With only fifteen minutes allotted to state a case against rent control that would certainly be rejected by any socialist government, Metz wasted no time in getting to the point.
"As an opponent of rent control, I do not appear before this committee with any expectation of swaying this government's opinion or direction on the subject of rent controls," admitted Metz. "Indeed, it has been my repeated experience, in appearing before official committees and commissions over the past 10 years, that the only purpose served by them is to grant the illusion of public input while using that illusion to justify a predetermined government policy with respect to the issue being discussed."
Instead, Metz directed his message to the public, media, and landlords: "To those who clearly see the inherent evils of rent control and who want to do something about it, I am offering a rent control option that no other political party in Ontario will offer them: an officially-registered political party that, if elected, would put an end to the devastating and unjust policy of rent controls in this province."
Metz raised many of the issues previously raised in his earlier response to the Ministry of Housing. "Because of this government's universal and all-encompassing approach to rent controls, it has become painfully clear to me that the real intent behind rent controls has very little to do with the issue of affordable housing and a lot to do with political opportunism."
"It is frightening to think that our government is no longer motivated by serving needs, as it constantly tells us," charged Metz, "but rather by serving wants. If homeowners want to stop being hit with huge mortgage interest rate increases, does this obligate the government to start regulating interest rates in the banking industry? If consumers want to be protected from huge increases in food, shelter, and housing costs, does this obligate this government to regulate and control these parts of the market? The question I want to know most assuredly is, why is this government not working to protect us all from huge tax increases?"
Metz went on to illustrate how rent controls violate fundamental rights, including private property rights, the sanctity of private contract, freedom of association, and equality before the law. "Rent controls are undemocratic because of all these reasons," he concluded.
Members of the committee did not appreciate the issues raised by Metz's arguments. Diane Poole, Liberal MPP from Eglinton, openly trying to evade Metz's arguments, charged: "I am trying to get away from talking about the philosophy behind it. I understand and appreciate your point of view, but how do you provide those incentives to build? Yes, it will be an incentive if rent controls are lifted, but ... after Bill 4 and after certain things this government has done, how would people ever trust government to keep its word if it says it is going to end rent control? What developer is going to put up a building on the premise that this government and future governments will keep to that agenda?" Wow.
"What you are telling me, which is an alarming thing to hear coming from a committee member, is that you are saying government is completely untrustworthy," responded Metz
"No," denied Poole. "I am saying, how do you restore the trust of the people in it?"
Replied Metz: "The trust of the people has to be regained by a political party that will honor its commitments to do what it promises to do for them and not to misrepresent and give them policies that they say are going to solve their problems, but (which) just aggravate their problems and make things worse."
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
