Manitoba Committee Hansard — 22 July 1993 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 17, 35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-la17

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session -T hirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on LAW AMENDMENTS 42 Elizabeth II Chairperson Mr. Bob Rose Constituency of Turtle Mountain VOL. XUI No. 17 • 9 a.m.,THURSDAY, JULY 22,1993 ISSN0713,9�

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve . BARRETI, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS,Ciif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY,Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis . HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon . . · MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON , Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCtA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant Vacant Vaeant CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Crescentwood Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vrtal Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Ron La Verendrye FortGafry St.

Johns Swan River Rossmere Rupertsland The Maples PARTY Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

501 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Thursday, July 22, 1993 TIME-9a.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIR PERSON - Mr. Bob Rose (Turtle Mountain) ATTENDANCE-11 -Q UORUM- 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Driedger, Manness, McCrae, Hon. Mrs. Mcintosh Messrs. Gaudry, Lamoureux, Pallister, Reid, Rose, Sveinson, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis Substitutions: Mr. Martindale for Mr. Reid Ms. Barrett for Ms.

Wasylycia-Leis APPEARING: Harry Enns, MLA for Lakeside Jean Friesen, MLA for Wolseley Gerry McAlpine, MLA for Sturgeon Creek Jerry Storie, MLA for Rin Ron Judy Wasylycia-Leis, MLA for St. Johns WITNESSES: Bill 35- The Fisheries Amendment Act: Pascali Bighetty, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Biii47-The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act

(2) Michel Mignault, Professional Property Managers' Association Alan Borger, Jr., Professional Property Managers' Association Robert Hanson, Apartment Inve stors Association of Manitoba Peter H. Warkentin, Apartment Investors Association of Manitoba Gail Jarema, Private Citizen Bill 49- The

Summary Convictions Amendment and ConSequential Amendments Act John Ryan, Private Citizen Ellen Olfert, Wjnnipeg Harvest Jnc. Rene Jamieson, Winnipeg Harvest Inc. Rick Penner, Habitat Re-store Bill 52- The Manitoba Foundation Act Dan Kraayeveld, Executive Director, Winnipeg Foundation David Cohen, Executive Director, Jewish Foundation of Manitoba MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 24- The Taxicab Amen dment and Consequential Amendments Act Bill 35- The Fisheries Amendment Act Bill 47- The Res idential Tenancies Amendment Act

(2) Bill 49- The

Summary Convictions Amend ment and Consequential Amendments Act Bill 52- The Manitoba Foundation Act * * * Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order. The following bills will be considered this morning: Bi1135, The Fisheries Amendment Act; Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2); Bill49, The

Summary Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Bill 52, The Manitoba Foundation Act. If time permits, we will resume consideration of Bill 24, The Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. For the committee's information, copies of the bills being considered today are available at the front table in front of me. A list of persons wishing to appear before this committee for presentations to these bills has been distributed. You will note it is on two pages with two bills on each page. Point of Order Ms. Judy Wasylycla-L els (St. Johns): If I could make a committee change, Mr. Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt your proceedings.

502 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 22, 19 93 Mr. Chairperson: You do not have a point of order. If you want to just wait until I get through the routine here. We are aware that you want to make a committee change. *** Mr. Chairperson: Copies of the presenters list for Bill 24, The Taxicab Ame ndment and Consequential Amendments Act has not been distributed yet this morning and will not be distributed unless the committee moves into consideration of that bill this morning. For the public's benefit, copies of the lists of presenters for these four bills are at the back of the table for your perusal.

Should anyone present wish to make presentations to any of these four bills, would you please identify yourself to the staff at the back of the room and your name will be added to the list. 1 would also ask at this time if there are any of the presenters who are currently listed this morning, if you have ·a written text which you wish to have copied and distributed to the committee members, if you would give it to one of the staff members and that will be done for you.

As mentioned at the committee meeting last night, it is my understanding that this committee w�ll first proceed with Bills 35, 47, 49 and 52 and Will rever t to Bill 24 when these bills have been disposed of. Committee Substitutions Ms. Judy Wasylycl a-Lels (St. Johns): Mr. Chairperson, I move, with leave of the committee, that the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) replace the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.

Reid) as a member of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments effective today, with the understanding that the same substitution will also be moved in the House to be properly recorded in the official records of the House. 1 move, with leave of the committee, that the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) replace the honourable member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) as a member of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments effective today, with the understanding that the same substitution will also be moved in the Hous& to be properly recorded in the official records of the House. Motions agreed to-.

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee then to proceed with the consideration of public presentations on Bill35? [agreed] Bill 35- The Fisheries Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: I will now call No. 1, Pascali Bighetty, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. Good morning, sir. Your copy of your written presentation is being distributed. You may begin when you are ready. Mr. Pascali Blg hetty (Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs): My name is Pascali Bighetty.

I am also a commercial fisherman from Pukatawagan, and I am representing the aboriginal and nonaboriginal fishermen from northern Manitoba. * (091 0) The purpose of my presentation today is regarding The Fisherie s Act, amendi ng The Fisheries Act. In 1969 agreement with the federal marketing regulations by three provinces, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories agreed to a marketing monopoly with the exception being Ontario who would only agree to an approximate 50 percent monopoly and the other 50 percent free enterprise.

By 1988, Saskatchewan and Alberta passed provincial legislation amending respect ive provincial fisheries acts permitting the sale of fish direct from fishermen to retailers, wholesalers and processors. Provincial sales in Saskatchewan today total approximately 1.8 million pounds annually creating an alternative for fish sales of their total fish catches. That should be Saskatchewan today consumes 1.8 million pounds of fish annually. What we want today is equality with the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.

We have an abundant supply of fish in Manitoba, and Manitobans are being denied access to their markets with the fish. Reasons for requested amendment to the Manitoba Fisheries Act are as follows. There is insufficient fish prices offered by the Freshwater Fish corporation or less than 48 percent of the fish sales dollars being returned to the producer. An amendment to the Manitoba Fisheries Act would allow fishermen to go on the open market with their fish catches in cases where FFMC will not buy all species of fish produced by the fishermen. For example, Freshwater will only buy from fishermen

July 22, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 503 as follows: 60 percent of whitefish produced, 50 percent of trout produced. They do not take any rough fish. This results in 4 million pounds to 5 million pounds of fish going into the bush each year as nonsaleable fish to Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Such fish must be discarded while fishermen continue to fish for species that are saleable to FFMC. Fishermen must be allowed to go onto the open market with the "bushed" fish now restricted by FFMC.

Access to markets outside of Freshwat er resulting in increased sales of fish by fishermen will create much needed jobs in the North in the processing/packaging sector as well as or full employment of commercial fishermen. Free enterprise buyers will be enticed to invest in the northern commercial fisheries where presently the monopoly has no rea son to invest such resources. Presently fish consumption in the province of Manitoba is very low due to the retail price.

Direct sales by fishermen would result in improved quality as well as an acceptable consumer price and, most important, increased returns to the fish producers. Commercial fishing is becoming extinct under the present monopoly which affects not only commercial fishermen but the various service industries required by commercial fishermen such as airways, retails for groceries, fuel companies, et cetera.

The corporation, FFMC, monopoly cannot continue to enjoy a total fish purchasing and marketing monopoly and, in simple words, continue to say to the commercial fishermen of this province that we are the sole purchasers of your fish catches. If the price that we at FFMC decide to pay you is too low or below your production cost, quit. If the credit policy that we at FFMC decide is not to your satisfaction, you can quit. If we at FFMC cannot sell your fish, we say we will only buy 50 percent of your catches in your net, take it or leave it, bush It, we do not want it.

Fishermen and the livelihood of themselves, their families have been forgotten by the present marketing monopoly. The marketing monopoly has had its day of benefit to commercial fishermen of this province. Today the returns by the monopoly to commercial fishermen is below their actual cost of production and must be improved and can be improved through direct free enterprise sales. Manitoba commercial fishermen presently have no barometer to gauge if in fact they are receiving the best possible return from their sales with the present monopoly and we are asking for an alternative.

In view of the circumstances that haven taken place since the 1969 agreement betwee n provinces and the federal government, it would be appreciated if this legislative body would give suppor t to the requested amendment to the Manitoba Fisheries Act which would give equal opportunities to commercial fishermen of the province as enjoyed by their counterparts in other provinces. It would result in fresh fish affordable to the consumers. On a last note, if we are not allowed to sell our fish directly to Manitoba consumers, I think that the northern fishery will die.

We have been thinking as the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs that it there is no fishery in northern Manitoba, then there will be full- scale tourism development in northern Manitoba where it only opens from June, July, August and September, four months of the year. We cannot allow that to happen, and I thank you very much. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Bighetty, for your presentation this morning. Are you prepared to answer questions or discuss your presentation with committee members? Hon. Harr y Enns (Min ister of Natural Resources): I have two questions, Mr. Bighetty, that I would like to pose.

Part of the issue that you raised deals with federal legislation in terms of exporting outside of the province. That would require a federal change. I believe you are also probably aware that fishermen can ask for a producer permit from the Manitoba director of Fisheries and permit them to identify Manitoba retailers that can sell you fish there. You are aware that you can get that kind of a permit, right? Mr. Blghetty: Yes, I am aware of that. For example, in Ontario, they not only sell their fish to Ontario, they sell their fish to United States.

Our problem here as northern commercial fishermen is that we have our hands tied where we want to sell our fish. You know, we have an abundant supply of fish in Manitoba. It is not like Newfoundland. You go to Newfoundland; there is no fish there. We have

504 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 22, 19 93 fish in northern Manitoba jumping out from the water, and we cannot sell them to meet the needs of our expenses at least. We are not Newfoundland fishermen. We are not given 500 million bucks like they do to Atlantic fisheries. We are poor fishermen. Why do you not allow us to sell our fish to Manitobans at least? *( 0920 Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): Th ank you, Mr. Bighetty. Your presentation dealt with an issue that the Minister of Natural Resources, I believe, had initially promised that he would attempt to address.

Although I have some reservations about a wide-open free-market system for commercial fishermen, just as I would have concerns about a wide-open free-market system for barley or wheat, the fact is that the disadvantages that northern fishermen face are significant. One of the major disadvantages, of course, is the cost of transportation. You mentioned in your brief that the provincial government had reduced the freight subsidy for fishermen across the province.

I am wondering whether the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has ever done a comparison between the subsidies that are available, for example, to farmers, the transportation subsidies, the crop insurance subsidies, the product subsidies, and done any sort of comparison bet wee n the amou nt of subsidy that we get compared to the contribution of agriculture to our gross provincial product versus the subsidies that are available to fishermen, which are in a provincial sense, almost nonexistent. Has AMC ever done that kind of comparison? Mr. Blghetty: We have not done that. Mr. Storie: Mr.

Chairperson, I would certainly encou rage the assembly to do it. I would encourage the Province of Manitoba to begin to look at how important freshwater fishing is to the province of Manitoba because I think it addresses some of the problems that you talk about. You could make a decent return if you had the same kind of transportation subsidy, for example, that certainly western Canadian farmers have had for many decades. Deating with the specifics of this bill, the one that Mr.

Enns, the minister, decided to go with deals with the sale of quota. l am wondering whether the assembry was consulted, first of all, with respect to the decision to allow individuals to sell quota, to allow quota to become the property of individuals. Mr. Blghetty: We were of the impression that Film on's speech on free enterprise in Manitoba was legal, was law. We did not know that there was a proposed amendment until yesterday. That is how ill-informed we were on this bill. Mr. Storie: I want to thank Mr. Bighetty for that, and I want to assure him that that is the general opinion in northern Manitoba.

I have met with the South Indian Lake fishermen, Granville Lake fishermen, Pukatawagan fishermen, and there was virtually no consultation that I can find with respect to this issue. I am wondering whether you can tell us what your �oncerns, and committee members may not know that you were the chief at Pukatawagan for many years, what kind of impact you would see the sale of individual quota might have on communities like Pukatawagan. Mr.

Blghetty: It used to be that we used to fish because the price of fish was·good.,lf you compare prices per hundredweight for Lake Winnipeg, they pay less than a cent a pound per hundredweight to take their fish to Transcona,

whereas in northern Manitoba, like in Pukatawagan, South Indian Lake, we pay 45 cents a pound per hundredweight. So there is absolutely no comparison, what we have to pay here. I hope that this Legislature could carry on with what was promised.to the fishermen. If that does not happen, well, I am afraid that not only the Fr eshwater Fish Market ing Corpora tion in Transcona might close down, because of the fishermen that we have spoken to, they are not going to fish. They are just going to boycott. They are just not going to fish at an this fall. Mr. Storie: Mr.

Chairperson, that is certainly more than a portion of the problem. It is a major part of the problem. Dealing with the issue of sale of quot a, I understand that in Pukatawagan, for example, I was told on Monday that there are approximately 60 lakes currently licensed to Pukataw agan fishermen and that some of the quotas assigned to individuals ar e fair ly small. Wo uld you be concerned if individuals could freely selnheir quota to the-highest bidder outside the community of Pukatawagan1 · ·· ·

July 22, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 505 Mr. Blghetty : Well, that might be the case if we have to continue to fish under the existing regulation under FFMC. I guess that is going to happen. For example, on quota, you mention in the Pukatawagan area, 60 lakes. There are over a million pounds of fish that are supposed to be taken out annually. We can only afford to take out about 200,000 pounds. Mr. Storie: Mr.

Chairperson, I have a concern that this legislation gives the minister the right now to assign certain areas of the province, to allow cabinet essentially along with the minister to have discretion where quota can be sold, under what conditions it can be sold without any say.

I have a concern that the problems you have mentione d that face norther n fishermen, particularly the transportation problem because it is so expensive, that what is going to happen is that over time if the wholesale sale of fish quota is allowed, fishermen in northern Manitoba who are experiencing low prices, difficulty paying off the loans they have to MACC, will sell their quota. They will sell their quota to the highest bidder and they will generally be the larger fishermen. What will happen then is when prices are good, they will fish in northern Manitoba.

When they can justify fishing in northern Manitoba to pay for the high transportation costs, they will fish in northern Manitoba. When they cannot justify it, they will shut down the fishery entirely, and fisher men in Pukatawagan and the people who rely on employment in the fishing industry will be left to fend for themselves. I am wondering whether that is a concern that has been discussed amongst at least some of the northern chiefs. Mr. Blghetty: That is a concern with most of the northern chiefs. We just cannot continue to fish under existing conditions. It is not economically possible. Mr.

Storie: I know the acting minister wants to assure us that the sale of quota is not intended at this point for northern Manitoba. The minister has given us that as surance. Unfortunately, the legislation gives them the right, essentially as I see it, to change that at a moment's notice, but I would like to just, if my assumption is correct, make a suggested amendment. I am hoping Mr. Big hetty will support it, and that is the idea that before any individual quota is sold from within a resource are a of a norther n community, the community somehow would have right of first refusal on the sale of that quota.

In other words, if fishermen X has 15,000 pounds outside of Pukatawagan, before he can sell that quota he has to give the community, either the fishermen 's association, a development corporation in the community, the band, right of first refusal. In other words, before the resource can be sold out from under the community, the community has to have a say. Would you support that kind of amendment? Mr. Blghetty: Yes. Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Chairperson, the member for Flin Flon clarified it to some degree.

This legislation applies basically only to Lake Winnipeg and Lake Winnipegosis. I am told by Mr. O'Connor from the Natural Resources department that there is no intention to imp ose this on the northern communities unless they would want it and that the regulat ions, when they are drafted, will be addressing that portion of it. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate that this is the acting minister and that is the advice he is getting from staff. Staff always believe that their minister is the most honourable and the best, and that is as it should be. Unfortunately- Mr. Driedger: You are saying I am not. Mr.

Storie: Well, no, but you are just the acting minister. They have no faith in you, no.

Section 33(2) says, area of application of regulations. It says: "A regulation made under subsection (1) may be made to apply to the whole of the province or any part of the province." In other words, cabinet decides. Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would just ask the committee members, we will have all kinds of time to debate the bill. We have other people waiting to make presentations, so would you address your question, please, Mr. Storie. *

(0930) Mr. Storie: Mr . Ch airperson, I am simply responding to the minister 's clarification. [interjection] Yes, and he is asking me not to. The regulat ion, of course, can apply to the whole province. The other suggestion that I would make in this bill and perhaps Mr. Bighetty would comment on it and that is that in the event that a regulation should be

506 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 22, 19 93 made that applies to even the east side of Lake Winnipeg, the small communities, that there be a year's moratorium, that if this law should pass, if Bill 35 should pass, that there be at least a year's moratorium to allow the communities-perhaps on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, but others certainly--a year to prepare to purchase quota for their communities.

If we pass this bill tomorrow and it is proclaimed, theoretically, fishermen could begin immediately to purchase quota for small communities, Northern Affairs communities, First Nations could get themselves together and say, no, we are going to buy that. Would you support a year moratorium if this bill should pass on the sale of quota? Mr. Blghe tty: That would depend on each community, I guess, on each reserve. Mr. Storie: Okay. That is my question. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I thank Mr. Bighetty for his presentation. I just have a comment and some questions.

I know it was about a week ago I was actually over at Cantor's Grocery. I do not know if Mr. Bighetty is familiar with that particular store. He is. I was ta lking to the owne r, Joe Cantor. He expressed a lot of concerns about freshwater fishing and actually I am sure would find that he is in complete compliance or in agreement with Mr. Bighetty. He himself would like to be able to purchase direct from northern fishermen to be able to sell a product believing that it would be better prices for the consumer, that the fishermen would benefit also.

It would be better quality and so forth, many of the points which you, Mr. Bighetty, have brought up in your report. Have you or the assembly approached independent groceries and applied for these permits? I know I had asked the minister the other day inside the Chamber and brought up the specific example of Cantor's. He had implied, you know, all he has to do is find someone who will do the fishing on his behalf and go and get a permit. Is that done? Are you aware of things of that nature actually being done? Mr. Blghetty: Well, we are aware. We are aware that it is being done.

Our main concern-for the North anyway; I do not know about Lake Winnipeg fishermen--is that if we can be allowed to sell our fish to Manitoba so that we can get the same opportunities as Saskatchewan and Alberta, I do not think that freshwater ran broke since 198 8 when Alberta and Saskatchewan allowed their fishermen to sell their fish directly to the consumer. It is just that I get frustrated when I go to Safeway.

You know, I have to buy sole and the fish that are from the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean when we have an abundant supply of fish here in Manitoba that we can give, that we can strengthen the economy by selling fish to Manitobans so they can have fresh fish. The other day I went to look at a fish there. I could see through it. We have a lot of fish here in Manitoba, and we just cannot understand why we are not allowed to sell our fish. We work hard, I tell you. Mr. Lamoureux: Last night in committee we were talking about the importance of a board and regulations in terms of the taxi industry.

Here we are talking about trying to open the doors to allow individuals-what would be the arguments? Why is it necessary? Are there jobs that ar e bein g protected in southern Manitoba? Why is it the way it is right now, in your opinion, and is it necessary? The concern, of course--a nd I think it would be virtually unanim ous inside the Legisl ative Chamber-is that we want to ensure that there are jobs and oppo rtunities, in par ticular for our aboriginal people in the North.

Is there any potential threat by opening it up that there is going to be loss of jobs or that that community we want to see grow and prosper would be at a disadvantage? Mr. Blghetty: If Manitoba allows us to sell our fish to the retailer, of course the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation's employment may vary. Let us not forget that there is 80 percent aboriginal fisherm en . If you go to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation employment scale, you will not see one aboriginal working there. Mr.

Lamoureux: If we were to open it up, do you feel that there would be any loss of employment opportunities in northern Manitoba to aboriginal people, in terms of as commercial fishermen, or do you see the industry growing? You talked about the abundance of fish. If it were opened up, would it threaten that? Would it threaten job opportunities? Are you just going to get individuals coming from the south, draining the rivers and the lakes in the North and then leaving once the fishing stock has been depleted? Is that a threat?

July 22, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 507 Mr. Blghetty : I do not think that is the threat. I think it will definitely increase employment in the North. The only company that attempts to destroy fish is Manitoba Hydro. It is not the fishermen. If the doors wer e open for us, we would strengthen the economy of Manitoba. As you said earlier, in Saskatchewan the Saskatchewan people consume over 1.8 million pounds of fish a year. That is exactly how much rough fish we throw away every year. Mr.

Lamoureux: Finally, with respect to the whole issue of quota, in your opinion, if you are going to have quota, and it seems to be a given that there is going to be quota that is there, is it better to have quota based on individuals being assigned a certain amount of quota or, let us say, assigning quota on a lake that can be drawn? Which would be better, in your opinion? Mr. Blghetty: Definitely a quota on a lake to be drawn, because the individual quota has not be working. It is not working. If you give a guy 15,0 00 pounds of fish quota annually, well, he is not going to fish.

He is going to just go out there, and he is going to be afraid to go over his limit.

Whereas, in Pukatawagan, where we come from, we have a 250 ,0 00-pound lake quota, where we go out there and catch as much as we want and we can. The individual quota, that is the thing that is not working for our commercial fishermen in northern Manitoba anyway. Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Thank you, Mr. Bighetty, for your presentation. One comment that you made to Mr. Lamoureux was that the fish quota or lake quotas are not working for you. Maybe you could just expand on that. Why are they not working? Mr. Blghetty: The lake quotas are working.

It is the individual quotas that are not working, because if you give an individual person 15 ,000 pounds of quota, he is not going to go and get that out right away because he is out for the rest of the year.

Whereas, on the other hand, if you give a quota of 500,000 pounds to a community and tell them, well, there is 500, 000 pounds, go and get it, we will go and rush and get that 500, 000- pound quota out as soon as possible.

Whereas, if you give them each a 5,00 0-pound quota, they will not go out because they will be afraid to go over their limit. Mr. McAlpine: The purpose of the freshwater marketing board is to maintain the lake quotas to the various fishermen, how many people can fish on that, and what their quotas are. Is that correct? Mr. Blghetty: I think it is province who regulates the quotas. It is not the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. I think their sole purpose there is to monopolize our fish. I think that is their only job description. Mr.

McAlpine: If they were to open the market up to what you are suggesting here, what is that going to do to the stocks of fish in the lakes in northern Manitoba? *

(0940) Mr. Blghetty : I do not think that it would diminish the fish stocks in Manitoba, because over the past, since 1969, the fisheries have been declining, and is going down. It would even enhance the growth of fish, because we will be able to take out the unwanted gull fish which are in a lake. How should I explain it? If you go into a lake and if there is too much rough fish in a lake, there will be less of the whitefish or pickerel. It will definitely not decrease the fish population whatsoever. Mr.

McAlpine: On the free market of marketing fish, would it be of any benefit to provide permits instead of just opening it up? Would that solve your issue? Mr. Big hetty : We were so happy when the Premier (Mr. Filmon) announced a free market. I think that is what I was directed to attempt to tell the MLAs here. Of course, you will have to have a permit. We are not saying that we should not have a permit. What we are saying is that we should be given a permit to be able to sell our fish to whomever we want, because we have no say.

For example, the pickerel prices here this spring, my fishermen tell me we had about 85 cents a pound, and for one species in Ontario, they were getting $2.50. It is just not fair. It is not a fair ball game. Mr. McAlpine: One more question on this. For you to market your fish to these individual vendors, or sales outlets, whose responsibility would it be to transport that stock of fish under the present system as it now is? Mr. Blghetty: Probably it will be up to the retailer and the fisherman, and if we know that, we will have to abide by Fisheries regulations, and we will abide by them. Mr.

McAlpine: Thank you.

508 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 22, 19 93 Mr. Chair person: So if there are no other questions for the presenter, I thank you very much for your presentation this morning, Mr. Bighetty. That completes public presentations on Bill 35. We have a number of public presenters on 47, 49 and 52. What is the wish of the committee? Should we proceed with public presentations? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Mr. Chairperson: That is ag reed. Shall we proceed in numerical order of the bills? That is agreed. I will then call public presentations on Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act.

The first present er, No. 1, Julie Van De Spiegel, Landholders League of Manitoba? Is Ms. Van De Spiegel here? I will then call the second name. That name will be called again. Number 2, Michel Mignault, Professional Property Managers' Association. Good morning, sir, did you wish to have a written copy of your presentation distributed to the committee? Bill 47- The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act

(2) Mr. Michel Migna ul t (Professional Property Managers' Association): I bel ieve that has already been undertaken, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. You may begin when you are ready. Mr. Mignault: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. It is indeed a pleasure for me to appear before you on behalf of the Professional Property Managers' Association. With me is Alan Borger, Jr., who is here as a resource person to our association. He is a solicitor and has been advising us with regard to these amendments. My presentation is based upon a letter addressed to Mr.

Roger Barsy, the director of the Residential Tenancies Branch, and I will read from it verbatim: Dear Mr. Barsy, as re quested, the following are our comments regarding Bill 47 and The Residential Tenancies Act. Item No. 1, Notice to new tenants,

Section 25 (2). Should not 91 (1) be amended as well? This

section gives the new tenant the right to terminate if a rent increase is authorized after the beginning of the lease term. If a new tenant has notice pursuant to SecUon 116.1 (1} that the current rent being charged is to be increased within three months after the commencement of the tenancy, why should the tenant then have the right to terminate the tenancy when the rent increase is approved? The second item, Determination when Tenant not Located,

Section 32 (7). We feel 60 days notice is too long for a landlord to wait for the director to make a determination with respect to security deposits if the director cannot locate the tenant. We submit that this

section should provide for determination by the director as soon as possible. The tenant could then be given, say, a 30-day right of appeal. Item No. 3, Deposit paid the director if no claim by landlord,

Section 33 (1 ). For administrative convenience, we are of the opinion that the landlord should be permitted up to 90 days to forward the sect.Ority deposit, or that portion against which the landlord has no claim, to the director. The reason behind this is simply that, generally speaking, it has been our experience that residents generally within that 3-month period will show up and ask for the security deposit. Item No. 4, Director to determine payment. The same comment as in

Section 32 (7). Item 5, Compensation for breaches of act or agreement,

Section 55 (1 ). This grounds the right of a landlord or tenant to compensation for breaches of the act or a lease. Subject to the duty to mitigate as set out in 55 (2), 55 (1) does not limit losses. An overhead allowance of some sort, as set out in

Section 55 (2), should be justified when the tenant fails to repair or fails to pay rent, and as a result, the landlord incurs direct and indirect costs. For example, the director and the commission have taken the position that service costs are not compensable, but there is no authority for doing so. Item 6, Landlord may impose late payment fee,

section 69 (4). We feel that the wording of the amendment should read: When a tenant fails to pay rent on a specified date in the tenancy agreement or tenders a dishonoured financial instrument, the landlord may requ ire the tenant to pay a late payment fee determined in accordance with the regulations. This would be an administrative charge over and above the mandated late payment charges by the regulations. The regulations should be clear that the fee is due and payable as rent. I will skip to No. 8. I just went out of order in my sequencing. Submission b y tenant, 138(4)� The

July 22, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 509 tenant shall provide the landlord with a copy of the notice to the director. We feel that if a tenant is filing an application, we should be receiving a copy of it in advance so that we know what the case is all about. Notice of appeal 161 (2). A significant number of the appeals that are being filed are frivolous and vexatious. It is not uncommon for a tenant to fail to attend the first hearing, file their appeal toward the end of the appeal period and then fail to attend the appeal hearing. We do not suggest that the right of appeal be eliminated.

However, to reduce the incidence of frivolous appeals by landlords and tenants, it is submitted that the prescribed form be amended to require the landlord or the tenant to state simple grounds for their appeal. If it is too much to expect that a landlord or tenant, perhaps with the assistance of the Residential Tenancies Branch, state that the facts are in dispute or that there are mitigating factors, perhaps the form could be amended to make the appellant choose these options from a list available to them.

It is submitted that this would reduce the incidence of frivolous claims in accordance with the intent of the act. * {0950) Item 9, Notice in specified matters, 161 (2.1 ). This

section reduces the appeal period from 14 to seven days for two situations: (

a) failure of the landlord to return secur ity deposits if the tenant makes application for return and the landlord has failed to make application; and (

b) in respect of orders for possession. This latter provision is important, but we are somewhat confused as to how it will affect the administ ratio n of the appeal pro cess. What happens when a tenant fails to appeal an order for possession within the seven days time period but appeals the director's decision for rental arrears and exit charges after the seventh day but before the 14th day? Will the landlords' right to terminate be stayed under 163 (1) pending determinatio n by the commission, which might be a month or more af ter the date of the appeal?

Will the commission then be able to make a conditional order that gives the tenant several additional weeks from the date of the appeal to effect payment? Item 10, Adoption of director's findings. This provides that on appeal the comm ission may accept the director's findings of fact insofar as a party to an appeal put them at issue. This is an important

section which has been badly ignored by the commission. The

preamble of this act states: And

whereas Manito bans recognize the small sums of money typically at issue between landlords and tenants, the need for promp t settlemen t of disputes and desirability, et cetera. In spite of

Section 168 and the

Preamble, the commission has taken the position on several occasions with respect to landlord's claims for rent arrears and exit charges that notwithstanding that the tenant failed to appear at the hearing in the first instance, failed to respond to the landlo rd's registered mail addressed to them, appealed on the last possible day and then failed to appear at the appeal hearing, it was incumbent on the landlord to reprove its entire case. Indeed the commission expected that for a very minor claim in dollar value of exit charges, the landlord could not rely on its exit charges

schedule of which the tenant had prior written notice and which was accepted by the director. No, the commissioner thought it was incumbent on the landlord to call its resident manager as witness at both hearings and to have pictures ready to support his evidence. The director also took the position that the appellant's absence pu t a greater onus on the landlord to prove its case.

Perhaps it should be clear that the standard is merely a civil standard, and perhaps there should be a provision that would require the commission to accept the director's findings of fact unless a party puts them in issue, especially when the appellant fails to appear. An administrative change would suffice. Alternatively the act should be amended and the word "may" be replaced with "shall". Item 11, Powers of the commission on appeal, 170 (1 ), orders by the director under 154 (1 ).

The director and commission apparently take the position that they can make conditional orders that give the tenants more time to pay before an order for possession is effec tive, notwithstanding the cause of action arose several mon ths befo re, no tw ithstanding tha t the tenan t has not demonstrated good faith and notwithstanding that by giving the tenan t more time they are readily expo sing the landlord to more exposure from judgment -p ro of deb tors. There are cer tain

510 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 22, 19 93 breaches that should not in vite this type of discretion, and nonpayment of rent is one of them. Mr. Chairperson, that concludes our presentation. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Mignault, for your presentation this morning. I am sure that many members would appreciate an opportunity to dialogue with you on your presentation if you are prepared to do that. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Mignault? Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Thank you, sir, for your presentation. I have a question about No. 3, deposit paid to director if no claim by landlord.

I believe The Residential Tenancies Act now says 14 days. These amendments change it to 28 days, and you would like 90 days. Could you tell me why you would like it changed to 90 days? Mr. Mignault: Essentially we do not have a fundamental problem with 28 days. It has been based on our experience and quizz ing our members that generally speaking, within that 90-day period, the resident will come back if he is entitled to his deposit. Then the cheque will be there, and we will simply give him the cheque. It is about that basic. So it gives us some leeway at least to have the money available.

If the tenant does arrive and asks for his money, we simply give him the cheque; otherwise we would be obligated to forward the monies on to the director. Mr. Martindale: Why should you need leeway when it is the tenant's money? Mr. Mignault: As I indicated, it simply facilitates the administrative process. Rather than burdening the administration with these types of things, it is just operationally-you know, the tenant is getting the interest anyhow, so we are not really holding back on anything from the tenant's perspective. Mr.

Martindale: When one of your tenants signs a lease, is that the time at which you require the security deposit to be paid, at the beginning of the tenancy? Mr. Mignault: Yes. Mr. Martindale: Ok ay. And how long before occupancy does that usually take place, or does it vary? Mr. Mignault: That depends. I mean, it just depends on when the tenancy is taking place. It could be a day, a week, a matter of hours. Mr. Martindale: But as soon as the tenant enters into a lease agreement, they must pay the security deposit. They do not have 14 days or 28 days or 90 days to pay the security deposit. Mr. Mignault: No.

I grant you, I see your point. Mr. Martindale: Okay. So why should the landlord be given 90 days to return the security deposit when tenants must pay it immediately on signing a lease? Mr. Mignault: Mr. Chairperson, this is only a recommendation. We have no problems with the 28 days. We are simply indicating, based on our experiences from an operational standpoint, that these things happen. That is all. We are quite prepared to live with 28 days. Mr. Martindale: Is it really that difficult to submit a security deposit to the department? Mr. Mignault: No. Mr. Martindale: Thank you. Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Thank you very much for taking the time to come out and make a presentation today and tor making your viewpoints known to us. I understand that Mr. Barsy has received your correspondence that you have presented here today, and I appreciate some of the points you made. Just for clarification. I will not take too much time with questions because I think you have made the points quite clear in your presentation, just with regard to item No. 1, I am, for clarificati on, indicating that is only for renewals.

I am not sure from the way you have worded it if you were aware that was just applying to renewals. So it is not really a question, it is a comment. Just another comment, because you asked the question which I am able to answer for you on 9(b), will landlord's right to terminate be stayed under 163 (1) pending determination, et cetera, and the answer to that is no. So I just provide you with those answers and accept your brief as an indication of the concerns you have identified. I thank you for taking the trouble to put it together tor us and, again, as well, for coming out.

I know it is short notice and not always easy to get out to these committee hearings so I do appreciate your input. Oh, f beg your pardon, just one other point here. Item No.2 in your letter, the tenants gene rally show

July 22, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 51 1 up within two months and we feel it is best to have a decision made with both parties present if possible. I just give that back to you again for some clarification. Thank you very much for your comments. Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): I missed part of your presentation. I had to step out for a couple of minutes. One thing that I think maybe requires some ex panding on is the matter and the frustration that landlords do ex perience in terms of the tenant failing to appear at appeals.

I have heard this, not maybe so much from the larger landlords who have maybe a significant cash flow, but in situations where we are dealing with smaller landlords in terms of appeals and the frustrations that they are facing. I would like you to ex pand on that if you can because of the importance of this. I think it is not only a one-way situation here that we are dealing with inasmuch as the appeal is concerned. Maybe you could just ex pand on that and what your ex periences are. Mr. Mignault: Mr.

Borger has attended a number of these hearings; therefore, he is probably in a better position to give you some actual bonafide comments having attended a number of these. So I will turn the microphone over to him, and he can ex plain to you what exactly he has seen. Mr. Chairperson: Before you begin, could you identify yourself for the records. * (1 000) Mr. Ala n Borger, Jr. (Professional Property Managers' Association): Honourable committee members, my name is Alan Borger, Jr., and I am here as a resource person to Michel Mignault.

I hav e attended a hearing or two at the commission level and I have reviewed the facts of several of the cases. I was frustrated as a lawyer. The commission members take the opinion that they are essentially conducting a trial de novo. They also take the position that when the tenant fails to show at the trial at first instance before the director, or at the appeal, the landlord has a greater onus on him to prove his case. I note your comment about smaller landlords, but I think that even larger landlords and larger property management operations are affected by this process.

I have a sense of frustration just being associated with it. The act was, I believe, proclaimed into force in September of '9 2, and it was designed to ex pedite the administration of claims between landlords and tenants. I do not think this is happening. In simple cases of non payment of rent-and we are not talking usually about one rental period, often more-the property managers will often try and work with tenants and give them time. However, after a certain point they will say, no, this cannot go on.

To get a notice of termination and an order of possession effectively through is taking up to three months if a tenant knows the system and can play out the appeal process. I mean, if you would like, Mr. Mignault and the other property managers can assemble cases and prove to you that this is stretching out over three months. I cannot see justification for it. You miss a rent payment. You miss a couple. You have three days. Then you have to personally serve the tenant, an ap parentl y adul t person, at the residence.

It is my ex perience as a practising lawyer that you can evade service for a long time if you are so inclined. There is no provision for substitutional service. There is now a provision for substitutional service in the case of when you cannot find a tenant and there is a security deposit. I submit that there should be provision for substitutional service, ex plicit provision right in the act. So let us say it takes a few days to find the tenant. Then we will get a hearing date set maybe 10 days later in front of the director. The hearing occurs. At three out of four of the hearings, the tenant does not appear.

There is nothing to cover a landlord's overhead charges in these. The landlord appears. He or she, usual ly a pro perty manager , puts forth their evidence. There will be an order at the director's level. Usually the order is unequivocal, and it is based on the facts. Under the legislation the way it is today prior to Bill 47, the tenant has 14 days to appeal. We are finding a number of appeals on the 13th or 14th day. An appeal before the commission is scheduled a month to a month and a half later. We again attend the commission hearing.

The tenant at the one that I atte nded-bu t I am told it is commo n ex perience-does not show again. The chief commissioner in this case took the position that it was a trial de novo. He will not look at

Section 168, which allows him to accept the director's findings of fact, unless a party present puts them in issue.

51 2 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 22, 19 93 Nobody is present. He takes a position that there is a greater onus. Incidentally, I would not make this lega l and that is the intent of the act , unless the commissioner did that, but the commissioner says we have a greater onus now, greater than the civil standard I assume. So the commissioner at that leve l will make a determination . At the trial I attended, the commissioner fou nd that the rent was in arrears. It had been so for about four months.

However, because we did not call our caretaker to present evidence about the amount of detergen t used and the exact amount of time and we did not call him as a witness and we did not have pictures to prove this, that an exit charge for $23.50 shou ld be disallowed. The exi t charges were scheduled to a notice sent to the tenant with the notice of termination. The tenant had am ple opportunity to conduct the cleaning at that time, but no , we are su pposed to have documen tary evidence, photographs, we are supposed to call caretakers so that they can be cross-examined, and the tenan t does not even show.

Another thing that is happening at this level is the commissioner wi l l say, I find that there are ren t s in arrears for three months. The tenant has another month or another two weeks to make good the rent and if he does that, he can stay in. So the process continues with us. I cannot speak definitively about when we do ge t a judgment and when this does finally go through, but I suspect that two weeks security deposit is not enough to cover the kind of frustration and the kind of rental arrears and the kind of damage that is being done to apartment buildings in this city . Mr.

McAlpine: One last question, the word you are suggesting here , the appellant does not appear and adminis tra tive changes would suffi ce . Alternatively, the act shoul d be amended and the word "may" be replaced wit h "shall ." What is the im pact of that going to be? Mr. Borger: At that point the commission woul d have to-in the situation where the tenant or the landlord does not even appear, especially when they have not ap peared at the trial-t hey woul d have to accept the director' s findings of fact.

If you wan t to make analogy to the crimina l and civi l cour ts, fact s are usually not put in issue at the appeal leveh but this trial de novo concept keeps coming up and I submi t that it is being used abusively. Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I am sympathetic to your concern here and there is a reason. The reason is I was on the Landlord and Tenant Review Committee along with Mr. Rosenberg some years ago , and there were a number of tradeoff s on that committee . One of the big concerns with landlords and propert y managers was that they wanted a much faster process for order of possession.

We agreed to that and landlords reluctantly agreed to other things in return. This was not in writing, but that was the way a lot of the consensus decisions were eventually arrived at. One of the things that property managers object to and small landlords ob jec ted to was making the security deposits in-t rust provisions or streng thening the protection for tenant securit y deposits.

I am sympathetic to the specific concern, but why should I as an opposition member who re presen t s many low income tenants agree to your suggestion abo ut changing the order of possession and speeding up the process when this bill basically gu ts the security deposit in- trust provisions? It seems to me there is no fair trade - of f here anymore. Landlords are getting what they want in terms of securit y deposit s and now you are also asking for speedier orders of possession. * (1 01 0) Mr. Mignault: I think the securi ty de posit provisions now do no t de prive anyone from protection.

I think it provides more protection. If the landlord, for example, chooses not to run through the process, the penalties are horrendous. We are obligated to hold these deposits, and I see no problem . It is saving cos ts from the adminis tra tion side of things, which is, to my understanding, one of the big things. So I think everybody wins under these circumstances. I do not see the problem here. Mr. Martindale: But you know that in Bill 47, the security deposits in-t rust provisions are gone. Mr. Mignault: Yes, I am aware of that. Mrs. Mcintosh: I just have a couple of points.

I thank you for some of the issues you have raised. It is certainly helpful to have the perspective and your ex perience on some of the case-by-case things you are talking abou t, delays with owners and possession, that type of thing . It is useful for me to hear and I appreciate it.

July 22, 19 93 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 51 3 Just, again, as a bit of a response, you asked if there could be an ex plici t provisio n fo r substitutional service in the act. I think if you read

Section 184 (4), you will see wording there that does answer that concern, and I just wanted to draw that to your attention. I hope the cases where it is taking three months are anomalies that we can continue working on. I do not want to go into too many specifics on that right now . I just want to make one other commen t , and then if you wish to respond, by all means, please do. You men tioned the trial de nova and the commission acting as if they could hear each case anew, and indeed they can , which I think you are aware of .

In Sec tion 17 0( 1 )(b) , you will see reference to the powers of the commission and their ability to act as a director would. The wording I do not have right in front of me, bu t I think if you read that section, you will see their authority to act in that regard spelled out. The reaso n we do that is otherwise the commission would be bound by the facts-which we presume in most instances are correct-g iven to him, but wit h no abilit y to check them for himself or herself. That is why the act is worded that way. That is why it functions in that regard. I would be interested in your response to that. Mr.

Borger: There might even be consti tutional reasons for designing the leg islation the way it has been. No matter what the legislation says, if you are going to give the commission the wide discretion that it has, then they will feel free and their practice is to ignore

Section 168. I do no t unders tand why that hel ps the administra tion of these mino r claims. I think something can be done about it. I do not wish to remove their discretion, but I wish to limit it. Mrs. Mcintosh: I understand. Did you wish to respond as well to my commen t s about the three months? Mr. Mignault: No, I think I would agree wit h Alan. The commission has discretionary powers. The manner in which they utilize them, I think, is not being dealt wit h correctly . To bring at issue some very, very mino r situa tions, es pecially when appellant s do not appear, to me, is not ex pediting the process. Secondly, un der

Section 18 4 (4), yes, we are aware that that '>Ubstitutional service is available through there. Our concern is we do not think it is being utilized. Mrs. Mcintosh: Okay. I appreciate your commen ts on that. Thank you very much for taking the time to appear. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation this morning. We will now call No. 3. There has been a slight change between No. 3 and No. 4. Bob Hanson and Peter H. Warkentin will both be appearing for the Apartment Investors Association of Manit oba , and there will be no representation for Dart Holdings Limited. I would call Mr. Hanson and/or Mr.

Warken tin, please. Mr. Rober t Han son (Apar tment Inve stors Association of Manitoba): Good morning, ladies and gen tlemen. We have distributed some material to you that is a compilation of material that was brough t forward to our association in pieces. I would li k e at this time to presen t the part that our grou p has put together. The first part relates to the information we are presenting to you on guidelines and discounting. Histor ical ly, over the last four or five years, landlords have been providing a discount, although they were not calling it a discoun t .

They were reducing the rent s and paying rent on behalf of a tenan t, which was permi tted under the old regulations, and not called a discount. As of last September, discoun ting was permitted. Now, what has happened is that those landlords who were not familiar with the process of how to register a discount were not permitted to recover their guidelines over a period of time, so the situation exist s now where a lot of landlords are in a position where their cash flow is considerably cut back, where the historic fact is that the increases have, in fact, occurred.

So they do not have the cash flow to maintain the level of maintenance that they should be maintaining. They do not have the cash flow, in some cases, to make their mortgage payments. As their mortgages become due and renewed, because of this drop in cash flow, many of the mortgage companies now are cutting back on the percentage of increases they are allowed-! am sorry, .the percen tage of mortgages that they are

51 4 LE GISL AT IVE ASSE M BLY OF MA NITOB A July 22, 19 93 al lowed to renew. For this reason, there have been dozens of foreclosures. I say dozens. There have been litera lly hundreds of fore closures and unne cessari l y so, we be lieve. (Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair) We are proposing that discounting be extended to all ow a land lord to regis ter the guide line in creases that were not taken and not properly registered and register them now in the same way.

They were, in fact, given in the same manner and for the same reason as one month's free rent or a cash bonus or any of the bonus methods that were used prior to September of last year. However, be cause they did no t register them or were not aware of how to register them proper ly, these discount s are now no t lega l under the curren t legislation. Our position is that you should take a look at that for econom ic reasons.

The landlords who are affe cted are those landlords who are not in the five-year group; in other words, that group of landlords or that group of owners who are exempt from controls by the fact that their bui ldings are five years or less or those buildings that are three units and under that are allowed to in crease rents to market upon a voluntary move-ou t . It is the group in between that has no recourse at this particul ar poin t , other than to lose their bui ldings.

The effe ct of that, of course, is that those bu ildings, when they are fore closed upon, are genera lly purchased, and the new purchaser will upgrade and app ly to come off rent controls to recover their costs for renovating the new suites. This does no t do anything for the lower-in come tenan t who then has to pay for the same suit e a higher amount be cause it has been renovated. If the discount s were al lowed in this manner, it would allow orderly.

It does not mean that the landlords could in fa ct in crease the rents be cause of the market , but it would allow them eventually, as the market recovered, to recover that income. That is not what is possible at this moment in time . That is my part for the moment . Mr. Peter H. Warkentin (Apartment Investors Association of Manitoba): Good morning, Mr. Chairperson, honourable members of the House, ladies and gen tlemen, I have been given one part to address this morning and one of them is that the amount of work that the landlords are loaded down with these days is phenomena l.

We are therefore asking the House or the committee to consider an increase in management that is al lowed to pass through as a cost from 5 percent to 7.5 percen t . * (10 20 ) We have just as an example

Section 67 which says that when there is a complaint from a tenant, the landlord must investigate . It also says under

Section 39 that we now have to do a mandatory check-in, checkout condition report . That is where either one of the parties request the work to be done. The list goes on , but this is just to cit e two. So we are asking for that in crease to be al lowed. We are expending it and in some cases where you have two emp loyees, to carry out al l the work that is now required you need three employees and you stil l cannot keep up. So there is a definite increase in work. Then under 5, page 3, item 5, Equa lity of manage men t and proper ty.

For too long the administration has used the position that where there is a contractor or a person who is a contractor as we ll as a manager and ho lds proper ty, the contractor cannot do any mark-up on his costs to pass through as a cost of the renovation increase, now the differen ce being that if the landlord brought in an ou tside cont ractor sure ly he wou ld be permi tted a mark-up and why shou ld no t the company that is working for his own.

On the other hand, I might poin t out that no landlord who has both a construction company, a management company and holds property, woul d seek to in crease an unreasonable amount of cost because that forces his rent up . As a result, he woul d be pricing himself out of the market . So I just want that to be clear. What we are looking for is that whatever the market is, is what shoul d be applied to both landlord, manager or contractor, depending on what the situation is at that point in time. Item 6, Payment of relevant charges charged by a landlord to a tenant.

Now relevant charge must be something that is not charging a thousand dollars for a $50 item. It has to be relevant , one . Two, if, for instan ce, a tenant drives down your fence, it is not a re levant charge to charge a thousand-do llar repair to the tenan t , but the deductible only and the ba lance is Autopac. We have been through this in the courts. So we identify the re levant charges. Then under 7, we have had a problem and the problem is this, that where you have a prescribed

July 22, 1993 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 51 5 charge or any cost due and owing by a tenant to a landlord, there is nothing that a landlord can do if a tenant does not pay his bill. So he goes and smashes a window ; it is $300. So the landlord replaces it , sends a bill to the tenant. The tenant does not pay.

There is nothing there that can force the tenant to pay, and you cannot evict him for it, and so we are looking for the same as-an accounting procedure whereby a tenant who did damage, and that bill comes to the tenant on the 1O th of the month, say, and when the first of the month rolls around and he brings him $500 for rent , the first thing that is paid off is the outstanding account. Now, it is my understanding that this is the way administration is looking at it today when we deal with charges and areas where we get the-- what do you call this in the courts? Floor Comment: Judgments. Mr.

Warkentin: Judgments , right , sorry , thank you-where judgments are brought forward, then the officer will say, well , you have a judgment on this one , and you have this money in , so that is paying off the old account, and we agree with that. But there is nothing in the legislation, and this can change from officer to officer, and we would like to see it in the legislation to make sure it is understood by the tenants as well as the landlords alike and the branch as to what the process is. Then we have prescribed charges.

We believe that we need a deterrent, and it is not in the form of a penalty, but it is a deterrent where the people are spending their own money , who wish to engage in various activities. First of all , the philosophy for prescribed charges are "user pays," and "protection for good tenants." We believe that we have approximately from 85 to 90 percent of excellent tenants-n ot a problem. But those are the people who are suffering when you have 10 people on a floor, and one is throwing a party in the middle of the floor , and the other nine tenants are awake and suffering as a result of it.

We believe that is totally unfair. The tenants do not like it ; they do not stand for it. We need a deterrent that when a party is thrown by a tenant and we are being called, or even if we just go through and check on our own , that tenant has just incurred a cost to the person who has to come out, check it out. Sometimes it takes hours, or the police have to be called. They are busy; they do not come for three or four hours. In the meantime , you have to wait there ; you have to be ready. All those ex penses and costs and time , today, are not covered.

The tenant throws one party after another because he gets the attention that he is looking for at a tremendous cost to all the other tenants who have also paid rent and are not en joying the peace and quietness that the document, the landlord and tenant affairs act , or the act itself , Bill 13 , is to provide. There is no way a landlord can run around in circles day and night for someone complaining about the party that is being kept. So this is why, the sound basics, for prescribed charges. We start out with , on page 4(a), Late payments.

Now, when a person is late , we are asking for a $25 flat fee for the person who did not pay his rent on time , because it costs the management company a lot of time , and time is money. I can cite you the Montreal Trust, for instance-- they charge $30 for every clerk hour that you are using of their time , and one hour does not take very long to be spent. So we are asking for a $25 flat fee. At the same time while the management is going on looking for the tenant to bring in the money , the landlord is out the money in his bank account , and the mortgage money is coming due.

So we are simply asking for a flat fee for the first 30 days when the landlord did not have his money in his account , and thereafter at 6 percent above the statute law interest. Ther e is a

section in statute law dealing with prejudgment interest. The same thing applies to NSF s because what tenants will do is after you put the heat on them, they will give you a cheque , and it takes them another week or two before the cheque comes back to our bank and back to us. In the meantime , we are all running around. They are living there in peace and quiet and enjoying it , while we are running around spending money and not being compensated for it. Now, we do know that under the present

Section 55 (1 ), it allows for compensation, but what do you do when you look for some bills, the bank what they charge you plus your time , and every body calculates their own time. So you get anywhere from maybe $75 to $1 50 for a claim. We feel that what we would like to present is a flat fee of these figur es , and that shou ld be sufficie nt , not

516 LEG IS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 1993 necessarily covering everybody, but at least they give a good base to work from. Then we have on page 5(c}, Breach of window security, $100 per occurrence. I am sure, and no doubt you have read the

article in the paper where this littl e baby fe ll out of the window. Surely, no landlord likes to have his building identified on the front page, this is wher e the child fe ll out of the window.

It is the landlord who should provide the windows and the screens when a tenant moves in, and the tenan t is responsible, and should be responsible, to leave those windows and screens in place so this does not happen. • (1 030} Now, that is from the third floor, but what do you do wi th tenan ts who cons tan tly ignor e your warnings and constan tly move in and out of the window, use it as a doorway, or pull the screen out and leave it out so that the mice and bugs can come in, or wher e it is a secur e building, it also breaks the security for the people who can wal k into and through thei r suite and into the building that would otherwise not be as easy and readil y accessible.

These are the reasons for the breach of window security, and we fee l that where this happens- and I can assur e you, you can send these people al l kinds of letters, it does not mean anything, but the moment you put a charge to that cost that we are ex pending, they have a second though t about leaving those windows in, and they do it. Breach of door security. The door security is electric in most cases or a panic set from the inside. It does not take ve r y much for a big person, or any person who real ly puts to it, to pull that panic hardwar e open.

Now you have a stretched security cap that covers the panic set. Those things are awfully ex pensive to repair and when buildings get older, even harder to find the parts. Now why should peopl e like this be let go? Ther e shou ld be a penalty for them, and it is most often where tenants do not make thei r arrangemen t s or may not even be home, or they do not want to come to the front door and be let in by a tenant or the tenant may not want to see them, and so they go and yank the door. But this is a tenan t who has attracted that type of a friend.

Unde r the act , whe re a tenan t remains responsib l e fo r damages done by his friend, what we do is we follow the person through to find out what suit e he en ters. That is the friend. That is the person who permitted or invited or brought him in, an d that is the person, the tenant , who shou ld be responsible. Un der (

e) Tenant's loss of keys. It is amazing how many people will lock themselves out or lose keys. Now, when I say amazing, it seems to be, in most cases, the same people, and when you tally al l the people, there are very few of them. Most of them are in the ineb riated state and therefore do not car e wher e their keys are. And at two or three o'clock in the morning, they want to wak e up the caretaker to come and let them in. It is either that or go to a hote l for the night and come back during office hou rs. Du ring office hou rs, we permi t the doors to be open without charge.

It is just when everybody has gone to slee p and after hours when the staff fee l they have done their day's work for which they wer e paid, and now they are engaged in additiona l time. That is the deciding factor. This way, we fee l No. 1, we do not want ou r staff to be awakened at night , and therefore we fee l that the tenants will take more care for thei r keys and have them with them when they come home. Unde r page 6, Duty not to disturb others, $1 00 pe r occu rrence. The same thing again as I described before. There are 10 peopl e on the floor. One person throws a party.

Why shou ld al l the othe r s be awake? I can honestly tell you, I tried it. It was amazing how these two fe llows- fi rst of all, they had a party. I was called by the neighbour. I went down at two o'clock in the morning to find out whether it was fact, found it to be fact. I said , okay, no more parties. The next time I ge t another call, this was around 2: 30 in the morning. I go down. It is fact again. Ther e is a party going on. So I said, okay, out, that is, the guests, which they left. I said to the tenants, be in my office tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.

By the time they came to my office in the morning at eleven o'clock, I hand them a letter listing the disturbances and also told them you are going to pay me $1 00. What for? We ll, I said, you just engaged myself in this case to come and tell you that you wer e too loud for the second time. You got a warning last time, and this is the second time, and this is not right for the other tenants who have to be awake because of you throwin g a party. So they paid it. In the letter I said , the next party is going, to cost you $200. Every time they saw me

July 22, 1993 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 51 7 down the hallway they would ask, are we too loud? I had to say, no, you are okay. Keep it up this way and there will be no more problems and no more costs. So it has worked. I have had the experience, and this is wha t people are looking for. It is attention, and this way they get it. Breach of pet policy. Now the same thing applies there. Whe re there is a pet policy in place and tenants want to have a pet , they should sublet and move out, because it is clearly on the application itself and the tenancy, there are no pets allowed.

Wher e this takes place, we have had the clerks at the branch office tell them, well, really the only amo un t of mone y the landlor d can hold you responsible for is the amount of rent you paid that month, and if he evicts, you he cannot charge you anymore . That is the information my tenants have been getting. I asked them to call Bev Wir e and I asked them to call Roge r Barsy, and I believe that pa rt as information was sorted out because he came back, signed the letter. We have a 24 -hou r letter to be signed, the pet is gone, and no more to be brought in. He signed it and brought it in .

However, he has now disappeared. He has abandoned the suite. Now, when we talk about abandonmen t , there is nothing written in the act , but it is fact that there is such a thing as constructed abandonmen t . That deals with the issue of party after party. It deals with bringing in pets so that you will terminate them. It will deal with a multitude of other things that they can do such as leaving the windows open, and finally you have to fend for the security and you have to deal wit h it . That is co ns truc ted abandonmen t and should be treated the same way as anybody who abandons the suite under the act.

Page 7, receipts and duplicate receipts. This yea r we simply wo uld like to have it in the legislation, so it is clea rly understood that eve r y landlord gives a receipt at the time a tenant moves in for rents or security deposits, no question. This is wher e landlords also need to be trained, and the tenants should be trained to make sur e they get one, both sides.

Wher e the landlord has given out receipts, and the tenant at the end of the yea r comes and says, I lost some receipts, could you ge t me anot he r one , ther e clearl y shou ld be a prescribed charge pe rmi tted unde r the act , so everybody knows what is permitted. When we talk about the tenants shall be liable to the landlord, we are not saying that every landlord will charge every tenant.

It is only those guys who make themselves a nuisance, whe r e year after year, they come, in spite of having taken the time by the landlord and managemen t to give them their receipts, and you find they want another one at the end of the year because they did not look after it. Unde r 0), Breach of laundry washer and dryer policy, the same thing . Buildings are not designed to emit the moisture, and so when people bring thei r washers and drye rs in the suit e and it is overhumidified, the mildew is growing, the ceilings darken, the pa"1nt peels, all these kind of things, there has to be a deter ren t .

This, of course, does not include any damages that they crea te, but wher e they are found to have a washer and dryer , there should be a deter rent penalty . File service fee is simply where one tenant rents a one-bed room suite, and three mon ths down the road they see they really need this extra money. The landlord allows two people in a one- bedroom suite. The suite is big enough, so the tenant comes to the landlord and says, I would like to bring in a roomma te, is that okay ?

The landlord has to do research, et cetera, and for that we feel it is a file service fee that the landlord should be allowed, a one- time charge, so the tenant who is in the suit e can be relieved of the financial bu rden that he or she otherwise thought they could handle and now find themselves in need of assistance. Otherwise, there is no interest in the landlord or managemen t , unless they get paid for it, to let the other pe rson be there. Unde r the lease, it says that the tenant can on ly be the re if he is al lo wed by tenancy agreemen t . * (1 040) Assignmen t or sublet fee .

We believe that the $40 presently in place is not worth it. It does not cover the cost, and we feel that the hundred dolla rs is a reasonable cha rge for an assignment, the reason being that the landlord goes through the cost when the tenant comes in, expending time , research, et cetera, and then either he or she is accepted or rejected.

What we are talking about her e is wher e the tenan t is getting the benef it, and should it not be to the benefi t of the managemen t company or the landlord, to move out and relieve themselve s of the obliga tion of the tenancy agreement for the balance that they are assigning.

51 8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 22, 19 93 What we are suggesting here is that the landlord should get a fixed fee of a hundred dollars where the tenant is approved. They pay the hundred dollars with the appli cation and if the tenant is rejected, and that is where we come in say an hour, $30 for the time plus long distance charges or whatever you have to go through, licence bureau wher e you have to pay a fee, et cetera, do the research. That should be covered. At that point in time, when a tenant is turned down, he gets half of that money back.

So $50 remains with the la ndlor d and managemen t company simply because in some cases we find that the tenants do not disclose the full information. When we start doing the research, we find out a Jot more about him than maybe he would like to forget. Then, Tenant liable to landlord, that is under (m)-should the tenant not be present at time of move out, condition report being completed or sign same, the tenant shall be liable to the landlord for a prescribed charge of $1 00 wh ich does not eliminate any com pensation legally due to the landlord from the tenant under

Section 55(1 ). We believe that the check-in condition reports and checkout condition reports are essential. What our experience has been is where tenants mo ve in to a nice clean place , they sign the cleaning sheet, they sign the damage report, condition report sheet, this is what we have found. When they move out, while the landlord's inspector goes with a tenant and looks at the carpet being soiled, looks at the range being dirty, looks at the fridge being dirty, looks at the bathtub being dirty and those thin gs ar e ma rked , and then the ins pector says to the tenant, would you please sign?

The tenant says no I am not signing and walks out. He or she does not want to admit in writing that is what they saw together. They were quite happy to sign when it was clean and they moved in, but when they had to see and it was recorded as to what the tenant left, they did not sign. Then they come before the branch and they will say, well, after all, I teft it cleaner than the way I got it. Time and time again you will hear that. The commission takes the same position. They look at what did the officer do. Well, we will do the same thing. That is the frightening part.

We need to get those tenants there when they move out, when they say they are ready for a checkout, that they have left it clean the way they got it. We are not asking for anything more than what they got. Under page 9, condition reports where requested by landlord. We have covered that in part. We are saying now that a landlord shall prepare : No. 1, the rental unit shall be prepared by the landlord for the check-in condition report as required by the act and the regulations. So, clearly, this establishes what the tenant gets and should sign for.

Under 2, the tenant shall prepare the rental unit, et cetera, for the checkout condition report at the expir y date of the tenanc y agreement, abandonment or termi nation by the landlord. In other words, the lease has expired, the tenant has abandoned or the landlord terminated for whatever reason. That is when a tenant needs to prepare the suite for checkout.

That means under repaired and com pensat ed, under 3, a tenant sh all before vacating the rental unit repair all damages as set out in Sections 72 and 77 and as set out in the landlord's house rules or the tenant before vacating shall have compensated the landlord in full for all property damages and related damages such as loss of rent, et cetera.

When a tenant moves out and leaves you with a lot of damages, that compensation may be $500 or $1 ,000 to repair and paint, but it does not compensate the landlord when he now loses one month rent during the time that the damages are being repaired and the two mo nths that he otherwise has time under the act to rerent the suite. That is what we feel is reasonable and fair. So we are bringing that to the committee here.

Rental unit deemed ready for checkout condition report under 4-- the rental unit shall be deemed ready for a written checkout condition report after the tenants and occupants, not only the tenants, but the occupants, (

a) have removed all personal belongings including all furniture from the rental unit, storage locker, car stall, et cetera; and (

b) when all cleaning has been completed to the same standard as noted in the check-in condition report, which must be appr oved and acce pted by the landlord, because the tenant will say, well, they are saying to the comm ission now after they do not commit themselves in writing what they see, they say, well, I left it cleaner than what I got it. So it has to be the standard that the landlord sets out and has had for a period of time, has also had the docu ment ation sig ned by the tenant on the coAdition report.

July 22, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 51 9 Page 1 0 then, tenant to serve landlord written notice giving date and hour of checkout condition rep ort . Now, what we hav e is, we have an overholding situation . We have a tenant coming in for the first, bu t the guy or the person does not leave till two or three days later. What do we do? As landlord, we are exposed to a liabi lity. The tenan t has not paid his rent and he has not cleaned up and he has no t moved out, so we have a problem.

It shall be the tenan t's responsibility to arrange for and advise the landlord in writing of date and time the rental un it, storage , parking stall, et cetera, will be ready for the written checkout condition report, this report to be completed and signed by the tenant and landlord at least 12 hours prior to termination of a tenancy agreement. That way, we know the tenant has a place to move to. We know that they have arranged for the trucks. We know that they will have it cleaned out and ready for that time.

That is only reasonable and fair for any tenant-1 am talking about the incoming tenan t-a s well as for the landlord to know that every thing is in order and also for the tenan t s themselves who are moving, that they know what they have to arrange for and make sure that is in place at that time. Otherwise, it is all hearsay-w ell, I told, I phoned, who I talked I do not know-t o avoid those problems.

Heari ng charges - branch and comm ission hearing charges, 15 percen t of claim to a maximum of $250 ex clu ding all profess ional charges, including but no t lim ited to landlords, lawyers, investigators, ba iliffs, et cetera. Charges-th e professional charges shall be made part of the landlord's claim, if any, against the tenant under

Section 55(1 ). We talk abou t the speedy return of securit y deposits, is one thing, but we do not talk anywhere about the speedy return or the speedy payout to a landlord. * (1 050) The tenants go in hiding, you cannot find them, the damages are now with rent, the bill is $2,000. Forget the security deposit of $250, we have to now go and find that person. We want to. try and collect our $2,000, and he is now working in B.C .

Well, surely, it should not be our responsibility to spend extra mone y that he could otherwise tell us where he lives and so that we can have a discussion or garn ish the wages or whatever. Why should we have such a tremendous cost and time spent and outside people to help us find this guy? Clearly, there should be legislation and we believe this is what would cover that where this happens. Now, that is only for a small percentage that this applies, but it has to be there for a deterren t because if no t, what is happ en ing is that this becomes a passe d- through cos t of opera tion.

Tha t passed-t hrough cost of operation is be ing paid for by the 90 percen t of the good tenants, and all of the tenants I have given this example to are fur ious. They say, is this what is happening in our province today? *** Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, my sincere apol og ies for the presen ter. He has gi ven a wonderful presentation, but I am just wondering if the committee might make the decision that we will no t be dealing with 24.

I know that there are a number of people who are wa iting to mak e presentation on Bill 24, in the Members' Lounge, if we can agree that we will no t be dealing with that, so that they can get on back to work, because I am sure they will be coming back this even ing. Just as a courtesy, and again my apologies for interrupting, I just would like them to know, because I know they are waiting. There are at least a dozen people, and there is no chance it is go ing to come up today, this morn ing. The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): How many other presen ters are here for the other bills?

Is there agreement to allow the presen ters on Bill 24, to advise them that they will not need to presen t today? Is there agreemen t ? [agreed] You may proceed, Mr. Warkentin. * * * Mr. Warkentin: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Under 11, on page 10 , Proper Identification of All Branch Staff, under I bel ieve it is

Section 18 5, where the director has all kinds of power to send people out to offices, and if the landlord does not ask for that person to identify themselves, the person can step in and say, I want to review your records. Now, we feel that not only at that stage, but also when we go to the office of the branch, we feel we need to know whom we are talking to, and we even find it difficult in spite of Bev Wire and Roger, who have tried very hard to get the staff to comply. But just here, this week, I phoned the off ice and had to

520 LE GISL ATIV E AS SEM BLY OF MA NITO BA July 22, 19 93 ask the person three times for her name. I do not think that should be necessary. In business, what we do is, we say, good morn ing, so-and-so, Linda speaking. At least it gives you an idea whom you are talking to. Then it is a matter of finding which Linda. Sorry, Mrs. Mcintosh. We feel it is important that the staff be ident ified so that when we spea k with them, we know who they are. We bel ieve there should be a picture, the name, and a �erial number .

When I talk about a serial number, we should by cross-reference be able to, if someone comes to our office and says, I am fro m the branch and I want to do an investigation on your file, we should be able to see that picture, serial number and name. We call up the branch and say, Serial No. 2560 is in my office, who is this person? If that compares, we are satisfied it is the right person. We do not need any imposters in our business as it is, and we clearly need to know whom we are talking to, if we are talking to someone in authority. We feel it is important that we have that.

Under page 11 , item 12 , Rent increase audits. It is unbel ievable the amount of work that we have to go through, especially if you have a number of bu ildings, the stack s of paper that we have to send to the branch that they then set an off icer to and they exam ine the mater ial. At no time will they ma ke a list saying, well, a swimmi ng pool is $25,000, carpet on the third floor of bu ilding such and such in the hallway is a thousand dollars, five suites Nos. 10 , 22, 3, et cetera, were recarpeted.

If that informat ion were ta ken down by the auditing off icer and in a sim ple letter compiled and that sent out to tenants, they would soon realize we did not get a $25,000 swimming pool. How simple would it be to say, hey, off icer, we did not get thi s pool, come and check , the same thing with carpets and whatever else. We are not talking about nuts and bolts or whatever. Th is is what we feel wo uld be the best informat ion to the tenants so that they would understand, because no tenant is going to go through a stack of paper lik e this.

They have to be an auditor and spend a couple of week s at it to find it. That is what the branch off icer takes, and I do not see why an ac count ing auditor could do it any faster. We are talking about time . The fact is that we first of aU have to go throug h all our bU is and we have to photocopy them and send them in. What is wrong with the branch doing the same thing as the other tax auditors do? They come to your off ice. They sit down . You give them a table. They ask a question, we give them the file. He writes down the notes. We would be saving trees li ke you would not bel ieve and time and money.

We feel it is important that there be a change in this area. If we want to create jobs, this is the way to do it. If we want to quit cutting trees and come down to reality where it should be, we should be introducing thi s type of an audit, we bel ieve. Contravention of act or breach. I will not read through all this. We have the sections noted that there should be five days for possession of the suite. If you get a roaring party or whatever else, the landlord should be able to serve notice so that the tenant is out in five days.

The sections that are affected are 67, 70, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, and the tenant should be ex posed to

Section 55(1 ) where he does damage that there is compensation to the landlord which protects 90 percent of the good tenants, because they do not have to pay for it through the pass-through system. What we bel ieve is that the possession process is way too long and is not properly conducted in our views. Coin-operated equipment and parking. Ull der 14 , all coin-operatecf equ ipment and par-king stalls shou ld be identified as landlord and tenant related, thereby el iminaH ng GST and PST on same .

Howeve r, they shou�d be remo ved fro m rent control, due to the fact that these are opt ional serv ices prov ided by the landlord or outside operations to tenants. For instance, in my particular case we are near the un iversity and we have a lot of tenants that go home for the weekend. Th e y tak e thei r laundry with them. That can be done throughout the city overall. That is their choice. Why should that be under control when they have the freedom to choose? The controls are on the suite, not on the person. The suite is what they have to use. That is where they live.

They do not necessarily have to use your laundry equ ipment or your parking stalls. Why should an old lady on retirem ent pay for a parking stall that she does not need? It is tying both tenants and landlo rds to someth ing that is really not workable. The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Mr. Warkentin, I real ize there are no time limits, but there are other presenters. and we would like to move along as quickly as we could.

July 22, 19 93 LEGIS LATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 521 Mr. Warkentin: I am just about done. I am leaving a

section out, and I would like to go to a few amendme nts to the legislation and then I am finished. The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Thank you. • (1 10 0) Mr. Warkentin: Page 12 , No. 15 , Tenants' all-risk and liability insurance the tenants shall carry: We believe that the tenants are at risk. We are talking about all tenants.

We feel that they should carry adequate house insurance for their own household furniture, et cetera, as well as liability, because if there is a tenant of means, and we believe a fair am ount of them are, they can be subr ogated against by the landlords' insurance companies and their lawyers. What you are doing now is pitting the tenants against the insurance lawyers, because there is no representation in the act anywhere about insurance protecting tenants. We feel this should be clearly brought forward and also feel that it should be implemented.

Prejudg ment interest: I am not qu ite sur e whether it has been addressed in the amendments. We feel that prejudgment interest, as set out in the landlords' house rules or tenancy agreement, and if none is incorporated in same, then as set out under the Court of Queen's Bench Act, CCSMCC280 statute law.

The dispensation of security deposit and dispute: We believe that the way-and if we understood the amendment right, what it simply means is that if a landlord has $300 of a tenant's security deposit and interest, total, and there is $1 00 not in dispute at the date when the landlord completes his bill, then the act requires the landlord to send back the $10 0 to the tenant and hang onto the $200 until the dispute is settled. That is totally unworkable.

There is no rhyme nor reason, as we see it, to that, because the moment the landlord is finished with his accounting, he now has to look at it and say, hey, I am going to appeal this, or I am going to take it to the branch, so I have to take off $15. I do not know whether the tenant is going to appeal it or whether we will have to appeal the decision, so there is another $1 5. In the meantime, there are also other charges that have to be dealt with. In the meantime, you sent $1 00 back. Now you have to start calculating the interest.

I think it is 1. 5 percent or 2.5 percent right now that the landlord has to pay to a tenant on the securit y de posits. It is a nightmare. It is a real draw for accountants, and no one benefits. We believe that the funds should stay together until the final decision has been reached. You make one accounting. You write one cheque to each whatever, and that is it. We will skip over to page 26, if we may, please . Here we are being very bold. We are saying that at present the residential tenancies consequential amendments act, when you read it like that and interpret it, is re ally saying the residential tenancies.

It is written for the tenants and the consequences are carried by landlords. We feel that this should be changed to landlord and tenant residential am endm ents act, would be more properly describing the facts. On page 27,

Part 1, Definition. In this act we suggest that what should be added is prescribed charges. Prescribed charges are a fixed charge per occurrence as compensation for time, travel and admin istration in lieu of com pensation under

Section 55(1 ), also to greater effect to

Section 67, et cetera. Wear and tear. I think it is fair to say that the biggest single argument is what wear and tear is, whether it is at the branch level or at the commission level. We are recommending that wear and tear is loss or damage caused by reasonable wear or use which is moderate and not excessive. Wear and tear should include, but not be limited to the following, and we have noted the minor chips, cutting board cuts, worn keys, burned-out range elemen ts, worn light switches and plugs, fridge compressors, evaporators, et cetera. That, we believe, should be in the definition.

The other thing is extra ordinary cleaning. What does that really mean when you read it? What do you understand it says? We believe what it really means is the tenant is supposed to clean that suite back to the condition they got it in, but if for some reason the washroom has not been touched at all by the tenant, the landlord would now be required to do extra cleaning in the washro om . That is something that tenants should pay for and pay the landlord to do so.

We say that extra ordinary cleaning is any cleaning required to bring the rental unit to the standard established on the ingoing, check-in condition report after a tenant has vacated or abandoned the rental unit or complex.

522 LEGISL ATIV E AS SEM BLY OF MA NITOBA July 22, 19 93 Some of these items are on page 28, Service and Facility. Parking and related facilities, we feel should be repealed. Laundry facilities under 1 ( 1 )(

c) should be repeal ed; and 1 (1 ) amended: delete "and" after related services and add after related services "with the exception being an agreement between the landlord and tenant to the contrary." In other words, this act covers a whole spectrum, and when you have a house, for instance, and the landlord and tenant agree that the tenant shall cut the grass, then why should the landlord come and cut the grass from across the city or shovel the snow after a snowfall? It does not make sense the way it is written in our view.

The more notable one-and I do not want to take all the time here-is, I believe, on page 30-the rest can be read and dealt with: Obligation to take care and repair damages. Clearly, a tenant should be responsible for what they damage, and we suggest that a tenant shall take reasonable care and ensure that any person he or she permits in the residential complex takes reasonable care not to damage wilfully, negligently or by omission the rental unit or residential complex including services and facilities.

Where damage has occurred, the tenant shall serve notice in writing to the landlord within 72 hours after each occurrence and shall prior to vacating or abandoning the rental unit, subject to subsection 2, repair any damage in a good and workmanlike manner. The repaired finished product shall match the surrounding un damaged areas or the te nant shall pay compensation to the landlord to repair the damages and pay compensation under

Section 55 (1 ). If you look at it the way the aet reads right now, the landlord has to serve notice on the tenant if he wants the damage repaired. Well, what landlord can keep up going snooping around all the suites to see if there are any damages? rt does not make sense. One other one is under Tenant. I missed tbat one.

I would like to just go back-y es, on page 28, Tenant-and substitute with, in other words, repeal the whole paragraph and replace it· with "tenant" means a person who is entitled to occupy a rental unit under a tenancy agreement but does not include a government agency or any other person that pays rent on behalf of a tenant in connection with a tenant's right to occupy the rental unit. The way it is written right now, if a person is in there, he is occupying, so that is one right. The other person has a right if he pays rent and is in by agreement. That is the thing we would like to have changed.

Thank you very much for your attention. The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Mr. Warkentin or Mr. Hanson, would you be willing to, if there are any questions, answer any questions for the committee members? I would remind the committee members that there are other presenters, so if you have any questions please keep them as brief as possible. Mrs. Mcintosh: I do not have any questions, just a comment. Thank you for your presentation.

I believe that this was sent to my office earlier, so I have looked at it and I believe, in talking to my depUty, it has been indicated to you that we hope to be establishing a tenant-l andlord advisory committee in the fall so a lot of the recommenda tions and so on can be discussed fully with other members of the interested community as well. So I thank you for bringing this here for an of us to examine. The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Thank you very much for your presentation. We call No. 5, Gail Jarema. Your presentation is being distributed. You may proceed when you are ready. * (1 11 0) Ms.

GaH Jarema (Private Citizen): Mr. Acting Chairperson, members of the Legislature, you will be glad that this is only one page I think. In introducing myself, we are owners of a small number of rental properties, and it is from this point of view that I am speaking. I believe that the act for residential tenancies is very cumbersome and difficult for both tenants and landlords, and those are the groups for which it was written. I believe it was written from the bureaucrat's point of view.

I am recommending to this legislative committee that an amendment be made to Bill 47 to put a process in place to write legislation to satisfy the two groups affected, that is, the tenants and the landlords. I believe that a committee formed from repr esentatives of tenant and landlord associations, together with a representative of the Residential Tenancies Branch, should go through,

July 22, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 523 review the current act and together as a group write legislation that works for all of the groups. What I mean by, that works, I mean legislation that is fair to all and is easy to administer. I am going to give you one example, and I would say this is one of many that is in the act. There is a

section dealing with personal go od s abandoned by a tenant. That is covered in sections 1 06 and 1 07 in the act. From my experience, the only time this happens is when a tenant skips out, and none of our responsible tenants ever do this. What we are required to do is take inventory at this time. We are required to report this inventory to the Residential Tenancy Branch, an officer will examine the goods and declare what can be done with them, that is, is it garbage, should it be sold or stored in a secure place for 90 days? And what is the cost of something like this?

Well, there is first of all the administrative time of both the landlord and the branch, and I am saying $30 an hour, I do not know. But that is probably about what they say. The goods are le f t now in the rental unit . We cannot remove them until something has been decided, and this now is causing a loss of revenue if we cannot rent that vacant unit. Perhaps it is one month, maybe $500. Then we have to haul away these items if it is garbage, so generally you have to hire somebody to do that. I am just saying $50, that seems reasonable. Or, perhaps we have to store it.

Now most of us do not have storage fa cilitie s to keep big items. Maybe that is $1 00 to a storag e company. I do not even know what that would cost. But I am estimating that some thing such as abandoned gooct s cost between $600 and $1 ,000 . Who leaves these personal goods �n their apartments? Well, it is never the good tenant, because a good tenant makes arrangements and says, t have to leave something, how can we work this out? This is an example of legislation that has really no rega rd for the waste of time and dollars to anyone. Who is actually paying this $600 to $1 ,000?

Well, in itially the landlord is paying for it, but this goes into his costs or his expe nses and ultimately these costs are passed through to the good tenants in the form of a rent increase, perhaps even as much as a yea r later . The branch absorbs the administrative costs and this is in turn borne by the taxpayer who, from my knowledge, is kind of tired of government spending. I believe that a committee formed with the tenants , landlords and branch could draft legislation that would be just and efficient for all by simply understanding the other's position.

It is this process that I see is absolutely essential in producing legislation which will be democratic, serves the tenants, serves the landlords and which would be seen as just by both groups involved. Thank you. The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Ms. Jarema, there may be a few questions. Would you entertain some questions from the committee if there are? Ms. Jarema: Yes, I will . Mrs. Mcintosh: Thank you very much for your presentation, and I thank you as well for coming out on short notice and for your patience in committee.

I know that it is often a last minute thing for peopl e coming to make presentations. Not always easy. I thank you for the points you have raised in this paper. I think it is a very interesting and good example that you have raised. As I indicated to the earlier presenters, I so indicate to you that we have begun arrangements to strike an advisory committee of tenants and landlords and other components of the marketplace that would work together on an ongoing basis to provide advice and examples such as these- The Acting Chairperson (Mr.

McAlpine): Excuse me , we have technical difficulties here with the tape having stopped, so we are not on recording with Hansard at the moment. Could we recess for one minute? [agreed] We can now proceed. Mrs. Mcintosh: As I was saying before we stopped to change tapes, we are in the process of putting together an advisory co mmittee of tenants, landlo rds, property manag ers, people in the marketplace affected by our Residential Tena ncies Act or interested in our Residential Tenancies Act.

That will act as an advisory to the staff and to the mini ster to help us on an ongoing basis either for solving daily problems or making the system work more ef fi cien tl y or to re comm en d leg isla tive changes down 1he road if that is what they require.

524 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 22, 19 93 So your point is well taken and timely, and I thank you very much for taking the time again to come out. Thank you. Ms. Jarema: The process you are talking about sounds very good to me. That is what I would like to see. I would like to see that it has the power to make those changes. I, myself, would be happy to work in a group that was producing legislation that I thought was good for our whole industry on both sides. Mrs. Mcintosh: Thank you. The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): If there be no further questions, thank you very much for your presentation.

That concludes the presenters. I notice there is one presenter who was called and was not here earlier, No. 1, Julie Van De Spiegle. Is Julie Van De Spiegle present? That now concludes the presenters for Bill 47. We will now go into presentations on Bill 49, The Sum ma ry Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. We will call the first presenter, Mr. John Ryan. Mr. Ryan, do you have a written presentation to present? 811149- The

Summary Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. John Ryan (Private Citizen): No, I just wanted to get something clarified on Bill 49, and this is why I am here. I would like to get something more definite as to what this bill means. This is why I am here. The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Bill 49, do you have a presentation? This is an opportunity for you to make a presentation on Bill 49. Mr. Ryan : I have no presenta tion.

Wh at is happening here is I would like to get something clarified with the Attorney Gener al as to why- [interjection] Am I doing something wrong? (interjection] That is right. * (1 12 0) The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Mr. Ryan , the public process is for you to make presentations, not necessarily to ask questions, but if the minister wishes to take a few short questions, · or if you want to put the questions on the record? Mr. Ryan: Yes, I do. The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): You may proceed, Mr. Ryan. Mr. Ryan: Thank you.

This is to the Attorney General, like I spoke with him just coming up the stairs. This bill here, first of all, the fine-option program has been in effect for over 1 0 years. Is that right, sir? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I understand since 19 83. Mr. Ryan: That is right. [interjection] I beg your pardon? I am sorry. I am not used to this. I am not a lawyer and I am just talking, as I say, right from the heart again. Mr. McCrae: Join the club. Mr. Ryan: I beg your pardon? Mr. McCrae: Join the club of people who are not lawyers. Mr.

Ryan: Only lawyers know how to play the system, and this act you have here, the fine-option clause, was for people who could not pay fines and had hardships. But if you look, I have a paper here, a Free Press, and here, going back a whole year ago, is a lawyer with 99 tickets. Now, you mean to tell me he could not pay his fines? Mr. McCrae: I do not mean to tell you that. No. Mr. Ryan: Now, where is the follow-up? What happened to this lawyer with the 99 tickets and $5,296 he owes us people, the honest people who pay their fines, the citizens of Winnipeg? Mr.

McCrae: Under a bill brought in this session by the Minister of Urban Affairs, the Honourable Jim Ernst, in future, people who default to that kind of extent on their parking tickets are going to have their cars towed away. Mr. Ryan: But now you also have a clause in this here, where it says that there are other ways of dealing with people who do not pay their fines, such as taking their licences away. If I was to go away for six months, and I loaned my car to you, and you ran up a bunch of tickets, could they take my licence away? Mr.

McCrae: That is an option that I believe is, and has been, under study by the Department of Highways and Transpor tation, as well as the Department of Justice. We are not yet in a position to move on that particular sanction, but, as I say,

July 22, 19 93 LEG IS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 525 the towing option is going to be there for the authorities. Mr. Ryan: Mr. Attorney-General, I was here on June 25 when Mr. Ernst said, and I have the letter here from Mr. Driedger, it is 20 years that you have been playing this game of saying, the province has been saying that the-or rather the city has been saying it is the province's fault for not assisting, for 20 years, and you say you are not in a position even now to even deal with suspending licences. You know why?

If it goes in the computer, everybody wiil lose their licences who do not pay their fines. But this way, they had a fine option that they used for 10 years and they played a game, and I have this from the police that they did not work off their fines. They lost over $2 million on people not working off their fine options. Now, if you call this a good system, and it took 1 0 years for a person like myself to have brought this to attention, and now they are even laughing at me in City Hall.

They call this "R yan's by-law.w Now, I am a citizen and a taxpayer, and I do not think I deserve to be laughed at in this situation here. Here I have a ticket in my pocket, with a bill that is paid, and I want everybody else to be treated the same as m&-no better, no worse. This is 20 years and you people talk co-operation, that you are willing to work with political will to fix up these situations. This is not honest. Now, get this in the system here in the computers. If you have a ticket for speeding, you do not pay it, you do not get your licence. rt does not matter what the cost is.

We are losing millions of dollars here on tickets that people are not paying. r was in the dentist chair last week. I cannot leave the chair, my mouth is open, and for four minutes I got a ticket. At 11 :26, I got the ticket, and I came off the chair at 11 :30. I have the ticket in my pocket, the receipt, if you wish to see it. Now, that is all I want, is fair treatment. I do not want 20 years of waiting; I will not be here to see this. I want this government--if this act does not work with the province, with the ci ty, the imp ounding, I want the province not to say it is costly.

Put that in the computer and get these people paying, or they do not drive. It is a privilege to drive, and they can take your licence---e very one of us-they can take our licence away. Now let us get this straightened out once and for alt, and I am not letting this go. I have this right from the mayor's office, from the chief of police; I have the letter here that they will co-operate fully with me right to the extent, and now they are all shying away. They will not even put a new update, a printout of what is owing. Now, let us play this game right.

Now, if there are any questions you can ask me, I am willing to answer. The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Thank you, Mr. Ryan, for your presentation. Are there are any questions of Mr. Ryan? No questions of the committee. Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Ryan. Mr. Ryan: There is the interest that you people have. There are no questions to ask me. Twenty years I hav&-a nd this all started from Ticketgate. The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Ryan. I call now No. 2, Ellen Olfert and/or David Northcott.

Do you have a written presentation to distribute? Ms. Ellen Olfert (Winnipeg Harvest Inc.): It is being circulated. The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Okay. It will be distributed and you may proceed when you wish. Ms. Olfert: The person who is behind me is plugging his meter so he does not get a ticket. He will be right back.

Committee members, I am appearing before you today to present the concerns of Winnipeg Harvest abo ut the pr oposed Bill 49, The Summar y Convictions Amendmen t and Conse quen tial Amendments Act, with respect to its impact upon the com munity services performed by persons choosing to work off the fine conviction by doing community service hours. With me in attendance is Rene Jamieson, our volunteer co-ord inator, who works daily at endeavouring to bring together a volun teer wo rkforce to main tain Winn ipeg Harvesfs abiRty to provide food for people in need.

In Hansard of June 25, 19 93, it was noted that the objective of this legislation is to remove parking tickets and traffic fines from the Attorney General's department's fine-option program, and that the second objective is to remove incarceration as the penalty for ·failing to pay such fines Incurred for parking and traffic violations. While we applaud the second objectiv8" of this legislation, agreeing with

526 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 22, 19 93 the prem ise that incarceration is too severe a penalty for the crime, we have some concerns with respect to the legislation because it removes a very valuable percentage of our volunteer force. Over the last fiscal year, that is April 1, 19 92, to March 31 , 19 93, people who have come to perform commun ity serv ice at Winnipeg Harvest have provided 5,742.25 hours of work for us. The total number of vol unteer hours for that time was 66,526.75.

Therefore, the community service hours contr ibuted through the fine -opt ion program to Winn ipeg Harvest amounts to 9 percent of the total number of vo lunteer hours, not an insignificant amount.

Tabulating the person-hours worked, as if those hours were paid for at a five dollar wage, amounts to $28,71 1, payroll amount, also not an insign ificant amount when the organ izat ion is a reg istered charity. * (1 13 0) Based on these figures, if one calculates a net worth to the 500 work centres which receive the valuable commun ity services in terms of money saved to those nonprof it org an izat ions, that amounts to more of a monetary saving than the $453,000 to be saved by ceasing to pay the $40 per work assignment.

In terms of the services provided to the community by these volunteers at various nonprof i t organ izations, it would seem that the government could be saving itself money in the long run by retaining the fine - option program for community service. (Mr. Chairperson in the Chair) For those of you who may not be aware of what Winn ipeg Harvest does, Winn ipeg Harvest is a surplus food distribution warehouse.

We distribute surplus, gleaned food received through donations to various agenc ies which distribute that food to people who for one reason or another have not enough resources to feed themselves or the ir fam ilies. Over 40 percent of those people recei ving food from Winn ipeg Harvest are children. Win nipeg Harvest receives and/or gleans many kinds of food donations. We receive produce and bread and pastry and other perishable food items, as well as receiving nonper ishable foods. We are distributing over 40 tonnes of food per month.

To meet the demand for food assistance requires a great amount of labo ur just to prov ide for day-to-day operations. It is important that you know that over 95 percent of our labour force is made up of vo luntee rs. Wi thout our vo lunteer base, Winn ipeg Harvest could not exist. That is why a 9 percent deletion from our volunteer base gives us concern. It is very important to note as well that a large number of the volunteers whom we receive through the fine - option program stay with Winn ipeg Harvest after having served their community service hours.

Thi s factor is also important to the operation of any organ ization , because it provides for consistency and commitment . Because of the kind of operation that we are, where we deal with peop le constantly, help ing people who are in crisis, we al l have to work hard together. Providing food support and service to people and doing what we can to help others is rewarding and satisfying. It can also be stressful.

However, being involved in helping others tends to br ing peop le together, because we work for a common goal, and it is that sense of helping and belong ing that is a large part of the reason these volunteers continue to volunteer their time with us. We respect and honour their commitment, be it during the time they are work ing off their fines through commun ity service hours or when they return as ordinary volunteers. It is very diff icult to place a monetary worth on the commun ity service that fine option provides.

The volunteers whom we receive through thi s program come from al l walks of life with a myr iad of life experiences. They bring those gifts to us and we use them. Perhaps the person serving the fine - option hours has grown up and still lives in poverty, having had few opportunities by which to access either higher education or employment opportunities. We have seen many such vol unteers rece iving work experiences and skills at Winn ipeg Harvest. They finish the ir commun ity service hours with more self-e steem and pride than when they arrive. For some, this is the first work experience they have received.

Perhaps the person working off their fine-opt ion hours has fortunately never known need or poverty. Many of these vo lunteers come in with expectations and opinions regarding people who require help from Winnipeg Harvest. By working shoulder to shoulder with

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-la17
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf la17.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c2eb3350dcf67720e4bf2c0a3937c6dfb11eca99

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