Manitoba Committee Hansard — 17 July 1980 (Statutory Regulations and Orders Committee, Sitting 5, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-sro5

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY REGULATIONS AND ORDERS 29 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker THURSDAY, 17 JULY, 1980, 8: 00 p.m. Printed by W. T.Matw icllyna. a.-m Printer, Province ol """itoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V Thirty - First Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, A. R. (Pete) ANDERSON,Bob BANMAN, Hon. Robert (Bob) BARROW, Tom BLAKE, David BOSTROM, Harvey BOYCE, J. R. (Bud) BROWN, Arnold CHERNIACK, Q.C., Saul CORRIN, Brian COSENS, Hon. Keith A. COWAN, Jay CRAIK, Hon. Donald W. DESJARDINS, Laurent L. DOERN, Russell DOMINO, Len DOWNEV, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim GOURLA V, Hon. Doug GRAHAM, Hon. Harry E.

GREEN, Q.C., Sidney HANUSCHAK, Ben HYDE, Lloyd G. JENKINS, William JOHNSTON, Hon. J. Frank JORGENSON, Hon. Warner H. KOVNATS, Abe LYON, Hon. Sterling R. MacMASTER, Hon. Ken MALINOWSKI, Donald McBRYDE, Ronald McGILL, Hon. Edward McGREGOR, Morris McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., Hon. Gerald W. J. MILLER, Saul A. MINAKER, Hon. George ORCHARD, Hon. Donald PARASIUK, Wilson PAWLEV, Q.C., Howard PRICE, Hon. Norma RANSOM, Hon. Brian SCHROEDER, Vie SHERMAN, Hon. L. R. (Bud) STEEN, Warren URUSKI, Billie USKIW, Samuel WALDING, D. James WESTBURY, June WILSON, Robert G. Constituency Ste.

Rose Spring field La Verendrye Flin Flon Minnedosa Rupertsland Winnipeg Centre Rhineland St. Johns Wellington Gimli Churchill Aiel St. Boniface Elm wood St. Matthews Arthur Emerson Rock Lake Lakeside Brandon East Gladstone River Heights Kildonan Dauphin Swan River Birtle-Russell lnkster Burrows Portage la Prairie Logan Sturgeon Creek Morris Radisson Charleswood Thompson Point Douglas The Pas Brandon West Virden Roblin Osborne Seven Oaks St. James Pembina Transcona Selkirk Assiniboia Souris-Killarney Rossmere Fort Garry Crescentwood St. George Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Fort Rouge Wolseley Party NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC PC lnd NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP NDP Lib PC

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY REGULATIONS AND ORDERS Thursday, 17 July, 1980 Time - 8:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN - Mr. Warren Steen (Crescentwood). MR. CHAIRMAN: Can the committee come to order, please? To members of the committee and to the general public, earlier this afternoon I read through the prepared list that the Clerk's office had compiled as to persons that were int erested in making representation to this committee regarding Bill 83. lt was agreed upon by the committee with the encouragement of Mr.

Jorgenson that we should have an even ing sitting and hearing this even ing to allow any persons that had their name on the list but were not able to be present either this afternoon, or last even ing, or yesterday afternoon, to be given another opportunity to make a presentation. I have a list that shows 81 names, of which approximately 20 to 25 persons have made representation to the committee.

What I will do is 1 will go through the names again and if there are persons present who are not on the list, I would ask you if you would let the Clerk know, through the lady at the back of the room, your name and the fact that you would like to make representation and she can bring the name forward to the Clerk. The first name on the prepared list of persons who were called once tha t have not been in a position to make representation or haven 't been present, and I will go through them again. Hilda Peiluck; is Hilda Peiluck avai labl e and present? Tom Wojcikowski, Tom Wojcikowski. Janet Paxton.

Janet Paxton, would you like to make representation to the committee? Please come forward. BILL NO. 83 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT AND THE CONDOMINIUM ACT MRS. JANET PAXTON: Good even ing, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak out on behalf of just the ordinary working person, which I am, in Manitoba in reaction to the bill. The bill to release landlords from rental controls is ill-timed and made with little consideration for the situation of many Manitobans in the present inflationary times.

While those people who rent magn ificent new high- rise apartments offering luxuri es beyond the average worke r's dreams may be able to survive an increase in rental costs, there is a large mass of population who live in one, two, maybe three-bedroom apartments who cannot contemplate how they will manage a further increase in their rent right now. This bill was made without regard to the majority of ranters. Just take a walk down Edmonton Street perhaps and I could give you the number of a house wher e some pensioners and people who are unemployed live.

I met one of them, I took her home with me for Christmas dinn er several times, and this one little lady can tell what a big occasion it was for 75 that bunch of ranters, to put their extra money together one time and buy a big chicken. Now, what will happen to them when their landlord, without a doubt, raises their rent at least 10, 20, 30.00 a month?

What will happen is that pensioners, who even now live at a level which does not always allow them to get really decent nourishment, and everyone kn ows it but ignores the fact, will become even more malnourished; they will become ill more frequently; they will require hospitalization more often; they will not sacrifice their privacy and independence which is so precious to the elderly. Many of them do not wish to live with their childr en; they do not wish to be treated as less than fully-functioning adults.

They are the labour ers of yesterday who contributed to the wealth of the very people, or their descendants, who are now their landlords ind irectly in many cases. You still are asking them to pay for the excessive riches of those who look, not with compassion, at pensioners in rooming houses, but with dollar bills ringing up in their eyes. The Arbitration Board you propose is no guarantee of protection for these pensioners. Who will the arbitr ators be?

Will they be brothers, nephews, golfing buddi es of landlords or will th ey be completely fair and far removed from personal contact with those who rent decontrols will benefit? We don't know whose going to make the decisions . . . the citizens of Manitoba. Another category of persons who will be heard by this release of rental controls are those person living alone. Read the newspaper some time and you will see particularly, for one example, in Office Help Wanted, do you ever read the salaries that the workers in Manitoba get? One is 750.00 a month for a secretary with experience.

Now, if it was a young lady who came into the city because there's no work in her rural area, and that's the case in most rural areas, the young people must come in the city in order to find a job; she's going to have to rent a place in the city in order to hold down that job. We will say she pays 200.00 a month for rent. When one considers her tiny take-home pay, less deductions, it does not leave her very much to live on. People are charging their lives away right now in order to make ends meet.

She always has the option of putting an ad in the paper for a stranger to share the apartment or ask a girl friend to share the tiny suite with her. How many of you gentlemen sitting here would like to go home after a hard day's work and find that you have as much privacy as if you were living in a goldfish bowl? The friend has friends and you never know if you dare sit in your own living room in a housecoat, in case someone you've never seen in your life before appears on the doorstep. Sharing an apartment's cost is going to be the only answer now for people living alone if rental controls are lifted.

The quality of life is going down rapidly under the present Manitoba government and will go down even more if this bill is passed.

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 Another group who will be affected is the young, married people who may now be crammed into dilapidated suites they are scratching to afford right now. While the high-income people have to cut back a bit on their trips to Hawaii when the rents go up, these average Manitoban young couples - and they are the majority of Manitobans - just starting out with a family will have to cut back on milk for the children. lt will go down to five quarts a week instead of seven, maybe, for three small children. That's the way people do live. lt is going to hit them very hard.

They see right now where they don't have a hope to ever own a home of their own.

The increased rates will ensure they will never be able to put away even 20 a month towards a down payment on a house of their own. lt is not meant to be utopia for everyone, everyone has problems but continued and increased rises in the cost of living, like a tunnel narrowing and in front of people with no end in sight, creates feelings of frustration and anger, particularly if the landlord happens to be someone who bought and paid for the block for a song many years ago and has earned the price of the initial investment 20 times over and now hopes to inc.-ease it by another 40 percent.

All landlords are not greedy and I, fortunately, have one of those kind. I think that he's extremely fair and reasonable, but I am thinking of some families I have seen crammed into disreputable old apartment suites, which is so far removed from what one would consider gracious living, and because of their young children, they have no hope of getting into a better place where they are accepted and the price is within their means. I once said that it seemed to me that nobody should be allowed to sit in the provincial or federal Cabinet until they served a training period.

Just as all new employees are indoctrinated into their specific jobs, there is something required in the education of those who wield such power and affect other people's lives with their decisions, besides the goodwill of the people who elected them. Too often, we have people elected who do not know the meaning of the word, poor, deprived, or they have forgotten it by the time they reach the point where they are elected into government. Perhaps I may be wrong, but I mean the real kind of poverty you see in the core area.

I believe before an MLA or Cabinet Minister takes his seat in Legislature, he should have a three-month period of living at the poverty level. He should be whisked away to another city, given a welfare allowance and be put on his or her honour not to ask friends or relatives for help and then be asked to find a suite, get his furniture and move it in, etc. lt would be a nice and realistic touch to throw in two or three small children while you're at it. Perhaps we would have a startling new realization and compassion on the part of our governments of the life of the ordinary working person.

Even working people who are not on welfare have periods where they cannot find work and might as well be welfare reci pients when one considers the total yearly income. I wrote the former Premier, Joe Clark, when he was elected in office a short time. I wished him well and I thought he was a very intelligent young man and very personable, but I pointed out there was one thing he seemed to be lacking and that was he did not know the condition of the average Canadian's 76 pocketbook. And I said, at the rate you are going, your government will voted out in a landslide.

Right now may I make the same comment to the provincial government here: You do not realize the average Canadian worker's pocketbook. We just can't give any more and if we can't buy anything on pay day, then the businessman can't sell anything, and we're all going to go down the drain together. I would ask that if you pass this bill, you subsidize everybody, everybody in the province that's at a low or even moderately low income with what you're going to allow the landlords to charge them. There has to be some relief for the people or we'll all be leaving Manitoba very shortly. Thank you, gentlemen. MR.

CHAIRMAN: To Janet Paxton, as I do to all other persons who appear as a delegate, I ask you the question, would you permit questions if members from the committee have questions? MRS. PAXTON: Yes, I would. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions from members of the committee? Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Is it Mrs. Paxton we're speaking to? Is you're name Mrs. Paxton? MRS. PAXTON: Yes. MR. McKENZIE: Would you be alarmed if I told you some of the people around this table lived through the Dirty 30's? MRS. PAXTON: I'm sure you did, but I'm sure you've forgotten. MR. McKENZIE: Well, I'll never forget it.

May I ask another question? Are these problems that you're telling us about, in existence, and have been for some time? MRS. PAXTON: lt's getting worse. In fact, when ! was driving down here on the way downtown, remembered when I was a much younger lady, aboul 20 years ago, driving downtown and everybodl always looked dressed up and nice and sharp ir Winnipeg, and everybody looks poverty stricker when I'm driving down the street now. There is an ail of poverty about the public of Manitoba and thE people I listen to, they are poor.

At one time, ym could get paid and say, this pay day I think I'm goin� to buy some curtains, drapes for the house, and nex pay day maybe I'm going to get a new bedspread You can't do that now. All you hope for is enough t< pay your bills. And I'm not unusual; I'm just likE everybody else. I think I'm an average Canadiar person, average worker, I've worked hard all my life I can't get anywhere. I can't bank any money; I can' do anything. Of course, I'm a woman and we alway: were traditionally low paid. Maybe if I'd been a man my salary would be better by now.

But the point i: that everybody I'm talking to, who is working, sa: they have nothing left over on payday. What are the· going to do when you let the landlords charge eve1 more for rents?

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 And is there any way of controlling the percentage of profit the landlords make? Some of these buildings they paid for 20 years ago at a very low price, and they have made the money over and over and over again. Why do they have to have more money? I really don't understand it. MR. Mc KENZIE: Are you aware of the SAF ER Program? MRS. PAXTON: No, I am not, I'm sorry. I vaguely remember the name but I have been away from Winnipeg for about a year. When did this SAFER happen? MR.

McKENZIE: I was wondering, this bill that we are dealing with hasn't been passed; it's not passed yet, but those problems that you relate are very very interesting. Inflation has caused, as you and 1 well understand, a lot of problems and I am very interested in your comments. MRS. PAXTON: May I speak? it's embarrassing but sometimes unless you relate it personally, people don't know what you are talking about. I know my mother was very ill in Vancouver. She had cancer.

She had a heart attack and the doctors didn't feel that she could be told how serious her disease was and he said, she'll never get out of the hospital, but she made her social worker there pay her rent for three months. They did it to humour her, even knowing she wasn't getting out, but she fooled them all and she got out, and she wanted to stay in her suite, in a third floor suite, on a stretcher. She made them take her home. I phoned the hospital and I thought they were out of their minds to release her, and they said that was her wish. She was happy. She was contented.

She cost the hospital system a lot less in her home than she did in the hospital and somehow or other this is what you have to recognize; older people, even if it's a dump in your eyes, will love their own home. If you make it impossible for them to live in it with this rental increase, you are going to have such enormous government costs supporting them in hospitals and private care homes that by giving the landlords a profit you are going to put more and more taxes on all of us, because a lot of these are old people in these houses that you are really ... That's where one concern is.

The other concern is I have a family, I have children, and I have seen a young son with a family starting out and working like crazy to give them a decent apartment. The rates were terribly high. They had very little left over and gradually, little by little, things are getting better, but there are other young kids getting married and they can't afford to live. They can't afford to feed their kids properly. These are the people that are in all these apartment blocks along Sargent, Ellice, Notre Dame, not the high rises. These people have the money to bear the stretch but the average worker does not.

How are you going to protect them, and how are you going to get the businessmen business if they can't buy anything they are selling? MR. McKENZIE: Have you read the bill? 77 MRS. PAXTON: I haven't read it all. I have heard enough of it. MR. McKENZIE: How much is your rent going up? MRS. PAXTON: My rent, so far I haven't heard a word, and I am not complaining about my own personal landlord. At the moment, I am sharing a suite with my daughter because I have just newly come back to the city, till I find the appropriate place.

But my landlord, I haven't heard a word. lt's her landlord actually and she says he has always been very reasonable, but there's not too many that are like that. MR. CHAIRMAN: To the members of the committee, are there any other questions to Mrs. Paxton? Seeing none, thank you very kindly. MRS. PAXTON: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: M. Dolin, representing Klinic. Grant Wichenko. Yetta Gold, Executive Director, Age and Opportunity Centre; is Yetta Gold from the Age and Opportunity Centre available? Judy Hannibal. Val Stubbs. Ben Berkal. Edith McKay. Arni Peltz. Mr.

Peltz, before you start into your presentation could you tell us whether you are here representing a group or are you here as a private citizen? MR. ARNI PEL TZ: Mr. Chairman, I'm the President of the Legal Aid Lawyers Association, and I come here in that capacity and also as a staff lawyer of the Legal Aid Plan in Manitoba, but I should caution that our association hasn't taken a formal position or developed a brief. I am confident that our members are concerned about this but I don't purport to speak on behalf of them.

This hasn't been passed as a resolution or a brief and, in that sense, I would say it's a private submission. Mr. Chairman, just one comment before beginning, I wanted to say to the committee and to all the members that from the point of view of reacting to legislation of this type and in particular for members of my association, lawyers practising in the province, we find that having this kind of legislation come up during Speed-up causes grave problems.

I think that wherever you stand on any of this legislation, certainly it's very difficult to find the time and to make a considered opinion which might be of assistance to this committee when bills are coming out fast and furious and when the committee and the House are sitting around the clock, just about, it makes it very difficult. Nevertheless, I do have some comments which I hope are helpful.

I have noticed almost all of the briefs thus far and the statements made to your committee have concerned rent controls and that's properly so, rent controls or the removal of rent controls, and I have some comments on that as well, but there is something else or a number of other things in this bill which I would like to speak about for a few minutes;

Section 33 of the bill and in particular the part dealing with the new

Section 121. So far there has been a great deal of talk about the rent arbitration system and whether it is adequate or inadequate. I will make some comments in a minute

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 but I think it's been overlooked that this bill makes quite a drastic change in the law governing landlords and tenants, not with respect to rent but with respect to their everyday dealings, the kinds of disputes that come up over damages, over nuisance or noise, over whether a tenancy is terminated or not, does the tenant have to move out, the whole range of everyday problems that the Rentalsman and his staff are dealing with now. What the bill before you says is that the Rentalsman is going to be given a great deal more power. At the moment he is somewhat restricted but under this bill, under

Section 103(9), the new section, the Rentalsman is going to be able to deal with questions of continued possession of a premises; arrears of rent compensation where a tenant overstays; damages where it's alleged that there's been damage to a suite. Now there is a proviso not to deal with these if they are deemed to be too serious or if court action is started, but in the general scheme of things, the Rentalsman will be dealing with all these subjects which now are going into our courts. If he can't resolve them between the parties, then this Act says that it must to go to the arbitrator.

The arbitrator is the new creature that's created by this bill and, as the previous speaker said, we don't know who the arbitrator -and his staff are going to be. The arbitrator has jurisdiction to deal with these question s, which are crucial questions for landlords and tenants, unless one of the parties takes the initiative and files a notice of objection within seven days of the referral to the arbitrator. If that's not done then the arbitrator basically is in the position of a court, that is, he is doing the things that our courts are doing right not, and that specifically is the County Court.

Once an order is made, that order can, in fact, be filed and enforced, just as any other court order, and the Act before you says that there is no appeal from the order that the arbitrator might make. The crucial difference that arises from this, Mr. Chairman and members, is that what we will see in this province, if this part of the bills, which hasn't been much discussed, goes through, is we will see tenants being evicted without the benefit and without due process in a court of law.

That, I suggest, is something that both sides of this committee ought to look at very carefully, and I know that it hasn't received much attention thus far. Aside from all the other things which concern me about this particular change, I would point out to you that there is a potential constitutional problem with this section. I know that this kind of an amendment has been made in numerous other jurisdictions and I can tell you that it has been much litigated. I am not going to give you an opinion on it. I think there is a problem.

I hope the committee is aware of it and I hope the committee is confident about the constitutionality of this change whereby the arbitrator will be exercising powers clearly being exercised every day now by judges of the County Courts. I will tell you that similar legislation in the province of Ontario was referred by the Government of Ontario to the Court of Appeal on a constitutional reference and that the Ontario Court of Appeal very recently struck down that legislation and that similarly, the Court of Appeal for Alberta struck down that kind of legislation.

In the province of 78 British Columbia, similar legislation was before the courts and the B.C. Supreme Court struck it down; the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned that and said it was okay. This is very contentious stuff, I am saying, and I draw it to your attention; I suggest to you that there may well be a problem here. The Manitoba situation is a little different, I suppose, because you can get out of the arbitrator's jurisdiction if you want to, that is, you can file a notice of objection. If you don't take the initiative and file it, then you are stuck with the arbitrator.

In other words, you don't actively consent to him handling your case, but passive acquiescence puts you in his jurisdiction and his hold. Again, there is a problem there. lt is not clear to me whether that's enough to give jurisdiction or whether that is enough to distinguish this from straight consent arbitration. There is no question that this Legislature can legislate so that people can agree on a person who will decide their rights; no constitutional problem there.

But, in essence, what you have here is a system where people have to object and say no, otherwise they are stuck in the system and if that amounts to forcing people into the system, and to some extent it does, then it may well be that this

section is unconstitutional. As I say, I don't give an opinion; I'm not sure of the answer. I would note this, though; when similar legislation in Ontario came forward, legislation that gave the Rentals Commission the power to evict tenants, that provision was fought desperately and vigorously by tenants and their organizations in Ontario, particularly the Metro Federation of Tenants, and they were represented in the Court of Appeal and argued successfully against that legislation.

I would like to make a few comments, ·because I think that Manitoba tenants ought to have the same concerns that the Ontario tenants did, facing the possibility of an arbitrator appointed by the Cabinet, making decisions about tenants and their rights. But first of all, I would like to ask this of all the members of the commi ttee: What is the rationale for introducing this arbitrator into the landlord and tenant system and, in effect, adding another layer of bureaucracy to the system?

At the moment, you have got a Rentalsman; he tries to mediate; if he can't, it can always go to the courts and, of course, it frequently does. A host of problems and cases are solved by the Rentalsman and that's good, no one can quarrel with that, but why are we adding another layer of bureaucracy? I can't see it. I don't see the courts clogged with these cases. That's sometimes a reason for taking jurisdiction away from the courts. I don't see that the court process is unsuited to dealing with these particular appeals.

They are done summarily, they are done quickly and, in my experience, they are done fairly by the County Court judges. I haven't heard complaints from any side, or at any time, so I seriously wonder why we are going to get this arbitrator deciding landlord and tenant cases in Manitoba. I will tell you what some of the concerns are, from the tenant's perspective, about the provincially appointed arbitrator. First of all, he is provincially appointed, he is a political appointee, according to the Act, and I suggest that his independence or her independence is going to be considerably less than

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 1r judg es. Of course, one might say the judges are so political appointees, and one can't deny that, 1t the fact is that the appointment of the judges by e federal government at least provides them with a easure of security, an immunity from the day-to ty pressures that may otherwise arise, and I think at that's the experience of most lawyers.

Whatever se judg es may do, some may say they are rogant, some may say they are lazy, some may say ey are competent and well-meaning, but at least ey are independent and they generally act as such. ill tha t be the same for the arbitrator appointed by e provincial gov ernment, presumably a Civil lrvice appointment? There is a lack of distance ere, which I think is very disconcerting and not ally appropriate to a judicial office and, let's not ake any bones about it, this is a judicial office.

Will the person or persons have legal training? 1dges do, and that's valuable; from the point of �w of tenants, that's important. Will the procedural otections that apply for tenants and landlords, but particular for tenants, in the County Courts, still •ply in proceedings before the arbitrator? What will � the procedure before the arbitrator? He is owed under this Act to set his procedure. I can't .y what it will be. I think it has got to be fair, :cording to the common law, but he is allowed to ake regulations and we don't know what they will l?

Will he apply precedent, will he apply law, or will ! apply policy? This kind of legislation in other provinces, Mr. 1airman, has basically allowed arbitrators or rents •mmissions, or whatever you like to call them, to be led from what is supposed to be the rigors of the •plication of law and precedent. Well, I guess ere's some benefits to that but, on the other hand, )m the tenant's point of vi ew, there is also a !nefit to having the law applied, procedural and bstantive.

The arbitrator is protected by this bill from appeal; ere is no appeal from the decision of the arbitrator. vould point out to you that in a similar situation, a nant now appearing before a County Court judge, •es have a right of appeal, if he should choose to ke it, on facts or law, to the Court of Appeal; that if is bill is enacted and tenants have their cases •ard and decided by the arbitrator, the only thing at will be open to them will be to attempt to quash decision they don't like, and that could only be on ·isdictional grounds, technical arguments, not on a merits.

So, for example, you have the spectre of a arbitrator hearing a case, hearing all kinds of idence and making a decision which either party ght disagree with and unl ess he has made some rt of a jursidictional or a technical or a procedural ror, that's it. At the moment, the decision could be pealed and reviewed in the Manitoba Court of •peal. So the rights are restricted, and from the •int of view of the tenants, I would suggest that �t's a matter for concern. I also wonder whether people are going to preciate the consequences of this decision.

They � going to get a form from the Rentalsman saying, ou may object," but are they going to understand 1at it means? Are they going to understand that oosing their forum may decide how their case es, or at least may decide what kind of a hearing �y get, what kind of appeal rights they have, and 79 so on. I wonder whether people will understand that or whether they will even understand, in many cases, that they have a right to object. Again, there are concerns there; it appears to me that basically this is going to take away most of the cases from the courts and put them in the hands of the provincial arbitrator.

As I said, I am at a loss to understand why this particular change is in here. lt is going to affect a great number of cases and a great many landlords and tenants. I have some suspicions and at the risk of being cross-examined on my suspicions, I will give you some of them. In my experience, the County Court is a fair court for these hearings and it's quite fair to the tenants insofar as provision of counsel for tenants and following procedural safeguards. I know, from my experience, that landlords are often very upset about the fact that the County Court is scrupulously fair.

I know that landlords are often upset that time limits are forced upon them, that is, they have to adhere to them carefully, that documents can be thrown out if they are not in accordance with the Act. I know that's very anno ying. I know it costs landlords sometimes dearly because their lawyers, not being completely careful in the preparation of their cases, sometimes have to go back a couple of times in order to get an evict ion. Those are the complaints.

I don't think that they really have any merit in the sense that one ought to throw out the court system, which is basically what this amendment proposes to do. I know from some experiences I have had, and I'm aware of an equivalent situation, welfare cases, the Social Services Advisory Committee, which hears a great many appeals in this province, that it does not bode well when you replace a court by a board.

In this sense, there has been somewhat of a problem in obtaining for appellants before the Welfare Appeal Board, the Community of Social Services Committee, the right to counsel, and in the past year there have been several requests made directly to the head of that committee to provide a notice to people who are appearing there that they may have legal counsel, and the result of those submissions to the committee have been absolute refusal. So welfare recipients who have appeals and do have a right to counsel are not being advised of that.

I'm wondering whether the result of taking these tenants cases out of the courts, putting them before a board, with its informality, is going to result in the same thing. Certainly it is going to be difficult to police. There's a question also, I think, of time. My reading of this amendment is that, intentionally or otherwise, it's probably going to speed up evictions. At the moment there are some fairly carefully drafted time limits and it's just not possible, under The Landlord and Tenant Act, right now, to summarily throw a tenant out of his suite, even if he ought to be thrown out.

The reason that that can't be done is that there has to be some provision for a fair process for tenants to look at the material alleged against you - if the landlord alleges something against you - a chance to prepare for it and walk into court able to answer the case against you. That's why it takes a little bit of time to throw a tenant out, and I know that landlords are upset

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 about that period of time. I fear that the result of the appointment of the arbitrator will be things are more informal, things are more slipshod and things are faster, and I don't think tha t's in the tenant's interest, although it may be in the landlord's interest. In any event, that's what I have to say about the provincial arbitrator.

I would ask the members of this committee to give some thought to it at some point before the bill is passed on, because there is a possible constitutional problem and there are a number of procedural problems and a number of problems of fairness and certainly, what you have heard relates mainly to rent controls, and that's a burning issue. After that issue is decided, Manitoba landlords and tenants are going to be stuck with the arbitrator system for probably some time and a great many cases are going to be decided under the arbitrator system on a day-to-day basis, so I think it deserves some attention.

I have a few comments about other provisions and then I want to talk about the rent review.

Section 26 of the bill, which elimi nates the one rent incr ease per year rule, I think has to be mentioned. Again, in looking over this bill, I have tried to imagine what the rationale would be for some of these changes. Again, with

Section 26, on the one rent increase, I fail in any way to see a rationale for this particular change. A landlord, to my un derstan ding, is always able to recover his legitimate expenses. When we had the rent control system, of course it was on an annual basis; that's usually the way business is done. Now that we don't have, or may not have rent controls, obviously the landlord is a lot freer to recover cost increases. Where is the need for a landlo rd to charge increased rents two, three, four times a year? I hav en't yet heard a rationale for that.

If there is no pressing need for it, I think one ought to look at what the effect is going to be, and I suggest to you that the effect of this is going to be to encourage landlords to use it; it's there, they are going to use it. Maybe it will only be 10.00 or 15.00 a crack. I think the landlord is going to say to himself, "Well, I've got the opportunity, because the tenant is departing, so why not use it?" lt is also going to encourage or facili tate excessive rent increases because they will be available as well; in other words, facilita te rent gouging. There is no real need for it.

On the other hand, it opens up a real can of worms and possible abuses and I think that you should consider it, and consider striking it completely from this bill. In particular, I would say this is a problem for the clients of Legal Aid, because they are the low-income cl ients. They tend to be in volved in a greater turnover of suites and they are the ones who have to live in the suites. They will be subject to frequent rent increases if this particular provision is passed.

Section 24 of this bill I find equally incomprehensible. This is the section, Mr. Chairman and members, which allows another exception for school-aged childr en and their famili es to be evicted from their homes and the exception created , of course, is where there is a condominium conversion. I know you have heard a great deal already about condominium conversions. I suppose there is a great deal of argument that could be made about the respect of rights of condominium owners versus 80 tenants and I don't propose to go over that ground.

But I would say this to you, when it comes to children and their education and their interests in having a stable home life, why on earth does that have to take the back seat to the rights of business people and the development of condominiums. The scheme of the Act right now is that during the school year, if a family has school-aged childr en and they are not in default of any of their obli gations, they can stay. There may be legitimate reasons why the landlord needs the suite and, if so, at the end of the school year that family can be removed, and this happens all the time. This particular

section says even though there is no fault inv olved here, the tenant hasn't caused damage or failed to pay rent or anything of that sort, but neve rtheless because there is a condominium conversion about to happen the school-a ged childr en can be evicted from the premises and I, for the life of me, can't I understand that. I fail to see what kind of a rational policy could put forward this kind of an amendment. it's completely inconsistent with the tenor of the Act and I would suggest that it's something that should not be supported by members on either side of this house.

Condominium owners have to do a great deal of planning, sometimes rennovations and so on, before they can make the changeover and there is no reason in the world why they can't wait until the end of the school year to have school-aged childr en move from the suites they have been living in with their families. Dealing with the rent control and the rent arbitration sections of this bill, I would like to direct my comments to the effect tha t I see th ese provisions having on our clients. Our clients of course are, many of them at least, on assistance.

Many of them are in the working poor, pensioners on disability pensions and so on. When the tenant is on welfare, of course one assumes that there is no effect if rents are rising. One assumes that and it is often true but I would point out to you, and I am not sure if you are aware of it, that in many cases you have a situation where welfare recipients are not receiving from the department the full cost of shelter. For one reason or another the department may not be prepared to pay the full cost of their rent.

I have seen many cases of it in my practice and the result of that is that the tenant either moves or the tenant takes the money, the 10 or 20 a month that's short, takes it out of their food allowance or the clothing allowance or other allo wance and applies it to the rent. In that sense, I see this removal of rent controls hurting even the welfare recipients, even though one might have thought that they at least would have been immunized from this situation.

As far as the working poor, as far as people on pension and so on, they are going to be the hardest hit by the removal of rent controls and many of them have been before you already with personal testimonials, I know, and I can only say that from experience and experience our lawyers have with tenants of this type, there is going to be severe hardships. Does the rent arbitrations system, which is proposed by this bill, relieve any of tho se hardships?

Again, there has been quite a bit of comment on this and I would like to tell you that, from our point of view at least and from my point of view as a lawye r, I see this scheme as nothing short

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 >f a nightmare, completely ineffectual, and I am ather amazed that some thing as awkward and mworkable as this could be put forward.

Simply the 1mount of time that it's going to take to work hrough this whole process, beginning with the lll inister's directing of a report and coming back to tim, and then bouncing back a third time to an 1rbitrator, who then has to begin convening hearings md on and on and on until there is a decision, then ;ubject to review, presumably by landlords or andlord groups who have a great number of units md for whom it's financially advantageous to go into he courts and fight over rent increases. That's been he experience in the past, at least.

From the tenants point of view of course this >asically gives the tenant no protection and many >ther speakers have told you that. I question just on 1 legal basis whether single cases are covered by his legislation. I think it would be hard to explain to 1 tenant with a small landlord perhaps, facing an lxorbitant rent increase, why this

section doesn't :over particular cases but only is directed at classes >r groups of cases. If the committee feels that it 1oes cover single cases then I think it should lxplicitly say that. lt doesn't appear to say that right IOW. Basically the scheme of thes e arbitr ation >rovisions is to encourage mobility; that is let the narketplace rule, if people don't like it they can nove. For the low income tenants at least, I would emind you that they are already plagued by the >roblem of mobility; having to live in places that are n disrepair; having a lot of social and personal >roblems.

Transiency or mobility is the bane of many >eople's existence and this legislation only makes it vorse; it says move again, and I don't think that's 1dequate. I haven 't seen amendm ents. I don't know if 1mendments have been brought forward but from eading in the paper some of the proposals to !melior ate the shortc omings of the arbit ration ;ystem, they basically fall in line with the same >hilo sophy: Let the tenant move.

That philosophy, I vould suggest to you, is reprehensible. lt goes 1gainst the whole scheme of this legislation, the vhole reform tenor of this legislation as we've had it or the last ten years which is, I would suggest, to :reate some security of tenure for tenants in this >rovince. I think that other speakers have alluded to hat. I would like to say a few things about the :oncept of security of tenure because until we had his legislation in 19 70, there basically was no such hing in the province of Manitoba and we were 1overned by the common law.

The common law was >asically the law of the jungle in that property rights uled supreme and as far as the tenant's right to tave a home in rented premises and be secure here, it basically didn't exist. That's not an ideological statement, Mr. Chairman, t's just a statement of law. They taught it to me at �w school and it appears to have been the law in llanitoba until 1970 or 1971 when this bill was first >assed. Of course that Act in 19 70 made a lot of >ther changes and at least one can say this about he bill before you , th ose things hav en't been •limi nated yet. Before 1970 there was distress.

That :; goods could be seized by the landlord. There was 10 procedural protection on evictions. The landlord 81 hd no duty to repair. A tenant had to pay rent no matter what the state of the premises was. While we haven 't touched those things yet, but security of tenure, I would say, is in grave danger as a result of this bill.

Section 10 3(4) of the Act is the

section that basically gives tenants these rights at the present time and it dates from around 1975 and a bit earlier with previous versions. This security of tenure, the right to stay basically unless the landlord needed it for his own use or the tenant was in default, I think is a principle that would be hard to quarrel with. lt became firmed up in around 1975, except for one gaping hole, and the gaping hole in security of tenure for tenants was that the landlord always had the option of raising the rent an exorbitant amount so that the tenant basically could not afford to stay in the premises.

There is a long list in The Landlord and Tenant Act of protections and of specified things that the landlord has to meet if he wishes to get the tenant out. As I say, the tenant basically is allowed to stay, and that was fine except that the landlord could always pull out his trump card and say well, I'd love to have you stay, it's not that I'm trying to meet any of the exceptions in this legislation. I don't need it for myself; I don't need to repair or demolish, but the rent is going up from 10 0 a month to 400 a month - I would love to have you.

That was a gaping hole in the legislation. lt was available, and I'm not saying it was used generally but I know that in some cases it was used, and there was basically no answer to that, notwithstanding the pious proclamations in the Act that every tenant had the right to security of tenure. Of course, the interesting thing is that right about that time, in 1976, we had rent controls come in and so, for the last number of years in this province, tenants have had effective security of tenure. They have had the provi sions of this Act and the landlord's one escape clause, if you like, was closed off.

He was limited to 10 percent or 7 percent or 6 percent, or a cost-pass-through, but he was carefully limited to what, hopefully at least, were reasonable increases. What is happening now, of course, is that this bill removes that protection and the result of that is that many people are coming before you and it is hitting them right between the eyes. They don't have security of tenure anymore.

That, I would suggest, flies directly in the fact of the whole spirit of this legislation. lt flies in the face of all of the reforms that were made and which, I am sure, both sides of this committee would agree were necessary reforms when they were made in the early Seventies. Basically, what it has come down is that the unr easonabl e rent in crease is now a weapon available to the landlord again and the tenant is pretty well defenceless against that weapon.

You ha ve heard the complaints about condominium conversions. lt will apply in any case, not just condominium conversions, and security of tenure may amount to a dead letter if you pass this bill in the present form. I wanted to make one last comment, because I'm not sure how many members of the committee would be aware of it, but even the right to security of tenure, as it exists, or as it may exist after this bill, is

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 su bstantially watered down for public ho using tenants, many of whom are clients of Legal Aid. To my great surprise, in a case which I was involved in late in 1979, none of the security of tenure provisions apply to public housing tenants. The public housing authority, if it wishes, may simply say, "We wish you to go. We don't say that you have caused any damage; we don't say you have caused a nui sance; we don't say you haven 't paid your rent. We don't say any of those things, we just want you to go, so go." That, essentially, is what happened in a case which I handled in 1979.

I was astonished. I thought I knew this Act fairly well, but when I looked at it carefully, it turned out that in fact that was the case. If you would like the particular section, I'l l point it out to you. it is 10 3(4Xg), which makes all public housing an exception in the security of tenure section. The particular case I hand led involved thi s situation: There was a dispute, I think a personality clash, between my client, the tenant, and the local manager of that particular set of buildings.

My client was perceived as being some sort of a trouble maker, or an organizer, or at least defiant to the regulations and rules that were being passed. But in court, counsel for the housing authority, the landlord, did not make any allegation of any wr9ngdoing or any breach of any kind. The lawyer for the Winnipeg Regional Hous ing simply said, "Pu blic housing tenants do not have security of tenure and we have given her a notice to quit, therefore she must go out." The Chief Country Court Judge looked at the section; he said, "That's what it says.

There is no option, I have to agree with you." I am happy to say, in that particular case, that because the case came up right at the end of August and upon the last adjournment of the case for argument in front of the judge, it turned out to be the school year, so the school year defence came up and that tenant, in fact, lived in those premises for the entire 19 79-80 school year and then at the end of the school year, voluntarily departed and is in a new place. No allegation that she had done anything wrong, or her children, but security of tenure didn't apply to her.

So from the point of view of our clients, this right, which should be the law in Manitoba, is limited enough and the idea that it might be diluted or demol ished by th is legislation, aga in, I find reprehensible, and I hope you will reconsider. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Peltz, as I ask all persons, would you permit questions from members of the committee? MR. PEL TZ: Certainly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are ther e any questions from members of the committee? Mr. Parasiuk. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Mr. Peltz, I was asking Mr.

Savino whether in fact Legal Aid provides legal assistance to people who get involved in disputes with landlords. MR. PELTZ: Yes, definitely. 82 MR. PARASIUK: With respect to the Rent Control Board, with respect to rent increases? MR. PEL TZ: Yes, I think we have had a number of cases involving the former Rent Stabilization Act and also, of course, we are frequently involved in evictions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Wilson. MR. BOB WILSON: I was just going over something in my mind.

Would you consider the period since - what was it, July, 1975, when controls first came in? - you repeated the date, did you find in your experience in dealing with the cases that you had under the Landlord and Tenant, that the guidelines set by the government, the maximum guidelines became the actual amount that was generally across the board implemented? In other words, 10 percent, 9 percent, I believe, 1978 to 1979 it was 6 percent, and the last one was, I don't know, 5.5 or 4.5; did you find that if the rent control

section said 9 percent, that landlords generally inc reased it 9 percent? MR. PEL TZ: I don't think that I had enough cases to be able to answer that insofar as I have done landlord and tenant cases. More of them have been under The Landlord and Tenant Act and not under the rent review provisions. But I think that the point you are getting at is that you can quickly have a floor and that that might set 9 percent as a maximum and it quickly becomes the minimum.

Of course, I guess the short answer to that is that if you are going to have rent control, you can simply make it cost-pass through, if the cost can be justified; no increase is automatic but anything that can be justified by a land lord can be spoken to in front of a regula tory board. MR. WILSON: Maybe the comment that I am making is when the rent control said you must not increase the rent more than 10 percent, it seems if we didn't have this arbitration section, that if we took the word of Mr.

Silverman and his group that rents wouldn't go up more than 10 or 15 percent, you are suggesting that we have to have some mechanism - of course, you are objecting to controls coming off - but in lieu of the fact that we go with an arbitration system, you feel that the courts would deal with it more fairly than sort of a Rentalsman type, sort of bureaucratic setup. Is that what you are suggesting? MR.

PEL TZ: The comments I made at the beginning were about the, call it the general arbitration sections, damage to premises, arrears of rent, all th ose kinds of nitty-gr itty day-to-day conflicts between landlords and tenants. I said that the bill proposes to basically put those in the hands of an arbitrator rather than the courts. As I read the bill, it is intended that rent increases or disputes over rent increases be handled through the other route. At least, that's what the legislation says.

I suppose there could always be mediation of a rent dispute under the first section, but obviously the basic intent of that

section is to deal with the day-to-day disputes.

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 'hen the Rentals man can 't resolve them, the 1oices are they go to the County Court or they go ' an arbitrator. I am trying to point out some of the )tential flaws that an arbitrator system, appointed r the province, has for the day-to-day landlord and nant problems. That's entirely aside from the rent >ntrol mess. R. WILSON: Lastly then, I wondered, I was of the )inion if a single case of a person renting a home as dissatisfied with the rental increase, that they ould be able to arbitr ation me thod.

You are 1ggesting in a comment you made that the Act :>esn't clearly state that single cases will be able to se the arbitr ation me thod. Is that what you 1ggested? IR. PEL TZ: Yes, because if you read

Section 20(7), it says tha t wher e a monitoring report dicates the rent increases - in the plural - in any art of the province or in certain types of premises ere being charged by a certain landlord or classes f landlord are excessive and choice is limit ed - all 1e other caveats that go onto this

section - then n arbitrator should be appointed. If I was representing a landlord and a tenant :>mplaint, then I think I would have a pretty good rgument on behalf of that landlord. IR. WILSON: All right, thank you. IR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Seeing one, thank you very kindly, Mr. Peltz. Ralph Gutkin. Mary Guilbeault. Ernest Shapiro. Mr. Shapiro, I under stand you ave a brief, which is distributed? IR. ERNEST SHAPIRO: I do. IR. CHAIRMAN: Are you representing a group or re you representing yourself, as a private citizen? IR. SHAPIRO: I come here as a private citizen.

I hould state that I have no interests in any real state, nor am I a tenant. So tha t you will nderstand my motive in coming here, I served for 1ree years as a member of the Rent Review Board nd it's rather natural that I should follow with 1terest the demolition of th e board and th e ubstitute legislation. I would like to speak to only a �w matters that I think have not yet been addressed 1 the briefs presented so far. Before I proceed, Mr. Chairman, I did want to take moment to mention the extremely courteous and elpful actions of the staff at the Cler k's office in etting me here.

I am really grateful for it. �R. CHAIRMAN: On that very point, I might point •ut to you and others in attendance that when we •roke off this afternoon, at the point where we had 10 other persons who were on the list that were •resent who wished to make representation, the :lerk's office made an attempt by trying to phone ,ach and every person on the list and, in some .ases, made double call-backs. So they have done, tS you say, an excellent job. IR. SHAPIRO: And I appreciate it. 83 Mr.

Chairman, one of the assumptions that seems to underlie all of the arguments about removing rent controls is that we should put homes out on the free and open market as if homes are shares or potatoes or clo thing. You have heard from much more eloquent people than me, rather passionately at times, stories about how they regard their homes. I am sure, were this legislation about furniture, stamp collections or pots and pans, not only the intensity of the argument but the very nature of the argument would change. People don't regard homes as services or goods. Our home has a place in our lives that is unique.

When it is threatened, our very existence is threatened. When I heard Dr. Conway and Miss Carson the other night, their passion gave me a whole lot more understanding of what a home consists of than any reasoned argument I could make to you. But I have to assert, as well as I can, in as detached a way as I usually do, that the notion of a home as merchandise, as a commodity on the market, must be tempered with a much more hu mane approach to what it is we are passing legislation about.

The second assumption that's made tha t I seriously question is the so-called marketplace into which we are going to throw the 50 to 100, 000 suites in Manitoba. To me a marketplace has a multi plicity of suppliers and bidde rs who are free and have something like equal power to buy and sell from one another. A home doesn't belong in that category by its nature and for a whole lot of other extensive reasons. We know from the Bellan Report, for example, that there is very very little competition for land in Winnipeg.

We know, those of us who have had anything to do with CMHC or MURBs that these are tremendous factors in influencing the direction of the market in terms of the kinds and quantity of housing that's erected.

When MURBs were introduced, this is fooling around with that so-called market to the extent where market forces count for less and less, and then we probably have thousands and thousands of pieces of legislation at the municipal, federal and provincial level dealing with how one builds a house; where one locates it; the size of elev ators; the kinds of lighting one puts in corridors; health regulations; fire regulations; they are endl ess, and we accept this as a matter of fact, as a matter of course.

This isn't the nature of housing. lt's not something that we are free to do what we want with when we build it and when we manage it and when we live in it. I can't help after last night, mentioning one other factor that sort of doesn't help along my notion of what a free marketplace is when I hear of these two unions of apartment suite merchants who control the vastest quantity of apartments in Win nipeg, who have an association, have regular meetings, lobby, and act in concert. I wonder what that does to this free competitive open marketplace.

I ha ve no objection, I don't think anybody has any objections to people forming associations to further their self interest. If there is any objection at all, it's pretending that it's not so. I think in the formulation of legislation, all of these factors, the trad itional and current restraints on the marketplace must be taken

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 into account and further legislation gov erning security of tenants must be put in place. Mr. Peltz just spoke a few moments ago about security of tenure and of that having been the one loophole in the tenants rights to maintain his own home. Yes, it was finally covered by the rent review legislation that was put in place some five years ago, and it's sad indeed that this critical, almost life and death provision, should be threatened by this new legislation.

Although I'm not personally affected by it, if I had to make the choice I would rather see practically any other piece of legislation about housing, removed or battered, but legislation that removes the last vestage of tenant's security in terms of tenure is just too hard to contemplate. I think that we must have legislation that permits, within ordinary commercial limitations, that permits tenants to have security of tenure, security of tenure thr ough the gua rantee that rents will not rise unreasonably in any period of time.

We did this successfully, despite what I think was some terribly serious shortcomings of past legislation and even more shortcomings in the operation of the Rent Review Board, it was still immeasurably better than not having any protection whatever. The Rent Review Board as it existed did give tenants security of tenure. lt did give landlords a fair return, and I think perhaps most people don't realize that it was a fairer return than fair for a great number.

When the minimum rental was first set - and I call it minimal rent increase because though it was set as a ceiling I don't recall a single case in the thousands and thousands of suites that I saw pass by me, when the maximum permissible increase was not taken, so that any ceiling became in fact the floor. The ceilings that were set for the first three years of the existence of the Rent Review Board were set, regrettably, but perhaps for reasons that I don't kno w of, 50 percent higher than the anticipated cost-pass-through.

The agency calculated impending increases in utilities, in labour, of various kinds and we did have adequate information and in the first year our estimate was that there would be a 6.6 percent increase in costs, and the regulation at that time awarded a 10 percent across-the-board increase. The subsequent two years the percentages awarded changed but in both cases they were approximately 50 percent higher than the estimated costs.

In retrospect, the estimators of costs proved to be quite accurate and the actual costs did turn out to be one-third lower, giving them a 50 percentage advantage, one-third lower than the base granted. Furthermore, there were probably thousan ds of suites rented, increases well above the ceilings on the grounds of cost-pass-through. In this respect the rent control legislation turned out to do the opposite, in many cases, of what is claimed and that is it became a vehicle for property improvement rather than property run down.

Landlords were permitted to pass the costs along to tenants for many many improvements and we did grant increases of 12, 15, 18, 20 percent when evidence was presented showing that costs were actually incurred.

And for an extreme case, in about 19 77, when we had another one of these time to time tragically fatal fires, and the city authorities reacted with vigor in enforcing legislation that's been on the books but allowed to 84 sort of hang around, and discover a great number of apartments who are deficient in providing elementary safety precautions and ordered the owners to make the necessary changes to meet the minimum requirements of fire regulations, the regula tions concerning rents were altered to allow even these costs, which were capital costs and not maintenance or operational costs, these were costs which improved the value of the property and wh ich ultima tely would be recovered, possibly or likely with further enhancement in a capital gains transaction later on, but these costs were allowed to be passed on to tenants.

So that the Act in many ways was beneficial to the housing stock, especially the older housing stock of Winnipeg, and I fail to see all of the arguments that have been made with no supportive evidence whatever that property would be downgraded if rent controls continued. Finally, I want to mention to this committee what to me was probably the most significant part of the practice of the Rent Review Board that no longer seems to exist here, and that is there was relat ive, direct, simple, cheap access.

We have seen here at this podium eloquent and powerful speakers telling this committee how they feel about rents and we have heard occasional occupants of low rental units, but I don't think people in low rental un its, powerless, knowing that they are powerless and feeling hopeless and helpless, come up to this committee. They didn't come to the board. There are just enough people around in this society who when they get tricked find a dark corner to whimper in and if somebody comes to the dark corner and whimpers or kicks them again, they whimper more and plead.

They don't stand up because they feel powerless; and they feel powerless because they are. The tiny bit of power that was given to poorer, lesser educated people through the existence of any easy access system is absolutely critic al. By removing easy access, I don't care what kind of legislation you have, it will never be implemented. If you have the worst possible legislation but you make it possible for people to access ways of correcting or pleading their own case, then there's a chance.

There are enough people around who want to help; we saw them helping, and I urge this committee, and I ur ge the gov ernment to make the necessary changes, first of all, no matter what the legislation, that will make access easy. I should n't have to go to my landlord to ask permission to take action against him or to arbitrate against him.

I should n't be made to meet government officials, kind and helpful though they are and they were to me, even aggressively helpful, getting after me by phone, but there are very few people who are going to walk into this gorgeous building and knock on the door of one of these impressive Chambers here. They'd cow us and I must say I am cowed as well. I am very happy to be in that situation in life where about two-thirds of my income goes in taxes, income taxes and sales taxes and other taxes. That's a terrific amount and boy I love it, because I pay more in taxes than many families earn in two years.

I am not making a plea for you to redistribute my income, but I feel like one of the privileged and better educated people here and yet I come here in terrible reluctance; I come here with quaking, with fear. I don't know how else you can do it. I admit the

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 proceedings have been examples of the utmost courtesy on the part of members of this House and members of this committee and yet to approach this takes a whole lot out of people like me. Can you imagine what other people feel like? You are not going to hear them, you are onl y going to hear me talk about them, but, Mr. Chairman, I did see a few people who were helped into the rent review situation where access was easy.

All you did was you filled out a simple piece of paper and, if you coul dn't, there was somebody there to help you do it, and if you didn't know there was somebody there to help you do it, there were a few active persons in our community who made it their business to find people who needed help. I think, whatever you do, you must pay regard to that sector of the population and their ability to access the legislation and the powers that be and then, of course, I do urge you to make the best possible legislation that will make such access as unnecessary as possible. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Mr .

Shapiro, I don't know whether you are getting the longer applause because you are a good taxpayer or whether you are carrying the common cause, but would you permit questions from members of the committee? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wilson. MR. WILSON: I share some of your concerns and I wondered, you are suggesting, for instance, that the tenant be able to meet government; in other words, during this transitional period you would like to see the arbitration procedure such that the tenant who feels aggrieved can write to the government and be able to be in direct contact with the government.

Is that what I generally understood? MR. SHAPIRO: In one way or another, whatever the structure for dealing with a grievance, it should be simple and direct. MR. WILSON: What is your impression of what has taking place since July 1st? Are you aware of staff where you formerly were familiar with now looking into complaints? Have you been around to check how the old plant is working? MR. SHAPIRO: No, when my connection terminated, it terminated and I read the papers, like most people do, and that's my source of information. MR.

WILSON: My last question was: Would you be able to go by memory - you said something which I was convinced of, and I asked the lawyer before you - that the ceiling became the floor? In other words, when under rent controls, I found that a lot of landlords who normally weren't going to increase the rent found themselves increasing it by 10 percent or 6 percent because rent controls called for the increase, and you sort of indicated that that was the case. MR. SHAPIRO: lt would n't be right for me to comment on what landlords might have done had 85 there not been the 10 percent.

Giv en the inflationary time that began about then, I have a feel ing that within a short while rents would have gone up well beyond the 10 percent and, more important - I think most important - they would have gone up with more frequency, and the provision which didn't allow a rent increase to take place less than 12 months after the last one was one of the more important restraints. lt did become, ipso facto; I think this is one of the inherent weaknesses in any rent control scheme, and in the course of being a member of the board and other readings, I read of other schemes.

When you set that kind of ceiling and, for what I think were sound admin istrative reasons, say that anybody that operates within the ceiling will be considered to have operated within the intent of the law and the regulations and will, you know, he can go, we won't look at him unless some tenant complains, when that is done it is inevitable that everybody will start with that 10 percent or 8 percent. MR.

WILSON: Because I represent an area that seems to ha ve one of the greatest numb er of apartment blocks affected, namely older blocks that become attractive as people want to move into the core area or downtown, I was interested in your comments about tha t being the ceiling. I am wondering, could you maybe bring my notes up to date: Would you know from memory, was it 10, 9, and then I have got a blank, 6 and 5.5 percent. MR. SHAPIRO: lt was 10, 8, and 7, for the first three years. MR. WILSON: 10 , 8, and 7. MR. SHAPIRO: Right. MR.

WILSON: So in fact, when in my area somebody gets a 45.00 to 65.00 a month increase on an old block, do you have the feeling or are you suspect that there should be a mechanism for that landlord to have to justify that type of an increase? MR. SHAPIRO: Absolutely. I want to, if you will permit me, expand just a tiny bit. lt would be lovely if all increases had to be justified on the basis of a cost-pass-through, but I wouldn't dare make such a recommendation.

I did sit on a board and I know that no legislation is perfect and that there have to be some administrative considerations, and were we to have a cost-through demand for every single raise, I think we would have to rent some . . . Well, we wouldn 't ha ve an office space problem in Winn ipeg because we would have to rent half the vacant space to staff these demands. The setting of some low ceiling permits a little bit of leeway , so that we deal only with excessive complaints. MR.

WILSON: My last question then is with the arbitration mechanism that we have, which I hope will solve some of your concerns when the amendments come through, what would you think about a landlord who wants a second and third increase in one year, of a particular unit? We are working basically, I understand, on the bill as it is imagined, on a sort of complaint basis only. In other

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 words, we are not like Legal Aid, going out looking for customers. We are going to set up a structure that people who have a complaint about unjust rent increases can come to government. I am suggesting - what do you feel, there doesn't appear to be anything in the bill to stop the second and third increase in one year - how would you imagine that that should be looked at? MR. SHAPIRO: I think it is inviting disaster. I see this as the key piece in the entire legislat ion.

If the landlord is only permitted one increase, after 12 months have elapsed, he will have to consider much more carefully how much it should be. lt will remove any motive for landlords to pressure tenants to leave. lt won't restore the balance between buyer and seller but it will at least prevent the most flagrant abuse of the landlord's power. You know, it doesn't take too many abu ses for what was once an abuse to become a common practice. What is easily done by one and then by two and then by four and then by ten, leaves the realm of the exceptional and it becomes a common practice.

You find yourself going back to square one and saying, well, what should be reasonable? I think restraint as to the frequency with which increases are permitted is the keystone in this legislation and must be there, however. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parasiuk. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Shapiro, you provided a rather interesting perspective in your presentation. We of this committee have been hearing tenants coming before us, complaining of big rent increases of 30 or 40 or 50 percent, and in some instances higher than tha t.

Last ni ght we had landlords or landlord associations, or their representatives come before us, saying how improverished they have been made over the last five years, saying to us that really , because of that, rent increases of up to 10 0 percent in one year could, in fact, be justified.

I was rather intrigued by your statements that the guideline increases and guideline ceilings during the period of rent control in deed ende d up being something in the order of 50 percent higher than the costs, so that in your estimation, have landlords, over the last four or five years, made something in addition to the actual increases in the costs that they have incurred, on average? MR. SHAPIRO: On average, I would say I have that impressi on.

I also, because I was so closely connected with the technicalities of the old Act and regulations, knew of ways in the scheduling of expenses that could permit profits to really be made. For example, let 's say the permissible incr ease was 8 percent a year and the landlord really did require 8 percent additional costs to maintain his block at the same level as previously.

Well, if one year he didn't use this 8 percent, he just let one of the caretakers go and didn't replace him, and his lawn service, well, he didn't cut the grass more than twice during the summer and he didn't clean the corridors as often, and they patched that hole in the rug in the lobby and didn't replace the broken lock in the front door, and he didn't spend his 8 percent, as a matter of 86 fact, he spent nothing on maintenance and he really let the apartment run down, he still got his 8 percent.

The next year, however, he says, "Wow, my building is running down, I had better take care of things." He would put in 16 percent worth of repairs and he came to the Rent Review Agency and he shelled out good receipts, ni ce, good, strong currency. There were other ways that the sophisticated person could do. So that if you are asking me whether or not there was money to be made over and above the permissible increase, there are many ways. Furthermore, the board didn't usually require more than a reasonable statement from the landlord.

We could n't ask the government to fund an independent audit of every landlord's books. There were a few famous cases in which we did have to order audits but normally we accepted reasonable bills, and there was money to be made that way. There was money to be made in other ways as well. So although I can't verify any particular amount or kind of increases, there were ways of doing it. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Shapiro, in your experience, who took advantage of the different ways in which one might, say, bend the rules of the Rent Stabilization Program, the big landlords or the small landlords? MR.

SHAPIRO: The smarter ones. MR. PARASIUK: The smarter ones. So there was no difference between, in terms of size, generally? MR. SHAPIRO: No. MR. PARASIUK: Do you have any recollec tion as to the number of staff that the Rent Stabilization Board employed at its height, at the high point? MR. SHAPIRO: When I was there, I don't think it was ever above two dozen. MR. PARASIUK: So something in the order of 24, then? MR. SHAPIRO: lt would be the maximum. I think it was usually less than that. MR.

PARASIUK: Are you aware of the situation right now where we are caught in a situation where the Rent Stabilization Board, in a sense, is being phased out? The Mi nister has said that complaints should go to the Rentalsman. As far as I can tell, the Rentalsman has not hired any staff, but a week ago we had eight of 15 staff of the Rent Stabilization Board laid off, lea ving, as far as I can tell, seven staff to chase down some of these complaints with respect to rent in creases, not landlord/tenant disputes which have been sort of the past area of concern of the Rentalsman.

Given the fact that the Rent Stabilization Board has told HUDAM that they have received 1, 000 complaints since July 1st, giv en the fact that the Minister has told the Member for Fort Rouge, today, that the Rentalsm an's office itself has received somethin g in the order of 315 complaints - there might be some duplication so assuming say something in the order of 1, 100 to

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 1, 200 complaints in the short period of time of two and a half weeks, do you think that seven staff are sufficient to handle investigations and do the quick type of co-operative work, especially with the powerless who you were so articulate in presenting their case for today? Do you think we have sufficient staff, notwithstanding the provisions of the Act, to do the type of work that you think is required in order to provide some type of reasonableness with respect to rent increases? MR.

SHAPIRO: Even at its maximum staff, my clear view of the matter was that the Board was always operating at a decision-making level far short of what would be, not ideal, but desirable ; that a number of decisions, as I have indicated in a number of my comments, were made because it was administratively convenient.

We could not hound and chase down every suspicious expense statement, and in cases, only the most violently obvious cases were we able to pursue matters that should be pursued, but there were many many many instances where I must tell you of my frustration in having to make decisions without adequa te information, without adequate investiga tion, and in the end I don't know, I hope the decisions were just, given the inadequate in formation and generalizations on whic h we operated, but we never, even with the two dozen there, had enough staff. I can't imagine how they are operating with seven staff. MR.

PARASIUK: Mr . Shapiro, when the Rent Stabiliz ation Board was in operation, you were a member of it, were landlords required to in fact submit to the reviews conducted by the Stabilization Board staff and were they required to submit to the decisions or to abide by the decisions taken by the Rent Stabilization Board? MR. SHAPIRO: When a complaint was registered, a rent review officer would review their costs, which were meant to justify the increased asked. A rent review officer would make a decision.

If either the landlord or the tenant was dissatisfied with the decision they could file a document which most people with fifth grade education could complete within thr ee or four min utes to register their dissatisfaction and ask for an appeal. lt was on the Appeal Board that I served. That's how far it went as far as having a second ki ck at the can was concerned.

The former legislation read that the decision of the Appeal Board was final and not subject to any further action, but in fact there was further action and our decisions were tested in courts from time to time and there always seemed to be a further step. MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Shapiro there has been some talk of amendments that have been brought forward and these aren't out in written form but they were in fact presented to us in the Legislature and so far the so-called arbitration process consists of a system whereby both parties have to agree to arbitration, and if the landlord refuses arbitration there is no arbi tra tion.

From your experience on the Rent Stabil ization Board, and you have heard tenants and landlords come before you on appeals, do you think landlords who are trying to seek, say unfair rent, will 87 in fact want to go for arbitration if they know that they can avoid it just by saying no? MR. SHAPIRO: I don't even know why you introduced the notion of unfair rent. Let it be fair.

If I am landlord and I ask for a 50.00 increase and the tenant comes to me and says it is too much, I think it only should be 20; if we can't settle it between us, in fact the voluntary bargaining has come to an end, and I can't conceive of why the next step is put in there. If I was willing to submit this matter to an arbiter, then I would have discussed it with my tenant. No, I don't see a landlord who may correctly feel that his rent demand is fair, I don't feel that he should. He shouldn't. MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Shapiro, the lawyer who was representing the Manitoba Landlords Association yesterday in his presentation and in the discussion afterwards ind icated that the Manitoba Landlords Associa tion, or he at least, would consider it reasonable to have compulsory arbitration provided there was an appeal process. You indicated that there was an appeal process and there were second kicks, possibly even third kicks at the can, in the old system.

So, therefore, would you concur with the suggestion put forward by the legal representative of the Manitoba Landlords Association that compulsory arbitration provided there was some appeal would be a reasonable step at this particular stage? MR. SHAPIRO: I agree in principle on both propositions; that the arbitration should be a right for the tenant to expect and on general principles that decisions can be faulty, procedures can be flabby, and a second crack should be aff orded, especially if the procedures could be kept at an informal and not complex level. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: First of all, Mr.

Shapiro, I want to commend you for your responsible att itude as demonstrated by your taking time to attend before the committee this ev ening and share your experience with us. Mr. Shapiro, I would like to know and I am curious what you know of the methodology employed in the preparation of the rent control monitoring reports which formed the basis for the final stage of decontrol which is now upon us. Do you know anything about that? MR. SHAPIRO: No, I don't, I'm afraid.

The notion of monitoring arose quite a while ago, but it was not pursued aggressively at all and apparently it wasn't implemented until long after I had severed my connections with the board , so I don't know the methods used; whether it was stratified sampling, or collect ing voluntary information, I don't know what was done. MR. PARASIUK: Is there not a provision in The Rent Stabilization Act which requires monitoring?

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, that provision was there from the outset and this was one of the responsibilities in which I feel the old board failed. MR. PARASIUK: I also wanted to hear from you with respect to an aspect of rent control which causes me a little concern. I don't know whether my concerns are justified or not, and I'd like to share the benefit of your wisdom in this regard.

We have heard from time to time and it's gone on for, I guess, all the time since th e inception of controls in the mid seventies, that at the beginning of the control program, there were some landlords who were caught in inordinately low rental situations and it has been submitted, and I am not sure it has been substantiated, but it has been maintained by some representatives of the landlords' association, that those landlords were locked into disparity throughout the time frame of rent controls. We have all heard this I am sure.

This is something that has been batted back and forth quite a bit, but I would like to know what you think about that and whether you feel - if it is correct do you feel that there is any way within the control program that something could have been done about that. MR. SHAPIRO: I don't feel it was either correct in the first place or subsequently. The landlords who seemed to complain about that, my impression was that these were landlords of older blocks, most of which were fully occupied. They were fully occupied possibly by virtue of the low rents. These rents were established by the landlords.

They were in place when the legislation was put in to place. The legislation didn't lock them in anymore than it locked in others. Nobody got locked into extremely high rents because you got the rents that you could get. lt is true that there may have been some landlords who were slower in predicting the coming inflation and provided less for it and gave tenants longer leases. In th ose cases the board secured a subsequent regulation that permitted us to compensate at the rate of 5 percent a year for long leases.

In one case we even permitted a rise of over 50 percent because a previous tenant had had a 10 -year lease, and the landlord indeed had been locked in, but these are special cases. I was never convinced and I never received any evidence to convince me that there was lock ing into lower rates than the apartments merited. MR. PARASIUK: Thank you. I also wanted to discuss the relative merits of the two decontrol formats. I am referring you to the provisions made in The Rent Stabiliz ation Act as a result of the 19 78 amendments.

This was the provisions that governed the first stage of rent control removal and as I am sure you are aware, set out a whole heirarchy of appeal processes. I think they were all touching on unconscionable rent increases. I think that's the term right in the legislat ion. I wanted to hear your point of view relative to the differences in the two formats of Bill No. 83 versus the former decontrol legislation and which you think is better from the - well it's simply not from any particular interest point of view. Which do you feel is fairer, is more just and why? 88 MR.

SHAPIRO: To select one from two evils is hard. Certainly if I had to select I would have to select what was before. I can't really make much sense out of the current Act. The paths are narrow, unclear and twisted, to get action.

At least in the old Act, as we kept hacking off protection, a piece at a time, first outside of Winnipeg, then buildings built after 19 75, then rents over 400 and so on, th e dismemberment was not pretty but at least the procedures, the funda mental right of a person to be able to express his grievance and take action, as long as they remained intact, no matter how sever the actions, I felt there was something remaining. I don't have this feeling about the present Act. I hope I don't, by saying so, support the dismemberment of the former Rent Review legislation that went on and on, unconscionab ly, if I may. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cowan. MR. COWAN: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I'd like to if I can, Mr. Shapiro, first thank you for what was a very informative presentation and draw upon some of your experience and expertise in this matter. I would like to ask you to elaborate on a point that you made in the early part of the presentation when you talked about those people who do not have the power or do not have a perception of them having the power of being able to fight the system, being abused by the arbitration system, or at least being less effectively able to use the arbitration system.

I know that many would agree that those that are in this position are those that are in most need of this sort of protective legislation from a phil osophical vantage point.

I would ask if you believe that the system that is being put in place now, the arbitration system, will alienate these people from the process by which they may have sought protection for themselves , more so, and I know that every system that you put in has an alienation factor in it, even the Rentalsman system, even the Rent Stabilization board, but the question is, will it alienate them even more so from the protective measures which should be designed to protect their interests, in your opinion? MR. SHAPIRO: In two ways, yes.

First because it is obviously a more tortuous route for getting some kind of justice, and second of all, it is rather a pity that it takes so long to establish pathways. We now know where to go if you want to see an elephant or polar bear. lt takes long to find that out. Do you know where to go to get a free swimming pool? lt takes long to find out what buses take you where. The Rent Stabi lization Board, no matter what its defects, as it became more and more familiar, its very familiarity made for more accessibility.

So on that count as well, I have to regret the new legislation because the old ball game is over just when people are beginning to learn the rules and how to play it, and we've got a new game. MR. COWAN: So, Mr. Chai rperson, tha t, if I understand you correctly, will disadvantage those who would most need the protection afforded them un der th e Act by, numb er one, removing the familiarity that might have been developed , and that would be by word of mouth, I would imagine. As one

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 individual within that community successfully uses a mechanism, then there is a tendency for the knowledge of that mechanism to develop throughout the community, in that way, and also that the process becomes more cumbersome under the new legislation.

If we take on the assumption, and I think that we justifiably can, that the present government is intent on removi ng or di sbanding the rent control mechanism, that's the Rent Stabilization Board, can you visu alize any process which would enable those persons who most need, and who are most disadvantaged either economically or educationally or cultu rally in our society, who most need this protection, can you visu alize any means of access that the government could put in its place that would enable them to better use what little protective devices are left to them? MR.

SHAPIRO: I can't at this moment. lt would require aggressive measures on the part of the government to make the legislation known and to sort of train people in what actions they have to take, and I just don't see this happening. MR. COWAN: I would ask you then, Mr. Shapiro, if the Rent Stabiliza tion Board had an outreach program or a program to extend itself out into the community, to make its services kno wn so that people would use such a program? MR.

SHAPIRO: In the original provisions of this Act, such activity was envisaged. lt never took place, but in its place, there were people in the community - there are always people who take leaders hip positions with respect to special issues, and there was leadersh ip that developed at the grassroots level.

But the board itself, although it had the power and, indeed, in my opinion, a mandate to take active steps in searching and finding injustice, did not do so and, in my opinion, there never seemed to be any intention of doing so, certainly not in a board that could, in my view, just about keep its head above water in properly analyzing and dealing with the complaints that did come through. MR.

COWAN: You would agree then, if it was possible, either through increased staffing or through a di fferent mechan ism, to reach out in to the community, that such would be advisable in regard to informing people of their rights, informing them of the mechanisms available to them and, indeed, encouraging them to fight abuse, whether it be their own personal abuse or abuse of a group, whenever possible. MR.

COWAN: I agree that this is not only desirable but could probably be implemented by the most modest of support, which would provide a little bit of funding and the necessary legitimation, the most modest support of many existing entities in the community, whether it be labour organizations or Legal Aid services or social agencies or school associations. Yes, there are ways in which we can help people deal with matters that affect their lives. MR. COWAN: In your brief, Mr.

Shapir o, you mentioned - actually it was not in the body of your 89 brief, but during the questioning, you mentioned, in response to a question from the Memb er for Transcona, that it was the smarter landlords who were able to use the Act to their best advantage. I would ask you if it were not the smarter tenants, also, or the tenants - I hesitate to use that word because it has cultural implications - but the tenants who were more versed in their rights, who were best able to use the mechan isms, the protections provided them under The Rent Control Act? Would you agree with that statement? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. Mr.

Chairman, please excuse what was partly facetious, because certainly there were some landlords who I think were very bright people and who never would attempt to take advantage. But the converse, as it applies to tenants is, I am afraid, true. By and large, the more articulate, the more secure, the better educated tenants are the ones who are most likely to make appeals. And in terms of personal reward, the most interesting appeals, of course, were of those suites that rented for close to 1,0 00, because the tenants provided the best material to argue with. MR.

COWAN: So, given our system whereby we reward those who are more articulate, those who are better educated, whereby they usually advance and would be the ones who would be renting the 1, 000 suites, and who would probably be in less need of the protection of a Rent Stabilization Board, in other words, if they could argue a good case before the board , they could probably argue a good case before the landlord also and would know how to use whatever mechanism available to them to their best advantage, it was actually those persons who are not as articulate, who are not as well versed in their rights and responsibilities, that would need the board more and yet would use the board least .

Is that a correct assumption? MR. SHAPIRO: That's my impression. MR. COWAN: And it would be your impression, Mr. Shapiro, that given the tortuous route of the new mechanism and the fact that we are disestablishing pathways that have been established, that those people will be further disadvantaged by the changes that will be perpetrated by the new Act? MR. SHAPIRO: Unquestionably. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further quest ions from members of the committee? Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: ... one, Mr. Sh apiro.

The vacancy rates are widely used as one of the indi cators as to whether or not controls should be imposed by government, or regulated. Do you think tha t that's a fair ind icator for gui delines, for governments to follow the vacancy rates, Mr . Shapiro? MR. SHAPIRO: Not taken in the brutal gross fashion in which they are often presented. Even when Winnipeg had its lowest total vacancy rates, there

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 were still some areas of town, for example some sections of Transcona or some sections of Pembina Highway south, where, for that particular market, there had been some over-building. These vacancies - a vacancy on Pembina Highway near Chevrier, was of no use to somebody who couldn't afford more than 15 0.00 somewhere in the downtown area. lt tells us something about the condition of the real estate trade, and I think the gross figures are quite useful that way, but I think they are of extremely limited use in dealing with human need. MR. McKENZIE: In a city like Winnipeg . . .

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very kindly, sir. MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next person, representing 55 Nassau Tenants' Association, Ms. Ruth Krindle. Is she avai lable? MS RUTH KRINDLE: She is. Mr. Chairman, I appear as a private citizen. I am the vice-president of the 55 Nassau Tenants' Association, but my essential appearance here today is as a private citizen. I am going to be directing my remarks to those sections of Bill 83 that have to deal with the question of condominiums.

As vice-president of th e 55 Nassau Tenants' Association, as president of the Fort Rouge Liberal Association, I found myself involved in probably the first successful attempt on the part of tenants to face up to a landlord who was attempting to convert a block to a cond ominium and to secure for the tenants who were in the block at the date of the conversion the right to remain on as tenants. Having done so, I seem somehow or other to have become the neighbourhood expert on condominium conversions, to the point where every single time that a tenant phones up Mr s.

Westbury about condominiums, she refers them to me, and it has hit the point now where every time tenants phone up Joe Locke, the Rentalsman, about condominiums, he refers them to me. The result is that 55 Nassau grew and it grew to an involvement with the tenants' associations of Sussex House, Imperial House, 18 8 Roslyn Road, Fountain House, and with tenants from Hampton Gr een , 81 1 Gr osven or, 99 Wellington Crescent, a goodly portion of the constituency of Fort Rouge.

Because my involvement as a tenant was really that related to condominiums, and because of the implications of the bill for tenants who are faced with the potential of condominium conversion, I am going to confine my remarks solely to that area. As the law presently stands, the Legislature of this province has recognized that tenants ought to have some say in what happens to their block. At present, commercial rental accommodation can only be converted to condominium ownership if the landlord obtains the consent in writing of 50 percent of the tenants who have written leases.

At the time that that amendment was introduced by Lloyd Axworthy, it is my understanding that it was supported by both th e NDP and the Conservative members of the 90 House.

There was a recognition by the entire House that a landlord who indu ced tenants to move into rental accommodation, who accepted their rents and presumably profited by their rents, ought not to be in a position, arbitrarily and unilaterally at some future point in time, to be able to say to them, "Guys, I have changed my mind, I have changed the rules on you, it's either buy or get out." At least 50 percent of the tenants had to consent, in writing, to that change in ground rules before the nature of the building could be so drast ically changed.

As I ind icated, it is my understanding that the whole of the House supported that fundamental proposition. The effect of

Section 38, Bill 83, is to completely render the tenants' consent meaningless. I don't know whether that was intended or not by the government. In light of certain of the questions that were posed by the Min ister yesterday, it may not have been the intended result of

Section 38. But

Section 38, und erneath it, 5.(1 .2), bears a potential for da nger tha t really concerns me. lt states: "Where an owner of the existing residential premises intends to convert those premises to a condominium . . ." There is no mention there about he has the consent of the tenants to do so; all he has to do is want to do so.

" ... he may, if there is no tenancy agreement, give the tenant two month's notice to termina te the tenancy." If there is a tenancy agreement, he gives the tenant an option to purchase and if the tenant doesn't exercise the option to purchase, then he gives the tenant two month's notice to terminate the tenancy. The landlord is going to end up with his 10 0 percent without any difficulty, members of the committee, once he has evicted everybody who doesn't want to buy - no trouble, 10 0 percent consent is there.

I would submit that if that was not the intention of the Legislature, of the government in introducing this bill, and 1 don't believe it was, that a very very simple amendment to 5(1.2) could get around that particular difficulty. All we would have to do, is where it says, "where an owner of existing residential premises intends to conver t" , remove those words and put, "where an owner of existing residental premises has filed a plan of conversion".

He can't file the conversion without the consent of the tenants, and once you do that it means that things then follow logically; it means that the landlord first has to go to the tenants and ask for their consent. If the majority of them consent he then goes over to th e Land Titles and files his condominium plan, then he is in a position to go to the tenants once the building is now a condominium and give them their option to purchase.

If they don't exercise it and if they haven't negotiated something else for themselves in the course of getting the consent, then he can terminate them. lt is not a big amendment. lt's a very small amendment, and I would hope that it reflected the intention of the government. I would hope that 5(1. 2) was not put there to render a mockery of the 50 percent consent sections. In my brief to you, and I am not going to read it to you in detail. You have heard a lot of people this even ing and there seem to be an awful lot more behind me, and furthermore, you ha ve heard basically from the people who were effected.

You

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 have heard from Dr. Conway; you have heard from Jean Carson; you have heard from Mr. Ross this afternoon.

You have heard from our tenants in Fort Rouge and what they have done with the 50 percent consent requirements, and they have gone to the landlord and said, look landlord, we don't mind you making this building a condominium; we don't mind you making money, you own the property, you have a right to market it, but you held this block out - when I moved into 55 Nassau, into that monstrosity, there was a great huge sign that said, commercial rental accommodation, and because I said that I moved into it.

And I moved in on the assumption that if I paid my rent, didn't bug my neighbours I had a home, and the landlord decided, half way down the road, to change the rules on me. I don't mind him changing the rules as long as he allows me to have a home. lt hasn't hurt the landlords. We didn't get Daon Development Limited or Shelter Corporation Limited by the neck, those are big corporations, if they really wanted to have a battle with us they could have beaten us down any time. They have a 20 percent turnover annually in those monsters in Fort Rouge, accord ing to Daon's fig ures. lt gives the m marketable suites.

They don't have to be evicting tenants to have suites to market, 55 Nassau has 300 suites. If 20 percent of those turnover every year without anything being done by the landlord, they cannot market that suites that are coming onto the market right now, they have an apartment block full of empty suites. There was no need to ever threaten anybody with evic tion, and you have heard particularly from the elderly whose homes those were. Those people shouldn't be th reatened with eviction. The other

section that concerns me, gentlemen, and that I would really like to draw your attention to, because it is something, and I believe you heard from Mr. Ross and Myrtle Conway that this is happening. I would like to refer you to

Section 28 and 29 of your bill in which you permit, specifically 29, 11 8(2.1) , you permit the landlord to include whatever clauses he may choose to in a lease, so long as they are not inconsistent with The Landlord and Tenant Act. What is happening, what some of the landlords are doing - Adway for instance is doing this on a non-stop basis, it is giving its tenants their renewals of lease but built into those renewals of lease is a consent to convert the block to a condominium. In other words, if you want your new lease tenant you give your consent to convert.

To this point in time, with the ba ckin g of the Rentalsman, the tenants have been crossing the consent out, signing the lease and sending it in.

But the amendment, and again I don't think this was contempla ted at all by the government when they introduced 118 (2. 1) , would allow Adway to stick what ever clauses it wants to in the lease, including a consent, so that a tenant who was living in the block, who doesn't want to consent to the conversion of his block; wants to continue on there; wants to pay his rent - probably doesn't want to pay his rent but is willing to pay his rent - gets his renewal of lease and it now contains a clause that says: Yes, I consent to the conversion of my building to a condominium. He is now in a spot.

If he crosses it out the landlord doesn't have to accept the renewal 91 of lease and he is without a lease and he is subject to eviction; if he signs it and it's a signature under compulsion , a signa ture un der dur ess, he has consented to the conversion of the block to a condominium. If that consent is going to mean anything, it has to be a consent that is freely given and it cannot be freely given if landlords are holding clubs of eviction over people's heads. I would ask that this committee give serious consideration with respect to

Section 29 of the bill, to considering the possibility of making the consent to a conversion a specific exception, that should not be in embodied in as a condition of a lease. I would also ask and submit, gentlemen, that in terms of

Section 38, as I said, the very simple changing of the few words in the

preamble to that would solve all sorts of problems. There was one other matter, there are a number of matters that I raise in my written brief, and as I said I don't feel like standing here reading it to you, I am sure you don't feel like sitting here having me read it to you, is this. There is no obligation under The Condominium Act, as it now stands, the consent in writing is required of 50 percent of the tenants who have written leases. There is no obl igation on a landlord to renew a written lease. In other words you have your 12 -month lease, he can just let it run out and not give you another one.

Month 13 comes up, you now are a tenant minus a written lease and your consent doesn't matter, he doesn't need you, he doesn't have to worry about you. May I suggest that this committee consider, when you are considering amending The Condominium Act, the criteria not so much of a written lease, because a written lease is something that is within the sole discretion of the landlo rd to give or to not give, but a period of tenancy instead.

I understand that when that first came up in the House, I believe a number of years back when this matter first came up for debate, there was a question of whether it should be all tenants or tenants with written leases, and it was my understanding that at stage of the game Law Amendments Committee decided that they would prefer tenants with written leases because they really didn't think that fly- by-nighters ought to have a say in what happened to their apartment blocks. I accept that.

Transient people who are here or there for a month or two really ought not to have a say, but you can have long term tenants, committed tenants, who have never had a written lease. And as I said a landlord is not obliged to renew a written lease by a lease in writing. He can just plain let the lease run out and now you go on a month to month tenancy with no written lease.

I would suggest that the committee consider, when you are considering the issue of conversion and tenants, the possibil ity of substituting the requirement of tenant with a written lease, to tenant who has resided in the block for - you pick it - six months, a year, somebody with a serious commitment obviously, not a transient, not a fly-by nighter. These concerns are all expressed in more detail in my brief. There is one error in the brief gentlemen that I feel I should point out, Page 6 , at the bottom. I find myself malignin g improperly the land lord of Edinburgh House. Could we delete that reference to

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 "Edinburgh House was the same thing "; just the bottom line? MR. CHAIRMAN: Delete "Edinb urgh House was the same thing". MS KRINDLE: Please, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. MS KRINDLE: That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you prepared to answer questions Ms Krindle? MS KRINDLE: Certainly. N9The MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR.

JORGENSON: Ms Krindle, I don't know that I have a question to ask you unless it is to perhaps give us some help in drafting some amendments, because it is my intention, on the basis of the submissions that have been presented here, yours today and a few yesterday, to propose further amendments to that particular section. I hope that we can meet the objections that you have set out and I want to thank you for your presentation. MS KRINDLE: Thank you. Mr. Mi nister if I can be of any assistance to you in that area I will be gladly be so. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions?

We thank you kindly for your presentation. MS KRINDLE: Thank you, Sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Hart Green Jr.; No. 5, Paul Kowtalo ; Mr. and Mrs. Sheldon; Neal Hescott; Mrs. A. Gould; Mrs. Beatrice Scott; Mrs. Madge Steiner; Mrs. Otillie Stadelmeir; Lewis Udow; Josephine Kowaluk. You are Lewis Udow, Sir? MR. LEWIS UDOW: Yes. I am appearing on behalf of the Winn ipeg Labour Council. I'll make a comment before I start. I was asked to appear because we understood that normally committee meetings occur in the afternoons and I happen to be the only person who works midni ght s.

I am happy to see this committee meeting in the even ing so that working people have a chance to get out and make their opinions known. The position of the Winn ipeg Labour Council is basically very simple. We are opposed to the removal of rent controls in any form. We feel that if the landlords have a case that the control, the limits in the Rent Stabilization Act are too low, you are willing to sit down and discuss the question of raising limits or allowing appeals in special cases.

The general feeling within the membership of the Winnip eg Labour Council is that the entire setup, as it existed previously, of rent controls is necessary; that it was causing no damage and the vacancy rates were remaining stable at a reasonably high level; that it was causing no damage to the landlords; and that there was no reason to remove rent controls at all. More than that, we are worried about a number of other features in this legislation. The rela tionship 92 between a landlord and a tenant is never one of equality.

The tenant is renting space because he needs a place to live; the landlord is renting space out because he is intending to make some money. lt hurts the tenant far more not having a place to live than it hurts the landlord not to have any rental coming in for a varying length of time. What particularly bothers us in this Act are a number of other amendments, particularly one of them dealing with, I believe

Section 11 4, removing the clauses on discrimination for tenants active in political purposes or in tenants' associations. - (Interjection)- lt has been amended to take that out, we didn't know that until we came here. Okay. This was bothering us because we felt that this gave a tremendous power to the landlord. right of tenants to organize and to have some protection was extremely important. Now that I find it has been removed, I really don't have that much further to say. We are a little bit worried about the ease of creating cond ominiums.

People who rent are obviously, in most cases, people who cannot afford to purcha se and conversion of properties in to condominiums is reducing the total available market for these people. Again, there is no question that in the long run, that the owner of a piece of property should be able to sell it in whichever way he wants, but the protections that existed for existing tenants, under the previous Act, were something that we feel should be left in. Other than that, as I say, most of my presentation had to deal with that question of 11 4 and, as I found it has been removed, I have nothing further. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Are you prepared to answer some questions, Mr. Udow? MR. UDOW: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Westbury. MRS. JUNE WESTBURY: lt is really not a question. I just hope I haven 't misled Mr. Udow. We received a number of proposed amendments from the Minister, and that was one of them. You may want to ask the Min ister for a commitment that he is really going to make that amendment. MR. UDOW: Well, reading: "No landlord shall discriminate a tenant or prospective tenant because of the tenant's membership or participation in a tenants' association. " That covers one part of it. There was a whole list of . . . MR.

JORGENSON: The rest are covered under the Human Rights Commission, under The Human Rights Act. MR. UDOW: My unde rstanding is that there were a numb er of items that aren't covered under The Human Rights Act , particularly political discrimination. MR. JORGENSON: That's the only one that isn't. That's the only one that wasn't covered under The Human Rights Act and that's why we include it in this Act.

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 MR. UDOW: The only thing I can do is to say that if you have proposed that amendment, presumably it will pass, and we are strongly in favor of that particular amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cowan. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. To Mr. Udow, you mentioned, in an swer to the question from the Member for Fort Rouge, that it was your un dersta nding tha t dis crimi nation for political reasons was not made improper, or illegal, under the Act, and the Min ister agreed with you.

Do you believe that, or does the Winn ipeg Labour Council, believe that sort of protection should be provided in the instance of a person seeking to exercise their political beliefs, perhaps by putting a sign in their window, or perhaps by canvassing the block itself, or any number of ways in which that person might publicly and vocally or visibly make known their political beliefs? Do you believe that they should also be protected from discrimination as to their premises? MR. UDOW: Certainly.

The discrimination on the basis of political belief obvious ly doesn't occur unl ess somebody publicly expresses it, and the most public form is the sign in the window, or canvassing of a block. This would be very very easy for an unscrupulous landlord with a large number of apartments in an area which was politically marginal could deli berately decide to discriminate on the basis of political belief in order to affect the vote in that particular area. lt could be done.

I can think of sections of the city that are extremely marginal, where victory margins are 50 to 1 00 votes, and a landlord with one or two large apartments in that area could affect the election results in that area. MR. COWAN: So it would thereby be the � recommendation of the Win nipeg Labour Council that such provisions and protections be included in MR. UDOW: Our opinion was that the simplest thing to do is simply to leave out the

section removing that

Section 11 4; that the present protections are quite adequate as listed in Section, I say that I believe it is 11 4, and that there is no need to amend the Act to remove them. So simply, when the amendments are coming up, to remove that entire

section of this present Act and leave it as it stands, not to amend and not to reamend this Act to put part of them back. MR. COWAN: That's all, Mr. Chairperson. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? We thank you for your presentation, Mr. Udow. I call Josephine Kowaluk; Mrs. F. Harvich. Robert Cow an. Mr. Carter. MR. C. M. CARTER: I will be speaking later under the Winn ipeg Society of Seniors. 93 MR. CHAIRMAN: J.G. Young; Mrs. Jean Simpson; Steve Nalewany; Madeline Bernier; John Farquharson; Yvonne Carroll; Winn ipeg Society of Seniors, Mr. John Lopuck. MS. YVONNE CARROLL: You called me three back.

I'm Yvonne Carroll. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Yvonne Carroll, No. 48. MS. CARROLL: I am representing Kelly House at 15 Carlton, it is a Globe Agency block. I am somewhat unprepared; my voice is slightly gone because I am suffering from the flu right now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, madam. MS. CARROLL: We have suffered increases in our block anywhere from 4.9 to a massive 27.3 percent.

I can't see why, instead of going forward in the 1980s, the government continues to put us back in feudal times with this new bill. lt is completely restricted towards the landlord; it gives the tenant very little rights and I can't follow the sequence of logic, nor can most of the tenants who are directly affected. lt is easy to sit back when you are not affected but for me, who is a newcomer to the city, I can't represent as a citizen because I don't hold citizenship right now, and I am not sure if I'm going to if it continues the way it is going.

Your inflation rate stands right now somewhere in the region of 9 percent, or so we are quoted, and yet I suffered a rent increase, personally, of 25.5 in a 10 -month series. I have written to Mr. Jorgenson and I am still awaiting a reply. I am hoping for it before my lease is due to be signed.

As we see it right now, putting this amendment in where the condominiums are put, if you uplift your rent controls, as you are proposing to do and will probably succeed in, it will give the landlord the right next year to raise the rent to a degree where the tenants will obviously have to leave and find other places to inhabit because they can't afford the increases he has put. There is no stipulation there, therefore, he can afford to empty his block and start it as a condominium if he so wishes. lt gives him that right; it gives him that leeway.

The other point, where arbitration is, if it's not compulsory, then it is futile. How can you have an arbitration

section if it is not compul sory. With uplifting the rent controls, or rumour that rent controls were uplifted, look at the rent increases that are around the city right now. Can you justify them? Are wage increases increasing to the same degree? They are not, very definitely not, for any of us, and I am sure they are not for government MLAs either. lt just seems so absolutely unreasonable at this point in time, with inflation rising to the degree to which it is, both in the States and here, that you can continue to do it. lt affects the majority of people in this city.

As far as I can see the only gain that this bill will give is it might increase the buying rate of houses. lt will definitely be an investment for real estate, but it seems to be the only advantage that is apparent right now.

Thursday, 17 July, 1980 I just wonder if I may ask questions of the committee, or if I am obliged to . . . I may not ask questions? I came with the intention that I could. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm afraid you can't. That's not the normal course of action. The committee is for the public to make representation to the committee. You can ask members away from the table, and privately, quest ions if you are trying to seek information. -(I nterjection)- I would just mention, if you will let me complete my statement, to Mr . Jorgenson, that you had said you had written him MS. CARROLL: Yes, I have. MR.

CHAIRMAN: . . . and he said that you have been in to see him and he has met with you. MS. CARROLL: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: So that is the way that you can talk to members of the committee, is to contact them. But in my day here, we have never had delegations come . . . MS. CARROLL: Pardon me, that's my ignorance; I'm not familiar with committees of government. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that that's a question for the committee to determine. There are no prescribed rules for the procedures before the com mittee, as I know it.

I would have thought that members could submit to questions if they wish. Certainly, nobody could stop a member from submitting to a question with consent. If there are rules, I would like to see them, because I would like to avail myself of their contents so I can become apprised of them, as a member of the committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: My only re

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-sro5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf sro5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3f0b36cb956d177ae13db25ca0fa038c5103a5dc

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).