Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Remote The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS (CONCLUDED)

On vote 1302:

Mr. Chairman: Before we adjourned the member for Thunder Bay had the floor.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): We should have stayed in bed.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I see the Leader of the Opposition is his usual kind self.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Jovial is the word.

Mr. Stokes: I hope he’s mellowed over the dinner hour.

I had just about completed my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I had hoped to elicit a response from the minister in connection with the number of problems that we, as members, have brought to the attention of the superintendent of insurance. I equate this kind of information to that which is gathered by the northern affairs offices where if you were to get 10,000 inquiries concerning the Workmen’s Compensation Board it would seem it would naturally follow that it was a problem area and you should sit down and discuss it with your cabinet colleagues in order to come to grips with a problem that seems to be widespread and growing annually.

I think that as a result of all the inquiries we have been making, it must have occurred to you, and you must have come to the conclusion, that all is not well in the way that some of the insurance companies conduct their affairs vis-à-vis the consumer and their customers.

Notwithstanding that, you have indicated the jury is still out until you’ve had all of the input that you consider so necessary from your advisory committee and the task force. I want to know what you would do with this kind of information. Surely you must discuss it from time to time with your colleagues in the ministry, and I’d like to know whether you’re prepared to take some action, with I would hope a limited number of companies with which we have an ongoing and continual problem.

I’m not going to mention the names of those companies, but I’m wondering if your superintendent of insurance has made an analysis of the kind of complaints and the companies that are involved in them.

I could dig out my files and show them to you. I’m not going to do that. I want to know whether you used this information in order to clean up the Insurance Act, particularly the Automobile Insurance Act, in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Chairman, there are, in the province, approximately 2.5 million vehicles, and in addition there are hundreds of thousands coming in from foreign jurisdictions and leaving in the course of a year.

Last year, the branch received, from members’ inquiries and from inquiries made directly to the branch by the public -- by telephone, mail and personal attendance -- 960 complaints against the automobile insurance industry. The nature of those complaints varied from poor communication between the insurer and the person involved -- let’s call him the consumer -- to dollar disputes arising out of attempts to settle automobile damages and complaints dealing with poor service. In the latter category the individual felt he was entitled to better service than he received -- and in many instances he was absolutely right, he was the recipient of poor service.

The superintendent and his staff welcome these complaints, because if we don’t hear about them we can only assume everything is well.

But we have to look at the other side of the coin too. Not all of the complaints, as you can well imagine, were valid. In many instances the consumer expected too much. He expected things to which he or she was not entitled. His impression was that as the dust hit the road from the collision the man would be there with the cheque book; many times it was a dispute that really arose out of the repairer and the insured, and not really between the insured or the consumer and the insurer.

I’m the first to concede that not all 2.5 million automobiles or vehicles were involved in collisions or losses, thank goodness; but percentage-wise, one per cent is 25,000. I suppose 960 complaints of this nature are really a very small percentage -- about 0.04 per cent -- of the insured vehicles.

What do we do? The insurer is contacted in the case of every consumer complaint, unless on the basis of complaint our people say: “Well you haven’t even got coverage” or “It expired two years ago.” They can be answered right on the spot. In all other instances, the insurer is contacted, in many instances the adjuster and in some instances the agent, to find out just what the facts of the matter are. This results in a number of the inquiries being resolved to the satisfaction of the person who laid the complaint.

Sometimes senior personnel of the insurance company are invited to come in and have a discussion with the superintendent. I can tell you of one such company that was invited not too many months ago. The persons -- I believe the chairman of the board and the president of the company -- found out very quickly that unless the service improved, because of the nature of the complaints, we would seriously entertain not renewing their licence, which is renewed each and every year.

Again, it was a poor communication problem. Things that had been dealt with by people within that company and my ministry officials had not seeped up to the people at the higher levels. This is something we run into; not only in insurance, we run into it in all areas of dealing with our fellow man.

I think the industry has responded well. I have personally been involved in some discussions dealing with life insurance. Not all the complaints, of course, are related to the automobile insurance industry; we have some dealing with the loan and trust aspect of the branch and some dealing with prepaid medical plans and this sort of thing that are in effect.

The member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) became interested in a matter, I think about a year ago. I became personally involved and the superintendent and the deputy became very much personally involved. Through the efforts of my staff -- certainly not through my efforts -- we convinced the insurers they were very much wrong and the death claim, I believe of some $10,000, was paid. I welcome this sort of thing.

A lot of the complaints are frivolous and I get annoyed. You represent a number of people, and so do I, in your own constituency. Some of the frivolous ones are pretty apparent on the face of them when they hit your desk. We are not really here discussing those, we are discussing the valid complaints.

Mr. Stokes: If I thought they were frivolous, I wouldn’t even bother --

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right, and I’m confident most members of this House take that position.

Sometimes people don’t tell us the truth either. Before I was a member of this House I dealt with insurance companies for about 18 years through my practice of law, and I too had my complaints and frustrations, often brought about by an overzealous person at a lower level denying liability where it shouldn’t have been denied in the hope of perhaps grandstanding for his superiors. I hope those types of people today are in minimal numbers. I’m sure they are.

I welcome any valid complaint that comes in and my staff are ready, willing and able to extend to every member of this House, and in fact to every member of the public, any assistance they can render.

Mr. Stokes: I just want to follow up on two minor points. The first is that I want to assure the minister and members of his staff that I read the complaint material, using my good judgement, and if I think they’ve got a legitimate case then I pursue it with the superintendent of insurance.

As a matter of fact, most of the cases I have brought to the attention of the superintendent of insurance are cases that have been referred to me by salesmen of insurance companies. They felt that, first of all, their adjuster wasn’t doing his job. And, of course, you have got ample evidence of that. It was well-documented in a report that was made available to you. In fact it was a report that was commissioned by you, showing the shortcomings of many adjusters in the automobile insurance field.

Now, obviously, that hasn’t changed. I don’t know what more evidence you need to suggest to adjusters that they should clean up their act or get on the ball. Almost invariably when I bring a case to the attention of the superintendent of insurance, it’s at the instigation of the salesman, or the salesman has said to their client: “I am sorry, I have done everything that is humanly possible to represent you. I have hit a blind end. Why don’t you go and see your member?” That’s why these cases get to the attention of the office of the superintendent of insurance.

On that basis, when you even get salesmen -- you know, insurance men -- suggesting that their clients come to their member, it’s pretty conclusive evidence to me that something is wrong in those cases. I think perhaps you should be taking a look at them. I don’t think you have to wait until all of the evidence is in to take action in specific areas where there are chronic complaints and chronic neglect in the servicing of existing policies.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Brant.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring a matter to the attention of the minister, which I trust is not frivolous. It was brought to my attention by a lady, a widow, who has had the main responsibility in her family now for a number of years.

She was complaining that the insurance rates for her automobile were going to a level which she felt were unduly high, because she was putting her son on as second driver. He was over 25, with no accident record. She, herself, has no accident record whatsoever. It was pointed out to her that if she put the son as the principal driver and listed herself as the second driver, the rate would be reduced by $70.

I can hardly believe this. Is it possible that a rate structure as approved by a branch of the ministry would permit that sort of strange approach to the costs of insurance in this province? I have no doubt that what the lady reported to me were the rates given to her by her agent, but surely there must be some misconception in this matter.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That sounds most peculiar. I just don’t understand that, because that isn’t logical -- is it? It just doesn’t seem logical that he being over 25, there would be an advantage. Now if her record -- does she have a driving record?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No; there is no record for either one of them.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, perhaps the leader of the Liberal Party might give us the particulars of that. That just isn’t consistent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would be glad to do that.

It simply is a further indication of the uncertainty many people feel when it comes to the insurance premium bill which arrives. It’s very difficult to determine how the specific amount is arrived at.

As a matter of fact, one of the basic areas of conversation among two people when they meet after they have discussed the weather, is: “What do you pay for your car insurance.”

There’s always this feeling that most people are trying to get some rational explanation of the very broad differences in the cost. You can always trace it to a difference in coverage, perhaps a difference in driving records -- but there is this feeling of uncertainty on the part of many people that the supervision is substantially inadequate.

I know the minister has indicated already that his own views differ from his predecessors, that he is prepared to give some consideration to compulsory insurance -- which we, of course, applaud. I think this is good. But if it were only possible that sort of a basic, standard approach to changes in the cost of coverage were available, I think that a good deal of the uncertainty that is in the minds of the consumers might be dispelled. Your people might also find they wouldn’t get quite as many inquiries under these circumstances. Is there a substantial difference from one company to the other for standard coverage in standard circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Clement: You have to first deal in the same geographic area, and you have to deal with the same type of car. Once we equate that, there is some slight difference depending on the success of company A as opposed to company B -- its loss ratios over the last two or three years.

Some companies become -- and this is a problem -- so selective that all they want to insure is the triple A blue star driver who has a history of no accidents. We don’t applaud that sort of thing either, because then you are denying access to insurance coverage to the other driver who, through one reason or another, has acquired some kind of accident record, be it minor or major. If they are in the business of selling insurance, then we say they have to sell to all, but there is a definite difference.

I mentioned earlier this afternoon, in your absence from the House, that I have been somewhat astounded to receive in the past comparative rates from the superintendent’s office for, shall we say, standard coverage. It can be rather substantial. But most of us, I think through habit, are used to dealing with one agency and for one reason or another don’t go outside that agency or go outside the range of insurers that agency represents.

If your constituent will look at her premium notice, if it is the same as mine, you have so much for your standard coverage and so much for the additional -- if you want to go beyond the $50,000 -- and so much for certain other benefits, collision and this sort of thing. It has been my experience in the past, in discussing it with clients when I practised, that they would buy a new car and put $25 deductible on it; drive the car for four or five years, never really review it or decide to enlarge the deductible or remove it and pay a rather healthy premium to re- pair a car that’s four or five or six years of age. There is a difference in cars; and consumers, when discussing this on the street, don’t mention, you know, that the member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is driving a Cadillac-

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Eldorado.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- and the member for

Niagara Falls (Mr. Clement) is driving a very small, inexpensive vehicle.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Stripped down Chev.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): How old is yours?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Five years.

Mr. Renwick: I thought so.

Hon. Mr. Clement: And I’ll soon have it paid for!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I was going to ask the minister if there are jurisdictions which still give comparative consumer dollar information with the premium costs associated with the name of the company? Pennsylvania used to do this, certainly up until about three years ago, when I believe it was the superintendent of insurance there who brought out the very interesting publication where the cost of basic coverage in that state was compared dollar for dollar by company name. Is that still done? Is there any way the comparative information would be available from your office?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We are moving in this direction.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Oh, yes? Good direction!

Hon. Mr. Clement: I just want to confirm this with the superintendent. On life insurance, not on automobile insurance; we have not done that on automobile insurance but on life insurance.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Would you contemplate it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It is within the realm of contemplation. Why not?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You have that information.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I want to make this clear. This isn’t hidden information. You can get this information without any difficulty at all.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If I were to shop around, company by company, I could, but could I get the comparative dollar costs for basic automobile insurance coverage by writing you and asking for it?

Mr. Singer: Nope!

Hon. Mr. Clement: I can give you that. I can also give you the basic coverage and show the difference between certain geographic areas -- that is Metro Toronto compared to the Hamilton-Brantford area or however they break it down, the Niagara peninsula or anything else. I will give it to you.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why not use your advertising budget to simply publish that information?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No. I would like to use my advertising budget to bring other matters to the attention of consumers.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There wouldn’t be anything more valuable or of more interest to them than that.

Mr. Singer: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. Clement: Within the next few months, we intend to put forward a brochure, similar to those we have done in other areas, dealing with insurance. I haven’t contemplated going so far as giving all the rates for the different companies, but what information I have available I’ll make available to you readily.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order if I may.

Pat Chefurka is leaving the assembly and I would like to take the opportunity of introducing to the assembly the president of the Ontario New Democratic Party Association, Pat Chefurka.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Together with all their supporters.

Mr. Renwick: She needs no supporters, they are in Carleton East.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Seems to me she ran against me.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: She is from Middlesex South.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Middlesex North.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister what attention, if any, he has given to limitation periods? I don’t know if he has had drawn to his attention what I think was one of the best reports of the Law Reform Commission which was their report on limitations generally. I tried to argue with one of your colleagues, the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), and I didn’t get very far. However it seems to me one of the very serious faults in our insurance law is that the limitation periods are so rigid and that we have not written into the law any judicial discretion.

I’m not suggesting the limitation periods be thrown wide open and litigation about motor accident negligence be allowed to take place at any time, or be allowed to take place six years after the event, but it would seem to me on occasion, and I have experienced this myself, that once in a while inexperienced lawyers can get lulled into a sense of false security by more astute lawyers on the other side.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Some experienced ones too.

Mr. Singer: And experienced ones! Or there may be a shrewd adjuster. However, it would seem to me not illogical, with the very strict interpretation the courts have put on the limitation periods as the statutes have set them out, and probably quite correctly from a judicial point of view, that there should be some judicial discretion allowed in appropriate circumstances to extend those periods.

Now the minister may remember that when the no-fault first came in, there was some considerable confusion about limitations in so far as no-faults were concerned, and we were able to convince the minister’s predecessor to readjust the wording.

I would like to see a form of readjustment in our statutory provisions; not to throw it wide open, but to allow judicial discretion in appropriate circumstances. I would like to hear the minister’s view.

Hon. Mr. Clement: You have touched a very sympathetic point, because I think that in some instances a real hardship has been practised upon a victim of an accident. Someone issuing a writ, whether you enlarge it from the one year to another three months, may just be perpetuating it. Discretionary remedy might well be the answer. I’m extremely sympathetic. I think it is a function the court should perform on material put before it, particularly where there have been negotiations going on between the parties and the representatives over some period of time. You will find hopefully that we will move in that direction in the first part of the year, next session.

I’m very sympathetic and I don’t think the industry would object to it too much either; because it’s a great criticism of the industry, which really says: “Well, there it is.”

I don’t think what is suggested is unreasonable. The discretionary bit might well be the answer to the problem. It’s not only embarrassing to the solicitor, and costly to him in some instances; it can be very costly to a client.

The deductible, I am told, is that you pay the first $2,000, in case you had that in the back of your mind.

Mr. Singer: You are confusing solicitors’ negligence with other things. I wasn’t talking about that one, but I appreciate the minister’s views on that and I thank him. I think he and I are thinking along the same lines.

There are good companies and there are bad companies, and most of the industry would accept this. I have found tough companies and tough lawyers and tough adjusters who just wait. I’ve got a very strict control system in my own office, I think, and I hope to make sure we never get caught.

But it is quite possible that the most careful solicitors can get caught. You can get lulled into a sense of false security and suddenly the axe descends. I think it is grossly unfair, particularly bearing in mind that when you get an injury, the full extent of which is not ascertainable immediately and may not be ascertainable for a year or 18 months or two years or three years after the event, there are people who sometimes appear on the other side just waiting to attempt to catch you on day 366.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Unless it’s Sunday.

Mr. Singer: Unless it’s Sunday, when they can go to day 367. The minister and I, as solicitors, can understand that. I appreciate that I think he has made a commitment that in legislation we will see shortly after Jan. 1, 1975, perhaps there will be some judicial discretion to remedy this.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’ll make that in the form of a commitment. Like every politician, I’m just going to say one thing as a rider; I hope that if we move in that direction in this province our sister provinces will do the same thing, for very obvious reasons. I don’t think we should be providing remedies for people in other jurisdictions that they won’t provide to us.

Mr. Renwick: Of course not.

Mr. Singer: Fair enough. But I have listened, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Renwick: So you are denying them to the people here until you get them elsewhere.

Mr. Singer: I have listened for so many years to my friends on the government benches say: “We lead in Ontario --

Mr. Renwick: What about the whole of the world?

Mr. Singer: “ -- we don’t follow. We lead

Canada and we lead the world.” I invite the minister to lead in Canada in this particular field.

Mr. Chairman: Is item 3 carried?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I only have one -- are we on item 3?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, we are on item 3.

Mr. Renwick: This is financial institutions still? I only have one or two comments.

I want to turn from that kind of insurance to ask, from the consumer’s point of view, what your ministry does to protect a consumer who borrows money from a credit grantor or one who finances a consumer credit operation and pays for insurance to the credit grantor, who, in turn, has a master contract with some insurer? What does your ministry do to protect the consumer from exorbitant premium charges in financing consumer transactions?

As I understand it, what now happens is that there is a master contract between the credit grantor and an insurer. The consumer pays, as part of the carrying charges of his loan, a portion of the premium. The premium goes to the master contract insurer. When the loss ratio is such that they can no longer support the collection of the premium they repay a portion of the premium to the credit grantor, but the consumer never gets the benefit.

I understand the argument -- it’s called de minimus by lawyers. The finance company or the bank -- the credit grantor -- has the benefit of the rebate of the premium from the insurer, and I’m quite certain that it is done in such a way there is a substantial rebate. But because it would be too much of an accounting problem, it is never rebated to the consumer.

I want to know what your ministry is doing to protect the consumer against that kind of rip-off? It is called a premium rebate refund arrangement, but in the language that we use, from the point of view of the consumer, it is known as a rip-off. Would the minister please tell me what his ministry is doing to protect the consumer against that kind of take by the insurance industry?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, the superintendent and his office have developed a set of guidelines dealing with this type of practice. It is forbidden to kick back, if I may use that expression, to a financial institution, a credit grantor. This is a practice that has occurred in the past, there’s no question about it.

The credit institution, or the credit grantor, is allowed up to five per cent of the premium for its administrative costs in writing the premium. The premium must be reasonable. The premium is scrutinized by the office of the superintendent. Not only is this a deplorable practice, it is now contrary to the guidelines. I am advised that it seems to be working quite well. If it doesn’t, then we’ll just have to legislate it.

Mr. Renwick: Would the minister put on the record what the guidelines are that would prohibit this practice and why he thinks that it does not require legislative sanction in order to enforce it against persons who are engaged in the insuring of the very large credit grantors in the province?

Do you understand, as I understand it anyway, that you are talking about an increase in consumer credit of about $1 billion? Correct me if my figures are wrong; I lose track now, in our economy, of whether I should be talking about $1 million or $1 billion from 1950 to about $15.6 billion of consumer credit now. Is that roughly right?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It is not too far wrong.

Mr. Renwick: Anyway, it is very substantial. I would guess that, certainly since the 1960s, most of that credit granting has been insured for death, for unemployment through disability and that kind of thing, or the inability to pay of the person seeking the credit. My guess is that the rip-off of the insurance companies has been fantastic.

I want to ask the minister if he has any quantum statement about the number of dollars which have been paid by the consumers in the Province of Ontario for that kind of insurance protection; the number of dollars that have been paid out, which is the loss ratio, and what it was that prompted the ministry to issue the guidelines which were issued last year.

For practical purposes there was no public announcement of them. They weren’t put into regulation form. Apparently you don’t have any statutory authority by which you could have done it by regulation to make it enforceable. So it wasn’t public knowledge, and yet you continue to say to us, with the insurance industry as you know it, that you think this kind of cosy relationship of issuing guidelines to the insurance industry is protecting the consumers of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Minister, I think you really believe it, so I’m not going to attack you tonight. I simply think you are so totally naive, when you consider the number of dollars that have been taken in by the insurers and the credit insurance agencies in the Province of Ontario since the time this government has been in power until today, and you issued guidelines last December covering this matter, that you don’t know what the figures were. You do it by guideline, you don’t have statutory authority; or if you do have the statutory authority, you don’t do it by regulation.

I think you are part of the naive group of people who are being totally taken by the insurance industry at the expense of the people of the Province of Ontario. I think it is absolutely shocking.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, the guidelines can be filed in the House for the perusal of the member. I’ll send them to him. They have been developed as a result of --

Mr. Renwick: Will you table them?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will table them. I am prepared to provide you with the amount of dollars that we’re talking about. I don’t know them right now. The superintendent says they are available in terms of total dollars paid by consumers borrowing through credit grantors. This was a matter that was discussed -- I must differ with the member for Riverdale when he said there was nothing in the papers about it --

Mr. Renwick: I said there was nothing public about them.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- because it was discussed very broadly a year ago August, I believe, at the meeting of superintendents held in Winnipeg, Regina or somewhere in the west. It’s definitely not in the public interest; of course it’s not. I am advised that the guidelines have been very effective. I am prepared to put them in regulatory form once they’re workable and once they’re understood by everybody affected. I don’t like it. I don’t like credit grantors sometimes being put in a situation by retailers of having to make rebates back to retailers for consumer credit purchases in terms of interest. You might call it a kick-back, I might call it a kick-back. These things have somehow picked up all kinds of special names, and I don’t like it.

I have made my feelings known on that. If there’s disclosure, that’s one thing. I think the deplorable part about something like this is the fact that there is no disclosure. In many instances, the consumer maybe couldn’t care less; but in many instances, I am sure he could -- or he should in any event.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the consumer cares. And he cares more than the government thinks. But he has no alternative but not to care, because he can’t do anything about it because the government doesn’t protect him, and he can’t do anything about it -- okay?

Mary at the Royal Bank sells a lot of consumer loans, you know. All of them are insured. There’s a master contract. Every consumer transaction in Ontario today is insured against certain forms of credit risk. The consumer pays.

If I had my way, there would be a government inquiry into the last 15 years of the kick-back or rip-off by the insurance industry in the consumer credit field and they would be required to refund -- maybe impossible, now, in the lapse of time -- to the consumer who paid the premium. But I would certainly have it into some kind of a fund where that insurance scheme would no longer be open to the private industry. That money would go into establishing an insurance fund which could insure every consumer in the Province of Ontario under a government- supported fund against the loss of employment and against death, or other such disability which would prohibit him from continuing his time payments under all of these plans.

The economy is based on it, but who gets the rip-off? You know as well as I do. I think it’s a scandal. If I had my way, it would be a crime.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 3 carry?

Mr. Stokes: No.

Mr. Renwick: No.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I want to put something on the record that will substantiate what the Leader of the Opposition was talking about with regard to the supposed standard automobile policy. I want to relate an incident I had with a particular insurance company.

Almost two years ago to the day, I was driving on Highway 17 westbound, between Terrace Bay and Schreiber, and I came in contact with a deer. I saw it crossing and I slowed up. And just as he went out of the range of my headlights, I stepped on the gas again and he was confused by my headlights. He darted back and the front of my car hit the deer, and that was the end of it.

I phoned my insurance agent, explained what had happened’ and he asked whether there was any damage to the car. I told him there was some damage. I reported to the Ministry of Natural Resources that the deer had been killed and I reported to the OPP that an accident had occurred. My insurance agent told me to take the car in and get it repaired and have them submit a bill. About 10 days later I got a letter from my insurance company saying that hitting or coming in contact with a wild animal wasn’t considered a collision within the meaning of their contract and that it wasn’t covered;.

So I went to my insurance agent and I said: “Why didn’t you tell me that this kind of thing wouldn’t be covered?” I happen to know that this particular agent deals with four or five non-board companies. I know that some of the companies he deals with cover this kind of event, because one of my friends collected about $1,100 toward the damage to his car for that particular kind of coverage. So he told me the company that my friend had the insurance with did cover this on a standard policy, while my company didn’t cover it, even though they were standard policies.

I said: “Why didn’t you advise me because I drive anywhere from 30,000 to 40,000 miles a year. I want that kind of coverage.” I just assumed I had had it because I know of several claims that were paid through that agency. He said: “I forgot to mention it to you.” He mentioned that company A covers it but company B doesn’t. I said: ‘‘All right, cancel my insurance with the one I had it with and renew it with the other one, because with the amount of driving in inclement weather I can’t afford to drive without that kind of coverage.”

So he did, he transferred it over. I said: “I want an endorsation with my policy that will indicate that I am covered for this kind of accident.” He came up with one -- I don’t know where -- indicating specifically that it covered contact with a wild animal. You can readily appreciate why you would want that, because you get one of these lanky, long- legged, northern moose and you touch one of those, they are right into your windshield. I have seen too many instances where people have been killed or maimed permanently as a result of this kind of collision.

Let me tell you what happened. My agent transferred from company A to company B. About three or four months later I got a call from the original company saying they were awfully sorry that I had seen fit to cancel my business with their company. They said we had enjoyed a good relationship, and that I had never reported an accident to this time.

Mr. Renwick: That’s why.

Mr. Stokes: They said, “We are very sorry you have taken that action. To show our good faith, even though your policy has been void and cancelled for the last three or four months, we hereby enclose a cheque for the amount of your claim.” Even though I was no longer insured by them, they said: “Here is a cheque covering the amount of the claim and we hope you will reconsider.”

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): They wouldn’t have done it for anybody else.

Mr. Stokes: No, they wouldn’t have done it. But here was an elected member and somebody doesn’t want these things aired in public and doesn’t like to have the dirty linen hauled out. How do you see the operation of an insurance company that is motivated in that way?

Obviously I didn’t go back. I stayed where I was and that was the end of company A; but it sure leaves a lot of doubt.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Did you cash your cheque?

Mr. Stokes: You are darned right I did.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: What would- your reaction be to that kind of a situation where you have standard automobile policies? One covers it and the other doesn’t. Then they have a change of heart, they reconsider and they pay it long after my contract with them had expired? What do you think about that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The way I see it I think you were covered all the time and you got some bad advice from your agent. That is the way I see it.

Mr. Stokes: I have proof. I have a letter from the company saying that’s the way they interpreted the policy. When they sent the cheque they said: “We have reviewed it and we have finally come to the conclusion that it should have been a legitimate claim. It is now a part of our standard policy.”

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, if what the member tells me is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, it is the first time I have ever heard that a policy with standard collision coverage on a car excludes running into a wild animal. If that isn’t a collision, I wonder what it would be. I have certainly never heard of it.

We have been talking back and forth here. The superintendent is not aware of it. I find it somewhat remarkable that you took out a policy with the second company that has the coverage and then it put an endorsement on it when it is already supposed to be in the policy. I just find it a little confusing.

Mr. Stokes: The minister thinks that maybe my memory isn’t serving me well. I am going to make all of that information available to you just so you will see.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Somebody must have made a mistake because just sitting here, playing Sherlock Holmes, it would seem to me you had coverage all the way along.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): They make mistakes like politicians I guess.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I think that a lot of the problem is the poor public relations the insurance companies have in dealing with the public. I am not criticizing the member for Thunder Bay for cashing that cheque, because they should have paid it to him earlier. What I am saying is that a lot of these agents and adjusters spend time getting out of the payment of a claim --

Mr. Stokes: I bet they wish they had.

Mr. Taylor: It would be better to spend the time servicing the claim.

The rip-off, if there’s a rip-off, is in the repair business. I think if there’s an investigation to be made it should be into these mechanics or repair depots, the places where you take your automobile to be serviced and to be repaired. It’s no wonder the insurance rates are going up. Every time you walk inside the door you don’t know what they are doing with your car, but you sure get a big bill for it.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Stokes: The next thing, you will want to be nationalizing the repair --

Mr. Taylor: I am just saying that if an industry ever needed supervision --

Mr. Renwick: You are the same, you know.

Mr. Taylor: -- to keep people honest --

Mr. Renwick: Your clients walk out and they don’t know what you fellows are --

Mr. Taylor: -- if there ever was an industry that needs supervision, I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that you go into the repair business and just check into the cars that have been taken into these places for servicing and see what had to be done. See, in fact, what was done, see who did the work on it, see if they were competent to do the work on it. Check the bill.

Total it up and see how the public is being ripped off in terms of repairs to their automobiles. This is the big problem that’s facing, I dare say, most of the motorists today and should be rectified.

Mr. Chairman: Item 3 carried?

Mr. Renwick: No, no, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have some information as to what is covered by item 3 under the designation of financial institutions. Does it cover the so-called co-operative operations in the Province of Ontario or does that come under the companies division?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Under the companies.

Mr. Renwick: Well may I deal with one part of it, which probably comes under this vote? Why would the minister have told the farm mutuals, understanding as I do the traditional dislike of the government for anything that has to do with the mutualization or co-operative activity, why would the minister have told the farm mutuals they should be very careful about expanding their business?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t recall a thing. Can you give me more particulars?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, as a matter of fact.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I talk to so many people in the course of a day, I can’t even remember the day, never mind what I said.

Mr. Renwick: I think this actually was a speech you made. If you would just give me a moment.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I wouldn’t be surprised.

Mr. Renwick: Don’t you think for a moment that I don’t keep a file on you.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I beg your pardon?

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): The minister gets a four-star rating!

Mr. Renwick: It is so cluttered up with no-fault insurance that I have trouble finding anything else.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Solid documentation too.

Mr. Chairman: Maybe the member for Riverdale would like to --

Mr. Renwick: No, I don’t need to. I have it, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I must take it back.

“An official of the Ontario department of insurance has warned farm mutual insurance companies against a too rapid increase in premium income without an appropriate rise in company asset values. Martin Crutcher, department supervising examiner, said that because mutuals operate in a narrower financial range than do stock insurance companies, they must make underwriting profits to increase surplus. As a result, the mutual companies can only afford to do so many things, he told the annual convention of the Mutual Fire Underwriters Association.”

And so on, and it’s quite a long article.

What I am saying to the minister is what is the ministry doing to support the survival in Ontario of the farm mutuals as against the stock insurance companies? I see this within the broader context of the inability of the government of the Province of Ontario to understand anything called the mutual or co-operative operation.

We can deal briefly with the co-operatives and the credit union movement, and the failure of the building societies in the Province of Ontario, and all of the other co-operative activities which have never had the kind of support which any government that was interested in protecting people against the profit take of the stock companies would be interested in.

I am simply saying that it may well be that Mr. Crutcher was totally right if you apply to the mutual insurance business the criteria which you apply to the stock companies, because the stock companies have always charged premiums so high that they always have a surplus of funds to invest and their investment income protects them against the underwriting loss, but the farm mutual business and every other form of co-operative is not engaged in building up that kind of reserve.

I’m being a little bit rhetorical, because I don’t really think the minister knows the answer to the overall inability of the province to provide a hospitable atmosphere for the kind of insurance operation the farm mutual firms are engaged in. That’s also true of all the other forms of mutual insurance in Canada. The mutual companies in the other fields were threatened in their managerial operation so they changed themselves back into mutuals; that’s the only reason they did, and the minister knows that as well as I do.

I really don’t know, because you can’t possibly know the history of every financial institution in the Province of Ontario, but I think this government has done practically nothing either to support or to permit the expansion of the farm mutual business in the Province of Ontario, I think the government has been so sadly in default that this kind of warning is given, because now they have fallen afoul of the rules which have been set down for stock insurance companies.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t aware of the particular speech that Mr. Crutcher --

Mr. Renwick: Martin Crutcher; he’s in your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It wasn’t I who made the statement -- I want to make that clear. But it’s the same advice, 1 presume, he would give any stock company -- to adhere to the rules that apply.

I’m advised the insurance branch is working closely right now with the farm mutual companies to assist them in the creation of a stabilization board so that they can, in due course, abandon the premium note system of payment in doing business which has been somewhat harmful to members over the years. But I’m not familiar with that particular speech on that particular occasion. I think our officials would tell any company carrying on business, be it a farm mutual or a stock company, that it must adhere to those kind of monetary restraints.

Mr. Chairman: Any other member wish to speak on item 3? Carried?

Item 4, motor vehicle accident claims fund. Carried? Item 4 agreed to.

Item 5, companies.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I haven’t had an opportunity to find out just exactly what hour of the night it was that this matter came up. My recollection is that it was about 2:20 on the morning of Dec. 14 or 13, 1972. I think it’s typical of this minister and of this ministry, that nothing has been done, so far as I know, about the point which was then raised and was accepted by the minister at that hour of the morning. I’ve got it here, Mr. Chairman, if you’ll just give me a moment to find it.

The minister introduced, on Dec. 14, 1972 -- this was that marathon session, remember, the last marathon session that we’ve ever had? Presumably it’s the last we ever will have, because public opinion will not allow it to happen again.

I think it was about 2:20 in the morning. The minister, in committee on Bill 181, An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act, introduced an amendment about Canadian directorships. It was a question of whether or not you had to disclose what nationality you were if you were not a Canadian. The amendment would have it that all you had to state was whether or not you were a Canadian -- not what nationality you were if you weren’t a Canadian.

I introduced an amendment at that time which I thought was of significance and which I still think is of significance. I asked the minister at that time if he would consider an amendment: that any director, in filing the annual summary of the company, would be required to provide the information as to

“Whether or not each director is a director of any other corporation related to the corporation; and if so, the name of such corporation and the jurisdiction of its in- corporation.”

Now we are talking about the knowledge of the ordinary citizen of the Province of Ontario with respect to the interrelationship of the web of corporations to which any particular director belongs. I want to repeat the words of the amendment:

“Whether or not each director is a director of any other corporation related to the corporation; and if so, the name of such corporation and the jurisdiction of its in- corporation.”

I’m sure the minister will remember this, because I went on very briefly as usual to explain the meaning of my amendment. I find that the leader of the Liberal Party, who had then resigned but has since been reinstituted in his position of leader of the Liberal Party, had this to say --

Mr. Singer: Just because the NDP are going to lose in Ottawa shouldn’t make you so bitter.

Mr. Stokes: That’s what you said about Stormont.

Mr. Singer: I didn’t say that. I wasn’t even here during the Stormont by-election.

Mr. Renwick: The member for Brant said:

“I believe that the subamendment is of substantially greater value than the concept of the whole bill.

“The hon. member for Riverdale, by explaining it to us as carefully as he did -- five times by actual count -- has made it abundantly clear how important it is. [We are not allowed to use ‘abundantly clear’ any more after Watergate.] I am prepared not only to understand him but to support him.”

The leader of my party (Mr. Lewis) supported me on that motion.

Mr. Singer: That was unusual.

Mr. Renwick: No, he always does. He supported it not only eloquently but knowledgeably as well. Then the minister said:

“Mr. Chairman, I think we could have speeded things up if the member had sent me a note across the House, knowing how reasonable I am, to deal with this matter. I can see no criticism of the amendment submitted by the member for Riverdale.

“I can appreciate the problem of trying to do a corporate search and finding out if there is any connection. I think that the comments which have been made by all members who have participated certainly outweight any disadvantages insofar as cost is concerned. I think it overbalances it. I am prepared to consent to the amendment if the House will carry it.

“Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

“Amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

“Bill 181, as amended, reported.”

That was the end of it.

Mr. Singer: Your genius knows no limits.

Mr. Ren wick: I had one meeting -- I was called across to meet with your experts, each of whom as a personal friend I admire, enjoy and often have a drink with -- despite what Norman Webster says, you and I very seldom have a drink.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I very seldom have one with anyone.

Mr. Renwick: But they confused me so much that I left thinking you were going to introduce that amendment. That amendment happens to be one of the most significant amendments that this government could carry with respect to me inter-corporate relationships, foreign or otherwise, of companies which are incorporated in the Province of Ontario or which carry on business in the Province of Ontario.

So far as I am concerned -- and you can pull the rug right out from under me by telling me its been proclaimed and I’ll be delighted -- but to my knowledge, it has never been proclaimed. Am I correct?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It has not been proclaimed.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would be the last person who would want to pull out the rug from under your feet.

Mr. Renwick: This is one occasion I would be happy to have you do so.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I remember that discussion at that time --

Mr. Renwick: I remember it too.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It was a very interesting discussion. It was put forward after a brief statement as to why it should be put forward by the member for Riverdale. But I’m advised by my officials that it is impractical for a series of reasons in terms of varying the forms and the ever-onward quest for uniformity of legislation in providing similar returns for all jurisdictions. In theory I concur. I concurred with it that particular night, but it is unwieldy.

Mr. Doan advised me here a moment ago that they’re still trying to work out some way that this can be done. Maybe it can be done on demand. It shouldn’t be necessary, maybe, in each and every instance but only on demand. In any event, it is an unwieldy piece of legislation that unfortunately is not practical.

Mr. Renwick: I remember it. I have been conned before.

Mr. Stokes: He has been conned by experts.

Hon. Mr. Clements: I would welcome any suggestions the member for Riverdale or any other member of the House might make as to how it can be implemented, because the intention of both the member for Riverdale and myself at that time was to see it implemented. I quite agree. There was no question of doing it to humour him or anybody else in the House. I like the idea. It sounds like it was a sound idea.

Mr. Renwick: It’s very simple. As a matter of fact, it’s so simple that it defies my understanding as to why your ministry should find it impossible to implement.

I used the term “related corporation” for very clear reasons. The terms “related” and “associated” are now accepted terms in the Income Tax Act of Canada and in a number of other statutes with respect to finding out which companies are related or associated to each other for income tax purposes.

If for corporation tax purposes in the Province of Ontario, or for income tax purposes in Ottawa, they can find out which companies are related or associated companies by the series of definitions which they have in that Act, then I say to you that for public policy purposes the members of your ministry, with the skills which they have, can devise a similar system. I’m not prepared to buy the proposition that we in the Province of Ontario have to wait for the uniformity kick, because I know the definitions are available.

I simply want the minister to understand that if I’m here at 2:20 in the morning thinking about the legislation of the province -- I’m not talking about me as a person, because every member of the opposition has the identical feeling and goes through this operation of this debate in the Legislature -- as I say if I’m here and we pass certain amendments; if a bill such as that is not proclaimed, then I expect the minister to walk back into the House in the next session, not two years later, and review what he has done.

It should not require me to go and have that part of Hansard photostated in order that I can draw it to your attention. If you’re interested in who controls the economy of the Province of Ontario, from the point of view of disclosure that’s the quickest and the simplest way of finding out.

I just want the minister to know that I, personally, for whatever effect it has on him, am fantastically displeased about that particular activity on the part of his ministry. I don’t like being conned and I don’t like wasting my time trying to improve the legislation of this province.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’ll buy that.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Downs- view.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have another matter I want to deal with.

Mr. Stokes: The minister said he would buy that. It was a good sound argument.

Mr. Renwick: All right. I want to deal with a matter which I think is now of fundamental importance in the corporate law of the Province of Ontario.

The funny thing about following along on what Carlisle would call this “dry as dust” topic about corporation law and the kind of things that the select committee has been engaged in, is that when we pass up one part of the work of the select committee -- and we haven’t touched the corporation law now for, I guess, five or six years --

Mr. Singer: Four, anyway.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, because we’ve done the co-operatives, the credit unions and the amalgamation and merger study and so forth and we’re engaged’ on the trust area. I don’t want the minister for a moment to do other than keep the committee in existence. Assuming I’m re-elected, of course, the member for Downsview and I -- unless, of course, he or I will be a minister --

Mr. Singer: I will be. I expect that.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Or a judge?

Mr. Renwick: I would expect to deal with the insurance industry on the next go-round of that committee.

But the fact of the matter is that so far as the corporation law is concerned we pass a certain stage and sort of the world comes down on it. Nobody ever discusses it again.

I happen to think you have got to the point in time where you are going to have to make value judgements about certain types of industries in the Province of Ontario and you are going to have to create the concept of something called the public-interest director. I don’t pretend, in the course of this estimate, to try to delineate what the public-interest director in its fine ramifications is.

I don’t know whether it is going to be certain persons from some kind of a slate established by the government, who if they are nominated to the board of directors of a particular corporation in the Province of Ontario are going to be subject to the approval of Lieutenant Governor in Council before they can accept the office and whose duty will be with respect to a distinctive part of their effect on the corporate direction of major corporations in the Province of Ontario. I don’t know what the details of it are, but I’m certain that members of your ministry are quite aware of the concept and of the difficulties which are involved in it.

I think that every single resource industry in the Province of Ontario, if it has foreign ownership and control, must have a public-interest director whose appointment is related to the public interest and subject to the approval of Lieutenant Governor in Council.

I’m not necessarily talking about a majority of the board of directors or anything like that; I’m talking about somebody whose obligation will be separate and distinct from the other directors of that corporation, although he may have a coincident concern about the major things which under most circumstances will preoccupy the boards of directors of those companies.

l think it must be so in the resource industry. I think it is absolutely essential in the resource industry. I think it is probably essential in every major corporation doing business in the Province of Ontario, whether there is a foreign ownership element or not.

Mr. Singer: Public or private?

Mr. Renwick: I’m talking about certain sizes of corporations. It may well be that since we have abolished the distinction between public and private, we are for practical purposes -- I don’t happen to believe the argument, but I’m prepared to use it under these circumstances -- we are not going to be perfect about what we are doing, but we can at least try. I don’t buy that, because I’ve never believed in the theory of perfectability or that that was any argument against trying to do a particular thing.

I would guess that you could take the major companies which are operative in the Province of Ontario -- and the Financial Times lists those that are operative across Canada every year, the 100 or whatever it is -- and you could say to those companies, particularly if they were in the resource industry, whether they are controlled from abroad or not, that there must be a public-interest director or directors.

Mr. Singer: What would you do with Eaton s?

Mr. Renwick: Listen, I spent my whole theoretic corporate career hung up on what I would do with the T. Eaton Co. So far as I’m concerned, I’d disband it. I don’t know, I’d destroy the family structure.

But I’m not going to allow the T. Eaton Company to deflect me from what I’m involved in, because anybody who now knows the T. Eaton family structure of that company, knows very well that there is a substantial public involvement in the T. Eaton Co., maybe in ways that somebody doesn’t understand. If you want to make an exception because of an archaic conception of the T. Eaton Co., I’ll accept it. I spent my whole life being asked, on every corporate problem, what am I going to do about the T. Eaton Co. All I do is buy my clothes there; that’s all I can do about the T. Eaton Co.

I’m talking about International Nickel; I’m talking about Texasgulf, regardless of CDC having whatever the percentage of ownership is; I’m talking about the major participants in the pulp and paper industry in the Province of Ontario; I’m talking about the major part of those oil companies which happen to have their head offices in the Province of Ontario -- if we have any jurisdiction to do this.

But I am also talking about many companies which are much smaller than that. One of the strangest things we have to understand, and those of us who have spent some time thinking about company law have got to understand, is that in the United States, ownership and control were divorced. We were all brought up under the mythology that was the problem -- ownership and control were divorced. The real problem was the managerial revolution, and the control of the managers, and the apathy of the shareholders, and the inability of the shareholders to exercise their franchise, and all of that.

Control in Canada of industry -- in the Province of Ontario -- through the corporate mechanism of direct investment, existed because ownership and control were in the same place. We have got to understand that if we’re interested conceptually at all, with respect to the control of the economy of the Province of Ontario, then we’ve got to look at it in terms, a) of substance; and b) of the extent to which ownership and control are vested abroad. In those circumstances, and particularly in the resource industry, I simply throw out to the minister for what it is worth a relatively old idea that there should be something called the public-interest director.

Mr. Chairman: Is item 5 carried?

Mr. Singer: What does the minister have to say on that?

Mr. Chairman: Has the minister any comment?

Hon. Mr. Clement: My officials are aware of this concept. Apparently it’s as the member for Riverdale states.

Mr. Renwick: Nothing new under the sun.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It’s not particularly novel. There must be a conflict of interest arising between this public director that you visualize, the one that reflects the public interest, and his duties to the corporation under the Business Corporations Act as it now exists. Perhaps this is not the place to debate it, but I detect in the member’s earlier remarks some longing that he and I perhaps have not got together to share a Coca-Cola or soft drink. Maybe that might be the place over which we can further discuss this at some time in the future.

Mr. Renwick: I want to make one comment about that, because that is precisely what prompted my remarks. Not the fact that we haven’t had a drink, because I know we could do that whenever opportunity permitted.

Hon. Mr. Clement: How about right now?

Mr. Renwick: What concerns me is that the Premier of the province (Mr. Davis) in Ottawa before the -- I think it was the Canadian Club --

Mr. Singer: You’re not looking for notes again?

Mr. Renwick: -- before the Rotary Club in Ottawa, he went on about this question. Strangely enough it was on April 17, 1972. He said a number of things, but along about pages 11 and 12 he explained about the American domination of certain segments of the Canadian economy. He said, it wasn’t a governmental policy of the United States, that it was formulated in the board rooms of companies and corporations throughout the United States. And he said, in the way in which all Conservative and Liberal apologists for United States domination of our economy say it: “For the most part, their corporate intrusions” -- what a delightful term -- “into Canada used to be welcomed and even encouraged; indeed in some quarters they still are.”

But in any event, his solution was to provide that -- so far as the constitutional authority of the Province of Ontario was concerned -- there was to be a majority of Canadian citizens as directors.

We pointed out at that time, very clearly, that the duty of a director who was a Canadian citizen, under present corporate law, was to the corporation. It was not to shareholders, not to Canada, not to Ontario, not to Premier Davis, not to the Conservative government -- that the duty of that director under corporate law was to the corporation.

Nevertheless, the government passed that legislation, trying to suggest to us that somehow or other, because a majority of them were Canadian citizens, that it was going to be different; that: “Yes, they were the same as all other directors” -- but they would bring a significant Canadian aspect to their determination of the supervision and management of the affairs of these corporations.

Well the minister cannot stand up now and say to me that my conception -- rudimentary as it is -- of a public-interest director means that, for practical purposes, they must have a different duty. If they have to have a different duty, that is why they call them public-interest directors. That’s why I say their appointment must be subject to the approval of the government of Ontario.

If necessary, I would go so far as to say they should be paid by the government of Ontario to look after the public interest in the board rooms of the companies whose destinies are controlled by those who have both the ownership and the control. And that has to do with foreign control and it has to do with domestic control of those persons who are so involved in the North American economy that they cannot distinguish the Ontario interest, the Canadian interest, from the interest of the capital which is invested in those companies.

All right, I am quite certain it won’t happen. I just want to put it on the record. I happen to feel relatively strongly about it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 5 carry?

Mr. Singer: Well, I will talk.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: I was listening with some interest to the hon. member for Riverdale.

The concept he puts forward has a certain uniqueness to it. I am not sure quite how it would work with him. I know in advance of him we derided the concept of Canadian citizen directors.

I think it is a bunch of window dressing the government embarked upon. I don’t think the fact that our statutes have been amended to insist upon a certain quotient of Canadian citizen directors really means anything.

The obvious way around it is so easy and so facile that it amazed me one of the prominent Tories in this province, Eddie Goodman, came in one day when he wanted a private bill, and said: “We believe in the idea that the government has.” He was talking about some private bill for a mining company. What was the company?

Mr. Renwick: Oh yes; it was that company which the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) said they wanted to move to Ireland --

Mr. Singer: To New Brunswick -- because it was closer to Ireland. Yes, that was a great concept. He didn’t want to break the spirit of the legislation that we passed, even though he could break it in law, and quite legally.

So really, the nonsense we have heard about Canadian control has been mammoth. I don’t know that it has fooled anybody, really. The government has made the appropriate noises and pretended to be nationalistic; if being nationalistic is really worthwhile. But I am not sure the insertion of a public-service director --

Mr. Renwick: Public interest!

Mr. Singer: -- a public-interest director is really going to change very much. If you have one director the minister nominates out of 25, I don’t know how much good he is going to do or how much bad he is going to do.

I remember my friend, the member for Riverdale, when he embarked upon a different career several years ago. He had a directorship or two which he was reluctant to give up. He felt he was a public-service director and he found, really, that after a while his having the title and having the office really didn’t mean very much. I just wonder if his concept was carried into legislation, what meaningful effect it would have.

I would be much more convinced if the government, rather than mouthing this nationalism or this chauvinism that we hear so frequently from government benches, drafted its legislation in such a form -- and we can do it; we’ve used the words before -- that there would be real Canadian control, if that’s what the government had in mind. I’m not sure that’s what they had -- well I’m darned sure that isn’t what they had in mind. They paid lip-service to a concept.

I’m not sure that the kind of tokenism the hon. member for Riverdale is talking about is any more meaningful than what the government has done. And I’m really not sure we want to build a wall along the 49th parallel. I think that’s something we should seriously consider amongst all ourselves and try to figure out really whether or not Canada can hack it on its own completely. It’s a very very interesting concept that perhaps we should examine much more thoroughly and at greater length.

Mr. Chairman, if we do get around to that kind of thinking, there are some people who think that one of the answers that we might have to inflation is to build an iron wall at the 49th parallel, cut off our connections with other countries in the world, particularly our neighbours in the United States, and begin to control everything -- prices, profits and wages. We can’t do it unilaterally. The tokenism is mouthed from the NDP, or even from the government -- and when they brought this amendment forward I said it was tokenism --

Mr. Taylor: Careful now.

Mr. Singer: I don’t think the hon. member for Riverdale is doing anything more than making a tokenistic speech, and I don’t think that tokenism is really very impressive. If he was prepared to say: “Let us cut ourselves off and be unique in the world and govern our own future,” I might be a little more impressed. Similarly with the government.

I don’t know if the minister is desirous of expanding on this new legislation, which to my mind is meaningless. Or even if the hon. member for Riverdale is desirous of expanding on his magnificent new concept, which apparently is going to be the cure-all for so many ills that we suffer.

I would like to know if, either on the government side or the NDP side, they really believe that we can do it by ourselves. And if they really believe that we can do it by ourselves, apart from our neighbours to the south and the rest of the world, I’d like to hear them say that out loud and then bring forward appropriate legislation that would perhaps really attempt to do it.

Mr. Renwick: Well Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Downsview accuses me of tokenism, I know I’ve stumbled upon a substantial idea.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 5 carry? Carried.

Item 6. The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can the minister indicate to me if this is the part of his estimates where we can talk about a consumer problem? Can we talk about real estate under this vote?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Laughren: Well what do you know?

A month or two ago I was exchanging some correspondence with my colleague from Sudbury (Mr. Germa), and he showed me some of the letters from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in which the minister started out every letter by saying: “I do not have to justify the existence of my ministry -- ” and then proceeded to explain why he couldn’t do anything about the problem the hon. member for Sudbury was bringing to him. And I’ve encountered that, too.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’ll bet you can’t show me one letter saying that.

Mr. Laughren: Ah yes, I can! Oh yes, I can!

Hon. Mr. Clement: Show me one.

Mr. Laughren: Well, when the hon. member for Sudbury gets here, I’ll get him to dig out those letters. Ill get him to dig them

Out.

Mr. Taylor: Call his bluff.

Mr. Laughren: I don’t carry the files of the hon. member for Sudbury around with me.

When I approach the minister about a consumer problem, he refers me to none other than Beryl Plumptre in Ottawa. That’s some solution, I’ll tell you!

When it comes to real estate problems, of course, those of us in the Sudbury area have had the kind of training that would equip us to be an ombudsman in the real estate field, or perhaps even to be a minister in a government -- not a Tory government, I assure you, but in a government.

I am puzzled by something that has happened in the Sudbury area. I won’t dredge up all the old material about what happened to that great Conservative bagman in the Sudbury basin, Ross Shouldice, and why he has not been prosecuted to this date for the things he did in the Sudbury area; but I would like a question answered by the minister, and it does have to do with Ross Shouldice.

You remember, Mr. Chairman, how Ross Sbouldice created a fiasco in numerous places in the mid-north; in Sudbury, in Wahnapitae, in Blind River -- where they went bankrupt -- and in Chelmsford. And to this day there has been no prosecution, except in Blind River -- where he was acquitted, by the way.

But in the community of Chelmsford, a subdivision was created in which Mr. Shouldice was the key figure. It was built in stages. In the last stage that was built, people made their down payments -- anywhere from $500 to $2,000 -- and proceeded to make mortgage payments.

And, by the way, when they made their down payment they asked the real estate man: “What about a lawyer?” The reply: “Oh don’t worry; we’ll look after that. We’ll save you a legal fee. You just get it done through our lawyers.” Being short of funds in the first place, they proceeded to do so. It’s fine to say that nobody should let the seller act on their behalf in legal matters, but they were short of money. That’s why they were buying homes in that location in the first place. And they did just that; and that was folly, of course.

But those people made their down payments, and made their monthly payments for from six months to a year. Then, suddenly, they received a letter from the bank telling them that from now on they should pay their rent to the bank. Well you can imagine the consternation of those people to be told they should continue to pay rent; when all the time they thought they were paying off their mortgage, since they had made a down payment.

Lo and behold, it turned out to be a fact that they really were renting and had not bought those properties. I suppose by now there must be about 80 or 90 homes, maybe 100, that have been repossessed and have been taken over by CMHC, which guaranteed the mortgages.

The question I want to ask the minister is: How in the world was his ministry able to continue to sit there, despite numerous pleas, and not take any legal action against Ross Shouldice and his cronies for that kind of swindle in Chelmsford?

In the last correspondence I had with the minister, he said: “Get in touch with the Crown attorney in Sudbury.” Of course, the Crown attorney at this point was deeply involved in the General Hospital problem with the deaths as a result of the gas lines being switched. He was not interested. I shouldn’t say he wasn’t interested, it was just almost impossible to get hold of the man. But the point is not whether he was busy or not, but rather why has the ministry not prosecuted Ross Shouldice for that fiasco?

I know the minister took offence in one letter at the continual references of the Sudbury-area members to Ross Shouldice as the “Conservative Party bagman,” and said that it had nothing to do with his freedom from prosecution for his real estate deals in the Sudbury area. Well I would like him to explain to us why we shouldn’t be thinking those things and why the ministry has not done everything it can to bring justice to those people who were shafted by Ross Shouldice and company.

Hon. Mr. Clement: First, Mr. Chairman, we are touching on a subject which, of course, is well known to both the member and I myself; but I must say I do not recall ever writing a letter to him or any of his colleagues saying, “I do not have to justify the position taken by the ministry.” Because that isn’t my wording, and I am inclined to think he is pulling my leg in that area.

I do know that I get a fair number of inquiries -- not from this particular member -- but from some of his colleagues in that particular area of Ontario. They often deal with matters which, unfortunately, are within another jurisdiction. We always try and direct them to the agency of the federal government having jurisdiction. If I have directed him to Mrs. Plumptre, as he indicated, I only hope his association with her has been most pleasant and beneficial to his constituents.

With reference to Mr. Shouldice: Mr. Shouldice stood trial -- where was it -- in Blind River. And is the member suggesting that his acquittal had anything to do with his alleged political association? Is the member suggesting that the court was sufficiently impressed, and as a result of that impression gave a favourable verdict?

Mr. Laughren: I am suggesting that there might be a relationship between the fact that there have been no prosecutions for his activities in the Sudbury area as a result of a lack of fervour on the part of this ministry.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right. You must remember, when we are talking in terms of prosecutions I want to get it clear as to exactly what you and I are talking about. Are we talking about prosecutions under perhaps the Criminal Code or prosecutions under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act? We don’t use that word prosecutions per se, but I can say this, that a Dr. Gerrard and a Dr. Cartain have forwarded to my ministry and to the Crown attorney in Sudbury, Mr. Takach, medical certificates saying that he is not fit to stand trial at the present time.

Mr. Laughren: Is that recently?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, the most recent letter emanated out of my ministry on Oct. 17 to Mr. Takach asking certain questions. Also a letter went out last Friday to the solicitors representing Mr. Shouldice, and this is at the tribunal hearing -- I want to make this clear -- under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

As the member knows, if a person supplies medical evidence in an acceptable form then the tribunal, or the court as the case may be, has no alternative but to rely on that till such time as it is demonstrated that it is not pertinent. That’s where the situation stands today.

This ministry has no reason to not go ahead and process it before the tribunal. I don’t want to speculate on the outcome of it. That is not my function and it would be improper of me to do so.

People did buy property up in that Chelmsford area. They thought they took a deed and took a mortgage. They didn’t. It was under an agreement of purchase and sale.

It’s regrettable that inquiries were not made. Obviously, from the way I understand it, they did rely on certain alleged representations made to them. Unfortunately, they have lost some of their down payments. But we cannot ever legislate decency, we cannot legislate to make sure that everyone complies with the law; all we can do is be vigilant and if we see a breach of it initiate the proper procedure to bring those people to either justice or to the tribunal or whatever agency happens to be dealing with it.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister another question? You indicated that there was a possibility of an appearance before the real estate tribunal?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, yes.

Mr. Laughren: All right. Was that to do specifically with that subdivision in Chelmsford? Is that the one he cannot appear at because of his health?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, allegations have been made against Mr. Shouldice for alleged breaches of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act arising out of his capacity as a registered broker. Those things must be dealt with by the commercial registration appeal tribunal under the Act. This is the procedure to which I refer.

This procedure, if we could speculate for a moment, if someone was brought before the tribunal, a broker -- not Mr. Shouldice, I’ll talk generally -- and that tribunal found that he or she had breached provisions of that particular statute, then the tribunal would inflict a penalty which could amount to suspension or cancellation of that broker’s licence. It would not restore a single home to a person who had been a victim. It would not replace a mortgage. It wouldn’t do any of that. Those are civil matters that would have to be dealt with by a civil court. But it would deal with his capacity to operate as a person licensed under a particular statute, in this case as a real estate broker.

Mr. Laughren: You mentioned allegations. It is those allegations I was trying to get at. Are those allegations as a result of his dealings specifically with the subdivision in Chelmsford or do they go much broader than that? Do you know?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I can’t tell you accurately. I can look it up and find out. Was Silhouette the Chelmsford one? It does relate to Silhouette. Whether it goes further into other areas, I don’t know. I am sorry, I have forgotten.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): I have just one question of the minister in regard to this matter. It is fine that Mr. Shouldice appears to have become ill and his doctors say that he can’t appear before this tribunal, but it really doesn’t do much for the people who have lost their money or lost their down payment.

The fact of the matter is, is any assistance being given to those people to take other actions in other courts to recoup from Mr. Shouldice the moneys they have lost; from Mr. Shouldice and his other associates?

Hon. Mr. Clement: There is no government programme per se to restore people who allegedly have lost moneys as a result of dealing with a certain individual. There is legal aid available to people in this province who qualify for it. The member knows full well about that. These people can seek their own legal advice.

The fact that the medical condition of Mr. Shouldice apparently precludes him from appearing before the tribunal would in no way affect the right of any person to bring an action against him for damages arising out of these transactions which have been the substance of the whole matter.

Mr. R. S. Smith: But there is no assistance being provided to those people who have suffered the loss.

The other thing is, does the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act not carry any provision or the real estate brokers association; or is there not somewhere facility so people can appeal to get their moneys refunded to them as they can where a member of your profession creates some kind of wrong toward a client? Is there no place the person can go without going to the courts; if in fact this hearing is held before the tribunal and Mr. Shouldice is found to be in fault of the law and regulations set up under the Act?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, Mr. Chairman, there isn’t. It would be tremendous if the victim of every type of fraud and chicanery in this province had available to him a source of funds to restore him to his original position. You have named me the compensation fund that is available to clients of lawyers who have stolen or mishandled clients’ funds. That compensation fund is in no way available to a client who has been negligently handled. It is only available to a client who has been the victim of a theft or a fraud practised on him by his solicitor.

Mr. Singer: No, but to be fair, there is compulsory negligence insurance.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There is compulsory insurance, mandatorily carried by each solicitor practising in this province To have a registration as a broker, there is a bond paid into my ministry in the sum of $5,000.

Mr. Laughren: They can draw on that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: They can draw on that, once they have obtained a judgement against him or demonstrated to the registrar that he in fact has breached --

Mr. Singer: Not for damages!

Hon. Mr. Clement: There has been no finding made yet by the registrar.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Obviously the bond of $5,000 is rather ridiculous when you consider the scope of the charges that have been laid and the amounts of money that have been lost by an awful lot of people. Is it not time you looked at changing that to make that bond $100,000 or some worthwhile amount so that at least there would be some protection for people who do deal through real estate brokers?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, there is not a bond, there is not a sum available for someone who says a broker cheated him. There is not a fund available for somebody who says a travel agent has taken his money and lost it. There is not a fund available to me if a television repairman wrecks my TV and I relied on his integrity and ability in repairing it.

Mr. Laughren: Come on, you are talking about a house.

Mr. R. S. Smith: But you don’t license these people; you license brokers.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We do license brokers, and I can tell you that the demands on bonds for brokers breaching the Act last year totalled something like $20,000. I think there were four of them that were forfeit because they went bankrupt or something of that nature.

What I suggest you are doing is misconstruing the role of the Act. The Act is to regulate and set guidelines for their conduct. If a person licensed under that Act practises a fraud or misrepresents something resulting in a victim losing a substantial sum of money, his only recourse is to the courts. There is nothing unique in this. It’s been going on since man began.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I am not suggesting there is anything unique in it, other than the fact that there are other organizations which do provide redress for those people who have been defrauded of their money by members of their association or their profession. There is no reason why it couldn’t be done in this profession as well under the brokers Act, because you do license the brokers.

You don’t license television repairmen, so don’t bring them into the situation at all, because you don’t have any legislation -- so far as I know, at least -- that gives you the right to step in. But you do have the right under the brokers Act, which you could amend to provide for some type of compensation for those people who have been done out of their money by guys like Shouldice. Let’s face it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I do not know whether we are getting anywhere on this, Mr. Chairman.

You refer to the Law Society. You say there are other groups. Off the top of my head, the only one I know is the Law Society, which has been in existence as a self-regulating group for over 100 years. The real estate and business brokers have not been in existence as a group or as a professional class for that period of time. It’s regulated by statute. The Law Society has its own Act. It’s supported now by legislation of this province. It’s a voluntary programme that was initiated a number of years ago for the very obvious reason there was a need. I presume it has been operating responsibly, and therefore government has not seen fit to step in and operate the Law Society on behalf of the public.

The government has, in the instance of real estate and business brokers, seen fit to come in and regulate for a number of years and to protect the public as much as possible, but not for all damages that grow from the fact that the man sold a faulty house or something that in fact did not exist in the mind of the purchaser.

I have said it, and will say it forever and ever, people must help themselves as well as looking to someone else to help them. That doesn’t cure the ill that’s been created, but you’ve got to look after yourself and secure some kind of advice. If a person is going to buy a home, I would urge him to get professional advice to protect his own interest.

Mr. R. S. Smith: In some of these cases we are discussing here -- in this particular case, Shouldice, Silhouette and this whole group -- were not some of the legal people acting for both the vendor and the purchaser?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I understand that was in fact the case.

Mr. R. S. Smith: What protection did these people have under that type of a setup, where the legal adviser of Mr. Shouldice was also acting on behalf of the purchaser?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think we’re now into the realm of legal advice. If someone felt there was a conflict of interest between their solicitor and the person on the other side of the deal, the proper course to follow would be to report it to the Law Society for investigation to see if, in fact, the solicitor or solicitors involved had been guilty of any professional misconduct.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Do you not believe it would be in the realm of reality for the province to perhaps legislate against that type of conflict before it can be given an opportunity to start?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The canons of legal ethics embodied by the Law Society take some position on it. I think they say -- I know I’m going to be corrected, because I haven’t read it for a long time -- but it’s something to the effect that it is not encouraged, and in the event that a conflict shall arise, the lawyer shall disclose the conflict and refuse to act for either party.

I’m probably putting it much too simply but, as I recall, that is the position in the canons of legal ethics. I would perhaps refer you to your friend in the front benches there who is an outstanding example of an ethical practitioner.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Downsview has the floor.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I cannot resist this any longer. I’ve been amazed at the footwork that the minister has been displaying in the exchange with my colleague from Nipissing. My colleague from Nipissing makes a very, very good point. You’ve been dodging on apparent technicalities and trying to amaze him or confuse him with technical language in talking about the difference between lawyers and real estate agents and responsibility.

He makes a simple plea that has validity. He suggests that where the government has assumed a responsibility, the government should do something more than perhaps suspend or slap a broker on the wrist. They should I give some kind of protection in addition, as the Law Society has seen fit to do; because the Law Society, granted it’s an older society, has responded to public pressure because there has been concern in the public mind. The Law Society hasn’t been noted for moving in advance of public opinion. It’s moved when public opinion has pushed it to move. The compensation fund came only after serious defalcations and the compulsory negligence insurance came only after there was great concern in the public mind about what to do with negligent lawyers. The difficulty of establishing negligence still has not been overcome.

But what my colleague from Nipissing is beginning to talk about -- and I think it is valid and I think it is worth a moment or two of our time -- is that when you assume the responsibility for purporting to control by licensing, real estate agents, real estate brokers, developers -- in a later vote here, land registration and so on -- is it sufficient for the day when you say there has been a villain and we’re going to take away his right to carry on business and that’s it?

The minister threw in, and I’m sure by accident, travel agents. I’ve had great difficulty in trying to figure out what government policy is on travel agents. Are you going to affix some responsibility by law to travel agents?

Mr. Renwick: No.

Mr. Singer: He had a magic system that he has never expanded upon, and maybe one of the 100 statutes that the House leader is holding up has something to do with travel agents.

Mr. Renwick: It is a nation-wide problem and he; has to wait for Ottawa.

Mr. Singer: Hasn’t the day come when the government responsibility in these fields exceeds the legal niceties that the minister enunciates to my colleague from Nipissing?

Mr. Renwick: Or, going the other way, Metro Toronto?

Mr. Singer: Isn’t there some responsibility? Let’s look at Whiterock for a minute. Leave Shouldice alone; let’s look at Whiterock. We still haven’t cleared up the Whiterock situation. We’ve allowed a firm to carry on business and to victimize an awful lot of people in this province. The courts have said they didn’t get good title; and we have passed an amazing piece of legislation that says if the local municipality will petition the government the government might pass an order. Poor suckers got taken in by the Whiterock kind of scheme and the checkerboarding, but if the local municipality passes an order and the government sees fit in due course to do something else, they might validate titles.

What my colleague is talking about is, isn’t there an overriding government responsibility so far as real estate brokers are concerned, in so far as the acceptance of documents for registration, in so far as enforcing the Planning Act, and in so far as when the legislation doesn’t do what it purports to do and good Ontario citizens get sucked in and lose their money, shouldn’t there be a responsibility on government?

He is not talking about the ethics and the canons of practice of the legal profession that go back over 100 and some odd years. The minister knows as I do that the Law Society is moved only under great pressure, and the Law Society, somewhat after the event, keeps a reasonable lid on these events so that the outcry against the Law Society doesn’t become so great. I hold no great brief for the Law Society’s great leadership in these kind of advances, but we are talking about real estate brokers, we are talking about people who victimize Ontario citizens. My friend makes the plea, and I think a valid plea, that the government, having accepted a responsibility for registration, then should go further and try to protect the people who are hurt. He says, “Why haven’t you done it?” You haven’t answered’ him. I don’t know what you are going to do about travel agents, which is the same kind of thing. I don’t know what you are going to do about Whiterock, but it is the same kind of thing.

My friend talks about real estate brokers and Shouldice. That is the kind of thing he is talking about. Don’t try to amaze him with footwork, because I know what you are trying to do to him and what he is trying to say to you. Wrestle with the problem he has put to you.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I can’t resist that, because I want to know something and I am sure that my friend from Dovmsview, who can provide me with most of my answers, will provide me with the answer I am seeking right now. We are talking about a particular person and we are talking about certain allegations. I stress that they are only at this point allegations and I think we must all agree with that.

Mr. Laughren: Rather they will be, until you get your tribunal in here.

Hon. Mr. Clement: They are allegations until proven otherwise. Why hasn’t someone, or perhaps they have -- I don’t know -- brought an action for damages arising out of this alleged conduct or misconduct in the Chelmsford area and perhaps in the Nipissing or North Bay areas?

Mr. Singer: Do you want to add Whiterock to that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Has there been an action started to recover civil damages? I don’t know.

Mr. Renwick: It is too iffy and too costly.

Hon. Mr. Clement: And so government therefore should pick up the bill.

Mr. Singer: If you want to talk particularly about Whiterock, I will tell you why no one has brought an action against Whiterock. It is because it has no assets. It has no assets any more. All that money that the good Ontario citizens put up has gone and the people who took it are unattackable. They are judgement proof, and you know that.

Mr. R. S. Smith: In so far as the Silhouette and Mr. Shouldice are concerned, certainly whether the people have taken action or not is really not the question. I don’t know whether they have or not, but most of the people that I know of who lost money in there, really don’t have the funds to take the action.

But secondly, if after the tribunal does finally have this bearing, and Mr. Shouldice regains his lost health and all this other type of thing, and it finally does come to a hearing after four or five years, and he is found in contravention of your regulations in your Act, then the government I think has a responsibility to have something in the Act which will give redress to those people who have lost their funds.

Mr. Shouldice in the meantime could spend all his money and go broke and go to Florida and go to other places. He has been all around. You couldn’t find him for a long time. You looked for him for half a year or a year or something before you found him right here in Toronto. Obviously the man could divest himself of the funds that he has, or may have, taken from these people illegally and there is no protection for him.

What I am suggesting to you is that instead of having a $5,000 bond, you have a $150,000 or a $200,000 bond applicable under the Act to these brokers so that if a person is found in contravention of the regulations or of the Act itself that there are these funds available for the people who have lost their money. It may well be that by the time they get Shouldice out of his sickbed and into your hearing and if he is found guilty, the moneys could be all gone and what difference does it make? They could go to all the courts in the country and if Shouldice has got rid of the money, it doesn’t matter a damn and you know that as well as I.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Chairman, I would like to broaden this argument with a discussion. I would like to ask the minister a question about the examinations that are now held for real estate brokers after the training course which is now offered, I believe, by the department. How many people registered for that training in the most recent period that you have; how many took the examinations; and how many were qualified or passed? Has the minister got figures on that, please?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The course is a 90-hour course taught at quite a few community colleges. I do have figures and can provide the member with them if you will bear with me for a moment. The ministry does not operate the course. It is operated by the real estate industry. There are two options available to the applicant for such a course. He can take a full-time course for three weeks or take it over a period of several weeks at night sort of thing. In 1973, 7,701 individuals took examinations for agent salesmen, 950 for brokers. Are you interested in the figures for the previous year?

Mr. Cassidy: No. I would like to know how many of those people passed those examinations?

Mr. Renwick: All of them.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will have to provide you with that. I can’t tell you how many passed out of the number that wrote the exam. I don’t have it available right here in front of me.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, according to the Toronto Star, in the period between May, 1973, and May, 1974, nearly 7,000 new salesmen were registered in Ontario, which suggests a pass rate of around 85 to 90 per cent. If the minister’s figure is accurate, about 7,700 people have taken the exam as agents, which raises a pretty serious question about the validity of the examination. I don’t want to talk about the validity of the courses that are offered, but I would suggest that the standards of the examination are not particularly high when 85 to 90 per cent of the people who take the course are in fact passing it.

That suggests, in turn, that since the real estate industry is running these courses, they are not taking seriously the suggestions that were made when the courses were originally brought in, that there should be some kind of deterrent to people who would come in to the industry on a part-time basis and would tend to depress the average level of income in real estate for people who wanted to make that a career.

I would just like to express a concern which I have had for a long time and which, incidentally, has been raised today in an article in the Toronto Star -- which the minister may have had a look at -- about the fact that in Ontario the fee that is paid as commission on real estate transactions is a very important contributor to the inflation of real estate prices. The minister knows perfectly well -- he must have known from his days as a lawyer down in the Niagara Falls area -- that when somebody turns around to sell a house or a piece of property that for some reason they are turning over quickly, whether by design or by accident, change of plans and so on, they automatically seek to get back net at least what they had to pay for the property.

That means that, for the sake of argument, if it’s a $30,000 property, they add on what they had to pay their lawyer to do the transaction, and they add on what they expect to pay the real estate agent in his fee, and then they set their price and they add a bit more in in order to give themselves some daylight for negotiation purposes.

That means that every time real estate has changed hands over the inflationary period of the last three or four years, people have been automatically building in the five or six per cent commissions which are normally charged in the real estate industry these days. We have even heard talk that, despite the rising prices, the industry would like to raise those fees to seven or to eight per cent.

As far as the Star’s research is concerned, the ministry officials have simply shown no interest at all in finding out whether there isn’t a better way, and no concern over the fact that if half of your entrants to the field leave it every year, and if the turnover in real estate sales is immense, and if a large number of the people who are real estate agents or brokers are, in fact, only part-time, then clearly there are some questions to be raised about the quality of service that is being offered to the public. A lot of people are just playing games in real estate and are not really particularly serious about it. They are not offering a professional kind of service and yet the fees they are being given would reflect a professional kind of fee structure.

It would seem to me that there are two or three courses that are open to the ministry. One would be that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, when it’s wearing its hat of consumer protection -- which I know is rarely -- would seek to provide information to prospective purchasers and to prospective vendors, to equip them so that those who wished could, in fact, sell their own property with the aid of an appraiser and of a lawyer.

Secondly, the ministry should look seriously in large municipalities at the possibility of setting up some kind of a registry of residential property for sale in order that people who didn’t wish to get into the five and six per cent commission business could list their homes and make them publicly available to people who wanted to check the card or the index, without having to go through the medium of a real estate agent, making a consequent saving.

Thirdly, the ministry should sit down with the industry itself and say, “When the average price of homes in Metro Toronto is $58,000 and the commission is running about five per cent, that’s equal to somewhere between $2,000 and $3,000 per sale. That looks a bit excessive to us. We would like to know [I think the minister should be saying this to the industry] we would like to know whether there aren’t any ways in which the costs can be cut. And what is it that is going wrong? Why is it that it costs $2,000 or $3,000 to sell a home when the sales of many other commodities, goods and so on are carried out much more efficiently and for much less money? Now what’s wrong?” But the ministry hasn’t done that at all.

Despite the fact that the minister freely talks about controlling the real estate industry through the registration that is covered under this particular vote, the registration is simply a matter of financial probity, good character and passing the examination -- nothing more. There appears to be no concern at all shown in the ministry about the inflationary effects of the real estate fee structure or about any alternatives to it that might exist in order to improve the situation and, incidentally, to protect the consumer. Maybe the minister could give me some answers on that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, the mandatory course for brokers and salesmen has been in effect in this province since July, 1971, I believe, and has been developed by the ministry and the real estate industry itself. The real estate industry is very interested in securing good applicants for induction into the course and subsequent employment within the industry. I am advised by my officials that to the best of their recollection, approximately 70 per cent of the salesmen writing the exam last year passed, and approximately 65 per cent of the brokers.

Now, as for this ministry sitting down with the real estate industry and saying, “We think your commissions are too high,” firstly, real estate brokers have been charging five, six and seven per cent, depending on the type of property, and as much as 10 per cent on certain rural properties, as long as I can remember. I don’t visualize it as the role of my ministry to tell somebody else what I think they should earn. I think that you rely on the natural influences of the marketplace to make that determination.

With respect to the hon. member’s suggestion for a registry showing houses that are not listed with brokers, I don’t know what assurance the prospective purchaser of such a house would have, that by going to that one, I am going to get it much less than if I went and dealt through a broker. I suppose I might have the word of the vendor who says he is not going to load on any expenses. There is nothing illegal about a person trying to recover his loss in a home or any investment, including his legal expenses, brokerage, repairs, maintenance, upkeep, taxes -- there is nothing illegal about that. That is part of the system we find ourselves in, in a democratic country.

Mr. Cassidy: In a capitalist country.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, there are those of us on this side of the House who seem to subscribe to the theory of capitalism in spite of what you say --

Mr. Cassidy: You sure do. Social Darwinism. That’s what the Star calls it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I for one am not going to sit down and suggest to anybody that I think they are making too much in their particular area of activity, be it a realtor, a lawyer, a politician or anybody else.

The real estate industry in this province has attracted a number of people. I read the article very slightly today. I perused it quickly. I’m referring to the number of people who have taken the exam. I know, I suppose, of eight or 10 who have written exams just for their own edification in terms of personal education. They had no intention of ever going to work and selling real estate. They have written exams and passed them.

You made some comment about the exams being too easy. I have no comment to offer other than this observation. I’ve had a number of members of this House and a number of members of the public come to me over the last two years and lament that the exam was much too difficult. Some of the incidents were rather startling. I’ve had people come to me who sold real estate for five, six and 10 years before it was regulated in this form requiring educational minimums.

They got out of the business for a number of years and then came in since this new legislation was effective. There was a grandfather clause protecting those who were already in the business when the educational requirement became mandatory. It is not retroactive and so those who were in it before and then out of it for some reason and came back since that date had to write the exam. Some of them received atrocious marks and have asked me if there was some way they could be assisted.

I had to point out to them that it was astounding to me that they were allowed to sell a commodity such as real estate for a number of years and how, in fact, they ever derived a living because they were drawing up agreements involving at least two parties in most instances and usually involving rather substantial sums of money. This, to me, points out the wisdom of having such minimum training requirements.

The exam is not a walk-away. It’s not an easy exam. People are subjected to a number of hours of lectures. I think that the move in the right direction would be to increase the requirements even more, raise the minimums, make them higher insofar as requirements are concerned and make the people a little more profound in their knowledge of real estate law.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister says. It may be that, given this philosophy, the only way that he can move is to raise the educational requirements in order to discourage some of the fringe applicants from coming into the trade.

Beyond that, though, it would seem to me that he was making a speech which he can now send out to all of the real estate agents who are supporters of the Conservative Party and tell them: “It’s okay, boys. Don’t get worried by my title of Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations because I’m not about to protect the consumer.” The minister is not at all alarmed by the fact that the average real estate commission on the sale of a house has doubled over the course of the life of this government, since the price of the average property sold in --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Since when?

Mr. Cassidy: Since the last three years. I’ve got the figures back in my office.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The commissions have doubled?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, that’s right.

Mr. Lawlor: Sure they have.

Mr. Cassidy: In 1971, the average price of a house sold in Toronto was about $31,000. In August and September of this year, the average price of a house sold in Toronto was about $58,000, just under double. That means that the average real estate commission in three years has doubled or just about. We’ve got an inflationary situation --

Mr. Lawlor: It’s a short time since they increased the percentage, didn’t they?

Mr. Renwick: Don’t be so sceptical. You know that, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s what has happened. I want to read what happens now. Remember, there are also a lot of people who are getting sucked into the real estate industry. It’s a bit like running hotels in northern Vermont. John Kenneth Galbraith has talked about the outflow of capital from the cities into rural areas of the United States, and it must happen here in Ontario as well. There are rural inns, for example, which are perpetually maintained by having every two or three years a new set of owners who come out with $20,000 in their pocket and a set of ideals about the kind of service they can offer and so forth.

This happens in the real estate industry as well. The amounts of money the poor people put into it are rather smaller. They sell two or three houses to aunts, uncles and friends and so forth. Then they get into hard times, and after they’ve used up their own capital after three months or six months, or a year in the trade, they get out. They haven’t contributed anything to the real estate trade. They may have come out wiser but actions would still take place. Sadder, but I would suggest that it’s a heck of a way to run this particular kind of trade.

Here’s what United Trust is advertising in tonight’s Toronto Star, the same day that the Toronto Star was reporting that more than half of the people who entered the real estate industry would surely leave it within 12 months:

“Only 11 days left to join the next group of real estate moneymakers. If your present job isn’t making you the kind of money you feel you’re worth, now is the time to move into real estate with United Trust.”

Now is the time, given the kind of stagnation on the market. That’s very interesting.

Then United Trust goes on in rather equivocal fashion and says: “Our sales are breaking records every week.” The records are presumably the fact that they’ve bottomed out at the lowest level in four or five years. Nevertheless, that’s the pitch that they’ve put on. It is misleading advertising, and the minister might even get in touch with his fellow counterparts and take United Trust to court for this kind of thing, because their sales aren’t breaking records and everybody knows it. They are desperately trying to move anything on the market, because of high interest rates and other problems.

Then they go on to tell who you call -- United Trust and Shipmans up in Ottawa, and LePage, Keith and the rest of them. They are cycling in hundreds of dewy-eyed real estate brokers every week --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Dewy-eyed?

Mr. Cassidy: They are dewy-eyed; many of them are awfully naïve. And they are shunting them out at the other end, wiser and poorer, after a few months. But in the meantime, it is the public that is buying houses that has got to support a cost structure sufficient to keep some of those marginal operators in the business and to provide a sort of average income-of $8,000, $9,000 or $10,000 a year -- for far too many real estate brokers.

You get a whole bunch of real estate people knocking on doors, hounding the public and doing all sorts of things in order to get listings, because that is part of the name of the game. You get poor little old widow ladies being hounded to death to sell their properties by these real estate agents who have to make a living somehow. Frankly, if most of them didn’t exist, I would have thought that most of those property trans --

In fact, if there were better information services available, I would have thought that your buyer and your vendor could be in the market and be better equipped to cope with the market than they are today, when they have to cope with high-pressure salesmen who are trying to move property at whatever price to whoever will buy, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of the need of various people for different kinds of services, be it going in a gold-plated luxury Cadillac limousine to look at the best properties in the Bridle Path at a seven per cent commission on the one hand, down to the guy who simply wants to look through a catalogue and see two or three properties that will probably suit him and going and taking them.

The idea that there is a personal service being paid for, and that there is a personally tailored service being paid for, is nuts in many of these cases. If you phone you are shunted on to a particular broker who is guarding a property jealously because he is not only competing against other companies, but also against other real estate agents within his particular firm. The whole thing is a ridiculous kind of situation.

I think that the ministry, far from tolerating a price structure which has existed for a long time, should be holding an inquiry and getting the federal combines investigation branch involved into looking at how it is that the real estate brokers of this province should almost unanimously be charging a fee of five per cent on exclusive listings and six per cent on multiple listings in contravention of the federal Combines Investigation Act and Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

Why doesn’t the minister do that and protect the consumer for a change, rather than simply sticking around with his real estate buddies?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the tribute from the member for Ottawa Centre, with his usual charm. If he will read the Speech from the Throne of the federal government, he will perhaps notice that the federal government is taking a look at this very practice that he deplores to see if it is in fact a combine or in breach of federal legislation. So he would have me hold an inquiry, inviting the federal people to come in while they are presumably enacting their own legislation dealing with the real estate industry under the Competition Bill and then also launching an investigation with probably subsequent prosecution under the combines investigation legislation.

All these things sound easy: Why don’t we have an investigation to do this and do that and run around in all different directions? The real estate industry in this province has attracted a number of people -- it is referred to in the Star article mentioned by the member, it has attracted a number of people, many of whom have been very successful and many of whom have not been successful. It is not the only business or industry that attracts people.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It is true in politics too.

Hon. Mr. Clements: It is true in politics; of course it is. It is true in the life insurance business. It is true in many forms of business. Unfortunately for many, they don’t make a success of it in their own mind; they are not fulfilled financially and otherwise. I like your reference to a dewy-eyed real estate salesman; I have never met a dewy-eyed real estate salesman in my life. I have seen a few with red eyes; I never saw one with dew.

Mr. Singer: Tears in their eyes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: This is an article that shows a certain trend in a particular industry. As I mentioned earlier, people who have taken the course and written the exams and qualified to be agents or salesmen have no intention of doing it or intend to use it in connection with some other line of work. I tell you the real estate industry is not in a deplorable condition. It is now highly competitive. It is now drawing to the attention of many people that they are not merely order takers, as they were a number of years ago, and perhaps not too many months ago. They have to work. Some of them are prepared to work and do very well. Some, for one reason or another, decline to continue in that particular area of activity.

But I think that insofar as his comments are concerned with the industry that he alleges is a combine, I have no comment to offer on that. The federal government has that jurisdiction.

Mr. Cassidy: Do you protect consumers or not?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I protect as many people as I possibly can. And that doesn’t mean that you gore everybody around you always on behalf of one particular individual or group. You try to act responsibly, bearing in mind the responsibilities that you have to all groups. Believe it or not, real estate agents, in their own capacities, are consumers too. We find that that applies to most of the businesses in this province. Not only are they in business, but they too consume goods and services. I have to deal with all of them. I have to deal with them, bearing in mind the interests of all.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, I’m glad it is on paper.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want to talk on this particular issue at all, but I do want to ask the minister, seeing that he was present in the House at the time we debated an Act to control the fund-raising corporations, if he is planning legislation that would once and for all solve the problem of the fund-raising organization that is in the business solely to make money rather than to raise funds for the legitimate organization for which it was originally intended to raise funds.

Hon. Mr, Clement: Mr. Chairman, the Business Practices Act, the first reading of which has been made in this House, will certainly preclude the continuation of a good number of these practices. That Act, as the member probably recalls, provides for cease and desist orders and we will utilize that to preclude the continuation of some of these practices that he and I have discussed in the past arising out of charities or alleged charity activities.

Mr. B. Newman: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would ask of the minister, after reading his report and noticing that the number of complaints for pyramid sales increased from 85 in 1972 to 185 in 1973, if he is still having a lot of complaints and if he is looking into a series of organizations that I intend to mention to him after he replies to the question.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It has been the observation of the ministry over the past year, Mr. Chairman, that the number of pyramid dealers has been diminishing, substantially diminishing. There are only a very few -- I believe three -- left in the province that we are aware of and their activities may well have been expanded. I am not particularly disturbed by the number of complaints. As a matter of fact, I am heartened by the number of complaints that we received in 1973 over the previous year because legislation did not come into effect until I believe June 1972, and people were not aware that there was any government legislation dealing with this type of business or commercial activity.

The fact that we have more complaints now does not indicate to me an increase in the activity, but a spreading of the knowledge of the fact that we do have legislation, and that we have programmes now destined to recover moneys for consumers who become involved in this type of activity. In 1973 we recovered some $80,000-odd for people who entered these business arrangements and decided for one reason or another to opt out within the period provided.

There are three of them licensed right now in the province.

Mr. B. Newman: Have you anything on Steed Automotive of Canada at all? They were one of the companies he had complained about and this goes back I think to some time in June of this year -- Steed Automotive.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The name is certainly very familiar to me. They are not licensed in this province. I am trying to recollect. It seems to me they went into bankruptcy and no longer do business, but I will have to undertake with the member to get that information back to him. I don’t recall it. I recall the company, but I don’t recall its present status.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Steel makes mention that he had asked you to stop the Steed firm during the summertime. They may have gone into bankruptcy. I don’t know. But I’ll appreciate receiving the information from the minister, either by a letter or some other way.

I wanted to ask him if Versilex Sales are completely defunct and no longer operating as a pyramid, and also if Golden Products and Bestline are no longer taking the Ontario public for a ride?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Bestline is still operating in Ontario. As to the other two you named, I’ll just have to get this information from my registrar who is present here.

I would like to make one thing clear. I don’t recollect having any discussion with Mr. Steel from the Windsor paper relating to pyramidic sales. I do recall having a telephone conversation with Mr, Steel during the summer months relating to a certain company in the Windsor area but I recall absolutely no conversation dealing with pyramidic sales organizations with that particular gentleman.

Mr. B. Newman: It may not have been with you, Mr. Minister, but it certainly was with some of your officials, because his comment says the Star Alert had asked the registrar to move in to stop the Steed firm last summer when they were conducting a sales campaign in Windsor.

Now, the other item. I wanted to ask the minister if he was aware of legislation that was introduced in the US Congress concerning a consumer products testing Act. This may be federal and not provincial, and as a result may not be your responsibility, but this type or legislation would have required manufacturers of a wide array of goods, ranging from TV sets to electric toothbrushes, to give meaningful, objective facts that would enable the purchaser to make valid product comparisons. Are you considering anything in that line at all? Is it not your responsibility, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Renwick: No, it is not his.

Mr. B. Newman: All right, then. The other suggestions that are made in the legislation sponsored by Senator Warren Magnussen from the State of Washington all deal with exactly the same type of topic. I won’t raise them, then.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I have seven minutes. Is the House leader going to move that the House sit beyond 10:30 tonight so we could finish these estimates tonight? It is very seldom you have such a request from --

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): It is not 10:30 and I am sure you will accomplish everything that’s in your mind by 10:30.

Mr. Renwick: I will have to do it very quickly, because I have an important engagement tomorrow -- in Carleton East. I am going to go and sew up the NDP vote.

I have exactly three matters and I am not even going to ask the minister to comment upon them because they would probably take the six minutes to do it. If I can do it in three, perhaps the minister will reply.

First of all, if I could start at the far end, even though we are not on that vote, I would just like to say that I am sorry to miss the opportunity of dealing with the provincial censor. I don’t think we are going to reach him by 10:30 and I won’t be here tomorrow, but I hope that the provincial censor will do as adequate a job as his predecessor has done.

I would also hope that the whole range of censorship under the Theatres Act would be reviewed by the ministry, because I don’t think really, despite the way in which Mr. Silverthorne has dealt with the problem, that it can just go on without a good hard look at the Theatres Act and the censorship provisions of that Act. I know it’s a touchy subject and I know it’s a difficult one and I think we are very fortunate in what has happened in Ontario in the way in which the response has been made to the changing mores and attitudes of people. I know I am not on that vote.

I have two questions on this particular vote. One is, is the minister doing anything about the franchise legislation which he was studying as long as two years ago? He was going to have a searching review made of the whole franchising question, and of course we haven’t seen any results, tangible or otherwise, of what his decision is in that field.

Also, I would ask the minister to comment very briefly if he would on the study which was submitted to him by Prof. Jacob Segal which the students at the York University Osgoode Hall Law School had done on the question of the small claims court and the inadequacy of those courts so far as the protection of the consumer is concerned.

The statistics there are shocking, but they bear out what other studies have done in other jurisdictions, and that is that in the small claims courts, so far as consumer protection with respect to disputes related to goods is concerned, the great bulk of the claims in those courts are made by the creditor, represented, and very few of them are supported by decisions in favour of defendants, most of whom are unprotected. I’m sure that the minister has that report. I know it was sent to him by Prof. Segal. In the short time that is available I can’t go into the details in connection with it.

The third area I would have liked to have dealt with is the question of the commercial registration appeal tribunal. It would appear to me, and I haven’t done my homework as I should have done it but from what I can gather, a substantial number of the decisions of the registrars -- whose principal job is to provide for the protection of the consumer through the enforcement of the licensing provisions -- were reversed by the appeal tribunal. I am suggesting to you that in the two booklets that we have received of the decisions of the tribunal, on the statistics which are available to us, for reasons which appear to me to be subject to question the commercial registration appeal tribunal is in fact overruling the registrars who are perforce charged with the protection of the public interest. Somehow or other there is something which appears to me to be wrong about the appeals tribunal. I don’t know what it is, but it is certainly reflected in the way in which it has failed to give, in my judgement, valid reasons for failing to uphold the registrars’ decisions.

Mr. Chairman: Just before you answer that, could we carry item 6, then go on to item 7? Carried. Okay, Mr. Minister, answer on item 7.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would just like to comment in reverse order, bearing in mind that we are running short of time. I think it is somewhat refreshing that the commercial registration appeal tribunal is not, in effect, rubber-stamping the decision of the registrars. I think this should demonstrate that there is a definite separation, not only physically but perhaps in attitude and in approach to the problems that come before CRAT, as we call it, as opposed to the registrars. There have been articles written -- there was one in an Ottawa paper some months ago -- suggesting that it was ineffective, and I suggest that that is simply not the case.

It provides another vehicle for the person who has a tremendous amount of money invested in a business and finds himself suspended for a certain term for, say, rolling back odometers or something like this, that he can go to another hearing and, in some instances, be successful or have the penalty modified. I think to that extent it has been a very successful operation.

Insofar as the students from York are concerned, and the brief that they have prepared, I did receive the brief. In fact, I met with their professor and with a number of the students who had worked on that particular project. The question that has been touched on is the adequacy of the small claims courts. We referred that down to my colleague, the Attorney General (Mr. Welch), for his observation and comments. I think the work that was demonstrated by that group and the enthusiasm in particular was very refreshing, as far as I was concerned.

With reference to the franchise legislation, I do not intend to go ahead this session with any legislation. I have had to establish in my own mind certain priorities insofar as the legislative programme is concerned affecting my ministry, and I’ve had to make certain selections, which time will indicate are correct or perhaps incorrect. I will be proceeding with that type of legislative programme this session.

I have not abandoned the franchise legislation which came out of the Grange report; I have no right to abandon it. Hopefully, sometime some other session we will be proceeding with it -- perhaps next year -- but I will not be proceeding with it this session because time just simply won’t permit.

Votes 1302 to 1305, inclusive, agreed to.

On vote 1306:

Mr. Renwick: Is vote 1306 the registrar general?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Renwick: My colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, asked me to ask one question on his behalf, since he is not in the House, as to whether or not it is practicable that birth, marriage and death certificates be issued in the French language if and when requested, so that they can be registered either bilingually or in either one of the official languages.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It can be done and is being done. We have about 2,000 a year requested in French and about 400,000 in the English language.

Mr. Cassidy: Just to close up, I was just talking to Mr. Humphries, not expecting this would come up during the course of debate. Would the minister please very seriously consider making available bilingual birth certificates as a matter of course across the province? Clearly, as Mr. Humphries has said, the French-only birth certificates are only available to people who write in French. Many people are not aware of that service and it is not available for either marriage or death certificates. Also the French birth certificates have been rejected and cause difficulty for people seeking to cross the border.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I can go ahead complying with the member’s request until such time as all legal documents are prepared in both languages. I don’t see why we would single out birth, marriage and death certificates to be in both languages, whereas other documents relating to legal matters are primarily in the English language in this province.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, those are the major things, though. I would just ask the minister to consider that.

Vote 1306 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report it has come to certain resolutions.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment of the House I want to confirm with the House leader our activities for the remainder of this week. It is my understanding that now that the Revenue estimates have finished in committee we will proceed in committee starting Thursday afternoon with Transportation and Communications, which is the last of the estimates to go into committee. Tomorrow we will spend an additional day, I believe, on Health. The House will not sit, nor will committee, on Wednesday, and on Thursday we will go on with Education. Can the House leader confirm those items just so we all know on agreement what we are going to be doing?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Yes, Mr. Speaker. That was the original arrangement as the estimates were listed and called and that’s the way it will be, to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Does the House sit on Nov. 11?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Before the

House adjourns will the House leader answer just one other question? As I understand it the House will not sit on Monday of next week -- is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is correct.

Mr. Renwick: And what was the order of business for Friday? That would complete it for us.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Friday of this week?

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: At the moment we haven’t gone as far as Friday, Mr. Speaker. Immediately we have that clarified I will certainly let my hon. friend know.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:35 o’clock, p.m.