Thursday 2 June 1994

Land Lease Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993, Bill 21,Mr Wessenger / Loi de 1993 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les terrains à bail, projet de loi 21, M. Wessenger


*Chair / Président: Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)

*Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)

*Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)

*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)

Johnson, David (Don Mills PC)

*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)

*Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)

Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND)

Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)

*Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND)

*White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND) for Mr Morrow

Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Dadamo

Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND) for Mr Wessenger

Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC) for Mr Dave Johnson

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Ministry of Housing:

Lyle, Michael, legal counsel

Morris, Noah, policy adviser, existing housing stock, housing policy branch

Clerk / Greffier: Carrozza, Franco

Staff / Personnel: Filion, Sibylle, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1013 in room 228.


Consideration of Bill 21, An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases / Projet de loi 21, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les terrains à bail.

The Chair (Mr Michael A. Brown): The purpose of the committee meeting this morning is to deal with Bill 21, standing in the name of Mr Wessenger. I'm informed, Mr Mills, that you will be carrying the bill on Mr Wessenger's behalf this morning.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): That's correct; Mr Wessenger's in Kingston.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Chair: The last meeting was on Thursday, May 19. I was not able to be at that meeting. However, I did attend a meeting of the subcommittee which took place, I think, on Tuesday the 15th. At that meeting, there was majority agreement on that subcommittee that this committee would not proceed with Bill 21 until after we had had a meeting which Mr Wessenger was organizing with all the parties of interest to the bill.

The Chair: Precisely what is the point of order?

Mrs Marland: The point of order is, why are we proceeding? I see us proceeding as being out of order. Mr Wessenger has set up this meeting for next Tuesday, June 8. That date was discussed by Mr Wessenger at the subcommittee meeting on May 15. Frankly, I think it's out of order to proceed with the bill and to have proceeded on the 19th, when there was a majority agreement that we would wait until we had met with all the stakeholders to the bill.

Obviously, there are a number of issues surrounding this bill from a number of different interests. The idea of having the meeting was in order that there could be a compromise reached in order that the bill could proceed. I just don't understand why the bill is proceeding and the meeting is still to be held next Tuesday. I think proceeding with the bill is out of order, with the commitment that the proponent of the bill has made to those people who are coming to the meeting next Tuesday.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Marland. Everything is in order. On Thursday, two weeks ago, whatever that date happened to be, the committee rejected the subcommittee's report by a vote of the committee. As you know, that's an option of the committee, to ratify or not a subcommittee report. We are proceeding under a motion that was passed by this committee that Mr Wessenger made, so there is nothing out of order.

Mrs Marland: Did Mr Wessenger come in and make a motion to proceed?

The Chair: If you would review the Hansard and maybe speak to your colleague who was here, you would find that Mr Wessenger made a motion at committee that was carried by the committee, and we are proceeding.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Which the opposition voted against.

Mrs Marland: Did the committee vote on the subcommittee report?

The Chair: The committee voted on the subcommittee report in the contrary, against the subcommittee report, which is the right of the committee, so there is nothing out of order.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): To follow up on what Mrs Marland was saying, a meeting of all concerned parties was supposed to take place and will take place, I'm told, so I agree with Mrs Marland that if Mr Mills or Mr Wessenger wasn't able to meet with these concerned groups prior to this meeting this morning, what is the use of meeting to consider this bill?

The Chair: Thank you for that. Mrs Mathyssen on the same point.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I'd like to point out at this point in time that the meeting to which Mrs Marland refers did indeed take place on May 16 and that all people were given ample notice. M. Grandmaître was at that meeting, and there was very fruitful and positive discussion. I know Mrs Marland was given notice of that meeting, an opportunity to attend. Nevertheless, there was very fruitful and positive discussion at that meeting, as I said, and a decision was made to have a second meeting so that Mrs Marland could indeed attend.

Mrs Marland: Was Mr Wessenger given notice of today's meeting so that he could attend?

Mrs Mathyssen: Mr Chair, do I have the floor?

The Chair: Order. Mrs Mathyssen, yes.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you. In light of the fact that this meeting occurred, there will be a second meeting. In light of the fact that the committee duly voted on the subcommittee report, I think it's important that we proceed with this very important piece of legislation. As you well know, Mr Chair, there are a number of very vulnerable seniors in Ontario waiting anxiously for this piece of legislation and I think it's important that we live up to our obligations to them and move ahead.

The Chair: Mr Arnott?

Mr Arnott: Yes. I agree we have to meet our obligations as members as well as our obligation to be honourable members.

I believe Mr Wessenger's commitment, to my recollection, and I haven't got the Hansard so I may be corrected on this, was that the member agreed to stand down what he viewed as the controversial aspects, subsection 10(1), section 11, subsection 16(5) and section 17, until such time as he would have an opportunity and the committee would have an opportunity to discuss the issue with all the interested parties.

That was the commitment; that's my recollection. It would appear that if indeed, Mr Chairman, we're not out of order, we're walking away from order.

The Chair: We're not out of order.


Mr Arnott: The amendment was made by the member who was introducing the bill, if I'm not mistaken.

The Chair: Mr Mills, on a non-point of order.

Mr Mills: I think that in the last meeting we had we all agreed to proceed carefully with this bill on all aspects that were non-controversial. There was a commitment made by Mr Wessenger that the controversial aspects of this bill would be set aside. That still remains in force and I intend to honour that commitment of Mr Wessenger.

What we're going to do today, hopefully -- we moved along last week in great strides -- is to continue to go ahead with the non-controversial points in this bill. The controversial points are set down and we're going to revisit them, I think, on June 7, when we're going to have people in to discuss this. We're not intending to go ahead with the controversial aspects of this bill today, notwithstanding the fact that people haven't had an opportunity to speak.

The Chair: Mrs Marland, with a final word.

Mrs Marland: A few moments ago, Mrs Mathyssen referred to a meeting that I had been given notice of and had ample opportunity to attend. Could you identify which meeting you're referring to?

Mrs Mathyssen: That was the May 16 meeting, Mrs Marland. In point of fact, we waited for you to arrive, but for whatever reason, you weren't able to attend.

Mrs Marland: Can you identify it?

Mr Mills: Last Thursday.

Mrs Mathyssen: No.

Mr Mills: Was it Monday?

Mrs Mathyssen: Previously. It was a Monday morning meeting.

Mr Mills: Oh, Monday.

Mrs Mathyssen: Yes. Remember, it had been arranged well in advance. We'd been discussing it for quite some time.

Mrs Marland: All right. I'm very glad you clarified that, because it's very important for me to clarify for you that that meeting on the Monday -- what was the date on the Monday? Was it the 15th?

Mrs Mathyssen: It was the 16th.

Mrs Marland: All right, Monday the 16th. Mr Wessenger and Mr Grandmaître and I were in a subcommittee meeting on Monday, May 2, at which time there was agreement that there would be a meeting held with all the stakeholders for this bill. On Tuesday, May 3, his staff started to phone everyone, except the members, to invite them to a meeting.

I'm sorry Mr Wessenger isn't here because there is no denial on his part of these facts. I think it's very unfortunate, Mrs Mathyssen, that you don't know those facts, because the facts are that the first time I knew about the Monday meeting, the 16th, was on the Thursday preceding. I was the last person to be invited to attend that meeting of all the stakeholders.

As soon as my office was called on the Thursday, I called Mr Wessenger. I spoke to Mr Wessenger directly and told him that with two days' notice I was not available on the Monday.

Obviously, since you are not interested in listening, you're not interested in the facts. Perhaps the next time you wish to make a comment on whether or not I was there -- and for you to say that you in fact were waiting for me to attend when Mr Wessenger -- was Mr Wessenger at the meeting on the 16th?

Mrs Mathyssen: Do you want me to respond, Mr Chair?

The Chair: I believe I have ruled on the point of order and I've permitted an extreme amount of flexibility in providing for some comments. I think we should go to the bill, having not heard a motion to the contrary.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, with respect, I will take a point of privilege to respond to statements made by Mrs Mathyssen, and I have a right to do that.

The Chair: I'm sorry, in committee we cannot deal with points of privilege.

Mrs Marland: All right, a point of order then.

The fact is that Mr Wessenger knew as of Thursday that I could not attend the meeting on the Monday. The fact that everyone else was invited to that meeting, their time schedules checked and rechecked, and I was the last person to be notified of that meeting -- for Mrs Mathyssen to tell this committee this morning that they waited for me is outright misrepresentation. Mr Wessenger knew I was not coming. I spoke to Mr Wessenger Thursday, Friday and Saturday morning at his home. We discussed the fact that that meeting should be cancelled because neither Mr Cordiano, as the Housing critic for the Liberals, nor myself were able to attend.

In willingness, I may add, this is a private member's bill. There was no obligation on us to attend any of those meetings except that Mr Grandmaître, representing his caucus, was as sincere as I was in saying: "Let's get everybody in the same room together. Let's hear what everybody has to say on all sides of this bill, and if we can massage it into something that can be successful and be passed, then Mr Wessenger gets what he wants." That's what Mr Wessenger wanted to do.

I say on oath that his words to me were: "I could have handled this much better. You're absolutely right, Mrs Marland. You should have been the first person called to find a convenient date. I didn't realize you had not been called. It has not been handled properly." Those are Mr Wessenger's words.

Mr Chairman, I would ask Mrs Mathyssen to inform herself of facts before she tries to relay them either to this committee or in her lovely letters to the press.

Mrs Mathyssen: I would say to Mrs Marland that I am very pleased she is willing and sincere and looking forward to having a successful piece of legislation go forward, because it is most certainly important and very appreciated by the members of my community.

The Chair: Section 22: Questions, comments or amendments to section 22.

Mr Mills: I want to go back to subsection 16(2) of the bill. I have an amendment.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I have some amendments to place.

The Chair: Wait a minute.

Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): Section 16 was stood down. It's not been carried for this particular reason, because they want to discuss this amendment.

Mr Grandmaître: What section?

Mr Mills: Subsection 16(2).

The Chair: We would need unanimous consent to revert to --

Mr Mills: No, we don't. My understanding from legal counsel is we don't, Mr Chair. I'd just like to get that piece cleared up, and then we go on to 22.

The Chair: Mr Mills, the normal procedure is to go through the entire bill and then come back to the stood-down sections. Now, with unanimous consent, we can go back there right away. If you would like to ask for that, that's quite possible.

Mr Arnott: No.

The Chair: No. That's fine. Section 22.

Mr Mills: I move that section 22 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"22(1) Subsection 10(1) of the act is amended by inserting after `4(1)' in the fifth line `or (1.2).'

"(2) Subsection 10(3) of the act is amended by inserting after `4(1)' in the ninth line `or (1.2).'

"(3) Section 10 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:


"(4) Despite section 113 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, no order for a writ of possession of a rental unit in a land lease community or in a mobile home park shall be issued in respect of the ground set out in section 103 of that act, even if the notice of termination was given or application made for a writ of possession before the day the Land Lease Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993 receives royal assent, unless the approval of the council of the municipality under subsection 4(1) or (1.2) of this act has been obtained, where such approval is required."

Mr Chairman, this is the same as the previous section with a technical amendment in regard to retroactivity.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have to back up a little bit, frankly. In between sessions was the last time I looked at this dossier. When I looked at it last, I was so totally confused that I was not very optimistic about the future of this bill.

The biggest confusion I had at the time was that I was not clear whether this bill had the support of the Ministry of Housing. Given the nature, the substance and the importance of this bill -- I don't deny that; it's a significant issue. But because it is a significant issue, I want to be assured that the Ministry of Housing, which has the responsibility for this area, is satisfied with this project and with the amendments. It's becoming so complicated and so convoluted that I want some assurance from the Ministry of Housing that they still support the bill here and they support the amendments that are being put forward.


I'm just wondering whether someone on the government side or anybody from the Ministry of Housing who can authoritatively say, yes, the minister supports this project and is prepared to put her weight behind this bill.

Mrs Mathyssen: I would like to assure Mr Daigeler that the Minister of Housing and the Ministry of Housing are indeed supportive of this bill and certainly want to see it move ahead because of its importance.

Mr Daigeler: I must say that's a lot clearer than the Ministry of Housing was prepared to say the last time around, but I'm pleased to hear that.

Mrs Mathyssen: Well, I'm absolutely cutting to the chase, Mr Daigeler.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, is Mrs Mathyssen parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Housing?

The Chair: You might want to ask Mrs Mathyssen.

Mrs Marland: I'll ask her through the Chair.

Mrs Mathyssen: Mr Chair, I am indeed the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy, but by virtue of the fact that these are significant pieces of legislation, I make an effort to be in touch with all things going on in our government and certainly have spoken at length with the Minister of Housing in regard to this bill. I've in reality been working on this problem since September 7, 1990, so I certainly have every reason to be in close communication with the Minister of Housing in this regard.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, is there a policy adviser in the room, or any other staff member of the Ministry of Housing?

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): That's not the job of the Chairman.

Mrs Marland: You've just sat down. Did you just arrive and wake up, Mr White? Really. The Chairman knows his job.

The Chair: Mrs Marland, ignore the interjections.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Is Mrs Marland trying to establish the commitment of the Ministry of Housing? Is that what you're trying to do?

Mrs Marland: No. I'm asking, when we deal with --


The Chair: Can we have some order, please.

Mrs Marland: You see, when we deal with government legislation, we have the resources of ministry staff. When we're dealing with a private member's bill, we may also have the resources of ministry staff. In fact earlier we did have, both in the public hearings and at the beginning of this bill, ministry staff who came and sat here, as you will recall, Mr Mills, to answer questions.

I'm simply asking the Chairman if ministry staff are here in the room this morning and, if so, I would like them to come to the front to answer a question.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I think it fair to say that ministry staff are here present, but this is a private member's bill and they're not here to represent the minister on this bill. They're here to answer some questions that I might have around the technicalities of some of this, and that should be made clear. As such, I beg to offer this opinion that they're not subject to appearing at the table in any cross-examination. This is a private member's bill. This is Mr Wessenger's bill, and that is it.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, as you know, we have been able to talk to the ministry staff until today. If Mr Wessenger is saying that --

Mr Mills: I'm saying.

Mrs Marland: Yes, but you're speaking for Mr Wessenger today, are you not?

Mr White: He's speaking for Mr Mills.

Mrs Marland: If Mr Mills is saying I cannot ask ministry staff a question, then you're going to have to be very clear about this, because I'm going to place a resolution requesting that, and if you want to vote against it in a recorded vote, then I'll tell you --

The Chair: Through the Chair, Mrs Marland.

Mrs Marland: -- Mr Chairman, I will say where we are headed, and I would hate us to go down that slippery slope. We have been able to ask the ministry staff questions up until today, and my request, Mr Chairman, is that the ministry staff who are in the room come forward so that I may ask them a question.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Mrs Marland, I'm going to say it once and this is the last time I'm going to say it. This is a private member's bill. The Ministry of Housing staff are here; they're not here to appear before this committee. If you want some sort of evaluation of the support of the Ministry of Housing, look back in Hansard. Last year I stood and asked the Minister of Housing about this bill, about this issue, because it's very dear to my heart and to my riding and it has been on my agenda since 1990 --

Mrs Marland: So how come you can ask the Ministry of Housing a question and I can't?

Mr Mills: -- and the honourable minister stood in her place and said unequivocally that she and her ministry support this legislation. But that doesn't mean that you can get ministry staff up here to grill them, because this is a private member's bill and that's it.

Mr Arnott: On the same point of order, Mr Chairman: Mr Mills makes a passionate plea to have this committee proceed with this bill and hopefully go back to the House, I assume is his position.

Mr Mills: We were going along lovely last week.

Mr Arnott: Right, and I have the floor at the moment, Mr Chairman. He's suggesting that this bill is in the public interest obviously; that's implicit in his argument. If the member who is responsible for bringing forward the bill this morning has access to technical information through the ministry staff, we're simply saying that, as an opposition caucus, we would like to avail ourselves of the same opportunity to ask technical questions of the ministry staff. If he wants to answer the political questions, we'd be happy to have him answer them.

The Chair: I haven't heard a point of order yet, but Mrs Marland has the floor.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, I would like the ministry staff to come to the table in order that I could ask them a question.

The Chair: Mrs Marland, in my experience as committee Chair -- and we are treading on relatively new ground, at least from my perspective -- the normal place to ask a question is of the proponent of a bill. We may then, if you don't get a satisfactory answer for the committee, ask someone from a ministry to give us some technical assistance.

I would suggest to you that the way to do this is to place the question and, if you don't get a satisfactory answer, perhaps the ministry could be of some further assistance. But that's something we could decide after we hear the question.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, according to the printed bill that I have, the proponent of the bill is one Mr Wessenger. Perhaps I could ask where the proponent of the bill is this morning.

The Chair: We established that Mr Mills was carrying the bill.


Mr Mills: I'd be glad to do that, Mr Chair. Mr Wessenger, believe you me, would give his right arm to be here this morning. Unfortunately he's the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health. He's representing the minister at a hospital conference in Kingston and he can't be here. That's why I'm acting in his stead.

I want to reaffirm that it's a private member's bill and I am not going to permit staff from the Ministry of Housing, who have given advice on this bill to Mr Wessenger, to appear before this committee and be grilled by Mrs Marland.

The Chair: I have a number of members still on the list. I would remind members that we are attempting to speak to Mr Mills's amendment to section 22. Mrs Marland, do you have a question concerning Mr Mills's amendment to section 22?

Mrs Marland: I do have a question. I think probably Mr Grandmaître and I are the members of this committee who have served almost a decade in this House. I have never taken part in a debate of a private member's bill without the private member being there, and if that is the situation this morning, that Mr Wessenger is not able to be present as the proponent of his bill, I think we should adjourn this meeting until he can be present.

Mr Arnott: Agreed.

The Chair: Do I hear a motion for adjournment?

Mrs Marland: Before I make the motion, I would like to ask --

The Chair: So you're not making the motion for adjournment, fine.

Mrs Marland: No. Before I make that motion, I would like to ask the clerk if there is anything in our procedural bylaws about the process of private members' business once it has been referred to a committee. Can you quote a precedent where the proponent of a private member's bill is not present at the committee hearings?

The Chair: Mrs Marland, as the Chair, I can answer that we aren't familiar with the tradition and would have to look up any precedents that might exist within this place regarding private members' business and whether or not a proponent was always in the room while it was being considered.

Mrs Marland: You see, Mr Chair, I'm being put in a difficult position. I cannot ask questions of the proponent. The bill stands in the name of Mr Wessenger. The amendments stand in the name of Mr Wessenger. I cannot ask ministry staff questions because I'm being told it's a private member's bill. Yet at the other meetings we have been able to ask ministry staff questions.

The Chair: Could we return this conversation to a debate on Mr Mills's amendment, please?

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, in the absence of the member whose private member's business we are discussing this morning, I would move adjournment of this meeting.

The Chair: Mrs Marland has moved adjournment of this morning's meeting.

Mrs Marland: A recorded vote.

The Chair: A recorded vote has been requested. All in favour?


Arnott, Daigeler, Grandmaître, Marland.

The Chair: All those opposed?


Carter, Cooper, Mathyssen, Mills, White.

The Chair: The motion is lost.

I have Mr Mills and then Mr White.

Mr Mills: It's been so long since I asked to speak, I've sort of lost track of what I was going to say, except that this motion before you is very simplistic in nature. It's a technical change. It deals with retroactivity. I must say, last week, notwithstanding that we had good rapport here, we were able to gallop along and I think we passed most of the technical amendments, which are the only type of amendment that I propose introducing before this committee this morning. There's absolutely nothing of a controversial nature.

How anyone has great difficulty in agreeing to amendments of a purely technical nature that have absolutely no problems that I see for continued debate or awkwardness or whatever you want to call it -- I would hope we can proceed through these technical amendments and come to grips with the more controversial amendments at the meeting that's scheduled when proponents interested in this bill will be here. Having said that, thank you.

Mr White: My comments were in regard to the earlier issue in regard to this being a private member's bill. Yesterday morning I was in committee, and private members' bills do not have to have the member proposing them physically present.

Mr Mills: That's right.

Mr White: That was certainly the case yesterday morning and it has certainly been the case for the last three years.

Mr Mills: They rarely are there.

Mr White: I know that in my riding this bill is very important and the people in my riding are very concerned that this process is holding up a bill which is essential to the safety of their community, to the safety of their tenancy and their homes. To be posturing forth with issues that are totally irrelevant to the bill I find very, very difficult.

Mr Grandmaître: I think Mr White is absolutely right. In the private members' bills committee the proponent doesn't have to be present, but this is the general government committee. We don't deal with private members' bills the same way as we do in this committee as they do in the private members' committee.

This is why, in defence of Mrs Marland's question, we're wanting to ask the Ministry of Housing a few questions simply to clarify the amendment that's before us to better understand the feeling of the Ministry of Housing. I think it's a very legitimate question: How come this general government committee cannot ask questions to staff from the Ministry of Housing? This is not a private members' bills committee. This is general government and we should have access to all the information so that we can make the right decision.

The Chair: Thank you. Mrs Marland, to discuss Mr Mills's amendment to section 22.

Mrs Marland: I guess Mr Mills's amendment affects the bill overall, so I would be entitled to make a comment on the amendment as it affects the bill overall.

I'm looking at a letter here dated February 16, 1994, on the letterhead of one Larry O'Connor, MPP, Durham-York. This is a letter to this committee, so in essence it's a letter to me as a member of this committee. It says in the letter:

"I am writing to the standing committee on general government in regards to the hearings currently being held on Bill 21 (the Land Lease Statute Law Amendment Act). Although my schedule has not permitted me to make a formal presentation, I would like to express my total support for this legislation.

"As members of the Legislature, you will be aware that I have presented numerous petitions on the issue of owner-owned homes on leased lots. It was brought to my attention some time ago that owners of homes in mobile home trailer parks and modular homes in leased-land communities need greater protection. I have been involved with groups from my constituency such as the Ontario Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation at Sutton-by-the-Lake, and I am in complete sympathy with their concerns.

"If you require further details on my constituents' situations and the priorities that they consider should be addressed by the legislation, please do not hesitate to contact me."


My concern is that the amendment on the floor does not address the concerns that Mr O'Connor is raising because Mr O'Connor is referring to the Ontario Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation. I have before me a submission to this committee from the Ontario Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation, which was made by M. Phyllis Baker on February 16, which ironically is the same date of the letter of MPP Larry O'Connor.

In this presentation to the committee, this organization that he supports says, "The term `land-lease community/land-lease community home' as a housing category is acceptable and is considered to be a forward step. Preference is still generally for the designation `Planned retirement community' for persons aged 55 and over."

Also, under the Rental Housing Protection Act, in the same presentation, it says, "The proposed changes are acceptable but will require further study by members of the federation." And another comment, on page 4 of 6 -- I should have said that the first comment was on page 1. The comment I've just read was on page 3 of 6, and on page 4 of 6, in this brief, "We believe that planned retirement communities, called land-lease communities, are an acceptable form of housing for persons over the age of 55."

On page 5 of 6, "If seniors are to live in a safe, secure and supportive environment, every attempt should be made to make that environment as stress-free as possible."

We know that the proponent of the bill and the mover of this amendment are members of the New Democratic Party government, which does not support seniors-only communities. When we look at the amendment that's on the floor now and look at Mr O'Connor's letter, where he says he is in sympathy with the Ontario Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation, and look at the wording in their brief, we see in fact that they're asking that there be a designation for a planned retirement community. So what they're looking for is obviously two acts: one dealing with land-lease communities and one dealing with the balance.

I think that government members on this committee might just like to show some respect to Mr O'Connor and the representation that he is making on behalf of those constituencies that he represents. I'm wondering whether Mr Mills is familiar with Mr O'Connor's concerns. I would ask him to comment on that.

Mr Mills: What we have before us this morning is merely a technical amendment, as it deals with retroactivity. I'm not going to sit here and prolong this issue as we did in the previous appearance. This doesn't relate to any other part of this legislation, Mr Chairman, and I'm going ask that the question be called. I'm getting fed up with all this mumbo-jumbo. We know what the game plan is. I know what the game plan is and I am not going to sit here and allow that to unfold until midday. Last week, we joggled right along nicely. They were all technical amendments. There was absolutely no problem. The member for Mississauga South appears on the scene today and is deliberately thwarting passage of Bill 21, and that was her policy in the other hearings. So I'm going to say, let's have the question.

The Chair: Are you certain you want to do that? It may not be in your interests to do that.

Mr Mills: Well, maybe. I'm getting frustrated. You can understand my high degree of frustration.

The Chair: It's not my place to give you advice, but procedurally you would lose this amendment and we would vote on the basic section.

Mrs Mathyssen: We want to vote on this one.

Clerk of the Committee: No, you lose it.

Mr Mills: You drive people crackers, you know. This is all playing a game.

Mrs Marland: It's not playing a game, not letting me ask the ministry staff questions.

The Chair: I think I misheard you.

Mr Mills: Yes, you did, Mr Chairman, because I don't have to tell you that I'm getting totally fed up with this, as are my constituents. We're fed up with this game-playing.

Mrs Marland: It's not playing the game not to allow me to ask the ministry staff questions. You know, as flippant as you can be and say, "This is only a technical amendment," Mr Mills, I'm sorry; you are dealing with a statute that is proceeding through a committee of this Legislature and ultimately may proceed through final reading in the House. Once this becomes a statute in the province of Ontario, everybody has to live by it.

You seem to have this feeling that you have this self-given right to propel it through and not allow us to ask questions, and I think that is grossly unfair because we all represent everybody in this province, not just Mr Mills and Wilmot Creek. I'm sorry. Wilmot Creek may be in your constituency --

Mr Mills: They know you.

Mrs Marland: -- and thank goodness they do, because they see an option. The point is, the people I have spoken to in Wilmot Creek -- I have spoken to people in every one of your ridings, and they know exactly what's going on -- understand that I'm not about to pass something just because it's a technicality. If it was so easy that it was just a technicality, then why bother bringing it to committee? Why bother hearing from the public and having public meetings in the first place? You talk about gamesmanship. The gamesmanship is to invite the public --

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I don't know if this is going to help. It may be it will muddy the waters; it may be --

The Chair: The point of order is?

Mr Mills: Yes, it's a point of order. I'm quite prepared to ask a legal opinion from the Ministry of Housing to explain this, if it's any help, but that doesn't give you the leeway to grill this person. They have come forward to give a legal opinion of it.

Mrs Marland: You're going to say how I can ask my questions?

Mr Mills: I'm just telling you I'm fed up. I'm fed up with you, believe you me.

The Chair: Order. We'll take 10 minutes.

The committee recessed from 1059 to 1114.

The Chair: We will reconvene. I remind members that we are to discuss the amendments before us, we are to not impugn motives of other members, and that the committee will work in a much more happy fashion if we stay with the rules of parliamentary decorum.

When we concluded the discussions before the brief recess, I think Mr White was the next speaker I had.

Mr White: I'll reserve my comments. I know that I was certainly very concerned when there was discussion made about Mr O'Connor, who I know is very, very supportive of an expeditious passage of this bill and gives to Mr Mills his full support. Those are the comments I was going to make and going to elaborate upon. However, given your wise advice, Chair, I will leave it at that and hope that we can move on with this amendment.

Mrs Marland: I'm going to try to use a lot of restraint so that I don't lower myself to the depths of some of the people opposite me who are making some unfortunate personal comments. I think it's interesting that the staff member for the Minister of Housing finds that amusing, because I don't find it amusing that we're having the kind of meeting we're having in the first place.

I've served thousands of hours on committees and I've never been told who I could ask a question to or how I could ask a question of ministry staff, and it's important that I ask the ministry a question on this amendment. It's my understanding that the ministry staff who are here were answering questions last week, at least at the meeting on May 19, when I wasn't here. So I would like to ask the Chair if I may ask questions to the ministry staff.

The Chair: Certainly members have the opportunity to ask questions. First the question has to be asked.

Mrs Marland: All right. If the ministry staff could come forward, I'd like to ask them about the amendment that's before us.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Chair: What I'm trying to point out, in respect to the staff, who are non-political, is that they're willing to answer questions about technicalities and things like that; they're not there to answer political questions.

The Chair: Normally what happens is that a specific question is posed. The specific question is then responded to by the person carrying the bill. If that does not satisfy members, then we of course have legislative counsel, who is with the committee and has the opportunity to clarify things for members of a technical standpoint. Certainly, if that's no longer satisfactory, the committee can ask anyone else, if the committee so wishes, to respond to that. What the Chair would advise Mrs Marland to do is to put her specific question.

Mrs Marland: Thank you. The amendment before us says, "Despite section 113 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, no order for a writ of possession of a rental unit in a land lease community or in a mobile home park shall be issued in respect of the ground set out in section" 105 "of that act." Would Mr Mills be able to read to me section 105 of that act?

Mr Mills: I think it would be appropriate for the legal staff of the Minister of Housing to come forward and answer that question.

The Chair: Gentlemen, if you'd just introduce yourselves before you respond.

Mr Michael Lyle: My name is Michael Lyle. I'm legal counsel with the Ministry of Housing.

Mr Noah Morris: My name is Noah Morris. I'm a policy adviser with the Ministry of Housing.


Mrs Marland: Excuse me. I have numbered pages, Mr Clerk.

The Chair: We are dealing with the number the clerk has assigned to the amendment for the purposes of following this bill in some kind of orderly fashion.

Mrs Marland: Right.

The Chair: You will find in the upper right-hand corner a number that says 27.

Mrs Marland: All right. I misread it. I said 105 and it's 103. Thank you, Mr Grandmaître.

Mr Lyle: You would like me to read section 103 of the Landlord and Tenant Act?

Mrs Marland: Yes, please.

Mr Lyle: "(1) Despite section 98, 99, 100, 101 or 102, where a landlord in good faith requires possession of residential premises at the end of,

"(a) the period of the tenancy; or

"(b) the term of a tenancy for a fixed term,

"for the purpose of occupation by himself or herself, his or her spouse or a child or parent of the landlord or the landlord's spouse, the period of the notice of termination required to be given is not less than sixty days.

"(2) Where a notice of termination given under subsection (1) is contested and the landlord requires possession of residential premises for a spouse or for a child or parent of a spouse, and the landlord is not married to the spouse, the landlord and the spouse shall file with the court a joint declaration of spousal status."

Mrs Marland: So it's very easy to understand that section of the Landlord and Tenant Act where it pertains to a fixed unit in a fixed building, for example, a traditional apartment building or even an apartment in a traditional house, built-form house, on a piece of property. My question concerning a land-lease community and a mobile home park is, what happens when the possession of that unit requires that unit to be moved? Does it then become in conflict with the Rental Housing Protection Act?

Mr Lyle: The Rental Housing Protection Act does not cover the situation. The landlord does not require municipal approval where the landlord is genuinely in good faith seeking personal possession of the residential premises at the end of the period of the tenancy or the term of the tenancy for a fixed term.

Mrs Marland: So if this amendment were to pass, where it says, "even if the notice of termination was given or application made for a writ of possession before the day the Land Lease Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993," the one we're dealing with, "receives royal assent, unless the approval of the council of the municipality under subsection" so-and-so "...where such approval is required." I wrote down Mr Mills's words. He said it gives retroactivity. Do you agree that it gives retroactivity?

Mr Lyle: I think the concern was the bill as it was initially drafted. If you look at the bill as initially drafted, subsection 22(2) of the bill, amending section 10, adding subsection 10(4) to the act, it refers in the fourth-last line of that subsection to "the 19th day of May, 1993," which was the date the bill received first reading. The amendment changes that reference to the date the act receives royal assent. So that removes the retroactivity which was present in the original bill.

Mrs Marland: That's what I recall Mr Wessenger saying, that although originally the bill was to be retroactive, it is no longer.

Mr Lyle: If all the amendments that have been proposed are passed, that's correct.

Mrs Marland: Is your interpretation of this bill that it isn't retroactive, then?

Mr Lyle: Once the amendments are passed, no, it would not be retroactive.

Mrs Marland: This amendment that's before us?

Mr Lyle: This amendment that's before us would remove the retroactivity which is currently in the bill.

Mrs Marland: That was my understanding from Mr Wessenger, but again I say, Mr Mills in his comments this morning said --

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: My comments on this were that it's technical in nature and it deals with retroactivity, period. That's what I said: no dates, no days, no years. It deals with retroactivity, and I stand correct that this is what it deals with.

Mrs Marland: Then you've corrected your record.

Mr Mills: I haven't corrected anything. That's what I said originally, and Hansard will show that.

Mrs Marland: I wrote down "gives retroactivity," because right away that flagged for me a concern, because Mr Wessenger has given his assurance that there would be no retroactivity to this bill.

Mr Mills: I've got what I read here. What I said is here.

Mrs Marland: When the bill was originally tabled, it was to be retroactive. That's one of the areas that really interests us, because the purpose of the bill is to be a solution for all the problems in the province, all those problems that we heard about from people who live in what was a seasonal trailer park that has become an all-year-round park, as an example. We heard terrible stories about people who have lots in a seasonal park that had shower and washroom facilities that were for that park when it was seasonal. It has evolved into an all-year-round park and those shower and washroom and laundry facilities have not been updated. I can think of three parks in particular where they have abominable situations because the landlord will not upgrade those facilities from a seasonal park facility to an all-year-round facility, although that landlord is taking rent from his tenants on an all-year-round basis.

The suggestion was that this bill was to be the remedy for these people. If the bill isn't retroactive, there's a major contradiction, because then it can't be a remedy for what exists. There's a tremendous irony, on the one hand, that Mr Wessenger and the government members are flagging this bill all around their communities: "This Bill 21 is going to be the salvation for all your problems." If it isn't retroactive, it cannot be the solution or the remedy for all their problems. That's why I wanted to be very clear about what this amendment on the floor is doing.

You see, the sad thing is, as I have said before and I will say again, the fact that we have two kinds of ownership that are impacted by this bill. We have people who own real estate and we have people who own real property in terms of a built form. Both need protection under law. This bill is not addressing the needs of those two communities.

There are rights for tenants that must be addressed. There are securities of tenure that must be addressed. There are improvements in the operations of some of these abominable seasonal trailer parks which have become mobile home parks all year round that must be addressed, and this bill doesn't do that.


It still perpetuates the rights of rotten landlords, to tell you the truth. There are some rotten landlords, as there are in any kind of operation of businesses in this province. Where we have rotten operators in business, the responsibility of government is to enact legislation that removes those kinds of operators.

One of the concerns I've had all along, because I listened to the people who made deputations before this committee, is that while some of the amendments which I understand are coming forward from Mr Wessenger, who isn't here today, are going to address some of the concerns of some of the tenants, the people who own real property, structures, there is still a whole area of concerns that this bill is not addressing.

I think it's unfortunate that there are members who have a particular kind of development in their riding -- Wilmot Creek and Sandy Cove Acres are the kind of example that I'm giving -- and those members are going to get the concerns in two areas for their constituents addressed. In the meantime, we've got something like 40,000 other tenants in land-lease communities, mobile trailer parks, whose concerns are not being addressed by this bill.

I don't see anything in this bill that deals with some of the horrific examples that were brought to this committee, and this amendment is just a further example of something that is a non-solution. What we want to see for people who choose this kind of environment to live in is the kind of protection they need to have, and this amendment doesn't give that to them.

This amendment or any other section in this bill does not protect people who wish to live in senior-only communities. This government is on the record as saying that it opposes senior-only communities; it opposes senior-only buildings. We presently have senior-only buildings that are government-owned. They can no longer be exclusively senior-only buildings.

In my opinion and the opinion of our caucus, seniors have a right to choose where they want to live, and if they choose a land-lease community or a retirement community, to use another word, they should have protection under law. The way to achieve that is there must be separate and specific laws passed by the government to protect those people in Sandy Cove Acres, those people in Wilmot Creek and in many other first-class land-lease community developments in this province. It is a new, emerging lifestyle and it is a wonderful lifestyle for those people who choose it. They are entitled to protection under law the same as condominium owners are protected under law.

When condominium living in terms of being able to buy your own individual home that is in a building rather than on an individual lot on a linear street, when condominium home development first emerged, the Conservative government in this province passed a Condominium Act to deal specifically with the needs and the protection of people who made those kinds of purchases and chose that kind of living.

What I have said throughout all of these hearings is that people who make those choices need protection. This amendment that is before us does not give them the protection they need. It doesn't give protection to the landlord either. It doesn't give protection or the choices to the tenant.

Frankly, I continue to be concerned about the fact that the information that swirls around Bill 21 is totally misleading. The information that is misleading about Bill 21 is upsetting all of those people who are affected by it, because there are people out there in these poorly managed mobile home parks and trailer parks who think Bill 21, when it's passed, will give them something they've been looking for. It won't force their property owner, "their landlord," to do for them what they need to have done.

If this government were sincerely interested in retirement communities and land-lease communities, they would bring forth legislation to address those concerns. Mr Wessenger has said, "At least Bill 21 would do something in the meantime." He has said that it would take two or three years to bring forward legislation to address the specific needs of land-lease communities and retirement communities.

It's very interesting. I guess it depends what your priorities are. If the priorities of this government are to enact legislation quickly that applies to their own particular ideology, boy, that legislation gets tabled, it gets passed, we get closure motion on debate so that we in opposition cannot even represent the interests of the people who look to us to represent their interests. It gets hammered right through first, second and third reading because that's the priority of the government.

This amendment that's on the floor obviously is not a priority of the government to protect the people who live in these communities. If the government were interested in these people, they wouldn't leave it to a private member's bill; they would bring in their own legislation.

I'm going to vote against this amendment because it does not give the scope of protection for the people who own mobile and modular homes.

Before we vote on this amendment, I have another question for staff. It refers to rental units in land-lease communities and mobile home parks, and I would like to know whether those rental units are also under Bill 120.

Mr Lyle: I have spoken to some of my colleagues in the ministry who have more knowledge of the accessory apartment issue. As I understand it, your question is related to whether an accessory apartment is possible in a mobile home. Is that what you are asking?

Mrs Marland: No. My question is: Accessory apartments do exist in some trailer parks and land-lease communities now because some of these homes do have basements that are rented. Bill 120 precludes legal basement apartments or accessory apartments where there are -- the only exclusion frankly is where they are not on sewers. There's no exclusion as to size of lot under Bill 120. There's no exclusion as to square footage of the building in Bill 120. Whether it's a small or large modular home, if it has a basement and the lot is being served by a sewage system, my assumption is that Bill 120 applies, and that's the purpose of my question.


Mr Lyle: As I understand it, the regulations that are proposed will provide that accessory apartments will not be legal in mobile homes in which there's no hookup with the municipal sewage system. It's also my understanding, and obviously I really don't have much expertise in the area of accessory apartments, that there is some impact, depending on the provisions of the zoning bylaws, requirements of parking and issues like that, as to whether it would be possible to have an accessory apartment in a particular mobile home. That will depend on the zoning bylaw that's applicable.

Mrs Marland: Thank you for your answer. I'm not going to debate it with you, but I will say to the Chair, for the record, that zoning bylaws are pre-empted by Bill 120. Bill 120 pre-empts the Planning Act, the Municipal Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Rental Housing Protection Act, and I think there's another one. That was the concern we had about Bill 120 and as it pertains to Bill 21.

As this amendment that's on the floor refers to rental units, I think it's important for the people who live in Wilmot Creek and Sandy Cove Acres, who according to some of the statements that have been made in this committee are so anxious to have this bill passed, that they should also know that if they are on a sewage system when this bill is passed --

Mr Mills: They're just waiting to get an apartment in their homes.

Mrs Marland: -- if somebody chooses to sell their unit and the next person who moves in chooses to have a double occupancy through an accessory apartment, it is legal because Bill 120 supersedes all other acts. That is the concern we have had.

I hope those members who are representing their constituencies that have these kinds of development in them are giving them the whole story about what other acts are going to affect their lifestyle.

Mr Morris: If I may, I should point out that Bill 120 has a provincial standard that the unit will have to meet, and the vast majority, 99% of modular units don't have basements and don't have the ability to meet those standards, parking or otherwise, and they have to be on municipal sewers, not private sewer systems.

Mrs Marland: The wording in the act didn't say municipal sewers, I don't think.

Mr Lyle: The wording in the act does not say municipal sewers.

Mrs Marland: I'm correct; it doesn't say municipal sewers.

Mr Lyle: My understanding from my colleagues is that it is proposed regulations.

Mr Arnott: There are land-lease communities that aren't predominantly modular homes, though, all kinds of them. I have some in Wellington county.

The Chair: The Chair is having some difficulty understanding how this relates directly to the amendment that is in front of us.

Mr Mills: Me too; it's crazy, absolutely crazy.

The Chair: It is an interesting and important discussion, but I'm not certain it is totally relevant, but I can be convinced.

Mrs Marland: We're talking about --

Mr Mills: Two-foot crawl space for one-foot-tall people.

Mrs Marland: -- units that exist in Ontario today, but you see, the thing about Bill 21 which I hope Mr Mills understands is that Bill 21 doesn't say it only applies to buildings that exist today. This bill is going to affect every building from this day forward that fits the description of the application of the bill.

When people build in these land-lease developments and choose to have basements -- the fact is that it doesn't matter whether one exists today or 200 exist today. I recall that when we had the public meetings I said something about, "Well, I guess they don't have basements," and I remember this man who was sitting in the back row who stood up and said: "You don't even know what kind of developments we have. Of course we have basements." He was highly indignant that I didn't know they had basements, for which I publicly apologized, because I don't pretend to know everything about everything like some politicians do. I publicly apologized because I didn't know they had basements.

There is no exclusion in Bill 120 as it pertains to size of building and that has been a concern for us. There can be an accessory apartment even without a basement. That's the whole point. There can be a granny flat for 10 years in your land-lease community lot.

The Chair: Can we bring this discussion more closely to the amendment that is before us?

Mrs Marland: Yes, certainly, because we're talking about "a writ of possession of a rental unit," and I'm simply confirming that the rental unit in a land-lease community or mobile home park may in fact involve two families. I want the people in these land-lease communities and mobile home parks to know that the government has passed a bill that affects what can be in their land-lease community and mobile home park if they are on a sewer system. There is no requirement for a municipal sewage system, just a sewage system.

These very well designed, well-planned, land-lease communities that are well managed and operate in this province, with people in good faith who have also invested in their modular homes in those properties, now are faced with Bill 120, which can permit them to have another unit within their unit or a granny flat on their lot, because the parking requirements and the other standards are not referred to in the bill. The parking requirements we have on record in answers to my question to the minister are not a requirement but a choice of a municipality. So there is no protection for the people in Wilmot Creek and Sandy Cove Acres against Bill 120. On this amendment, as it refers to a rental unit, we have to be very clear what that rental unit may in fact be.

The Chair: Further questions or comments to Mr Mills's amendment to section 22?

All those in favour of Mr Mills's amendment?

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, we need a recorded vote and I would ask for 20 minutes to get the Liberal members back.

The Chair: We will reconvene the committee at 3:30 to take the vote immediately after routine proceedings.

The committee recessed from 1150 to 1543.

The Chair: The committee will come to order. The next order of business is a vote --

Mrs Marland: A point of order.

The Chair: -- which will be a recorded vote, on Mr Mills's amendment to section 22. All those in favour?

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, are you going to accept a point of order?

The Chair: No.

Mrs Marland: All right. Then I'll ask for a recorded vote and 20 minutes to get the members.

The Chair: We've asked for the 20 minutes. It is a recorded vote. That was asked for. All in favour?


Carter, Mammoliti, Wessenger, White.

The Chair: Those opposed?


Grandmaître, Marland.

The Chair: The amendment is carried.

Mrs Marland: What is Mrs Mathyssen doing?

Clerk of the Committee: Mrs Mathyssen is just visiting. She's not a substituted member this afternoon. She was a substituted member this morning.

The Chair: The amendment is carried.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Is it in order to substitute members for a morning session only?

Clerk of the Committee: If the substitution slip clearly indicates in the morning when I receive it that the member would only be appearing for the morning, not the afternoon, then yes.

Mrs Marland: And that was the case with Mrs Mathyssen. Is Mr Mammoliti a member of the committee?

Clerk of the Committee: Yes, he is. So is Mr Wessenger.

Mrs Marland: And Mr White?

Clerk of the Committee: And Mr White.

Mr Grandmaître: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Does the fact that this amendment was moved by Mr Mills and Mr Mills is not present make a difference?

The Chair: No, it does not make a difference.

Mr Grandmaître: Gee, they would have had five chairs.

The Chair: The vote was 2 to 4. It is carried.

Do I have further questions, comments or further amendments to section 22 of the bill?

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, a further point of order: Is anyone permitted to substitute for Mr Gordon Mills, the member for Oshawa, who was ejected from the House this afternoon?

Mr White: Mr Mills is not the member for Oshawa; he's the member for Durham East.

The Chair: Mr Mills cannot be substituted for, because the substitution would have had to have occurred within 20 minutes of the committee meeting starting this morning.

Mrs Marland: That's what I thought. Does this mean then that for the afternoon we only have four government members voting?

The Chair: I'm told Mr Dadamo is a member of the committee.

Mrs Marland: I see. And a quorum of this committee is what?

The Chair: Seven.

Shall section 22, as amended, carry?

Interjections: Carried.

Mrs Marland: No. Can we have a recorded vote?

The Chair: All those in favour will say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. You want a recorded vote?

Mrs Marland: Yes.

The Chair: All in favour?


Carter, Mammoliti, Wessenger, White.


Grandmaître, Marland.

The Chair: The section, as amended, is carried.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, apparently the clerk doesn't have the Conservative amendments. Is that so?

Clerk of the Committee: No, I have them.

Mrs Marland: Do you have all of them, from the beginning?

Clerk of the Committee: My understanding is that you would proceed with the two last amendments to section 25, and the other ones, you'd vote against sections 16 to 24.

Mrs Marland: I did submit amendments to sections 16 to 24. I'm looking at white copies now. Is it correct that the amendments from 16 to 24 were not needed simply because we are to vote against them?

Clerk of the Committee: Yes. This is just to make sure that members are aware that that is what you wish to do. It's just a notice.

The Chair: Do all members have copies of all amendments that are proposed to be placed? Good.

Section 23: Questions, comments or amendments to section 23 of the bill?

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I'd like to indicate that I'm recommending voting against section 23. It is no longer applicable with respect to the bill because the provisions relating to its applicability are no longer there.


Mrs Marland: Could Mr Wessenger explain?

Mr Wessenger: In the original bill, as it was set out, there was to be a retroactivity provision going back to the date of introduction of the bill, and there was a provision for damages to be paid for anyone not getting the approvals necessary during that interim period. It was determined that the provision for an interim period was legally inoperable, so the interim period was not dealt with. It's now proposed that the bill will come into effect on the date of royal assent rather than the original date. These provisions relate to the right to sue for damages in the event of someone acting according to a final order of court, which was felt to be not appropriate: to override the court order.

Mr Grandmaître: You're saying that section 23 is now redundant?

Mr Wessenger: It should not be there because the provisions relating to the aspect of it being retroactive to a specific date are not to be there. It provided for a very complex procedure of damages which was felt to be very unworkable and likely to be thrown out by any court. We're deleting the provisions because they would not be workable and likely found by a court not to hold up.

Mrs Marland: As Mr Wessenger wasn't here this morning and we did have some discussion this morning on retroactivity -- we also had some discussion about my non-attendance at the meeting you had on Monday, May 15 -- I was wondering if you would tell the committee whether or not you had a conversation with me which did cover retroactivity and some of the other changes you were proposing to the bill, and also the fact that we spoke on Thursday, Friday and Saturday prior to that meeting on Monday and I told you I could not attend. I was wondering if you'd like to confirm that fact.

Mr Wessenger: I would certainly confirm that you had advised me you would not be attending the meeting on that particular date. Yes, that's correct.

Mrs Marland: I appreciate that. This morning Mrs Mathyssen said you were waiting to start the meeting for my arrival.

Mrs Marland: I thought your bill was to try to resolve the problems around the province for people who live in mobile home parks and trailer parks. As you're removing the retroactivity now, can you tell me how any section of the bill, including this one that you're now suggesting we vote against, can be a remedy for those parks that presently exist if the bill isn't retroactive?

Mr Wessenger: Although the bill would not be retroactive with respect to a matter that has been judicially determined, still, if court proceedings were in process or if a notice had been sent out to remove tenants from a property, the bill would be retroactive to the extent that all those proceedings would be stopped in their tracks. The bill is retroactive to the extent that any proceedings would be of no effect. It only would be of effect if there was a final court order obtained. The difficulty was with the prior provision for attempting to override final court orders; that was felt to be extremely problematic, to put it mildly. It was felt it would not stand up to try to override court orders.

Mrs Marland: We heard from a lot of tenants who had a lot of concerns. We also heard from property owners, the real estate property owners, who had concerns. If none of those concerns are before the courts, this bill can't touch them?

Mr Wessenger: No. For instance, to give a specific example, if a landlord had commenced an application under the Landlord and Tenant Act to get vacant possession of the lands that are a mobile home park, and the matter had not come up for a hearing and a judge had not made a final decision on the matter, when this act came into effect, it would prevail over whatever the court proceedings. In other words, the court proceedings could not continue.

Mrs Marland: Because it hadn't reached a final decision.

Mr Wessenger: That's right, if they hadn't got a final decision. But if a final court order had been obtained ahead of the act coming into effect, of course that final court order would stand up, as is the normal practice. Normally legislation does not override prior court decisions.

Mrs Marland: In light of that answer, can you tell me why you wanted to proceed with this bill before the meeting which you have scheduled for Tuesday, June 7, with all parties who have an interest in the bill?

Mr Wessenger: What we have been proceeding with doing is dealing with the technical aspects of the bill. You'll note there are a number of matters that have been stood down. The matters of substance that were stood down were those related to the whole question of section 11, which is basically the substantive item of the bill. There are a great deal of technical aspects to the bill and a small number of major, substantial items. The ones in dispute, with respect to the question of first right of refusal and the whole question of the signs, were stood down to see if we can get a resolution of those matters.

Mr Grandmaître: Was the Ontario Land Lease Federation aware of the motions that were stood down?

Mr Wessenger: I believe all the amendments have been filed except the one we're presently working on with respect to signs. That one they would not yet be aware of because it's still being drafted by legislative counsel.

Mr Grandmaître: Is that the only one they're not aware of?

Mr Wessenger: I believe that would be the only one that would not be available to them. All the rest have been filed, most of them for a long time, with the committee. Certainly we've been providing copies of those amendments to those who requested them as best we could.

Mr Grandmaître: I have a letter in front of me dated May 2. I don't know if a meeting was organized after that date, but this letter claims that Mr Wessenger and Mr Gordon Mills were supposed to set up a meeting with the Ontario Land Lease Federation and that this meeting or meetings never took place. Am I right in saying this?

Mr Wessenger: A meeting had been arranged in which all parties --

Mr Grandmaître: It's been arranged, but it hasn't taken place.

Mr Wessenger: There is a meeting taking place on June 7, Tuesday afternoon at 4 pm.

Mr Grandmaître: But you still claim that the Ontario Land Lease Federation is aware of the motions.


Mr Wessenger: The amendments have been available to whomever requested them. The only amendment I'm aware of that is not yet available is the latest draft -- there have been various drafts along the way -- the revision with respect to size.

Mr Grandmaître: Wasn't that the reason the Ontario Land Lease Federation didn't want you to take any action on this bill until this meeting or meetings took place with the Ontario Land Lease Federation?

Mr Wessenger: They may have put forward a position. My position was very clearly put forward that I intended to deal with the technical items to get them out of the way, and that's my intention. Once we finish the technical items today, I would suggest we adjourn the meeting. I'd be quite agreeable to that suggestion.

Mrs Marland: Regarding section 23, I have copies of correspondence between various interested parties, correspondence that went both to the clerk of this committee and to Mr Wessenger as the proponent of the bill. In a number of these letters, concern has been expressed by the authors of the letters that they have requested copies of the amendments and had not been able to receive the amendments, although they had asked both Mr Wessenger and Mr Mills for those amendments.

We are in the position where we are dealing with what in Mr Wessenger's opinion is purely a "technical" amendment. I am not a retirement community property owner, nor do I have any interests in real estate or real property or buildings that are affected in any way by this legislation, so as a member of this committee I don't know what is purely a technical amendment. It's a rather difficult position to be in when those people who have an interest in this bill, namely, the parties that, informally, Mr Wessenger and Mr Grandmaître and I agreed we should have a meeting with -- those parties couldn't even get copies of Mr Wessenger's amendments.

Frankly, Mr Wessenger, I should tell you, now that you're here, that I felt very betrayed by the fact that after a subcommittee meeting where the majority agreed that this bill would not proceed until after we'd had the meeting with all the stakeholders, you came to the committee and placed another motion that this bill proceed.

I probably should be doing the same thing the Liberal Housing critic is doing, which is to not attend these meetings, but I have chosen to hang in, and have said to you both on the phone and in our subcommittee meetings that if we could all sit together in one room with all the stakeholders and hear what all their concerns were, I believe there's a solution for anything. If everybody heard what everybody was concerned about at the same time, there could possibly be a workable solution. But your actions today have been only to proceed with your bill from your own perspective, and I find that very difficult to deal with.

Now you're saying that section 23 will no longer apply, so let's vote against it. I'm really at a loss to deal with any of these motions without having had the benefit of that meeting, and that meeting is taking place on Tuesday -- finally. You should know that this morning Ms Mathyssen said I had been given due notice of that meeting and chose not to attend, whereas you know I was given due notice of that meeting on Thursday and in fact apologized for the way it had been handled. I think I've been treated very unfairly in this whole debate. Obviously, there are members in your caucus who haven't known of what your conversation with me has been, and then you came into a meeting and, as I said, betrayed me by saying you were going to proceed with those things that were technical.

Well, I think an amendment that deals with a writ of possession of a rental unit is more than just a technical amendment. If you really want to succeed with this bill, as I've said to you on a number of occasions, everything should be up front and out on the table, and the parties to the bill -- both the tenants and the landlords, as your members like to describe them -- have to have full access to all the amendments, so they can deal with them and have logical comment and maybe constructive alternatives -- I don't know, maybe just support them -- prior to the meeting on Tuesday.

Before we vote on this amendment, I'd like to ask you if all the people coming to your meeting -- it's your bill -- that I've agreed to come to on Tuesday now have all the amendments. The reason I ask is that I sat down at this table half an hour ago and I've just been handed three new amendments. I want to know what's going on. I've been handed an amendment to section 9, I've got an amendment to section 23(1) and 24(1). I'd like to know whose amendments these are, because you've just moved a motion that we vote against section 23.

You can sit here and say all this is technical, but as I said this morning, any statute in the province of Ontario is technical. It applies a law; a statute is a law, and yes, there are technicalities to the implementation of that law. To say we can deal with it because it's just a technicality -- well, I'm sorry. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not in a position to know whether these amendments we're now dealing with will have impact with those groups we're meeting with next Tuesday.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I believe we were dealing with section 23, which is not an amendment, and the member keeps referring to amendments which are not before us.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr White. All members know they should speak to the section we are debating.


Mrs Marland: Could Mr Wessenger tell me, before I need to vote against section 23, what this amendment I've just been handed is?

Mr Wessenger: We can't discuss those amendments except to say they have been drafted by legislative counsel, obviously wanting to ensure that the motions are in order and that they carry out the intent of the bill. In any legislative process, there's always last-minute technical amendments that occur, in any bill.

We're dealing with section 23, which is not an amendment, although, to be fair, one could argue it is a substantive item, but a substantive item that I think everyone would agree ought not to be in the bill. It's getting rid of material that would not make a workable bill. On that basis, I think we should proceed with deleting it. It's just like the prior occasion when we deleted the provision with respect to the reserve fund, which was felt to be unworkable. In order words, we got rid of the clutter. This is certainly getting the clutter out of the bill.

Mrs Marland: I don't know, until I meet with the groups, what is of interest to them. We have three more amendments that the groups don't have. Legislative counsel does not prepare amendments without direction from someone. Could I ask, through the Chair, who directed legislative counsel to prepare the three amendments I've just received?

Ms Sibylle Filion: I can answer that. The three amendments you've just received replace motions that have been tabled previously. The one referring to section 23.1 of the bill is to replace the next motion, which is circled number 29 at the top right-hand corner. And there's another motion to add section 24.1 to the bill, which replaces the motion that is circled number 31 in the top right-hand corner.

Mrs Marland: Who directed you to prepare these motions?

Ms Filion: I was sort of acting on my own accord, based on my discussions with the clerk. The previous motions that had been tabled were not in order, and these motions replace them because they're presented in such a way that the committee could deal with them.

Mrs Marland: So they're replacing 29 and 31.

Ms Filion: Yes. They don't make any substantive changes.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We're not dealing with those amendments yet. We're dealing with section 23, which is not an amendment.

The Chair: Mr White is correct.

Mrs Marland: Mr White can play whatever games he wants to.


Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, I'm going to withdraw from this committee. I'm sitting here trying to do a job which apparently entertains Mrs Mathyssen. If she thinks what is taking place here is humorous, that's her choice; it's not mine. I will withdraw.

Mrs Mathyssen: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I know Mrs Marland is multitalented, but I'm afraid she is not yet capable of mindreading. I think she should bear that in mind.

Mrs Marland: I am capable of hearing laughter.

The Chair: Can we deal with section 23?

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, I do not wish to proceed with this bill prior to the meeting with the interested groups on Tuesday. I hope Mr Wessenger has invited everyone to that meeting who has an interest in this bill, from both sides. I will not sit here and have --

The Chair: Section 23, please.

Mrs Marland: -- government members trying to intimidate the opposition, so I will withdraw from the committee until after we have had the meeting on Tuesday.

The Chair: Further discussion to section 23? Shall section 23 carry?

Mr Wessenger: Carried.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, I don't think you have a quorum.

Interjections: No.

Clerk of the Committee: She's asking for a quorum, Mr Chair.

The Chair: But she's not in her chair. No. Section 23 is lost.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, don't you need seven for a quorum?

The Chair: Section 23.1.

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

"23.1. The act is amended by adding the following section:

"Commencement of activity under subsection 4(1.2)

"13.1. Until a certificate is issued under subsection 13(6), no person shall commence the activity mentioned in subsection 4(1.2)."

The purpose of this amendment is related to a certificate for an appeal, and it's just to ensure that no work is commenced until the appeal time has gone by.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, I have a point of order. Did you advise at the beginning that seven was a quorum?

The Chair: That's the standing order.

Mrs Marland: You have five government members, and you make six.

Mr White: And yourself.

Mrs Marland: If I withdraw, the committee does not have a quorum.

The Chair: How many members do we have?

Clerk of the Committee: Six. Mrs Mathyssen is not a member.

The Chair: Have you asked for a quorum call in the committee, Mrs Marland? Is that what the Chair has been asked?

Mrs Marland: Yes.

The Chair: There is not a quorum present. Standing orders permit 10 minutes for a quorum to be established in the committee. In the next 10 minutes we need to have seven members here.

The committee recessed from 1618 to 1627.

The Chair: A quorum is now present.

Mrs Marland: Are you counting me?

Clerk of the Committee: Yes. You're in the committee room.

Mrs Marland: I understand if you withdraw from the table, you are not counted. If you want me to withdraw from the room, I will, but we've always ruled, even for voting purposes, that if you withdraw from the desk you're not counted.

The Chair: Mr Wessenger, we were discussing 23.1

Mr Wessenger: The purpose of this motion is to indicate that no person shall commence any activity or work until the period has ended for filing an appeal. It's a normal process to protect the rights of the individuals until the appeal process goes by. It's a substitution for a previous amendment which we're withdrawing, which will not be moved because it would be out of order.

Mr Daigeler: Can I just ask a question? I have to be in the House a bit later on because I'm speaking to the famous bill. Are we still under the understanding we were this morning, that the controversial amendments will be coming at a later date?

Mr Wessenger: Yes, Mr Daigeler. I won't proceed beyond what Mr Mills indicated this morning.

The Chair: Further questions or comments to Mr Wessenger's amendment 23.1? Shall 23.1 carry? Carried.

Section 24: Questions, comments or amendments?

Mr Wessenger: I move that section 24 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"24(1) Section 18 of the act is amended by adding the following clause:

"(a.1) prescribing things that are part of the infrastructure of a land lease community or a mobile park for the purposes of the definition of infrastructure in section 1.

"(2) Clause 18(c) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"(c) prescribing, for the purposes of subsection 11(7), the criteria upon which approval may be granted or refused under subsection 4(1), 4(1.2) or 5(1) and prescribing different criteria to apply with respect to land lease communities and mobile home parks and with respect to the conversion of land lease communities and mobile home parks to any class of non-profit cooperative housing."

The purpose of this amendment is to add the right to prescribe with respect to an earlier amendment in terms of infrastructure.

The Chair: Further questions or comments? Shall Mr Wessenger's amendment to section 24 carry? Carried.

Shall the section, as amended, carry? Carried.

Now I believe there is a motion to add section 24.1.


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

"24.1 The act is amended by adding the following section:


"19.1 Every person who contravenes subsection 4(1.2) and every director or officer of a corporation who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both, but no person is guilty of an offence if the person did not know, and in the exercise of due diligence could not have known, of the contravention."

This is a substitution for the previously filed section 24.1, which was out of order. This basically relates to the penalty provisions, to ensure that the same ones that are in the Landlord and Tenant Act apply to a breach under the provisions of this act.

The Chair: Questions or comments? Further amendments? Shall Mr Wessenger's amendment to section 24.1 carry? Carried.

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

"24.2 The act is amended by adding the following section:

"Delegation by minister

"23. The minister may delegate in writing any power or duty granted to or vested in the minister under this act to another member of the executive council or to persons or classes of persons employed in the public service of Ontario."

This is a normal delegation provision that's in most bills.

The Chair: Further questions, comments? Shall Mr Wessenger's amendment, section 24.2, carry? Carried.

Section 25.

Mr Wessenger: I move that section 25 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:


"25. The act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent."

I think that's quite obvious.

The Chair: Questions, comments? You think the reason is obvious. Carried.

Shall section 25, as amended, carry? Carried.

Mr Wessenger: We have some technical provisions that were stood down, and we might just review the ones that were stood down. There's a section 9.1 to be added, if I'm correct. It's another technical amendment.

The Chair: Just so everyone is clear, we're moving to section 9.1, which is in reality a new section.

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

"9.1 The act is amended by adding the following section:


"122.1 Any person who knowingly contravenes section 125.2 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding,

"(a) $5,000 for a person other than a corporation; and

"(b) $25,000 for a corporation."

This is to provide a separate penalty provision.

The Chair: Questions, comments? Further amendments? Shall Mr Wessenger's amendment, section 9.1, carry? Carried.

Mr Wessenger: I'd like to withdraw the motion on 10.1.

The Chair: We need unanimous consent. Agreed. Mr Wessenger has withdrawn his amendment, section 10.1.

Mr Wessenger: I'm sorry to take so long, but I have to rely on leg counsel to assist me in these things.

The Chair: That's fine. We have a bit of time.

Mr Wessenger: Previously we passed 16(2), which is a technical amendment, but there was a problem with respect to its language, as was pointed out by the clerk, and we need unanimous consent to withdraw that amendment. Could I have unanimous consent?

The Chair: Agreed.

Clerk of the Committee: Excuse me, please. The amendment was carried, therefore it becomes part of the bill. As it is part of the legislation, therefore all he has to do is move that amendment, which would cross this out.

The Chair: All right. We are dealing with subsection 16(2).

Mr Wessenger: I move that subsection 16(2) of the bill, as amended by the standing committee on general government on Thursday, May 19, 1994, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(2) Until subsection 27(2) of the Residents' Rights Act, 1994 comes into force the definition of `rental property' in section 1 of the act shall be deemed to read as follows:

"`rental property' means,

"(a) a building or related group of buildings in which one or more rental units are located,

"(b) a mobile home park in which two or more rental units are located, or

"(c) a land lease community in which two or more rental units are located,

"and includes all common areas and services and facilities available for the use of its residents, but does not include a condominium.

"(2.1) On the day subsection 27(2) of the Residents' Rights Act, 1994 comes into force or on the day this section comes into force, whichever is later, the definition of `rental property' in section 1 of the act, as re-enacted by subsection 27(2) of the Residents' Rights Act, 1994, is repealed and the following substituted:

"`rental property' means,

"(a) a building or related group of buildings in which one or more rental units are located,

"(b) a mobile home park in which two or more rental units are located, or

"(c) a land lease community in which two or more rental units are located,

"and includes all common areas and services and facilities available for the use of its residents, but does not include,

"(d) a condominium,

"(e) accommodation that is subject to the Public Hospitals Act, the Private Hospitals Act, the Community Psychiatric Hospitals Act, the Mental Hospitals Act, the Homes for Special Care Act, the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act, the Homes for Retarded Persons Act, the Nursing Homes Act, the Correctional Services Act, the Charitable Institutions Act, the Child and Family Services Act or the Developmental Services Act, or

"(f) accommodation occupied by a person solely for the purpose of receiving rehabilitative or therapeutic services agreed upon by the person and the provider of the accommodation, where,

"(i) the parties have agreed that,

"(A) the period of occupancy will be of a specified duration, or

"(B) the occupancy will terminate when the objectives of the services have been met or will not be met, and

"(ii) the average length of the occupancy of the occupants of the building in which the accommodation is located does not exceed six months or such lesser time period as the regulations made under this act prescribe."

This was necessitated to ensure that it correlated with Bill 120, which has already received third reading.

The Chair: Shall Mr Wessenger's amendment to 16(2) carry? Carried.

Mr Wessenger, do you wish section 16 left open?

Mr Wessenger: Can I just ask if there are any further amendments to section 16, from legislative counsel?

The Chair: I'm informed by the clerk that there are no further amendments to section 16.

Mr Wessenger: We might as well deal with it.

Clerk of the Committee: I apologize; there is an amendment, 16(5).

The Chair: Was it stood down because it's controversial?

Clerk of the Committee: This is the unorganized territories.

Mr Wessenger: I'll leave it to the Chair to determine whether he wishes to push it.

The Chair: I recall now. I had asked questions of staff and I don't believe we've received information.

Mr Wessenger: Why don't we leave it stood down and deal with the other technical ones.

The Chair: That sounds good to me. I'm told you have an amendment on section 17 that you may wish to withdraw.

Mr Wessenger: Yes, I'd wish to withdraw the one that's been put.

The Chair: Consent to withdraw? Agreed.

Place your new amendment, Mr Wessenger.

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

"17. Subsection 2(1) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"Application of act

"2(1) Despite any act or agreement to the contrary, this act applies to,

"(a) any rental property comprised of a building or a related group of buildings situated in any municipality in Ontario except municipalities that are exempted by the regulation; and

"(b) all rental properties that are land lease communities or mobile home parks."

This is a substitution for the previous one that was not in the proper form.

The Chair: Further questions or comments? Shall Mr Wessenger's amendment to section 17 carry? Carried.

Do you wish section 17 to remain open or shall we carry the section?

Mr Wessenger: I don't think there's any reason to leave section 17 open.

The Chair: Shall section 17, as amended, carry? Carried.

Is that it?

Mr Wessenger: That's all the technical ones.

The Chair: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

Mr Wessenger: Yes, I move that we adjourn.

The Chair: Mr Wessenger has moved that the committee now adjourn. All those in favour? Agreed.

The committee will stand adjourned until Thursday morning next.

The committee adjourned at 1645.