider. The
person selling the life insurance policy is the viator and gets a
cash payment from the settlement. This person gives up ownership
of the policy in return for that cash payment and the payment is
less than the full amount of the death benefit of the life
insurance policy. Typically, the viator has a terminal illness,
with 24 months or less to live.
Viatical settlements are
currently illegal in Ontario because section 115 of the Insurance
Act prohibits the "trafficking" of life insurance policies. Under
these proposals, section 121 of the Insurance Act would be
amended to allow persons to be exempted from the trafficking
provision by regulation. At the moment, in Ontario persons with a
terminal illness do not require access to viatical settlement
mechanisms to access their life insurance benefits while still
alive. They already have access to something called living
benefits, widely available in many countries today. Living
benefits in fact were first introduced in 1988 here in Toronto by
a leading insurer. The insurer undertook a compassionate
initiative that has become known as accelerated living benefits
for the terminally ill. Other insurers quickly followed this
example and, as a result, most life insurance companies now grant
requests from terminally ill insured to receive, during their
lifetime, a portion of the death benefit of their life insurance
contract.
It's important in this
context to know that the balance of the face value of the policy,
in the case of living benefits, remains payable to the
beneficiary of the policy. That is, unlike viatical settlements,
living benefits do not involve discounting the policy and passing
the ownership over to a third party.
Viatical settlements are
currently illegal in the majority of Canadian jurisdictions. In
the US, the viatical settlements marketplace has developed and
become quite active in recent years. In part, this can be
attributed to the more limited use of living benefits options by
insurers in the US and I think perhaps, more importantly, to the
reduced availability of public health care services in the US,
which is to say that terminally ill patients there may require
substantial financial resources to obtain medical and hospital
care.
The US viatical settlement
market has been characterized by widespread fraud and abuse of
viators, including insufficient disclosure and payments that
constitute a much reduced percentage of the face value of the
policy. Really, it's that concern that brings us in here.
Another problem area
underlined in the US experience involves privacy. Viatical
settlement providers and their investors are compensated through
the payment of the purchased policy's death benefit. To ensure
prompt notification of the death of the insured and submission of
claims forms to the insurer, the viatical industry tracks the
health status of those insured individuals. This has led, as you
might well imagine, to significant complaints about insensitivity
and the need to limit contacts between viatical companies and the
insured individuals.
1640
In addition, concerns have
developed over the identification of viators to unlicensed
secondary market investors in viatical settlements. The viatical
industry maintains that these investors need to be assured that
the viatical settlement transaction is legitimate, and having the
identity and address of the viator provides this assurance.
Critics have argued that there are no standards imposed on
persons wishing to become an investor in viatical settlements, which raises the concern
that unscrupulous investors may be tempted to treat the insured
in an insensitive manner or, indeed, dare I say, worse.
Given the extremely
problematic nature of the US experience, and in order to avoid a
repetition of the problems that are demonstrated by that
experience, it is our industry's view that it is not prudent to
rush ahead with the viatical settlements proposal contained in
Bill 119. The extensive experience of abuse has attracted a great
deal of concern and attention by US insurance regulators and the
press. The seriousness of these abuses can be seen more clearly
from a perusal of the articles contained in the attached fat
annex, which is only a sampling of publicly available press in
the last six months. I would urge you to cast your eyes on it; it
is a horror story in the making.
In the Ontario context, we
believe a more responsible approach is to develop a robust system
of regulation that will avoid the negative effects that are
evidenced in the US experience before making such transactions
permissible under Ontario law. The point is, those consultations
need to occur before a law permitting viatication is passed, in
order to provide time for careful and sober reflection on the
complex regulatory issues involved.
Therefore, we urge the
standing committee to recommend that schedule G be removed from
Bill 119. This would permit the government to introduce a
separate bill on viatical settlements, which would allow prior
development of a rigorous regulatory model and permit due
attention to be given to the important issues involved.
If the standing committee
does not wish to adopt that recommendation, as an alternative, we
urge you to recommend in your report to the Legislative Assembly
that schedule G of Bill 119 not be proclaimed into force until
the standing committee has had an opportunity to review and
approve the regulations on viatical settlements that would be
made pursuant to the amendments contained in schedule G.
The Chair:
You've timed that perfectly. I do appreciate the detail that
you've given us here. Thank goodness we've got over a week to
consider proposals before we come back for clause-by-clause.
You've given us some good reading material for that so-called
week off. Thank you very much for your presentation here
today.
MOTION PICTURE THEATRES ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Motion Picture Theatres
Association of Ontario. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Welcome to the
committee. I wonder if you might introduce yourselves for the
purpose of Hansard.
Mr Norman
Stern: Thank you. My name is Norman Stern. I'm the
president of the theatre owners' association of Ontario. This is
Jim Foote, who is a director of our association.
For many years this
association has been trying to eliminate the licensing of
projectionists. This has been an issue across the country and
many of the provinces have already de-licensed projectioning. BC,
Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan go back at least 10 years now
where there hasn't been any licensing. On the east coast, they
are all under review-I think one now in Nova Scotia has gone
through-and they are all in the process of doing this
de-licensing.
Licensing came about a long
time ago because there was a danger in safety. Because of the
difference in technology today, the safety issue is taken out of
this equation, even though the IATSE union representative said
there is a chance of fire. It used to be nitrate film where there
was a serious fire threat. Now the fire is down almost to
nothing, with automatic shutoffs, safety firewalls and what have
you, and all of this is already regulated with inspectors who go
around on a regular basis checking that everything is done in a
proper manner. So this is almost a redundant thing at this
point.
The equipment has changed
so much at this point in the technology that the exam for
licensing is really outdated and not of much value any more. The
exam basically trains people how to repair equipment, that type
of thing, which isn't done by projectionists anyway. There are
outside companies that are hired on a regular basis to repair and
maintain the equipment, and they visit theatres on a regular
basis or whenever the need arises.
It's a very costly process
for theatre owners to license projectionists. There's a training
period and there's travel time to Toronto, because usually the
licensing could only be done in Toronto and only at a specific
time up at the censor board, and it was a very inconvenient
process for everybody.
Our association takes the
stand that we're spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars
on this equipment and we aren't going to allow anybody in to
these projection booths who's not qualified, because with the
damage they can do from a financial point of view it just doesn't
make sense for us not to train the people properly.
What we've found in some of
the smaller towns is that we've been limited by who could apply
to become projectionists. Because you needed a licensed
projectionist in the booth to do the training of other
projectionists, they sort of controlled the system, and when you
got into smaller towns there would only be maybe one
projectionist and he would either not want to do it or not be
co-operative in lieu of protecting his own job. So that became an
issue and stopped a lot of people who wanted to apply for this
kind of apprenticeship, and it didn't allow them to do that.
There's a settlement in
place now with the two major chains, Famous Players and Cineplex
Odeon-I think it's also in place with AMC-for the projectionists,
and I think it extends for another two or three years. It's not
the aim of our association to not use union projectionists; we
just want to have the right and the freedom to use the best
person for the job at a reasonable rate and not be held hostage
in a lot of these cases.
Over the history of licensing, there was at one
time a ridiculous requirement of 800 hours to train a
projectionist. A projectionist can realistically be trained in
about a 40-hour period to run these machines and do it in a safe,
capable manner. So we've had roadblocks along the way. I think,
as you'll see, the other provinces demonstrated, going back 10
years, that there haven't been any safety issues that I know of.
There haven't really been any fires or anything, and we have a
10-year history to that point.
Another issue, and you'll
see it in the submission, was revenue. It's the last page, "Costs
Associated with Projectionist Licensing." We train around 200
people a year for this, to do this training process. Many dollars
are spent through the training and the licensing itself, in the
neighbourhood of about $300,000 a year, and the government
receives a fee of $26,000 to do this. I think that just offsets
the cost of doing the licensing.
Our association's position,
in summing up or recapturing our proposal here, is that we don't
feel anything would be sacrificed by de-licensing the
projectionists. Theatre owners are extremely responsible in
running their operations, and from a cost and convenience point
of view it would really help us as an organization.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. You're bang on your time, but I appreciate
your coming and bringing your perspective to our hearings here
today.
1650
VINCOR
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Vincor, Mr Bruce Walker. Good
afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Mr Bruce
Walker: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman and committee
members. Thank you for inviting me here today to provide input on
Bill 119, specifically schedule P, which deals with the subject
of wine content and labelling in Ontario.
The Wine Content Act
represents an important framework which has provided, and will
continue to provide in the form it's taking in the new Wine
Content and Labelling Act, the Ontario winemaking industry with
clear direction with regard to the manufacture, bottling and
labelling of wine in the province.
Following the free trade
agreement 12 years ago, both grape growers and wineries took
advantage of a co-operative government funding program to replant
vineyards and retool production facilities in order to remain
competitive going forward in a market environment which was in a
rapid state of change. Consumers were increasing their demand for
table wines, and wine-producing countries from around the world
were aggressively responding to that demand here in Ontario.
During the relatively short
transition period since FTA, which is only 10 or 11 years, the
Wine Content Act has enabled Ontario wineries to produce quality
wines at a range of different price points to compete in the
Ontario marketplace, which has been, and will continue to be, our
primary market, given access limitations to foreign markets.
While the Vintners Quality Alliance, or VQA, was established in
1989 as our premium 100% Ontario wine appellation system, and has
successfully demonstrated our ability to produce world-class
wines, the Wine Content Act also allowed our wineries to produce
and market blended wines, utilizing up to 75% imported wine with
Ontario wine to enable us to compete with the low-priced,
imported, subsidized table wines which had open access, and
continue to have open access, to the Ontario marketplace through
the LCBO.
Most of these popular
blended Ontario brands have significantly increased their local
per cent grape content as the newly planted and replanted Ontario
vineyards have come on stream with the preferred grape varieties
the consumer is demanding. Presently most of the popular Ontario
white blended brands contain 85% to 100% Ontario grape content.
These are the whites, brands like L'Ambiance, Domaine d'Or, Entre
Lacs, French Cross, Spumante Bambino. Brands we're all familiar
with and that have been around for a while and continue to do
large volume are now in most cases 100% Ontario. In fact, the
current aggregate average of Ontario content for all wines
bottled by Ontario wineries exceeds 50%. That's on the low end;
it could be as high as 60% with last year's crop, for which we
took the entire crop of 44,000 tons, over 35,000 the previous
year. The aggregate content of Ontario wines continues to
increase, so any reference to 30% minimum should be taken in the
context of an average of 60% or thereabouts.
Since premium red grape
varieties have been slower and later, obviously, to come on
stream in Ontario vineyards to satisfy a recent market shift to
red wines, the increased content for red blends has been slower
to materialize, ie, we haven't had the red grapes out of our
vineyards yet to fulfill our needs. Ironically, perhaps, the
success and growth of VQA wines, which is a good thing, has
limited the availability of quality grape varieties to satisfy
the needs we have for our popular Ontario vinifera blended brands
such as Peller Estates, Jackson-Triggs and others that you're
familiar with, where we have Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc and
Cabernet Sauvignon, requirements for those big, successful
popular brands that do sell instead of imported wines in this
province.
Many Ontario wineries have
signed long-term contracts with specific growers to ensure that
their forecast needs will be satisfied and to provide an
assurance to the growers that there will be a return on their
vineyard investments. We at Vincor have all of our growers under
contract with long-term contracts and provide to some of our
growers interest-free loans for plantings, replantings and
commitment to those plantings.
It's estimated that Ontario
wineries which purchase from independent growers are currently
contracted for 60% to 70% of their projected grape requirements.
So what I'm saying is, three quarters of the growers out there
growing 70% of the grapes are contracted. Not surprisingly, the
majority of the contracted growers operate larger, more
efficient, profitable vineyard operations and therefore are consistently
producing the premium quality grape varieties to meet our market
needs.
Just a reference to the
Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board and Wine Council of
Ontario negotiations and working together over the last few
years: in anticipation of the sunset of the current Wine Content
Act in December 2000, the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board
and Wine Council of Ontario created a working task force, which
met over an 18-to-24-month period in 1996 to 1998-and I at that
time was chair of the wine council, so I was at every
meeting-with the goal of developing an industry strategy which
would provide a seamless transition into the new millennium, and
which would serve the interests of both growers and wineries,
ensuring a viable, sustainable Ontario wine industry for
generations to come.
At the end of this process,
a strategic plan document was issued. I've included that in the
package so you can go through it. It was developed jointly by us
with an independent facilitator outlining a roadmap of
fundamental agreements on strategic priorities going forward.
While we were unable to finalize implementation timing, we both
agreed that the Ontario Wine Content Act should be replaced by
the national wine standard, which was published in June 1996.
When I say "replaced by," the current Wine Content Act that's in
play here as the new act in fact is a full reflection of the
national wine standard, which both of us agreed was where we
should go. What we didn't agree on was timing.
The grape growers wanted it
to happen the day after the sunset, which would have been January
1, 2001. We said we needed a transition period because there
still weren't enough grapes in the ground. We agreed to disagree
on that one, and we really couldn't find common ground. But with
the additional grapes, that would have allowed us to achieve the
75% content so we could still call all of our wines "Product of
Canada." After further negotiation, we, the council, proposed
2005 as a drop-dead deadline date when we could get content and
labelling to comply with the standards. The growers said, "No,
let's do it January 2001."
In response to a formal
request recently from Sandra Lang, deputy minister, MCCR, as part
of a larger process established by this government to develop a
long-term strategic plan, we agreed to April 2002 with immediate
implementation of the labelling, so that as our inventories run
out, we're in. In fact, I know in our case and in Andres's case,
the two larger wineries, those labels are on the shelf today and
are starting to flow into the system. So we're there.
While those wineries with
large, established blended brands believe there is significant
downside risk to sales volume in this immediate change, they are
prepared to take that risk now in order to get on with the
development of a new strategic plan, which will come out of the
current government-endorsed-and-driven strategic planning process
where all stakeholders are at the table, and which we are
confident will serve the long-term interests not only of the
growers and the wineries but on behalf of this sector of the
agricultural and industrial base of the Ontario economy.
Most of our members are
also growers, including ourselves. We are aware that many
independent growers have concerns and issues that need to be
validated and which are open for us to discuss and work together
toward a mutually satisfactory resolution. We have great
confidence in the prospects for a sustainable future for this
agricultural-based industry and are passionately committed to
ensuring it achieves its full potential.
The Chair:
Thank you. Again, you've timed it perfectly. We appreciate your
taking the time to make a presentation before us here today.
Mr Walker:
Any questions? I have some more folks from the wine council, as
well.
The Chair:
I know we're going to be hearing from a few more people
immediately.
HENRY OF PELHAM FAMILY ESTATE WINERY
WINE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO
The Chair:
It's my understanding that Henry of Pelham has indicated they're
willing to share their time with the wine council or vice versa.
Perhaps they'd do that now. Good afternoon. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr Paul
Speck: Thank you very much, Chair and committee people.
I'm Paul Speck, president of Henry of Pelham winery and chairman
of the Wine Council of Ontario. Linda Franklin is the executive
director of the wine council. We're going to combine into one
presentation to keep this tight.
As you know, the amendments
to the Wine Content Act are included in Bill 119, and this is the
part of the bill I wish to address today. The Ontario wine
industry supports the amended act, which comes forward after more
than two years of discussions with growers and wineries. The act
and the accompanying regulations reflect many of the common
principles in our discussions.
1700
Firstly, the act includes a
greatly increased domestic content for wines labelled "Product of
Canada" and "Product of Ontario." The old Wine Content Act
required our industry to have 30% domestic content to call wines
"Product of Canada." This rule was put in place to help our
industry deal with the aftermath of free trade, when most of the
grapes we were using to make wine had been ripped out so that
fine wine grapes could be planted. To help us weather this
transition without going out of business, the Wine Content Act
allowed our industry time to replace and replant fine wine
grapes. As our new plantings came on stream, we raised the
domestic content of our wines so that today many of our non-VQA
wines are 100% domestic content and, taken in total, our wines
are now over 60% domestic content.
Our industry has completed
a really remarkable transition successfully, and the new Wine
Content and Labelling Act recognizes this transition in its new
content requirements.
These new provisions are in keeping with national standards now
in development. New acres of wine grapes have been planted in
sufficient quantities to increase the domestic content in our
non-VQA wines from 30% to 75%. This change has happened in an
amazingly short time for an agriculturally based industry. We are
very pleased that the partnership between the government and the
industry has allowed this transformation to take place so
rapidly.
VQA wines will continue to
be 100% domestic content and our industry will continue to put
increased VQA wine sales in the forefront of our plans for the
future, along with new winery development and new plantings of
fine wine grapes. It is important to recognize that our industry
sees its future in the production of ever-increasing volumes of
VQA wines. These wines represent the greatest source of growth in
our industry today, and a great deal of the industry's focus,
from grape planting to winemaking to sales and marketing, is
directed to the long-term success of VQA.
In fact, we need virtually
every premium grape currently planted, plus every available acre
of land in Niagara that can grow grapes to be planted with
vinifera grapes over the next few years in order to reach our
goals for the future growth of VQA and our domestic wine
portfolio. Right now the VQA represents just 20% of our market,
and we expect that percentage to grow in the years ahead.
As we continue to grow the
VQA category, we also intend to hold a significant portion of the
market in other categories, including the most competitively
priced segment of the market, which represents a great deal of
wine sales. We need to be in the marketplace with value-priced
wines that offer a chance to replace low-cost imports in
consumers' shopping carts. Some of these wines will also be 75%
to 100% domestic content, while others will use a blend of
domestic and imported content to create price points and taste
profiles that appeal to consumers who might otherwise buy foreign
wines such as Piat d'Or or Kressman.
By building the VQA and our
domestic portfolio with our fine wine grapes and using import and
domestic content to develop competitively priced wines that can
beat the imports at the low end of the market, we can ensure that
every grape planted in Ontario has a home and that our industry
grows from currently $300 million in sales to $1.5 billion in
sales over the next 20 years.
The act and its regulations
will help clarify the range of wines we offer by providing
greater clarity in labelling to help consumers understand what is
in the bottle of wine they buy in Ontario. Again, these changes
put Ontario in the forefront currently of what's being considered
at the national level for all Canadian wines, and they are
changes that our industry is already implementing in Ontario and
British Columbia.
A minimum domestic content
of 30% will be required for wines that are labelled "Cellared in
Canada." These are wines that do not have sufficient domestic
content to be considered "Product of Canada." The new labelling
provisions will mean that these wines will carry the words
"Cellared in Canada from imported and domestic wines" on the
front labels, giving customers a clear indication of the origin
of the product in the bottle.
Under the national standard
being finalized, "cellared in" wines in the rest of Canada will
be able to have as little as 1% domestic content, but in Ontario
the minimum domestic content is higher. In that way, we can
ensure a long-term home for grape varieties which are not needed
for VQA wines or wines that are "Product of Canada."
These are often our most
competitively priced wines, and they compete with high-volume,
highly subsidized imports. The term "cellared in" was chosen for
these wines as part of the development of a national standard. It
was the result of a great deal of compromise and discussion among
40 individuals and organizations represented at the national
standards table.
As well, the new act
removes from the industry the purchase quota. This was
unprecedented in agriculture in Ontario.
It is our belief that the
amended act represents a fair approach that will set an
appropriate foundation for our industry in the future. Without
question, our industry is facing challenges at the moment,
including the fact that our market share has declined by 6% over
the last three years in our home market.
As a result, we are working
with the government, the LCBO and the growers to develop a
strategic plan for the industry. This plan will help us turn that
trend around and create growth rivaling growth in the other wine
producing regions such as Australia and California. Ultimately,
growing our market by convincing more consumers that Ontario
wines are the best wines, the best option for quality and value,
is the best guarantee of long-term success and health in our
industry.
Once finalized, we will be
sharing our strategic plan with all our stakeholders and using it
as the basis for our future success. In the meantime, the new
Wine Content Act is an important step forward in creating a
stable environment for growth. On behalf of the industry, I urge
you to support this act.
Thank you very much for
letting me have the time. If there are any questions, I'll be
happy to answer them.
The Chair:
Did you wish to add anything, Ms Franklin?
Ms Linda
Franklin: I think Paul has done a terrific job of
summarizing our position. Just two quick points for emphasis. The
act is absolutely in line and consistent with what we're doing
nationally right across the system: government, industry, growers
and liquor boards. It's forward-thinking and it deals with
labelling so that consumers know exactly what's in the bottle,
which seemed to be the big issue really around the old Wine
Content Act requirements. We're very happy with it, and it's part
of a long process of consultation.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for making your presentation today, and
particularly for helping us out of our time bind.
CLINIQUE JURIDIQUE COMMUNAUTAIRE DE
L'UNIVERSITÉ D'OTTAWA
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWACOMMUNITY LEGAL CLINIC
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the University of Ottawa
Community Legal Clinic.
M. Michel
Landry : Bonjour, monsieur le Président,
membres du comité. Mon nom est Michel Landry. Je suis
avocat-directeur de la Clinique juridique communautaire de
l'Université d'Ottawa. I have with me Mr Peter Keen, who is
a student caseworker from the tenant division. Also, we have Guy
Régimbald, who is the student responsible for our being here
today.
Le but de notre
présentation est de vous offrir notre expérience et nos
recommandations pour les modifications à la Loi sur la
protection des locataires. Nous sommes au tribunal à toutes
les semaines et donc on a une bonne connaissance du processus. On
va adresser trois points en particulier aujourd'hui. Le premier
est la question des dommages ; le deuxième, le droit
à réintégrer le locataire et lui remettre
possession des lieux.
If time permits, we would
like to address a third issue, which is not in the proposed
amendments. In the context of the red tape bill, the purpose is
to reduce administrative formalities, and we must look at
changing or amending the written dispute mechanism that's in
place right now and the burden of proof on default judgment.
Le premier point est le
droit aux dommages. Nous supportons cette modification aux
articles 34 et 35 de la Loi sur la protection des locataires.
Celle-ci vient clarifier la compétence ou le droit non
équivoque du tribunal d'adresser la question de dommages
subis par le locataire.
Le tribunal se donne
raison, ce droit en vertu de la clause fourre-tout qu'on a dans
l'article, c'est-à-dire l'alinéa 34(1)5 et 35(1)e), qui
est de « rendre toute autre ordonnance que le juge
trouve appropriée. »
Pourquoi ce
changement ? Il y a plusieurs raisons : d'abord, parce
que ce droit existait dans l'ancienne loi, la Loi sur la location
mobilière, or the Landlord and Tenant Act. Les tribunaux
accordaient antérieurement sans équivoque des dommages
en vertu du même article fourre-tout avec les mêmes
mots : accorder toute ordonnance que le tribunal juge
appropriée. Il est clair qu'en créant la Loi sur la
protection des locataires, vous aviez, en tant que
législateurs, l'intention de maintenir ce droit, d'où
l'utilisation du même langage dans la nouvelle loi.
Troisièmement,
pourquoi ce changement ? Parce que le tribunal du logement
est très divisé. À toutes les semaines on entend
parler qu'un tribunal décide d'un côté et
décide de l'autre côté qu'on a le droit de donner
des dommages. Donc, il faut vraiment clarifier cette
situation-là, parce qu'on a des décisions qui sont
différentes. Qu'on soit à Thunder Bay, qu'on soit
à Windsor, qu'on soit à Toronto ou à Ottawa, on
arrive avec des décisions différentes. Certains
tribunaux disent ne pas avoir le droit, d'autres avoir le droit.
C'est clair selon nous, en vertu de la loi, qu'on a le droit.
1710
Donc, pour une question
d'équité et pour une question administrative, pour
régler ce problème-là, nous suggérons
fortement, tel que recommandé dans les modifications
présentées, de modifier le 6(6) et le 6(7) de l'annexe
K de la Loi de 2000 visant à réduire les
formalités administratives.
Mr Peter
Keen: I'm going to be making some submissions on the
changes in subsection 6(8) of schedule K, which are obviously the
changes to the Tenant Protection Act.
The changes I'm referring
to are the changes that would add an additional remedy to the
act. This section would allow the tribunal to put a tenant back
into possession if that individual had been illegally evicted.
The problem with this change as it's currently proposed is that
it's never going to be available as a practical matter to tenants
in this province.
There's a very, very low
vacancy rate in the province. You can see that from some articles
we presented at tab 7 of our written submissions. Because of
this, rental units are very, very quickly re-rented. They can be
re-rented in a matter of days, certainly in a matter of weeks. It
normally takes two or more months to get a hearing for a tenant
to apply to the tribunal. If the tenant applies, you're usually
looking at a hearing at least two months away.
The remedy that is proposed
in the act is an excellent remedy. We do support the remedy being
introduced but, unfortunately, it's only available if the rental
unit has not been re-rented. As a result, the remedy is never
going to be available on a practical basis, because every time
you come to a hearing, the place will always have been
re-rented.
The only way to make this
remedy available practically is to allow the remedy to be issued
on an interim basis. In our submissions on pages 16 to 18, we
have proposed some wording that would allow this remedy to be
issued on an interim basis. That wording is summarized on page
19. Those are my submissions on that point.
I did have a comment. This
was raised earlier when Ms Hurd from Kensington-Bellwoods was
here. She was questioned on the default rate. In tab 12 of our
submissions we've got a copy of the CERA report. On page 4 of
that, it indicates that the default rate is over 50%. There was a
recent article from the Toronto Star, I believe-that is under tab
11-entitled "Easier Evictions `Buried' in Bill." They report the
default rate as 64% in this last year. In the previous year it
was substantially lower; I believe it was 9% lower than that. So
there is an extremely high default rate currently in the
province.
The Chair:
We have about two minutes. This time I'll go to the
government.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): Merci, Monsieur Landry. I gather from
the tone of your English that it is fairly good in understanding.
I appreciate your presentation.
We had a presentation the other day that mentioned
the concern that rather than the tribunal actually issuing the
notice as part of this, it would be done basically by staff to
sort of speed up the process, if you will. The concern they
indicated at that time was that staff would be prone to errors
because of a backlog, as opposed to a tribunal actually issuing
the notice.
I countered for the sake of
the discussion, really, that one of the things we get criticized
for-that any government, frankly, of any stripe, is criticized
for-is that people in these tribunals are in fact political
appointments and might be biased one way or the other, whereas
the staff that works with these notices day in and day out would
have perhaps a fairer understanding.
I just wondered what your
opinion would be on those issues.
Mr Keen:
We are definitely concerned about that section. As to whether
there is a bias, I believe the individual members are appointed
for a number of years. The members who are appointed as members
of the tribunal are judicial officers. They are given statutory
powers to make decisions over individuals' lives. Taking these
powers and putting them in the hands of a staff member, in our
opinion, is a very dangerous precedent to be setting.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That's used up our time. I appreciate your
making the trip down here and the thoroughness of your
presentation.
PARKDALE COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Parkdale Community Legal
Services. Good afternoon, Ms Mahoney. Welcome to the
committee.
Ms Elinor
Mahoney: Thank you very much. As my brief is being
passed out, I'm sure after listening to some of the deputations
today you'd all like to join me in putting our feet up, having a
glass of wine and watching a good movie, but instead, all of us
have to be here a little while longer.
I'm here today to talk
about the tenant provisions of Bill 119. I'm here today
representing the Tenant Advocacy Group. I'm going to focus on
some of the problems that we see with Bill 119, but I want to
draw your attention to the first section of our brief, which
talks about the sections of the act that we are in support of.
That's on pages 1 and 2 of the brief. But I want to focus mainly
on the problems that we see in an attempt to get the government
members to urge the withdrawal of a couple of the proposals that
are in the bill.
Two amendments proposed by
the government go beyond the scope of red tape, in our opinion,
and in our view they take away the tenant rights of a sizable
number of people in Ontario. Subsection 6(1) narrows the
definition of "landlord" to exclude head tenants who share
accommodation with other tenants. By implication, then, it
excludes these other tenants from enforcing their rights as
tenants under the Tenant Protection Act. The kind of situation
you see is where a tenant rents a house or a large apartment and
then casts about to find other tenants to help share the rent. It
happens a lot, particularly in student housing.
In situations where every
tenant's name is on the lease and the landlord is collecting rent
from each tenant separately, these amendments will not affect
those tenants. But in many cases, the other tenants are not given
the choice of having their name on the lease, or else, for
administrative ease, the landlord wants everybody to pay the rent
to a head tenant and deal with the head tenant exclusively. In
that case, the head tenant recruits the roommates, collects the
rent and then writes one cheque to the landlord every month.
In that case, what
obligations should the head tenant have to the other tenants and
what rights should they have as renters who are faithfully paying
their rent every month? We see that the government amendments
would relieve the head tenant of any obligation to the people he
is sharing his or her accommodation with. The head tenant, then,
would be free to lock out another tenant or to raise the rent,
without any regard to the rent rules established by the Tenant
Protection Act. In other words, a head tenant would have a
flexibility currently denied to landlords under the Tenant
Protection Act.
The under tenants, as I
will refer to the other tenants, would have no remedy under the
Tenant Protection Act for anything. They could not be reinstated
following a lockout and they could not obtain a return of illegal
rents or an order prohibiting harassment. Instead, they would be
treated as though they were guests, not paying tenants, which, in
our view, they are.
1720
The issue here is not
whether the landlord of the building who rents to the head tenant
should have any special obligation to these people that the head
tenant has chosen. That much is fairly clear, that the landlord
is twice removed from that situation. But the question is, in
case of a dispute, should there be a mechanism to get these under
tenants before the tribunal in case mediation fails? We say yes,
there should be. If you vote for these amendments, there won't
be. There won't be any way these people can use the only body
that has jurisdiction to deal with tenant disputes to deal with
their own tenant disputes. We ask you therefore to vote against
this amendment or to withdraw it.
We also want to point out
that subsections 6(21), (22) and (23) permit head tenants to
charge their roommates key money, seize penalties, and it
actually permits them to make money from renting out to other
tenants by charging a total rent to the other tenants that is
higher than the landlord is allowed to charge to the head tenant.
Once again, it's giving a head tenant a flexibility and escape
from the law that landlords do not have in Ontario now. We can't
see any public policy argument in support of this, and in fact we
haven't heard any in support of it. We're asking you to withdraw
this because we see it places tenants in a very precarious
position when they are forced to rent accommodation on a shared
basis. It denies them an
opportunity to resolve disputes in an appropriate manner and it
creates a situation that might allow exploitation by head tenants
of other tenants. We don't see this one as deserving of
support.
I'd like to spend just a
couple of minutes in also urging you to accept some additional
amendments. You've heard from our friends at the University of
Ottawa. I think their proposal is a very good one. They have an
interim measure with respect to an illegal lockout situation that
would therefore prevent the landlord from re-renting until the
case could be heard. I think that would be in everybody's best
interests.
There are also some
amendments we'd like to suggest that are not in the bill at all
that we think ought to be in the bill. One of them is with
respect to enforcing the law where a landlord has evicted a
tenant legally but will not allow the tenant access to pick up
his or her goods. The law says the tenant has 48 hours to do
that. Quite frankly, we think that's a little short, but that's
what the law says. What we've discovered is that some landlords
just will not let the tenants in to pick up their belongings
after they've been locked out by the sheriff. We think this is
appalling, but in fact it's not even an offence under the act for
a landlord to refuse to allow the tenant in. The law says the
tenant should be allowed to get in and get their goods and the
landlord says, "No, I'm not going to let you in," and there's no
law, there's no way of enforcing this by the tribunal, and it's
not an offence under the act.
We'd like to see your
committee consider drafting its own amendment and adding it on to
Bill 119 that would make it an offence for a landlord to deny
entry to a tenant and, secondly, would increase the 48 hours to a
more reasonable basis. We would also like to see you draft an
amendment, if it's possible, that would give the tribunal
jurisdiction in this so that the tribunal would be able to help
the tenant assert their rights under the act.
The final thing I'll
mention concerns the notice of hearing. You've heard a lot about
it from other people and I'm not going to repeat what is now
common knowledge, that is, that tenants do not understand the
notice of hearing and some tenants are getting default judgments
against them because they don't understand how to prevent that
from happening.
I've included in our brief
a copy of a draft notice of hearing that we submitted to the ORHT
in good faith, and their correspondence and ours in return. There
seems to be a delay in dealing with this. It doesn't seem to be a
priority of the tribunal. So we are coming to you to say, can you
just abolish the need for a written dispute and go back to the
previous method? We think it's fairer and we don't think it will
result in more hearings, but we think what it will result in is
tenants having an opportunity to choose whether to have a
hearing, whether to pay the rent or whether to be evicted. If you
look at what we are proposing, we're proposing that the tenants
be given a clear notice that if they wish to dispute, they have
to appear at a certain time and place and indicate so to a clerk
or perhaps one of these quasi-adjudicators that's being promoted
from the ranks. At that point they either pay the rent, they
mediate or they say they're going to dispute, or else a default
order is issued against them. But that way they don't show up on
the day of the hearing expecting that they are going to have a
hearing and discover that in fact they've already been evicted.
We think this is the way to clear some red tape for tenants, and
I think that would be a good thing to do.
Thank you for the
amendments that we listed on the first two pages that we do like.
We hope that you will consider voting against the amendments to
take away the rights for tenants in shared accommodation and
consider adding some protections to tenants after they've been
evicted so that they don't lose their belongings to landlords.
Thank you very much.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Mahoney. We've actually gone overtime, but we
appreciate the thoroughness of your presentation and your
balanced presentation.
FAIR RENTAL POLICY ORGANIZATION
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Fair Rental Policy
Organization of Ontario. Good afternoon and welcome to the
committee.
Mr Vince
Brescia: Good afternoon, Chair and committee members.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today.
It's good to see you all. My name is Vince Brescia and I am the
president of the Fair Rental Policy Organization.
FRPO is the largest
association in Ontario representing those who own, manage, build
and finance residential rental properties. Our membership
includes a diverse range of owners and managers, from those with
one small building or a few units up to the largest property
management firms and institutional owners and managers. It also
includes our colleagues and partners in the industry, including
service providers, suppliers and industry consultants.
I'm going to do my best to
cover off some of the issues which we have uncovered in reviewing
the legislation in the brief time we've had a chance to look at
it. I have handed out written copies of what I'd like to cover
off. I don't think I'm going to be able to get through most of
it, so what I'm proposing to do is cover off a few of them and
leave you with the written copies to review.
I'm going to go first to
the proposed amendments to sections 34 and 35 of the legislation.
These proposed amendments grant new authority to tribunal
adjudicators to order a landlord to pay a specified sum to the
tenant as compensation for costs the tenant has or will incur in
repairing or replacing the tenant's property that was damaged as
a result of the landlord's breach. FRPO does not support these
amendments and I'd like to give you a few reasons why we don't
support them.
Firstly, there's no
equivalent provision under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the
previous legislation, for these types of damages. The
jurisdiction for awarding damages should remain with the Superior
Court or Small Claims Court. The section provides for payment for
prospective damages
rather than limiting the claim to actual, reasonable,
out-of-pocket expenses. The section does not account for the
depreciated value of the property for which the compensation is
being provided. The section does not contemplate any insurance
proceeds that the tenant may receive or otherwise be entitled to
either through its insurer or the landlord's insurer and in fact
encourages litigation by insurers or tenants against
landlords.
We also believe that these
amendments may be unconstitutional insofar as they purport to
delegate a power to award damages to tribunal members who are not
section 96 judges under the Constitution Act, thereby removing
that power from the exclusive jurisdiction of the judiciary.
The amendments provide no
requirement for tribunal members to consider common law
principles for damages such as foreseeability, causation and
mitigation.
We believe it is
inconsistent and unfair that the tribunal should be adjudicating
contract issues for tenants, on the one hand, while at the same
time forcing landlords to go to Small Claims Court to recover
out-of-pocket expenses. Currently, we are not entitled to go to
the tribunal for such out-of-pocket expenses as arrears of rent,
prospective lost rent, utility costs, NSF cheque charges,
replacement key costs, last month's rent, amounts owing by
guarantors and so on. We'd ask that you not pass these particular
components of the legislation.
The amendments to section
35 provide the tribunal with the jurisdiction to allow a tenant
to recover possession of the rental unit where a landlord has
altered the locking mechanism. However, the amendments do not
address those circumstances in which the landlord has deemed the
unit to have been abandoned. These subsections should be amended
to provide that the tenant must first pay any arrears of rent up
to the date on which the locking mechanism was altered before
taking effect.
1730
With respect to the
amendments to sections 52 and 54 of the act, I won't read what
I've written out for my proposed presentation but suffice it to
say that we're very supportive of these amendments. The way the
legislation is currently drafted, it doesn't allow condominium
developers, who in an intern period want to lease their units
before they can sell them, to provide notice on behalf of
purchasers. This affects the feasibility of condominium
development, and I don't think any of us would like to see that
because that's actually a very important supply of rental
accommodation in the province right now. About a quarter of all
condominiums are rented, so we wouldn't like to see condominium
feasibility impacted.
The amendments to section
72 would provide for an eviction order to become void where the
tenant pays the amount owing. However, we are concerned that in
these circumstances the payment by the tenant should be made by a
means whereby the landlord will definitely receive payment. It's
not an uncommon issue for this to crop up. In other words,
payment within these sections cannot be made by an uncertified
cheque. We would like to ask that you amend the proposed
legislation and add a new subsection to the effect that it
requires payment by means of cash, money order or certified
cheque where we can show that the cheque has cleared the tenant's
account. That last clause is necessary because stop payment
orders can be put on a certified cheque.
Given the onus on time
here, I'm going to try and move as quickly as I can. I'm going to
skip right ahead to the last element. I'll leave you to read the
rest.
I'll just talk about
proposed section 83.1. The current situation with the legislation
is that an order expires within one year of being issued. FRPO is
opposed to a six-month expiry date for an eviction order. We
believe the expiry of such an order should remain consistent with
those of orders for possession of all types of other things. This
proposal will have the effect of dissuading landlords from
entering into repayment plans with tenants that extend beyond
five months. Therefore it would be detrimental to tenants and
would likely force housing providers to reconsider their policies
for giving tenants a second chance and the opportunity to make up
arrears over time. This is in addition to other factors that
negatively impact on the appeal of repayment plans and second
chances, including the recent increase in sheriff's fees which
massively increase the cost of enforcing evictions.
Secondly, this proposal
doesn't account for a situation where an eviction order may not
be enforceable for an indeterminate period after being issued,
for example, when it is appealed to the courts, which could take
several months. Therefore, we'd like to ask you to consider not
passing that particular element of the legislation.
Thank you for your time,
and I'd be happy to answer any questions if we have any time.
The Chair:
I'm afraid we've used the full slot, but I thank you very much
for making your presentation before us. I'm sure we'll all have
time to read the balance of your submission in the next few
days.
COALITION ON THE NIAGARA ESCARPMENT
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be the Coalition on the Niagara
Escarpment, Ms Linda Pim. Good afternoon and welcome, Ms Pim.
Ms Linda
Pim: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the
committee.
The Coalition on the
Niagara Escarpment is pleased to have this opportunity to present
our views on the amendments before you that pertain to the
Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. I am a member of
the coalition's board of directors and I've been asked by our
president, Bruce Mackenzie, to appear before you on his
behalf.
Very briefly, the Coalition
on the Niagara Escarpment, or CONE, was founded 22 years ago, in
1978, and currently has
24 member organizations. These are both province-wide
conservation groups such as the Federation of Ontario
Naturalists, the Bruce Trail Association and the Sierra Club, as
well as escarpment-based community groups such as the Beaver
Valley Heritage Society and the Bruce Peninsula Environment
Group.
We are strong supporters of
the Niagara Escarpment plan as the premier tool for protection of
the escarpment from excessive and inappropriate development. We
monitor the implementation of the Niagara Escarpment plan by the
Niagara Escarpment Commission, as well as engage in public
education activities. We were the recipients of the Lieutenant
Governor of Ontario's conservation award in 1995.
In June of this year, our
coalition made a written submission on these amendments as a
result of a posting on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry.
We support, or have no objection to, most of the amendments
proposed here to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development
Act. Most of the amendments are of what we usually call a
housekeeping nature.
However, I would like to
bring to this committee's attention one very troubling amendment
proposed in this package. I believe you will find it on page 102
of Bill 119, under the heading "Order to stop work, etc." It is
proposed that section 24 of the act be amended to allow for
stop-work orders to be issued if a person undertakes any
development in the Niagara Escarpment that contravenes a
development permit issued by the Niagara Escarpment
Commission.
We strongly support the
availability of stop-work orders as a tool to halt activities
that have not been sanctioned by a Niagara Escarpment development
permit. Making this power available to the commission, which is
the minister's delegate in these matters, is long overdue and we
applaud it. Without this power, terrible damage can be done to
the Niagara Escarpment and the only recourse is to pick up the
pieces after the havoc has been wrought. It's a lot easier and
cheaper to undo or remediate environmental damage soon after it
starts than when it's long over and done with.
However, we object
strenuously to the limitation of the power to issue stop-work
orders to only a subset of developments that are in contravention
of the act, namely those where the minister or his or her
delegate has "reasonable grounds to believe that the
contravention is causing or is likely to cause a risk to public
safety or significant environmental damage." In our view, there
is no justifiable reason to limit stop-work orders in this way.
If the development contravenes the act, it contravenes the act,
and it must be subject to a possible stop-work order. There must
be no equivocation or room for interpretation here. The
limitation of this clause to contraventions that are likely to
cause public safety risks or significant environmental damage
appears to us to legitimize some developments that are in
contravention of the act, in other words, those that are judged
not to cause risk to public safety or not to cause significant
environmental damage. The limitation leaves the minister or his
or her delegate powerless to stop violators of the act.
We are very concerned that
a decision-maker, whether it's the Niagara Escarpment Commission
or the commission's staff director or the minister, would have
the responsibility of assessing whether a development is in
violation of the act, is causing or is likely to cause
significant environmental damage.
Just by analogy we have to
ask ourselves, would society accept a decision by police not to
lay assault charges against someone who causes a black eye in
another person because it was not a significant injury? As we all
know, you don't need to have broken bones or a concussion before
your assailant can be charged with assault. Just as an assault is
an assault, a violation of an escarpment permit is a violation of
an escarpment permit. There should be no room for discretion on
the part of the party that's enforcing the development permit to
stand in judgment of what is "significant" environmental
damage.
I'd like to give you a
real-life example which I have seen with my own eyes. A couple of
years ago, a landowner in Mulmur township in Dufferin county
received a development permit from the Niagara Escarpment
Commission for something pretty typical that the commission deals
with: a house, a driveway and a septic system in a rural area on
the slopes of the escarpment. It was a typical permit with a
number of standard conditions issued by the commission, but
instead of putting up a typical driveway, say five metres or 16
feet wide, the landowner created what was virtually a 400-series
highway up the Niagara Escarpment. There was tremendous
destruction of large trees and other vegetation and massive
grading of the land, yet the Niagara Escarpment Commission was
powerless to stop him.
It's entirely possible that
under the proposed amendment, the minister's delegate, which is
usually the commission, could decide that the damage was not
significant, that the trees and vegetation would grow back over
time and not to issue a stop-work order. As it turned out in this
case, the landowner was quite mortified by what his contractor
had done in his absence and was very co-operative in trying his
best to restore the landscape to its original condition as much
as possible, although that was very difficult to do.
Other violations of Niagara
Escarpment development permits may seem environmentally benign
but often they are not. Let's say that a permit is granted to
build a house within a certain building envelope on the
escarpment. Let's say that the owner decides to shift the
location of the house or add another 1,000 square feet to the
house after the commission has issued the development permit.
Such changes to what a permit allows could, for example, affect
the stability of escarpment slopes or encroach into designated
environmentally significant areas. The minister or the Niagara
Escarpment Commission need the unfettered ability to issue a
stop-work order regardless of what the violation of the permit
is. This will not always mean that the development is stopped for
all time-and I'd like to emphasize that-it may simply mean that
the work is stopped
until the landowner and the commission can sort out the problems
and, we would hope, come to a resolution of the matter.
1740
In closing, then, I would
respectfully request that the committee consider amending the
proposed new subsection (6.1) under section 24 by eliminating the
words "and the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that
the contravention is causing or is likely to cause a risk to
public safety or significant environmental damage."
I would respectfully remind
the committee that the Niagara Escarpment is a United Nations
World Biosphere Reserve. We have not only a provincial
responsibility but also a national and indeed international
responsibility to ensure that it is not subject to unnecessary
environmental damage. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Ms Pim. That used up our full time, but I
certainly appreciate your bringing another section of the act to
our attention here today.
DUNDURN COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
HAMILTON MOUNTAIN LEGAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
MCQUESTEN LEGAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
SOLUTIONS FOR HOUSING ACTION COMMITTEE
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Hamilton Mountain Legal and
Community Services. Good afternoon and welcome to the
committee.
Mr Tom
Cooper: Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to
present to the standing committee this afternoon. My name is Tom
Cooper. I actually represent McQuesten Legal and Community
Services. I'm joined here this afternoon by Jay Sengupta, with
Hamilton Mountain Legal and Community Services; Peter Hutton,
with Dundurn Community Legal Services; as well as Judy MacNeil,
who's the executive director at Dundurn Community Legal Services.
We represent the three community legal clinics in Hamilton as
well as SHAC, which is the Solutions for Housing Action
Committee, a coalition of housing providers, housing services,
tenants and interested citizens concerned with affordable housing
in the Hamilton area.
We're probably going to
echo some of the concerns you've already heard this afternoon,
but we believe it represents some of the grave and wide-ranging
concern across the province with the proposed changes to the
Tenant Protection Act.
In our view, the suggested
changes to the Tenant Protection Act contained in Bill 119
represent a lost opportunity. While a few of the changes
suggested do offer useful clarification on some issues, such as
pointing out when an order is voided, we are disappointed in the
direction this government has taken on others, such as leaving
subtenants in this province without any protection under the law
and allowing for the signing of default orders by so-called
"default order officers."
Tenants and their advocates
have been highlighting the difficulties faced by tenants in the
application and hearing process since the act was first put in
place. We have been asking for relief for tenants on a variety of
issues, including the following:
Tenants do not receive the
notice of hearing and application documents which signal the
beginning of the hearing process. We have asked that the tribunal
ensure service of these documents by sending them to tenants
directly and not relying upon the landlord to do so.
The notice of hearing is a
confusing and poorly drafted document. It is not immediately
clear to those receiving it, particularly those with poor
literacy skills, that a hearing is not going to be held if a
written dispute is not filed. Tenants for whom English is a
second language similarly have difficulty understanding the
document.
Under the Landlord and
Tenant Act, tenants could dispute a landlord's application in
person. Tenants are now required to file a dispute in writing,
again something very difficult for tenants whose literacy and
language skills are weak.
The five-day window for
filing a dispute, which includes weekend days, is far too short
to allow for mailing. Tenants are forced to fax or file the
dispute form in person. Many tenants with limited income cannot
afford to pay for a fax or take time away from work to attend at
a tribunal office to file in person.
Tenants who have been
locked out by landlords who have taken the law into their own
hands and who have ignored the processes outlined by the Tenant
Protection Act have no way of getting timely relief from the
tribunal. Tenants and their advocates have been asking for
changes in tribunal procedure to address this inequity to no
avail thus far.
This government has ignored
these issues and others raised by tenants and instead we have a
set of proposed amendments, some of which open up the process for
further inequitable treatment of the tenants of this
province.
This committee has already
heard from the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation. The
Hamilton area legal clinics have undertaken, in conjunction with
that group, a project to assist tenants in manoeuvring through
the system. Our efforts have revealed that many tenants are not
served with the originating documents on the date that the
landlord has told the tribunal they will be served. Some tenants
are not served at all. Others who have been served do not
understand that their right to be heard depends on filing a
written dispute within a certain time frame, as that information
is buried among numerous other details in the notice of
hearing.
Members of this committee
should note that the current system is inaccessible to many
tenants already. A study undertaken by seven post-industrial
countries including Canada, the International Adult Literacy
Survey, concluded that
approximately 47% of Canadians between the ages of 16 and 69 have
literacy skills that are at or below level 2 on a five-level
scale. In Hamilton that number is 60%. People at level 2 are
described as being able to read, but not well, and we've attached
some documents to illustrate. What this means is that about 60%
of people living in the Hamilton area would require assistance
with these forms.
Our objection is also based
on the changes in the housing market. This system does not
operate in a vacuum. The statistics in our part of the province
are a reflection of the situation province-wide. We have attached
a rental market report prepared by the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corp for the Hamilton area. It shows significant drops in
vacancy rates and increases in housing costs. According to the
CMHC, the city of Hamilton experienced the highest rental market
increases for two-bedroom apartments in Canada. I'll repeat that:
Hamilton had the highest rent increases in Canada last year.
Simply put, the city of Hamilton and its surrounding area is in a
rental housing crisis. The consequences of eviction for tenants
on fixed or low incomes are severe. What is necessary is a
thoughtful and balanced evaluation of the tribunal and its
processes and changes that provide the tenants of this province
with real protection, not some of the changes proposed under this
bill.
We are disheartened by the
fact that the government has not addressed the need for real
change in the application and hearing process and introduced
these amendments in their stead. We ask that tenants' concerns be
reflected and taken more seriously in any amendments of the
Tenant Protection Act.
As we indicated at the
outset, we are particularly troubled by the proposed amendment
which would allow the tribunal to allow a default order officer
to make a default order as if they were a tribunal member. This
amendment represents more than a mere housekeeping item. It would
allow a clerk, rather than a trained adjudicator, to make an
order that would result in the loss of a tenant's home. We are
very concerned that applications will be rubber-stamped and
tenants will lose their homes in the rush toward a more efficient
system. This amendment could only be considered an improvement
and an efficiency if the goal of the Tenant Protection Act was
the eviction of tenants rather than their protection.
Given all of the other
problems that tenants are currently experiencing with the written
dispute procedure, the one thing that the current system does not
need is an easier way to ensure that a tenant does not have an
opportunity to be heard when the issue at stake is whether they
will be able to remain in their home. To suggest that procedural
safeguards such as a set-aside motion are available after the
fact provides little or no comfort to tenants. Our experience in
the southern district office has been that set-aside motions are
granted sparingly.
Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal hearings in Hamilton demonstrated how difficult it could
be for some tenants to manoeuvre through the complicated
bureaucratic system currently in place. One family who did not
speak English as a first language showed up at the tribunal
office on the scheduled hearing date but had not filed a written
dispute because they had not fully understood the requirements of
the complicated forms they had received. They found out that a
default order had already been issued against them. They filed a
motion to set aside the default order, but at the hearing held
into the motion the adjudicator denied the tenants' motion to set
aside the default order and have a full hearing into the
landlord's application. The motion was denied because they had
failed to convince the adjudicator that they were not reasonably
able to participate. The adjudicator determined that the
non-English-speaking tenants could have shown the documents to
somebody who spoke English and had a written dispute filed on
time. This is the reality that many tenants face in our
province.
A thorough and balanced review of the Tenant Protection Act
needs to take place, instead of amendments that ignore legitimate
tenant concerns and which further erode their right to fair
treatment.
We thank you for the opportunity to come before you and
provide input this afternoon.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your presentation. We've actually gone a
bit over time, but we appreciate your taking the time to come
before us here today.
1750
ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM
The Chair:
Our final presentation this afternoon is from the Ontario New
Home Warranty Program. Good afternoon, Ms Howard, and welcome to
the committee.
Ms Judith
Howard: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, my name
is Judith Howard and I'm the manager of the policy group and
legal counsel at the Ontario New Home Warranty Program.
I am pleased to be here
today to make submissions before this committee regarding the
proposed amendments to the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act
by section 15 of schedule B of Bill 119. I prepared a letter
detailing our submissions which is being distributed, I believe,
to each of you.
In brief, first of all we
support all the proposed amendments to our act under Bill 119 and
we urge you to adopt them.
Second, we urge you to pass
and proclaim these proposed amendments in force before the
Condominium Act, 1998, is proclaimed in force. As you may know,
the Condominium Act, 1998, received royal assent but has not yet
been proclaimed in force.
The first proposed
amendment to our act would make the Ontario New Home Warranty
Program's annual report available to the public, including all of
the warranty program stakeholders, as soon as it's submitted to
the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. We will no longer be required
to wait until the report is reviewed by cabinet and tabled with
the assembly. Our annual report contains valuable and current
statistics and other information about the warranty program in
addition to the required financial reporting. Our stakeholders,
especially consumers and builders, will be better served with an
earlier release of our annual report to the public, and the
information, of course, that's contained in it.
The second, third and
fourth proposed amendments all amend section 14 of our act. They
will reduce the risk that purchasers' rights would inadvertently
be limited or even curtailed. Section 14 of our act was repealed
and re-enacted as a consequential amendment to the Condominium
Act, 1998, which received royal assent, as I mentioned, but has
not been proclaimed in force.
Upon close review of the
new section 14, three inadvertent errors were identified. Bill
119 aims to correct these errors in time to prevent any harm to
consumers. Bill 119 contains three proposed amendments to this
new section 14. The first of the proposed amendments is a
drafting correction, basically, and, put simply, the word "or"
was inadvertently omitted between two clauses.
The second proposed
amendment would enable the warranty program to continue to
provide warranties to homeowners whereby damages for financial
loss are available, as compared to damages for remedial work
alone. If this amendment is not made in time, warranties such as
the warranty providing for financial compensation for delayed
closing would be at risk.
The third proposed
amendment to section 14 of our act will enable the warranty
program to ensure that warranty coverage continues to be provided
to successors in title of purchasers of new homes as it has been
since our inception.
To summarize, the Ontario
New Home Warranty Program supports all the proposed amendments to
our act under Bill 119 and urges that the amendments be passed
and proclaimed in force before the Condominium Act, 1998, is
proclaimed in force.
I thank you for your time
and I think I'm before the 10 minutes so I'm available for your
questions.
The Chair:
You certainly are. We've got about three minutes before the 6
o'clock close. It would be to the Liberals if they wish to ask a
question.
Mr Dave Levac
(Brant): Thank you for your presentation. It's probably
the first time we've been able to ask any questions around the
table, because of presentations, but I will ask this: is there
anything in the Condominium Act that will cause any difficulties
if it's enacted beforehand, or are you talking in reverse, that
we need to take care of Bill 119 to ensure that the Condominium
Act is seen in the way it was written?
Ms Howard:
Yes, I think the second
option is the one we are referring to, Mr Levac. Basically,
when the Condominium Act, 1998, was passed, it contained a
consequential amendment which totally changed our section 14, and
it had three inadvertent errors in it. If these errors are not
corrected before the Condominium Act is proclaimed in force,
there are risks involved to consumers if that order isn't
followed. That's why we're very concerned that Bill 119 be
proclaimed in force before the Condominium Act is proclaimed in
force.
Mr Levac:
So this is red tape correcting red tape that didn't get corrected
the first time. Close?
Ms Howard:
No comment.
The Chair:
I certainly appreciate your coming here before us this afternoon.
Thank you for your presentation.
With that, committee, we
stand adjourned until 3:30 two Wednesdays from now.
