Manitoba Committee Hansard — 25 July 1980 (Statutory Regulations and Orders Committee, Sitting 6, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-sro6

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 FRIDAY, 25 JULY, 1980, 8:00 p.m. Printed by The Office of The Queen's Printer, Province of Manitoba

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 DOWNEY, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim . GOURLAY,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 PAWLEY, 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 Springfield 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 ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY REGULATIONS AND ORDERS Friday, 25 July, 1980 Time - 8:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN - Mr. Warren Steen (Crescentwood) MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee come to order. MR. BRIAN CORRIN: I note, Mr . Chairman, that there are delegations here who obviously have been made aware of the fact that we are continuing our deli berations relative to this par ticular bill this evening. I'm advised - I've only spoken to two of the people here this evening but I'm advised that they would like to make subm issions and have appeared for that purpose.

I would indica te that we feel quite strongly that these people should be allowed to put their opinions on the record. I note, Mr. Chairman, that there do not appear to be too many people either and perhaps, on that basis, we would ask that we proceed to hear the delegations. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the same point of order, I would just like to say MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a minute, would you put a mike in front of you.

I have been asked by the people handling the record ing equipment, that these mikes in this particular room are not quite of the quality or as sensitive as the mikes in the other room and they have asked me if I can remind members at all times if they would have a mike in front of them when they are speaking. Mr. McKenzie would you please carry on. MR. McKENZIE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, I've been in the Legislature since 19 66. I've seen these commit tees operate under many di fferent terms of references, or bills, or whatever came before.

I'v e been a member of this committee and I've been here at all the meetings, the names of all the witne sses that are on the list have been called twice, some have been called thr ee times. On one occasion, the committee adjourned at, I think, 3:00 or 3:30 in the afternoon and never met again until 8:00 at night because no wit nesses appeared. So I think under those conditions that the committee has done a reasonably good job to listen to the information and the evidence that's available to us from the people of the public. The other thing that concerns me, Mr.

Chairman, and I think the record shou ld show, th at this committee is not a political arena. I have seen in the last few years, where politicians are coming into the various committees and using this as a forum to build up their political ego. The political arena in this building is in the Chamber and it annoys me very much to see politicians using this committee system, which was very unique, Mr.

Chairman, I dare say it's the only jur isdiction in Canada th at has the committees, where people can come and make their presentations on bills and matters before the House between second read ing and thir d read ing and Manitoba is one of the unique provinces in our country. I hope we don't destroy that system, Mr. Chairman, by over-politicizing this forum because of the fact that the political arena is across the hall, in the Chamber, and that's where the politics of this province are debated and exercised and everybody is given his opportunity.

So with those few words, in my opinion, as the Member for Roblin, I think the witnesses in this province that have come forth have had ample opportunity to offer their submissions and their views. The Minister has already indi cated if they have things that they feel the committee should deal with they can put them in writing and we'll deal with them here tonight or at the earlie st opportunity. I say we should proceed, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: On that very matter that Mr.

McK enzie just has raised, to all members of the committee and persons in attendance, the Clerk's office has received two written presentat ions, which there are copies available for all members of the committee, that have come in in the last few days, as the Mini ster responsible for this bill indic ated in the House, a few days ago that he and the committee would, at all times, be willing to receive written briefs, there have been two that are available tonight and the Clerk's office have copies available which I will ask that they be distributed to members of the committee. On the same point of order, Mr.

Kovnats. MR. ABE KOVNATS: Yes, on the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, as this committee knows, I'm a stickler for rules and I have a very strong feeling for fairness. I believe that the people who want to make a presentation have a right to make a presentat ion.

But I also belie ve that there is a time and a place that this presentation should be made and the time and the place was last week and there was time available and I think, in fairness, that the people who still have to make a presentat ion, or want to make a presenta tion, can't expect this commit tee to sit specially at that point, a week, next month, to receive these presentations.

The Mi nister has also said that he would accept presentat ions, written presentations, at any time, so that they could be distributed among the members of this committee, which will help us formula te an opinion as to what actions we are going to take. And out of fairness, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we proceed, without hearing any more briefs. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parasiuk, on the same point of order. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I have only been in the Legislature for three years, un like Mr.

McKenzie, but I did ask some of my colleagues who've spent more time in the Legislature than myself, and I asked them about one contentious bill in the past, namely the bill establishing Autopac, what the procedure was there? And I understand 121

Friday, 25 July, 1980 that there were a great numb er of people who presented briefs. I understand from my leader, Mr. Pawley, who was the Mini ster respon sible for bringing forward that legislation at the time, that arrangements were made in such a way that everyone who wanted to make a presentation was, in fact, gi ven the oppor tu nity to make an oral presentation to the committee. I think that when we met last week we met at short notice. We met through an afternoon, we met thr ough an even ing, two evenings, we had tremendous tur nouts.

People were there, the y obviously didn't know whether in fact they would be up that night or not. We went until 12 o'clock in one instance and 1:35 in another instance, and I think there is nothing wrong with someone de ciding, especially some of the older people, but other people deciding that 12 :00 or 1:00 o'clock in the morning is quite a long time, and assu ming that the process is such that with respect to a piece of legislation like this, which is so contentious, which does relate to them very di rectly, that they would be given the opportunity to speak to us.

I can recall that on Thursday night last we heard some excellent presen tations from people that, frankly, gave me a much better perspective on this legislation and if we can get more prospectus from different people and learn about the facts as the people, in fact, see them and experience them, then I think it will help us create better legislation and I see nothing wrong with that.

I think the people who have come forward have been very conscientious, have been in fact speaking to the issues entirely and that we have received super presenta tions and I belie ve that they are here before us right now, I believe we'll probably end up wasting more time debating whether in fact we should hear the people or not. We could quite easily hear them right now and I suggest that we hear the four or five people that are here and get on with the job. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Yes, Mr . Chairman. Having listened to the comments on the matter before the committee right now, Mr.

Chairman, I think, and I agree with my col leagues, Mr. Kovnats, Mr. McKenzie, that I think we have been democratic, we have been fair with the public in regard to this issue, and I think that the time has come now that we should get on with the busine ss of dealing with what we're here for tonight and I move the question be put. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ther e's no qu es tion, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Corrin on a point of order offered a suggest ion.

As Chairma n , I beli eve that it was decided by the majority at our recent hearing that there would be no further delegations and that I'm going to uphold that decision that was made the other night. Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: On that point, Mr. Chairman, that's not so. The Min ister concluded our last meeting with a motion that comm ittee adjourn and that was passed by the majority of members. But there certainly was no motion presented by the Mini ster or any other member of the government side, for closing the presentation of more briefs. So on that basis, Mr.

Chairman, I belie ve the issue is still before us and one that has to be determined and decided tonight. I think the major point is that there seem to be just but a very few people who have taken the time and trouble to come out this evening. I don't know why those people weren't here last time. I suppose none of us do in the absence of explanations from them. 1t is possible that those were people who came out and then had to go home because they had to be up in the morning to work, we don't know.

They may have been people who were waiting during the lengthy submis sions made by other delegates, includin g those from the Landlords Association or HUDAM, the housing lobby, and it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the issue is very much alive, it's vital and one tha t we must decide on prior to commencing deli berations with respect to the provisions of this bill. � I think, Mr.

Chairman, in fairness, since people � have raised the question of democratic process, in fairness I think that since there are but a few people in the room, we might ask them why they were unable to present their briefs; whether they were informed by the Clerk's committee, that would be of relevance. We've had an ind ication, Mr. Chairman, that the Clerk was unable to contact many of the people - I'm not suggesting that was as a result of the Clerk's office's failure to make the necessary enquir ies but certainly ther e may have been exemplary circu mstances, we don't know. A person may have been in the hospital.

A person may have been here and then gone home at one o'clock or 1:30 on one of the evenings. There are any one of a number of possibil ities. I think if we're going to adhere to the spirit of democratic process, as opposed to the letter of the law, which is what I think is being suggested by some members on the gov ernme nt side, we should cer tainly consider reopen ing, or not reope ning but conti nuing the hearing of presenta tions from dele gates and the � consideration of those submissions. � MR. CHAIRMAN: To Mr .

Corrin and all other members of the Committee, I am of the opinion that when we concluded our hearings of some, what was it, six, seven days ago, five, six days ago, that the Mi nister responsible for the Bill said that, having heard all available persons who wanted to make presentations, that the presentation portion of this Commit tee would conclude and that at the next time we met we would deal with the Bill on a Clause-by Clause basis, and that he moved that the Committee rise.

Now that is my understanding, I don't have Hansard available, but that is my unde rstan ding, and going from memory that is my ruling. The Min ister said in the House, the following day, I belie ve, when he was questioned by a member of the opposition, if he was asked would he receive presentat ions again, and he said he wou ld receive all written presentations from persons who wished to submit them and would have them dupl icated by his office and distributed to all members of the committee.

Now that is my underst anding of it and I came here tonight at 8:00 o'clock with the und erstan ding that we would accept written briefs. The Clerk has 122

Friday, 25 July, 1980 formed me that there are two, of which I believe 1ve been distributed to members of the Committee, 1d that is my ruling. I would suggest that we carry 1 with the Bill on a Claus e-by-Clause basis. Mr . Parasiuk. IR. PARASIUK: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to !fresh your memory because I was the one who was Jeaking on a point of order when the Minister 10ved adjournment, and what happened was that JU, yourself, as Chairperson, made the motion that e ... IR. CHAIRMAN: No, I couldn't make a motion. IR. PARASIUK: Yes, you did. IR.

CHAIRMAN: I might have sugge sted , Mr . arasiuk, a motion, but I can't make a motion as hairman. IR. PARASIUK: That is precisely the point of order tat I had raised, I said that you as Chairperson Juldn't make a motion, that there was no motion on te floor and then I went into the reasons why I felt tat we should not stop representations. When I 1ished my point of order, the Minister then was !Cognized and moved adjournment, the majority of tem bers on the Committee voted in favour of :Jjournment, that was the Conser vative members, 1e New Democratic members voted against :Jjournment, but you had the majority.

You won the :Jjournment and we went home, but the whole issue I whether we would hear representation or not was Jt decided, and frankly it is not up to the Minister 1 make that decision in the House or anywhere, it is J to this Committee, acting as a Committee, and we 10w that the Minister is only one amongst equals in te Committee. I think he recognizes that, he said tat in the past; other Ministers have said that in the ast when they have been before Committee, that is te way in which I understood we were operating. IR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cowan, on the same point of 'der. IR.

JAY COWAN (Churchill): Yes, to the point of -der, Mr. Chairman.

You know, I have not been in te House as long as the Member for Roblin or as 'ng as any of the members, or even most of the 1embers that are assembled around this table, so 9rhaps it is in that ignorance that I don't quite 1derstand what is happening here - and I am uite sincere when I say I don't understand what is appening here - because in analysing the situation 1e only conclus ion I can come to is that we ave: No. 1, a group of citizens of the province of lanitoba who, for reasons known to themselves, ould like to exercise what has been termed as a rivilege by many, but what I consider to be a right, 1d that is to use their voice to bring forward their Jncerns, to discuss legislation that is before this ouse.

And I am a firm beli ever in pu blic articipation in the legisl ative process, and I will have 1 answer just briefly one point that the Member for oblin said, and he had sugges ted that because >piring politicians, or politicians who had attempted 1 enter the other arenas in this House, had failed were now making use of this Committee for political reasons, that they were in some small way perhaps jeopardizing the continua tion of this very legitimate and healthful process.

I would sugges1 to him that politicians, by their very action, have showed that they have a public interest at heart, that they want to be involved and they, among all, should be accorded the privileges and the rights of others. And I would sug gest tha t th eir appeari ng before these Committees is not done in any partisan or political way, but is probably done out of a sincere belief in this process and a sincere belief that their voice can be beneficial to the legislative arena, whether it is in the Cham bers themselves or whether it is in committee rooms such as this, or whether it is on the streets.

So I wanted to make that point very clear, that I take some exception to the fact that he believes that they might be jeopardizing the process; I think they are in fact enhancing the process, whether they be politicians of my own political stripe or of another political stripe, and I don't think that we should impute motives to people who appear before these committees. lt is up to the committee to decide and this matter was brought before the Legislature; it was brought before the Legislature in a number of different forms because there were members that were concerned that the way in which the hearings were cut off at the last session, or the last meeting of this Commi ttee, were in fact arbitrary and were in fact unfair.

Now that is an opinion, but it is an opinion nonetheless that should be voiced, and it was voiced. I recall very plainly the exchange that went on between, I believe it was the Minister of Consumer Affairs and the Member for lnkster, and the Member for lnkster said, is it not up to the Committee to decide whether or not it will hear briefs; is it not up to the Commi ttee to decide what action it will take on a particular evening; is it not up to the Committee to in fact determine the sequence of events for a hearing.

I believe that it is up to the Committee and I know that you are sincere in your efforts when you say that it is your under standing that a ruling was made, but in fact that ruling, if it was made, and I disagree with you that it was made, ther e was no motion on the floor, it was a statement by the Mini ster that the hearings would be called off; it was a whisper by the First Mini ster that th ere be no more public representations, but there was no motion on the floor, and I voted on the motions that evening and I know what they were.

The motion that we voted on that evening was a motion to adjourn, nothing more, nothing less. The statement that the Mini ster said was that he would not allow any more briefs to be presented at the next hearing, that was a statement that the Mini ster made. He made it in the Committee, he made it in the House, and he is exercising his rights when he says tha t he does not want any more pu blic representation on this Bill, but he is not exercising my rights when he says that.

My right is to demand that this Commi ttee decide, and we will demand that this Commi ttee decide and that that will have to take pla ce as part of the normal process of this Committee and in the normal ways. But before doing that, which I anticipate will come shortly, I think it is important to understand what we 123

Friday, 25 July, 1980 are deciding. We are not deciding whether or not we are going to hear a number of briefs this evening, probably one of which we could have been through by this time, we are not deciding whether or not the rules of this House are so sacrosanct that we can't go out of our way, make adjustments, be flexible, in order to hear the people of this province.

What we will be deciding is whether or not the people who have come here this evening, who have here for a very specific purpose, to exercise their democratic rights, are in fact going to be allowed to do so and in fact are going to be allowed to do so in a manner in which they feel comfortable with and a manner in which they believe to be justifiable, or they would not be here.

I do not believe that the people who have come here this evening have come here to impose upon this committee; 1 do not belie ve that the people who have come here this evening have come to impose upon the govern ment; I do not believe that they have come here to waste their time; and I do not believe that they have come here out of any other than a sincere motivation to bring forward their thoughts.

When the Min ister says, or other members of this commit tee say, that we can accept their written briefs in regard to that which they wanted to say, I would suggest to them that what they are saying is that there is no need for this type of committee, that what we can in the future have is people come up and present written briefs. Why do we not do that? Well, we do not do that, Mr. Chairperson, because that is not the most effective and efficient use of either our time or the time of the people who want to make repres entations to this committee.

We ask them to stand here before this microphone, not only to provide us with a written brief, or to provide us with a verbal brief, but also to participa te in an interchange in the best democratic fa shion; to ask them to su bject the mselves to questions from members of this committee, because we truly want to und erstand all that they have to say before us. You know as well as I do that sometimes you cannot make a subtle point or you cannot make a complex point in a brief, that you must have the int erchange , tha t you mu st have two-way communication.

That is, in fact, why I beli eve that this system has been set up, why we allow people to stand here to present briefs and to answer questions. And if we are going to say to the people in this room right now that because of some circums tance, about which we know nothing, we know not why they were not here at the last meeting - we can surmise, we can guess, we can blame them or fault them, or we can fault circum stance or chance, or we can fault the system. I, for one, Mr.

Chairperson, do not beli eve that this particular arrangement provides as much opportunity as it should for people to come forward, because far too often they have to come forward on very short notice and they may have made other arrangements for the two or three evenings that we are meet ing; and far too often, I believe that we ask, not only ourselves to sit at this table for far too late into the even ing but we ask people who have come to present briefs to sit out there, and not have the stimulus of participating in the discussion, to provide them with some method of passing the time, but to ask them to sit out there for hour upon hour upon hour while we go through our deli bera tions.

And then, because they have left, because they may be old, because they may have to be at work the next morning. I remember very clearly that one of the last speakers to speak before us at the last meeting was a person represe nting the Equal Rights Committee of the Manitoba Federation of Labour and her first words, and it was about 12 :30 in the evening when she spoke them were, "I have to get up at five o'clock to be at work the next morning." Yet we had forced that person to stay there until 12 :30 in order to make the brief.

I thought that was unfair to that person; I thought that that was not considerate to that person; I thought that we should have broken off much earlie r and gi ven th at person anothe r opportunity to come back. But I know that there were other people in the audience who left who wanted to present briefs, who wanted to exercise their voice, who left because they had to get up early or because they were senior citizens and they were tired, and I blame them not for being tired; I was tir ed, Mr. Chairperson.

So I would suggest that we have before us a choice that will, in fact, very clearly highlight our belief or our lack of belief in the democratic process as facilit ated by this type of committee hearing. I belie ve that this evening we can say, yes, we would not normally want to carry on the hearings in this way, but given the circu mstances of the situation, we have decided to facilitate the citizens that are here this evening to make their presentat ions, to facilita te their participation, and it will be a relatively painless process, Mr. Chairperson, I can guar antee you that.

As a matter of fact, it will be a rewarding process. Or we can lock our selves in this sort of acrimonious debate over I don't know what. When I said before, in opening my remarks, that I, in all sincerity, do not under stand why it is we must go through this sort of a situation time and time again when, to me, it is very plain and simple that we should be listening to the people.

The choice is to lock ourselves into acrimonious debate, which will drag the evening on for far too long, which will make this the most miserable of committee hearings that we have had to sit through so far, or to allow people to speak, to, by that, be rewarded by the benefit of their knowledge and their insight and also to reward them by allowing them their rights, and I don't think there should be even a choice of allowing them their rights, but as there is, as it is apparent that there is, I can only hope that the members of this committee would see their way clear to be flexible, to see their way clear to, in fact, support what we all know is a very good system, to try to make it work better, to try to improve upon it.

I would ask all members here to put their faith in the people of this province, to put their faith in the citizens that have come forward to present their briefs and, by doin g so, encourage more active public participation in the legislative process and we will all be the better for it. So, having said that, Mr. Chairman, I hope that I have been in some way able to persuade members of this committee that we would be doing a service not, only to our commi ttee, to ou rselves as legislators, but to our province and the people of this 124

Friday, 25 July, 1980 province by being flexible and hearing out those who wish to present their briefs before us. MR. CHAIRMAN: Having heard a num ber of persons speak to Mr. Corrin's point of order, I am still of the belief that when we concluded our hearings a week ago, that it was very plain that we had heard from the public and that the next time we met we would meet to discuss the bill on a Clause by-Clause basis, and that is my ruling. If you wish to, members on either side of the table, you can challenge my ruling, but that is my ruling. MR. COWAN: Mr.

Chai rperson, I do not wish to challenge your ruling but I wish to move, seconded by the Member for Transcona, that this committee do hear .. . MR. CHAIRMAN: In committee you don't need a seconder. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chair man, on a point of privilege, I have asked to be heard twice and the Member for Churchill has gone on and on and on and I have asked twice to be heard and now I am denied the right to speak and he is speaking again. MR. CHAIRMAN: To all members of the committee, I have made a ruling. Mr. Cowan, you don't need a seconder at committee stage. MR.

COWAN: Am I recognized, because if the Member for Roblin wishes to speak, I will certainly yield my place. MR. CHAIRMAN: As chairman of the committee I have made a ruling that I am of the opinion that we concluded public presentations at our last hearing. We have spent almost 30 minutes discussing Mr. Corrln's point of order; we have heard from almost all members of the committee, and that is my decision. Is it agreed by the committee that that decision is upheld? (Agreed) MR. PARASIUK: We challenge the ruling. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Para siuk challenges the Chair's ruling. MR. PARASIUK: Can I explain why? MR.

CHAIRMAN: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? The question is: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas, ; Nays, 3. MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained. Now we can proceed on a Clause-by Cla use basis of the bill. On a point of order, Mr. McKenzie? MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to you and to the members of the committee for the limitations of the members opposite who are maybe not familiar with the rules of the British Parliamentary system as we practise in this province, and I do apologize, Mr. Chairman.

I move that we start now on Clause by Clause on Bi11 83. MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion, in my opinio n , is unnecessary. Mr. Parasiuk, on a point of order? MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Chairperson, we don't have Hansard before us. When Hansard comes out, I am quite convinced that you will be proved wrong with your ruling. A majority of Conservative members cannot change historical fact. MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, Mr. Parasiuk, but that was my ruling and it has been upheld by the majority of committee members and now we can go Clause by Clause. Mr. Cowan, on a point of order? MR. COWAN: On a motion, Mr. Chairperson. MR.

CHAIRMAN: There is no motion. MR. COWAN: I would like. to make a motion.

If we are not going to allow the people who have come here this evening to speak before us, I would then suggest that the work that we have to do here this evening is going to be severely limited and the work that we are going to do here this evening will, in fact, be less beneficial than those on this side, who need make no apologies for their comments and need accept no apologies made for their comments from persons on the other side, have in fact come here to listen to people and if we are not going to do so, I would move that the committee do now adjourn. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion before us.

A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas, 3; Nays, 6. MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion has been defeated. BILL NO. 83 THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT AND THE CONDOMINIUM ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall we go Page-by-Page with the bill. Bill 83,

An Act to amend The Landlord and Tenant Act and The Condominium Act. Page 1. MR. PARASIUK: Do we have copies of the amendments? MR. CHAIRMAN: Are copies of any amendments available? To any members of the committee, I ask you, are there amendments being proposed and, if so, do you wish to have them distributed? lt has been indicated to me that Mr. Jorgenson has some amendments to the bill. Are there any other persons at the committee who have amendments? Mr. Corrin. MR. JORGENSON: My un derstan ding is, Mr . Parasiuk, those copies were delivered. 125

Friday, 25 July, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: We are going to be making some amendments. We are now reviewing the amendments to the bill in order to determine whic h of our amendments are relevant and which will have to be further amended and which can be dropped. But, generally speaking, our amendments are of a fairly brief nature. They are not particularly lengthy or detailed. Most of them, qui te frankly, are in the nature of motions to delete various provisions. MR. CHAIRMAN: lt has been ind icated by Mr. Corrin th at the group he represents has amendments. The Min ister has ind icated by distribution that he has amendments. Can we now proceed Clause by Clause?

Section 1 of Bill 83 pass;

Section 2 pass;

Section 3 pass;

Section 4 pass;

Section 5 pass;

Section 6 pass;

Section 7 pass;

Section 8 pass;

Section 9 pass;

Section 10 pass; now we are on

Section 11 ... MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, on

Section 11 , move THAT

Section 11 of Bill 83 be amended by striking out the figures "20.00" in the third line ther eof and substituting therefor the sign and figur es "20.00". MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that understood by all members present? Pass. Mr. Kovnats. MR. ABE KOVNATS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. McK enzie said striking out the figur es "20.00", the figure is "20.00". MR. CHAIRMAN: And substituting "20.00". Is that clearly understood? Pass. Page 5,

Section 12 pass; Sect ion 13 pass;

Section 14 pass;

Section 15 pass; on page 6,

Section 16 pass;

Section 17 pass;

Section 18 - Mr. McKenzie on

Section 18. MR. McKENZIE: I move THAT

Section 18 of Bill 83 be struck out. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that clearly understood? A motion has been made, in favour pass.

Section 19 on Page 7 . . . Well, we are going

Section by Section. Is this understood, rather than page by page? MR. McKENZIE: I've got to move that Clause, Mr. Chairman. MR. McKENZIE: I move THAT the proposed new clause 103( 10)(

a) to The Landlord and Tenant Act as set out in

Section 21 of Bill 83 be amended by striking out the word "if" in the 1st line the reof ... I am sorry. that is

Section 21. That is 21, apologize, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 18 as amended pass;

Section 19 pass;

Section 20 pass;

Section 21 - Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I move THAT the proposed new clause 103( 10)(

a) to The Landlord and Tenant Act set out in

Section 21 of Bill 83 be amended by striking out the word "if" in the 1st line thereof and substituting th erefor the word "is". MR. CORRIN: Could you explain your motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I ask permission of the Committee for Legislative Counsel's renumbering? Agreed? (Agreed) Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: Are we going to have an explanation as we go? Each time there is an amendment I think the mover should make an explanation of the effect and purpose of the amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. HON.

WARNER JORGENSON: Yes, on 103( 1 0)(a), the Clause that has just been amended, that is down at the bottom of page 7. lt is a spelling error, the word "if" should be "is", and that is really all there is to the amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed? (Agreed) Pass. Page 8, Sect ion 22 pass; Sect ion 23 pass;

Section 24 - Oh, on 23, Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: 23, this was the Clause that provoked considerable contention, not only during the hearing of the delega tions, this was brought up, if my memory serves me it was brought up by the MARL group, as well as the Legal Aid lawyer who came on behalf of Legal Aid Lawyers Associ ation. They pointed out, and this was also debated during the question period, anyway discussed in the House, they pointed out that this provision could well be unconstitutional as it could be ruled to be legislation that would attempt to preclude the jurisdiction of a federally appointed judge.

The point was made that only a judge of that status can evict a tenant from occupation of premises and the concern was simply that this particular provision appeared to make it � legal for the Rentalsman, pursuant to a mediation proceedings, to order an evict ion. I am wondering, because we heard that there were cases, and I believe they were in British Columbia and Ontario on the subject, I am wondering whether or not the Mini ster has attempted to obtain any definitive legal opinion in order to deal with this particular concern? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: Mr.

Chairman, I am advised by Leg isla tiv e Cou nsel th at the provi sion that is contained in this

Section is one tha t can be sustai ned. Since the mediation process is a voluntary one, the arbitration process is a volun tary one between the landlo rd and the tenant, it has no bearing on the cases that were ruled upon in Ontario and British Columbia, and that the provision is indeed one that can be upheld. lt does not deny the tenant or the landlord access to the courts. In the final analysis this is a intermediary step in the way of mediation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin. 126

Friday, 25 July, 1980 MR. CORRIN: My concern with that is that I do believe the Mini ster is correct. I believe that a person who is knowledgeable of his or her rights could not be prevented if they wished from pursuing such a matter through the courts. I think the problem is that, in the event that the Rentalsman makes an order pursuant to this particular provision, it is qui te like ly that most tenants will consider the matter to be concluded and at an end and will probably feel that there lease is determined and vacate their premis es, and this, I think, is in itself a fairly contentious sort of situation.

I would like some assurance, guara ntee, that people would be made aware that their rights to a court hearing and their right not to be evicted summarily without a court order were guaranteed; I would like to know that there is some way that we can make provision in the legislation that will require the Rentalsman, pursuant to a mediation, to notify the parties that their rights have not been finally determined and they have a right to pursue the matter in a court of law. That's the sort of approach we would commend. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion on

Section 23? Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: Accord ing to the provisions of the Act, that determination is made in advance when both the landlord and the tenant agreed to permit the arbitrator to hear that case and that they will abide by the decision of the arbitrator, then in advance they are committing themselves to whatever the decision is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: think the distinction between our positions is becoming very clear now. The point I was trying to make, Mr.

Chairman, is that the tenant, in submitting himself to an arbitration or mediation, may not be made aware that he doesn't have to do that. He may not be fully aware of all of his rights. So people may feel that they are requir ed to submit to mediation and they may do so in good faith; they may do so from a spirit of reasonableness and a desire to conciliate a difficult pro blem. But the point is, having done that, if they are unaware of the fact that the mediation may become binding, then they may actually be precluded from pursuing their rights to go to court.

I think that there is a su bstantial difference, and I think the Member for lnkster raised this point and said that it was very similar to situations that arise commonly in labour relat ions matters where, by collective agreement, the union agrees that certain matters can be the su bject of an arbitr ation proceed ing. Well, it's quite different, because we don't have that sort of sophis tication built into landlord and tenant relations as they exist today and it's one thing to say that a person voluntarily submits, but do they know what they are voluntarily submitting to? I think that is a problem.

I am st ill not satisfied that, even though they voluntarily submit, that we haven't effectively vitia ted the jurisdiction of the courts. lt seems to me that the Legislature can do a lot of things, but one thing it can't do is take away or erode or degrade in any way the fun damental jurisdiction of the superior courts of the country. I think it has been respected in law that eviction has always been a matter that is within the exclusive purview of federally-ap pointed ju dges, and I am not sure that we have the capacity to derogate or remove any jurisdiction that has been conferred in that fashion.

I think it is a justifiable concern and it was raised many times, particularly, I sup pose, by the more knowledgeable delegates, the people who had legal expertise or that sort of background, but I am still not satisfied that we are dealing with this situation adequately. I think one way or the other, we are going to find that people are going to lose their rights and are going to be, as a result, summarily - well, first of all, they are going to be frustrated and I guess in many cases they are going to be surprised.

I want to know how we can, with any degree of assurance, know that people will be aware that they have an entitle ment to have the matter heard by a court and not go to arbitration. I don't know why we should make any such ruling, in this case, binding on all the parties. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR.

JORGENSON: it seems to me tha t that particular point which my honourable friend raises, and I am not suggesting that it is not a point that is of some conc ern, but it seems to me th at is reasonably well covered and, if you will notice, on Page 12 , 121(1) , where a dispute is referred by the Rentalsman to the Di rector of Arbi tration for arbitration, you shall, in writing, notify the landlord and the tenant accor ding and together with a notification of the Director of Arbitration, shall attach a notice of objection form stating that either the landlord or the tenant, or both, may object to the arbitration by filing a notice of objection with the Dir ector of Arbitration not later than seven clear days from the date of the notification.

The purpose of this provision is to attempt to provide one further alternative to both the landlord and tenant, in much the same way that is provided in a small claims court. Many tenants, and indeed some landlords, would much prefer to have a matter of this natu re, and in cases where both of them do, settled by a form of arbitration rather than going through the time and the expense of the court. This provides them with that opportun ity.

If they fail to take advantage of it, then of course they have the other re cour se, but having once committed th emselves to the arbi tration procedure on a volunta ry basis, and no one is coerced to do so, then they are prepared to accept the decision of the arbitr ator and that's really what the provision is in here for, to enable th em to have one other alternative, and not the final one. MR. CHAIRMAN: 23 pass - Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: We don't want to belabor this, Mr. Chairman, so I am going to move that this clause be deleted, because we feel that in its present form, it is not sufficiently comprehensive.

We don't feel that it is drafted in such a way as to assure the protection of the tenant. 127

Friday, 25 July, 1980 We would present an alternativ e, except that the way they have gone about moving this into the Act, it is very difficult to suggest an alternative unless you have recourse to the Legisla tive Counsel for some time in order to do that. Certainly the government does have recou rse to Legislative Counsel and they were aware of this particular concern after the presentation of the brie fs and presumably they saw fit not to include an amendment that would satisfy the concerns that were raised.

I think it is just a question of being explicit and definitive and categorical. lt is a question of making sure that people's rights are clearly spelled out in such a way that legislators know that no person will submit to an arbitration un less that person is aware of the fact that tha t migh t precl ude any other options. That's all we want; we want somet hing that assures that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I put Mr. Corrin's motion regard ing

Section 23, I would ask Legislativ e Counsel, Mr. Balkaran, for an explanatory comment. MR. BALKARAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to somet hing that Mr . Corrin said. Ever since I started to work for this government I have always und erstood my duties and respo nsibilit ies, so far as the members of this Legislature are concerned, to be not only to the members on the government side, but my services are also available to members on the opposition. I have always carried out my duties on that basis and I am saddened to hear that Mr.

Corrin can make a statement tonight saying that the services of the Legislative Counsel were not available to him. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, Mr. Corrin, that you did n't mean exactly what was said and I gi ve you permission now to make a correction, if you wish. MR. CORRIN: I think, Mr . Chairman, what I said perhaps was unclear to Legislative Counsel. I want to make the point that Legisla tive Counsel has been very very busy of late. I need n't tell you, Mr.

Chairman, that the few Legislative Counsel that are available to both the government and the opposition have been wor king extra ord in ary hour s revising legislation in the past two or three weeks. Last night I bumped into Mr. Tallin, I think it must have been about 12 :30, in the hall, and he was busily redraft ing some provision or other in some bill. MR. McKENZIE: lt has gone on for years. MR. C()RRIN: Precisely, it has gone on for years, but, Mr. Chairman, I know that members of our side have spoken to Mr.

Tallin about this and have been advised that it is not possible for Legislative Counsel, in the present circumstances, to attend to all the wishes and desires of the opposition, that their time is limited. They are under a great deal of stress and pressure and it go es without saying, and it is obvious , Mr .

Ch airman, by the numb er of amendments and revisions that have been brought in during the course of committee hearings, prior to third read ing, that it is no aspersion to Legislative Couns el to suggest that their time is precious and relatively in demand from the government side, and we respect the governmen t's right to have that access. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin, on that same point of order, I guess I will call it, I am sure you didn't mean that Legi slativ e Cou nsel was only available to government members, did you?

You didn't mean that Legislativ e Cou nsel was only avai lable to government; it is available to all 57 members of the Chamber, right? MR. CORRIN: Hypothetically, yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin has a motion before us to delete

Section 23. The Mi nister would like to speak to it? MR. JORGENSON: Yes, I would, on a point of order. lt is not necessary to move a motion. All Mr. Corrin has to do is vote against it; it has the same effect. The motion is redundant, really. By simply • voting against the motion you would achieve the � same purpose. MR. CORRIN: That's quite true, I agree, I'l l vote against it. MR. CHAIRMAN: 23 pass? A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas, 6; Nays, 3. MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried.

Section 23 pass;

Section 24 pass - Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: I move THAT

Section 24 of Bill 83, as printed, be struck out. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: The simple explanation for the deletion of

Section 24 is tha t because of the • rewriting of

Section 38, this

section is no longer � required. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cowan. MR. COWAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chair person, it is my und ers tanding that this amendment is red und ant, tha t it need not be, th at all the government has to do is vote against that particular

section and the effect will be the same. MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion before the committee is that the

section be deleted. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas, 6; Nays, 3. MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion carried.

Section 25. Mr. Parasiuk. MR. PARASIUK: Yes, the Mini ster said that

Section 24 was being struck out because it is covered by

Section 38. 128

Friday, 25 July, 1980 MR. JORGENSON: Because of the rewriting of

Section 38. MR. PARASIUK: And that 's in the later amendment? MR. JORGENSON: Yes, that's de aling with condominiums. MR. CHAIRMAN: lt is my un derstanding tha t

Section 24 has been struck out and that motion has carried.

Section 25. Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I move THAT

Section 25 of Bill 83, as printed, be struck out and the following

section be substituted therefor:

Section 11 4 rep. and sub. 25

Section 11 4 of the Act is repealed and the following

section is substituted therefor: Discrimination prohibited. 11 4 In the renting of premises or the renewal of tenancies, no landlord shall discriminate against a tenant, or prospec tive tenant, by refusing to enter into or renew a residential tenancy agreement because of membership or participation in any association of tenants by the tenant or pros pective tenant. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKen zie has moved a motion. Pass? Pass. Mr. Jorgenson. MR.

JORGENSON: I'm not sure members would want an explanation of that; it is a very simply one. lt is just intended to replace back into the Act that provision which they objected to; since the others are covered by The Human Rights Act it was felt unnecessary to place those in, but this particular one is not covered by The Human Rights Act, so this remains in. MR. CHAIRMAN: 25 as amended pass;

Section 26 pass - Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I would move that Bill 83 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after

Section 26 thereof, the following

section .. . So it will come on the next motion. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 26 pass (Interject ion)- 25 is passed; we'll revert back to 26. I had just ind icated it was passed but we will revert back. Legislative Counsel informs me that 26 can be passed and that the amendment is a new

section following that. MR. CORRIN: Are we dealing with 26 or not? I want to talk to 26. MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to talk to the existing 26? Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: The existing 26, yes. This is the provision, Mr. Chairman, that allows a landlord to increase rents on a particular unit more than one time per year - I don't think that it does cover that. Mr. Minaker has in dicated that he feels the amendment covers that. I don't believe it does but, for clarification, we can ask the Minister whether he feels that the amendment is intended to deal with incr eases of that sort.

I didn't notice that when I read it but perhaps I missed something. I think 26 will continue to stand in the legislation as it is, as it is shown in the bill, and so the amendment has nothing to do with it, it is completely different. I think we agree with that so we won't belabor the Minister with trying to explain it. Mr. Chairman, we heard, again, many submi ssion relative to this and I think most of the subm issions came from people who lived in the inne r city, particularly those who were of modest income.

These people indicated, and I think it is a matter of fact, that there is a fairly high degree of mobility in some of the inner city communities and, as a result, a provision such as this would effective ly be a windfall to unscrupulous landlords. Under the present legislation, Mr. Chairman, it is not possible for a landlord to raise the rent on a unit more than once per year, regardless of the number of tenants that actually occupy the suite. This provision will allow the rentals - I don't want to interrupt the crosst alk but I think I am being challenged here.

I think we can all agree that this amendment will allow and will enable landlords to pass on rent incr eases every time a unit becomes avail able. This is unconscionable, Mr. Chairman, simply because it has no relationship, no bearing whatsoever, to the landlord's costs. I think that the rationale for the once-a-year rule was that it was unr easonable to expect that any landlords overhead and carrying charges would increase so dramatically tha t they couldn't be accomodated by an annual inc rease. Mr.

Chairman, particular since we are dealing with low income tenants and, I think, in the inner city anyway the types of landlords who in the past have demonstr ated a capacity for this sort of usary, I think that we have good reason to be very concerned about any such a provision. So I think it is absolutely imperative that this particular Clause be removed from the bill, this is unconscionable and I think un tenable from the point of view of the opposition. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, the particular provision that is contained in this

section simply allows it to remain the way it always was. The Landlord and Tenant Act is really not being changed in that respect. What is being removed by the removal of The Rent Stabili zation Act is the provision that was contained in that Act. As far as The Land lord and Ten ant Act is concerned, that represents no change from what it was before. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: This is a fairly complex matter. Perhaps we can just have a bit of technical information here in order to make clear to all members of the Committee that this is the intent of the Bill, this will be the intent of the Bill and the effect of the Bill. Where can the Minister point to to 129

Friday, 25 July, 1980 determine that this relates not to the landlord and tenant provision, but the rent stabilization provision? MR.

JORGENSON: In The Landlord and Tenant Act, 11 6 reads as follows, if you have the Act before you, "A landlord shall not increase the rent payable under a tenancy agreement or any renewal, extension, revision, or assignment thereof, or be entitled to recover any additional rent resu lting from such an increase unless he gi ves to the tenant a written notice of the increase in rent three months prior to the date on which the increase is to be effective, and he shall not increase the rent payable with respect to any residential premise before the expiration of 12 months from the date on which the next previous increase in the rent for the residential premises was first payable." That is the existing provision in The Landlord and Tenant Act.

MR. CORRIN: With respect to the Mini ster, Mr. Chairman, tha t is the provision th at is being amended by putting after the word "payable", which he just read, the words "by that tenant ". So the effect of that, and, you know, I say this with respect to the Min ister, the effect of that clearly is to create an anomalous situation wherein landlords whose tenants vacate within the 12 months period can increase the rent to a new tenant. You know, I don't think that you have to be a lawyer or a specialist in this area to realize that that will be the obvious effect. MR. JORGENSON: They always could, Mr. Corrin.

That represents no change in that respect. lt was only under The Rent Stabi lization Act that there could be no change, but under The Landlord and Tenant Act, prior to the ti me th at The Rent Stabil ization Act came in, that was the provision in this Bill, and that represents no change. MR. CORRIN: Mr. Chairman, the legislation as it now stands prohibits a landlord from raising the rent on any unit he owns more than once per year. Can we all agree on that? MR.

JORGENSON: No, the provisions in The Rent Stabili zation Act provided for that, but not the provision of The Landlord and Tenant Act, and since The Rent Stabiliz ation Act is being discontinued by virtue of this particular Bill, then the provisions of The Landlord and Tenant Act apply, and what I am trying to say is that there is no change in that respect. lt was always that way. The landlord could change . the rent upon the vacating of the premises by one tenant and a new tenant coming in.

The reasoning, of course, is that a new tenant coming in has the opportu nit y of compari ng rent s and bargaining and if he doesn't like the rent that is being charged he can seek other premises, so he does have some bargaining power. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Para siuk. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Chairperson, I strongly believe that rent should only be increased once a year. Landlords make their financial projections on the basis of yearly projections of revenue and yearly projections of cost and rents are set accord ingly.

They are going to be set once a year on that basis, and that means tha t if anyone then wants to somehow change a rent because someone has moved out, what they are trying to do is get a bit extra. I am particularly concerned with the impact this will have on people who are in the lower income scales, who tend to be a bit more transient, who have to take work outside of the city, they work on Hyrdo if Hydro is going, they work on construction jobs, they work on road construction out of the city, and this will have an especially severe impact on students. I think that Mr.

Egan, the Pr esident of th e University of Manitoba Students' Union, on Friday night, made a very very good presentation with respect to this par ticula r aspect. He argued very strongly, very forcefully, that there isn't that much alternative accommodation for students, that they do have to move out in April, that they do go out looking for work in the summer, they go out of town often, they go back to their homes if they are from 4 rural Manitoba, and they come back in September; and I don't think there is any reason why these people should be su bjected to some type of extra increase in their rents.

Students have a hard enough time as it is, and I felt that Mr. Egan made a very strong case. I have heard no one able to refute his arguments in his case. He was able to show that in Fort Garry there isn't very much rental accommodation for students. He was able to show that the government has not responded to efforts by student groups to try and get the government to build student housing.

In fact, he made a proposal that what we should be doing is building student housing right now under pu blic auspices with a view to converting it into senior citizens' housing further down the line, and he made a very excellent presentation on this point, and I think that we should pay some attention to the particular plight of students. I believe that whether in fact it was in the old Landlord Tenant Act or not, the point is, are we trying to bring about good legislation that meets the needs of the people in Manitoba in � the year 19 80.

I belie ve that having legislation which , prohibits more than one rent increase a year is in fact good legislation, and that is why we are in fact pushing to have that type of legislation brought in. I thought that was the general consensus of the group on Thursday when we listened to the brief of Mr. Egan ; no one asked any questions and no one challenged his figures that he presented to us on that.

Now the Min ister is telling us that that wasn't his intent, that the intent is to really allow more than one rent increase a year, and the impact on the cost of living, especially of students, will be very severe for that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: I think, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps nobody at this committee can state with any certainty, but it seems to me that the concerns raised in the briefs are well taken. lt seems to me that 11 6( 1) of the Act would prevent - I am just reading the wording again, Mr. Chairman, from the Act, looking at it and reviewing it - and it is quite 130

Friday, 25 July, 1980 lengthy - but it seems to me that as things now stand, there is a prohibition against a rent incr ease during a 12 -month period. Once the rent is set, there is a period of 12 months in which there can be no further increases. I think that is fairly clear, and I think it is correct to say . I think tha t we are uni ntentionally being misled. I don't think it is anyone's intention to do that, but I think clearly, if we pass this

section as it currently stands, then there will be a situation arising where landlords can pass on rent increases every time a unit becomes vacant, and I think this is a very important point. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly recognize the point that is raised by the Honourable Member for Transcona. On the other hand, if the landlord wants to upgrade or improve his property, and I'm sure that every member of this committee certainly wants to in every way encourage him to upgrade and impr ove the property, that that is his occasion to do it.

And if he makes the improvements, whether he asks for more rent or not, of course it's there, but certainly, if he has improved the suite, he has a valid point as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parasiuk. MR. PARASIUK: I concede that point, I really do. I think that in those instances where a suite has been vacated and improvements have been made, if the landlord then can show costs of improvement to the Rentalsman, fine, then there should be more than one increase per year, I agree with that.

But if the landlord doesn't make any improvements - like much of the student accommodation is such that people vacate it in the summer, it may turn out that·the landlord, maybe he hasn't been able to rent it out for the two or three months over the summer, I'm not sure, so then he thinks, well, if I bounce the rent up, I'll recoup some of my loss. it's the student who is going to face the hard time, especially, I would suggest, the rural student. Obviously these are the ones who are living in accommo dation downtown.

I would concede the point of the Member for Roblin that he made with respect to improvements, and somehow if we could change that so that there shouldn't be more than one rent increase per year, un less upon vacation of a suite, a landlord has imp roved the suite and seeks to amortize those impr oved costs. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin. MR.

CORRIN: I just want to make the point that if there were a provisio n, and I have read the amendments with respect to what I am about to talk about, if there were a provision in the bill or its amendments dea ling with compulsory binding arbitration, then this really wouldn't be a concern, because then ther e would be a mechanism to review the appropria teness of rents charged by the landlord.

But th e prob lem is, that failing this sort of mechanism, notwithstanding that the landlord may feel that the rental increases are justified as a result of some improvement, there is no satisfactory way to resolve a dispute and there is no way to assure that a tenant won't be su bjected to an unconscionable increase. Even person making an impr ovement can think that that improvement is more valuable than it well may be. He may be genuinely motivated to pass on an increase, and then again the person may be exploited .

So I think that, clearly, the answer to the problem that is being discus sed by the Member for Roblin and the Member for Transcona is a provision that will provide for compulsory binding arbitration. In the absence of that, we are always going to have flaws in this legislation. lt will never work out; it will never be perfect. lt' s the perfect Catch 22 to everyt hing that happens with respect to this issue and that's, of course, why the opposition has been so adamant in their in sistence that there be a provision for compulsory binding arbitration in the legislation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR.

JORGENSON: Of course, with compulsory binding arbitration, I read ily admit that that's a pretty neat way of doing it, but what you are back to is simply rent controls in another form. Now, if we are going to have rent controls, I would just as soon leave the existing Act in rather than having compulsory arbitration, because that's just another form of rent controls. There is no point in removing one kind of controls and replacing it with another kind of controls.

The intention, essentially, is to remove rent controls from the province and then, second ly, to provide, in sofar as it is possib le, protection for tenants against those who may want to exploit that particular situation. lt is a very tight wire to be walking, but I would hesitate to agree with my honourable friend that unless you were convinced that you want some form of controls, that binding arbitration is the answer; it is just another form of controls. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paras iuk. MR. PARASIUK: I guess the difference on this bill became very apparent by the Min ist er's la st statement.

We have a situation with respect to this particular section, where I think I strongly feel that students in particular may be subject to unfair rent incr eases. I accept the quali fication on this given to me by the Member for Roblin with respect to landlords improving a suite that has been vacated and then wanting to amortize th ose costs for improvement in the subsequent rents. I think we have, or what I thought was developing, some consensus on this particular matter.

I was then going to suggest to the Minister that if there was consensus in committee, that we try and refer this to the Rentalsman for arbitration in these events where a landlord does want to get the extra rent, or wants to incr ease the rent more than once a year, because of imp rovements, that that could be dra fted for report stage to the House, and that we could deal with that then, if there was consensus. Because there seems to be consensus between the Member for Roblin and myself on this particular matter.

But the Minis ter has now indic ated that although those situations of unfairn ess will exist, this Act will not be able to deal with that. I regret that, and I 131

Friday, 25 July, 1980 would still make the suggestion to the Min ister that he could reconsider his position and that he consider bringing in at report stage to the Legislature, an amendment which would prohibit more than one rent increase per year unless the landlord could prove to the Rentalsman that he is only recovering the costs of impr ovement upon vacat ion of the suite. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: Mr.

Chairman, I am advised that there would be some extremely difficult problems in connection with the admin istration of that one rent increase a year propos ition, but I am quite prepared to act on the suggestions of my honourable friend. We will have a look at it and we will pursue those difficulties further to see if they can be overcome. If they can, I am not that adverse to bringing in an amendm ent at the report stage, if it can be demonstrated that we are not going to run into all sorts of administrative difficulties.

I think that it is fair to point out, however, that an incoming tenant is not a captive to that particular apartment. He has a choice of dete rmining whether or not that increase that the landlord is charging is too much or whether he is prepared to accept it. lt in no way affects the departing tenant.

He has now left the premises for whatever reasons, but an incoming tenant has an opportunity to shop arou nd, and if a landlord feels that he wants to charge increased rents for that particular aparment and take a chance on that apartment being vacant for several months because of rents that are too high, then it is the landlord that is going to suffer, not the tenant. I would be prepared, as I say, to look at that to see if the admini strative problems that my staff seem to think will arise can be overcome; if they can, well then perhaps we can deal with that at the report stage. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I might, before I recog niz e another speaker, mention that it is my understanding that 26 has an amendment for 26( 1 ), but 26 as it is in the bill would stay as it is. Any further discussion on 26? Mr. Parasiuk. MR. PARASIUK: On that, I would hope that the Min ister could ind icate to us whether he tomorrow morning or whenever, because I would be prepared to bring in such an amendment at report stage myself on tha t basis and maybe I could ju st communicate to the legal counsel now and ask him if he would dra ft up for report stage an amendment like that for me.

I would like to say why I want that amendment dra fted for report stage, just to counter a comment made by the Mini ster. When we heard briefs from the Landlords' Assoc iat ion, Mr . Smethu rst in particular, he pointed out that accord ing to their survey the vacancy rate was 15 percent.

I asked him, if the vacancy rate is 15 percent as you say, and if the vacancy rate according to HUDAM is 15 percent as well. why are we getting rent increases at 50, 60, 70 percent, if the market is working, because you people say - and I had thought that the market would work at 5 percent, it doesn't seem to be working, accord ing to the landlords, at 15 percent. So the market economy or the market adjustment mechanism, which is what the Min ister is talking about, doesn't seem to be working because, you know, we are getting pet itions right now. These weren't able to be tabled.

I will try and table them - there are probably about 501 names or 200 here. I haven't even had a chance to go through them. There are more people who are saying that they are getting very very high rent increases, and this is just not an isolated phenomenon. We have found it in large chains, where you have rental agencies managing 2,000, 3,000 suites, and you have people talking about particular names, Globe, Worldwide, XYZ companies, who have indicated that there has been massive widespr ead rent controls of 30, 40, 50 percent.

Given that the market isn't working, and given that the people don't have those options and don't have those alternatives, then I believe we need this type of protection, especially for people who have to move out of the city to take employment - if they are involved in the construction industry in � particular, and for students. These are the people � who need it most. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: I don't want to unde rscore the point made by my honourable friend.

What he says may very well be true, and if he is going to bring in an amendment at the report stage, I am qu ite prepared to give that amendment some very serious considera tion. As I have ind icated, our staff seem to think that that is going to be a tremendously difficult thing to adminis ter, and to administer with the intent that is meant by the provision, but if my honourable friend has already indic ated that he is intending to get Legisla tive Counsel to draft an amendment for him on that point, I would be int erested in looking at the amendment to see if it is operable. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin. MR.

CORRIN: I just wanted to point out, since the � Mini ster brings into the debate the question of the .. retention of The Rent Stabi li zation Act and its provisions in its regard, I want to point out that repair charges, renovation expenses and so on, were allowed by the provisions of The Rental Stabilization Act . lt should be on the record and it is, Mr. Chairman, because Mr.

Shapiro di rected himself to this subject as a former member of that board for some considerable length of time and in some detail. lt should be noted that he told us, and the provisions of the Act sustain him, that landlords were enabled and allowed to obtain what they describe as cost pass-through. In other words, they were allowed to take exemplary charges that related to repairs and renovations and they were not bound to the ceilings that are oft described as being the maximum limits that rent controls allowed, and I think it is important, Mr.

Chairman, to reinforce that that was the case and that the Rent Stabil ization Program did not pr event landlords from taking that sort of additional increase in appropriate circumcstances. I say that because it is one of the reasons that we feel that the Rent St abili zation Program was of benefit and was fair to both landlord and tenant. lt is 132

Friday, 25 July, 1980 a misconception that landlords were deprived of their right to ob tain reas onable compensat ion for impr ovements to their premises. That was never the case, and according to Mr. Shapiro there were no cases where landlords, who applied properly, were disentitled from obtaining such relief. I think the truth of the matter, Mr. Chairman, and we didn't hear from any individual landlords, but I think Mr. Silverman provided us some elaboration on this point. The truth of the matter, Mr.

Chairman, is that many landlor ds regarded the Rent Control Board as an unnecessarily bureaucratic process, and that is their right. That, I suppose, may well be their perception, but nevertheless, Mr.

Chairman, having come to that conclusion, having made that subjective determination, many of the landlords decided that they would not approach the board for that sort of relief, and I think that is the funda mental point, that many landlords who were complaining that they had been depriv ed of proper returns on their investment never made the necessary effort to apply through the legal mechanisms provided to them for the cost pass-through relief that was provided in the Act. I think that should be a matter of reckoning. MR.

CHAIRMAN: All right, my under standing is, to the members of the Committee, that the Mini ster is prepared to, at report stage, look at this aspect of the bill. Do we want to leave 26 in, or do we want to do something with it? Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: There are further amendments on the new list of amendments you have. On 26, the present clause 11 6 of The Landlord and Tenant Act contains three clauses, and the amendment will add two more, but if my honourable friends feel that at the exclusion of the words "by that tenant" would restore that

section to mean that the rent increase coula not take place over a year regardless of what tenant occupied it, then I am in the hands of the Committee, if they would choose to ... I don't feel that strongly about it. I just don't think that it is going to make that significant a difference, but if it is the feeling of the committee that by just not proceed ing with that section, that is the one that is contained in Bill 83, Subsection 11 6(1) of the Act is amended by adding thereto, immediately after the word "payable" in the 6th line thereof the words "by that tenant," if they want that

section deleted, so be it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: Move the de letion, if that is acceptable to the government. Obviously it would satisfy our concern. MR. JORGENSON: Just vote against it, and then the Act remains the way it was. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kovnats. MR. KOVNATS: Mr. Chairman, I would like a little clarification of that. What we are really saying is, that if a new tenant comes in, that the landlord may increase the rent of that new tenant prior to him moving into the apartment. Is that not what we are discussing? MR.

JORGENSON: No, it means that the original provision of The Landlord and Tenant Act, which states that the rent can only be increased once every year, stays the same, ther e is no change there, and if a new tenant comes in, if an old tenant goes out at the end of ten months, the landlord can't raise the rent until the 12-month period has expired. MR.

KOVNATS: We are saying it is unr easonable at this point to allow the landlord to increase the rent, if he is stupid enough, because I would imagine that there is no way that anybody is going to rent that apartment, or it will be their choice whether they want to rent the the apartment. lt is not a matter of putting them out or putting them at a disa dvantage after they have moved in. MR. JORGENSON: As Mr.

McKenzie said here, that point poses a problem for the landlord if he happens to renovate that apartment, and in order to make provision for that would req uir e a tremendous amount of study of this legislation to work in a formula that can compensate for that. That is the only di fficu lty, but I am in the hands of th e Committee. If they want to leave that particular provision in the way it is, I will do that, but I can see some difficulties if we remove it. MR. CHAIRMAN: To the members of the Committee, can I get some direction?

Is it your wish to leave 26 in as it is printed in the bill, and that Committee at report stage, perhaps, have an amendment, or is it the wish of members of the Committee to at this point delete 26 that is in the bill? Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chair man, if I may offer this observat ion, it may be wise to leave it in for the time being, have further thoughts on it, and bring it in at the report stage if we felt that it was necessary. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have other sections to be added to 26, but the 26 that is before us in the bill, can we pass that in the printed bill? Mr. Corrin. MR.

CORRIN: I have a bit of a concern about this. This is really the only chance we get during the speed -up process, particula rly this ti me of the extended hours' schedule, to soberly reflect on ind ividual provisions of the legislation. I would prefer that we spend an extra five minutes talking about 26 tonight, as opposed to perhaps tomorrow night, or Monday night at 2:30 or 3:00 o'clock in the morning trying to start in the midst of the entire Assembly to amend specific provisions and debate them.

I don't think, as a person who has been here thr ee years, from my experience it doesn't work, simply because most members first of all are disin terested in specific pieces of legislation cla use by cla use on thir d read ing, and I don't blame them, because un less you are a member of the Committ ee it is very difficult to be apprised of each particular provision of a bill, and so there is a great deal of pressure on everyone in the legislative Assembly to move on, to get moving. People don't lik e to get into detailed and very specific debate about technic al provisions at that 133

Friday, 25 July, 1980 point, and it seems to me that now is the time when we have legislativ e counsel at the table, when we have a Deputy Mini ster available, when the Min ister can reflect with Committee members qui etly and in a fairly secure and sober atmosphere, this is the time to decide what stays and what leaves. I don't think when we report back we should be reporting . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin, if I could interrupt you, I was looking for a little gu idance from the commitee as to whether they wanted to leave it for now or do something positive with it now. I think Mr. Parasiuk has a positive motion. Mr. Parasiuk. MR. PARASIUK: Yes, I move that Sub

section 11 6(1) of The Landlord and Tenant Act be amended by adding thereto at the end thereof, the words "unl ess the landlo rd has renovated and impr oved th e residential premises and satisfies the Rentalsman by documented evidence tha t the renovations and improvements have in fact been made." This would leave the existing provision in The Landlord and Tenant Act whereby rents could not be increased more than once a year. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: I am just a little bit afraid that that would be an extremely di fficult thin g to adminis ter, Mr. Parasiuk.

I get the feeling that it would open the door to abuses that were not contemplated, and for that reaso n, I don't know whether I would be prep ared to supp ort th at amendment at this time. I would like to give this some more thought, as my honourable friend from Wellington has suggested, that perhaps by passing this sect ion the way it is and intr oducing an amendment at the report stage, after we have had an opportunity to look at it a little more carefu lly and consult with legisla tiv e counsel, and with others, to make sure that the provision is one that is workable.

I am afraid that I wouldn't be prepared to accept that at the moment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parasiuk has a motion before us. Are we prepared now to deal with the motion? Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: I am still concerned, and obviously this is not within the concern of legislative counsel, it is a matter of politician's concern, that there is no provi sion tha t provides for bindin g arbitra tion, because even though the Rentalsman has the matter on his plate, as I understand the amendment, he would st ill have to satisfy the Mini ster to di rect arbitration.

So, since we are dealing again with a rent increase, I don't see how the Rentalsman, in this particular circumstance. could defini tively and finally make a decision as to whether the rent will be passed through. I have difficulty with that. I think that there is a contradiction between the provisions of the legislation. As I say, it's the Catch 22. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we now prepared to deal with Mr. Parasiuk's motion? MR. PARASIUK: I would like to get an opinion from legal counsel on Mr. Corr in's comment. My intention of this amendment is to prohibit more than one rent increase a year.

That is my intention, and the only qualifier I want to allow in my amendment is that if a landlord has made improvements, he can document those to the Rentalsman, and if the Rentalsman was satisfied, then that could be passed through. If not, the prohibition of only one rent increase per year holds. That is my intention, in layman's terms, of what I am trying to achieve. Mr.

Corrin says that if there is no provision for compulsory arbitration, then the Rentalsman will not have the right to roll back a rent that a landlord has charged a tenant, supposedly for impr ovements that haven't in fact taken place or perhaps have been exaggerated or what have you. What I am seeking from legal counsel is an opinion as to whether in fact my amendment will ensure that there will be only one increase per year unless the Rentalsman himself is satisfied that there have been impr ovements taken � place and that these would then be amortized in the � rent. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Balkaran. MR. BALKARAN: Mr.

Chairman, as I understand the amendment, the effect of that would be to prohibit a landlord to increase rent more than once in 12 months, except in those situations where he can demonstrate to the Rentalsman that he has in fact, by docume nted evidence, made th ose impr ovements and renovat ions to the residential premises.

The amendment does not address itself to binding arbitration with respect to that increase, and I would supp ose, because it is not a situation where a tenant has been in occupation and suddenly his rent is incr eased and he now has, as later on in the Act, in the bill, the right to protest that increase. This is an increase in rent that is being asked of the tenant at the time he comes in; it is not an increase to that tenant. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parasiuk. MR. PARASIUK: I think what we should do, given the opinion of legal counsel, I think we should vote on this amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Parasiuk has a motion before us. Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Can I hear the motion again, please. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parasi uk, would you repeat your motion, please. MR. PARASIUK: That subsection 11 6( 1) of The Landlord and Tenant Act be amended by adding thereto, at the end thereof, the words "unless the landlord has renovated and improved the residential premises and satisfies the Rentalsman, by documented evidence, that the renova tions and improvements have in fact been made." MR. CHAIRMAN: Is everyone clear? Mr. McKenzie. 134

Friday, 25 July, 1980 MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I still have problems, because there are many factors other than what the landlord does that can enter into that problem, taxes, water rates. If some other formula could be added - there are so many things that can enter into it - some kind of a formula that would protect him, because we certainly want the landlords to upgr ade those apartments, by all means, if they so desire. But here he is tied into only what he does himself, not the other factors that are out in the marketplace, and that concerns me, that he actually won't do very much.

He is not going to upgr ade his place because of these other dimensions that could be around him. So the tenant then is getting not the upgra ded accommodation maybe he was looking for, and we are bogged down where we were before. If some other word could be added there, I certainly have no problem with that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Para siuk. MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Chai rperson, I framed the amendment in such a way to take into account that unu sual circum stance which would affect somebody's yearly projections, but what a landlord does, when he makes his yearly projections, when he sets that rent, the first rental increase, he sets what his costs are going to be and what the anticipa ted revenue is for that year, and that's the way rents are set.

Now, if a student goes home in April, to Roblin, for example, goes home, works on the farm, comes back in September and then goes back to that suite, or to another suite in the vicinity of the University of Winnipeg or the University of Manitoba or Red River Community College, and finds then that the rent has gone up 30.00 and really nothing has changed, there have been no impr ovements or anything like that. Th�se are the only factors that I can see being the factor for that one year.

Next year the landlord has the opportunity to take into account tax changes, to take into acco unt hydro chang es , to take into account water rate changes, to take into account all those other factors. The only factor that we are recog nizing here, which I did, on the commentary of the Member for Roblin, is renovations. Somebody has painted it up, fixed the windows, and what you do, you don't want your stock running down, and that's why I accepted the quali fication of the Member for Roblin. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Mr.

Chairman, I am not all that sure in my own mind as to the stage we are at right now on Mr. Paras iuk's amend ment, but 1 would rather be safe and sure, in fairness to both the landlord and the tenant, that we leave 26. Now, we have a motion before us by Mr. Parasiuk that we will have to deal with first, but then, having dealt with that, I suggest, and the Minister I think has given an assurance that we leave 26 as it is and he will look into the matter. I think our legal situation here, and I'm not a lawyer, as a layman, I would want to make sure that what we are doing is correct.

The Minister, I think, is being fair in givin g assurance to the committee that he will look into this matter and probably in third reading, if it is possible to bring in an amendment to improve the legislation, then I don't see where the problem is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: I don't know why Mr. Einarson is so concerned. We have just received a legal opinion. Mr. Paras iuk, I thoUght, made it very clear what his intention was.

He had prepared the amendment in consu ltation with legisla tiv e counsel; he asked legislative counsel whether he felt that any of my concerns had any justification and legislative counsel unequ ivocably stated that they did not. lt seems to me that the committee has to rely on couns el provided and, frankly, I see no reason to further consider the matter. We have had a legal opinion and we know of the expected impact, and we know that it is consonant with the intent of Mr. Parasiuk's motion to amend. So on the basis of that, we seem to have concurrence as between Mr.

Parasiuk, myself, and the Member for Roblin, who originally initiated and participated in this discussion that led to this sort of construct ive compromise. What is the purpose now of further deferring the decision on the matter? Clearly, this is the time to vote on the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion before us by Mr. Para siuk. All in favor of Mr. Parasiuk's motion, please indic ate. Opposed to Mr. Parasiuk's motion? A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas, 2. Nays, 5. MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is defeated. 26, as printed pass. We have an amendment. Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Mr.

Chairman, in Su bsection 11 6(4) and (5), added: 135 26.1 Sect ion 11 6 of the Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after Su bsect ion (3) ther eof, the following subsections: Protest of rent increases. 11 6(4) Where a landlord incr eases or gives notice to increase the rent payable by a tenant in occupancy unde r an existing tenancy agreement or any renewal, extension or revision or assignment ther eof, the tenant may protest the amount of the rent increase to the Rentalsman (a)within 3 months after the effective date of the increase if the increase takes effect on any date up to and including October 1st, 19 80 notwithstan di ng that the tenant may have executed a renewal, extension or revision of the tenancy agreement; and (b)within one month of the date of the notice of intention to increase the rent if the increase is to take effect after October 1s t, 19 80; and the protest by the tenant shall be deemed to be a dispute that is subject to mediation in accordance with the provisions of

Section 10 3. Tenant may continue in occupancy.

Friday, 25 July, 1980 11 6(5) Where a protest under Sub section (4) that is deemed to be a dispute has been submit ted to the Rentalsman for mediation or the Dir ector of Arbitration for arbitration, and the mediation or arbitration is not completed prior to the expiry date of the existing tenancy agreement, the tenant does not lose his right to continue in occupancy of the residential premises, notwithst anding that the tenant has not executed a tenancy agreement within the time specified in Su bsection 10 3(7). MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion before us. Pass? Pass. 26, as amended pass;

Section 27 pass;

Section 28 pass;

Section 29 - Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: I move THAT the proposed Su bsection 11 8(2. 1) of The Landlord and Tenant Act, as set out in

Section 29 of Bill 83, be struck out and the following su bsection substituted therefor: Tenancy agreement may contai n other provisions. 11 8(2.1) Notwiths tanding Su bsec tion (2) , a tenancy agreement may contain provisions other than those set out in the written tenancy agreement prescri bed under subsection (1) if (a)the provisions are not inconsistent with any provision of this Act or of The Condominium Act; or (b)the provisions are not inconsistent with or repugnant to any pro vision of the written tenanc y agreement pr escri bed under Sub section (1) . MR. CHAIRMAN: Pass? Pass. Mr. Corrin. MR.

CORRIN: Before, Mr. Chairman, we had an assurance that we would have explanations as we went, and that has not been occurring. This is obviously a very substantial amendment, could the Min ister explain this? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON:

Section 29 is amended to clarify that a tenancy agreement may contain provisions other than those set out in the prescribed tenancy agreement form, such as the regulation respe cting pets, etc., but that such provisions shall not be cont rary to any provision of The Landlo rd and Tenant . Act or The Co ndominium Act, or the prescribed tenancy agreement form. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 29, as amended - Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: The Min ister has attempted to give us a precis or a synopsis by selecting certain key words from the amendment. I think what we want, is we want to know precisely the reason for the amendment. Why is it being done; what mischief is it intended to prevent? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorge nson. MR. JORGENSON: lt is essentially intende d to complement that which will be contained in

Section 38 of The Condominium Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: 29, as amended pass - on 29, Mr. Corrin? MR. CORRIN: Yes, we are still on that provision, are we not ? lt seems to me that we have had a considerabl e numb er of concerns raised at the hearing stage relative to clauses that were being put in tenanc y agreements, wher e condominium conversion was being contemplated by a landlord - a number of people said that they had been more or less compelled to submit to provisions or conditions in tenancy agreements whereby they had given up their right to resist to conversion. I think that is what I am pressi ng for.

I want to know how this amendment will prevent that. I pre sume that somewhere in this amendment it is intended that that mischief be prevented. I want to know exactly how that will take place. The wording is such that I just 4 want to know how it all ti es up, so we know that that cannot happen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: I presume that you are talking about the 50 percent agreement under The Condominium Act, Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: Yes, Ms.

Krindle told us that many of her ass ociation 's members had been put in a position where they were forced to submit to a condition respecting condominium conversion. They were only allowed to have a lease if there was a condition in the lease agreement whereby the tenant gave unconditional approval to the landlord to effect conversion. She said it was like a loaded gun being pointed at a tenant's head, you either accept the term or you don't get a written lease.

Then she noted th at th ose peo ple lost their legal righ ts because they had to have a written lease in order to fall within the umbrella of the 50 percent rule. 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corri n, perhaps because I have had the benefit of seeing th e propos ed amendments, that I can tell you that there are some major amendments in the condominium area and I think that your concern is going to be taken of. MR. CORRIN: I know that. What I am asking you to do, perhaps by way of anticipation, is show us how this will all integrate and synthesize. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson, did you wish to add? MR.

JORGENSON: I am not sure as to what I could usefully add in addition to the explanation that has already been given. I think perhaps it would be more appropriate, and yet I hesitate to suggest that we pass this one and then come back to it later, but I think that your concerns, as was ind icated, are dealt with in the amendments to The Condominium Act. The point that you make now, because of the amendments that are forthcoming, is not a point of contention, or will not be a point of contention. 136

Friday, 25 July, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Para siuk. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Chai rperson, in previous years, when this has happened , what we have done is held the clause and held it until we dealt with The Condo minium Act, and then we can pass both together. What we didn't want to do was pass something and then say . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: I am quite prepared to do that. With general agreement of the committee, we will hold 29; we will come back to it and deal with it then.

Section 29 is being held to be dealt with later. Sect ion 30 pass; Sect ion 31 pass;

Section 32 pass;

Section 33 - is there an amendment here? Mr. McK enzie. MR. McKENZIE: I move THAT the proposed new

section 12 0(6) to The Landlord and Tenant Act as set out in

Section 33 of Bill 83 be struck out and the following subsection substit uted therefor: Meaning of excessive rent increase. 12 0(6) In this part, an excessive rent increase means a rent increase that is in excess of the rent charged for residential premises of similar type, size or age in the same general area, or the same community in which the premises are situated . MR. CHAIRMAN: Pass, as amended - Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: This was a bedeviling provision in the original bill. I still don't see why - I suppose that my concern is with respect to vacancy rates.

We heard submissions about situations where certain areas were domina ted by major holding companies or major rental agencies and that, on that basis, it was felt that certain communities or certain areas were subj ect to a great deal of control as a result of this sort of monopoly.

Again, in the absence of some mechanism that provides for compulsory arbitra tion, I don't see how it is possible to establish that rents that are being passed on, even though they may be comparable, even though they may be consistent with other rents in the same neighbourhood, the same types of housing, I can 't see, giv en the fact of market domination by these large holding companies, how we can effectively deal with the problem of excessive rental in creases un less we have a compuls ory provision relative to arbitration.

The amendment, at first glance, is an improvement on the former section, but it still has that inherent and very essential defect. I think the amendment and the original provision is based on the hypothesis that there is a free market in operation and that the market is essentially flexible, adaptable and open. I was sat is fied , heari ng the submissions of the delegates, that that is simply not the case. We had evi denc e from several dele gates, including th e HUDAM representative, tha t th ere are several companies in this city who have control of in excess of 1, 000, 2,000, or 3,000 apartment units.

We all know, and this is just a matter, I suppose, of common knowledge, that it is often the case that those large companies work within the close confines of indi vidual neighbourhoods. I don't like to cite particular names, but I su ppose Edison Rentals comes immediately to mind in this regard. Edison seems to specializ e in the East Ki ldonan neighb ourhood. I think along the Henderson Highway st rip, Edison probably domina tes and controls a great many of the available apartment units.

As a result, they are in a position to vitiate the definition we are striking for excessive rent increases because they are, in essence, in a position to set the tenor for an entire community. All the housing stock of a similar type, size and age can literally be dominated by that one company in that one community. I appreciate that this is essentially a matter of philosophy.

We have the government saying to the opposition and to the public that a free market exists or, 1 suppose, if they don't believe that a free market exists, they bel ieve tha t no land lord would be unscrupulous with respect to rent increases, and we simply cannot accept that as a matter of fact. We feel that there has to be some provision to open up the landlords' accounts in such a way as to assure that any one landlord will not take advantage of its market situa tion .

Now, unless you can tell us how this will prevent the Shelter Corporation, Edison Rentals, or any one of a number of the other companies that were listed in the HUDAM brief, from exploiting tenants in their circumstances, I don't think that we can accept this amendment. We appreciate that it is an improvement, but we still can't accept it. I think that is the qu est ion tha t has to be determined. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, this is the problem that we, as legislators, face right at this table.

How can we control the price of raisins downtown in the grocery store today, in this Legislature? How can we control · the price on parts of my car; how can we control the prices in the vegetable stands in the city or out in my constituency? As a Legislature, we have many many limitations. We have the abili ty of this process that we are in and advice of legal counsel, including yourself and others who are talented legal people. We do the best that we can with what we have, and it's impossible, absolutely impossible for us, as legisla tors, to try to control all those problems. I'm sure, Mr.

Corrin, you know yourself, there has never been a law written yet in this province that some legal mind can't find a way to get around. That problem has haunted me as long as I have been in this Legislature. We sit here until thr ee and four o'clock in the morning trying to make the perfect legislation, and the bill is hardly passed and ther e is some well-learned legal person that finds a way to get around it. lt is a difficult difficult problem anp not easy to resolve. · I su bmit to Mr.

Corrin and to members of Commi ttee that this legislation that is before us has been well thought out and well studied, and we are not going to solve all the problems in this legislation, far from it, but at least it is going to be reasonably good, and if it isn't as good as we think it is, we are going to be here twelve months from now, or maybe six months from now, sooner, and we can impr ove upon it. 137

Friday, 25 July, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Corrin, would want to di rect his attention to the next Section, 121. This particular amendment is intended to more clearly define what an excessive rent increase is, and the mechanism for dealing with that when it has been established there is an excessive rate increase, is contained in the proposed new

Section 121, which is the next amendment that is being proposed. All this one does is alter 12 6 in Bill 83 in order to, what we feel, more clearly define an excessive rent increase. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parasiuk. MR. PARASIUK: I have looked at both of these together, that is 121 and 12 0(6), and I think we come to the nub of this particular piece of legislation. I think this is really the crux of it. These amendments - the Minister obviously has thought about them a lot and is sincere in prese nting them, but I bel ieve them to be complete window dres sing.

They do not deal with the whole problem that we have been faced with, really since about June 1st, with respect to the fairly substantial increases in rents, which is very widespr ead through the city, which has really just, I think, shocked everyone. I don't think anyone - I don't think the Minister in his wildest nightmare thought that we would have as massive and as widespread a situation of fairly substantial rent increases, which on the sur face just do not seem at all justifiable, and that is why so many people have come before the Committee. That is why so many people were signing petitions.

And at this stage, we are dealing with only 1/12 th of the year in terms of lease renewals. Perhaps in volume terms we might be dealing with 1/10 th of the volume of the lease renewals, but we are only touching the tip of the iceberg, and yet we have so many people coming before us saying that on October 1st their rents are going to go up massively. Next month we are going to have a whole bunch of people contacting the Minister in the Rentalsman Office, whoever they can contact, saying ... you know, those people whose rents come up on November 1st, they will be complaining.

A month later all the people whose rents rents come up on December 1s t will be complaining, all the people then on January 1s t. So what I am saying, is that we haven't dealt with the entire apartment universe, we have just dealt with the tip of the iceberg, and we have been able to see that the market isn't working, that people don't have options, that they need some way of having fair rents. That is what we are looking for, we are looking for a balance. We are looking for a balance, we are looking for a balance between a fair return for the landlord and decent accommodation for tenants at fair rents.

That strikes me as being the balance that we are looking for, and we are looking for some type of mechanism to achieve that. We know that the market isn't providing that right now. I mean from our two months of experience we know that it is not providing it, because we are getting these 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 percent rent increases. You know, when Mr. Smethurst, the legal counsel for the Manitoba Landlords' Association, made his presentation and he said at that time, what we are looking for is a fair return and we think that landlords should be able to justify their rent increase.

And I said, would you be prepared to be reasonable and consider compulsory arbitration? He said, we would consider compulsory arbitration, that would be a good suggest ion, provided there was appeal. lt struck me that here you have the landlords the mselves saying the y are willing to have compulsory arbitration and they want an appeal process. Frankly, we have always had appeals. Right now Mr.

Bergen of our Edison Realty has been appealing a decision of the Rent Review Board going back to November of 19 78, and it is still before the courts and we still haven't heard on that decision. lt has been almost two years, and I don't want to get involved in that one, but I frankly think it is strange that a judge cannot make a decision three months after hearing the case. Maybe he has reasons, but I do think that from an admini strative point of view justice isn't working very well when that happens.

I � am not going to say it's the same motivation or � anything, maybe it has just been delayed for very good reasons, but I think it is unfair to the tenants and unfair to the landlord to have the decision by the judge held up now for th ree months after having heard the case I think on April 22nd. But I don't want to go off on that. All I want to say is that we do have an appeal mechan ism right now, we have had appeal mechanisms in the past, we know how they work. They work fair enough. What we do want is a system that is workable, that doesn't rely on judgments per se, th at has arbitra tion.

You know, we have arbitration with MPIC, we have arbitration on a whole set of disputes. We have arbitration with ind ustrial disputes, we have arbitration with MPIC disputes, we have arbitration with respect to construction contracts. There is always arbitration clauses in contracts that are signed between the government and contractors. That process isn't that unusual. We have a fair amount of experience. The point is, in order for it to be meaningful and not cosmetic and � not window dressing, it has to be applicable and � compulsory, both sides have to be arbitrated.

Now, what we have here is a situation where the Mini ster is bringing in amendments which confer upon the Director of Arbitration those powers which he had, and we have said that the powers of the Minister aren't good enough, that you have to have a set of ci rcums tanc es which are su bject to tremendous su bjective

interpretation before the Min ister or the Di rector of Arbitration now, after these proposed amendments if they are put through take effect, where the Dir ector of Arbitation would be satisfied that there isn't alternative accommodation, that the rents aren't excessive, that XYZ is taking place, leaving tremendous loopholes that you can frankly dri ve trucks through.

I think that the Minister, who talks about workable legislation and practical legislation, is bringing in a situation here which isn't pract ical, isn't workable, and really does not provide for any system whereby we can't get to fair rents, and that is what we are talking about. Now, if the Min ister is saying, I am not int erested in fair rents, all I am inter ested in doing is getting out of controls, fine; I believe that the public of Manitoba 138

Friday, 25 July, 1980 is not in agreement with him. I believe that the public of Manitoba, certainly the New Democratic Party, says that what we want is a system of fair rents. That is what we want, and that is the overwhelming objecti ve of the legislation, that is our overwhelming objective. Now, the Minister is saying that fair rents isn't his ob jective, it is only a minor ancil lar y objective. If it can be achieved, fine; if it can't, well, that is one of the faults, no legislation is perfect. But his primary and, I think, overriding, totally dominant objective is to get out of rent controls.

Now to get out of rent controls and put ourselves into a situation where we have unfair rents, where we have no workable mechanism to review rents, have them arbitrated , have both sides agree to the arbitration, and then have some system of appeal from that, to me is lu dicrous, especial ly, Mr . Chairperson, at a time when we are being asked to get out of any type of rent review, get out of any type of system at looking at fair rents, because it is too bu rea ucratic, too cum bersome, too many problems associated with it.

The government at the same time is bringing in The Emergency Energy Authority Act, which provides for something that is far more bu reaucratic, far more totalitarian than virtually any piece of legislation that I have seen in my three years as a legislator. So the government is saying that we are prepared to bring in authoritarian and totalitarian legislation to deal with a crisis that we don't even think exists.

Because we are agreeable to the exportation of natural gas out of this country, at the same time it is saying, that with respect to rents and rent increases, that it is not prepared to have the government intervene to ensure fair rents, when we can document that there are unfair rents in the city, that the incidenc e of un fair rents is massive and widespread. We have a concrete situation rig ht before us of un fair rents and we have the government saying it doesn't want to intervene.

On the other hand we have a hypothetical situation with respect to an energy crisis and the government is going to bring in an Emergency Energy Author ity Act, which gives the government massive powers, only conferred upon the State to this date in times of war. I find this somethat illogical. I just don't find any consistency in the government approach whatsoever, and the government can't justify this legislation. lt can not justify not having any compulsory arbitration. That is the one thing that we as a party are going to fight right to the end on.

I mean it is something that I know is required. lt is something that my colleagues know; it is something that the people who all come before us know; it is what the tenants have asked for; it is what Mr. Shapiro asked for when he was on the Board of the Rental Stabili zation Board. lt is what the Landlord Association have asked for. They are willing to go with compulsory arbitration.

If they want compulsory arbitration, if the landlords want comp lus ory arbitratio n, if the tenants want compulsory arbitration, if the general public wants compulsory arbitration. if anyone who has looked at this whole issue wants compulsory arbitration, why is the government so steadfast in saying it will not provide compulsory arbitration?

That is the nub of this particular debate; it is the nub of what has taken place over the course of the last month, and we on this side say that this legislation just will not work in any way, shape or form no matter how one tries to dress it up, and no matter what little nuances one provides. lt jus t won't work un less ther e is compulsory arbitration, and I think the Minister would have to admit that Sections 12 0(6) and 121 do not provide for compulsory arbitration in any way, shape or form. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKE NZIE: Mr.

Chairman, I sat in on the hearings and listened to all tho se that made presentations to the Committee, and the general tenor of the debate or the presentations that were made to the Committee was there was a concern about excessive rent increases. I am looking at the amendment that is before us, Mr. Chairman, and I just wonder what words the Member for Transcona would like to add to describe excessive rent increases. lt looks fair to me. lt has improved somewhat from what was in the original bill. I certainly am open to suggestions by the honourable member, but it looks reasonably good to me.

I would like to hear his comments. MR. PARASIUK: I will give you a suggesti on, that a landlord cannot refuse arbitrati on, that is what I am looking for. I am looking for a situation where if someone refers to the Rentalsman that there be compulsory arbitration at that time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, it seems that Mr. Parasiuk is directing his remarks more particularly to the next section. MR. PARASIUK: Well, you asked us to look at both of them together, didn't you? MR. JORGENSON: No. All this particular one is doing is dealing with the definition of excessive rent incr eases.

We can pass that one and then we can go on to the other one, and have that discussion. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion before us, moved by Mr. Mc Kenzie

Section 33 as amended pass. Mr. Corrin. MR. CORRIN: I suppose with respect to the entire bill, we will report it as being passed on division, but just for the record we wish to indicate that we are opposing this particular provisio n. As my friend says, it is very difficult in dealing with any provision from this point on, certainly up to the condo minium provisions, to speak affirmatively or supp ortively. We regard these provisions as being a very weak and very tepid form of rent control. We don't see it as being adequate . MR. JORGENSON: They are not intended to be rent controls. MR.

CORRIN: My honourable friend, Mr. Chairman , says they are not intended to be rent controls. Let him know that The Rent Stabilization Act had 43 provisions; let him know that his bill before the committee this evening has 39. Let him know that in 139

Friday, 25 July, 1980 terms of the qua ntity of legislation, he is almost putting as much into the law as he is taking out. I am not suggesting that volume is the only standard by which we weigh the effect and impact of legislative policy, but I can tell him that this piece of legislation is going to be a lawyer's dr eam and a tenant's nightmare.

I am going to tell him that there is going to be just as much complaint, there is going to be just as much discontent on the part of tenants with respect to his decontrol measures, his form of shelter cost regulation, as there was on the part of landlo rds with respect to the rent stabil ization legislation and its provisions. There is going to be no satisfactory compromise.

If he feels that we went too far on the one hand, and I submit we didn't, but if he feels that, I can tell him that this is every bit as lugubr ious and complex and difficult. lt is certainly, because of the nature of the amendments and the nature of the provisions of the bill, it is certainly going to prove, I think, a dile mma and sometimes a nig htmare to the Mini ster and the government, because I think that as time goes on, the Mi nister, because so many of the provisions, as we will see in these amendments, are reliant on the Min ister's exercising discretion in favor of an aggrie ved tenant, we are going to find that this becomes a politically contentious item.

We are going to find that it is probably going to provoke more contr oversy, more dispute and more di fficulty and acrimony with respect to the citizen and government than any other pie ce of legislation th at this government has brought in in its term of office. Mr.

Chairman, I want to be on the record by way of ind ication that this legislation is misconceived by anyone who feels that it is any less bureaucratic or difficult than what it intends to replace, and it is just going to mean that in stead of having several hundred, or perhaps 1, 000 landlords in the province aggravated, we are now going to have tens of thousands, in the order of perhaps over 100 ,000 tenants aggrieved.

So in terms of the impact, it is clear, what we have done is we have transferred, in terms of regulation of shelter costs, we have trans ferred the burden from the shoulders of the landlords, perceptually, to the shoulders of the tenants. I would suggest, as the Member for Transcona has, that there is absolutely no need to bury the rent stabilization legislation. lt was an adequa te form, and a much fairer form and forum of dealing with this particular problem.

As a matter of fact, I would suggest that as time was passing and as refinements and reforms were being made to the legisla tion, it was probably becoming one of the leading pieces of legislation across Canada in the field of rent control. In this regard, Mr . Ch air man , agai n, another misconception that has been widely disseminated, is that Mani toba stood alone as a province which decided to regulate shelter costs for tenants. That, Mr. Chair man , is fallacious.

We heard evi dence during the course of the hearings that there were, I believe, all but two of the provinces that had rent controls in one form or another, that there were provinces that had had rent controls imposed, up to, I believe, 30 years, and that even Conser vative provinces, with a big "C" such as Ontario had seen fit to continue a rent regulation and control program through legislation. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we are confronted by a government that simply wishes to be doctrina ir e as op posed to being humane and rational.

I think it is clear to everyone that there has to be a mechanism, and it is obviously the intent of th e government to tr y and back in to some acceptable decontrol format. So it's incomprehensible why we have to depart from the rent stabiliz ation format at all. lt is to be remembered, Mr. Chairman, and I suppose we might as well discuss this now as later, because it will all come to pass anyway as we go th rough the next few sect ions, it is to be remembered that there was nothing in The Rent Stabili zation Act which prohibited the government from changing the cei ling levels.

There was absolutely nothing which prevented you from saying that the Act, for instance, wouldn't apply to rent increases in the order of less than 10 percent. You could have done those sort of things. You could have taken that sort of approach and it would have been • very simple, but you have chosen to completely � destroy the only effective tool that the average citizen, the ordinary tenant of this city and province has to cope with rising shelter cost. And we are simply not replacing it with anything; we are walking into an open-ended situation that is essentially a vacuum.

I tell you that nature abhors a vacuum and landlords are going to fill it, and that's going to be a contentious prob lem as time passes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cowan. MR. COWAN: Mr. Chairperson, I would ask the Mi nister, in regard to this particular section, who will have the onus to prove that a rent incr ease is excessive after the rent increase has been brought to the attention of the Dir ector of Arbitration, and the dir ector says he is satisfied that the rent increase is excessive.

If we look at the definition of excessive, which has been done for the past few moments in the committee, one would have to then suspect that someone would have to do a study of rents in the • area. Would the Dir ector of Arbitration undertake � that study? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: lt is one of the functions of the Director of Arbitr ation to study those areas where we receive inf orma tion that may req uir e a more thorough examination and then, on the basis of that exa mination, a recommendation is made to the Mi nister. MR.

COWAN: I would ask the Min ister, then, what staff it is antici pated will be necessary to make that sort of an enquiry which I would, on first glance, suspect to be a fairly comprehensive inquir y, if it is in fact going to suit the definition of an excessive rent increase.

They are going to have to look at the rents of premises of a similar type in the same general area, or even in the same community, and that is going to mean that they are going to, in some way, have a mechanism to get that information from the other landlords and I'm not certain as to the power and authority they will have in order to accomplish that. 140

Friday, 25 July, 1980 They are going to have to have some fairly efficient means, if we are to antici pate this

section be used, and that's what I think we should, to do that on a fairly regular basis. So I would ask the Min ister what sort of staff are going to be provided and what sort of powers are going to be given to the arbitrator to demand that landlords tell them what rents they are charging. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, the staff of the Dir ector of Arbitration will start out with five people, but he will be assisted, in addition to that staff, by the staff of the Landlord and Tenant Office.

The nature of his work is outlined in the various sections of the Act, the powers that he will have, and he will have the powers to get information that he requir es in order to complete and do his monitoring. MR. COWAN: I'm sorry, I have missed just a part of that, I apologize to the Minister. The powers of the arbitrator are outlined in the amendments that are before us, or in the Act itself, in regard to being able to force information from a landlord who does not desire to give such? MR. J

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-sro6
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf sro6.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	aca29f865e1759a106ce862fabfd0405403e7162

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