Session: 38:2
Date: 29-Mar-2007

RENTAL ACCOMODATION

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to one of the new members of the Legislature, from York South-Weston, and congratulate him on his election, his campaign and entering the Legislature.

The motion here today calls on the government of Ontario "to move expeditiously to establish and implement a comprehensive landlord licensing program, to ensure minimum standards for rental accommodation throughout Ontario." There has been some very vigorous debate in the Legislature on the history of the parties and what they've done on affordable housing, which is certainly a problem, and to protect our tenants. We are all here, of course, to try to protect the tenants as best we can, and there are certainly some different ideas of how to accomplish that.

Interjection.

Ms. Scott: Yes, we could always have more new units in the riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. Thank you very much. The member from Peterborough is commenting.

I'd like to add some thoughts with respect to the landlord licensing program proposed in the resolution before us. When I consider the many comments, letters and e-mails I receive from the hardworking residents of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, one of the most common themes is the cost of property ownership. I have to agree with the member from Oxford: I've never had any calls since I've been in about comprehensive landlord licensing programs.

There are many costs included in property ownership, such as the mortgage principal, interest, maintenance, repairs, electricity, heat, property taxes. We've certainly heard all those serious issues surrounding the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. and the skyrocketing prices and assessments involved in that. So adding yet another fee on top of the costs that are already incurred by a lot of landlords and property investors and that they are already on the hook for-mandating licensing, mandating repairs and mandating inspections on top of the already high level of regulatory responsibilities which landlords face is something I'm quite leery about because of the end result to those tenants and what they will have to pay.

Let's not forget that landlords and investors in rental housing are providing Ontario residents with a place to live. On top of that, the landlord licensing scheme is going to require administration and management. So establishing another layer of bureaucracy to implement a program that can, for the most part, be handled by the existing avenues such as the Landlord and Tenant Act as well as local municipal regulations, is not something I'm comfortable with and I don't think will achieve the end result that the member from York South-Weston wants to accomplish. We don't want to see landlords and investors being used as some sort of cash cow to feed an added administration. I can assure you, based on the property owners and investors in rental housing in my riding, those who make their livelihood in property investment and management, they don't want that to be based on a licence that has the potential to arbitrarily shut down any or all of this income due to regulatory burdens. They don't want to be shut down.

1140

I know the member for York South-Weston's intentions are honourable with respect to this resolution. I fully agree that the safety and security of our residents is paramount. There are definitely cases where the quality and safety of residents hasn't been given the proper consideration by a landlord, and those landlords should be dealt with. That should not occur.

That leads me to my next point. A landlord licensing program such as proposed in this resolution potentially would have inspections and follow-up inspections for non-compliant landlords who are not living up to their expectations. The problem is that landlords who are doing their best to manage and maintain their properties are going to be charged the same licensing fees as those who don't. So throwing the bad eggs in with the good is not an incentive program that I can support.

Finally, as I think my colleague from Oxford has already stated, landlord licences and related inspection and administrative costs are going to be passed on to tenants so investors can protect and maintain their return on investment or management of losses. We're fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. Regulating the rental market will impact the level of rents, the quality of rentals and the willingness of landlords to invest in the market. So that's going to add to an already existing crisis that we see the Dalton McGuinty government has failed to address on affordable housing in this province.

There has been a little bit of mention of affordable housing in the Legislature this morning and the promise that the Dalton McGuinty government made of 20,000 units of affordable housing. As of March 1, we can say that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing lists 7,407 units towards that target-their own ministry-although the Liberals have included over 4,000 in that number that are only in the planning stage or under construction. The member for Parkdale-High Park says that in reality, in the FOI, there are only 285 units. So, good for her on those questions. Saying anything to get elected and not coming through with the end product is not what we as Ontarians want to see.
I commend the member for York South-Weston for his intention with this resolution this morning but feel there are better avenues to protect tenants.


LONG-TERM CARE HOMES ACT, 2007

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon to Bill 140, the long-term-care act, and the comments from the member for Kitchener-Waterloo, our critic for the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. She's done a great job at going through Bill 140 and listening to all the concerns out there at the many committee meetings, the presentations that were presented, and brought forth amendments-I think there was a record number of amendments presented. I thought I had a lot in the Clean Water Act, but this surpassed that with hundreds of amendments. It was a sign that the bill was seriously flawed. Some amendments were made; obviously not enough.

We've heard many quotes this afternoon from the long-term-care sector that the changes that were made-"For long-term care, the cupboard is bare" was the reaction to the budget. And that's the reaction to a promise that was made that they would deliver outstanding long-term care, $6,000 more for long-term-care patients.

And when asked in the Legislature by the member from Kitchener-Waterloo, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care said about the capital improvements that were needed to provide more spaces and adequate upgrades to the B and C class homes, which were three- and four-bed rooms, that it was a budgetary matter. Then the budget comes, and guess what? Nothing. Zero. So in the hallway, the Ontario Long-Term Care Association is upset, and they should be upset. They are out there representing the residents in long-term care, and there wasn't adequate funding. How are we supposed to take care of our seniors, the most vulnerable in our society, when there isn't adequate investment for upgrading, for new homes? The phone calls coming into my office about the needs in the long-term-care centres-the staff, everyone, is doing all they can. They can't provide enough adequate care for the residents, and this government is not helping them.