CONTENTS
Wednesday 9 March 1994
Tenants and Landlords Protection Act, 1993, Bill 20, Mr Runciman / Loi de 1993 sur la protection des locataires et des locateurs, projet de loi 20, M. Runciman
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Callahan, Robert V. (Brampton South/-Sud L) for Mr Murphy
Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Ms Akande
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Harnick
Jamison, Norm (Norfolk ND) for Ms Harrington
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND) for Mr Mills
Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Chiarelli
Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC) for Mr Tilson
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel:
MacKinnon, Margaret, legislative counsel
McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1018 in the St Clair/Thames Rooms, Macdonald Block, Toronto.
TENANTS AND LANDLORDS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES ET DES LOCATEURS
Bill 20, An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords / Projet de loi 20, Loi visant à protéger la personne, les biens et les droits des locataires et des locateurs.
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): Before we enter into clause-by-clause considerations, I understand Mr Runciman has some comment he'd like to make.
Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): It's really in reference to a point of order that Mr Winninger raised, I think it was yesterday, when I made an offhand comment in respect to his view of drug dealers plying their trade. I suggested that he had said if that's what they want to do, they have every right to do it, and he objected to that.
Perhaps I have misinterpreted what he said but I do have Hansard in front of me. He was talking, expressing concern about these merchants of death: "Why would you somehow put these people in double jeopardy? Once they've served their sentence, once they're ready to re-enter society, why should they not have a residence to go back to? And this is aside from all the other concerns about their moving on to other residences and plying their trade elsewhere, if that's their inclination."
I don't know; after re-reading that, I have difficulty in expressing an apology because certainly my interpretation continues to be that Mr Winninger was terribly supportive of these people. So I regret that he is concerned about my comments, but at the same time my interpretation remains the same.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Before we start, Mr Chair, I wonder if, when we go through the clause-by-clause, we could skip over subsection 1(1), because if we defeat 1(1) it makes no sense to go on with the balance of it.
If you people are prepared to be openminded and are not going to deal with this, although I see large numbers here this morning, in a political way and try to just kill it, you may want to hear the amendments of myself and Mr Runciman before you deal with 1(1), because if you deal with 1(1) and you defeat it, I would suggest, and I think legislative counsel might confirm what I'm saying, that would end the bill.
What I'm going to be asking is for unanimous consent, and I think you'd get that without giving away anything, that we would move to 1(2) first and then through the bill and then come back to 1(1) if in fact the amendments are accepted or if we have some consensus on what should be done by the bill.
The reason I say --
The Chair: Does counsel have an opinion on this?
Mr Callahan: I don't think it takes a legal opinion. I think if you just look at it you'll see that --
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Rosario's asked for one, Mr Callahan. Let's cooperate.
Mr Callahan: All right. That's fine.
The Chair: All right, Mr Jackson. You're getting support here.
Ms Margaret MacKinnon: I don't believe we'll be voting on the individual subsections, in which case I think it would be all right to have the debate on the individual subsections because the vote will take place at the end with respect to the section.
Mr Callahan: Oh, all right. We're going to stack. That's fine. I just don't want to start off by having it thrown out of the ballpark immediately, but recognizing that there's a large bench over there today for some reason.
The Chair: Thanks, Mr Callahan. All right, we're ready for clause-by-clause on section 1. There's a PC amendment there, Mr Runciman?
Mr Runciman: I move that subsection 1(1) of the bill be amended by inserting after "convicted" in the second line, "in the Ontario Court (General Division)."
Mr Callahan: I understand the reason for Mr Runciman doing that, of course, because we were advised that constitutionally that is a result of a case of something about the residential review commission -- I can't recall the exact citation -- that in fact a provincial court was not vested with the powers that apparently were solely vested in the superior courts prior to Confederation and therefore the sole jurisdiction of section 96 judges.
I have an amendment that will follow that hopefully will allow us to use not only the General Division court but also the provincial court, where we heard in the testimony from the witnesses that 80% of the cases are tried, and for the reasons I stated then it wouldn't make sense to just clutter up the General Division with more applications. They've got more work than they can handle. That's the only comment I would make with reference to it. Hopefully my amendment to 1(2) and a couple of other sections will overcome this problem.
The Chair: Any other discussion on this matter? We're ready for the vote then? All in favour of --
Mr Callahan: No, no. Just a second. If that's the case --
The Chair: On the amendment.
Mr Jackson: Mr Callahan, it's an amendment.
The Chair: All in favour of the amendment? Not the section 1, but the amendment?
Mr Callahan: Mr Jackson, just be patient, okay? You don't run this committee. We all are here to serve the public.
Mr Jackson: I thought you were a Chair of one of the committees.
Mr Callahan: I was a Chair of a committee.
Mr Jackson: I stand corrected. I thought you've been a Chair.
The Chair: Come on. Go ahead, Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: I'm asking you, Mr Chair, to defer the vote on that motion because if in fact the amendment that I'm going to move is not accepted, then at least we can save Mr Runciman's motion. I don't want to vote against it now and then have mine voted down.
The Chair: I would just ask people, is there unanimous support for this amendment to be deferred?
Interjections.
The Chair: No? What's the big deal?
Mr Jackson: On a point of clarification, Mr Chair: The dilemma we find ourselves in is that Mr Callahan's amendment to section 1 is affected by and will influence his vote on the amendment from my colleague Mr Runciman. In no way does that diminish your right to move amendments. He had notified the Chair that he might vote differently on this depending upon the outcome. So he was serving notice that he was addressing the same issue for amendment in section 1.
The Chair's options are to clarify and proceed with Mr Runciman's motion and then further amend it by Mr Callahan's motion, or ask Mr Runciman to step down his amendment to allow Mr Callahan to present his first. That is the position you're in, Mr Chair. I thought we were simply proceeding on Mr Runciman's amendment and then Mr Callahan would be moving an amendment to the amended motion.
The Chair: We have two options. If we don't have unanimous consent to do that, we have a problem in terms of dealing with the question Mr Callahan raises, or for Mr Runciman to defer that matter, I suppose, or to withdraw it and bring it back at another time.
Mr Runciman: Mr Chairman, if it's procedurally correct for me to withdraw my motion and then reintroduce it, stand it down --
The Chair: Stand it down.
Mr Runciman: Yes, stand it down. I will do that.
The Chair: Very well.
Mr Jackson: I wish to serve notice that I have a further amendment to section 1, but it doesn't deal with the issue that Mr Callahan --
The Chair: Very well. The matter is stood down then. We'll move on to the second amendment, PC motion.
Interjections.
Mr Jackson: Mr Callahan gave you notice. You're in section 2, right?
Mr Callahan: Yes, I'm in section 2 as well. I'd ask that that be stood down, if Mr Runciman has no -- because the one I'm amending is subsection 1(2). It's not subsection 1(1), it's subsection 1(2).
The Chair: We stood down subsection 1(1), so we're moving on to the next subsection, which is (2).
Mr Jackson: I just gave you notice that I have an amendment. You didn't stand down all of section 1; you stood down his amendment. "Any other amendments?" should be your call, or "Any other further amendments to section 1?" You stood down his amendment; you didn't stand down the section.
The Chair: His amendment to that subsection (1).
Mr Jackson: Yes. You stood down an amendment to the section.
The Chair: To that section, subsection (1).
Mr Jackson: You didn't stand down the whole section.
The Chair: That's right, so we were moving on to subsection (2).
Mr Jackson: No. I notified you that I have a further amendment to section 1.
The Chair: Are you moving that now, Mr Jackson, or do you want to stand that down as well?
Mr Jackson: No, I said I'd like to move a different amendment to section 1.
Interjection.
Mr Jackson: As soon as he recognizes me, then I'll give you my motion.
The Chair: Go right ahead.
Mr Jackson: I move that subsection 1(1) of the bill be amended by inserting after "(Canada)" in the third line "and schedule G and H of the Food and Drugs Act (Canada)."
I may need help with this, Mr Chairman. Now that is moved -- I don't need a seconder.
The Chair: Explain.
Mr Jackson: As you recall, we had Detective Sergeant Craig Hilborn present to us and he appealed to this committee to include those chemically manufactured drugs, artificial drugs, as opposed to those that are pure and covered under the narcotics act, such as heroin and crack cocaine etc. He was asking this committee to expand and include the manufacturing of chemical-based drugs, which is my understanding.
I don't really know if I understood that correctly, but if there's some assistance in clarifying, I wrote down, unless Hansard can reconfirm, he said schedule G and H of the Food and Drugs Act. I suspect, since that's a federal act, it would have "Canada" in brackets. That's my explanation. I think he had a very good point and I think we could strengthen our bill by including LSD and whatever these other drugs are.
Mr Callahan: I'm not sure we have to do that. I appreciate what my friend is amending, but I think sections 4 and 5 of the Narcotic Control Act refer to trafficking and importing or exporting. I look to legislative counsel to advise as to whether or not, if we don't include the Food and Drugs Act, we would be precluded, if this section remains as it is, from a prosecution of the drugs that are referred to as narcotics as opposed to, as Mr Jackson is saying, under the Food and Drugs Act you're dealing with chemicals such as LSD and -- I'm trying to think of a couple of the others -- angel dust, PLP, I think it's called.
I may have already answered my own question. I think that's right. I think we would have to include those sections. Am I right?
Ms Margaret MacKinnon: I don't have a copy of the Narcotic Control Act here, so I can't really answer that question. I'm not familiar with prosecutions under that act.
Mr Callahan: I think it is, now that I give it some thought. I think in fact you'd have to include what Mr Jackson has suggested. I'm going to support the motion. If it makes sense that we're trying to eliminate trafficking and exporting or importers from that milieu, then I think it's equally necessary that we do it with reference to the chemical drugs because they're probably the most prevalent on the street and they could be made in anybody's bathtub, or whatever. I'm going to support the motion.
The Chair: Further debate? Do you require the reading of the amendment that was made by Mr Jackson? Did people hear that? Yes? Okay, we're ready for the vote then. All in favour of the amendment?
Mr Callahan: Do you want a recorded vote on this, Cam?
Mr Jackson: If you're not supporting it, yes, I'd like a recorded vote.
1030
The Chair: All in favour, on a recorded vote?
Ayes
Callahan, Curling, Jackson, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Runciman.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Cooper, Duignan, Jamison, Malkowski, Murdock (Sudbury), Winninger.
The Chair: That amendment is defeated.
Mr Jackson: I have a further amendment. Just so people know where it comes from, the presentation from the Parkdale legal clinic, Ray Kuszelewski, recommended that we use in subsection 1(1) the direct reference to the Landlord and Tenant Act. So in connection with premises, I would move that subsection 1(1) of the bill be amended by removing "in connection with" and inserting therein, in the fourth line, "in or about the residence that he or she may occupy as a tenant."
I believe that is the language from the Landlord and Tenant Act, and I would appreciate perhaps if legal counsel can --
Mr David Winninger (London South): Mr Chair, on a point of order: Just for clarification, what I heard Mr Jackson say is that Mr Kuszelewski of Parkdale Community Legal Services had recommended something.
Mr Jackson: Yes, he did.
Mr Winninger: What page are you referring to of his presentation?
Mr Jackson: During his presentation he said, to paraphrase his words, "Although my concern about the bill remains, I want to bring to your attention your reference to `in connection with.'" He said that lawyers will have a field day. "What does `in connection with' mean?" He was absolutely right. He said at least you should be using the exact same wording from the Landlord and Tenant Act, "in or about the premises" or "in or about the residence." I thanked him for that. I said, "You may have inadvertently strengthened our bill," and I thanked him for that. Is your memory coming back?
Mr Winninger: I didn't want there to be an erroneous impression that he supported the bill because he was quite clear that he didn't.
Mr Jackson: No, I didn't say that. I said he suggested an amendment, which I think was a fair characterization of his efforts to help us with this bill.
The Chair: Ms MacKinnon, can you comment on that?
Ms Margaret MacKinnon: The wording in the Landlord and Tenant Act is "in or upon the residential premises or any part thereof."
Mr Jackson: Could my amendment reflect that wording, please?
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Jackson: Subject to the reference brought to our attention by legal counsel, I would withdraw my amendment and, with the committee's indulgence, delete the words "in connection with premises that he or she occupies as a tenant" -- legal counsel is helping me by nodding -- and replace them with --
Ms Margaret MacKinnon: "In or upon the residential premises or any part thereof."
Mr Jackson: "Occupied by the tenant."
The Chair: Debate? Mr Callahan, you're on the list.
Mr Callahan: I would support that. I don't know whether Mr Jackson wants a recorded vote. I'd ask for a recorded vote.
The Chair: Okay. Any other debate? Ready for the vote? On a recorded vote, all in favour of the amendment?
Ayes
Callahan, Curling, Jackson, Phillips (Scarborough-Agoncourt), Runciman.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Cooper, Duignan, Jamison, Malkowski, Murdock (Sudbury), Winninger.
The Chair: Any further amendments on subsection 1(1)?
Moving on to subsection 1(2), Mr Runciman.
Mr Runciman: I just want to make a couple of comments here and see if there's support for this within the committee. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what seems to be occurring, but it would appear that the government members have their orders for the day in respect to this legislation, and it doesn't matter what we do in terms of trying to accommodate some of the concerns that have been expressed in the two days of deliberations, because everything that's put forward is going to be defeated.
If that is indeed the case, I say let's be up front about it and not waste several hours going through amendments and debating the merits or lack of same when a decision has already been taken. I would rather see each caucus or each member of the committee have five minutes to express their views on the legislation and then move on to a final vote on the bill, rather than go through some sort of farcical exercise which is not going to do anything but waste all of our time. I'm looking for some kind of consensus around the table.
The Chair: We could decide to do that. There are a few people talking here, so we will wait for them to finish that and then we'll put the question to them.
Mr Jackson: Can I have one moment, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: What Mr Runciman -- well, rather than paraphrasing him, he might want to repeat what he said.
Mr Runciman: I was essentially saying it looks like the decision has been taken and I'm not sure that it's in anyone's best interests to continue rather than simply moving ahead and having a vote on the legislation and giving each member who wishes an opportunity to speak for up to, say, five minutes to express their concerns and views and then move on. I know perhaps Mr Callahan would like to get his one particular amendment on the record and I have no objection to that if that's indeed his wish.
Mr Callahan: I recognize what Mr Runciman is saying, and perhaps I have blurted that out. But I am a person who is an optimist and I am hoping that the government will be moved by the rationality of the amendments and will in fact vote for them.
But I have a couple of concerns. I have concerns about the constitutional question, the applicability of the court rather than just the General Division; we need both courts. I have some amendments that might assist us in that regard. It's an additional arrow in the quiver of the people such as the good sergeant of the drug force who came before us and said, "We have no way of dealing with this issue."
The Chair: Mr Callahan, sorry. The question is, should we go through the amendments or should we allow each member to have five minutes to comment on whatever and then we vote on the whole lot?
Mr Callahan: Well, I'm speaking in favour of going through all the amendments. That's what I'm doing right now, Mr Chair.
I think it's of significant importance that we had people here who were in the know. We had people who protect our society. We had Detective Sergeant Craig Hilborn of the Metropolitan Toronto Police central drug squad. He told us the difficulties they have. He showed us the problems. He was suggesting that what's provided for under the Landlord and Tenant Act may be a nice legal mechanism for a landlord who is trying to get rid of a tenant who doesn't pay his or her rent or whatever, but it's absolutely useless in the question of drugs -- and you're not going to cut me off, Mr Chair, because I can speak --
The Chair: Mr Callahan, yes, but what we're trying to do is to determine a process here. We can go through the amendments where you can make these comments that you're making. It appears to me that what you want to do is to go through the amendments --
Mr Callahan: That's right.
The Chair: -- so we'll do that, and you'll have an opportunity to speak to them.
Mr Callahan: I'm anticipating that the government may say to Mr Jackson: "Yes, that's a good idea. Let's just deal with it and defeat the bill right now." I want to see us go through these amendments. We're charged with the responsibility here, as members of this Legislature, to address the problems that have been brought to us by the deputants. If in fact the government is not prepared to do that, then it should have logical reasons for it.
As I've explained, I have problems with the constitutionality, I have problems with overloading the General Division court, with sending a remedy up to the General Division court, where only 20% of the cases ever get to. I think that weakens the bill, and we, the opposition, are going to attempt to put some strength into this bill so that it will be an additional tool for those people such as Detective Sergeant Craig Hilborn and those residents of MTHA to be protected.
If the government members really want to listen, they're going to go through these amendments. You can defeat them all if you like, but at least we're going to give you logical reasons why this bill can be sustained and why this bill should be passed, and then you can take the political heat if you defeat it. If in fact you've got your marching orders from Evelyn Gigantes not to support this bill, then you people can take the political heat for it.
Mr Jackson: I believe there is a sense that we should proceed, Mr Chairman. I only had one question: Did the government come today prepared with any amendments? We've seen Mr Callahan's, we've seen --
Mr Winninger: No, we have no amendments.
1040
Mr Jackson: The record will show that there are no amendments from the government. I think we can proceed in an expeditious manner, Mr Chairman. We're prepared to do that.
The Chair: Mr Runciman, subsection 1(2).
Mr Runciman: I move that subsection 1(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "sentencing" in the fourth line.
The Chair: Any comment?
Mr Runciman: Yes, I have some, but I have to find my notes in respect to this matter. This amendment is simply removing the word "sentencing" from the fourth line because it's not necessary to specify which court is hearing the sentence, since by virtue of subsection (1) it must be heard in the Ontario Court (General Division). Simply, that word is not necessary.
Mr Callahan: I'd ask Mr Runciman if he would stand that amendment down until we've dealt with the amendment that I have to subsection 1(2). I think 1(2) in fact will allow us to simply use the general word "sentencing court," because I'm hopeful that if 1(2) passes, it will solve the constitutional problem that exists in terms of the inability of the Provincial Division court to hear the --
Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I appreciate what Mr Callahan is doing and he's trying to be helpful, but it is now the third time he's given me an explanation of his motion, which is not tabled yet.
Mr Callahan: Well, they are tabled. They were all tabled.
Mr Jackson: They are before us, but they have not been moved.
The Chair: They're before us, that's right. They haven't been moved.
Mr Jackson: And therefore tabled. I simply want to suggest, Mr Callahan, that without second-guessing the outcome, perhaps in the interest of time we might just deal with the vote before us and then receive your amendment quickly. Perhaps the secret is to get your amendment to the forefront quickly. Can I just suggest that we proceed with this vote and get it dealt with, and then we can get to yours quickly and I won't have to hear it for a fourth time?
Mr Callahan: The difficulty with that, Mr Jackson, is that, as you've pointed out before, my vote on that may be different than it would be if the amendment that I'm putting forward is defeated, because obviously, in order to at least get something, I have to vote for it. That's the only reason I'm asking for it to be held down.
Mr Jackson: We weren't bargaining --
The Chair: Let me just check. Mr Callahan has made his point clear. Does the committee want to stand this matter down?
Mr Runciman: I'll stand it down.
Mr Callahan: With the possibility of having Mr Jackson indicate that I've debated this section endlessly, I think it's pretty clear that the case that was referred to us of -- I should put it on the record specifically -- Reference re Residential Tenancies Act, which is referred to in the material that was handed out to us by legislative counsel, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, May 28, 1981, reported in 123 Dominion Law Reports, 3rd edition, starting at page 554 --
The Chair: Mr Callahan, can we ask you to read that amendment for the record?
Mr Callahan: I move that subsection 1(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "to terminate the tenancy" at the end, and substituting "to make an order restraining the person convicted from returning to the premises referred to in subsection (1) until his or her sentence has been served."
I go back now to the rationale. There was difficulty. It was recognized early by Mr Runciman that because of the case Reference re Residential Tenancies Act, a provincial court was excluded from dealing with eviction as a sentencing matter.
However, if you read the case, the case seems to have a historic background to it, and I think it has been criticized in fact by a couple of other cases. The background to it is that pre-Confederation, pre-1867, the judges of the common-law jurisdiction, who were the superior court judges, who actually arose not out of statute but simply arose as a result of history, had the exclusive right to deal with matters of landlords and tenants because in the feudal society that existed at that time that was basically what was going on.
The argument was made and it was successful in the Supreme Court of Canada that in fact in the cases of landlord and tenant problems the province could not by statute create the provincial court, civil or criminal divisions, and vest them with the authority to be able to deal with the word "eviction."
That's the reason that in this case what I'm moving is that instead of eviction, we talk about a restraining order. The reason I say that is that in the history of this province thus far, provincial court judges of the family court division, who are also provincially appointed judges, have the power to issue restraining orders under the Family Law Reform Act. No one has ever challenged that as being unconstitutional.
That being the case, I would suggest that by using the words "restraining order," we have in fact taken the case out of the statements made by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Residential Tenancies Act and we have now given to the province legitimate power to have the question that Mr Runciman is attempting to provide here made available to the provincial court as well as the General Division.
For the reasons that I stated and the questions that were asked of the drug enforcement officer who was here, something like 80% of the cases under sections 4 and 5 of the Narcotic Control Act, and I would imagine even the amendments that Mr Jackson has put forward under the Food and Drugs Act, are in fact tried for the reasons he stated in provincial court as opposed to the General Division. Even if you passed it, you'd have a very limited remedy and it would be only in the most serious cases where the crown elected to go by way of indictment and the case went up to the General Division court.
It's for that reason that I'm moving this amendment, and I would hope that it could be supported. I say this again -- maybe I'm being naïve and probably am being, but I think that when we started out in this committee I heard the words, "Let's deal with this on a non-partisan basis" -- I believe my colleagues in the Legislature are honourable people until they prove to be to the contrary.
I have to say that you may very well by your actions today -- if you're not listening to the logic of how we can make this bill better and make it work, then in fact you've been given your marching orders and what you told us at the outset is not going to be true. This is going to be a partisan issue and that's unfortunate.
The only people who suffer as a result of that are the good people who came before us, the people who live in MTHA, the people who are the drug enforcement officers of this province who came to us and said: "Look, we've got a problem. Drugs are a very serious problem. Law and order's a very serious problem. Guns with crack cocaine, a very serious problem."
What in fact you will be doing, if you are playing politics in this issue -- and I hope you're not; I hope you will listen even at this late stage. Even though perhaps Minister Gigantes has given you your marching orders, you might get on the phone and tell her that this is a very significant law and order issue. This is an issue which has been asked for by the people who have to defend the people in this city and in other cities.
Perhaps we can deal with a bill now that will give us the overall benefit of being able to give them an extra arrow; it doesn't in any way take away from the Landlord and Tenant Act provisions that they have. But I suggest to you that the Landlord and Tenant Act, if you're going to simply rely on that, the Landlord and Tenant Act provisions, although they're useful and although the law seems to say all you've got to show is that they're interfering with your reasonable comfort and the landlord can get the tenant evicted, they're not being used sufficiently.
Number one, they're not fast enough, they're not effective enough to get a drug dealer out and keep him away from those premises for a number of reasons, for the benefit of the other tenants but more important, I would suggest to you, for the benefit of the kids who live in that house. Some of these people are families, not just taking up rented accommodations to produce drugs -- they're families. You're going to let that person go back and live with the family and show kids at an early age how to make crack cocaine or how to sell it? If that's what you're suggesting, if you're suggesting they should bring a landlord and tenant application, I suggest to you you're smoking something.
1050
Landlord and Tenant Act legislation is probably fine for economic eviction, ie, the landlord says, "You're damaging my apartment or you've got too many dogs or cats in there or you're smelling up the place or you're keeping the music too high during the night and you're offending the other tenants." We're not talking about that. We're talking about a problem that probably didn't exist when the remedy under the Landlord and Tenant Act was provided for: drugs, massive amounts of drugs, particularly in metropolitan communities, and people being gunned down or being assaulted. Those aren't my words. The drug officer told us.
Are we going to let those people down by not giving the law enforcement authorities, the tenants of buildings where this is going on, where their kids are being raped and held at ransom and all the rest of it -- are you as a government really going to be able to go out and say to the people after you vote against this, if you do: "We're in favour of law and order. We're really in favour of looking after the serious drug problem in this province"?
I suggest to you that if you people vote, as seems to be the case up to this point, you in fact are going to be part of the problem rather than the solution. You can say, "Today we may have pulled off a great political act by making Mr Runciman put his tail between his legs," but in fact what you will have done, you will have told the drug dealers of this province: "We've got the Landlord and Tenant Act. That's good enough for enforcement and eviction of these people from the premises." Yet it will fly right in the face of the people you brought before this committee: the Metro drug squad, the people from MTHA.
You will in fact have just ignored what they were saying, and that's one of the problems of this entire process, our system in the parliamentary system, the fact that we waste taxpayers' money bringing deputants before us. They go out of their way. They spend their valuable time to come before us and tell us why they need this legislation. From the looks of things, right from day one, you people knew or you had your marching orders, and I hope that's not the case. If it is, I hope I can persuade you to change your mind, get on the phone to Gigantes and tell her, "We can't do this."
If you've done that, what you've done is you've thrown away taxpayers' money while you've got other people who are involved in the Rae days at the correctional institutions where they can't get people to fill in and there's a real danger there. You've in fact thrown away money. You've paid us as politicians to sit here to do nothing. You've wasted the time of the people who've come before this committee. You have in fact ignored the person who is a professional, a police officer, who has to face the guns and face the crack cocaine in this province every day --
Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Chairman.
Mr Callahan: -- and you're prepared to do that. So I suggest to you you'd better change your --
The Chair: Mr Jackson.
Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): I suggest you take a Valium.
Mr Callahan: Is that on the record, "I suggest you take a Valium"? That's a great attitude.
The Chair: It's a point of order I'm trying to listen to, please.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chair, in accordance with the standing orders, you have exercised a great deal of patience and latitude by allowing Mr Callahan to speak beyond the point of his motion.
Interjection.
Mr Jackson: No, no. I think that in the interests of time, we would like to proceed. I would like to call the Chair's attention to the fact that I thought Mr Callahan was straying beyond the scope of his motion and imputing motive, and I think at this point we would like to proceed to finish the bill. At the conclusion of the bill is an appropriate time, when the bill is finally before us, to then impute any degree of motive.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Jackson.
Mr Callahan: Mr Chair, I appreciate my friend's comments but I would like you to show me the rule -- unless they've changed since when I chaired committees, there is no rule. I can speak for ever, if I want, unless you invoke closure. I'm not going to, though.
The Chair: I was listening to you very attentively and I thought perhaps you might want to draw your comments to a conclusion now.
Mr Callahan: Okay. The conclusion is that if you people over there have been given your marching orders by the Minister of Housing --
Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Hansard will not record "you people over there."
Mr Callahan: I'm sorry.
Mr Jackson: That is a slight to all members. I'd ask Mr Callahan to understand the decorum that's required of us. "You people over there" needs some explanation.
Mr Callahan: Thank you very much. I will rectify that. You people over there, the New Democratic Party government, the government that was elected to help the little guy and the people of this province, you will in fact have fallen down totally in your responsibility to the people of this province by not dealing with one of the most important issues; that's law and order in this province, the drug dealings that are going on, the guns that are there, the safety of tenants.
What you're going to say to them is, "We think the bill that was passed back" -- when was the amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act, this section passed? Probably back in the 1980s. I'm sure it was back in the days when good old Toronto was Toronto the Good and you didn't have the drug problems you have today.
You better take a good look at it. I just want to comment. I find it absolutely objectionable when a member from the NDP government sitting in a committee of this House and being paid to sit here makes a comment as I'm trying to make legitimate arguments and concerns about what I've just said, tells me to take a Valium. That to me shows the cavalier attitude that the New Democratic Party members on this committee have about this bill and about law and order, about justice. They don't care. They've got their own agenda.
Mr Jackson: You did raise mental health issues and --
Interjections.
Mr Jackson: I thought that remark was in order.
Interjection: That's what we just heard.
The Chair: A little order, please. It's just getting out of hand a bit, if you don't mind.
Mr Winninger: I appreciate Mr Jackson's remarks about saving our substantive remarks until the bill is fully before us. I just wanted to comment that that's one of the most opportunistic speeches I've ever heard Mr Callahan give. To suggest that this government is not approaching this in a non-partisan manner --
Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I take exception to that. You're imputing motives to me. You don't really know.
Mr Jackson: Jeez, what the hell were you doing to them?
Mr Callahan: This may be a great political game for the rest of you, but I think the people of the province of Ontario deserve a lot more than comments like that and comments by others saying, "Save your remarks until after the bill's been defeated." What good does that do?
Mr Winninger: I said at the beginning that it was the position of this government that we acknowledge and we recognize that there is a problem with drugs and drug trafficking, but this is not the bill that can deal with that. That's why I state that Mr Callahan's remarks were totally unwarranted. In fact the overwhelming evidence that we heard over the last three days was strongly opposed to the bill itself. Even the one studied response --
Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: You have a motion on the floor. You've been given a lot of latitude in this committee.
Interjection.
Mr Jackson: There's a motion on the floor. That does guide you, does it not, Mr Chair?
The Chair: It does. Thank you, Mr Jackson. We have allowed flexibility as to the number of speakers, as we often do, and we often object to things that we don't like when other members do something differently. But if you just focus on the amendments, it would be easier. Yes, at the end, when we can debate the whole section, people can make more general comments. Just to be helpful, can you focus on the amendment, please?
Mr Winninger: I was focusing on the remarks that Mr Callahan made in support of his motion on the amendment.
The Chair: I understand.
Mr Winninger: I can't see why it should be out of order for me to respond, however briefly, to what Mr Callahan said before we conduct a vote. How is that out of order?
The Chair: What I'm saying is, yes, many of Mr Callahan's comments were very general in nature as well, so you're responding to those comments. I don't mind that, as briefly as we can, and then focus on the amendment.
Mr Winninger: I was just going to state then, ever so briefly, that one of the only studied responses to Mr Runciman's bill that actually spoke to the bill itself, as opposed to the drug problem that we have out there, was Henry Verschuren of Greenwin Property Management. What he wanted to do was rewrite Mr Runciman's bill so it would reflect the Landlord and Tenant Act. That's why I suggested Mr Runciman's bill was unnecessary.
1100
Similarly, in this motion Mr Callahan wants to add an amendment that would do what provincial court judges and federal court judges already have the right to do, that is, when sentencing, to make an order restraining people from association, restraining them from going to certain premises. Just a couple of days ago, I read an order on sentencing that restrained a child molester from even going near a playground for the next 10 years, from associating with children under the age of 16 for the next 10 years. They have wide-ranging, far-reaching powers.
For Mr Callahan to come along and refer to a case that was brought to his attention and say, "This is why we need an amendment to subsection 1(2)," is totally unnecessary, unwarranted and, I repeat, opportunistic.
Mr Runciman: I will save my comments until the end of the debate when we're dealing with the bill as a whole.
With respect to what Mr Winninger just said about Greenwin Property Management, I think he's distorting what the witness said. Certainly he made a number of recommendations in terms of amendments which would in his view improve the bill. Mr Winninger mentions that in defence of his position, but then says that the bill is not necessary.
Someone simply reading this may draw from that that this was the view of Greenwin Property Management as well, and of course it was not. They indicated that they felt the legislation was extremely important and should proceed, perhaps with a number of amendments and changes. I guess I'd be looking to the government. If indeed they share the view of Greenwin on one hand, does that mean they're prepared to support the legislation as amended and suggested by Greenwin Property Management? I think not.
In terms of the particular amendment we have before us, I appreciate Mr Callahan's observations and I also appreciate his concerns about the legislation, but I too have great difficulty with the idea of restraining orders as an option to what we're suggesting in this legislation. For a number of reasons, I don't think that restraining orders are terribly successful. We have all sorts of instances of that to indicate that's indeed the case.
His comments seem to be based on a legal opinion from a witness who was hostile towards the intent and purpose of the bill. As I said, I simply don't think restraining orders protect, especially women and children. I simply have to remind him of the testimony of Mr Hood yesterday, talking about people who are rapists etc living in the same apartment building, and restraining orders simply don't work.
When I brought forward this legislation, I felt we could amend it and send it back to the House for third reading. The government would have to deal with it then. If there were concerns about the constitutionality or concerns about other areas, at least the government perhaps then could be compelled to deal with this, perhaps bring in its own amendments to address those shortcomings if it felt it was necessary and deal in a meaningful way with this problem. Apparently that isn't going to occur.
Again, I simply want to say I understand what Mr Callahan's doing, what he's trying to address, but I don't think this is the answer. I think we simply have to continue to move towards speedy eviction of these people if we want in any way, shape or form to help innocent tenants.
Mr Callahan: I just want to respond to your comment, Mr Runciman, about the ineffectual nature of restraining orders. If in fact there is a restraining order, there's an amendment that I am also going to be moving that would make it an offence, subject to a fine of up to $10,000 or two years' imprisonment or both, if you were to breach the restraining order. What I suggest it does do is give the tenant living next door who sees the person back around the premises the right to call the police, and the police, armed with that order, can come and arrest the person.
What you've got on an eviction is the possibility, as we heard, of all the family being thrown out. We've heard also that it can be selectively done so that only the offender is thrown out. Let's say only the offender is thrown out and he comes back into the apartment. How do you get him out? They can hide him in the closet, they can tuck him away somewhere and it really becomes very difficult for the police to very effectively and quickly deal with it. I suggest a restraining order at least gives them the opportunity of being turned in by a neighbour or even being turned in by the wife if she doesn't want the drug trafficker back in her house with her kids.
The Chair: I think we're ready for the vote on this matter. Do you want a recorded vote?
Mr Callahan: Yes, please.
The Chair: Okay, on a recorded vote.
Mr Callahan: Just a second. I'm not going to ask for the 20 minutes that I'm entitled to, but I'm going to ask to go around the corner here.
The Chair: Okay? On a recorded vote, all in favour of the Liberal amendment?
Ayes
Callahan, Curling, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt).
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Cooper, Duignan, Jackson, Jamison, Malkowski, Murdock (Sudbury), Runciman, Winninger.
The Chair: Okay. That is defeated. Mr Runciman, we'll go back to your amendment. We've stood that down. We could come back. Let's proceed and then we'll come back to the others that we stood down, all right? Subsection 1(3), PC motion.
Mr Runciman: I move that subsection 1(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(3) The application shall be heard immediately following conviction and sentencing."
The Chair: Do you want to speak to that?
Mr Runciman: I'm providing this amendment change to make it clear that the application to terminate the tenancy must be heard as soon after the sentencing as possible, although it's not intended to be part of the sentence.
Mr Callahan: I would like to support this, except that now we're still talking about the matter of eviction -- and I understand the reason Mr Runciman wants to deal with eviction. The difficulty we have is that, as we heard, only 20% of the cases are up in the General Division and you're stuck with the General Division court. I can't support the bill at this point because what I'm doing is simply overloading the General Division court, which is already overloaded, and only dealing with 20% of the cases. I just don't see there's any benefit at this point.
It's with regret, because I think that, as my comments earlier indicated on behalf of myself and my colleagues in our party, we are totally committed to the question of preserving law and order and dealing with the very serious drug problem we have in this province. I can't support the bill now that it's limited itself to just 20% of the cases. I don't think it would be the effective tool that was being asked for by the drug enforcement officers.
Mr Runciman: A couple of points: That 20%, as the police officer said -- and Mr Callahan was speaking supportively of the police officer's testimony earlier today -- tend to be the most serious felons, if you will, who are appearing before that court. I would think that 20%, even if it is only 20% -- and we're dealing with the most serious offenders -- by and of itself should be enough to encourage Mr Callahan and his Liberal colleagues to support the amendment.
I was also advised, and perhaps counsel may want to comment on this -- I'm not sure if this is accurate or not. Even though a decision was made in another court, in terms of the other 80% that we're talking about, the crown could simply walk over to the General Division court and have an order issued.
It's certainly not that easy to do that sort of thing, but I've had lawyers indicate to me that is not a major problem, they could still deal with it that way. Simply, you get your conviction in the provincial court, the crown walks it over to General Division and gets an order with respect to an eviction.
Mr Winninger: I stated earlier my own views. I know Mr Callahan and I disagree on the proportion of the drug charges that are dealt with in a higher court, but he seemed to be coming a little more my way. Now he's up to 80%. Be that as it may, I think it was the evidence of the officer from the drug unit that the majority of offences were dealt with in provincial court. Clearly this amendment will not capture those people.
1110
I've also stated a more fundamental concern about the bill, and that is that you've got a criminal proceeding with a federally constituted court dealing with civil matters involving eviction of individuals and/or their families from units basically under the same language that's used in the Landlord and Tenant Act. I have fundamental difficulties with that concept and I also have, and share, the very practical concerns that Mr Callahan described around the work of the General Division.
We all know that there was a major problem with demands on the courts, and the criminal courts in particular. We have far more charter challenges than we did in past years. These charter cases take a long period of time. As the population grows, so does the incidence of crime.
We have courts that are faced with a deluge of cases, and just when we were through hiring additional judges, additional crown attorneys, additional support staff able to better manage the courts' case load, along comes Mr Runciman to add to their burden with hearings of matters that should rightfully be heard under the Landlord and Tenant Act, under summary proceedings with a burden of proof that rests on a balance of probabilities and all of the other carefully contrived provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act. That in a nutshell is why I'll be opposing this amendment.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Briefly, I have difficulty in accepting that we wouldn't pass a piece of legislation that may be good legislation because the system can't handle it. So I separate the two myself. I appreciate how busy the courts are and what not, but if the issue is that this would be helpful to people trying to deal with drug issues, then I think we have the responsibility for finding the way that the courts are able to deal with it. I appreciate what my colleague was saying and I have a slightly different interpretation on it. I would be focusing on dealing with both those issues.
Mr Callahan: I have to say that after hearing Mr Winninger talk about leaving this -- and the net result is, if this bill doesn't pass, it'll be left under the Landlord and Tenant Act provisions. They're still going to be in the General Division court. You're not increasing anything in the General Division court, and for that reason, having heard the persuasive argument from Mr Winninger, I'm going to support the amendment.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I hope I'm not misinterpreting what Mr Winninger said. I, as one who is extremely concerned about backlogs in courts and the justice system, not for a moment would think that for those who are doing illegal acts that we don't put them through the system to be charged for any illegal act and say, "We have enough in the courts already, so let's not deal with that."
I think Mr Runciman is making the statement that these are acts that should be dealt with and proceeded with. I think the matter of backlog in courts is another matter altogether. I hope I misinterpreted him. I want to go on record that I would not support that kind of a strategy, to say, "Let's not deal with it because there are enough cases through the courts already," and find a more efficient way of dealing --
Mr Winninger: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I only said that there was another place that it can be dealt with by the court, not that it shouldn't be dealt with at all. Okay? I said under the Landlord and Tenant Act proceedings, civil proceedings. So don't misquote me on that.
Mr Curling: I just said I hope I didn't misunderstand you.
The Chair: I think we're ready for the vote.
All in favour of Mr Runciman's motion, on a recorded vote?
Ayes
Callahan, Curling, Jackson, Phillips (ScarboroughAgincourt), Runciman.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Cooper, Duignan, Jamison, Malkowski, Murdock (Sudbury), Winninger.
The Chair: That is defeated.
Subsection (4): Liberal motion.
Mr Callahan: I move that subsection 1(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "terminating the tenancy" at the end and substituting "restraining the person convicted from returning to the premises referred to in subsection (1) until his or her sentence has been served."
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. I think it's self-explanatory.
Mr Jackson: Is this in order, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Okay. Mr Callahan, proceed, please.
Mr Callahan: I think since the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party voted against my amendment to subsection 1(2) of the bill, which would have tried to enlarge the courts to which application can be made on a constitutional argument and also to have provided what I would consider to be a non-attackable constitutional power by the court, namely, the restraining of a person convicted from returning to the premises, it doesn't seem as though much can be said about this, except I would like to go back to Mr Jackson's argument and perhaps the reasons that he and his colleague voted against the amendment.
Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I asked you if this was in order.
The Chair: Yes, it was in order.
Mr Callahan: It is in order.
Mr Jackson: We can go restraining order ad nauseam after it has been defeated? Is that what we're able to do?
The Chair: The opinion that we have here, yes. Would you like an explanation?
Mr Jackson: I know we still have not voted and closed off sections, but the section that deals with whether to terminate, I'm getting into a legal debate here, but at the end of the day, it's not a closed section.
The Chair: Let's allow Ms MacKinnon to comment on that and then we'll have a better view.
Ms Margaret MacKinnon: I think there's a distinction to be made. The motion to amend subsection 1(2) related to a prosecutor's application. This one relates to an application which can be brought directly by the landlord. I don't think the sections necessarily stand or fall together. That's in my view why it's not out of order.
Mr Jackson: So the landlord gets to use this bill at a time of a conviction.
Ms Margaret MacKinnon: In subsection (4) the application would be brought after the conviction.
The Chair: All right, Mr Jackson? Mr Callahan, proceed then please.
Mr Callahan: That's Mr Runciman's original bill, that section. I don't expect to get a reconsideration by the third party, the Conservatives or the NDP in terms of 1(2) so I won't debate it, but I would like to speak to the effectiveness of restraining orders.
They certainly, in my view, are far more effective than would be even the termination of the tenancy unless we're talking about the termination of 100% of the tenancy: everybody goes, wife and kiddies as well as the offender. If you don't do that, I would think that most judges on even an application out of the Landlord and Tenant Act or under this proposed legislation would probably say: "Well, the family are not the guilty ones. The felon is, so we'll only throw out the felon."
In fact what you'd have is them still occupying the premises and still allowing a hole for this creep to go back to, so in my view, the restraining order provides from an evidentiary basis much easier approach to the police. It's kind of like the probation order that says you can't be within 100 metres of somebody's house. All the neighbours have got to do is see you there, and they call up the police and the police come and they cart you away and arrest you.
Whereas if the guy sneaks back into the rat hole or the rabbit hole and is protected there or hidden or threatens his family and his children into not telling the police that he's there, you've accomplished nothing. He's right back there already and he's probably more indignant now than he was when you originally dealt with him. It's like spraying water on a bees' nest. You've got him really upset at this point, and if he's got any guns, he's probably going to use them to deal with the neighbours who turned him in.
The Chair: Could you read that into the record.
Mr Callahan: Yes. The motion?
The Chair: Yes, please.
Mr Callahan: Did I not do that? I thought I did. I did.
The Chair: Was that read into the record?
Mr Callahan: I must be getting long in the tooth.
The Chair: Mr Callahan, kindly read it again.
Mr Callahan: I move that subsection 1(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "terminating the tenancy" at the end and substituting "restraining the person convicted from returning to the premises referred to in subsection (1) until his or her sentence has been served."
1120
I'd just address one further item which perhaps needs explanation. Mr Jackson, I think, when we were talking about it earlier, said, or somebody did, that's not long enough. I would suggest to you that in most cases for trafficking or importing, the sentence is a jail term. In most cases, if the judge is going to exercise his authority to try to keep them from doing this again or keep them away from certain groups or whatever, he's going to put them on probation. A person can be placed on probation for I think up to life in certain cases.
So literally what you've got is that you've given the court the power to keep that person out of the non-profit or the low-income housing, a group we heard from -- is it MT --
The Chair: MTHA.
Mr Callahan: You can eliminate their problem by doing that for ever. It's unfortunate we have to go through these loops to try to get to this result when the best way it could be done would be to eliminate this barrier that seems to exist between provincial and federally appointed courts, and hopefully we'll do that.
Mr Runciman: I just want to reiterate that I think moving to restraining orders as an alternative to speedy eviction is a significant weakening of the legislation. What kind of testimony have we heard in the last two days with respect to the effectiveness of restraining orders? Absolutely none.
I think to try and make a decision in support of what Mr Callahan is suggesting today would not be responsible. I brought in this legislation because of the concerns of many, many tenants across this province with respect to this significant problem, and my view is that we should be passing this legislation and it should be going to the government in terms of calling it for third reading.
If indeed there are problems with constitutionality, problems with a host of other areas, the government can propose amendments and then we can have meaningful hearings, not like this post-haste kind of effort we've had here with two days of hearings, a day of deliberations, suggestions like replacing the speedy eviction with a restraining order. The use of a case example from a hostile witness is justification, perhaps partial justification anyway.
I think it would be totally irresponsible for us to support the amendment at this stage of the game. Again, I appreciate what Mr Callahan is attempting to do, but I think it's wrongheaded.
Mr Winninger: In light of this restraining order popping up again in Mr Callahan's amendment, and now that with the cooperation of the legislative research I've obtained the Criminal Code, I just thought I'd make brief reference to section 737. I know Mr Callahan, who used to do criminal law work, would be familiar with this. This concerns the making of a probation order.
What it says is, "The following conditions shall be deemed to be prescribed in a probation order," and it goes on to talk about keeping the peace, being of good behaviour. It provides for a series of orders that judges can make, abstaining from weapons, alcohol and so on.
Then at the end it has that catch-all section in paragraph (h): "comply with such other reasonable conditions as the court considers desirable for securing the good conduct of the accused and for preventing a repetition by him of the same offence or the commission of other offences."
Then you go to the annotations, and under the heading "Banishment and similar terms," and it refers to a case of R v Pederson, it says: "It was not inappropriate to impose a term of probation on a young accused, with a record for drug offences, that he refrain from entering an area of the city which was notorious for drug trafficking."
It seems to me quite clear that all the authority a judge needs at the General Division level is right here in the Criminal Code. I don't know why we have to have amendments presented. I realize Mr Callahan's motives are probably quite pure and presented in the public interest, but if we already have it clearly stated in the Criminal Code and judges do it every day, why are we bothering about this kind of amendment? That's the answer I need from Mr Callahan.
Mr Jackson: When Mr Callahan shared this motion with me earlier this morning, I indicated to him the point that I felt there currently was in the code an application for restraining orders and, secondly, they don't work very well, and, where possible, they're to restrain them from their victims, not from your own family member.
I think that this committee would need some time to analyse the implications of a law which separates the family, at least with the conservative purpose of our bill. Although it's deemed to be harsh by many people, the family unit is removed and the family unit can be maintained, whereas Mr Callahan's motion separates the family in a more direct way.
It now says that you can't see your wife and child under any circumstances, whether the child's terminally ill or -- conjugal visits are a right that you enjoy in this country; this is denied to you under his. What we're trying to get this committee to focus on --
Interjection.
Mr Jackson: Well, no. You're not suggesting that the restraining order be from the neighbours; you are saying that this is to restrain them --
Mr Callahan: From the premises.
Mr Jackson: -- from their own premises. Their premises is where their wife and children are living.
Mr Callahan: They never go outside?
Mr Jackson: My point simply is that we're trying to get this committee to understand where we're coming from, that there is a victimization. Mr Hood's cogent testimony clearly set out the circumstances where his daughter was multiply raped and restrained illegally. There was a conviction. Those rapists were convicted but still maintained the residence in the apartment unit adjacent to Mr Hood's family and the grandchildren, the victim's children.
That is what we're trying to get at here: A restraining order does not work. I've had experience working with women's shelters in assisting them with victims' rights with respect to restraining orders. They do not work. The onus is now on the victim to report to the police and hope to God, after we heard from Norm Gardner, that we can get a policeman to come to deal with the matter of a restraining order when in fact we're trying to keep our police focused on the dealing of the drugs in the first place.
I accept that he's trying to do this amendment with good intention, but in fact it is not the purpose which we are intending and hoping for the bill, and it's certainly not from the four tenants who were our last deputants yesterday. It is clearly not what they were asking for. They were very clear in saying, and they're on record, that a restraining order won't work.
Mr Callahan: First of all, with reference to my good friend from the New Democratic Party, you read the cases and you'll find that the probation order has to be at least linked in some way with the charge. You might have to go a long way to simply say that, because that's where they peddle drugs from, you can keep them from the house. I would doubt it, but you might be able to.
In any event, I want to go back to Mr Jackson's comment on a restraining order. You're quite right that what I'm trying to do is salvage this bill, because if it isn't salvaged, then the government, even if they've got their marching orders already, will be able to legitimately say, "The reason we struck down your bill is because of the ineffectual application, because it only goes to 20% of the cases in the General Division." They're going to also argue, if you try to put in the provincial court, that it's unconstitutional. Those are the arguments they're going to use. They're bogus, but that's what they're going to use.
The purpose of my amendments is an attempt to try and put this bill at least in order sufficiently that the government cannot, unless it's playing political games and doesn't give one hot damn about the drug problem or the people of this province -- give it at least one chance of being able to be accepted by the government as opposed to giving it ways to get out of it. That's the reason for the restraining order.
Finally, the restraining order, although you may have had experience with them not working, I'm going to tell you they do work. In fact what you do is -- you ask any police officer or crown attorney -- you give them a quick way to be able to send the cops out and pick this person up and stop them from doing what is contrary to the restraining order.
If you don't have that and all you've got is an eviction, as was said by some of the deputants here, all you do is move the problem from a location at one point to another location. It's an odd syndrome, the NIMBY syndrome in drug trafficking, not in my backyard. I don't think that solves anything.
1130
By the restraining order, you have in effect placed some longer-term restrictions, which the public is calling for today, on people who are involving themselves in criminal activities so that the police can keep track of them and can identify them. When a restraining order is made, it's entered on to a computer, on to a CPIC record. The cops have got access to it.
Finally, and I'll shut up, because it's obvious I'm not getting to anybody here, I've had police officers who have tapped in a licence plate number of a car, discovered that the people in the car were on a restraining order and were not supposed to be in a particular locale around kids or whatever, and they arrested the person. If it hadn't been for that restraining order, that person, who was a paedophile, would have had access to the young children who were in that school yard.
I suggest to you that when it comes time to vote for eviction versus restraining order, for all the reasons I've made, I think the restraining order also is a much better remedy. Having said all that, in all likelihood, I am going to support this bill, because I think the government's playing Mickey Mouse games over there. They're going to vote against it, they're not going to support it, and that says a lot. I think it says a lot to the citizens of this province. When it's within their marching orders, within their agenda, then it's okay, but if it's not within their agenda, then the hell with it.
Mr Phillips: The problem I'm facing is I feel like I'm polishing up the car and vacuuming it, but it's going to be towed away to the junkyard. These are good, but I feel I'm torturing myself sitting here. For whatever reasons, and I don't impute motives, the government members have weighed the bill and decided on balance they're going to vote against it. I have no difficulty with that.
Mr Curling: They're following instructions.
Mr Phillips: I've weighed the bill and on balance I'm going to vote in favour of it. I don't mind spending all the time on it, but I feel like I'm vacuuming the car and fixing the rust spots when we know the tow truck is coming to take it to the junkyard anyway. I feel I should be doing other things. I know earlier in the day Mr Runciman suggested it. I don't know whether there's a way. I feel I'm betraying my good colleague here by saying it, because there's lots of good debate we could have. I'm starting to feel a little bit frustrated.
Mr Runciman: Mr Chairman, I'm prepared to go back to my original request that we do move on to the final comments and final vote.
The Chair: Let me call the question on this particular amendment and then see what people feel about the rest.
Mr Callahan: I'd like a recorded vote.
The Chair: All in favour of Mr Callahan's motion?
Ayes
Callahan, Curling, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt).
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Cooper, Duignan, Jackson, Jamison, Malkowski, Murdock (Sudbury), Runciman, Winninger.
The Chair: That is defeated. There is a sense perhaps that we might --
Mr Jackson: No, Mr Chairman. Let's finish this bill and do justice to what our committee has been assigned. That's our position. Mr Phillips's comments were spot on.
The Chair: Very well. We're close to the end. I'd rather we move through the amendments as best we can.
Mr Jackson: Let's finish the bill.
The Chair: Mr Runciman, subsection (6).
Mr Runciman: I move that subsection 1(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Power of court
"(6) The court that hears a prosecutor's or landlord's application under this act may order that the tenancy be terminated and that a writ of possession be issued without further notice."
This is really deleting unnecessary opening words, since in each case the court will be the Ontario Court (General Division). So it's efficient to refer simply to "the court."
The Chair: All in favour of Mr Runciman's motion?
Ayes
Jackson, Runciman.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Callahan, Cooper, Curling, Duignan, Jamison, Malkowski, Murdock (Sudbury), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Winninger.
The Chair: That is defeated.
Mr Callahan: I move that subsection 1(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Power of court
"(6) The sentencing court or the Ontario Court (General Division), as the case may be, may make the restraining order without further notice.
"Offence
"(6.1) A person who contravenes a restraining order is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both."
I presume that this is out of order since -- it's too bad.
The Chair: That's exactly what I was going to do. Since subsection (4) has failed to make direct reference to this, I would rule this out of order.
Subsection (9), Mr Runciman.
Mr Runciman: I move that subsection 1(9) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Landlord and Tenant Act
"(9) Despite subsection 80(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, a tenancy may be terminated by an order under this section or under part IV of that act."
This amendment is to make it clear that the remedy provided under this bill is in addition to the remedy in the Landlord and Tenant Act. The subsection as originally drafted we felt achieved the same result but the amended version is in plainer language. There was some concern about the language.
Mr Callahan: We're going to support this. In fact it's an amendment that we were putting forward, but it was put forward by Mr Runciman first. It makes sense. I think there were some references from the witnesses that there might be the possibility that if this act were to be passed -- ha, ha; I hope that got on to Hansard -- it might in fact preclude the only remedy that's available to landlords now to get drug dealers out of their houses, which is under the Landlord and Tenant Act -- ha, ha. I'm going to support it. It's the same as our motion that we had put forward as well.
The Chair: Further discussion? Do you want a recorded vote? All in favour of this motion?
Ayes
Callahan, Curling, Jackson, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Runciman.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Cooper, Duignan, Jamison, Malkowski, Murdock (Sudbury), Winninger.
The Chair: That is defeated.
Mr Callahan has already indicated that his amendment was similar to the one that we just dealt with, so we'll go back to subsection (1).
Mr Runciman: I move that subsection 1(1) of the bill be amended by inserting after "convicted" in the second line, "in the Ontario Court (General Division)."
We've had considerable discussion on this in respect to the problems related to the jurisdictional questions, so the bill has been amended to provide that it applies only to convictions made in the Ontario Court (General Division). We've talked about the shortcomings of that, but it appears that is necessary.
The Chair: Debate? Seeing none --
Interjection: Recorded vote.
The Chair: On a recorded vote, all in favour of the motion?
Ayes
Callahan, Curling, Jackson, Phillips (ScarboroughAgincourt), Runciman.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Cooper, Duignan, Jamison, Malkowski, Murdock (Sudbury), Winninger.
The Chair: That is defeated.
Mr Runciman, subsection (2).
1140
Mr Runciman: I move that subsection 1(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "sentencing" in the fourth line.
The Chair: Discussion, Mr Runciman?
Mr Runciman: I thought I spoke to this earlier.
Mr Callahan: Recorded vote.
The Chair: That's fine. On a recorded vote then, all in favour of the motion?
Ayes
Callahan, Curling, Jackson, Phillips (ScarboroughAgincourt), Runciman.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Cooper, Duignan, Jamison, Malkowski, Murdock (Sudbury), Winninger.
The Chair: That is defeated.
Now we go back and we'll vote on the section as a whole.
All in favour of section 1?
Mr Callahan: Isn't there an amendment to subsection 1(3)?
The Chair: No.
Mr Callahan: I've got one before me, Mr Runciman moving --
Mr Jackson: That was voted on and defeated.
The Chair: Yes, they were all defeated, Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: Is that right?
The Chair: Yes. All in favour of section 1, on a recorded vote?
Ayes
Callahan, Curling, Jackson, Phillips (ScarboroughAgincourt), Runciman.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Cooper, Duignan, Jamison, Malkowski, Murdock (Sudbury), Winninger.
The Chair: That is defeated.
Section 2: All in favour of section 2? Section 2 and section 3, let's do that at the same time, on a recorded vote.
Mr Runciman: Same vote.
The Chair: Same vote? Same vote as before, very well. Okay, that is defeated.
Shall the bill carry? The bill does not carry.
I'll just read the final words into the record. Ordered, that the Chair report to the House that Bill 20, An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords, and the French part, not be reported.
Mr Runciman: On a point of order --
Mr Jackson: We haven't had -- I'm sorry, Mr Chair --
Mr Runciman: Let's get an understanding here.
Mr Jackson: You moved very quickly. We would like a vote on the bill, as amended.
The Chair: We did "Shall the bill carry?" There were no amendments passed.
Mr Jackson: We had asked for recorded votes from here on in. I thought you were calling for the recorded vote as opposed to the verbal, and that caught me off guard.
The Chair: Very well. Okay, we'll go back to it.
Shall the bill carry, on a recorded vote?
Ayes
Callahan, Curling, Jackson, Phillips (ScarboroughAgincourt), Runciman.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Cooper, Duignan, Jamison, Malkowski, Murdock (Sudbury), Winninger.
The Chair: The bill is defeated.
I'll read this into the record again. Ordered, that the Chair report to the House that Bill 20, An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords, not be reported.
Mr Callahan: No, no. We're going to vote on that too, vote against it.
The Chair: No. We already voted against it. This is just a statement that follows from this bill not passing.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, could I ask the clerk how one deals with the House leaders and the House asking us to take a bill, and where does a committee, or at least one political party, have the right to block a bill from returning?
The reason I ask it if this was a minority government, it would absolutely stymie every bill. My understanding is a bill has to be reported to the House. It can be reported that it was defeated, it can be reported any number of ways but a bill has to be reported.
You couldn't take a major bill from the Liberal government in 1985, under minority government, send it to committee and have the two other political parties gang up on the government of the day. My understanding is that a bill has to be reported.
I don't wish to be complicit in a process which disrupts the directions of the House and I believe we're guided by that. The bill can be reported in any fashion but it must be reported. That was my understanding.
The Chair: And my understanding of the process is that it is reported, but the way it's reported is exactly the way I read it, as I understand it.
Mr Jackson: I did ask the clerk for the clarification for the record.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): The procedure is that the committee report to the House that the bill not be reported.
The Chair: I wish I could be helpful, but that is the only reporting that we make.
Mr Jackson: Where is the precedent in that?
Clerk of the Committee: That's the normal process for bills. Now the wording may not be identical to what I've just said, but that is the general way of the committee reporting back to the House on that happening in the committee.
Mr Jackson: On any bill? Boy, that could have devastating effects on a minority government. I find that hard to believe but I'll accept the position.
Mr Callahan: On a point of clarification: When that goes back to the House, is that debatable in the House?
The Chair: I'm not sure it would be.
Mr Callahan: I'd like that looked into because if it's not debatable in the House, then the net result is that on second reading this bill was passed in principle, referred to a committee, came to a committee, heard extensively from witnesses, time, money and energy were spent, and it sort of disappeared. I find that bizarre.
The Chair: We can check, and if there's something to report, we'll report it to you.
Mr Jackson: May I make a suggestion, Mr Chairman? Could we stand down the issue of reporting to the House until the committee has a chance to get clarification through the Chair? The committee can be reconvened by you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Can I suggest, why don't we recess for a few moments, we'll check to see what can be done and perhaps we can give you an answer. Would you like that?
Mr Callahan: Weren't we going to do our closing arguments? We could do that while we're waiting.
The Chair: I think we did that. Can we recess for a few moments? We'll get to whatever answer is available.
Mr Runciman: No. On a point of order: You said you think we had our closing comments, and I certainly, as author of the bill, said earlier that I wanted an opportunity -- I wasn't going to participate in what was going on. Are you saying now, as the author of the bill, I won't be afforded an opportunity to have some comments?
The Chair: But do you recall -- I'm sorry. When I called for whether the section to be dealt with -- when there's a debate on section 1, that's when you have the debate. If it doesn't pass, you argue as to why you might support it or not support it. Presumably, if you wanted to debate it, that was the time to do so and there wasn't any debate.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Mr Chair, if I might --
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, to be helpful --
The Chair: Hold on. Sharon had her hand up first.
Ms Murdock: My understanding was as Mr Jackson's understanding. Sorry, but my understanding, and in other committees where we've handled bills, they usually do have closing statements at the end. So my understanding was the same as theirs.
The Chair: All right. You both may have that understanding, but the way things go in committee is that if you want to debate, you debate at the end, not once the whole thing is over but rather while the section is being dealt with.
Ms Murdock: I understand what you're saying, yes.
Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We must have had unanimous consent, because that's what I understood the case to be, and I think anybody here, a fairminded person who heard it --
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, could I assist you as a fellow Chair?
The Chair: Absolutely.
Mr Jackson: When you have the motion on the floor as to how to report this item to the House, then there can be discussion on the motion to report to the House.
The Chair: Obviously it wasn't a motion.
Mr Jackson: No, I said "when." Are you saying that the motion to report to the House is not a motion? Is that what the clerk is telling you? Then if it's not --
The Chair: It's a statement I make; it's not a motion.
Mr Jackson: Then if it is simply --
Interjection.
Mr Jackson: I'm sorry, somebody has the floor here. If you are simply reporting to the House, then you have to return the bill to the House and report that it was dealt with.
The Chair: Several things: We were voting on the bill. The opportunity to speak to the bill was at that time when we were discussing the sections or even at, "Shall the bill carry?" You can even have a debate then, at that time.
Mr Jackson: That would have been fine then.
The Chair: In terms of how we now deal with this issue of reporting, which is really what I think you want to deal with, I was suggesting that we wait a few moments to get a sense of what else we might do to be helpful to you, but otherwise we have voted on this.
The ruling of the Chair on these matters is, in terms of the process as I understand it, we report that there be no report. If you'll allow us a few moments, if this is what you want, to see if there's anything we can do to be helpful, then I recommend that as a strategy.
Mr Runciman: Mr Chairman, I have no problem with waiting a few moments but I would like to request that you ask for unanimous consent to allow one representative from each caucus to have up to five minutes to sum up their views in respect to this legislation.
The Chair: Let me just test the floor. Is that something that you want? Mr Duignan?
Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): To solve this issue, I would even move a motion to allow five minutes for each side to wrap up.
Mr Runciman: We don't need a motion if we have unanimous consent.
The Chair: Just to test it, that's fine. We can do that. All right. There is a sense that people from each caucus want to speak up to five minutes then on this matter?
Ms Murdock: Each side, each party up to five minutes.
The Chair: All right. Very well. Mr Runciman, do you want to begin?
Mr Runciman: Well, I think I should close as the mover of the bill.
The Chair: Mr Callahan?
Mr Callahan: Well, our day is over, I'd like to say our work is done. I don't think it is. I think that the vote on this bill throughout by the New Democratic Party members clearly indicates that they never intended even to give consideration to the statements made by the witnesses who came before this committee.
1150
I think that's really unfortunate. The reason I think it's unfortunate is that we heard some very serious statements here about the problems with drugs in Metropolitan Toronto and the other major cities in this province. What we said to them in essence was: "Sorry. You've got a right to do this under the Landlord and Tenant Act, and that's good enough. You can line up behind the people who are trying to throw the tenant out because they had too many cats or the people who didn't pay their rent or the people who caused damage to the property. You can line up behind them and decide that's where you get your remedy." I suggest to you that's exactly what this message is that's sent out to those people who are suffering the dangers of drug dealing and guns and all the rest of it. That's what you've sent to them.
I think what Mr Runciman was trying to do, and what I was trying to do in assisting him, was to at least make by amendments the bill applicable to the totality of the drug problem as opposed to just 20% or whatever it was in the General Division court, and to test the waters to see whether or not you people were genuinely concerned about this issue. The message I get and the message my constituents are going to get and anybody who reads Hansard is going to get is that you people really don't care.
Mr Curling: Namely, the government.
Mr Callahan: That's right. The New Democratic Party government doesn't care. You've got your own agenda. Your own agenda is withdrawing drugs from the formulary so that schizophrenics have to wander the streets and can't get them. Your agenda is the Rae days, where you take money from all the civil servants and put our correctional facilities at risk because the number of officers required aren't there.
You take police officers perhaps off the street to save money. Yet you're prepared to play the charade to come here to hear from witnesses, to waste their time. You're not wasting our time; we're being paid for this. But I find that absolutely the most unconscionable thing for a government that says it's there for the little person, it's there to try to look after the law and order issues. That's a total crock, I have to say, and it's really tragic, because the people who came here, in the main, although some of them may have been a little more sophisticated than others, came here legitimately.
The one drug officer came here and he said, "Jeez, I just got this dropped on my desk at the last minute, but I'm here and I want to tell you what the problems are." What message do we send to that officer? He hears the bill didn't even get supported in one principle by the New Democratic Party government. What message does that send to that officer and to his fellow officers on the street? It says the provincial Legislature, now occupied by Bob Rae and his cabinet ministers and so on, in fact is just playing games.
They're saying, "Sure, Mr Runciman, we'll bring these people here, waste their time." Why didn't we tell these people right at the outset? Why didn't you do it up front? Why didn't you say, "Mr Runciman, you haven't got a prayer of getting this thing through," and send it to each witness? "You can't get it through. Just go home, get out of here. Why should we waste your time?" That's what you did: You wasted their time on a very serious issue.
Now, I know we play politics in this place. Oddly enough, I find it objectionable. I think committees should have a much broader ability to be able to be non-partisan and to be able to do something for the citizens of this province. That's not the way the game is played at the moment because the rules don't allow it.
But I find it really objectionable, on an issue as serious as this, that you would play politics, that you'd allow the Minister of Housing to tell you as duly elected representatives that you cannot vote for one iota of this bill because it's not within the Agenda for People that Bob Rae has for the province of Ontario.
Mr Jackson: Or the court for that matter.
Mr Callahan: Let the drug dealers have a great time. Let the people who live next door to them be in danger for their lives, for their children. That's the message we've sent out. I'll tell you something. You had an opportunity to really come up, in my opinion, before the people of the province by at least taking the initiative to say to the Minister of Housing, "Take a hike." And it has been done.
Mr Winninger: Point of order, Mr Chair.
The Chair: He's got about 30 seconds, Mr Winninger.
Mr Callahan: I guess I'm not allowed to say, "Take a hike," to the Minister of Housing, but I think a lot of people would like to tell her to take a hike.
The Chair: You've got about 30 seconds, 25 seconds.
Mr Callahan: Finally, in the 12 seconds which have already been eaten up by the point of order, I would like to say --
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of order, Mr Chair: You've gone beyond five minutes.
The Chair: I'm just giving him another 20 seconds.
Mr Callahan: I would just like to say in closing that this was one of the areas where I would've thought you would've at least looked at, considered, the amendments that were being put forward by the Liberal caucus to try to make this bill work, and at least said something. You have when you voted against it. That tells me a lot.
The Chair: Mr Runciman.
Ms Murdock: It isn't Mr Runciman.
The Chair: I'm sorry.
Ms Murdock: There are two of us and we're going to split our five minutes.
The Chair: Go ahead, please.
Ms Murdock: I just wanted to make sure that it was on the record that certainly it can be characterized that because we all have voted against this we don't have any concern for the situations that have arisen with drugs, particularly in housing. It can be characterized that way, but I'd like it clearly stated for the record that when this was raised in private members' hour I opposed it then; I oppose it now. I stated yesterday in Hansard that I would be opposing this. I have made no bones about that.
I think the premise that we have come here with is that this wasn't a good bill in the first place. If you operate on that premise, then any amendments to what one considers a bad bill it doesn't make sense to be bothering with. Therefore, I think that was first and foremost.
I would like to say, though, that the reasons why I am opposed to this bill, and I have made three points: One, initially and still, that other family members are possibly affected; that the existing landlord and tenant law allows earlier conviction even than this bill would allow; and that a lesser standard would be followed.
The overlap in jurisdictions, in my view, is a problem. It has been stated here by members of the other parties. The potential to stay this in the lower court process pending a decision from the criminal court is there, and I think this is a real problem.
Yes, it is true that we've heard quite serious statements from a number of people, but we've also heard a number of presentations that stated they didn't like the bill but, if the bill was going to pass, they would make these recommendations, and I think that's important too, that we did listen to people who did make presentations here and not, as Mr Callahan said, waste their time.
Mr Winninger: Naturally, I endorse the learned submissions of my colleague from Sudbury. In addition, I'd like to say this. We all know that Mr Runciman or at least I feel that Mr Runciman brought forward this bill to make a statement, and I think in principle a number of our members agreed with that statement, some of whom voted in favour of the bill and some not. The principle is that we need to deal strictly with people who traffic in drugs. Whether it's at MTHA or another housing authority or in private residential apartment complexes, we need to deal strictly with these people.
Unfortunately, this bill is not the tool to achieve that principle with. Many, many criticisms were levelled at this legislation. Many of the tenant advocacy groups suggested it was discriminatory in that it dealt harshly with tenants by depriving them of their homes while at the same time completely ignoring the situation of all drug dealers who may own their own property rather than as tenants.
Secondly, it didn't differentiate between the offender and family members and other co-tenants of the offender. They too would be evicted from their homes.
Thirdly, it was argued that the object of the bill is futile in that it simply moves the offender from one apartment building to another. We had the evidence of Mr Verschuren of Greenwin Property Management that in one case they evicted a tenant for an illegal act, that tenant then moved in on the other side of the street into another building and just continued with the same kind of illegal acts.
Quite clearly the objectives of the bill are not achieved even in the minds of the few presenters who came and supported what Mr Runciman was trying to do. But we listened very carefully through these hearings to the overwhelming number of presenters who opposed this bill. I might just come back to one of the very first, Kenneth Hale of the Tenant Advocacy Group, who said this bill was unconstitutional, unnecessary and unconscionable.
1200
Later on we also heard from Ray Kuszelewski whose whole practice of law is devoted to these kinds of landlord and tenant matters. He said, speaking on behalf of Parkdale Community Legal Services, which has a very long and distinguished history in representing people in landlord and tenant matters:
"It is our position that the bill is, in and of itself, unconstitutional both in its purpose and scope. It is unfair in targeting tenants. It has no proven redeeming social value in its purpose or effect. It is vague.
"Simply, among other things, it creates an added punishment for a criminal offence which clearly lies outside the bounds of provincial jurisdiction."
We've got a Criminal Code that can deal with offenders that can prevent them from going back to the neighbourhoods where they perpetrated their crimes, including trafficking in drugs. We've got a Landlord and Tenant Act designed in a summary way to evict people for any number of illegal acts from the premises.
I come back to my original point. This was initiated as a political statement, went a little further than I think Mr Runciman expected, and I don't think he's at all surprised that the government, both on principle and on the basis of all the evidence it has heard over the last few days, would vote against it and defeat it.
Mr Runciman: Mr Winninger said a couple of times that I was surprised on second reading that the bill passed, and that's not really true. I had no preconceived notions. I knew there was a major concern, especially among Metro people. I know that Mr Mammoliti has mentioned it to me. It's interesting the only NDP representative here from Metro is Mr Malkowski. The rest do not represent Metro where this is a significant problem.
I find it astonishing that Mr Winninger would use as justification for his caucus's position today the testimony that we heard. He said an overwhelming number of presenters were opposed to this. I don't think anyone would categorize the appearance as overwhelming in terms of opposition, and those people, it was clearly indicated yesterday, were misleading a standing committee of the Legislature. They were what I would call distorters of the truth.
He mentioned a number of them. The Parkdale representative said there were no significant problems with drugs in the Parkdale area. We heard from a police detective sergeant it is one of the major focus areas for the police in Metro Toronto. It is a significant illicit drug area.
He also said the MTHA was working well in terms of speedy evictions. We heard tenants, we heard a past chair of the MTHA say that was a complete falsehood. They were misleading this committee with that kind of testimony.
We had a representative of the Bathurst Quay tenants, supposedly representing tenants, saying no problem with drug dealers in the 51 Division. Again it was pointed out that was a complete and utter fabrication presented as testimony before this committee.
Mr Winninger has the unmitigated gall to use that kind of testimony as justification for a position taken by the NDP. We've heard those same people say that in dealing with drug dealers, this was cruel and unusual punishment, a lot of sympathy. Double jeopardy, Mr Winninger said. This is double jeopardy for those poor folks who are out there as purveyors of drugs in our society. A violation of their rights, we heard from others.
It was suggested we take landlords to court or that we have tenant meetings to talk to these drug dealers. Those were the kinds of suggestions being made here by those so-called credible witnesses who, I reiterate, misled a standing committee. They distorted the truth, and if there were some way we could take action against them, I would recommend that it be taken.
What they're talking about is supporting these merchants of death and disease and not doing anything to support tenants. We even heard testimony of the tenant associations being infiltrated by drug dealers. We heard from the tenants, the people who are out there on the front lines who have to live with this day by day, that the lobbies are being taken over. They feel like they're locked in a prison. We heard the detective sergeant talk about all the instances. In fact, in one high-rise, he told me earlier that an explosion occurred when drugs were being mixed and it's just fortunate there weren't major casualties -- those kinds of things.
We heard a man telling us about his wife dying in his arms as a result of a drug dealer coming into their home. We heard about his daughter being raped and held hostage for four days and then attempting suicide by setting herself on fire as a result of what happened with drug dealers in his apartment building.
Mr Winninger talks about phony witnesses appearing here as his justification for the government's view. Well, we've heard from the mayor of Metropolitan Toronto. I circulated a letter today from the mayor of Metro Toronto, who says what a serious problem it is supporting this kind of legislation. We've heard from a member of the police commission. We've heard from a past chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority. We've heard from another board member. We've heard of tenants who have to live with this on a daily basis. What we're talking about here is victims.
I admitted at the outset that this legislation was not perfect, but I did hope that we could pass this through so that the government would then be in a position to make amendments, to make changes, because this is a very serious problem, and you shouldn't be suggesting by phony testimony that it isn't. You had an opportunity here, which you've now cast aside, to recognize the problem. What we're talking about here is victims and victims' rights. In the past, we've had victims' rights legislation introduced by Cam Jackson and defeated by both the Liberals and the NDP.
We have an opportunity here to send out a message, and the message we're sending out is pretty discouraging. We're prepared to subsidize drug dealers in public housing through taxpayers' money. We don't have enough money for policing, but we have money apparently to subsidize these drug dealers to operate out of public housing.
I think this is a sad day. I don't think we had to get into political arguments. I admitted there were weaknesses in this legislation, that opposition members don't have the resources that government has. If we had dealt with this, amended it as best we could in the limited time we had and then passed it on, the government could have drawn upon its wide array of resources. We could have had full hearings. We could have talked about the things Mr Callahan has suggested, the implications, and looked at them closely. We could have done all sorts of things in respect of the constitutional questions and the jurisdictional questions, but no.
They came here with marching orders to defeat this legislation. We had some of the phony witnesses appearing before us expressing frustration that they had to appear before us. It was clear from the theme of all of their presentations that they also had their marching orders and that they had a political message to deliver here and in fact mislead the public and this committee.
I'm very disappointed that once again the standing committee has fallen victim to politics, and the public, victims and tenants in this province will suffer as a result.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, this is not on the debate. I have a legal issue to raise that flowed from one of the deputants. For the record, I've sought legal counsel and I wish to put a matter on the record for this committee.
During the course of the hearings on this bill, I asked several legal aid clinics what advice they gave to tenants who found that they were being victimized by criminal conduct. Two of the deputants, and Hansard will bear this out, indicated they had referred the matters to the police. It's a matter of concern to me that when I asked Raymond Kuszelewski from the Parkdale Community Legal Services, he indicated that he did not in those circumstances.
The Chair: He did.
Mr Jackson: No. I was quite clear in my cross-examination of this witness. I would ask, Mr Chairman, if you would examine the Hansard and contact the Attorney General. I consider this a serious matter. As a member of the justice committee today, for the purposes of this bill, I would have concern that a legal aid clinic purports, on the basis of the response to that one question, not to treat matters of a Criminal Code nature by referring them to the police.
I believe the matter should be brought to the attention of the Attorney General. I believe I would be negligent in my responsibilities as a legislator if I did not bring that directly to the attention of the Attorney General, whether she funds this clinic or not. I have concerns about the nature of that response. I believe it deserves further examination and I would ask the Chair to do that. I don't believe it requires a motion.
The Chair: I'll look at the record. I'll look at Hansard and see what action can or needs to be taken.
Mr Jackson: Thank you.
Clerk of the Committee: Just as a follow-up to that earlier question, as I stated, the committee will report that the bill not be reported to the House. The question will be put in the House, if it is the wish of the House to receive and adopt the report. So there will be an opportunity in the House to either approve or not approve the committee report that the bill not be reported.
Mr Callahan: Any debate?
Clerk of the Committee: We'll have to check some precedents on that question, because nothing comes to mind right now.
Mr Jackson: I know the answer to that one. I've seen my motion blocking from here.
The Chair: We're trying to check that.
Clerk of the Committee: We would need more time. We can do that today.
The Chair: If there's anything, we can report to you individually. We can let you know.
Mr Callahan: Finally, I wanted to thank all of the staff, but most specifically Margaret MacKinnon. I had her burn the midnight oil last night to do these amendments at the very last moment. I think we should thank our staff. We don't do that often enough.
Just one final item. Mr Jackson said that the government had a wide array of services. Was that a play on words?
The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1212.