CONTENTS
Friday 13 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:
Mr AlvinCurling (Scarborough North / -Nord L) for Mrs Pupatello
Mr BruceSmith (Middlesex PC) for Mr Flaherty
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel: Ms Elaine Campbell; Mr Jerry Richmond,
research officers, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1006 in room 228.
RENT CONTROL
The Chair (Mr Jack Carroll): Good morning. Welcome back to report writing on the committee on general government. When we finished on Monday --
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a point, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Just one second. When we finished on Monday, there was a motion on the floor. We had dealt with Mr Stewart's issue about a recess and we had resolved that and we had resolved the issue of Mr Curling's question about when we would meet next, and Mr Hardeman was the next speaker to be recognized.
Mr Curling: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I understand that the government has released the report this morning. Are you aware that the impact study has been released? I just want to know if that is the case.
The Chair: You're referring to this report, Mr Curling?
Mr Curling: Yes, I presume that's it. How does the report read?
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Which one is this?
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): There's an article in the Globe that Mr Curling is referring to about some report written by somebody, Dr Todd.
Mr Curling: Is this the same report in the motion that I was talking about?
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): That report was released and the members of the committee will recall I said last Monday that when the report was released, and it was imminent, it would be forwarded to the committee. I believe if it has not been given to the members of the committee, it will be tabled this morning.
Mr Curling: But the press has it.
Mr Hardeman: The final report.
Mr Curling: May I make a point, Mr Chairman? We just went through three weeks of hearings, and not only that, we went through a full day of trying to write a report. We asked for this report and we were told, especially I was lectured by Mr Parker and Mr Maves, that this was not necessary because we didn't need this to write our report. This has now been released to the press, and I think it's a complete insult to us as members of the committee to know there's a report that we asked for in a motion which was denied by the committee and the government. It has been released to the press and we have heard it's going to be released to us, after the fact.
I don't understand this. I think a complete farce is going on here. It just confirms what I thought, that the government has already made up its mind, the government is already drafting legislation, the government knows exactly where it wants to go regardless of what report they have, regardless of what it hears, regardless of what input we put into this report writing. I was just taken aback this morning when I got in and I saw a headline saying that this report was released to the press, and now I'm being told it will be given to the committee later on. Where are the priorities here?
The Chair: Mr Curling, this is not a point of order. Maybe Mr Hardeman can clarify whether or not the report is going to be released or what the status of the report is.
Mr Hardeman: My understanding is, and we'll check into it, that it has been released and that it is being forwarded to the members of the opposition, the housing critics.
The Chair: This is not a point of order we're debating.
Mr Sergio: Mr Chair, we adjourned on Monday because we were asking for that information prior to coming to today's meeting.
The Chair: We're not debating a point of order here. It's not a point of order.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, we have a problem --
Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, can you let me finish? If you have a copy of that report and you're going to be basing your decision on the information contained in that report, I don't have that information.
With all due respect, I have followed the meeting on a daily basis purposely to listen to the people and then make up my mind at the end when we formulate the report. I'm missing the most important information. You have that information. You people have that information. We don't have that information, and it has been released to the press.
This is an insult, because I followed this committee very devoutly day by day, listening to the people, and you are withholding the most important information for me to make up my mind when we have to write the report. Based on that, unless we have given that report a given time, I have no input today on making any recommendation towards it, and I'm ready to walk out.
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chairman, on a point of clarification: The report was released yesterday. A copy of the report was hand-delivered to the offices of Mr Curling and Mr Marchese.
Mr Curling: What time?
Mr Hardeman: I didn't follow the delivery service. I don't know what time it was delivered. But I've been informed that the offices had delivery.
Mr Sergio: Am I not a member of this committee? Am I not entitled to have a copy of this report?
The Chair: Mr Marchese, have you got something to say on this?
Mr Marchese: I do. We have a problem. If you rule this issue out of order, then you're going to have a problem with us in terms of how we participate in these discussions. You may decide to do that, but if you do that we have a problem. We had a long debate here on Monday about this report. We were saying to the government: "Please give us this report. It looks bad for you to withhold it." Then from Monday to today there's an article in the Globe that speaks about that report. It really is bad. It looks bad on the government.
Now you're nonchalantly saying, "We sent it to you, we sent you a copy." We didn't get it. It appeared in the paper before we even got it and you refused to give it to us that day. It just doesn't look good on the government. In terms of process, it's shabby; it's a shabby process for an article to appear in the paper about a report we were requesting that the government refused to give us. "When it's ready, we're going to give it to you," he said Monday. It's already been ready, made available, and the Globe has it before we do. It's a shabby, shabby thing.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, I'm not prepared to comment on whether it is or isn't shabby. Mr Hardeman advises the committee the report was hand-delivered to both your office and Mr Curling's office yesterday. It was hand-delivered to my office. I'm not prepared to entertain more comments on that particular point.
Mr Curling: But it's important --
The Chair: No, Mr Curling. I'm not going to entertain more comments.
Mr Curling: Now you say you didn't know it was hand-delivered. Mr Chairman, this is --
The Chair: It was hand-delivered to my office. It was hand-delivered to --
Mr Curling: You said you didn't even know, this morning, when I asked you. You said just a moment ago --
The Chair: I'm not prepared to entertain any more comment on that point.
Mr Curling: I think this is a farce.
The Chair: Mr Hardeman, you have the floor.
Mr Curling: I will not participate in this, Mr Chairman, because I think --
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chairman, I wish to withdraw the motion that I previously proposed to the committee and replace it with the following 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 listen to the people's thoughts on the government's proposals and how they felt the government could improve them; and
Whereas varying reports were heard on the different aspects of the tenant protection package; and
Whereas the report which was prepared by the legislative research entitled Briefing Notes for Draft Tenant Protection Package Report summarizes the views heard;
Be it resolved that the committee amend the document entitled Draft Report on Tenant Protection Package by removing all italicized "Issues to be Addressed" questions; and
Be it further resolved that this committee adopt the Draft Report on Tenant Protection Package as the committee's report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and
Be it further resolved that the document Summary of Witness Recommendations for Tenant Protection Package be attached to the committee report as an appendix.
The Chair: Mr Hardeman has tabled a new motion. Have you got copies of that for the committee? The clerk will make copies. Mr Hardeman, would you like to make some opening comments on the motion?
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, if you don't mind, he's going to comment on a motion that he raced through that I didn't hear very well. Could we just wait for a moment to get a copy?
The Chair: We'll just take a short recess until the copies are back.
The committee recessed from 1016 to 1022.
The Chair: Copies of the motion have been circulated. Mr Hardeman, do you want to make some initial comments?
Mr Hardeman: Just very briefly, the major difference in the motion is that the previous motion dealt with the report of this committee being based on the documents that were presented by legislative research. The present motion that is now before the committee is to adopt that report and have discussion based on that report.
The Chair: Any further comment on the motion?
Mr Marchese: Mr Hardeman, I didn't bring the other motion that you had moved the last time -- if the clerk has it, I would like to see it -- but I got the impression that you wanted to at least discuss the report that was in it. This motion simply takes the critical questions that were in that report out, but you still want to discuss that report. Is that what I understand you to be saying?
Mr Hardeman: The intent of the motion is to adopt the report as was written. Obviously the motion is to discuss those items. It was not deemed appropriate that this committee would spend their time answering the questions that were prepared by legislative research. The issues that are in the report are open for discussion by the members of the committee who are present.
Mr Marchese: Mr Hardeman, in the second paragraph you say that this committee was requested to listen to people's thoughts. It gives me the impression that it takes away critical discussion out of this debate, because you seem to suggest in that second paragraph that we, as members, have no input because all we were requested to do by your minister is to listen. Is that correct?
Mr Hardeman: As it relates to what the minister suggested or recommended in his presentation. When we started these discussions, the minister said that's what we're trying to do -- and this is I suppose not taking in the whole speech -- but that's what we're trying to do, and we want to make sure that we get it right. That's where this committee comes in.
We're anxious to learn what people think about our proposals and how they feel we can improve them, and what we are proposing to do with the report to the minister is to provide him with the information we've heard from those people who have made their presentations, so they take that into consideration as they draft legislation and policy to deal with the issue. There will be opportunities for review of that legislation and again public hearings based on the legislation that would be proposed from these discussions.
Mr Marchese: At the moment I'm not quite sure how we improve the report, because the report is based on what we heard. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve this report or how to get it right? What else are you suggesting we do with this? How do we improve it?
Mr Hardeman: In all fairness, I don't believe we need to improve the report, and that's why I'm putting it forward that we adopt it this way, because I believe that is the appropriate way to inform the minister of what we heard and the different interests.
Mr Marchese: That's really what I was getting at, because I don't think you were looking for ways to improve it and ways to get it right. That's why I made reference to paragraph 2 that says "the committee was requested to listen," effectively shutting out critical discussion. You just now admitted that your recommendation is to give this report as is to the minister, so there's no discussion any more on this.
Mr Hardeman: I would suggest the issue is, when the minister speaks, we want to make sure we get it right, that is, we want to make sure we get any new tenant protection legislation right. One of the things that will help that process to make sure the government does get it right is for this committee to have gone out and heard what the public and all the people involved feel and the suggestions they may be able to make on the changes, and that we report those changes or those recommendations back to the minister. I believe this resolution, in adopting that report, will do just that.
Mr Marchese: This resolution does nothing. This resolution makes you, an effective member of this committee -- it makes all of us ineffectual. It makes us useless. It makes us passive members of this Legislature. If all you want to do is submit a report based on what you heard, you don't need us. You might as well get a few of your people, have a meeting so we don't waste $20,000 of this government's time, and tell people to come and make a submission so that these two fine people can make a summary of what they've said. Why do you need me to raise questions? Why do you need the other opposition parties to raise questions? I don't understand.
If you can offer nothing more except to say this is what we heard and this is going to help your poor friend Minister Leach, I tell you, it's a shabby, shabby process. I don't think it's an intelligent way to work and I think you and the minister and the members of this committee should have sat together to strategize on how to present something that's intelligent to those tenants who come to listen to you.
This is not an intelligent process at all. I have to tell you quite frankly, this is bad. The least you could have done is to make some suggestions on where to go. If you have a sense of where you and your minister want to go, why don't you have the intellectual fortitude to put it out right now, instead of hiding behind the legislation that is going to come that is likely going to reproduce exactly what we've heard -- not reproduce what we've heard but reproduce the report that you've submitted? It will be, by and large, that report with very minor changes, and if that's it, it will not reflect what we heard.
It's in this regard that I suggest to you that it would be good for us to know where you, Mr Hardeman, and your fellow members are moving to, because then I would know whether you've actually been listening or not. But I hate to be deceived or confronted by a report later on, when you introduce a bill, that says very much what you have written in your report but will contradict much of what has been said by all the tenant groups and organizations that have come to support tenants.
To say I'm highly disappointed is an understatement obviously. That's why I came. I came this morning with the expectation we were going to have a discussion, but you brought me here an extra day to present me with a motion that says this is what we're going to submit. Why do you waste my time, these people's time, Hansard's time, the other people who record these hearings, to present me with a motion that says we're just going to submit this to the minister? Why did you do that?
Why didn't you on Friday find a process to deal with this and say: "Mr Marchese, don't worry, you don't have to come here on Friday to waste your time. We're going to end it on Monday"? You bring me back here for this, so that I can criticize this meaningless piece of process you're suggesting? Why would you do that?
It is a sham of a process. We should have dealt with what these people told us throughout the three weeks, one in Toronto and two weeks outside of Toronto. They have offered much criticism to this paper and many offered many suggestions. They deserve and we, the opposition members, deserve to know how you deal critically with what you've heard. To be passive recipients of information and to passively send this information to Leach in this process is not right. I believe it looks bad on you and it will look bad on you when the tenants find out what you have suggested.
Now you may not care. I suspect you may not care, as you didn't care about the fact that this article appeared on that report. If you had cared about this, you would have given us this report that Monday. I suspect it was ready. What is printed here is based on what was already printed, what was already ready. You would have looked good had you handed this to us, and you decided not to.
You're doing the same thing with this process again, where you're going to keep the opposition in the dark and you're going to keep the tenants in the dark until you're ready to submit a bill that will reflect your proposal, this tenant package proposal that hurts tenants and does not protect them, that benefits the landlord with huge bonanzas, and I suspect you're going to give a little more because they were very critical of your report and said you're not going far enough.
I don't want to prolong it unnecessarily. I just wanted to make sure those remarks were on the record. Obviously I have nothing more to say and I'm sure Mr Hardeman has nothing more to say. Let's call the question and end it, so we can adjourn.
The Chair: Any further debate on the motion? All those in favour?
Mr Marchese: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Danford, Hardeman, Maves, Ross, Smith, Stewart, Young.
Nays
Marchese.
Mr Marchese: And I'm sure Mr Sergio and Mr Curling would oppose this if they were here.
The Chair: The motion is carried. If there's no further business, this committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1033.