Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do speak in favour of the principle of the bill, but I do feel that the Residential Tenancies Act update is missing some critical components. I’ll just leave it as simple as that, for example, the Hotel Keepers Act allows someone to be let go, removed, and evicted where the update of the Residential Tenancies Act shows that it’s well thought out that people are protected, and I would assume that the update would have considered these types of remedies.
The example I provide to somebody is that there are folks out there who can only rent in certain spots, and in some cases, in our communities, they can only rent in hotels, and some hotels lease residences for month to month but they come with no rights. The Residential Tenancies Act is being updated here and it would have been a great time to amalgamate, actually, the two bills, and it probably would have been to everyone’s great advantage.
A person renting from a landlord has more rights if they rented in my house than they would if they rented at a hotel because they come with no rights. The issue, really, I’m saying that I agree with the updates provided by, I’ve seen the preamble of the bill, and I have no disagreement with that. I just see it as an issue where we’ve missed a real opportunity to give people rights who need them.
In summary, if a person rents month to month from a hotel, they can be evicted at any time, their stuff can be taken, and they have zero rights. Normally, you would suggest to point them to the rental and tenancy office but they have no authority to deal with that particular issue. I’ve dealt with this issue recently and I’ve found that there is a huge gap. I’ll be taking it up with the particular committee, but I did think that I wanted to remind people with the principle of this bill that we have a huge advantage to taking just a small step forward to provide people protection that deserve it. That’s all.