CONTENTS
Monday 9 September 1996
Rent control
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président: Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
*Mr JackCarroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
*Mr HarryDanford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr BernardGrandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
*Mr ErnieHardeman (Oxford PC)
*Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
*Mr BartMaves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mrs SandraPupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
*Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
*Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)
*Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
*Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Ms IsabelBassett (St Andrew-St Patrick PC) for Mrs Ross
Mr AlvinCurling (Scarborough North / -Nord L) for Mrs Pupatello
Mr GerardKennedy (York South / -Sud L) for Mr Grandmaître
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)for Mr Tascona
Mr BruceSmith (Middlesex PC) for Mr Flaherty
Mr WayneWettlaufer (Kitchener PC) for Mr Young
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel: Ms Elaine Campbell, Mr Jerry Richmond, research officers,
Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1007 in room 228.
RENT CONTROL
The Chair (Mr Jack Carroll): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Monday morning at the standing committee on general government. We are gathered this morning to discuss preparation of our report to the minister. For most of us, this is a fairly new process, so we're playing it a little bit by ear. What we've decided to do is to allow the researchers to give us some input about what they have gleaned over the three weeks and give us some choices about different approaches we can take as far as a report goes. Then we will have a discussion about what we feel is best as a committee.
Jerry and Elaine, I think I'll turn it over to you to get us started. I think probably you would prefer that we listen to your presentation and then ask questions at the end? I won't put any specific time limit on you.
Ms Elaine Campbell: Thank you. We appreciate that.
Mr Jerry Richmond: We're the final witnesses.
Ms Campbell: As the Chair has indicated, Jerry and I are going to be making a joint presentation this morning. I'll begin by walking you through this summary that was distributed last week in London. It has the number F 358.3 on it. I'm hoping there will be some copies of it available in the immediate future if you don't have a copy of it with you right now. The next summary will be available for the end of the week. I apologize for any delay in getting a further copy out to you; our computer system's memories became a little oversaturated with information last week and we had to deal with the problem by splitting it into three parts. It gave us the opportunity to spend some time thinking about possible reorganization of the summary, and I'll be speaking to that reorganization during my presentation. The final summary will contain the reorganized and some additional material.
What I'm going to be doing this morning is taking you through the introduction and each of the themes and bringing to your attention those items that generated the greatest number of responses. You should note that some of the proposals put forward in the tenant protection package received nothing in the way of a response. You may wish to remember some of the points that I'll be raising during my walk through when you have your discussion with Jerry about the proposed outline for the paper.
I'd like to make some general comments before starting. The open-ended nature of the proposals contained in the tenant protection package resulted in a wide range of comments that went from the very focused -- for example, "We agree," or, "We do not agree because..." -- to those that used the proposals as a segue into a related issue. Not surprisingly, some of the proposal responses contained comments that could also be assigned to the questions asked in the little boxes that appeared at the end of each theme, "Other Issues for Discussion." Many more seemed to be content with responding in a general way rather than specifically. We attempted to assign the comments as appropriately as we could. Our reorganization will result in some of the comments that appear under specific themes in the major portion of this summary being moved to the miscellaneous section.
The introduction is found on page 1 of the summary document, and there is reference in there to the italicized text that appears throughout the summary document. The final summary will include all of the headings and explanatory notes for the proposals and questions put forward in the tenant protection package. As I've already told you, some of them didn't generate a response, so they don't appear in the summary documents you've received so far.
The first theme in the tenant protection package is "Goals for a New Tenant Protection System." You'll notice that it hasn't appeared in any of the summaries you have received up to this point in time. The final summary will contain reference to the fact that the submissions commented on this theme but in the context of other themes; hence the lack of any comments.
The first theme that generated comments was entitled "Protection from Unfair Rent Increases." This section, of course, deals with the future of rent control. I don't think there were any proposals or questions asked under "Other Issues for Discussion" that didn't generate at least one response. The new base rent issue, or vacancy decontrol, as some referred to it, probably generated the greatest number of responses. We're trying to look at ways to compact those so that we can have them more narrowly focused in terms of responses. The prospect of what was referred to as vacancy decontrol had tenants and their supporters concerned about issues such as the future of affordable housing and tenant mobility. Landlords and their supporters often felt that decontrol wasn't enough to allow rents to go to market levels.
Negotiating rents was an issue that was raised by both sides. This section will be reorganized and, as I've said earlier, some of the comments may end up in the miscellaneous section. Others to bring to your attention, and that Jerry might be discussing, include the elimination of the rent registry and the freezing of maximum rents. These were actually discussed in the same proposal. Rent reduction abatement and capital expenditure cap were two proposals that also generated a large number of responses.
The next theme is "Maintenance." That begins on page 21 of the latest summary.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Excuse me for a second. Is Ms Campbell reading from a paper that we can follow, or is it not the case?
The Chair: I'm sure you're referring to the summary that was distributed last week.
Ms Campbell: There are additional copies being made right now.
The Chair: Has everyone got a copy of the summary that was distributed last week?
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I've got it, but I haven't got it here.
The Chair: I'm sure that's what you're referring to, isn't it?
Ms Campbell: Yes.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): I'm getting copies, but it's going to take a long time because it's a long document. It was handed out last week.
Ms Campbell: I'll get back to the maintenance theme. It was closely tied to the previous theme dealing with the issue of rent control. There were matters of concern to all types of witnesses under this particular theme. Empowering property standards officers, orders prohibiting rent increases and owner notification were probably among the most popular. There seemed to be a lot of concerns about the future role of municipalities that could be applied to more than one proposal, and the same situation existed with the issue of owner notification.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): May I just ask for some guidance here, because I know research is going through these in detail. I just wondered if we could have a moment to get this summary of comments that they had submitted to us now. I may have some in my office. It would be very helpful in responding, how we direct the staff to write the report. I just don't have it with me here, that report. I think it's in my office. It would be very helpful if we have a small adjournment, five minutes or so, just to get this.
The Chair: How many people don't have a copy of the summary?
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I have it, but it's not with me.
Mr Curling: Same thing with me.
Mr Sergio: We all got it, but we didn't bring it.
Mr Marchese: He's asking for a brief recess for him to go pick up his and for other members to pick up theirs.
The Chair: How far do you have to go to get it?
Mr Danford: I'm sure I left mine in my apartment, which isn't very far.
The Chair: We are getting them copied. Do you see any benefit, Elaine, in going on without the members having it or do you think we should stop and wait until we get copies?
Ms Campbell: I could go through it and if they feel there's a need for any greater discussion or any questions about the summary in particular, perhaps we could answer them when the additional copies are here. People could make notes.
Mr Curling: Why I think it is helpful is that as she goes through that it refreshes my memory and I could make notes of what I also did hear and also about notes they did make.
Mr Sergio: Are we getting copies?
Clerk of the Committee: It's being copied; probably about 10 minutes or so.
Mr Curling: Okay, we can proceed.
The Chair: Is everybody comfortable to proceed? Yes, I guess if they just talk slowly.
Ms Campbell: I'll try to do that. Perhaps I'll go back to "Maintenance," which appears on page 21 of the summary document. As I said, it was closely tied to the previous theme, "Protection from Unfair Rent Increases." There were matters of concern to all types of witnesses under this particular theme heading. Those that probably generated the greatest amount of comment dealt with empowering property standards officers, orders prohibiting rent increases and the issue of owner notification.
The concerns that witnesses had about the role of municipalities in terms of enforcing property standards and those dealing with the issue of owner notification could very reasonably apply to more than one proposal, as presented in the tenant protection package.
The next theme was "The Landlord and Tenant Act." As you'll see when you get a copy of the summary, there were a great number of general comments, and some of these might be more appropriately assigned to a miscellaneous section in the final summary.
In terms of specific proposals, the issues that probably generated the greatest amount of comment dealt with notice periods and tenancy terminations, sublets and assignments of lease, and interest on last month's rent. But in terms of actual numbers of witnesses who responded to a particular proposal, those falling under the heading "Harassment" probably generated the greatest number of witness comments. The harassment section included the proposed creation of an enforcement unit, maximum fines for harassment and I think -- I'm just refreshing my memory here -- other possible recourse in terms of penalties.
The "Dispute Resolution System," which begins on page 44, was probably the theme that was the most difficult to deal with, and this was probably due to two factors: first, that the ministry hasn't yet developed a proposal for the new system and, second, the technical or specialized nature of the issues being discussed. The tenant protection package does, however, state that the government's wish is to create a system that is independent of the courts. This alone generated a tremendous response.
There was also a great deal of overlap under this theme and a number of general responses to each of the proposals. Witnesses seemed to hesitate when it came to specifics, except in the case of order-in-council appointments. Here these types of appointments seem to be favoured over public tender and competition. The questions that were asked under the heading "Other Issues for Discussion" were probably covered more often in the responses to the proposals. There seemed to be a rather jagged flow from one to the other and people seemed to throw all their responses under the proposal as opposed to the specific questions that were asked.
The theme "Security of Tenure and Conversions" starts on page 64, and it deals with the future of the Rental Housing Protection Act. Many witnesses had general comments to make supporting repeal of the legislation or keeping it as it is. With respect to proposals, the one dealing with municipal approval for demolitions, major renovations and conversions generated the greatest number of pro, con and qualified responses. Issues for discussion such as options for extended tenure, tenant approval and alternatives to extended tenure were also concerns.
Moving on to "Care Homes," which begins on page 72, because of the narrow focus of this particular theme fewer individuals and groups responded to the number of proposals that were presented there. Those who did had a great deal to say about such things as written tenancy agreements, information packages, notice of termination, and each of the headings under the proposed rights of operators. These included consent with respect to bed checks, transferring to alternative facilities, fast-track evictions and the right to convert.
1020
"Mobile Home Parks and Land-Lease Communities" appear on page 83. At this point in time, the greatest number of comments seem to be concentrated in the areas of rent control, cost pass-through allowance, abandoned homes and security of tenure. This may change as we input more of the responses from the witnesses from this particular interest group. Many of the people who spoke with respect to issues related to mobile home parks and land-lease communities did not have briefs so we've had to wait for the Hansard to be generated to input some of their responses.
The last section of the summary is entitled "Miscellaneous Witness Recommendations." It is often the case with the summary documents we've prepared that the miscellaneous sections take on lives of their own. This particular summary was no exception. The summary that you will be receiving by the end of the week will not be organized in the same manner as its predecessors. We decided we would move things around so that the headings in this particular section would correspond to the themes that were presented in the major part of the document. There will be some exceptions, though. We will retain sections dealing with general comments supporting and opposing the tenant protection package as well as other comments of a more general nature but still related to the tenant protection package, and an ever-popular "Other" section at the end.
With respect to the subheadings, the "Other Comments" section will include subheadings dealing with hearings and consultations on the tenant protection package and proposals that will not motivate new rental housing.
The section dealing with the Rent Control Act has subheadings dealing with issues related to the phasing out of rent control, the impact of rent control, chronically depressed rents and capital reserve funds. With respect to capital reserve funds, there may be some comments appearing in the capital expenditure cap proposal under the theme "Protection from Unfair Rent Increases." There will be some included in that section, but they have made specific reference to the cap. Those that dealt with the reserve fund in a more general way will be included in the "Miscellaneous" section.
A heading under the theme of "Maintenance" will be "Building Inspections and Standards."
The Landlord and Tenant Act generated by far the greatest number of miscellaneous comments, and in this section we'll be making specific reference to amendments to the legislation: such issues as forms, information and education, deposits, payment of rent.
There will be a section on dispute resolution, security of tenure and conversions, care homes and then the mobile home parks/land-lease communities. There seemed to be a lot of general comments on what witnesses perceived as the need for separate legislation due to what they consider to be the uniqueness of their particular situation, the fact that they owned their own dwelling but rented the land on which it stood and paid fees for maintenance.
Our "Other" section will deal with such issues as assessment/taxation of rental housing, housing policy and programs, shelter allowances and a guaranteed income supplement. Some of these issues Jerry will be questioning you about in his discussion of the proposed outline for the paper.
If you don't have any questions, perhaps the best thing to do at this point would be to turn it over to Jerry and he could pick up on some of the points I raised.
The Chair: The document you're going to go through, Jerry, is this one? Everyone has a copy of it?
Mr Richmond: Yes, I handed it out, Mr Chairman. It's entitled Briefing Notes for Draft Tenant Protection Package Report. We've used the acronym TPP. It's not STP or anything like that; it's tenant protection package.
Thank you very much. It's a great honour to be the last witnesses. I just did a quick tally. This is my fifth set of rent control hearings; I won't say over how many years. The hearings, though, did involve all three parties.
Mr Marchese: A lot of history there.
Mr Richmond: In the briefing notes, what I tried to do is to encapsulate some of the major issues. I'll be walking you through them to give the committee some guidance towards a report, and I'll be making some remarks a bit later. I think Elaine and I were relying upon our experience with many committees in the past that reviewed a whole variety of issues. Those committees tabled reports in the Legislature, and I can think of some of the issues. They ranged from Ontario Hydro to a housing one where we did a review in 1980 with the justice committee of the Ontario Housing Corp. Workers' compensation -- there's a whole gamut.
Let me just walk you through these briefing notes. I would suggest, just as a few key background documents -- I know we've been buried in paper. I presume you should be able to dig out the tenant protection document. I have one extra copy, but that's the key. Another document, if questions should come up about the history of rent control in Ontario, I think before the hearings began we distributed a current issue paper that actually reviewed rent control all across the country. We get royalties on this, so I'm just flogging our -- but it is a useful summary, because we have been deluged with paper. So I'll just draw those key documents. I use them myself. I don't have a vested interest here.
Let me just walk you through the discussion notes. I'll read them, highlight them. If you have questions, I'm certainly willing to deal with them as we go, but it's probably better to deal with them at the end when you've heard the entire package.
The briefing notes reflect the major themes of the TPP and the public input we've received over the last three weeks of public hearings across the province. These, as Elaine went through for you, are documented in the summary. As she indicated, an updated summary will be prepared that reflects all the submissions and presentations.
The TPP matters in these briefing notes have been ordered and grouped according to major themes and also to reflect the degree of interest that was raised during the public hearings. Just to give you some sense of what we've done here, I've tried to group these things under five major headings. I think these will become evident, but let me just share those with you.
When we get into this document, I've grouped all the concerns, or the major ones, under the rent control system itself. So that's the first one. That's the key.
The next major section -- I can refer you to the pages, but I'm going to be running through these; maybe it's just best to listen, but it happens to be on page 4 -- is "Security of Tenure and Conversions," and that of course relates to the proposal to repeal the Rental Housing Protection Act.
The next major section appears at the top of page 6. In this section I really grouped all the legal, administrative and enforcement matters, so the Landlord and Tenant Act and all the various dispute, maintenance and harassment types of things where you're enforcing landlord-tenant matters have all been grouped.
The next major section, on page 8, deals with the two special types of housing: care homes and mobile home parks/land-lease communities. So those are grouped.
Finally, on page 10, you've got a selection of miscellaneous matters.
So you've really got five major sections. I felt this had to be done because there's such a multitude of points in the TPP document that even for myself I had to group them to try to make sense of them. That's the method behind my madness, that there are five major sections there: rent control, security of tenure, legal and administrative, special housing and then miscellaneous.
1030
I'm just back on page 1 again, walking you through the intro there. The committee's report presumably will provide the government direction in its intention of drafting a tenant protection act.
The final point: Within the report, the introduction from the summary that Elaine made reference to would probably be included if in fact the committee does decide to do a report. We would probably also include, as is in the summary, italicized excerpts from the TPP itself so the reader could glean instantly what the discussion document itself proposed.
Moving over the page on to the rent control section, I've highlighted some of the major issues. I haven't picked on every issue. We know in the document itself there's a multitude of issues. After I walk through this, if the committee should choose to address other matters, that's certainly your prerogative. I just felt there was some need to hit on some of the major issues.
The first point there is the above-guideline rent increase and the proposals for an increased capital expenditure cap. In each section there's a little discussion paragraph, and you see this throughout. What I've tried to do there, for better or worse, is to encapsulate the landlord and tenant perspectives on each of the matters.
The proposed 4% capital expenditure cap generated considerable discussion. Landlord and property owner representatives felt this cap was inadequate. They also asked that the carryforward provision, rather than being set at two years as proposed, should be unlimited. Tenant groups, on the other hand, expressed disapproval of this proposal and suggested that capital reserve funds should be established by landlords from the current rent stream.
You'll see there's a bit of a discussion and then there's a question or questions for the committee to consider. The reason they are in here is to guide or direct some of the committee's discussion. If you should choose to formulate recommendations, they may well flow from the questions, but that's certainly your prerogative. So the question here is, "Does the committee wish to develop a position on this matter?" ie, the capital expenditure cap.
There's a little paragraph there just mentioning some of the other issues related to rent control operation. During the hearings, other matters were raised which are not a feature of the current rent control statute. They may well have been features of previous pieces of legislation, but I won't go into the nitty-gritty of that.
Some of the issues include a capital reserve fund. That has been proposed. I believe there's a provision for condominiums to have a capital reserve fund, so that would be stipulated under the Condominium Act. It's my understanding that's where that notion comes from. It was considered, I know, in the past under Bill 51, which was the Residential Rent Regulation Act of 1986, but it never got in that in the final form.
Other points that were raised were remedies for chronically depressed rents. These are generally regarded to be older, smaller apartment units where the landlords feel that, because of the imposition of rent control and the imposition of guidelines over the years, their rents have fallen below market levels. So that's what the meaning and rationale for that term is. The issue has arisen for the older buildings that there should be, under rent control, some special provision for them to catch up. That's what that notion means.
Then you have the concept of equalization of rents. That did exist under previous incarnations of rent control. What it allowed landlords to do is, if you had a building say with 200 units, you could get permission for extra increases to bring all the rents up to the same level. You may well have had two-bedroom units that rented at different levels, so there were provisions under some of the previous legislation -- there is none under the current -- to equalize those rents and bring them up to the same level. That's what that means.
Those are some of the other issues. The question there is, "Does the committee wish to address any of these matters?"
There are certainly other issues. Elaine mentioned some of them. There's costs no longer borne. There's the proposal in TPP to permanently exempt new construction, and that's a change from the current statute, which gives new buildings a five-year leeway.
Under vacancy decontrol and new base rent, as Elaine indicated, this was probably one of the matters that raised the greatest degree of concern and debate during our three weeks of hearings. Extensive tenant concern was expressed regarding this provision. Some tenants claim that this measure would encourage landlords to force or even harass, in their view, tenants to move in an effort to increase rents to market levels. Concern was also expressed that this measure would adversely affect vulnerable tenants. We heard some of those people personally: single mothers, people on low or fixed incomes, psychiatric patients, persons with disabilities or illnesses.
Pressure would also be placed on tenants to remain in their units. This paragraph, of course, reflects the tenant perspective on this vacancy decontrol provision. This measure would deplete affordable rental housing units as vacancies occurred, and in the extreme, might contribute to homelessness.
To alleviate these concerns -- and some witnesses suggested this -- a cap on increase at the time of vacancy was suggested. A related issue from the tenant perspective was the option to negotiate a new rent. Many tenants believe they are at a disadvantage to negotiate with a landlord, especially when vacancy rates are low.
Landlord interests on this vacancy decontrol proposal expressed support for this provision, but some landlords were disappointed that upon the establishment of the new rent, the unit would once again be subject to rent control guideline increases, and they advocated a complete removal or in some cases a phasing out of rent control entirely. Concern was also expressed regarding the uncertainty of future governments re-establishing rent control. From the landlord community, they maintain that these actions might discourage long-term investment in rental housing. It was also maintained that in many communities, depressed rental market conditions and adequate or higher vacancy rates would act to ameliorate any rent increases if the vacancy decontrol provision were to be put in place.
Questions for committee consideration: First, "Does the committee support the implementation of vacancy decontrol whereby rents could rise to market levels on a change in tenancy?" The second question encapsulates some of the proposals: "Should some cap be considered on permitted rent increases at the time of vacancy change?" Some possibilities that were suggested: some multiple of the guideline up to a specified percentage; the matter of a limit on double-digit rent increases at the time of vacancy, or should the cap be related to local rental market housing conditions, eg, vacancy rates?
We did hear some evidence that in the tighter markets, probably in the GTA and Ottawa, the rental market is quite tight, but we heard landlords and even some tenants admit that in some other smaller urban centres, the rental market is somewhat depressed, rents are low and vacancy rates are higher. Ontario has always had province-wide rent control, but it raises the issue -- and this could be applied throughout -- should the legislative package reflect local housing market diversity? That's an issue that could be applied to virtually any of these proposals.
An issue related to vacancy decontrol was the treatment of sublets and lease assignments. That's the reason why I put it in here. In the package, it appears under a provision of the Landlord and Tenant Act. I think the major concern arose as to how sublets will be treated, whether they'll be grounds for vacancy decontrol. That's why it's here.
A matter associated with vacancy decontrol was that a sublet or assignment of a lease by a tenant would trigger vacancy decontrol and result in an increase of rent to market levels. Landlord and development industry interests advocated that a sublet should be treated as a new tenancy, with a right to adjust the rent to market levels. Legal clinic and tenant advocate groups put forward the position that sublets should not be grounds for vacancy decontrol of rents. Post-secondary students, several of whom appeared before the committee, or their representatives, who live away from home expressed particular concern regarding this matter.
1040
Some of the questions for the committee's consideration: "Should the landlord have the right under the L&T act to approve sublets or assignments?" "Should subletting or assignment of the lease be grounds for vacancy decontrol?" One option that comes to mind: "Might a specified short-term absence of the original tenant be grounds for continuation of the current rent level, except for regular guideline increases, if any?"
Over the page deals with the issues associated with the proposal to eliminate the rent registry, which was brought into effect under the Residential Rent Regulation Act of 1986 and was carried forward into the current Rent Control Act. Previous versions of rent control pre-1986, and it took a few years to get the rent registry up and running, did not have a rent registry feature.
Some landlord real estate umbrella groups support this measure, ie, the proposal to eliminate the rent registry, since in their view it would reduce the administrative burden on landlords, since they have to file appropriate information with the registry. The Rent Control Act and the regulations have forms that landlords have to submit so that the rent registry can be maintained.
However, many landlords, especially in communities which are experiencing depressed rental market conditions, support the retention of the current principle of legal maximum rent which can be computed by accessing the rent registry. This feature of the current rent control system -- and it's been a feature of previous legal regimes under rent control too -- would legally entitle landlords to charge this legal maximum rent, and what it does, it reflects the application of the successive guideline increases to the base rent when local housing market conditions improve. Landlords do not have to charge this higher rent, and in depressed markets, as we heard, may be charging significantly lower rents, but they would be, under the current rent control legislation, legally permitted to charge the legal maximum rent when conditions improve. That's what this concept is all about. What it really means, if you went back and had a base rent, had a rental unit on the market in 1975, let's say, you'd apply all the guideline increases from 1976 on, when rent control came in up to the present, and you'd get the legal maximum rent. That's really what it means.
The vacancy decontrol proposal would also -- and this is in the TPP -- supersede the legal maximum rent provision, and that's really the reason why the landlord community has concern about this. Some landlord groups propose that with vacancy decontrol, the new rents should be the higher of the rent paid by the new tenant or the legal maximum rent.
From the tenant perspective, many tenant groups and advocates supported the maintenance of the rent registry as a means of establishing legal maximum rent.
Some of the questions for the committee's consideration: "If the revised rent control system is put in place, particularly the vacancy decontrol provision, should the rent registry be retained/ abolished?" "Should the concept of `legal maximum rent' be retained in a revised rent control system?"
Moving on to security of tenure and conversions, this relates to the proposal to repeal the Rental Housing Protection Act that was brought in in 1986, and the TPP raises issues about different means of protecting tenants, first rights of refusal and the like. I've spoken below to those matters.
From the landlord perspective, this measure is seen as an opportunity to refurbish, convert or replace Ontario's aging rental stock, thereby promoting development activity and employment. Major landlord real estate umbrella groups also recognize that extended notice, tenure, first right of refusal to purchase or some form of possibly financial compensation for moving expenses or other hardships to existing tenants might be appropriate.
Many tenant municipal and legal clinic witnesses strongly objected to this proposal. This measure, in their view, was seen as weakening security of tenure and aggravating tenant affordability, especially when combined with vacancy decontrol, and also potentially eroding the local supply of affordable rental housing.
These proposed legislative amendments would also affect residents of care homes and mobile home parks, land-lease communities. So I brought them into the picture here with respect to this.
Some of the questions for committee consideration: First, "Is the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act supported?"
The next question, and this was proposed by some witnesses: "Should the municipal right to regulate conversions and demolitions of rental housing be totally removed, or might larger urban/regional municipalities have the option or permissive authority with council approval of regulating conversions as related to local housing market/vacancy rate conditions or other factors? Should this be a municipal option with provincial guidelines?" That just poses some of the potential options there.
The next question: "Should existing tenants have the right of first refusal for conversions? Should existing tenants be offered preferential purchase prices or other financial inducements or terms?"
The next question: "Should existing tenants have the right of extended tenure on conversion/demolition? If so, how long, or should financial compensation be considered?" These reiterate some of the points in the TPP document and input, of course, from witnesses that Elaine spoke to.
"Should existing tenants be financially compensated for conversion/demolition? How much? Several months' rent, reasonable moving expenses, assisted to find alternative accommodation?"
The next question: "Should majority tenant approval be required for conversions from rental to condominium?"
Next question: "How should such protections be administered? By the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, by local municipal planning authorities or by the local real estate industry?" This is a possibility. "Should the proposed harassment unit play a role in monitoring/administering security of tenure provisions granted to sitting tenants?"
Next question: "Should the same or different principles or policies be applied to compensate sitting tenants in the case of care homes, mobile home park and land-lease communities? Should these types of housing have longer or extended tenure provisions? In the case of care homes, should the landlord have a stronger obligation to assist the sitting tenant to find alternative accommodation in the event of a proposed conversion/ demolition?"
The next section deals with the legal, administrative and enforcement matters. Elaine mentioned that these issues are difficult to come to terms with and that the range of comments ranged from the general to the very specific. I've tended to take the more general approach and pose to the committee some general issues. I'm not a lawyer nor am I an expert, I must admit, in landlord and tenant law.
First, the Landlord and Tenant Act and the proposed dispute resolution system, just reflecting some of the input: Many legal clinic and private legal practitioners who came before us put forward specific concerns and proposals relating to these legal and procedural matters. Technical proposals were put forward by many witnesses on these matters for improving the existing or proposed dispute resolution system. When I mention existing, most of the witnesses were speaking to the existing procedures and process under the Landlord and Tenant Act. In some cases, flow charts were put forward relating to proposals for the new dispute resolution system. Some witnesses appeared to favour the existing L&T act process, while others favoured a new dispute resolution process. At present rent control is primarily under the Rent Control Act, an administrative process, while landlord and tenant disputes revolve around a form of contract law under the L&T act, which is mainly dealt with through the courts.
Concern was also expressed that any new process should be accessible and adequately funded. The committee -- this is an observation -- recognizes that many of these matters are technical and complex and at the same time merit further analysis by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You may or may not wish to concur with that observation.
Some of the questions: "Does the committee wish to give the Ministry of Housing" -- I should have had "Municipal Affairs and Housing" in view of their current name; they change frequently; that ministry has been both split and combined over the years -- "some strategic directions for reform of the landlord-tenant dispute resolution system?" Some of the things that were proposed: "Streamlining, economy, independence, efficiency, accessibility, right of appeal and fairness, or others?" These were some of the themes that were spoken to by the witnesses.
1050
Next question: "Should the dispute resolution process be a prelude to or a total replacement of the Landlord and Tenant Act process?" Some of the witnesses, of course, spoke to this.
Next question: "Should there be a dual process for landlord-tenant matters, eg, dispute resolution plus the courts? Or alternatively, should the dispute resolution system under the L&T act be maintained but streamlined?" These were addressed in the various deputations.
Next question: "Should landlord-tenant and rent control disputes be handled by the same adjudicative body?" This would raise the question whether the two processes should be totally combined.
Next question: "Should the ministry embark upon further scoped consultations with both landlord and tenant legal practitioners to further refine these proposals?" This reflects the fact that some of the witnesses made quite detailed submissions to us, and quite technical.
Next question: "Should the ministry be directed to review the technical matters put forward by witnesses with a view to assessing their merits for incorporation within a refined proposal?" As Elaine mentioned, the summary highlights these various matters.
Next question: "Should the landlord-tenant legal and dispute resolution process be funded from general revenues, or be operated on more of a cost-recovery basis?" This speaks to the issue of funding.
The final question just puts to you, "Are there any other specific matters or concerns" under this whole dispute resolution matter "that the committee seeks to address?" As I indicated, I kept this analysis general. I did not speak to some of the technical things that are in the TPP -- how much should the last month's rent deposit be and a variety of other very technical matters. I did not speak to those. You may choose to concur or otherwise.
Next matter is maintenance. Improper and inadequate maintenance is a long-standing concern of tenants who are paying their rent; however, there have always been some cases of landlords who are negligent in this regard. I think we heard cases of that during our deliberations. Property owners, on the other hand, were concerned that they receive proper notice of violations due to maintenance, and concern was expressed by tenant representatives that new maintenance measures should be adequately funded.
Some questions: "Should dedicated provincial funding assistance be provided to municipalities for maintenance enforcement measures?" The next question -- and this was one of the proposals: "Should maintenance violations be added to property taxes?"
The next section, harassment: From the landlord perspective, there were concerns -- and this relates to the proposal for a new harassment unit in the TPP -- that harassment needs to be better defined and that the proposed harassment unit should investigate both landlord and tenant complaints of harassment. It was also recommended that there should be penalties for false accusations of harassment, I guess on either side.
From the tenant perspective, the assertion was made that the vacancy decontrol provision in particular would encourage landlord harassment of tenants to force them to move. It was also claimed that in many cases harassment may be difficult to prove and that this proposal may therefore prove to be ineffective. Concern was also raised as to whether the harassment unit would be adequately funded by government during the current climate of restraint. If there are increased fines as proposed, it was claimed that they are only effective if enforced. Specific questions were also raised with respect to harassment of care home tenants.
Some questions: "Does the committee support the establishment of a separate harassment unit? Should there be a central office and regional harassment units across Ontario" as there is now under the rent control administrative provisions? "Or alternatively, should harassment enforcement be assumed within the purview of the Landlord and Tenant Act?"
"Should special harassment measures or efforts be considered for residents of care homes who may be disabled or handicapped?"
"Should other measures such as injunctions and restraining orders be used to deal with harassment complaints?"
The next section speaks to the two special types of housing within the TPP: care homes and mobile home parks and land-lease communities.
One thing: I was chatting with the Chair just before we began our deliberations, not to lengthen this, but after my discussion with Mr Carroll just earlier I did look up in the legislation the legislative definitions of care homes, mobile home parks and land-lease communities. I won't read them into the record now, but if you feel it pertinent, I can certainly do so later. Is that fine?
The Chair: Yes, I don't think we need those.
Mr Richmond: I have them here if they should come up.
Under the care homes, legal clinics and community advocates stated that the care home provisions of the Residents' Rights Act, which was brought in in 1994, should be preserved. This brought the care homes under the L&T act in a systematic way and under the Rent Control Act. The residential care industry advocated that rent control should be abolished from care homes while legal clinics advocated that rent control should be applied to meals and not just the accommodation component.
Under the current Rent Control Act, only the accommodation component of the fees paid by a care home resident are subject to rent control. The food and other specialized services are not covered. So that's what this debate revolves around.
Concerns were also raised by resident and legal groups with respect to the rights of care home operators, and Elaine mentioned this earlier, to conduct bed checks and fast-track evictions. With respect to bed checks, it was advocated that this right should be subject to a formal agreement between the operator and the tenant. Concerns were also raised with respect to possible abuse of this right. There was also concern regarding transfers to alternative facilities, that this be subject to a doctor's approval and/or consent of the resident or the substitute decision-maker, as the case may be. Mention was also made that the protections of the Health Care Consent Act should apply.
Some questions here: "Should rent control coverage continue to apply to accommodation costs and not care home services or meals?" "Should special administrative protections be applied to protect resident rights in the case of bed checks or fast-track evictions?" These two concerns, as you would know, generated some concern from the witnesses and they're reflected in the summary. "To what extent should professional, resident or substitute decision-maker consent be sought or required?"
"Should the ministry further analyse these proposals with reference to the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Health Care Consent Act and revise the current proposals to protect individual interests and, at the same time, balance safety concerns in group care facilities?"
I think this last point reiterates the two interests here. You have the interests of the individual and you have the interests of the care home operator who has broader concerns about the rights and safety of other residents of the facility.
Next section: Mobile home parks and land-lease communities. Some witnesses maintained that the legislation governing these housing types should be dealt with in separate legislation. There were differences of opinion as to whether higher capital cost pass-through allowances should apply to such housing. Some tenant-resident groups maintained that such a provision would be unfair, while owner spokespersons maintained that higher capital cost pass-through, with a possible cap at 12%, should apply. Some of the issues here are higher capital cost pass-through to upgrade utilities, sewer systems, septic systems, water systems, roads and the like. The display of For Sale signs may still be an issue in some communities, although the discussion paper reaffirms the right to display For Sale signs on a bulletin board. These are For Sale signs by residents seeking to sell their individual units. The possibility for voluntary prepaid rent was also advocated where desired by residents.
Some questions here for the committee's consideration:
"Should there be a higher cap for mobile home park capital/land-lease community improvements; what should such a cap be?"
"Should the matter of whether mobile home parks/land-lease communities merit separate legislation be further reviewed?" Or possibly there could be a special section in the new tenant protection act.
1100
"Are there other matters the committee wishes to address?"
"Should the manufactured home industry and residents develop a code of practice to deal with sale issues and signs?" There seemed to be a lingering controversy over these issues relating to residents' rights to sell their units. That's one prospect.
The final section deals with various miscellaneous concerns. There's a whole slew of miscellaneous concerns. Elaine spoke to them in the summary. What I tried to pull out are some of those that generated broader concern and relate to housing policy and also the financial operation of rental housing.
The first one here is shelter allowances. Witnesses from both the landlord and tenant perspective raised the matter of a government position or proposals relating to shelter allowances as part of an overall housing program. As a matter of general interest, shelter allowances have been mentioned by the ministry and as a matter of interest they are also mentioned in the Common Sense Revolution doc.
From the landlord perspective, shelter allowances were portrayed as a more effective means of meeting housing affordability requirements as compared to government programs to build and manage housing, such as the non-profit program.
From the tenant perspective, questions were raised regarding the possible cost of the shelter allowance program and the view that a shelter allowance program would not increase rental housing supply and would only serve to benefit landlords. I should indicate that shelter allowances are not currently, as you would well know, within the TPP doc.
Some questions for the committee's consideration:
"Should the matter of shelter allowances be addressed in the committee report?"
"Should the government put forward policy proposals on shelter allowances?"
"Should other issues or criteria be addressed in formulating such a policy?" Some possibilities: "Adherence to property standards, length of shelter allowance contracts, selection of tenants."
Just as an aside -- I believe this was mentioned during the deputations -- the rent supplement program, which is a current housing program, was portrayed as a shelter allowance type of program. It's administered by the local housing authorities and what happens is, private landlords contract to provide units on the private market to rent-geared-to-income tenants and the local housing authority or the Ontario Housing Corp makes up the difference between the rent-geared-to-income rent and the market rent. So that is a current program and it was mentioned.
The next issue was the assessment and property taxation of rental housing. Both landlord and tenant witnesses identified as an issue the fact that rental residential property is assessed and therefore taxed by municipalities at a significantly higher rate than owner-occupied condominium or single-family or even duplex dwellings. This has implications for the financial operation of rental property and the rents that must be levied to recoup these taxes. Tenants were concerned that if this tax treatment issue was resolved, the actual tax savings should be passed on to them in the form of lower rents.
Questions here:
"Does the committee wish to address this issue?"
"Should the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in his responsibility" -- and there's a current review under way of property tax reform related to the Assessment Act -- "consider this matter?"
"Should measures be put in place to ensure that such potential tax savings be passed on to tenants in the form of lower rents?" One possibility, if the committee chooses to address this, would be to give this responsibility to the proposed harassment unit, if you wished to enforce this.
The next issue that wraps up the miscellaneous issues that I chose to address also relates to financial operation, financial burden on rental residential housing. Various landlords and municipal witnesses mentioned various provincial-federal taxation measures and approval and various inspection programs that, in their view, add to the cost of developing or operating rental residential property.
From the tenant perspective there was a similar concern that if these possible reforms should result in cost saving, such saving should be passed on to tenants in the form of lower rents.
Some questions for the committee's consideration:
"Should the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing pursue initiatives to ensure that tax, approval and various inspection matters within provincial-municipal control are streamlined with respect to their rental residential property while at the same time ensuring that tax revenues are not seriously depleted and appropriate building, planning and public safety standards are maintained?"
"How can tenants be assured that such savings are fairly passed on in the form of reduced rents?" If this came to pass, "Could the harassment unit monitor such matters?"
The final little section concerns possible organizational matters concerning the report, and I mentioned this briefly to the Chairman before we began today.
The summary may be considered a synopsis of the committee's public consultations on the TPP.
There's a question: "Should the summary be available on request or filed as an appendix to the main committee report" if the committee should choose to write a report? Alternatively, and this has happened, I'm just reflecting upon my experience with previous committees -- Elaine may have some remarks too -- committees with a mandate to table a report in the Legislature on occasion have tabled some version of the summary as their report; other committees have chosen to develop a report with recommendations. There's really no hard and fast rule. In my view it depends on the wishes of the committee.
That wraps up what I have to say. If you should have any questions I'd be pleased to respond to them, and so would Elaine.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it. Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I appreciate what Ms Campbell and Mr Richmond have done in terms of providing that summary and raising the questions with respect to what arises from them. I have a motion that I'm going to move and see where that takes us because I think what we need to know from the government is where it's going.
We've heard from the submissions -- I brought them all here -- two things: From the landlord side what we have in this proposal is just not good enough. They want more. Decontrol/recontrol simply is not sufficient. They would like to get rid of the decontrol/recontrol mechanism and simply phase out rent control. On the other side are the tenants who are saying: "The present system works. Keep rent control because it gives the protections we need."
Those were the two sides of this particular package, and in my view what's most important is this issue of decontrol and the Rental Housing Protection Act. Everything else is subject to discussion, which I don't mind getting into, but these are key for me. If we can deal with those, I wouldn't mind dealing with other matters. As far as I could tell from the submissions, we have a problem in terms of how to deal with this. Tenants are saying, "Keep rent control," and landlords are saying, "We've got to remove it."
So I've got a motion here as a way of attempting to get to it. I've asked a number of questions a couple of weeks ago to which I was hoping the government members would respond. We have done so in the past.
The Chair: I distributed those answers this morning, Mr Marchese, and I apologize for not getting them to you sooner. I didn't realize they were on my desk here.
1110
Mr Marchese: I see. Not having had a chance to see them, I'd like to see how the government responds to this motion.
I'm concerned about the effect that decontrol is going to have on tenants. All the deputations we've heard from students, from people with disabilities, from people with mental illness, from people advocating on behalf of those who are on low income are that they're very worried about the implications of all this. What we need, in my view, is an impact study. We need to have a sense -- they need to have a sense -- of the effects of decontrolling on them.
My motion reads:
"This committee recommends that the government not proceed further with the proposals in its New Directions discussion paper until it has tabled detailed studies on the impact on tenant affordability.
"The committee also recommends that such a study include material specifying the impact on tenants who are seniors, students, or disabled.
"The committee also recommends that the government table specific measures to ensure that no tenants fall into poverty as a result of the government's proposals and that these measures also be tabled before any further action is taken to implement the proposals in the government's discussion paper."
The Chair: Mr Marchese has introduced a motion. Did you make any copies of this?
Mr Marchese: Sorry, I only made that copy.
The Chair: Okay. I presume we should get the clerk to make copies of this so everyone has one. While she's doing that, Mr Marchese, do you want to speak to this?
Mr Marchese: Yes. My sense is that the government is quite intent on moving ahead with this discussion paper. At least it was my sense, from the reactions and kinds of questions the members have asked, that they are not going to move from what is put forward. I suspect that the minister will bring forth some suggestions to deal with it, but by and large decontrol, as I see it, is likely to stay with us.
Unless Mr Hardeman, who probably will speak afterwards, gives me any other indication, I will assume that this is the way it's going to be. It may be that Mr Hardeman will say, "We don't know yet; we have to submit this particular summary to the minister and then we'll see," that type of thing. But if that is the kind of answer we're going to get, I remain convinced that the minister will move ahead with this proposal.
If that's the case, it flies against everything we've heard from all the deputations across Ontario. Even in areas where we didn't expect too many people to come, they've come forward with worries about decontrolling. What does "decontrolling" mean? It means that when you move from your apartment to go to another place, you are no longer protected. It means landlords can increase rents to as much as they think they can possibly get.
We've heard from low-income people, students and people with disabilities that this will have a grave, serious economic implication on their lives, and I have no doubt that will be the case. We have an affordability problem at the moment where 35% of all tenants are paying beyond 30% of the income they make. That's an incredible sum of money they pay already in that kind of allowance. It's going to put a burden on their lives.
I am worried, as they are, and I need some assurances -- they need assurances -- from the government that it will have done a study that will show them they either have nothing to worry about or have a lot to worry about, in which case we hope that the government would reconsider the present proposal or anything else it might introduce that will be worse for tenants.
I'll leave it at that. I'll come back to it when others respond.
Mr Sergio: I appreciate the opportunity of having sat and travelled and listened to people on both sides for the last two or three weeks. It has given me a much more in-depth knowledge of the situation of rent control, what the government is proposing and what people from both sides out there have been telling us.
I hope that especially the members on the government side have really had an open mind and were listening to the various presentations we have had. I have also been very appreciative of the staff throughout the period that we've been travelling, not only for the arrangements but also for the work they have done, including up to now. I have a question of staff.
The Chair: Mr Sergio, we're dealing with the motion Mr Marchese has put forth.
Mr Sergio: I was coming to that. With respect to exactly that I would have a question, but addressing the motion itself as it is now I would like you to look at the response to a request from Mr Marchese, and you'll find it on page 2, if I can call it that. The question is, "Can the government table any studies that show the impact on tenants of the proposed changes to rent control?" You find the minister's response, or the deputy right in here.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Sergio. Which of the three documents? Which date?
Mr Sergio: The question from Anne Beaumont, September 4. I think they're all dated the same. No, August 29, August 26, September 4.
What's stunning is that the assistant deputy minister, in answer to Mr Marchese's question, says here: "The ministry has hired a consultant to undertake research into potential impacts. The consultant has provided interim results" -- which we don't have, and I wonder what those interim results are -- "from his study and is in the process of completing the final report. This report should be available shortly."
Having this in front of us, Mr Chairman, where the government has initiated, has hired a consultant to answer the question of Mr Marchese as to the impact on tenants, I am asking you and the committee how we can properly and correctly proceed when we have the government that has initiated a study on the crux of the matter: the impact on tenants. Not only do I support the motion of Mr Marchese, but I say we adjourn the entire matter until we have the results of this study. I would like to see the interim results from this study as well. I wonder why the interim results have not been tabled for our information and our own perusal.
At the moment I would have no hesitation -- I have no other choice -- in supporting the motion that is on the floor. I make an appeal to members on the government side to take this into serious consideration. The government has initiated a study and wants us to make a move on recommendations here. While the government has interim results and wants to see a completion of the study, I don't see how we can make a recommendation, how to go about it, while this study is not completed.
I am going to support the motion as it's been presented.
Mr Curling: I support Mr Marchese's motion and I agree totally with this. During the process of the hearings we heard from time to time from both sides presentations without sound knowledge and information and studies that would be available for them to have the kind of presentation that would be very helpful to this committee. Most of them, which is very important too and very good for us, were giving presentations on their own personal experience.
Studies and surveys are also a very integral part of any government making legislation to make up our minds on what direction we're to go as legislators. As a government, of course, you'd like us to have the kind of input that would be helpful, and I'm not quite sure I have that kind of ability to do so yet unless I have the necessary documents and studies being done and am able to analyse that.
As a matter of fact, legislative research has told us that even though the discussion paper was small, with the multitude of things involved in it, many presenters were not adequately able to address that. We know some of the problems.
1120
One of the problems was the limited time they were given, although we all agreed on that. It's funny that we were all blocked into one time frame and trying to put many people within that time frame, which was reduced to 20 minutes. Many people were not able to address all the issues involved, so their attempt was just to give personal experience in what is happening. By doing so, it limited them in many respects to adequately address that.
The most important part of any committee is that when presenters come before us, we ask them the necessary questions to glean from them answers or suggestions the committee would need to have a good document. But the time wasn't available.
It was rather interesting that even when we had Greg Lampert before us we requested some more time, because we thought maybe -- some of the surveys and papers necessary for us to make those decisions weren't available -- we could glean from some of the information needed. Again, we were restricted to a certain time in which we could do that. The government side, which voted against the motion, stated that was adequate time. They themselves, as you remember, Mr Chairman, ran out of time and would have asked him more questions. They then saw the importance of this.
This motion addresses directly what is needed. Mr Marchese is right on target when he says that he thinks the committee should stop right now and get all these documents on the table, get all these studies being done. Let us proceed with that.
I would appeal to my colleagues on the other side -- they have not spoken but I'm confident that they would support this motion -- that they too would see the importance of this and say, "Let us not rush into this." Remember, Mr Chairman, they said this is about the third government attempting to bring about good legislation in regard to rent control, and "Let us get it right." I don't think anybody could get it perfect, but we'd move in a direction where it is helpful on both sides, landlords and tenants.
The minister has a very complex issue to deal with. We have a responsibility to give him the best tools available, the best research, the best information, and to say to him: "Yes, Mr Minister, we have travelled the entire province. We would have travelled more and would have heard more, but in the limited time we were given, we heard enough to tell us that we didn't have enough information on which to give you the necessary directions."
I fully support this and I would hope that my other colleagues would do the same.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I will not support the motion as it's written. First of all, as we've heard today, we've had five sets of hearings over the last number of years from three or four different parties. I suggest we probably have a whole lot of detail that's been garnered over the last number of years. If we were to do a study at this particular time, I think it would be extremely premature. We haven't even had the opportunity yet to answer some of the questions and then submit some type of report to give a direction to the people who might do a study, if a study is considered.
The other concern I have is that when I look at the motion, first of all, in the third paragraph, where it says this committee has "to ensure that no tenant falls into poverty as a result of the government's proposals," are we talking about jobs? Are we talking about rents? Are we talking about a lot of things? With that type of terminology in this, we cannot govern an individual's responsibility or his ability and whether he falls into poverty or not. That's not relevant to what we're talking about, as far as I'm concerned, on rent control.
Where you use the word "poverty" -- and it seems to be bandied around a great deal these days -- I don't think many people know what it really is, the terminology or the description of that word, and for that to be in this type of motion, I don't believe it is relevant at this particular time.
I guess the point is that with any type of study, we're strictly trying to brush it under the carpet for the moment. I believe we have to give some type of direction. We have to have some answers, which we have the ability to do ourselves after three weeks of being on the road in hearings. If we wanted to do a study, I would suggest we should have done it prior and then go on the road. This is a total waste of money to do it right now, because I think we have the ability to give some direction, I think we have the ability to expand on what we've heard over this last three weeks, without starting to worry about a study at this particular time.
I definitely won't support this motion. I believe we should get on with making some recommendations, giving some direction to the minister on what we have heard from the public, because they're the ones who are going to be affected by it.
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I would ask the honourable member opposite to reconsider his opposition in the light of the fact that the hearings really reflect back to us the comments of the minister. The minister said his objectives were twofold. He wanted to ensure tenant protection for tenants and he wanted to ensure there be construction of new rental housing. I think it's fairly clear that on both those counts -- we heard from tenants that they don't feel protected; we heard from landlords that they would not be building simply as a result of these measures.
It is very important that there be some fact-based resolution of those disparate positions, especially as neither support the government's position, and it would be in the government's interest. Surely, as my colleague Mr Sergio has already made clear, from the material submitted by the ministry, studies are already under way, studies this ministry is doing into these very impacts. It's not really a question of this committee ordering those studies; they're already happening.
I think it's especially appropriate, in the light of Mr Marchese's motion, that we find a way to discharge our duties as a committee, as reflected in the minister's statement, to be able to make those determinations. I think the fact-based resolution really behooves this committee to pursue, particularly because the kind of time implication mentioned by the member may not exist. We don't know. The response from the ministry says there are already interim results. Should not this committee have those interim results? Should we not have the study that's being done? If we have a responsibility to the people who have deputed here over the three weeks, that responsibility has got to include making sure there is not a separate process which is going to take the place of their discussions. This committee should have at its avail all the information relevant to this discussion, and if there are studies the ministry felt necessary to do as part of this, we need to have those here.
I'm a little disturbed that the member opposite -- and I don't think this is what he intended. But when he says that rent control is not relevant to preventing people from living in poverty, we don't wish that to be the way the government asserts its attitude towards this discussion. Of course the only reason government would be acting as a referee is to prevent some of those outcomes, to prevent people living desperately, and that's what they're doing, I would suggest to the member opposite. They are living desperately in poverty, by any measure. Those are just technicalities to avoid the question.
We want to make sure -- and we hope we can invite the member opposite to see it this way -- that people aren't directly harmed, not indirectly through some vague thing, but directly harmed by the result of the government's measures. I only refer to the words of the minister that "Tenants must be protected from unfair rent increases" and that tenant protection is his object. Those statements are hard to reconcile if indeed Mr Stewart finds that the object is not to protect people from being harmed by poverty.
1130
Therefore, I would encourage the members opposite not to use that technical reason to not support what clearly is in the object of the legislation, the original legislation from the previous Conservative government. Subsequent rent review and rent control legislation were all about making sure that when the marketplace has broken down or isn't working, there is some useful function to protect people who would otherwise be very much harmed by living in poverty. I think those are the kind of things we do want to know, and if there must be some common ground, some basis on which we might wish to proceed in terms of writing a report, I think it has got to be around that.
I don't wish to put words in the mouth of the government side, but what I think most people will take from that is that somehow the government is not concerned to see that people are harmed by this. I don't think that's what the government intends, and therefore it shouldn't fear this motion, which really only asks us to do two things. One is to have access to the facts the ministry has gone out and commissioned that are directly germane to the considerations this committee has heard over the past three weeks. Second is to ensure that the scope of that includes protection for the most vulnerable people in society, and not in some general way but in the specific way it says in the motion, "the government proposals."
I think those are very responsible measures for this committee to have, particularly given the fact -- I will just iterate again, as Mr Sergio has pointed out to us -- that the government has these studies under way already, so this may be only a matter of a short time until we can have this information in our possession.
Given the fact that the objectives the minister put in front of us with this report were to have tenant protection -- and clearly we're finding that tenants don't believe they're being protected by this -- and to have buildings built by landlords -- well, landlords aren't finding that. We need to reference some facts if we're going to be of use to the minister in terms of responding here.
I would very much encourage the members opposite to see this motion as a constructive way of this committee addressing its mandate. I will be supporting this motion.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): First of all, I want to say I will not be supporting the motion.
I want to agree with Mr Marchese in his comments to the motion where he suggests that the government will be moving ahead with changes to tenant protection or the changes in the rent control regime that presently exists in the province. I think that's based on what the minister said the first day the discussion paper was introduced, that the system is broken. It isn't working for tenants and it isn't working for landlords and it isn't working for the rental housing market.
If there is one thing that maybe we can all agree on, it's that the presentations that have been put before us through the three weeks of hearings point out that almost all agree that some changes need to be made to make the system more effective.
I also want to agree with Mr Curling in his comments when he says the minister has difficult decisions to make as to what will be the best package to protect tenants in the province.
I think we have to remember the purpose for the committee hearings. The purpose was that prior to writing legislation and prior to coming up with the final recommendations for legislation we heard from the public, both from the tenants and from the landlords, what was wrong with the present system, what should be changed to improve it, both to protect the tenants in terms of the level of rents they pay but also to deal with the type of accommodations available to them to rent. Obviously, tenant protection involves more than money. It involves being able to provide the type of accommodations that all are entitled to.
We have to make sure that we do not get confused with this part of the process, the public hearings on the legislation. As all the information is gathered from these committee hearings and from the studies which have been referred to that are presently ongoing within the ministry, we hope to come forward with the options that are available and the direction the minister feels we should be going to achieve the goals he set out for us. At that point they will put it together in a package and refer it back to the committee to deal with the proposed legislation, as the government deems appropriate.
I think it's inappropriate to put this part of the consultation process on hold while we're waiting for all the studies that are being used to draft the final document. I don't believe that the public hearings we held on this discussion paper were public hearings based on how we deal with the total package of housing in the province. It was a discussion paper on some of the options being put forward; we wanted to hear what the public has to say on those items. I think we have done that.
As to the motion put forward by Mr Marchese, I suggest it helps define what the report to the minister should be, as opposed to recommendations. Maybe the appropriate way of dealing with it is to report back to the minister on what he asked us to do, which was tell him what the public had to say about the discussion paper. We do not necessarily have to have the policy paper defined by this committee. We have to report back so he is made aware of what the public, the builders and the developers and the land owners and the tenants feel is good about the discussion paper, where improvements can be made and which part of the discussion paper should be eliminated completely and where even things should be completely added.
If we were to support the resolution before us, I do not see it helping the situation, only delaying it, and I believe we should proceed with the report back to the minister with the information this committee gathered from the public. I would ask the committee to consider that and proceed with providing the minister with the information he has asked us to find.
Mr Marchese: You see, Mr Chair, I knew I had reason to be worried, and that's why I introduced this motion.
I'm going to deal with Mr Stewart's comments first and then come back to Mr Hardeman. Mr Stewart makes two contradictory remarks. On the one hand, he says the study's premature and on the other, he says this study should have been done before. This study should have been done before, it is being done, some of you are privy to it, and we are not. I'd like to be privy to the results of that study. In your response it says, "The consultant has provided interim results from his study and is in the process of completing the final report." He's provided that study to somebody. I presume Mr Hardeman has seen it as the PA; if he hasn't, it's a problem. But surely we should be provided with that study if it has been done, because it's very relevant to what we're doing here.
Mr Stewart says it's not relevant, but it is. It's completely relevant and all the deputations that have come before us spoke to this very issue, the relevance of what I am asking: the effects of this proposal on them. He says he doesn't quite understand what that means, that phrase about "no tenant falls into poverty." Well, there are three things.
There's decontrolling. Decontrolling means that some people will get an increase. We've heard a number of landlords who've said there will be increases. Some said, "No, because we have a high vacancy rate," and some admitted there will be increases. We know by and large, generally, there will be increases. Will that affect issues of affordability and therefore poverty? Absolutely.
There's the whole issue of the additional increases this government is proposing, that is, to increase the beyond-guideline capital expenditures from 3% to 4%, and also the cost pass-through of taxes and utilities. All of those are going to be increases on those who are currently renting and those who are going to be moving. That will cause further financial stress on everybody, not just those sitting ducks in those apartments, but those who will move. Will that affect issues of affordability? Absolutely.
We have heard that one third of all the tenants make less than $20,000. That's a serious problem. He doesn't make the connection between affordability, poverty and what these increases are going to be. Decontrolling will create increases. Above-guideline increases will create financial problems. The removal of the Rental Housing Protection Act will create problems. We know the condominium association is very worried because they know there will be conversions to condominiums. It will mean that a lot of people will be displaced. Is that going to cause a problem for people and affordability and therefore poverty? Yes, absolutely. I see that connection. Maybe you don't, but all the submissions saw the connection between the implications of your proposals and what it will mean to their ability to afford rents. There's a direct connection to the question and the motion I put forward. Obviously Mr Stewart doesn't see it, but everybody else does.
1140
We also have the matters that Mr Hardeman said, and he proposes two interesting remarks which I think are contradictory. On the one hand, he says we'll be moving ahead; on the other hand, he says these are hearings where we just want to hear from people; they're just discussions. What does that mean to me and to the tenants? They'll be forging ahead with this proposal with some minor recommendations where they're likely to remove the maximum after decontrol, because that's what landlords said, and some minor tinkering for some rights with respect to tenants. That's not going to do it for me. So they have a right to worry because this is a bonanza for the landlord. This is a transfer of money from tenants to landlords; there's no doubt about that.
There's nothing in this proposal for tenants. So when Mr Hardeman talks about the stated goals of this proposal and that they will be achieved, the stated goals were (1) that there will be no double-digit increases for tenants, that it will protect tenants, and this proposal doesn't do that; and the other one is that it will create further housing accommodation for people. There's no evidence for that either. These are the goals and Mr Hardeman says we're going to accomplish those goals. I don't know how he's going to do either of them. One, it doesn't protect tenants, and the other one, it's not going to build any rental accommodation.
How do we know that? We know that as well from the studies that have been done by Mr Lampert. Mr Lampert says -- he gives a dollar figure -- that even if we go through these regulatory changes -- that's a $200 amount that he talks about -- the gap is $3,000 between what the builders can build at and what people can afford to pay. That $200 is not going to stimulate the economy very much. He says, "Oh yeah, that'll get things going." I don't believe that. He knows it too. He knows that's what landlords want. But the tenants certainly know that they're not going to get any rental accommodation that they can afford. We know that too. We asked many of the landlords and many of the developers how they would respond to affordable housing and they said it's none of their business really. The government needs to worry about affordable housing, not them. That's a worry for me. That's why we were building cooperative housing and non-profit housing, because it was affordable and, in the long run, cheaper.
Mr Maves talks about -- I don't know, whatever study, including Lampert, who says it costs too much, but in the end, if you analyse it properly, we have a public asset and it's cheaper in the long run. We argue, in fact, it's more costly to do shelter allowances in the end, whereas you argue differently. Shelter allowance will be more costly. It will be a lot less than what they get now and it will be a lot more costly to subsidize that landlord with shelter allowance. So it's not going to achieve those goals.
So it's not inappropriate at all to wait for these studies. I want to see the study that either Mr Hardeman has or the minister has, the interim study, and I certainly want to see its completion to understand the implication it's going to have on tenants, because from everything we've heard, it will have a direct impact on them.
We've had two types of experts in this committee. We've had the landlord, who knows all, and we have the tenants, who suffer the experiences of living in the rental accommodation owned by the private landlord, developers and so on. We have two different types of experts. The tenant, who has to live in that kind of experience and knows the kinds of problems he or she has had to suffer and that is why they come forward with their expertise over a long history of being tenants as to the implications of these proposals. That's why they came in front of this committee and told us, "Keep rent control." They know that decontrol will affect them. That's why they came forward saying, "We've got a problem; please don't change it." Virtually every one of them said as much. I don't know how you're going to reconcile the fact that all of these experts, both tenants and agencies, legal clinics, came in front of our committee saying that if you do this it's going to have some serious economic implications to a lot of tenants.
If you don't listen to those experts and you're only going to listen to the landlord expert and those who are closely connected to this party, we have a problem. That's why we want you in advance to give us these studies so we know the effects on them. Once we know that, we'll be able to have a better discussion. But for both Mr Stewart and Mr Hardeman to say this is an inappropriate study is wrong, because if you go ahead assuming it will not have an impact, then you didn't listen to the deputations, because it does have an impact; it will. If you're saying it's an inappropriate study, what you're saying is we haven't heard a thing from the tenants. That's really what you're saying. You can say, "Oh yes, we've heard them," but if you disregard the study, put it aside, what you're doing is you are not listening to what 65% of the deputations have told you, that this is going to be a problem for them.
I know that you will forge ahead with this proposal. I know that you will do that and my sense is that you will want to go ahead presenting this summary as it is and give it to the minister in that form. That's not going to help our discussions very much. So we want to urge you, before you do that, to present this study, or once you've defeated this, as I know you will, I would like you to take a position on decontrolling and the Rental Housing Protection Act so that I will have a good sense of what I'm dealing with and not have to wait until your minister brings forth a bill that very much has this same thing, and then we'll go through this all over again. I'd like to be a bit prepared in that regard, but I tell you, with respect to this motion, we need it, we need to have the study. I'm going to request, after this motion is defeated, that we get a hold of this study, the interim study, and that we have access to its completion once it's done. But Mr Chairman, I wanted to deal with Mr Stewart's remarks and Mr Hardeman's because this is not an unnecessary thing. It's very much connected to poverty and affordability and tenants need to know that.
Mr Curling: I won't be very long, but I was quite surprised, of course, at Mr Stewart and especially Mr Hardeman, who said they will not be supporting this and the statement, in fact, that poverty has nothing to do with this.
I would like to believe that the minister's mind was not made up before he got into this but it seems to me his mind was made up, as Mr Hardeman said. Mr Hardeman, I feel that in any kind of discussions or any kind of hearings, if we are open in that process in what we're getting, we can, as I said, formulate better legislation. But yes, I'm now convinced not only that the minister's mind was made up, but all those he had sent forth on the committee were instructed to go in one direction. It's unfortunate, but again, I cannot as a member of the committee not make my contribution and try to convince you otherwise, to be as democratic and as open as possible.
We were reminded over and over in the hearings that this is a discussion paper. It seems to me the opposition -- the lectures we were getting, what was said to us, that the opposition does not understand that this is a discussion paper. I myself came back into my fold and said, "Okay, the minister's mind is not made up, therefore it's a discussion paper," so what is the information that we have before us to give the direction to the minister, the best advice we can? But it doesn't seem so at all.
Poverty has a lot to do with it. We were moved to very heart-wrenching experiences by tenants who told us openly that the Rent Control Act helped them to be where they are today or they'd be on the street. People came to us and told us that, thank God, we had legislation that protects them from poverty. People have come to us and said to us that the decision by the government to cut 21.6% to the most vulnerable people from their allowance was devastating to them, and they are now trying to regroup how they live in poverty. Mr Stewart tried to put his own definition on poverty. It is basically where people can't afford adequate, decent and affordable housing and not to be bargaining for food, as their government feels one should bargain and barter for food. "Go into the store and see if you can get tuna cheaper. Go over and try to barter for that," not realizing too that they are using the same approach here for housing, to say, "Go out and negotiate and barter for what you want in housing accommodation." Cancel the rent registry, as many other groups have said.
1150
We're saying the studies that are provided by taxpayers' money should be available. It's almost as when the Greg Lampert report was out and we were trying to get a copy of the document. It was like it was one of the most precious little documents we could ever find. We didn't even get a copy. To even get Mr Lampert in was quite difficult too -- paid for by taxpayers.
People were saying: "What you are going to do is going to affect us. You are going to affect how I survive for food and accommodation."
The cancellation of non-profit housing: Their cancellation in the sense that far less affordable housing will be built and therefore the access to that will be limited, and to say that that's going to have an impact on us. We have to go and negotiate at a higher level.
It has to do with poverty, and if we are guessing and I don't know what I'm talking about then get me those documents and those studies to say to the minister, "Minister, what I'm hearing and what the studies are saying are inconsistent," and I'll go along with what the studies are saying. But we have to balance it in some respect that if the study's saying one aspect of things and the presenters are saying something else, then we have to come to grips with it and then say that's the direction we are to go.
I am fully convinced that the minister and his group, their minds were made up. They decided to cancel rent control, to put the most vulnerable people at the wish of the landlords and to say, "We will work it out for you." Mr Lampert actually told us that he believes in the trickle-down theory of economics, that they will build at the higher end and those who are poor will just have to wait, because somehow those people who have lots of salary and are occupying accommodation could pay for more and they may move. They will move and somehow you'll get it.
In other words, if all those who have eaten around the table, we can feed them enough, somehow they shall be filled and what is left over will be given to the poor. We don't believe in a society like that that is rich. We don't believe at all. We think that resources are abundant, but the only problem is distribution, the problem of poverty. That is there. Far less people are earning more and far more people are earning less. Poverty is one of the main ingredients of the fact that we're suffering today. Resources are in abundance.
I would say to you that all those who are suffering today in the line of poverty -- Mr Stewart feels that we have new definition of it all -- all those students who have dropped out of school because tuition fees went up and now we'll be faced with the fact that decontrol will cause them to be paying more for their accommodation. Then they have to make a decision. "Do I eat or do I pay for accommodation or do I drop out altogether?" I would say so.
Mr Chairman, I would ask you, though you have no influence on that but just to listen, and I appeal to my colleagues across, this is not a partisan issue. This is a people issue. It's an issue of people who are poor, who have no access to affordable, decent and safe accommodation. This is an issue that talks about people who have to go to food banks because they have to pay a higher rate of rent.
I wonder if we had those studies to show and tell the government, the same studies that you've had and are preparing to share with us, to share as legislators that we can sit down and objectively direct the minister and direct even the parliamentary assistant, who I know has the ear of the minister daily. He speaks to the minister every day. He can tell the minister what's happening and I know you can, Mr Hardeman. I know you can, and you are quite an influential individual, you personally. I had hoped of course that the minister would be here all through the hearings to hear this, but I am confident now. I used to say that the minister should be here, but I am not concerned any more. Mr Hardeman is a respectable individual, a man I've learned to respect a lot as compassionate, have heard the stories of those individuals who've come to say to the committee that it's a matter of adequate funds. It's not a matter of rent control itself; it's a matter of affordability. "I can't afford it. It's poverty that is causing me to live in the rat-infested areas."
A lady came and showed us pictures of where she lived. The pipes were frozen, her clothes were frozen. She couldn't put them on. Poverty was causing all this, and when we say it has nothing to do with poverty, we have missed the boat completely.
Of course you have been accused of not being compassionate. I know you are; deep down you all are. You are concerned about the individuals in our society. I know you do that, sir, and I strongly urge you all to support that, and I hoped that more of the city people who would be on this committee some time -- they come in and out -- but I hoped there were much more here.
The last point I'll make, we found out when we went around the province people were telling us --
The Chair: Mr Curling, it's past noon. I'm going to let you finish if you're about ready to finish. If not, you can carry on at 2 o'clock. Which would you prefer? Do you want some more time at 2 o'clock?
Mr Curling: We could go back at 2 o'clock if you want.
The Chair: We'll recess until 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1156 to 1406.
The Chair: We will resume our discussion and our debate on a motion put forward by Mr Marchese that's on the floor. When we recessed at 12 o'clock, Mr Curling had the floor.
Mr Curling: As I was saying before the adjournment, it is extremely important that we have all documents and all information before us. We have seen, as we went around, that poverty plays an extremely important role -- as a matter of fact, income, if I want to even say "poverty" -- money plays a very important role in how people survive.
The problem with this is that if we could have some studies available to us to show the impact that this legislation will have on people who are in that category, it would be extremely helpful to direct or redirect the legislative research staff in writing this report, because I'm convinced that the minister needs all information, as much as possible, to make the best legislation possible, which is so important, and he himself has stated that. He himself stated that he has heard the landlords' side and the tenants' side. I'm not so convinced he has heard the tenants' side as much, because this is what the people are saying.
As a matter of fact, Lampert himself said he did not even consult with tenants. I was quite surprised about that. So those it affects most are not being heard. Some of the experts we sometimes pay some big bucks for, lots of money, the taxpayers' money, who have come up with some very pertinent information and pertinent facts, would be extremely helpful. All I'm saying is that if we could have that available to us, it would be helpful.
Mr Sergio: Before I'll say a few things, I would also like to give notice that I wish to introduce a motion some time later on during the process. I think it's healthy that we are debating this process now, but let me say this first, because I think not only the minister but you, as members of the government, are struggling with this particular proposal as well. I would feel more at ease, if you will, if I could see the information the government side has now with respect to the interim result of this study.
Further, why I think it's of extreme importance that we don't rush into it and we do things properly is because the government, the minister, is relying very heavily on the report by Lampert. The problem is, and I hope this will really appeal to the common sense of the members, the second question and the answer of the government on the second question, which is, can the government table any studies showing how many units will be built across Ontario and in Metro Toronto as a result of its proposed change to rent control? How many jobs will result? Stuff like that.
The response from the minister is that the ministry's research on this issue is contained in the Lampert report. This is the problem, because we had Mr Lampert in Kitchener on Thursday, and with all that Mr Lampert is saying, pages 6, 7 and 8, all the things he's suggested the government should be doing in order to get the thing moving, at the end he said, in answer to another question, that no one will be building any units for the lower end.
This is the answer which the minister is giving here in response to the second question of Mr Marchese, that the answer is in Lampert's report. Mr Lampert unequivocally said on Thursday that no one is going to be building any units whatsoever. So this gives us a big problem. I think that's where the minister is struggling with the problem as well, because he knows that no one is going to build any units. The answer from Mr Lampert is that no one is going to be building any units.
So don't you think that it's extremely important to get whatever answer we can get from this consultant now as to their report, and then we can proceed accordingly? I don't think I have any doubts, and I agree with the parliamentary assistant, that the government is going to move on this. But if and when you do that, I think we have to have the facts. You have the responsibility to provide the facts to us, to the people. I think this is public information, and as such I think we should be provided with that information. I believe that you, as responsible members of the government, and we should avail ourselves of all the information so that nothing will impinge on our decision and whatever recommendation we'll be making.
The request of the minister, and the direction of the Legislature and the minister himself, is to provide a positive response once we've heard from both sides, and we did. So the minister is looking to us for a positive response. If we are to proceed today without that information, we can't provide a proper response. That's all I have to say at the moment.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sergio. Mr Stewart, I had you down. Do you have any further comment?
Mr Stewart: Yes, I do. I had a little concern this morning after listening to a couple of the members opposite. It appeared to me that the words were being turned around to support their thoughts or doctrine, whatever you wish to call it. I guess the concern I have is that there are many, many things that contribute to poverty. When I read the third paragraph, in my mind, it did not relate totally to the issue that we're talking about. That's why I didn't wish to support it.
The Chair: Seeing no further discussion on the motion, I'll put the question.
Mr Marchese: Recorded vote.
The Chair: At Mr Marchese's request, a recorded vote.
Ayes
Curling, Kennedy, Marchese, Sergio.
Nays
Danford, Hardeman, Maves, Ross, Stewart, Wettlaufer.
The Chair: The motion is defeated. Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: I have a motion to put forward to the committee, but before I do that, on a matter of procedure, I understand that it's circulated that the committee is meeting on Friday. I have no instructions of such and no authorization from my caucus to sit on Friday. Could you tell me, how is it that we are sitting on Friday?
The Chair: The instructions we were given were that any committees scheduled to meet this week were allowed to meet on Friday and we consequently scheduled a meeting. There is a letter coming that confirms those instructions.
Mr Curling: I would like to see that letter, because the only instruction that I have -- and I will await this letter until it comes, Mr Chairman --
The Chair: Once I receive the letter, I'll see that you have a copy of it.
Mr Curling: I have a copy of a letter here, so when we receive it, when we get it, we can deal with that then.
I have a motion and the motion reads:
In the document dated September 4, 1996, received today, that attempts to respond to questions raised by the opposition members on this committee, the ministry on page 2 states:
"The ministry has hired a consultant to undertake research into potential impacts. The consultant has provided interim results from his study and is in the process of completing the final report. The report should be available shortly."
In order that we, as legislators, make a positive contribution to this process, I would like to move that the stated interim results from this consultant's study be tabled immediately in order to use the information to formulate the committee's final report.
Furthermore, will the government table the final report to this committee before the committee completes its final report to the Legislature.
I so move.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Curling. Can I have a copy of it?
Mr Curling has put forward a motion. Have you got copies? While the clerk is passing copies of the motion around, Mr Curling, did you have some opening comments you wanted to make?
Mr Curling: Yes, Mr Chairman, I do have. In the document of September 4 -- let me read what it says here. The question was asked by Mr Marchese: "Can the government table any studies that show the impact on tenants of the proposed changes to rent control?" The ministry so generously responded by stating, "The ministry has hired a consultant to undertake research into potential impacts. The consultant has provided interim results from his study and is in the process of completing the final report. The report should be available shortly."
I took the minister's word very seriously when he stated that he wanted a positive input into the report that will be submitted to him. I define "positive" in this way: I define it not only that he wants to have consultations around the province with tenants and landlords and all those who have interest in this legislation that is being changed but also that he would like to know if there are any documents, any studies that have been done to have an input into that. Then, having all those documents, we, as I said, would be charged to give positive input into that final report.
I was delighted to know that the ministry had moved on the fact to do some studies. I would have thought all along that maybe the minister and the government were only depending on those people who come before us as we go around the province. I was delighted to know that some studies were being done. As we know, studies sometimes are very expensive and government sometimes has to be accountable to all this and say how much it costs. Therefore I'm sure it was an extensive study, extensive to the point that right now we're just in the interim basis and some pertinent facts must be available right now. Because, as it read, it seems to me that an interim report has been submitted to the minister and he is using those results now from that study to assist in the report. As he has that available to him, I feel he should also make it available to the standing committee, whom the Legislature has charged to come up with a positive input into this.
1420
I even commended the legislative research staff who had done a tremendous job in précising all that they've heard. We have that available and I want to commend them for that. But it's not complete, it's not adequate, and they would admit to that readily. Mr Richmond even stated that his experience over the years with many, many governments -- he could feel the knowledge in that, but even that is not sufficient itself. We want to know the current studies that are being undertaken and the impact it has immediately on tenants, and if we have that available I'm sure the minister will be better informed, better equipped in bringing about the legislation.
I know and I seem to be growing with confidence that, as we saw my colleagues around the province listen attentively, people would have their own personal experience of their impact on this. I've watched my colleagues who were hearing that this is a Toronto issue and rent control only has an impact on Toronto, that people in Thunder Bay and people in Sault Ste Marie were expressing the same fears about available and affordable accommodation in the rental market. It would have seemed, Mr Chairman, that it didn't matter where you were. You could be in Windsor, you could even be in London. London has shown a very high rate of vacancy, but still yet the affordability problem continues to haunt us.
We saw a great experience and the statistics have shown, we have to glean from that, in Thunder Bay, when someone said that the vacancy rate has increased; however, although the vacancy rates have increased and there are more available rental units their people on the affordable list was larger at that time than when the vacancy rate was much smaller, to tell us that it doesn't really matter in some cases whether they're available rental units. But it matters if there are available, affordable rental units.
Studies that are being done, are undertaken and being paid for by the government I know will draw that out. It will help us to make the kind of contribution, the comments, the response and the direction and the guidance to the legislative research staff that came from not only what we heard but also some of those studies. As a matter of fact, we know these things should be available to us and we need the cooperation of the minister, who has those documents in his possession. I'm sure he hasn't got anything to hide, because if he does, he tells us that his agenda is much different than what we thought it would be. I think he wants to resolve this issue.
So if there is something in that document that is pertinent to have good legislation, then share it with us. Share it with us so we can tell you from our experience also and from our analysis of it all what we think should be there in the final report. If there is something there that the minister doesn't want us to know because it may not be consistent with his agenda and the agenda is to get rid of rent control; in other words, he has a preconceived idea immediately of where he wants to go, because he wants to satisfy -- and I hope it's not that he just wants to satisfy the landlords, who would say, "Get rid of rent control." This document does not state that or state to the contrary and he feels it's better off to suppress it. That's a no-no. That's pretty naughty of the minister to do that because as I said, the study is paid for by taxpayers. It is available and it was done in order that we could have better legislation. The reason sometimes for poor legislation is because sometimes information is being withheld. By doing that, we are doing an injustice to the people we want to serve.
The people we want to serve, very much so in this, there's no doubt about this -- rent control is to protect those most vulnerable in our society. If we decide that we have a study that would help to do that protection and hide that, we're doing an injustice to those who we serve most.
I think the chicken will come home to roost eventually. Eventually the people will see the light, and they are seeing the light as we go along. They're seeing the light where even at times the contradictory arguments put forward by some landlords that they want to have their cake and eat it, they want to make sure the guideline is there so that it protects the legal maximum rent but in the meantime would like to cancel rent control, telling us: "Listen, you can't have your cake and eat it. You have to decide one thing or the other." You know your agenda is to cancel out rent control. Studies have shown that if rent control goes, what will happen is that no affordable housing will be built by that anyhow, said by authorities, experts, consultants, lots of big bucks being paid, and they come up with the same thing.
My feeling too is that the paper that is being done for the minister, the study that has been done for the minister, would throw a lot of light on what we want to say and what we want to do and the direction that we want to go.
I know that the agenda for the government is to get things done quickly, sometimes in such a manner that we ignore democracy. I don't intend to lecture my colleagues here, but it is so important I want to say, though, democracy is a very slow process and an expensive process, not the perfect thing, but it's the best we have. When we try to force this situation, you know what happens. We know what happens when we tried to force legislation or force authority on people and they don't understand it. The backlash is worse than the cause and the intent of the government. This government, in its short reign, has seen that, has seen that you don't do that. If you do that, you shall be punished.
Of course, in this democratic, this wonderful, beautiful country of ours, in Canada, even though people are really tempered by what's happening and are mad and upset, they know the process. The seniors did that to Mulroney when they said, "We shall remember you." The other people would say, "We know you have a mandate with which to govern and we will allow you to govern, but when the time comes to be accountable, you will pay the price." These days people feel that by the time the damage has been done, they feel so helpless. They feel completely that their entire lives are in the hands of politicians who dictate where they should go, no matter what they say, no matter what consultation takes place.
But the government has an agenda to say, "We shall put this law in place at that time," a specific time. They would then say, "Come hell or high water, this legislation will be coming through." I'm saying now we shouldn't be doing that. We should take our time, make sure that we have the best legislation possible and if there are studies that are being done, let us analyse those, let us make sure that the information and the instructions we give are given in a way that all avenues have been checked, all the interest groups have been consulted, all the experts have been spoken to, as much as possible. I understand too that there's a time you have to make some decisions, but people know when you hurry this process what happens, that they have not been spoken to.
When we went around the province -- I'm not asking for you to reopen the consultation process. Many students are saying, "It came at a time when we were looking for accommodation and we had no time to make our presentations." They came to me after the hearings and said, "I wish I had some time to make this presentation," and I said, "The government is trying its best in a short time to ram things through," and that is why they only had 20 minutes and many times the people didn't even have the time to ask pertinent questions. They say that's very unfortunate.
1430
It's more unfortunate for us as legislators, more than unfortunate for them, who will feel it later on. It's unfortunate because we want to make proper legislation, good legislation. It would be unfortunate for them that later down the road we have legislation that does not in any way protect them. They will say: "I want to tell you that. Did you do any studies?" You'll say, "We did." "So where are those studies?" We'll say, "We don't know." They'll say, "Who paid for those studies?" "The government." "Isn't the government us, taxpayers' money? Why is it that it wasn't available for you to know the impact it is going to have on us tenants will be this severe?" We'll say: "I read the report, yes. It said that the impact was going to be quite severe." They'll say, "When did you read the report?" "After the legislation." They'll say, "That's funny, why would you have the cart before the horse?" We'll say, "That's how the agenda was prepared by the government." They'll say, "Did you say anything?" This is the opportunity, and I come to it now. Yes, I am saying it now. Don't make that mistake.
You have those studies that are being done. You have the available information. Share it. Some of the perspective that you would see from a government side or from a landlord side is not the same thing we will see from the opposition side or from the committee side or from the tenants' side. No wonder I was in complete shock in some respects that some of the reports that you have done -- the government that is, Mr Chairman -- in some of those reports they did not consult tenants. I'd like to know, if you do have this report -- which you have said you do have, and as a matter of fact we're not guessing -- these hired consultants, these experts have undertaken, I'm sure, extensive research into the potential impacts this legislation will have on tenants, that they make them available.
The big question here, as I said, is why wouldn't the government make this available to us? Then one becomes very curious or suspicious that you have these studies and you don't want to make them available. Maybe I would ask the members then. These studies were not available to the opposition and I wouldn't say that you would do that. I would say that it wasn't available to anyone. But let me start it the other way; let me look at it from another point of view. Should the government side vote against this, it tells me they have seen the study, because they are intelligent people, they are honourable people. They would never vote on anything unless they had seen it -- unless it's Bill 26, where you all were voting one way and hadn't even read the document. But I thought you'd learned from that process that it's important that legislators read those documents before you vote on them.
Therefore, I'm saying that these impact studies are being read by the government, and what they saw is contrary to where the minister wants to go. Then your conscience becomes a challenge to you all: "Can I really vote against this motion? Did I get instructions from my whip, `Regardless of what, don't let them have that study because it will reveal to us and reveal to them that the direction they're going and the direction we are going as a government is wrong and has no protection for tenants'?" This is what tenants were saying.
Many of you may be saying that it's not working. The minister said at one stage, "Tenants don't like it, landlords don't like it, so I've got to fix it." No, no, no. We heard tenants saying: "It's not perfect, but what you're bringing, this new direction you're going, is going to make it worse. Since you don't have anything else, since your discussion paper is heading in the wrong direction, this new direction you're going is the wrong direction, then leave it alone until you can come up with a better direction."
But you are adamant to go in a direction that tenants are warning you against. You are adamant to go in a direction that even Lampert tells you will not bring you the kind of results you're looking for. You may be adamant. We have to speculate here that the studies that are available right now, paid for by taxpayers, are either not read by you or you are instructed to vote against that.
I know that many of our colleagues, especially in the Metro area, in the city area, are sometimes visibly absent from this discussion. We wanted some lively discussions and the impact it will make on their constituencies. They are visibly absent, and I understand that. I understand that some politicians maybe don't want to face up to it. I have been there where I, as the minister and a city politician, had to face up to the impact it was going to have and face landlords and face tenants and make a tough decision. I had consultation and research papers that I had to deal with, and I dealt with them.
People want honesty. They want us to participate, and the absence of many of our city politicians bothers me a bit. It tells me that it is almost a deliberate strategy to get people who are not impacted as much to sit here on this committee. But it doesn't matter to me, on the other hand, because each colleague who sits across from me -- I know they're honourable people and have a conscience. I know they have a conscience and I know within those reports, which I haven't read, there are things there that are so pertinent, have got to be. They paid big bucks for it; they'd better deliver. If they are not properly researched, we will tell them that and we'll reject it over on this side. We'll tell you that this study is lightweight, doesn't hit the target where we want, didn't ask the right questions. We'll tell you that, and then we can instruct the legislative research staff to do their job. Then the spin doctors in the government can do their other job. So when the legislation comes through and we're going to go clause by clause, we understand that it was done from a well-informed base.
1440
So I'm going to say to you, my colleagues over there, if you have nothing to hide, you'll vote for this motion and say, "Yes, you can have these documents because we have nothing to hide." Let me put it this way to you too: Regardless of what's in that document, you'll get your way. You will say you have the majority. You can put the legislation in place and when the time comes you'll vote and you will win, meaning that you have more votes on that side than on the opposition side. You'll be better for it because they will say: "Here are my hands. There's nothing else up my sleeve. It's what we heard and it's what we drafted."
Don't let me start thinking now, as I thought before, that as we speak that legislation is being drafted right now in the basement, so therefore what's the use getting all these documents now, that as we speak the government is making all the changes so that the level playing field that they speak about is such that tenants wouldn't have a good game in any way at all because the field would be all tilted on the other side and landlords have told them that we've got to level this off, "levelling it off" meaning that there are too many protections in this legislation. As a matter of fact, it's too complex.
I would urge you to make this available. There are ways, of course, that we can get it. We can get these documents. If you want to put us through all those jumps, hoops or loops we've got to go through, we may have to do that, but I'm saying you wouldn't be doing that to us. You wouldn't. You would make sure that we have the documents and information available.
Many of the tenants who came before us had also stated that they didn't have enough time in which to make an informal presentation. Some of the best presenters that came before us were those who said: "I will speak straight from experience and from what has happened to me over the years. I want to know that we have a government that will protect us. I want to know that we have a government that will be looking after my interests. We'd like to have a government that could make legislation that wouldn't have me going to the courts, paying lawyers' high fees, just to get what is right for me, just to get to interpret some very awkward laws that are being made by ill-informed legislators or inadequately informed legislators." They want a government to protect them from the point where big landlords who have money can have them through the hoops all the time.
Pertinent information is extremely important for good legislation. If we pull that back, if we do not make that available, what happens is that sometimes it goes to riot really, sometimes it goes to people who are so upset there is destruction of property. We see it reflected everywhere: They can't get at the system, so they get at the structures that are before them. We don't want that to happen. We want them to see that we have a Minister of Housing who wants to be the Minister of Housing, who wants to be in it, not a Minister of Housing who says, "I want to get out of the housing business." Who does he protect? I don't want a Minister of Housing who only protects on one side of the fence and it's landlords. Landlords know that if he does that, it will not be beneficial to them.
Landlords came before us and said, "Could you, government, prepare legislation, prepare some laws that will not make any other lawmakers reverse the process?" What a way to go, to say to us: "Will you not bring back rent control? You try and make a law that any other government that gets into power can't bring it back." Let me warn all the folks out there that we are the lawmakers and we represent the people. The people are the lawmakers for the people, and they must be by the people. If it's going to be bad law, it will be changed. If it's going to be any kind of a law that protects just one interest group, it will be changed, because we need fair laws. That's what makes this country a good country. It's different from many other countries. I don't think it's better than all countries, but it's a good country. What makes a good country are the laws of the country and how they're done, how democratically they're done.
You saw this very quiet dragon of Canada, Ontarians, you saw what happened when you rammed some other bills through without even reading them yourself. I wouldn't say you should be ashamed of yourself, but it woke you up. Even your Premier said: "It was the wrong direction we were going. We've got to listen to the people." When we don't, it bothers them; as a matter of fact to the extent that you can be thrown out of office. We've seen that.
So I'm saying to you, my colleagues in the government, support this motion and make the documents available to us so we can have, once and for all, legislation that will fully reflect all interest groups. Have a document itself that will say that we have consulted widely, that we didn't hurry it. We don't have to have this legislation by fall. No, we don't have to. Why? Tell me, what's the big deal about having it by fall if it's going to be wrong, if it's going to be misguided? You don't have to. As a matter of fact, I'd much rather see good legislation next fall instead of this fall; but good legislation, not bad legislation now. So I'm saying to you, support this.
I know my other colleagues would like to speak on this motion, so I will stop here.
Mr Marchese: I support Mr Curling's motion. It's very much a corollary of what we were discussing earlier. It's a curious thing, because I asked Mr Lampert that very question. I asked him, "Should the government do a study with respect to the impact it would have on tenants?" Mr Lampert said: "No, we don't need any studies. It's already being done." The curious thing about that is that the government is doing one. Although Mr Lampert said that their chief economist was analysing this, that we don't need one, the minister obviously has the good sense to do an impact study because he knows -- and he's equally as worried as we are -- that there's going to be a problem. Otherwise he wouldn't have been doing one. Because if Lampert, on the one hand, said we don't need one and the minister says we do, he's concerned.
I'm happy to know that is the case. If that is so, presumably he would want to share that report with us. I guess we'll be hearing from Mr Hardeman with respect to that. I'm assuming that if it's a document the minister has commissioned, he would want us to see that. I know he'll comment very shortly.
The other comment I wanted to make with respect to this is that Mr Hardeman probably has had enough time to call ahead to find out whether the minister thinks it's a good idea to share with us. If he hasn't done that, I could give him a few minutes to do that and speak through that telephone call. I think we need that study and if the government thinks we need it, hopefully they think that they should share that document with us.
Mr Kennedy: This is indeed a chance for the members opposite to show that they have nothing to fear from the facts. We have heard from many points of opinion, but our obligation is to do more than that: We're to evaluate, review and report. There is no basis under which that can happen if the government in this particular instance, looking at one of the stated intentions of what this whole exercise in terms of the hearings and the ministry report is all about, proposes not to divulge what the impacts on tenants are going to be.
It's an exemplary opportunity for Mr Parker, who will speak shortly, to let us know that perhaps this is an initiative arising from some of those members on the government side who have many tenants. Maybe this is the outcropping of their concern for some of their constituents to see what the impacts are, because certainly all through these hearings we have heard from tenants who are prone not to believe that this government has taken their interests to heart.
1450
So it is, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, encouraging in a way, gives some sense of direction, some potential direction to what this committee might do with its responsibility, to know that the government has actually commissioned studies to learn what the impacts on tenants will be. It goes right to the heart of the job which is in front of us, but even more so to the heart of the fairness of this whole process. We have the impact according to landlords in the Lampert report, which was difficult to obtain, and only after the significant intervention of my colleague Alvin Curling were we able to actually address Mr Lampert and find out some of the bona fides of his report.
This really is a choice for the government side to express itself as to whether it really wants to try to resolve conflict, or is it only interested in setting up artificial conflict between landlords and tenants? It is anticipated in the remarks that the minister made that there would be conflict, but we need the facts to do our job. If there is some reason that this government is afraid to put that forward, then it should state so. And I hope to hear that very shortly from Mr Parker, because I think there is great concern on the part of people out there: What does this government do when it comes to opposing concerns? Does it try to understand them? Does it research and try to learn where those things might fit into its agenda, or does it just steamroller over them?
I think, notwithstanding that scepticism, this committee has heard from hundreds of people who would like this government to listen, who would like it to reference the facts, and it is only fair that if the government has indeed lived up to part of that expectation, that we on the opposition side should share in those facts. We would like to discharge our obligation as constructive members of this committee to get the best result, the best recommendations to this minister. So I hope that we will hear very shortly what the government's intentions in this regard are.
We invite the support of the government members so at least they will know that the government individual members and the tenants and the general public interest, which they're discharged to represent, won't be lost in consideration of some artificial agenda. Because we have only one obligation here as a committee, and that is to produce the best recommendations we can to the minister, to respect indeed the input that we've received over these many weeks from people and the input which couldn't make it to us which came in written form and some of the informal contact many of us have had with tenants and with landlords. To do that something fundamental has to prevail, and that is basic fairness, a spirit of inquiry on the part of this committee.
I sat on another committee not long ago looking into the matter of video lottery terminals, and at the end of the proceedings we heard one of the Conservative members describe the proceedings as a farce, as a fait accompli, as not worth doing. I hope that the members of the government side who are here today don't share that view of these proceedings. That can be amply demonstrated in your support for this motion and in your participation in the follow-through and incorporating those facts into the report and recommendations to the minister. I look forward to your response.
Mr John L. Parker (York East): I am grateful and encouraged that my friends opposite have indicated that they are looking forward to my remarks. I hope they listen carefully to what I have to say, and I hope that if these remarks are repeated they are repeated fully and in context.
I am speaking as an individual member, not representing cabinet, not representing the minister, not representing the government per se. I am speaking as an individual member. I oppose this motion. I oppose this motion on grounds of process, and I oppose this motion on grounds of substance as well.
Let's look at what the motion calls for. The motion calls for the "interim results from a study to be tabled immediately in order that the committee can use the information to formulate the committee's final report." I'm interested that the motion calls for the interim results of a study to be tabled immediately, and that the interim results be tabled immediately so that the committee can use the information to formulate the committee's final report.
This committee has just completed a long and thorough process of analysing the government's white paper. Bear in mind that it is a white paper we're talking about, not legislation. We are not looking at legislation; we are looking at a set of proposals, a discussion paper, a document that is intended to provoke discussion, thought, analysis, response, that invites everyone in the province to examine its proposals, to make recommendations as to how those proposals might be more fully put into final form and to discuss whether those proposals in general have merit or lack merit. That was the job that was given to this committee.
This committee has visited many towns and many communities across the province. I have been pleased to participate in much of that process, visiting many of the communities across this province, listening to people in many communities as they've commented on the government's proposals. I think the job of this committee now is to pull together the submissions we have received over the course of that process and come up with a report based on the judgement and analysis and best thinking of the members of this committee and the information we have received in the course of the process of this committee, that process being to analyse the white paper and the submissions that have been made in front of this committee over the course of the last three weeks.
The Chairman has been punctilious in restricting each deputant before this committee to the allotted time to make their presentation. No one has been allowed to run overtime by as much as a minute. Everyone who wanted to speak to this committee was kept to the same strict rules. Each of us who wanted to speak during the course of the last three weeks has been restricted to the same strict time limits. I've been restricted to those time limits, and at times it's been frustrating to me. At times, I've had more questions I wanted to ask, more comments I wanted to make, but the Chairman has been very fair in handling all deputants with an even hand and ensuring that everyone gets a fair chance to put their position forward and to give the record a chance to reflect the submissions of everyone who appeared before us.
It is now suggested that the interim results from a study that has nothing to do with the processes of this committee be tabled before this committee so that this committee can use this interim information "to formulate the committee's final report." I question what the attitude of this committee would be if the minister walked in the door now and said, "By the way, ladies and gentlemen, I have this big, fat report here -- well, it's actually not a complete report; it's an interim report -- and I insist that you bear its interim conclusions in mind as you prepare your report." I don't think we would take very kindly to that attitude on the part of the minister if the minister were to do such a thing. I certainly wouldn't. I would not welcome a late submission from the minister, least of all an interim report, to be laid before us for us to consider while we are in the process of considering our report, after going through the rigorous process of meeting with people across the province in a very disciplined and fair manner.
For that reason, I question on grounds of process and grounds of substance whether it is appropriate that we call for the presentation of these interim results as part of our process of formulating our final report.
1500
Let's just think for a moment how government works in this province. Government works in this province by the executive branch proposing and executing legislation according to the ultimate approval of the Legislature. When the opposition doesn't like legislation that the government puts forward, and as oppositions will, they pick holes in it and find fault with it and indicate their disapproval of it, from time to time government members are inclined to say something as wild and irrational as, "If you don't like what the government is putting forward, what good ideas do you have?" The typical response we receive from the opposition in cases like that is: "Oh, it's not our job to propose legislation. The government proposes; the opposition disposes." Translation: "Don't look to us to come up with any good ideas; just count on us to find fault with anything you, the government, bring forward."
It is the responsibility of the government ultimately to formulate legislation and put it before the Legislature. The Legislature will ultimately determine whether it passes or fails, and in due course the people, in the next general election, will decide whether they are pleased with the performance of the government.
The government, recognizing that heavy responsibility, embarks on a process that involves more than one element in order to help develop policy and bring it before the Legislature. In this case, part of that process has been to develop the discussion paper that the minister put before the entire province and to seek the response of people from across the province. I did my best to see to it that that discussion paper received the widest possible circulation in my own riding. I would expect that my friends opposite have done similar in their ridings as well.
This committee was charged with the responsibility of travelling the province and seeking submissions from people across the province in response to that discussion paper. I submit that it's the responsibility of this committee now to pull that material together and prepare a report based on that material.
But the government isn't restricted simply to what this committee puts forward in formulating its ultimate legislation, if there is to be legislation. The minister has undertaken other initiatives as well to determine how to formulate whatever policy is to be put forward and whatever legislation is to be brought forward. I know for a fact that the minister has met with tenant activists in my own riding. Tenant leaders in my own riding have met with the minister and discussed their thoughts directly with him. He's received that input directly.
The minister has obviously commissioned other reports, and those reports will ultimately come to him. Who knows what other advice will come to the minister in one form or another? It will all take a role and play a part in assisting the minister in developing whatever legislation the minister will ultimately choose to bring forward in this area.
We are told that the report that is under discussion right now will eventually be made available. It's not as though this is a secret document and it's the job of this committee to bring it out into the open; it is the job of this committee to form a report based on the evidence this committee has pulled together over the last three weeks.
I question whether it's useful for this committee to call upon every other piece of information that has come to the minister's attention to be made evidence before this committee so that this committee can use it to form this committee's final report. That's not the job of this committee and that's not the job of those reports.
The minister will be receiving, as I say, advice from many sources and has done so over a long period of time. Is it the recommendation of my friends opposite that all of that information be brought before this committee as evidence also, that this committee cannot possibly discharge its obligations until everything that has been and will be submitted to the minister is also submitted to this committee? Are we going to put a halt to the functions of this committee until everything that's in the minister's files is brought before this committee?
I would propose that that is not what this committee is about and I would propose that that is not the job that lies before us in formulating the report of this committee on the basis of the inquiries we have just concluded.
For all of those reasons -- and as I say, it can be broken down into reasons of process and reasons of substance -- I question the wisdom of this motion and I find nothing of merit to support it. For those reasons, I as an individual member will be voting against this motion.
The Chair: Mr Curling?
Mr Curling: I think he's before me.
The Chair: Mr Sergio -- Mr Marchese?
Mr Sergio: Are you still confusing us?
The Chair: I've not got your name on this list, sir.
Mr Sergio: Marchese is not Sergio. Okay, you've got me after him?
The Chair: No, I don't have your name down at all. You never indicated to me that you wanted a chance to speak. Did you indicate it to Mr Maves?
Mr Marchese: All right, put him on the list. My God, Mr Carroll.
Mr Sergio: It's no problem.
Mr Marchese: I don't want to misconstrue what Mr Parker said at all. If I do, please let me know. But I disagree completely on the grounds of process and substance with what Mr Parker has said. Using his own words, I will argue that the motion is indeed relevant and important to the work of this committee.
When he argues that this motion has nothing to do with the process of this committee, I believe he's wrong. This study that the minister has done or commissioned, although outside of this committee process, is very relevant to what we're doing. Because we are meeting and have met with a number of deputations and the minister has done this on his own doesn't mean that what he's doing on his own is not particularly relevant.
Do I want to know every discussion he's had with every tenant that he's met? No, that's not really of interest to me, but the study is. I think you would understand that that study relates very much to the concerns deputants have brought forth to this committee, more so than any other individual discussion he might have had either with landlords or some tenants. I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with that.
So although this is outside of our process, it's very much part of the process. When you argue, "Don't we have enough information to be able to do this on our own?" yes, I suspect we do, but we will arrive at different conclusions, obviously. You might not, but I know the rest of your committee members will. Because if we listen to what the deputations have said, by and large in all these deputations here, the tenants and all the other groups that support tenants disagree with the direction of this report. So if we listen to them, you should be dismissing some of your major proposals in the report. But I suspect you won't do that.
So you're quite right: We have plenty of information to do this on our own, but I'm not sure we're going to be listening to those deputations. That's my worry. That's why I argue, because I know that you're going to forge ahead, as Mr Hardeman said, with this proposal, that we need this impact study, because that will either confirm for us that we're on the right track or confirm for you that we're on the wrong track. Either way, you have nothing to fear. You should have nothing to fear in terms of wanting to read what's contained in that document.
I'm not certain why some of you are opposed to this document. To argue in terms of process, I think it's quite in keeping. In terms of substance, it's very relevant to what the deputants have said. So on both of those grounds I think we are on the right track in this regard. I didn't want to prolong this discussion, but when I hear those arguments, I think they're moving in the wrong direction, quite frankly.
This discussion has nothing to do with the Chair in terms of being punctilious or fair. He's been a very fair Chair. It has nothing to do with him. So I'm not sure why that discussion came into your comments.
You made a few other remarks. I'm looking through my notes here just to see how we can fit this in: the fact that you said the minister is getting advice from many different sources. Yes, but I've argued this document is different and it's critical, so we should have it. If you say, for example, as you argue, that the way it's worded is somewhat problematic in terms of using the interim report to make a final report and then wanting a final report to complete the work, that can be reworded. That's not the issue. We can get the interim report so we can see what is contained in there and use that for our final report when we get to it. But it doesn't preclude the fact that we would like to see the final report before we make a final report. So we could say, "I would like to move that the stated interim results from this consultant's study be tabled immediately," period, and get rid of the other paragraph, and then continue to request that they table the final report for our own final report. It's a matter of wording; it's not a big problem.
1510
But I really don't think you can argue that this study is irrelevant both in terms of process and substance. I don't think you can. I think you should not be frightened to be able to use that report one way or the other. If it disproves some of your own thoughts, then so be it. I would think you would want some fairness in this discussion. If it corroborates some of the points that some of the tenants have made, then it corroborates some of the points that some of them have made and you've got to deal with it.
But I'm not understanding why you're opposed to it. I think it looks awfully bad on your part to object to us looking at that report. It looks bad, in my view. If you've commissioned a report, we should all see it and you would want to see it. If you don't want us to see it, it's a problem. But remember, eventually we'll get hold of this report one way or the other, and so we'll have to argue retroactively that the report might have confirmed things the tenants said. I don't think you want that. I think it looks awfully bad on you to keep that information from yourselves and from us.
So I'm going to wait to see, once you've defeated this motion, because I know you will -- that's what governments do all the time. It's sad, but we've all done it. The Liberals have done it, we've done it, you do it; nothing different. It's not as if you're about to get into, Mr Parker, something that we haven't done. We all do it and it's a sad state of affairs in terms of how we've done it.
But if you really wanted a different reaction from the opposition, you would not have introduced something that is terribly conflicting with our views. Once you decontrol, you've basically taken us out of the discussion. We can't be collaborative, because that's fundamental to what I believe in. So if you say, "I'm sorry, that's what we believe in," and then expect me as an opposition member to come up with good ideas about that, you've come with the wrong process.
If you wanted me to participate differently, then I would recommend that you get rid of decontrol. If you do that, if you get rid of some of those critical elements, we can have a discussion. I think some of the tenant groups would be very willing to discuss some other ideas with you. But if you keep that in, we have no more discussion, because you'll have us very much diametrically opposed to that.
So it's not because we the opposition, that I personally, enjoy being in opposition just for the sake of it and we oppose your governing, because there have been many times when I was in government when I was quite interested in the views of the opposition, and oftentimes I've argued with our own policy people who usually sit in the room what's wrong with a particular statement that somebody else has made or proposals somebody else has made. Unfortunately, governments get into a situation, as you will, where you won't challenge your own piece of information or law or bill. It's a sad reality. That's what happens.
In the format in which you've presented it, you leave me no other option but to fight the basic fundamentals of this proposal. There are a lot of other things in between in this other report that I could discuss with you and I'm sure tenants would love to discuss with you. But if you keep some of those elements in, we've got a problem. After this motion is defeated, I want to know from some of you, if you're willing to talk about it, what your own position is on decontrol, on the Rental Housing Protection Act, on taxes and whether or not, if we're able to win some tax changes, some of those things that come as a benefit will be returned to the tenants. I want to know what you think about that, because that will give me a good sense of what I'm up with.
But in terms of this particular motion, it's a fair one. It's truly, genuinely a fair thing to say your minister has information, you want to see it, we want to see it, and use that information as the basis for arguments that we can make and that you can make one way or the other.
The Chair: I have Mr Maves, followed by Mr Kennedy, Mr Sergio and Mr Hardeman. Hopefully that will --
Mr Curling: You took my name out?
The Chair: You said you didn't want it.
Mr Curling: I didn't say that. I just said that he had indicated --
The Chair: So you want your name on the list? Okay.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I'll try to be a little briefer than previous speakers, albeit not that brief. I agree with Mr Parker in many respects on this issue. We were asked to go out with this discussion paper, to travel the province of Ontario and hear what people had to say about it and report back on what we heard on that paper. We weren't asked to go out and come up with a new housing policy for the Minister of Housing. We were asked to go and listen to folks and see what they had to say about that paper and report back.
There are any number of reports which we could go out and look for and demand and bring in here and read and take months upon months to sift through if we were charged with developing a housing policy. But we're not. We could have brought in the Russell Canadian Property Index, which was thrown several times in front of the committee and used and misused and so on.
There are Ontario government-generated studies that we've heard about during this session: The Impact of Rent Review on Rental Housing in Ontario, 1982; Survey of Financial Performance of Landlords; Financial Trends and Other Characteristics of Ontario's Residential Rent Stock, 1989. These are reports that folks opposite kept debating whether or not landlords were making a profit during this whole process. We could demand that those papers come forward too, but that would be if we were here to develop a housing policy. We're not; we're here to have discussions on this paper, to have hearings and to listen, as Mr Parker said, to what people around the province had to say about the initiatives in that paper.
Mr Marchese: They are opposed to it.
Mr Maves: There are other things that we've talked about: the study of intensification and rental housing conservation, 1983; Conservation of Ontario's High-rise Rental Stock, Clayton Research, 1984. I could go on. George Fallis, economics, York University, July 1981, a study for the Ontario Economic Council recommending gradual removal of rent controls. Mr Marchese isn't asking for that study. A 1982 study for the Ontario Economic Council by economist Richard Arnott advocated a gradual five-year phasing out of rent review. No desire to see that one.
Mr Marchese: Bring them forward.
Mr Maves: There's Larry Smith of the University of Toronto, the same thing: rent review in Ontario contributed substantially to the reduction in new rental housing starts and by keeping rents low increased demand for rental housing and thereby contributed to the rental housing shortage. No desire to see that.
There are other experiences that people have talked about in other countries: in Britain, in Sweden. There are experiences that have occurred in New York and all around the world where we could be saying: "Let's bring forward all this information, all these different case studies. We've got to see them."
If we were here to put together an entire housing policy for the minister, then maybe I too would say, "Yes, bring all that stuff in." It's readily available. It could have been had by members opposite throughout this process by going to the library, asking their staff to get it, but it was never deemed necessary up until today and they decided there was one specific thing that they had to have.
I want to conclude just by saying and reiterating that we were asked to ask the people what they thought about this document, and that's what we've done. We've gone out and we've listened and now it's time for us to report back to everybody about what we've heard. We weren't asked to do our own housing policy. We were asked to comment on what we heard from the people of Ontario about this paper, and we'll do that. So I'll be voting against this motion.
Mr Kennedy: I have to return to this issue because it's awfully apparent that the members opposite have a chronic fear of the facts.
The mandate we were given from the House said that we were to review and report on the matter of rent control, to go out and listen to people, but at our own judgement to use whatever means we could to put that back in front of the minister.
What we've heard are rationalizations on top of rationalizations from the other side of the House why they're afraid of these facts. It has sharpened my appetite to have these facts brought before us, and each of these members opposite speaking in opposition must respond to their own constituents why they're not interested in what they say is not germane.
I have to commend Mr Maves for listing many of the studies we've already read that a previous Conservative government thought fit to prepare in advance of changes to rent review and rent control legislation.
1520
The question put by Mr Marchese was, can the government table any studies that show the impact on tenants of the proposed changes, the exact changes, contained in the document waved in the air by Mr Maves, from the Niagara Falls riding? That is exactly germane, not, as Mr Parker opposite would have us believe, vague, not relevant, incidentally beneficial, but directly germane to the job we have here today, and it is negligent of the members opposite or it is deliberate of the members opposite to hide from us these results.
To turn to the people in your riding, who are depending on us to do the best job possible in what is admittedly a difficult situation, and to have only those thin, in the case of Mr Maves, 12-year-old rationalizations on why we wouldn't want to see the most recent, the most up-to-date information being prepared with government funds, admitted to in a response from this ministry -- you're saying we can't have it, and you're saying we can't have it for no good reason. Because we don't have the time, because we're not interested, because we don't want the best result possible, because some of Mr Parker's constituents have been able to get in and see the minister.
This committee has an obligation, and that obligation was set out in the charge from the House: to review this document, to review rent control. This information is directly germane to this. We have had the information, with the assistance of Mr Curling, a huge pile of data put forward -- an opinion, I should say, put forward by Mr Lampert, based on data provided by landlords. We are looking for some data that shows the impact on tenants. We would hope for that data to be objective, to help us resolve some of the conflicts we've heard over the past three weeks, to try and live up to our responsibilities to give good recommendations to this minister.
This concern, which we hoped was a goodwill resolution arising from Mr Curling, I think we now have to regard as a matter of fairly serious concern which could be resolved immediately. This need not hold us up. Let someone from the government side say that these interim results will be available and we will proceed with the report.
Why would this government not want us to see something that addresses precisely, exactly the matter we've been charged to look into? That's the question, and we haven't heard the answer.
Mr Sergio: This begs more questions. I truly believe that you people, the government, want to produce a document about which the government can truly say, "This is what we said it would deliver, changes that would be better for tenants, for taxpayers and for the landlords."
You have heard the people throughout the last three weeks. The majority of tenants, even developers, even landlords, said, "This legislation does absolutely nothing for any of us." I am sure you want to hear and see everything so you could produce at the end truly a document that is going to be better than what we have now.
With all due respect, the aim of the minister and of the government is to produce something better. This is what he keeps on saying, time after time, even in his presentation here on August 19. Even our staff has said that there are many things within the TPP, as it is called, or tenants' protection package, that we haven't heard from many tenants, things that have not been addressed.
Mr Lampert has said he's a big supporter of shelter allowance, but there is nothing in this particular TPP. I wonder if the new study, for example, would show that the minister should be leaning towards something like that. If so, this committee would like to know and we would like to make some recommendations at the appropriate time with respect to that. What would be wrong with that?
When the recommendations of a study paid for by taxpayers, commissioned by your own government, cannot be seen -- and if one particular recommendation were to be that yes, with eliminating rent control we propose a type of shelter allowance, I think we should be welcoming that idea, the opportunity to say, "Fine, we go along with that, and also we go along with that."
On more than one occasion both members, Mr Maves and Mr Parker, have mentioned, as to the discussion of this white paper, that it's only a discussion of the paper. We have direct direction, not only from the minister himself but from the House, from the Legislature, and the direction this committee has says, "Whereas the standing committee on general government was instructed by the Legislature to review and report on the matter of rent control." It's not just for discussion; it is to report on the matter of rent control, to make changes. We're not going through this exercise -- and the parliamentary assistant has said, "We are going to go ahead with it."
Are you guys saying to us, to the people, that what we did in the last three weeks was a joke? Are you telling us this was a joke? You call this a discussion paper, a white document? I don't think so. I think you people have more common sense than that, I think you people are more serious than that, and if that is the case, let's do it properly. We have direction from the Legislature to review and report on the matter of rent control as set out in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing consultation paper, and whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing instructed this committee to provide positive input into development of the rent control package, I'm wondering, when did we turn this direction both from the minister himself and the Legislature into simply a discussion paper?
If this is not sufficient, let me refresh the members with the directions from the minister's quotes, contained in the presentation to this committee on August 19. He says, "Our government is committed to the democratic process and in particular to the exercise of democracy at the grass-roots level." Who the heck is it at the grass-roots level? We? I don't think so. I think we heard the people at the grass-roots level for the last three weeks. Are we saying now that we heard from the people at the grass-roots level and we are turning our backs on those people? Is this what we are saying? I differ quite strenuously from the comments by Mr Parker that if the minister were to walk in today he would be saying to us, "What are you planning to do?"
Mr Chairman, do you know what he would be saying? That he gave us certain directions to go by. He has a lot of tenants in his area, and I believe him to be trustworthy and very serious when he says he wants to do the best for the tenants, I really do, not circumventing the democratic process, absolutely not. We find the same quotes from the minister through page 6, page 7, page 9, page 10, page 12 and even the conclusion on page 22, where he keeps repeating himself that the only reason he has put this document forward is to provide a better system, more protection, for the tenants in Ontario.
Mr Chairman, I don't see any problem in supporting the motion as it is on the floor. I will have more to say, but for now, I will end up here.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sergio. On the list I have Mr Curling, Mr Marchese and Mr Hardeman. I'd like to respectfully suggest that we've pretty well heard most of the arguments, and if we could call for a vote at the end of those three speakers, we could get on with the rest of it.
Mr Curling: I want to inform the government that it's you who control the agenda, it's you who want to put this thing through in a hurry. When I asked for the interim report to be put forward -- you say that's all you have at the moment, but the last part of my motion is saying that when the final report is ready, we have it presented to us so we can deal with a complete report for that input. When you talk about substance, it's the substance we're getting in dribbles. I want to deal with it in that form, and it's relevant to what we do.
Mr Parker, I just want to say it's a friendly motion to have all the information available to deal with a complete, final, good direction to the legislative researcher to do our report. Thank you.
Mr Parker: I never doubted that everything you do is friendly.
1530
Mr Marchese: I don't know what Mr Maves was really getting at -- I wish he'd spoken to the motion -- when he said we're not asked to do our own housing policy. All of this is directly related to housing and it will create legal housing policy for people to abide by eventually. I'm not sure what he was getting at with all these other reports he mentioned. If he wants to bring forth these other reports, let him do so. He doesn't even need a motion. He can get hold of all those reports, table them, give them to us, and we can read them.
What he didn't address is specifically this motion, and this motion speaks about the impact studies your minister has done; he commissioned an impact study. He didn't speak to that. He rambled on about everything else except that. If the minister felt it was important enough for him to commission the study, it should be important for this committee to see it. That's really the issue we're talking about, not everything else that he talked about.
I'm not sure why you're entirely frightened about doing this, but I know you are. It does you a disservice not to want to see what's in that report. That impact study connects directly to the proposals in this report. It speaks to this. He's obviously worried that there is going to be an impact on tenants and he wants to know. I want to know. You want to know.
Hopefully Mr Hardeman will also speak to this motion, to this impact study, the connection of this study to this proposal, not all the other reports Bart Maves spoke about and all that other stuff. Hopefully the parliamentary assistant will see that there's a connection between this study that the minister has commissioned and our work and that it would be useful for us all to see it. That's really all we're talking about. I await Mr Hardeman's views on this matter.
The Chair: Mr Hardeman, do you want the last word on this issue?
Mr Hardeman: Thank you, Mr Chair, but we're never sure it's the last word.
Mr Curling: Don't provoke us.
Mr Hardeman: First of all, I want to correct a couple of statements made by Mr Marchese and by Mr Curling that I said we were going to move ahead with this draft document or discussion paper regardless, that the principles outlined in the document were cut and dried and that the government was going to implement it regardless of what it heard from the public or from the committee.
I want to assure you that it is a draft discussion document. My reference to moving ahead is that we heard during the consultation, both from the tenant community and from the landlord community, that the present system is not working, and the government will be moving ahead in trying to correct that situation.
We will be taking into consideration the information that was presented to the minister from some 60 different groups we held consultation with during the process of preparing that draft document. We then put it out to public consultation through this committee and heard from many, many groups, representing both the tenant community and the landlord community. I think it's fair to suggest that we heard different views from different directions, but we are looking to take all those into consideration as we prepare the direction that the government should go. I want to make sure it's on the record that the government is not -- what did you call it, Mr Curling? Bulldozing ahead? Ramming ahead, I think, was the term you used.
We are going through a consultative process to try and come up with tenant protection and to deal with both the cost of housing and the quality of housing in Ontario, particularly in the low vacancy areas, and we think this is the appropriate process to do that.
Having said that, I think it's important to point out, as was mentioned by members of the government side, that the committee's work was to hear what the public had to say about this process. I suggest that maybe we want more and more consultants' reports so we can try as a committee to pit the consultant against the people who are actually involved with the situation, pit one against the other and see whether this committee can come up with a process in between the two that will suit some people, for political purposes, better than other measures.
I think our job as a committee is to bring forward the consultation process and what we heard from all people involved as to what they see as the problem and what they see as the solutions, most particularly what, if implemented, they would see as more or fewer problems created by the discussion paper.
I also want to deal quickly with the issue Mr Curling brought up in his presentation, that everything went so quickly, everybody only had 20 minutes to make their presentation, that there wasn't time for Mr Curling to ask questions and everyone he spoke to after the meeting wished they had had more time so they could have made further presentation. I want to point out that 20 minutes was the time allotted by the representatives from all three parties as the most appropriate way to go through this hearing process.
There were options put forward. My understanding is that there were options put forward to go to half an hour, 20 minutes or longer. It was agreed by all three parties that it would be a 20-minute presentation for everyone who wanted to appear before the committee, and generally I believe it worked fairly well. There were very few people in the process who were restricted from having their say.
Having sat through almost all the hearings, I would be the first to admit that there were times that some of the members of the committee were cut short on some of the long direction they would have liked to provide to the deputants, but again I'd point out that the reason for the hearings was not for the opposition or the government to tell the people making the presentations all their views. It was to hear the views of the public, and I think the committee has done that in an appropriate manner.
The other item I wanted to talk to for a moment is the Lampert report. There have been two or three references made to how difficult it was to get the Lampert report. It becomes difficult if we bring it up at the meeting and say, "I haven't got a copy of the Lampert report, so it must be difficult to receive." My understanding is that the Lampert report has been a public document for some time and it was a matter of getting it copied as opposed to it being available. I think it's been in circulation for a considerable length of time.
Also, as has been mentioned a number of times, it was commissioned, not to set up a housing policy for the government or to make recommendations on the total housing policy; the direction for Mr Lampert when the report was commissioned was to come up with recommendations on what it would take for the private sector to build rental accommodations. He did recommend other items besides changing the rent control regime, and obviously the government will be and is already looking at a number of those issues to try and improve the affordability of housing and the quality of housing. But I just wanted to make sure it was on the record as to why the Lampert report was prepared and what its recommendations were based on.
Going back to the motion we're speaking to -- and maybe this was the long way around to speak to the motion -- it is to try to bring more information into play so the committee members, I suppose, can come up with housing strategies that are separate from the discussion paper, which is supposed to be to outline to the minister what the public and the building community feel is appropriate to deal with the items mentioned in this discussion paper.
Obviously, it is true that the presenters have made comments about the impacts they feel it will have on their particular sector of that rental market. The tenant community has more concerns that it will impact on rent than the landlord community seems to have. The landlord community seems to think it needs to go further. I'm not sure that a consultant's report, one way or the other, would make a great difference in your opinion, in whether you believe that the impact suggested by tenants is the appropriate one or the impact suggested by the landlords is the appropriate one.
1540
In answer to the question Mr Curling asked about whether I have read it, the answer is no, the reason being that the report mentioned in the questionnaire that was sent out is, as is mentioned, an interim report. The consultant has reported and is preparing the final report. I'm sure when it is available it will be read from cover to cover, and the direction and the implications in that I'm sure will be taken into consideration as the minister deals with the housing policies in the province as opposed to just the draft document we're dealing with.
Though we have been given the task of hearing what the public has to say on the discussion paper and reporting back to the minister, it's important to recognize that the minister is responsible for a complete housing policy in the province and he does have the obligation to find out all the information and all the impacts the policy direction may have before he authorizes the final preparation and the implementation of such policies.
I think everyone on the committee would agree that it's appropriate for the minister to know those impacts before he implement policy, so it would be very important that these studies are done. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Finally, I just want to point out that I don't believe this committee would require the documents in order to make rational decisions and direction on what you have heard.
With that, I think we will carry on. We thank you, and I would answer any other criticism you may have, but we will not be supporting the resolution as it's written. We do not believe there is a need to slow down or to have the discussions of this committee stop while we're waiting for further documents to be prepared. We think we should proceed with the deliberations on the committee report and report back the minister as we were instructed to do.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hardeman.
Mr Marchese: I want to get on the list.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, you want us to break the little agreement we made?
Mr Marchese: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Go ahead, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: If the government doesn't speak, it's probably easier; then we could end these things a lot faster. But each time they speak, it provokes me. It's really very difficult to be collaborative. When you hear a number of arguments that make no sense, it forces you to respond. I'm almost tempted to say, "Don't respond, move on to the next point so we can get on with it," but when you hear some of these arguments, it boggles the intelligent mind.
When he argues that the minister has an obligation to know the impacts and isn't that appropriate for the minister, what kind of reasoning is that, Mr Hardeman? If it's appropriate for the minister to know, it's appropriate for the committee to know, because we're studying this issue. How can you make that argument and make it appear like somehow we're fools not to understand what you're saying?
If it's important for the minister to know and it's his obligation to know what the impact of his proposals is on the public, it's important for us as well to know the impact. You can't make those statements and not have people like me respond. Then you say, "We don't need that document to decide on what we heard." We've argued that we do. The tenants and those who have come to talk about protections tenants need are worried about the impact of decontrolling, worried about the impact your increases will have on capital expenditures, including the cost pass-through of taxes and other utilities. They're worried, and you argue that we don't need that study because it doesn't impact on what we heard. It makes no sense. That's why I get upset.
If you said nothing, we'd move on; I'd be ready for the next issue. But when you make the strange points that if we've got points about housing strategies to deal with this paper, that's all right, but the impact study is not needed, that too makes no sense. Either don't say anything or, if you do, expect me to disagree with an agreement we would have had that we move on.
Mr Hardeman says, "Let's proceed." I'd like to proceed. I really want to get to the next point because I want to hear a number of you speak to decontrolling, speak to the rental housing protection, speak to whether, if you do make tax changes, the tenants will have a benefit. I want to hear from you so I know where you stand, and based on that, I will have a sense of what the next step is.
But in terms of this particular motion, it's hard for me to collaborate when you make arguments that are not intelligent. Mr Parker attempted that by speaking about process and substance. I disagreed with him on issues of process and substance, but at least it's an interesting argument to make. But these other points, like Mr Maves's, that we haven't requested all these other reports -- if he wants to bring them, bring them. Don't confuse those reports with this request that talks about impact studies. They're two different things.
I just wanted to disagree with Mr Hardeman. Maybe he'll speak and then I'll get on the list again; that's fine. But in terms of the argument, they're poor arguments, very poor. If the minister needs those studies, we need them too. There's no such thing that the minister needs the impact study on his own because he's the minister, but we in the committee, having reviewed this for three weeks, don't need it because we've got to discuss other things we heard. It makes no sense.
I hope we temper some of those arguments so we can move on to the next issue, Mr Chair.
Mr Hardeman: In answer to the comments from Mr Marchese, I just wanted to point out the need for this committee -- we were instructed and authorized to report back to the minister on what we heard from the public. As you mentioned, the tenants have concern about certain parts of the bill. I think it's this committee's responsibility to report those concerns to the minister, what was told to us, what their position was. I don't believe it serves the process or the public to have us, through other means, change what we heard so we can tell the minister, "That's what the landlords said, but we have studies that show otherwise, so you shouldn't pay any attention." I think we should report back to the minister what we heard from the different people who made presentations.
I'm sure that unanimous decisions on interpreting what we heard are going to be difficult to achieve, but I think everyone would agree to what we heard. The report that was prepared for us and presented to us this morning by legislative research I think is a good start as to the type of thing we should be reporting back to the minister on.
The Chair: A final word to Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Mr Hardeman, I have to disagree with you when you say that we were instructed by the minister to just listen and report. I have never seen that in any instructions to me. If you have that instruction, make that available to me, where the minister states, "Listen and report." I never heard that. I wasn't directed that way. With my role as critic for my party and as the opposition, I don't see him giving me instruction in that regard. If that was so, I wouldn't have been sitting here anyhow. That's one.
The next point is that you allowed Mr Lampert to come before us. He's not a tenant. He's not a landlord. So when you say that we're only to listen to that and report, why did Mr Lampert come before us? We found it relevant, pertinent that he comes before us. I couldn't decipher the difference between the Lampert report and the New Directions report, so he came before us. Now we have impact studies being done where the minister is huddled in some area, having some interim report studies presented to him, ready, and they said others are coming, then you're saying to us: "Listen, it doesn't matter what they tell the minister. It doesn't matter what the impact is. We all see it."
1550
You've instructed your members by your tone in saying to them, "We will not support that." I haven't heard a peep out of any of them over there. Some of them are so silent I'm wondering what position, what individual thinking you have personally about this procedure. You sit there but you've had your instructions. I expect better from my colleagues across from the government, to think independently, to say, "Yes, this is informed information that I have and we will ask for this information to come forward to direct and instruct the minister."
All through the hearings they were saying it's not a partisan issue and this matter must be resolved, and now I'm getting that you have been whipped into certain words and certain directions to go and I haven't heard a peep. If you have not been, let's hear from you. Let's hear you saying, "I personally think this way" -- or do you think? I'm sure you do; of course you do. Let us hear from you. Mr Hardeman's trying to say, "We will not vote for that," tells me you have been instructed as trained seals to go one way. That is very unfortunate because there's no way of input where I can be as objective towards this kind of legislation.
You will believe that we're asking for something that is private, paid for by the minister or privately paid for by the Conservative Party. This is taxpayers' money that you used to pay this consultant to tell you what direction to go, what impact it has on tenants and the impact it has on rent control. But no, you're going to keep it close to your chest and say, "It doesn't matter." That's what I heard Mr Hardeman say: "It doesn't matter. We're going to move ahead anyhow, and those are the instructions we get, to listen."
To lecture me that you came about and spoke to these tenants and tell them what to do and the Chairman had to cut us off -- yes, we shared some of that experience and we shared with other tenants and landlords what we were hearing. That's the way of consultation. We weren't trained seals saying, like Mr Maves said: "These are all the reports. Why didn't you call up those reports?" We could have, and I'm glad he did his research. Bring those too. Bring those reports up and let us put input into this direction. Don't tell me directly that it's not relevant. It is relevant, and I hope that your independent thinking will tell you to do the right thing.
Mr Kennedy: Mr Chair, it really is almost a point of order. Far be it from me to suggest that the parliamentary assistant would deserve correction in any of his comments, but on the one that pertains to the purpose, why we're here: We're not here just to listen. We're here to think; we're here to make input.
If the parliamentary assistant needs authority to think, then he should reference the words of his House leader and Deputy Premier when he moved "that the standing committee on general government review and report on the matter of rent control, as set out in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing consultation paper to be filed with the clerk of the committee." It didn't say "listen" and it didn't say "don't think" and it didn't say to be quiet when we're faced with a proposition here to have the facts we need to make that report.
I think it's incumbent on and behooves the members opposite to show us that we are a committee of the House, not simply a committee of the government. This is us trying to look into the public interest. We can get on with that if you would let us have the facts, because you can be sure it won't stop here in terms of saying that those facts this ministry has in some kind of form now, the only data, hopefully objective data -- we've heard them being referenced, and it's convenient for this government to say that everything is in conflict. We would like to see the facts because we would like to get at resolving these matters. It's this government's consistent and persistent effort to always portray these things as being in conflict.
There are data relevant to this that have been acknowledged by the ministry, they're new data, they're not 14 years old and they're exactly what we're being asked to do: "What is the impact of these proposed reforms on tenants?" There are hundreds of thousands of tenants in this province who want to know that when we send our recommendations and report to the minister, we've had access to that information. This government apparently, because we heard the instruction issued by Mr Hardeman, wants to hide these facts. They want to hide the facts and none of your constituents can have access to those facts because there's this reluctance on your part.
All you need to do is support this resolution and support the mandate of this committee to do more than just listen and perform the functions of a tape recorder. We have a job to do here and we need these facts to do it. I think the argument has been put very persuasively by people on this side of the House. We're quite prepared. We don't know whether those facts support the developing opinions of the opposition party or those of the third party. We just want to see those facts. You're stopping us from having the facts. You're saying no; you're saying we can't have facts that the minister has had.
That's not in any way consistent with this being a committee of the House looking after the public interest, trying to make the best sense of, not just listening to and patting the head of the tenants and even the landlords who have come in, but trying to do our job to interpret what they've said by reference to some facts, consultant-originated or not, that will help us to know and perhaps the only ones in any kind of a new study, a recent study, to tell us what the heck will happen when these fuzzy proposals are put to work.
With some regret I have to take exception to the characterization of the parliamentary assistant of this committee as one which is only supposed to listen and do nothing itself. I beseech the people opposite to have regard for their role and the role of this committee in supporting this motion. We didn't put it forward in an adversarial way. These data could relate on any basis, but it is germane. There is nothing that can be said to convince us that these are not the exact data we should have in front of us, because this is exactly what we've been asked to do, to just read the motion from June 27 that your House leader put forward which received consent from the House, and you'll find that's exactly what we're supposed to be doing: Review and report on the matter of rent control, not to listen and do nothing about rent control or the proposals of the ministry.
Mr Hardeman: I just want to make a correction. When I speak in the "we" as opposed to "I," for those members who have paid attention in the past, you will notice that I use the "we" almost exclusively as opposed to "I." I apologize for that. It was not to direct others to do as I do; it was a figure of speech. I would be happy to have Hansard change every "we" to "I" if that would help the opposition with their concerns.
The other issue that I think Mr Kennedy makes is that I do support the principle that if the committee carries through with the proposals, as I suggested, to deal with the recommendations or comments we've heard from the deputants and forward that to the minister, I think we have reviewed rent control and I believe we have done what the House leader's resolution suggested.
I want to make sure it's on the record that the discussion was not about the legislation. The rent control legislation has not yet been prepared and it is not before this committee. It will be in the future; it isn't now. This is a discussion paper to assist the minister in that preparation.
As Mr Kennedy was so kind to me, I should be the same to him. I think it's far more important that we heard all the people who made presentations than are the documents, which will, incidentally, become available when they are completed as a final draft document. They will become public documents, and I can assure you that we are looking forward to that in the very near future, and we mean weeks, not months. To suggest that constituents will not be privy to this information, I can assure you that they will be public documents, and not only the members of this committee but all members of the House and members of our society will be privy to that information as it becomes available.
1600
Mr Curling: Mr Chair, on a point of clarification: Did I hear Mr Hardeman say that what was presented to us -- the committee is prepared to accept the recommendations? I don't know if I heard you right about what legislative research has done. You said they put forward to us some recommendations and some report and you want to accept that. Did I hear that?
Mr Hardeman: No.
Mr Curling: Okay.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, on a point of clarification: He said that when the government comes forth with a bill, the studies will be provided at that time. Is that what I heard you say?
Mr Hardeman: The study that's being referred to in your resolution will be a public document before the bill is a public document.
Mr Marchese: So before the bill, that study --
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chairman, just for clarification, at the present time the staff report refers to an interim report. When that report is final it will be released to the public and to this committee if the committee is still sitting.
Mr Marchese: When that interim report is available or done, or the final report, then it will be available to all, you said. So are you in essence agreeing with the motion that we have or disagreeing? You're disagreeing with the motion but you're saying it will become available when it is ready.
Mr Curling: Or when convenient.
Mr Hardeman: When the final report is complete, it will be a public document. As the opposition has been mentioning, it's paid for by the public and it will become a public document.
Mr Marchese: I don't want to get on the list. I just --
Interjections.
The Chair: I'm not sure I completely understand what he said. Mr Sergio, one last comment before we have a vote on this.
Mr Sergio: No. I want some clarification because this is important. We are hearing from Mr Hardeman that when the report will be completed it will be made available. I am asking if the minister is wrong when he says "provided the interim results have already been provided." I would like to see these interim results. We will see the final report when it's completed, but in the meantime interim results have been completed. They have been provided. I'd like to know to whom they've been provided and where they are. I'd like to see those interim results.
Mr Hardeman: In fairness, it's a staff report. I'm not sure whether the interim report was presented to the minister or to staff.
Mr Sergio: Are you saying that it's wrong?
Mr Hardeman: No. As it is normal with all studies, the interim reports are provided. The public document is the final report, we are waiting for the final report and it will become a public document when it is completed.
Mr Sergio: Okay, but if the interim report has been provided, the results of this interim report have been provided to whom? Who's got them? Who has seen them? Where are they? He is telling us that interim results have been provided already. Where are they? Probably we're going through an exercise in futility. Maybe there's nothing in that report. But for goodness' sake, if an interim report has been provided, where is it? Why can't we see it? Who has it?
I don't want to be a burden on you, Mr Hardeman, but you're the parliamentary assistant; you're the Chair, Mr Carroll. I think it's incumbent upon you to say: "You give us a letter here. You say you have provided interim results from the study. Where are they?" I think you should be providing the committee with those results and I would kindly request that you do so.
The Chair: The decision about the provision of those results is not my call. It's up to the parliamentary assistant to the minister. Would you be prepared to make any statement on that, Mr Hardeman?
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chairman, I reiterate that an interim report released becomes a final report. I think we have an obligation to the authors of the report and to its authenticity that we wait until the final report is released.
Mr Sergio: Maybe you could ask the minister if he is not averse to releasing it.
The Chair: If there's no further discussion -- we've certainly heard both sides or most sides of that argument -- we will now have the vote. Mr Curling has put forward a motion. Mr Marchese has asked for a recorded vote.
Ayes
Curling, Kennedy, Marchese, Sergio.
Nays
Danford, Hardeman, Maves, Parker, Ross, Stewart, Wettlaufer.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Before we get on to the next order of business, we never did talk about the time for stopping our meeting this evening. May I suggest that we consider 5 o'clock?
Mr Curling: I thought it says to 4 o'clock.
The Chair: I don't think it's specific on a stopping time.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Have you got an appointment, Alvin?
Mr Curling: No. Actually, I want this committee to be more --
The Chair: Okay, wait a minute. Have you some specific reference to 4 o'clock that you could show me? I don't recall seeing one?
Mr Curling: This committee is kind of a bit loose to me, Mr Chairman -- that's why I asked -- in the sense of time.
The Chair: Have you got any specific reference to 4 o'clock?
Mr Curling: I'd have to look. I don't know why I had the impression that we adjourn at 4. I'd have to look if there was something specific. I thought it was 4 o'clock.
The Chair: In the absence of that, what I'm suggesting is, can we agree on 5 o'clock without a tremendous amount of debate? It's now 10 after 4. Can we agree? Is there general agreement on 5 o'clock? Anybody have a problem with 5 o'clock?
Mr Curling: I have a problem with 5 o'clock. I don't want to debate it, but I have a problem with 5 o'clock, because I really had thought it was 4 o'clock and I have some commitments. I didn't know that we were going to go on beyond the hour.
The Chair: Any other comment?
Mr Marchese: What I am really interested, in the next little while we might have, is to listen to what the government members have to propose with respect to this proposal. If we take that hour to do that, I think it would be really very useful for us to get a sense of what our next step is. I'd be very much interested in knowing what the government is interested in proposing as a process.
Mr Sergio: What if they don't want to tell us, they just want to have a vote?
The Chair: Basically you would like to stay till 5 o'clock. Other than Mr Curling, is there anybody who has a problem with 5 o'clock? This is surely not a big issue.
Mr Curling: It's a big issue for me. Whether or not, as you said, that hour is going to be dedicated to just looking at the recommendation, I would disagree with that too. If the hour we stay only deals with the recommendation, that will block us in.
The Chair: Basically, our purpose here today was to ask questions of the research staff. We haven't gotten around to that yet.
Mr Sergio: Having arrived at this particular hour, I give intention to introduce a motion before, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: I'd like to get some agreement on the time we're going to stop first. Do we have general agreement on 5 o'clock as the time we will adjourn?
Mr Curling: We'll take a five-minute recess, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Okay, we'll take a five-minute recess and then we'll come back and make a decision on that issue.
The committee recessed from 1608 to 1613.
The Chair: We are back from our recess. Mr Curling? Okay, general agreement on 5 o'clock.
Mr Marchese: What I would like to know is, does the government have a suggested proposal to deal with this report? I'd like to hear that.
Mr Hardeman: I don't have a resolution prepared, but we are going to suggest that we deal with legislative research's report as it was presented by Jerry Richmond, have discussions on the issues and put that forward as the recommendation. This is what we've heard, and this is what the people have said. By appending the total research document that came from all the presenters so the minister can go through --
Mr Marchese: So you want to table the research report that has been compiled by Ms Campbell as is?
Mr Hardeman: I think the reason not to suggest that it would be the report is that this research report does not cover the full breadth of the hearings; the last few days are not on that yet. The report I would be suggesting is the report of the total hearings and the way the researchers put that together.
Mr Marchese: I understand. You are not prepared to speak to the whole issue of decontrol, the Rental Housing Protection Act or shelter allowances or what would happen to tax savings -- in the event that we had them, would tenants get any of that money back? You're really not prepared to speak to any of these issues, correct?
Mr Hardeman: Speaking to them, I suppose we can have debates on each individual issue. Again, the people who made their presentations spoke to those issues, and I think the minister must take into consideration those items that they spoke to and what position the individuals took.
Mr Marchese: That to me is very clear. What is clear to me is that the government members want to present this report as is. Based on what I heard, I know that we will want to submit a minority report on what we've heard from the overwhelming majority of deputations. If this is the way the government wants to proceed, I'm announcing that I will be presenting a minority report, and I presume the opposition party will do as much. If that is the way it's going to go, we don't need the whole hour to deal with that.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, according to the rules, the committee would submit a report that would be either a unanimous or majority report. Anybody, be it a caucus or a member, is allowed to present a dissenting opinion to any part of that or whatever that is.
Mr Marchese: That's fine.
Mr Curling: Let me just comment on this. I can tell you too that I'm disappointed in the direction I'm hearing the government wants to go. The fact is, even if legislative research had presented some paper, there are questions that were asked, and we had hoped that some of the input would have been placed inside of that committee report. It seems to me that the government is saying that it will accept the report as presented by legislative research, I think. It is a good report, but it's not conclusive in many forms. I'm disappointed that this is the direction they're going to go. I anticipated it, of course, because of the interaction I saw over on the other side. There was no input being placed on what they heard and some of the questions that have been raised. I just want to say to you that we are disappointed and we will also be putting in a dissenting voice on this matter.
The Chair: Any further comment?
Mr Sergio: I gave intent before that I would introduce a motion at a particular time. Since you have no more speakers, I'm willing to introduce it now.
The Chair: Just before we do that, Mr Sergio, I wonder, is there any specific need for the format of the report to be covered in a motion? Are you prepared to make a motion, Mr Hardeman?
Mr Sergio: Can you hear my motion first? It may be acceptable.
The Chair: Okay, go ahead, Mr Sergio.
Mr Sergio: Then if you don't like it, you can still vote it down.
The Chair: Do we get to talk about it?
Mr Sergio: Can I pass a copy around? I'll forgo the first three paragraphs and I'll move to the last two, which are the salient ones. For the information of everybody I'll read them all.
Whereas the standing committee on general government was instructed by the Legislature to "review and report on the matter of rent control, as set out in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing consultation paper," and;
Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing instructed the committee to provide "positive input into the development of a (rent control) package";
Therefore, the committee will proceed to develop a report to the Legislature that provides clear and comprehensive direction to the minister on the key issues raised in the government's discussion paper New Directions.
That is very innocuous.
As the basis for devising such a report, the committee will answer the key questions laid out in the document: Briefing Notes for Draft Tenant Protection Package Report (TPP), prepared by the legislative research service, dated August 22, 1996.
I think that's very self-explanatory. There's nothing controversial in that. I think that's a good way to move in preparing this report and I'm seeking support.
1620
The Chair: Mr Sergio has put forward a motion as to the format of the report. It doesn't seem to exactly tie in with what Mr Hardeman has suggested. It was going to be the government's format of a report, but let's see if we can discuss it. Mr Sergio, we'll let you start.
Mr Sergio: We have been provided this morning with the written notes, which are very good. It's a good report and there's a lot in there. To go by this report that has been provided to us this morning so we can have some questions and then base our report on the briefing notes, it's mainly that. It's nothing too complicated. So we're going to have questions of staff based on the written notes.
Mr Curling: I'll be very short on this. I think the questions raised by legislative research were quite pertinent and give us some directions in which we should be writing this report. All I think the motion is asking for is not only what people had said, but some of the questions that are to be raised and should be addressed by the committee.
We're asking that when the report comes forward, it addresses those questions that are raised here, making it a bit more complete. We have debated the rest already, where we thought other factors and other documents should be a part of the presentation, which has been voted down. But we feel the questions that have been asked by the legislative research could be quite pertinent to the document and to the report.
Mr Hardeman: I do not support the resolution, though it is somewhat similar to the one I was going to propose. I believe the last two paragraphs seem to indicate that we will be able to come up with a direction on all the issues, and I'm not sure that that's possible, first of all, and secondly, I'm not sure it's appropriate to deal with each individual issue.
I think it's more important to relay to the minister and the ministry staff, as they prepare draft legislation and draft direction, the information that we heard, differing viewpoints, and having that analysed as to how other policies and other things they have been working on will relate to what has been said so they can come up with something that will serve the needs of everyone as opposed to being directed that we shall provide a recommendation on each issue. I guess for the sake of time I would be prepared to vote down this motion and introduce mine.
Mr Kennedy: I am really, I suppose, running an aggravated risk of being seen to be in any way disrespectful of the parliamentary assistant, because it really is unfortunate that we're not able to find some line of inquiry here that is objective, at least in some relevant sense, to be able to do our job, to be able to proceed as a committee.
We had on August 27 an outline which we went through in some detail this morning around what the objective questions are for committee consideration, not devised by the Liberals, not devised by the NDP, but put together by the legislative research service, and really setting out for us our job and our consideration as we went through. Now is the time for us to come back and not just pay lip-service to the idea that we heard people but to show them what we've done with their input. If we saw often we can't agree, at least people know what the benefit is of the people who have listened, who have read the Hansards, who have read the reports that have been submitted and who should have by now some acquired opinions on these very questions.
I think it really does behoove the committee to strive for this and it is disconcerting, to say the least, that somehow the idea of us trying -- this is where I guess I depart from Mr Hardeman's despairing of us even trying to achieve our mandate as is outlined from the Legislature, in Mr Sergio's motion, and also from the minister when he asked us not for passive input but for positive input into the development of a package.
I have no doubt the members opposite will be somewhat more positive than the members on this side of the House, but it still asks us to make the effort, not simply to act, as I said before, like a tape recorder to what's happened in the proceedings. We have a better and more significant role to play than that. We on this side of the House, certainly speaking at least for my Liberal colleagues, are prepared to engage that. I did not hear anything in the parliamentary assistant's remarks that would say why the government would be afraid of that discussion, when earlier we heard that it was supposed to be discussion and thought and input that we were supposed to put into this.
So we first have a government afraid of the facts, that won't release the studies, won't tell us what the data is, the only data available, and the impact on tenants, wants to hide that, and now doesn't want to discuss the points that research says we should address as a committee. I think that's not only disappointing; that really runs against the grain of why the committee is here in the first place.
I guess from the parliamentary assistant's remarks we're unlikely to have this level of cooperation, this opportunity to proceed on the basis that was outlined to us some time ago, which has been a guideline for evaluating the hearings and really a chance for us to be able to come up with some salient advice, not just nickel and dime sort of reaction in the sense of a few comments at the beginning or at the end but to really take into account all the data, make worthwhile all the expenditure that's taken place in terms of this committee, the research that's been done, and to put that in some kind of form through our discussion and through the deliberation we're prepared to do.
Mr Sergio has given us certainly a direction; I cannot see why the government is frightened of it. I can't see, with its majority here, why it's frightened to have this discussion and to give some meaning to the three weeks that have been spent in hearings. So I certainly will be supporting the motion and I would encourage reconsideration on the government side. There has to be some certain amount of interest shown by this government in the existence of these committees. On what other basis are we to proceed if these committees don't make some value-added input? This is our chance to make value-added input, and this government wants to make an end run around that.
I think there's a clear way not to do that. We have a program that we can go through within a reasonable period of time, where we can reference, thanks to the other research -- I respect the comments that have been made earlier, but really, with great respect, this is not yet a report. This is but a summary of what was said. It's up to us. We cannot abdicate our responsibility as legislators or as committee members to come up with a report. This isn't a report. It wouldn't pass in grade 12, it wouldn't happen in college, it wouldn't happen in university and it shouldn't happen in the Legislature. We should do a report with our own original input and we should answer the questions that have been put. We should use the input we have. We should have had access to the facts, but we should at least go through what Mr Sergio has recommended and have a report at the end of the day.
Mr Marchese: What is clear are three things: (1) the government members are refusing to do an analysis of what we heard; (2) the government members are unwilling to take a position; (3) the government members are abrogating their responsibility, in fact, to give direction, because simply to give this report to the minister is giving no direction of what we heard.
Those are my comments with respect to this. I'm quite happy to support this motion and deal with Mr Hardeman's motion when it comes in a few seconds.
Mr Sergio: I wasn't here when Mr Hardeman's motion was put forth.
The Chair: His has not been; there's only one motion on the floor.
1630
Mr Sergio: I was brief at the beginning when I introduced my motion because I thought it was very innocuous and it would receive quick approval and passage by the committee here. But if the parliamentary assistant and the committee members on the government side have a problem, let me say this: The notes which have been prepared for us by our staff do not reflect one or the other views. They've been saying them. They are not my views. It's a collection of what the people have said during the last three weeks.
We have to base our recommendation and put it in the form of a report, if you will, based on these digested views that we have heard in the past three weeks. So we can't say now, "Let's approve the report that has been given to us." It's not a report. It's not their views. It's what they have heard, what they have assembled, what they have digested in the past three weeks.
If we, Mr Chairman and Mr Parliamentary Assistant, can't debate and formulate our own conclusions, right or wrong -- hopefully the right way so we can make a reasonable report to the minister -- then what are we doing here as a committee? What have we done? Staff may have put together their own ideas, the most salient points according to their wisdom, and I have the greatest respect. But now it's up to us to formulate our own views, our own recommendations. I think we should debate some of these points. If you don't want to debate all of them, don't debate all of them. We can skim over some. But I think it's paramount that we formulate our own concepts in our report. If we can't do that, I'm afraid you're really ramming this through. You have shown then total disrespect for the people we have listened to in the past three weeks and for this committee as well if we can't have that. I'm sorry. I don't want to sound harsh, but this is a reality.
We have certain serious questions here. If we can't even dwell on some of these questions which research staff has provided to us -- we have some questions to some of the most important questions. If we can't have any more information on those, I'm afraid really this is a fait accompli and you're going to go ahead and do whatever you want, and we will have the people know that this was not our report if I can't have any input in there.
Unless you want exactly that, Mr Chairman, then move ahead, but I would insist that we follow some process and get some more information through some questions on the package that has been put together for us by our research people.
The Chair: Are we ready for the vote on Mr Sergio's motion?
Mr Marchese: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Curling, Kennedy, Marchese, Sergio.
Nays
Danford, Hardeman, Maves, Parker, Ross, Stewart, Wettlaufer.
The Chair: Mr Sergio's motion is defeated.
Mr Hardeman: I'd like to move a motion.
Whereas the standing committee on general government has been actively consulting on the government's tenant protection discussion paper New Directions; and
Whereas the committee was requested to report back to the minister on what was heard during the course of these hearings; and
Whereas varying reports were heard on the different aspects of the tenant protection package; and
Whereas the report which was prepared by legislative research entitled Briefing Notes for Draft Tenant Protection Package Report summarizes the views heard;
Be it resolved that the committee report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be based on Briefing Notes for Draft Tenant Protection Package Report; and
Be it further resolved that the document Summary of Witness Recommendations: Tenant Protection Package be attached to the committee report as an appendix.
The Chair: Mr Hardeman, did you have an initial comment on the motion while the clerk is passing copies around?
Mr Hardeman: It's similar to the motion that was presented by Mr Sergio, I think the most significant difference being that in the motion we do not deal with "the development of a comprehensive direction." There may be areas in the discussion paper that we could do so, but there would be areas that we could not do so. So this resolution is based on the discussion paper being the basis of the report, and that we would be prepared to discuss the issues that are in that paper as we prepare the report.
I think it's also recognized that there will be areas where there may be differing views of how the committee interprets what was said and the basis for that presentation.
Mr Curling: This motion that is put forward here, you can see the watered-down aspect of what the government wants to do, not only the Briefing Notes for Draft Tenant Protection Package Report, as they're being presented; that of course. What we could easily do is just send all the presentations and the Hansard to the minister and say, "Read; that's what it is."
But beyond that, the legislative research staff said that from this came some questions that we must deal with if we want good legislation. That is why, actually, the previous motion was so relevant and this one becomes so watered down to say you must deal with those questions. If we want a good report to be submitted and good directions being given to the minister, you must deal with those questions that were raised.
This motion deliberately deleted that, because what it does, it makes them accountable. It makes them think. It makes them say that we have to deal with the tough questions that keep emerging. This motion is telling us, no, we don't want to deal with that. We're going to leave it in the hands of the bureaucrats to do it for us and we're going to hide behind that. Not only that, but we have secret documents too that we've been seeking for so long, and then later on we're going to reveal them afterwards, when all the thing is completed. That is why any kind of study that's been done, of course it will be made available to all of us after the fact, even though we may find it quite relevant to the things that we'd like dealt with.
Therefore, this watered-down version of the motion here is not adequate at all. It tells us that the weeks that we were out there listening, all we were was a bunch of ears, no thinking at all. We just sit there and just listen. Then they say, "What do you think of this?" "Nothing. We just send this on to the minister." We could send the Hansard on. Anyone can do that. We have -- I wouldn't want to say; some of them are underpaid of course -- well-paid people, professionals, who record these things and then pass them on. The motion should have read, "We shall take the Hansard report notes and send them on to the minister"; or we can say that whatever the legislative research people have done in a précis form, this is what we heard, but don't think about it. Don't respond at all.
We set aside days to do this, but immediately, while the committee -- which I wasn't quite sure of -- put aside even a couple of days to debate this, it's saying: "Listen, why debate all this? What we should do is just accept this and run along with this." Questions have been asked. Could we have them speak? We asked the parliamentary assistant, can they speak? No, they don't speak at all. They were instructed to just go along with it -- one, two, three, four, five, six, sometimes seven, eight -- members on the government side. We say: "Do you think? Do you feel?" and they don't say a word. They just say, "We have been instructed by the minister to just tell the minister what we heard from people across the province."
Anyway, give some of that impact to some of those questions that were in our minds too. As I said, I haven't had a chance to even ask of the presenters, "How do you feel about that?" They're saying: "Now is not the time for thinking. There's no time at all to have any input. All we've got to do is to present to them what the legislative research people have done." Also, if he wants more, he could just take the presentations that people had presented to the committee from Hansard and use that as the rent control legislation that we will do.
As a matter of fact, I'm not even resisting very much about this, because we have commitments from the government to have public hearings after this when we have legislation. I hope you stand by that after the fact: that we have good, full public hearings on the legislation to have some people have some input.
1640
I can warn the people outside that what we hear, what is written and what the legislation will be will be completely different from what we heard. The people out there will wonder: "Did they listen at all? What about those questions which were raised?" We'll say, "They didn't want to deal with it." I am disappointed that the parliamentary assistant, who had gotten the motion from his minister quickly to slide this in, would have said: "No, don't deal with those provocative questions, those pertinent questions, those relevant questions that would have helped us have good legislation. Just go along with the draft proposal, the draft briefing notes that were presented to us." Unfortunate.
Mr Sergio: Just for clarification before I make some comments, Mr Hardeman: Are you saying that we should make this our report and carry on with it?
Mr Hardeman: No, I'm suggesting that should be the basis for the report. So I would suggest there would be opportunity to discuss that report and make changes.
Mr Sergio: Wasn't my motion saying that we should be debating, asking questions on the briefing notes? Wasn't my motion doing exactly that?
Mr Hardeman: I think, as I suggested, that the motion I was proposing was not greatly different from yours, but there was significant difference to the fact that yours dealt with "the committee will proceed to develop a report to the Legislature that provides clear and comprehensive direction to the minister on the key issues raised in the government's discussion paper." I'm not sure that we as a committee can come up with that recommendation on each and every one of those. Our resolution does allow that to take place.
Mr Sergio: The thing is this: Mine says specifically based on the Briefing Notes for Draft Tenant Protection Package Report, which is exactly this. The problem that I have with Mr Hardeman's motion is that practically we have to approve this summary, which is a summary, as our report the way your motion is reading. With that I can't agree, and I wish you would rethink that position. You can come out of this smelling like roses or you can smell like skunks.
I'll be very, very blunt with you, because what you're saying in your motion here is, first, it's a summarized view of what our staff has heard, not what you heard, Mr Hardeman; not what I heard; it's what they have heard, what they have pulled out from some of the written presentations which they received. Then you're going further in saying that the report "be based on the Briefing Notes for the Draft Tenant Protection Package Report."
Now, can you tell me how you're going to prepare, how you're going to make that into a form of a report, without asking questions on these notes here? Can you tell me, please, how I can formulate my idea without asking a question of our staff? You're saying in your motion to make a report based on that, but you don't want to ask any questions of staff based on their summarized report. You're doing exactly that.
Mr Hardeman: I guess I'm at a loss to understand why Mr Sergio deems it inappropriate to ask staff for comments or questions on the report. I believe it's been his opportunity a number of times today. The Chair brought it forward --
Mr Sergio: Mr Hardeman, with all due respect, what's there to debate?
The Chair: Can I just clarify so that it might help to move this discussion along? I understand that what Mr Hardeman is proposing is that this form become the template for what we're going to do, but we need to discuss it, flesh it out, add some things to it that we'd like to; not to accept in its exact form, but to use it as the basis, but not to arrive at any conclusions. That's what I understand is the difference between his motion and yours.
Mr Kennedy: Point of order, Mr Chair: If that's the intent, then haven't we already passed a motion defeating that exact same thing?
The Chair: No, we have not. This is a very different motion because Mr Hardeman's motion doesn't have to do with bringing forward any conclusions, just laying out the different opinions.
Mr Sergio: What's the difference between a conclusion and a report? Mr Chairman, I think you'd better explain that.
Mr Kennedy: Mr Chair, we've already defeated this motion.
The Chair: No, we have not. The motion is in order.
Mr Sergio: How can you get to a report without arriving at a conclusion?
The Chair: Mr Hardeman is suggesting we don't arrive at any conclusions. That's the motion that's on the floor that we're discussing. You can disagree with that if you choose to, but that's what he is discussing.
Mr Sergio: If you want --
Mr Hardeman: I guess in clarification --
The Chair: No, wait a minute. Let's decide who's going to be speaking here. Are you finished, Mr Sergio?
Mr Sergio: I am totally a little bit flabbergasted to be honest with you, because my motion, if you will, is much more concise, much clearer than Mr Hardeman's. You don't want it to be coming from us. Coming from you, so be it. Okay, you have the vote, it's quite evident. But mine is very straightforward that we compile a report, exactly what you want, based on the briefing notes. The only difference is that we can ask some questions on some of the points. If it's not necessary to ask questions we wouldn't be asking questions on those. It's quite evident and you don't want to ask questions on that, so I find that very strange. I'm sorry.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, before I speak I'd like some clarification. We have this report here that you alluded to. Mr Hardeman says he's like to discuss this report. On page 2 there's the whole question of vacancy decontrol and on page 3 it asks questions: "Does the committee support the implementation of vacancy decontrol whereby rents could rise to market levels on a change in tenancy? Should some cap be considered on permitted rent increases at the time of vacancy change?" These are questions he raises.
How do you, Mr Hardeman, propose that we discuss that? That we try to answer those questions? So that I know what comments to make.
Mr Hardeman: In clarification: I think going to the second-last paragraph of the resolution the words "be based on." It doesn't say "be the report"; it just says "be based on" that report. Yes, I would think in our discussions there would be opportunities to debate those questions and to make recommendations if you wanted to make a further recommendation to the report.
Mr Marchese: Why, Mr Hardeman, would you move such a motion that you have here if your interest is in discussing this first? Wouldn't the basis of this discussion formulate the type of motion you might want to have after?
Mr Hardeman: My question would be: What would we be discussing if we didn't have this motion first?
Mr Marchese: We'd be discussing presumably this paper. I'd be interested to know what you folks think about some of the questions that are raised. I really would like to know. That's why I asked: What is your position on vacancy decontrol? What is your position on rental housing accommodation? I really would like to know from you. But if we're not going to discuss such things, then I'm not clear what it is that you want to discuss. When we get to some of these sections, are we going to hear from you what your position is or are you just going to hear from us what our position is? Because otherwise it's futile, this whole thing. What is it that you would be saying when we get to some of these questions? You as a parliamentary assistant.
Mr Hardeman: As individual questions, it's very difficult, in dealing with this resolution, to answer your question as to what I will be saying on each one of the issues. I, along with the other members of our committee, will be stating our thoughts on the issue that is before the committee at the time.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I don't know.
The Chair: Would you like to pass the baton to the next person, Mr Marchese, or are you finished?
Mr Marchese: Are there some government members who are on the list?
The Chair: Mr Stewart wants to speak and Mr Kennedy wants to speak.
Mr Marchese: I'd like to wait then.
Mr Stewart: Mr Chairman, I'd like to request a recess for five minutes, please. Then we'll come back for two minutes.
The Chair: Let me just put the record straight: If we have a recess for five minutes, then on this issue when we come back, we have a vote. Discussion is over.
Interjections.
The Chair: Do we want a five-minute recess and then come back and vote on this motion?
Mr Marchese: One doesn't lead to the other, Mr Carroll.
1650
The Chair: A five-minute recess and we're through for the day.
Mr Marchese: It almost takes us to the time, but based on what you come up with on your seance, we might say we need an extra 10 minutes. We could do that.
The Chair: A five-minute recess takes us past 5 o'clock.
Mr Marchese: Oh, I've got 10 to 5 on my watch. I see.
The Chair: We're adjourned at 5 o'clock.
Mr Curling: Before we take a recess, I'm confused about this. If we take five minutes, it carries us over to 5 o'clock. Are you saying that there's a different ruling as we get back?
The Chair: No, I'm not. I was wrong on that, because I have not called the question.
Mr Marchese: Mr Carroll, I could move a motion to extend the time for 10 minutes if we need that. It's not a big deal. We can be flexible. I'd like to know what the government members are going to think about.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor we're dealing with, so we can't entertain another motion while we're dealing with the motion that's already on the floor. Is there unanimous consent to recess for the evening?
Mr Curling: If we do that, though, we have this other thing to resolve.
The Chair: To adjourn. The motion stays on the floor.
Mr Marchese: Could I ask the clerk, could we introduce a motion to extend the time before we recess?
Clerk of the Committee: No. There's a motion on the floor right now. There has been a request for a five-minute recess. Is there unanimous consent -- that would be the next question -- for this five-minute recess, which would take us till the end of the day, as agreed to, 5 o'clock, the motion is still on the floor.
Mr Marchese: So why would the government need a five-minute recess if we come back to vote? It makes no sense.
Clerk of the Committee: We don't necessarily have to come back to vote, because the question hasn't been called. He's just asking for a five-minute recess. The debate and the motion would still be on the floor whenever we resume.
The Chair: The situation is that we have four minutes left.
Mr Marchese: I think we should move on then, Mr Chair.
The Chair: There's no unanimous consent for a five-minute recess? Then we will carry on, and the next speaker --
Interjections.
The Chair: There was no question. I hadn't asked the question, nobody asked for the question on the motion, so the motion is on the floor. Mr Stewart asked for a five-minute recess. There's no unanimous consent for the five-minute recess. You can have a five-minute recess if there's a vote being called. Then it's automatic, but other than that it needs unanimous consent, and Mr Stewart has not got unanimous consent, so there is no five-minute recess.
Mr Kennedy is the next speaker.
Mr Marchese: Mr Stewart, you aren't speaking to this?
The Chair: Unless Mr Stewart has something else to add.
Mr Stewart: Not at the moment.
Mr Kennedy: Just to express, I accept your ruling, because it's your prerogative, that we are able to reject the motion that says that the basis for the dividing report will be the questions laid out in the document and yet at the same time we can approve a motion that would say that the report is based on those self-same briefing notes. I assume that the difference you see is the part I'd like to address, which is that the previous motion talked about "clear and comprehensive direction," which I think is a natural -- I mean, as comprehensive as we can achieve, obviously not comprehensive in some omnibus type of sense. But we have been asked to review and report on the matter of rent control. We have not been asked to restrict our deliberations and we have not been asked not to draw conclusions.
I don't know to whom I can address this, because I heard the Chair make the interpretation point. Maybe Mr Hardeman could answer this question. Is it your ambition or restriction in this motion that we not draw any conclusions, even if we can get agreement here in those discussions? I heard you say we would consider the questions, just as Mr Sergio had asked us to, but are you agreeing that we won't be able to arrive at any conclusions? I don't see that in the motion, with due respect, Mr Chair.
Mr Hardeman: No, I would not interpret it to say that we could not reach any conclusions or any recommendations, but I believe the previous resolution obligated us to reach those conclusions, and I don't believe that will necessarily be achieved. In my opinion, that's the difference, and the Chair ruled that there was a difference in the two.
Mr Kennedy: As I say, I'm prepared to accept it and not make that a point of discussion, but I am then confused about why the government would propose this motion over the other, because it's clear there is that possibility. Everything they want to do was in the previous motion, and we're getting into an area here where, for the simple sake of frustrating the opposition, we're not able to do that. I understand that for the purposes of the technical part, which is where the Chair has ruled, there is some difference. But the difference I just put back to you, Mr Hardeman, you say doesn't exist, so when it says "clear and comprehensive direction," that's just a possibility for us. The other basis is the same. It's exactly the same motion. Those are my comments, Mr Chair. Thank you.
The Chair: It being 5 o'clock and our agreement to adjourn at 5 o'clock, the committee stands adjourned until Wednesday.
Mr Curling: Before the adjournment, there is something to be resolved about the Friday stuff. We still have a disagreement about this Friday, so could we then say that we want to adjourn until we resolve the problem about Friday? Because we are not quite sure that the committee has the authority to review rent review on Friday.
The Chair: We are adjourned until Wednesday in Niagara Falls, this committee.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chairman, on Wednesday in this committee we're going to have different members discussing different issues. What does that mean with respect to this?
The Chair: Wednesday, we're meeting on Bill 52. Thursday, we're meeting on Bill 52. Friday, this committee reconvenes to --
Mr Marchese: Mr Curling has raised a question about Friday.
Mr Curling: Could we postpone the decision to meet on Friday on rent review and have it resolved maybe tomorrow? Because the fact is what I had before me here is a letter coming from all whips, saying that they are writing to confirm that the standing committee on general government will be allowed to sit on Monday, September 9. The committee has already had permission to sit on Wednesday and Thursday, but it wasn't dealing with rent control.
You wanted the committee to deal on Monday with rent control. It is assumed, sir, that because that was agreed on a Monday, it's automatic that we would sit on Friday. The committee can always sit on Friday if it wants to, because once the committee is sitting the note stated that it can sit on Friday. It didn't say, though, that we must sit on rent control. That's the dilemma we have. The fact is that my whip agreed to Monday, September 9, for this, but never agreed on Friday, and what I caught you on, sir, is that because we're sitting in the week the committee automatically can sit on Friday.
The Chair: If the committee has the right, which it does, to sit on Friday, it has the right to sit on any issue and the Chair has the ability to call a meeting, which everyone agreed to last week, Mr Curling. I called the meeting for Friday, we sent out notices for Friday, and as I understand the rules, the committee is allowed to sit, I as the Chair am allowed to call the meeting and the meeting will stand unless you want to appeal --
Mr Curling: I just want to be plain on this. I just want to get this clear. The committee was allowed to sit this week on Wednesday and Thursday. No rent control is being discussed. It was asked then by the whip if we could sit on Monday for that. Because it is sitting on that on Monday, you're assuming then that Friday we can deal with rent control.
The Chair: I'm not assuming, Mr Curling. I made a decision as the Chair that on Friday the committee, which is allowed to sit, was going to sit and discuss the rent control report. If you want to challenge that decision to another level, you're quite free to do that, but that is a decision that I understand I can make and that there was agreement on.
We are adjourned until Wednesday in Niagara Falls.
The committee adjourned at 1659.