REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
BRANTFORD-BRANT ANNEXATION AMENDMENT ACT
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 pm.
House in committee of the whole.
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
Resuming consideration of Bill 149, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.
Sections 21 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 27:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that subsection 59a(1) of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act, as set out in section 27 of this bill, be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof "has and shall be deemed always to have had the authority to."
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, this is the same principle as the two other amendments we have already carried.
Motion agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.
On section 30:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that subsection 61a(1) of the Regional Municipality of York Act, as set out in section 30 of this bill, be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof "has and shall be deemed always to have had the authority to."
Mr. Rotenberg: Again, this is the same principle for the region of York act that applied to the other three acts.
Motion agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 31 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 149, as amended, agreed to.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of the whole House reported two bills with certain amendments.
BRANTFORD-BRANT ANNEXATION AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, moved second reading of Bill 145, An Act to amend the Brantford-Brant Annexation Act.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this bill will enable the city of Brantford to continue to be eligible to receive provincial subsidies for roads after the abolition of the Brantford Suburban Roads Commission.
This legislation deems the contributions made by the city of Brantford to the county of Brant road system to be contributing towards the construction and maintenance of suburban roads, thus meeting the requirements of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.
Once this legislation has been approved, it will be possible for the Brantford Suburban Roads Commission to be abolished by order in council without any adverse effect on the roads grant received by the city.
This amendment has been requested by the city of Brantford and the county of Brant.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member for Waterloo North.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I like the way you articulate Waterloo North because it is very becoming of a great region, the great area I live in. I know those members who have had the great good fortune to visit Waterloo will know of what I speak.
Mr. Boudria: I am doing that this weekend.
Mr. Epp: This weekend?
The Acting Speaker: We have a number of Girl Guides in the House and they will all know this after the member has spoken.
Mr. Epp: That is right. Oktoberfest is over but there is next year, Mr. Speaker. I know a number of your colleagues have visited the great area of Kitchener-Waterloo, with real emphasis on Waterloo, and they cannot wait to go back to that area.
The Acting Speaker: Now we are speaking to Bill 145.
Mr. Epp: Back to the bill, the Brantford-Brant Annexation Amendment Act. I see the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) has come into the House. I am sure he has a few bills he wants to speak about. Anyway, back to my resolution.
We are going to support this bill because it is one that both of the municipalities have asked for and it makes good sense. Obviously, the grants to the county should continue since currently they are being divided between those two systems, the county and the city.
I know my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) will want to speak on this bill. He has a much better knowledge of the area, better than any other member of this Legislature because he lives in the area. He has been closely associated with the area for a number of years and wants to speak on this bill if he has the opportunity.
As I have indicated, we will be supporting the bill because it has been requested and it makes good sense. There is going to be some kind of consolidation there, and certainly we would not want to deprive either of the municipalities of the very sparse but very necessary grants that the province in its great wisdom -- although these days its wisdom is lacking in many areas -- wants to continue. I want to endorse the bill in its entirety.
8:10 p.m.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say we support this bill. This is precisely the way we like to see these bills brought before us, that is, one bill such as this to deal with a very specific local request that will enable these municipalities to receive grants for the construction and maintenance of roads. We see no problem with the bill. It is a nice, straightforward, clean piece of business. We will be happy to support it.
The Acting Speaker: Does any other honourable member wish to participate in this debate?
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to thank the members opposite for their support of this bill.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for third reading.
REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 131, An Act to amend the Registry Act.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for second reading today the Registry Amendment Act, along with the Land Titles Amendment Act, Bill 132. If I may, I will make remarks with respect to both bills at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I do not want to cramp your style, but will you deal with one bill at a time? Please deal with Bill 131 first of all.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, these bills provide for the registration of prescribed bilingual instruments and documents in areas of the province to be designated by regulation. As an initial step, the deed and discharge of mortgage in the registry system and the transfer and cessation of charge in the land titles system will be bilingual instruments capable of registration.
In completing these bilingual instruments, recourse will be made to a lexicon of French-English terms that will be prescribed by regulation. Any substantive additions to the instrument not made from the lexicon, such as restrictive covenants, will have to comply, initially at least, with current requirements, and therefore be in the English language, or if in French, accompanied by a certified translation. It is anticipated that this will be the first of a series of steps towards accepting French-language documentation.
Monsieur le Président, j'ai le plaisir de présenter aujourd'hui en deuxième lecture la Loi modifiant la loi sur l'enregistrement des droits immobiliers et la Loi modifiant la loi sur l'enregistrement des actes.
Ces deux projets prescrivent l'enregistrement bilingue des actes et des documents dans les régions de la province qui seront désignées par règlement. Pour commencer, les actes enregistrés sous forme bilingue se limiteront aux actes scellés et aux purges d'hypothèques dans le système d'enregistrement des actes et aux transferts et aux cessations de charges dans le système d'enregistrement des droits immobiliers. On pourra consulter un lexique des termes français-anglais prescrits par les règlements pour remplir ces documents bilingues.
Toute annexe aux documents dont les termes ne figurent pas dans le lexique, comme les accords restrictifs, devra être conforme, au début tout au moins, aux exigences actuelles et par conséquent être rédigée en anglais ou, si elle est rédigée en français, elle devra être accompagnée d'une traduction certifiée conforme.
Il s'agit là d'une première mesure en direction de l'établissement d'une documentation en français. Merci.
Mr. Breithaupt: Monsieur le Président, it is a great pleasure to rise in support of Bill 131. One of the things we should do with this evening's Hansard is to make sure it is sent to ridings such as Lanark, Peterborough or even Victoria-Haliburton, so that a number of the traditional supporters of the government will realize that reasonable progress is being made in the use of the French language in Ontario.
There are those of us on this side of the House who may feel the government ministers are not always anxious to inform all their ordinary supporters as to the strides being made in these particular areas. However, if publicity is not to be given by the government, which is ordinarily quite prepared to publicize all its doings, then perhaps that publicity will come through a careful reading of tonight's Hansard, if only by the representatives of the press gallery.
Certainly, we agree that An Act to amend the Registry Act, and its companion, Bill 132, to deal with the same matters under the Land Titles Act, should be updated to allow proper translation of documents and to make available the opportunity for the registration of documents in the French language throughout our registry system.
It is interesting to see from section 1 of this bill, which refers to section 38 of the Registry Act -- and perhaps the minister will give us further information in this regard -- that the documents which may be translated can be in any language other than English. At this point, we require a certified translation in the English language and, presumably, while many of the documents would ordinarily be expected to be in French, as long as there is a certified English translation, there is an opportunity for any of these other documents -- one thinks particularly of deposits on title -- as matters which could be written in any other language, not necessarily French.
However, where the French language is to be used, we note that a lexicon of terms will be developed. This will no doubt improve the services in the French language for those who wish to use that language in dealing with the traditional registry office system.
We welcome this further step along the path. While some of the minister's colleagues may think it a somewhat slippery slope, we agree this is the kind of change in the infrastructure of the mechanics of the operation of his ministry that is, indeed, to be encouraged.
We will support the amendment to Bill 131 to amend the Registry Act and I believe the matter will be able to go directly to third reading.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill on behalf of our party as well. I agree that no amendments are required and that it can go directly to third reading.
I would, however, like a further explanation from the minister on the wording of the bill. I notice there has been a change made in the wording at the beginning of section 38. It now says, "Where an instrument, document or related attachment is written," whereas in the existing act it states, "Where an instrument or an affidavit of execution is written." I presume the former is a more modern wording but I would like the minister to comment on that when he rises.
We support this bill. Obviously, when there is even a slight move towards provision of services in French, we in this party are going to support that. As the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) has said, the government may not want to publicize this across Ontario to any great extent.
As a matter of fact, this kind of bill for the additional service provided in French does not have the highest priority for the French-speaking group in the Welland area. They would like to see more documents with regard to hunting licences and many other services in French before giving priority to this, because this is very internal, although it is an improvement. I suspect that is deliberate on the part of the government so that it does not receive a great amount of publicity in the sections where it might hurt it politically.
8:20 p.m.
One reason we support it is that the bill in itself is quite vague or perhaps I should say not quite all-inclusive and provides the opportunity for further progress in documents in French in the registry office. I accept the word of the minister that he is going to proceed immediately to the two main areas and subsequently, I presume, will move on to other areas as well.
As the member for Kitchener has pointed out, the wording leaves me a little confused, because in section 38 there is no reference to the two official languages in this province. It states:
"Where an instrument, document or related attachment is written wholly or in part in a language other than English there shall be produced with the instrument, document or related attachment a translation into English, together with an affidavit by the translator stating he understands both languages and has carefully compared the translation with the original and that the translation is in all respects a true and correct translation."
Subsection 38a(1), which is the important part of this bill, states:
"Notwithstanding section 38, where an instrument, document or related attachment is in a prescribed form, the instrument may be registered or the document deposited if,
"(a) the instrument or document affects the title to land in a registry division or part thereof that is designated by regulation; and
"(b) the instrument is otherwise acceptable for registration or deposit."
The French language is not mentioned anywhere. Obviously, it is going to designate certain areas where French can be used. Further on in subsection 2, the bill prescribes, "the forms of instruments and related attachments for the purposes of this section." Then it does mention "prescribing a lexicon of French-English," but that is really the only place it mentions French-English. I am just wondering if this is not another technique they are using instead of coming out front on this, which might offend some of the anti-French votes the government gets. It does not make it too clear exactly what is being done here and perhaps even leaves the impression that this could apply to languages other than French.
I assume there will be regulations and interpretations put on this by the minister that will make it clear that the bill will apply to our two official languages only. I hope the minister will comment on the remarks I have made when he gets up to reply.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill 131. As members know, I represent the constituency which has the largest proportion of francophones in Ontario and, indeed, probably anywhere in this country outside of Quebec. Seventy-eight per cent of the population of my constituency is of francophone origin. There are also a considerable number of people in my riding who are unilingual French, and although there is probably a reticence on the part of certain people to believe that actually exists in Ontario, nevertheless it is a reality. A considerable number of the electors in my constituency do not read or do not speak the English language at all or, if they do, it is so little it is not functional for them.
I can understand that, coming from a different part of the province, certain members may have difficulty in realizing that this situation exists, but it is not uncommon for us in eastern Ontario to be in a position where the rest of the province does not particularly well acknowledge our existence or our way of life, which may be somewhat different than that of the rest of the province.
We are far away from the large metropolitan area of this city and as we near, for instance in my constituency, the Quebec border on the eastern side, we are out of range of most English-speaking media on the Ontario side. It is common in my constituency to live in an area, such as Ste. Anne de Prescott, St. Eugene or in parts of East Hawkesbury township, where one relies exclusively on the Montreal media to get news.
Such is the exposure that the population of my constituency has a greater knowledge of the news of Quebec and the goings on of that area than it does of Ontario. That is not to say most people in my constituency have only recently arrived from Quebec and moved into our province. As honourable members will recall, there have been francophone residents living in our area of eastern Ontario since prior to the implementation of the Constitutional Act of 1791.
Before that, they were residents of the then province of Quebec. It was decided at one point that a vertical line would be drawn at the western extremity of the seigneurie de Vaudreuil. Everything to the west of that would thenceforth be known as Upper Canada and the eastern part would become Lower Canada, so there have been many residents of French extraction living in that area for generations and generations.
I need not remind the members of the House that it was in the early 1600s that one of the first francophone communities in Ontario was established at an area near Penetanguishene. It was known as Ste. Marie aux Hurons at that time and it was recently commemorated this year.
The francophone communities of this province undoubtedly welcome this bill and other bills which will serve to increase and acknowledge the right of francophones in Ontario. However, I am a little worried when I see the way in which some of this legislation was introduced. I hope the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) will listen to what I have to say in the next few minutes because I was particularly disturbed on that day of June 3 when these bills were introduced. I would like to remind the minister that on that day he introduced Bills 130, 131, and 132.
I consider Bill 130 to be of little relative importance. It was an amendment to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, only a one-page bill. Yet, on that day, the minister chose to make a broad statement on the importance of the amendment to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act. When he stood in his place to make a statement, he never once discussed any aspects of Bill 131 and Bill 132. I would like to remind him the press gallery was full at that time, and at the other end of the House there were the television cameras, recording what ministers of the crown had to say on new government legislation. These two bills were not discussed.
I would like him to look back at Hansard. And I would remind him that after question period, when the bills were introduced, other ministers introduced their bills first, leaving plenty of time for the press gallery to become empty and for members of the press gallery to leave this illustrious chamber so they would not be informed of the legislation that was going to be introduced on that day.
Once the members of the press gallery had left this chamber, it was at that point the minister stood and introduced Bill 130 which he talked about. Then, to everyone's surprise, he proceeded to introduce Bills 131 and 132.
8:30 p.m.
I was very shocked. That was my first experience in this House with that particular phenomenon. I have seen it again lately when the amendment to the Judicature Act was introduced last week by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). He used exactly the same technique.
Undoubtedly, it is a well orchestrated and well organized technique, but I would implore all cabinet ministers to stop using that technique to introduce legislation as it pertains to protecting the rights of francophones in Ontario.
Surely the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is above doing that type of thing. I feel it is very unfortunate and whoever told him, or dictated to him, or suggested that he introduce legislation to protect the rights of francophones in that particular way has misled the minister. The minister should see beyond that, he should see there are not millions of votes to be lost by recognizing the rights of people whose ancestors have been living in this province for some 400 years.
I hope that in the future he will introduce this legislation with the same kind of hoop-la with which he introduces any other kind of legislation. Certainly, I would hope that An Act to amend the Registry Act and An Act to amend the Land Titles Act must be as important as An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.
The rights and privileges of the francophone population surely are as important as the legislation he has introduced to protect people when dealing with used car dealers. I would like to think that in relative importance, in the future, that will not be.
Some ministers are reluctant to introduce any kind of legislation towards improving the lot of francophones. The minister has introduced this legislation; it is helpful and I acknowledge that. I would only hope that in the future a different style would be used in such introduction.
Other ministers will stand in this House, such as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), and will make very impressive speeches on how to improve the situation of the francophone population of this province, and I have great admiration for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for the speech that he made in this House, particularly on the day that we discussed the repatriation of our Constitution. I am sure the Speaker will recall that day.
It is difficult for me, as a representative of that population, to hear on the one hand the speech of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, then to see at another time in this House the action which I have just described to the honourable members, and then on another day again to have seen the campaign we saw in the riding of Carleton, in the by-election that was held there in 1980.
To see those three different kinds of scenarios from the same government and the same party is very difficult to understand. It is perhaps very opportunistic. Perhaps it has been effective in the past. I would hope that in the future it will change, and that it will be done in such a way as to better serve the population of this province, in a more honest and truthful way.
I would like to go to some parts of the bill which I would like the minister to explain. I am sincere in saying that I convey my appreciation for the improvements that are in this bill. It is only the form of which I am critical.
In section 38, the government says languages "other than English." When we are discussing the bill, I would like the minister to elaborate on why it is worded in that way, as opposed to saying that an instrument or document-related attachment is written wholly or in part in the French language, for instance. Perhaps he could explain the wording to us and why it is important to have it in the form it is there.
That is the only question I have on this bill, and although I have not studied Bill 132 in detail, I am sure there is not much more that I would like to find out about that bill.
I would just like to say in closing that there are those who think that to ask for the services that are explained in these two bills and other bills that have been introduced is not all that necessary, that it is a luxury proposed by a group of radical francophones and so on. That is not the case.
I indicated in the earlier part of my comments that a large proportion of the electors in my riding are unilingual francophones, and in a way I agree with the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who said a while ago that it is very nice to have the Registry Act amended in such a way that now we will be able to read the titles of our property in the French language. I must admit, though, I have not read the deed to my property in either language before, so I do not think I am bound to do it all that frequently in the future.
In the context of things that are important for the francophone population of the province, needless to say, other legislation would probably have been more urgent. Certainly there are several things that people deal with that would be more urgent than that. We were talking a while ago about used car dealers and things of that nature. Certainly if you have legislation that would force a bill of sale, for instance, to be written in such a way that the population would be able to read it in both official languages, it would have been far more useful.
So in that context, then, the bill corrects something that needs to be corrected, but perhaps there are other things that could have assisted the population in a greater way. That is not to say that what is there is not important. Obviously the most expensive thing most of us own is our property; that, of course, is registered in title, and to be able to read what we own is certainly comforting, as I say, although it is not a document that one picks up and reads every single day. It is done on a rather infrequent basis.
In summary, I would like to say we are happy that legislation is now being debated and that it will be passed shortly, at third reading. The francophones of Ontario are appreciative that it is being done. It is my hope that when other legislation, and more important legislation, relating to the francophone population is introduced in this illustrious chamber by the same minister, he will stand in his place, make a ministerial statement, introduce the changes he has to make and let everyone of both linguistic backgrounds know that the services are done. It is not enough to tell one group you are giving them a service and to do it by the back door and then pretend to the other group that you are doing nothing so as not to offend.
First of all, in my view those who think the majority anglophone population of this province are offended by introducing that kind of legislation are dead wrong. I do not believe that. I believe that you can offend the anglophone population if you instil that in them, if you tell them to be offended, if you create a division and then stand in the middle of that division and pretend to take the side of the bigger half of the population. You have then created a divisiveness, and it is easy for one to capitalize on that divisiveness once created.
But I believe it is not there in the people of this province. It can be created and then it can be cultivated, but the people of this province are more understanding than that, and I have great faith in them.
Je voudrais en terminant, Monsieur le Président, prendre quelques instants pour réitérer ce que j'ai déjà mentionné, à savoir que la population de la province de l'Ontario se réjouit de voir les projets de loi 131 et 132 proposés ici ce soir. Je dois cependant souligner le fait que la façon dont ces projets de loi ont été présentés devant l'Assemblée législative d'une façon qui n'a peut-être pas été aussi juste qu'elle aurait pu l'être. Certains oseraient même dire qu'elle été malhonnête, Monsieur le Président.
8:40 p.m.
Vous êtes sans doute au courant que les projets de loi 130, 131 et 132 ont été présentés dans cette illustre Chambre le 3 juin 1982. Ceci a simplement pour but de montrer comment le gouvernement peut parfois offrir des services aux francophones tout en prétendant ne pas le faire. À l'intention de la majorité anglophone, je voudrais citer le fait suivant: le 3 juin de cette année, le ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce a présenté dans cette Chambre les projets de loi 130, 131 et 132. Comme vous le savez sans doute, le projet de loi 130 vise à faire certains changements à la loi touchant le vendeur de véhicules d'occasion. Une loi d'importance très minime. Le ministre a choisi ce jour-là pour faire un énoncé ministériel détaillé sur l'importance de changer le projet de loi 130. Il a négligé de faire un énoncé sur les projets de loi 131 et 132. Ceci est sans doute dû au fait que plusieurs journalistes étaient présents.
Après la période des questions, qui a duré environ trois heures comme vous le savez, plusieurs ministres ont présenté ce jour-là les différents projets de loi. Je pourrais même regarder ici et les choisir, Monsieur le Président, pour vous les montrer. Après la présentation des différents projets de loi, le ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce a présenté le projet de loi 130, puis très discrètement -- les journalistes étaient alors tous partis -- les projets de loi 131 et 132. Il faut noter que ces derniers projets de loi ont une grande importance pour la minorité francophone de la province. Je trouve dommage que le ministre ait choisi de présenter les changements de cette façon. II aurait pu procéder comme pour le projet de loi 130.
N'est-il pas possible à un ministre de faire deux énoncés ministériels par jour? D'autres ministres l'ont fait à plusieurs reprises pour d'autres projets de loi au cours de cette même journée. Il me semble que le ministre aurait pu mieux présenter ce projet de loi 130 visant à modifier l'utilisation de la langue française et de la langue anglaise. Il a choisi de le faire d'une façon un peu cachottière. Voilà ce que je déplore. Je dois dire que j'ai vu la semaine dernière, Monsieur le Président, un autre ministre utiliser la même procédure. J'ose espérer que le gouvernement, à l'avenir, lorsqu'il s'agira de présenter des projets de loi visant à améliorer le sort des francophones en Ontario, aura le courage de le faire pour que tout le monde sache ce qui se passe. Je termine ainsi mes remarques, Monsieur le Président. Malgré ce que j'ai dit, j'appuie toujours les projets de loi 131 et 132.
So, in spite of some of the negative comments I have made, they are not to the content of the bill but rather to the form in which, unfortunately, some of the legislation is introduced at times in this great chamber; and that is certainly a classic example.
I would like the minister to know that immediately after those two bills were introduced that day, I went up to the press gallery and one member of the press gallery and I discussed the form in which that was done. We both agreed it was an unfortunate way of doing things. I hope that particular person in the gallery will read Hansard and what has been said here tonight.
I hope the minister, in his concluding remarks on the bill, will tell us that future legislation pertaining to francophones will be introduced in the same way as other legislation, and not in such a way as to hide it from the majority of anglophones and, on the other hand, go into francophone communities and pretend he is doing everything for them. That is certainly not the way to deal with minorities in this province.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from all members who have spoken. By way of some initial remarks, I may stand to be corrected, but it is my recollection -- and I refer particularly now to the remarks of the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) -- that this particular issue was referred to in the speech from the throne. So I find it a little bit cynical -- and I say this kindly, I really do -- for someone to suggest that anyone is trying to hide anything.
It was presented in the House. I made some introductory remarks with respect to both bills. The bills have both received a degree of priority, which the member did not refer to at any great length. Quite frankly, there are other bills that are equally important for other reasons. We elected to proceed with these bills because they are in line with the many endeavours of this ministry to provide French-language services to our fellow Canadians living in this province. If he explores the record, he will find that statement can be well substantiated.
I appreciated most of the remarks of the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). Indeed, I really appreciate him so much I have to say I appreciated all his remarks. He raised particularly the issue of section 38, which was also raised by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and the member for Prescott-Russell. Section 38 is virtually identical to the present section with one addition. That is, it is designed now to allow us to refer to all affidavits attached to an instrument, whereas under the previous section we were limited in that we could only deal with the affidavit of execution. This allows affidavits other than the affidavit of execution to be added to the numerous documents we are presented with in a variety of languages.
The important thing that is being overlooked is that section 38a specifically provides for the provision of French-language documents in these areas. In answer to some remarks suggesting that French is not referred to specifically, I refer members to the notes at the side of section 38a, which specifically refer to registration of instruments and documents in the French language. I do not think there is anything other than an honest attempt to provide a section that will allow us to gradually expand bilingual documents by regulation and, as we gain greater facility with the lexicon, into other areas. That section is designed to give us that kind of flexibility.
Again, I sincerely thank members for their support for these two bills.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for third reading.
8:50 p.m.
LAND TITLES AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 132, An Act to amend the Land Titles Act.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have no remarks additional to those I made in introducing second reading of Bill 131.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill 132 on an evening that is a rather peculiar one in this Legislature, because for the first time in my experience we have on the government side six ministers of the crown but no back-benchers in support. I do not know who is doing the quarterbacking, but certainly the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) has brought out a number of his colleagues to see how he gets legislation through the House. At least those in cabinet got the word. Whether the message went elsewhere or not, it is difficult to say.
In any event, this is companion legislation to Bill 131. It cites the same aspects of translation availability and the lexicon requirements under the land titles system. We will, of course, support the bill.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer the support of the New Democratic Party for this bill too. As has already been stated, it is a companion to Bill 131. We supported that bill and we are obviously going to support this one.
I wish to ask the minister, when he rises to make further comments, whether he can give some indication of the use of the Land Titles Act in the francophone communities of this province. I wonder whether there has been an inhibition of its use because of the lack of the right to have land titles registered in the French language. If he has that information, we will be glad to have it.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, as the previous speaker said, we are in support of the bill. To elaborate on what others have noted, the presence of cabinet ministers this evening is rather astounding. More important and even more astounding is the absence of the back-benchers. Could it be that on the government side there has been some division of ranks as to who would be supportive of this kind of legislation and who would not?
The Deputy Speaker: No. They have learned the ways of the world.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, could it be that the chief government whip (Mr. Gregory), who is well known for his disciplinary ability, has put the wood to all the back-benchers who might not be so forthright in their support of this legislation? Is it possible the orders have gone out that if they do not like this kind of legislation, they should stay away tonight? One cannot help but wonder and remark upon the fact.
I do not recall another single piece of legislation where I have looked across the aisle and seen absolutely nothing but a sea of cabinet faces.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I do not see any ministers on that side.
Mr. Breaugh: That is right, but I see a lot more back-benchers on this side than I see over there. I cannot help but remark in passing that this is a most unusual evening. One has to come --
The Deputy Speaker: I guess we should get back to the bill somehow.
Mr. Breaugh: One has to come to the conclusion that the principles of this piece of legislation are found to be somewhat offensive to some members opposite, because every other night that I have been here I have managed to look across the way and see one, perhaps two, members of the cabinet -- oh, we are being joined by yet another member of the cabinet.
Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: And the Minister of Citizenship and Culture at that.
Mr. Breaugh: The Minister of Citizenship and Culture. Could it be that some accident has befallen the entire Tory back benches? Have they been stricken by some disease that prevents them from attendance here this evening?
Mr. Breithaupt: We do not see as many at question period.
Mr. Breaugh: No. We do not see them here at two o'clock, and we rarely see all of them here at five minutes to nine.
We support the concept in this bill. I think it is important, when addressing the principles of this type of legislation, to mention, at least in passing, that these are two rather unusual bills to be the vanguard of the provision of French-language services in Ontario.
If someone had asked us six or eight months ago, with regard to the provision of services in the French language, "Which two pieces of legislation would you have right out in front to lead this charge?" I doubt very many of us would have picked these two bills as being the edge of the wedge, so to speak. I think we might have looked in some other areas and said they might get priority.
I am not terribly sure there is a clamour out there, even in the francophone community, for this to be a priority of the government in its introduction of services in the French language. I find it a rather odd pair of bills to have before the House and leading us into this debate.
In many ways, in the principles that are reflected in these two bills -- this one and the one we have just dealt with -- we find the heart of the Tory attitude towards the provision of French-language services: Do it quietly, do it as unobtrusively as possible. Find areas where there will be minimal impact, if you like, on access to any particular kind of service. And move in those ways so that, come election time, the government can enjoy the best of both worlds. On the one hand, the government can say, "Yes, we are making some movement in the provision of French-language services," and it can point to these two bills as being the vanguard of this year's attempt to provide French-language services in Ontario.
On the opposite side, of course, we do have to admit that every once in a while -- one would almost think that there was a very careful piece of teamwork afoot here, that somebody was co-ordinating this very smoothly, very nicely -- once or twice a year we have bills brought before the House which expand, where numbers warrant and in a manner that is not too offensive to the public eye, the provision of French-language services. It seems that this year's dose is these two bills.
It is an unusual thing to say that we accept the principle of the use of French as an official language in Ontario at some time, in some way and in some places. I do not know whether it possibly can be watered down much more than that. Perhaps we will see the Tories rise to a new challenge at some time in the near future and say what this House once upon a time had an opportunity to say, that we believe there ought to be two official languages recognized and that it should not be a matter of geography as to where they are recognized; it ought to be a matter of right.
We join with other speakers here this evening in supporting the bill, but we could not let this debate go by without noting the technique that has been used here this evening.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I think you would be disappointed indeed had I not been up and participating in this debate. The members will understand that as a Franco-Ontarian who has sat here since October 1971 --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Part-time.
Mr. Roy: The Minister of Education just made one of her ebullient -- I wish I had the headline from the Toronto paper which perfectly described the Minister of Education as being abrasive, provocative -- what else did it say about her?
Hon. Mr. Snow: Colourful.
Mr. Roy: Colourful? Yes, I would say that about the minister. In any event, she is here and we should note her presence for the record. I am sure she will be up, making her constructive comments to this legislation.
But if I may go back to what I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted: In my 11 years here, I have never been so overwhelmed. Members will realize that all afternoon we talked about very important amendments to the Municipal Act. We talked about some of the changes being made in it so that councils can legally pass bylaws in both languages and can accept documents etc. in both languages. As one of those who have watched the process here, as slow as it has been, I thought that was not bad for one day.
That was an important step. But to compound it further by important changes in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act to allow changes in the representation on school boards, and then to move a step further with Bill 131 and its changes to the Registry Act, and now, with Bill 132 -- my God, it is gargantuan; it is overwhelming.
I say to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the government had better circle this date for the next election. I am dumfounded. I am at a loss for words as to how I should express my gratitude to this government for having taken such a giant or overwhelming initiative.
9 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, you mentioned progressive. Sure it is progressive. But is it not something in Ontario, does it say anything about the makeup of this place or of the government or of the province itself, that we, with our missionary zeal, have been asking for such legislation, we who have been saying that the province can tolerate this?
We think that if they allow documents to be registered in the French language, maybe the province will not go to the dogs. Maybe we will be able to survive this. Maybe if they allow a municipal council to pass legislation in both languages, life will continue in Ontario. We will still get our cheques as members, and the world will unfold as it should.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Doesn't your hand shake?
Mr. Roy: The Minister of Revenue asks, "Does my hand shake?" He should know something about hand shaking. After what he has done to the citizens of Ontario with his taxes, I would give back my cheque if I were he. That is what he should be doing.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: My hand doesn't shake, but yours must.
Mr. Roy: My good God. I will get back to this. We have been asking for this. We have been saying that it is important, that it will not unduly affect the whole process of justice, that this type of legislation should be allowed, that it will not set the registry offices on fire, that our documents will be typed on word processing machines and they will not disappear once you register them. Life will continue.
After asking for this and after having been told: "Take your time. Do not rush; do not be radical about this. It will come in due course. Do not get overly carried away about this," all at once on the same day we get three pieces of legislation. My God, what is the government trying to do? Are they trying to create chaos in the Franco-Ontarian community?
Is my friend the Minister of Education not ashamed of what is going on here this evening? Is somebody trying to embarrass her for her slowness in taking action within her ministry for Franco-Ontarians with three pieces of legislation?
What is going on? I am overwhelmed not only by the legislation but also overwhelmed by the fact that there are no back-benchers over there; they are all ministers. There are seven ministers and not one back-bencher in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Feel proud.
Hon. Mr. Snow: They are in committee. Didn't you ever hear of committee?
Mr. Roy: The Minister of Transportation and Communications says they are in committee.
But I want to repeat: I am a moderate fellow. I have been around this place. I overwhelm easily. I am from a riding with people who have modest incomes. I am from a poor family. I just try to practise a bit of law and at the same time try to represent my constituents. It does not take all that much to overwhelm me.
But this evening I am overwhelmed. I am at a loss for words. Three pieces of legislation, and, as I will say to my colleagues as we prepare these documents in the French language, I do not quite believe this; it is too much.
As I said earlier today, this government, which has consistently refused to legislate rights, all at once has gone hog wild: three pieces of legislation on the same day. So obviously I am surprised.
Obviously I support the legislation, even though I must admit I am a bit vexed by the fact that if, in a moment of absentmindedness, I should tell a member of the staff in my office that a document should be prepared in the French language and she runs down to the registry office to get it registered, I need a translation for it.
It bothers me a little that if documents are going to be registered in a language other than English, somehow we are trying to pull a fast one either on the officials in the registry office or the title against which we are trying to register the instrument. So just to be absolutely safe, we will give a translation.
At times I find it somewhat condescending. In some areas it may be difficult, but in most areas it may not be difficult to have a person who understands French and who may look at this document and verify that it represents what it is intended to represent.
I would like the minister to tell me why a translation is required if a document or instrument is going to be registered in a language other than English. It has been my experience that officials at the registry office do not read all those documents even though they are registered in English. There must be some reason why such a requirement is put in the legislation.
Mr. Eakins: A little bit at a time.
Mr. Roy: It is a little bit at a time, but all in one day is really too much.
Mr. Eakins: I will bet he does not tell the people it is being done. He won't send out a press release. Will the minister send out a press release to tell the people or will he keep it quiet?
Mr. Roy: As my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) says, I am sure they will send out press releases in his riding in the French language. I can just see the government publicizing this venture.
I say to my good friend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, is it not ironic that his boss, the Premier (Mr. Davis), has consistently refused to protect French-language services by enacting legislation to ensure these services are carried out? He has refused to protect them by enacting, as in all other areas, legislation that gives the parameters, the duties and the rights that are given to individuals in certain areas by way of legislation.
The Premier has consistently refused to accept that principle. He says, "No, we will do it in our good time." Slowly but surely, some of the members on that side are undermining his policies and bringing forward legislation. How do they get away with that? It is pretty slick on their part to be doing that.
A strange process goes on in the Conservative Party. We have a group of civil servants within the government itself and various officials who were appointed to a committee who reviewed the process of French-language services in Ontario. They have come to the conclusion that, as long as there is no legislation guaranteeing these services, the provision of such services becomes haphazard; it becomes a hit-and-miss proposition. The civil servants do not know what their obligations are and the francophones or the people who want French- language services do not know what their rights are.
The Acting Speaker: Are you speaking on Bill 132?
Mr. Roy: Oh, I am right on, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I am embarrassed I am talking so much about this bill.
The Acting Speaker: You are going on and on.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I know your difficulty this evening is that I am speaking only in the English language. When I was speaking in French, you knew full well I was speaking only about the bill.
The Acting Speaker: I truly appreciated those happy moments.
Mr. Roy: Of course, you understood every word and you knew I was in full order. In any event, getting back to my point before I was rudely interrupted --
The Acting Speaker: I am trying to find your point.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Roy: The point is that the people on this particular committee have said, "The only sure way to assure adequate provision of French-language services is to have legislation." It would be legislation that resembles somewhat the moderate bill I introduced in 1978 which had been accepted by the Legislature and which most members on that side had accepted. If the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations did not speak in favour of it, he certainly voted in favour of the legislation before it was so unceremoniously vetoed by the Premier.
In any event, the government has refused to accept that principle. The Premier said: "The way to provide the services is sort of discretionary. We will have these policies, but let us not move too quickly." Even though the civil service and that committee have said the way to do it is to have an omnibus bill providing this legislation, that has been the policy of the government.
All at once one gets these ministers, first the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) this afternoon, clearly undermining the policy of the government by bringing forward legislation to say municipalities can have bylaws in both languages. I would think he got a tongue-lashing in cabinet over that. But they said: "You can get away with that. We will let you. After all, you have not shown in the past" --
The Acting Speaker: I find it difficult to see how this relates to Bill 132.
Mr. Roy: I am getting right on, Mr. Speaker; it is just to make my point.
The Acting Speaker: I suggest you get on.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, you will understand that if I try to be too brief getting to the point, some people here may miss the point --
The Acting Speaker: I am having difficulty.
Mr. Roy: I notice that some of the cabinet ministers across the way are taking notes. I would not want them to miss the point, especially my colleague the enthusiastic Minister of Revenue, who is listening to every word.
The Acting Speaker: If you are dealing with Bill 132, I would like you to deal with the bill specifically.
Mr. Roy: Bill 132 deals with guaranteeing by way of legislation that people can register a document in the French language, and I am just explaining how that comes about.
First, we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing who undermines the policy of the government. Now we have the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations this evening with two bills: Bill 131, the Registry Amendment Act, and Bill 132, the Land Titles Amendment Act, which clearly undermine the policies of the Conservative Party.
It is quite a day in Ontario. It is a red letter day: is that the slang one uses? It is really unusual. I am overwhelmed and supportive of the legislation.
I look forward to the explanation by the minister as to why the translation is required, but we in the Franco-Ontarian community have been patient. We will accept these initiatives. If the Premier deals too harshly with the minister, we will be supportive. The minister will say, "Look, the people in the Legislature accepted it in spite of my" -- yes, the minister is wiping his brow. I know it is a solace to him to think some of us are supportive of his initiative.
In all my years here, I have never seen a day quite like this. Do you realize that, Mr. Speaker? It is a momentous day that you should be sitting in the chair when these important events are taking place in Ontario.
I am so overwhelmed I think I should say a few words in French for my confreres.
Je voudrais dire simplement, Monsieur le Président, que c'est une journée absolument extraordinaire dans la législature ontarienne. C'est le troisième projet de loi aujourd'hui qui nous permet d'enregistrer des documents en français. Il faut, certes, donner une traduction, mais c'est tout de même une étape importante. Par petits pas, on avance.
Et je pense, Monsieur l'Orateur, que même avec la largesse du gouvernement, si l'on regarde dans toute l'histoire de la législature, il n'y a jamais eu de jour aussi important que ce 2 novembre, date à laquelle on compte trois projets de loi qui vont permettre d'avoir des services en français. Il y a des années que nous demandons ces services. Il y a des années que l'on nous répond: "On ne peut pas vous donner ces choses-là". Mais ce qui est important, Monsieur le Président, c'est que maintenant la loi existe et la Province de l'Ontario va néanmoins continuer à vivre. Il n'y aura d'émeutes. Je n'ai vu personne à l'extérieur de l'Assemblée législative. Personne n'a essayé de fusiller le ministre ou de critiquer la communauté franco-ontarienne. Le monde va continuer à tourner. Les avocats vont continuer à pratiquer. Je regardais ce soir les élections chez nos voisins du sud, les Américains.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Are you dealing with Bill 132?
Mr. Roy: Oui, Monsieur le Président, cela a trait à la législation. C'est écrit ici.
The Acting Speaker: I am not exactly sure that you are.
Mr. Boudria: You are not exactly sure that he is not.
The Acting Speaker: I cannot be precise, but I trust you will be honest in saying you are talking to Bill 132.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, just because I happen to mention the American election, it does not mean to say it is not on the legislation itself. If I may continue, I know you are following every word.
The Acting Speaker: The worst thing is I am not totally comprehending how it relates to Bill 132.
Mr. Roy: I know you are keeping an eye on me. I will continue.
Toujours est-il, Monsieur le Président, que la vie continue. Il y aura des mariages, des naissances. . . Et soudainement, les Conservateurs vont s'apercevoir que les "so-called Red Necks" comme on dit en anglais…(?) Où sont les émeutes provoquées par les personnes qui s'opposent à cette législation? Et vous, monsieur le Ministre qui avez préparé cette étape importante, et qui présentez ce soir deux législations, vous allez avoir une très bonne réputation au sein de la communauté franco-ontarienne. Tout le monde va dire que vous êtes un ministre objectif, d'une grande souplesse d'esprit, même si certains membres de votre parti vont dire: "Il est tanné de détruire la politique du Premier ministre en présentant cette législation". Monsieur le Président, nous sommes en faveur de la législation et nous applaudissons à l'initiative du gouvernement. J'aimerais toutefois entendre la raison pour laquelle il est nécessaire, lorsqu'on présente des documents à l'enregistrement dans une langue autre que l'anglais, d'avoir une traduction. J'apprécierais les commentaires du ministre à cet égard, car la communauté va certainement vouloir la connaître. En d'autres termes, il existe des critères différents selon que les documents sont écrits dans une langue ou dans une autre. Il serait bon d'avoir une explication.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, you will understand that I would have had many more things to say. It is just that I am at a loss for words.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Go ahead.
Mr. Roy: I am overwhelmed. I am as overwhelmed as I was at the first signs you put on your highways in the Ottawa-Carleton area in both languages. That was an important step.
The Acting Speaker: On Bill 132, please.
Mr. Roy: We really appreciated that.
Hon. Mr. Snow: In Prescott-Russell they put Jacques Neige on the signs.
Mr. Roy: Yes. I remember that.
This is really an exceptional day in Ontario. To have three pieces of legislation guaranteeing French-language services is really something that should be underlined. Historians will look back on this and they will try to see some association between this flurry of legislation and the political events of the country.
Does it have something to do with the midterm elections in the US? Does that have something to do with this legislation? What is the causal connection? It is fabulous. It is something that those of us who have been fighting for this are overwhelmed by, and we are extremely supportive.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to simply ask the minister, in the interest of all people of Ontario being informed of this important legislation, will he be sending out press releases to all parts of Ontario, to the dailies, and to the weeklies, so they will all be aware of what has happened here tonight?
All too often with important legislation such as this, the ministries simply keep a low profile on it and do not tell certain sections of Ontario what they are doing. It is important that the ministries make sure all sections of Ontario are treated equally. I would say to the minister that if he would send me over a couple of hundred copies, I will see they are delivered personally.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am just overwhelmed to be privileged to be here on such an occasion, to be spellbound by the eloquence of my fellow colleague and fellow graduate of the University of Ottawa. I understand that university brings out such great things in people. It has not done it yet to him, but it will eventually, I am sure. We all look forward to that day.
Seriously, the member was not here when I mentioned earlier that these two bills were introduced last June, and to the best of my recollection the issue was also referred to in the speech from the throne so it is an issue that the government has taken seriously. Certainly, it is an issue this ministry looks upon as part of our continuing endeavours to provide increasing service to the French-language community of this province.
I have already mentioned the issue of section 38 of the Registry Act, but I will just review it again for the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). Actually, section 38 is exactly as it was, and has always been, except for the fact that it was limited to the filing of affidavits of execution. With the change in the wording to "related attachments" it now will allow us to file all affidavits, whether or not they are affidavits of execution.
It may come as a surprise to the honourable members, but there are documents that are presented, notarized wills from Germany for example, that require a translation. There are many documents in many languages that sometimes have to be filed on title. Section 38 refers to those particular documents.
The point of the bill is really the section which sets a specific reference to documents in the French language. That is the point of this bill, and the original subsection, subsection 88a, really is unchanged except to give it broader application in terms of what types of attachments may be filed.
I thank the members for their support of the bill and I look forward to a quick passage.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for third reading.
SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 176, An Act to amend the Securities Act.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as many of the members may recall, when the government introduced the Securities Act in 1978, it was a major revision of existing legislation. Since that time, it has become increasingly clear that other revisions are necessary to update the legislation. I am introducing for second reading this evening the Securities Amendment Act which reflects those needed changes.
It has become necessary, for example, that some clarification of the legislation's application to crown agencies be made. It is increasingly routine for crown agencies to enter Ontario capital markets for publicly traded securities. The fact that those agencies alone might not be required to comply with the provisions of the act may bring our securities market into disrepute. Therefore, the amendments make it clear that the act applies to the crown in right of Canada, the crown in right of Ontario and the crown in right of other provinces when they participate in the public capital markets of Ontario.
As well, the definition of a takeover bid has been changed to include offers made for securities convertible into voting securities. The takeover bid threshold level has also been redefined from 20 per cent of outstanding voting securities to 10 per cent of the voting rights attached to the voting securities that would be outstanding on a fully diluted basis. This is being done in an effort to achieve more uniformity with the definition in the federal act and to discourage what is known as a creeping takeover.
These are two major changes to the act. Other changes can be divided into four separate categories:
First, insider trading and reporting: The Securities Act now requires insiders of a public company to file reports of their trading in securities. These regulations will be amended to speed up the filing of reports.
Second, self-regulation of the investment industry: These amendments are intended to provide, upon application of a self-regulatory organization, Ontario Securities Commission recognition of and over the said self-regulatory organization. Other than with respect to the Toronto Stock Exchange, the present legislation restricts the government to the overseeing of rules and regulations in respect of practice and procedure on audits.
Third, the issue of timely disclosure and continuous disclosure: These amendments will result in a new offence and new rights of action if a person intending to make a takeover bid, or anyone who has a special relationship to that person, tips others as to the intention before it is generally disclosed.
Fourth, distribution and resale of securities: These amendments are designed to prevent people from acting as unregistered underwriters buying for intermediate resale or, in other words, from effecting back-door underwriting.
These are just a few of the many amendments to the act, which I believe are both necessary and innovative, to ensure the continued integrity of these markets.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Kitchener.
[Applause]
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if they will applaud as much when I sit down, after they have heard what I have to say on the bill, as they did when I stood up. In any event, it is possible it could be more.
When we last looked at this legislation -- I think it was three years ago -- there were a variety of public hearings that dealt with, I believe it was, Bills 7, 8, and 9. At that time, we entirely reviewed the contents of the securities legislation and we had the advantage in the public hearings that were occasioned by those bills to hear from a number of particularly involved lawyers and brokers, who were dealing with the legislation on a daily basis, about whether it was written in a practical and thorough way so it would accomplish the ministry's intentions.
Now we face in Bill 176 some 44 pages of housekeeping and other amendments. Indeed if one looks at the notes to the bill, they take 10 pages alone, and deal with matters as disparate as the definition of director, the involvement of private mutual funds, the matter of beneficial ownership, and the suggestion that the members of the commission can be divided into two or more panels for a variety of sittings. We talk about the right to be represented by counsel. We deal with the matter of freeze orders. We talk about portfolio managers and the purchasing by them as principals or the dealing with that when trading for fully managed accounts. On and on it goes.
9:30 p.m.
Really, as we look at the series of sections that deal with the tipping of information to a variety of inside or outside sources and the penalties this sort of thing may bring, we see a great involvement of a variety of amendments that presumably have come to light in these last several years either through not being involved in the Securities Act as it was then passed or because of changing circumstances.
I think it is really fair to say that there is no particular principle in this bill. We are dealing with substantial amendments in almost every area in the Securities Act that we thought we had passed, tidied up and clarified but three years ago.
I do not know the minister's intention with respect to committee hearings on this matter. I must say that from several survey calls made to contacts in the brokerage and financial communities, the amendments suggested and the details and the involvements apparently have been canvassed fairly thoroughly within the industry. That is not to say we should necessarily pass the things the Bay Street boys wish to have for their particular convenience, but it is very difficult for us as interested amateurs in this operation to try to come to grips with something that requires 10 pages of notes of explanation.
I do not know the minister's intentions. Indeed, I do not know whether sending this bill to committee would enlighten us in any way as to the pros and cons of what a certain section should or could contain. It is really a conundrum, because when we deal with financial legislation, whatever our abilities to observe upon it, we are torn between competing interests, and of course, we also are not fully familiar on a daily basis with the operations or the very particular details of financial communities and transactions.
In looking to the bill, when we talk about things such as back-door underwritings or what a director's circular should contain, these are terms that are not familiar in depth, I think it is fair to say, to any one of us in this chamber. It is a very difficult thing to try to deal with. I can only presume that the balancing of interests, with which the minister has attempted to deal through not only the securities commission but also the other sources that are available to him, has attempted to tidy up a variety of these sections to make them more meaningful and relevant.
In the absence of strong opinions, there is not much we can do except to approve a bill like this in whatever principle terms it really refers to and then to attempt to explain or receive explanations on particular sections, if the minister chooses to develop them in any particular way.
I do not know whether we would resolve anything by sending a bill like this to committee of the whole, because we will go through each of these sections in balanced and somewhat blissful ignorance of what many of the ramifications may be. That is because of the peculiarities of the financial markets with which we are attempting to deal.
I would like to hear from the minister as to how he thinks we might best handle this bill. I recognize, of course, that as you look at the committee situation within the House, committees are now almost bogged down, not only with Bill 138, the Health Protection Act, but also with Bill 179, the Inflation Restraint Act, and with a number of the estimates, and we face the possible adjournment of the House in six weeks or so.
If it was worth while, we could suggest to certain parties in the securities business that we would set aside a day of committee work to hear whatever balancing views there are so we might get more readily acceptable legislation. I realize, of course, that we could bring in half a dozen of the leading financial experts and they might divide three and three for and against any particular section. I think we would be more confident in looking at this legislation and have a better sense of the impact of the development of some of these terms and definitions if we could at least agree to a day in standing committee.
It seems to me that better legislation occurs -- as it did when we looked at Bills 7, 8 and 9 -- when there are balancing interests and people commenting about what should or should not be in an amendment. In the bills mentioned, they were not always particularly successful. Some people spoke very strongly on a certain section or area because of their own particular area of expertise, and some amendments were accepted by the ministry while others were not. But those amendments which more particularly or precisely defined a certain term apparently were worth while.
I would suggest that, while the House may move quite readily to approve this bill on second reading, it would be prudent for us to try to find a day -- perhaps a Wednesday where we could sit morning and afternoon -- in the standing committee on administration of justice if that was available, or in whatever committee would be convenient from the House leaders' point of view, to try to set up some give-and-take among three or four of the proponents or persons knowledgeable of the various terms. We would get better legislation and would certainly be satisfied that we had done more than just take a cursory view of what is almost a foreign language, something that does not come up for any of us in our ordinary daily pursuits around here.
I am quite prepared to support the bill in principle, whatever principle we might say in fact exists as we look at a variety of amendments. But when we have some 50 sections before us, I think a day spent going through it in a more thorough way with those members of the House who would be charged with that responsibility would be a better approach and one which might be seen to be a more thorough display of the responsibilities which we have.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that our caucus is certainly not going to oppose the passage of this bill. I suppose that is the best way of expressing our concern and interest about it. I think it is essential that the bill go out to the standing committee on the administration of justice.
On the occasion of second reading of this amending bill, I do not want to reiterate a number of the comments which have been made. I think the facts speak for themselves. It is two ministers ago -- which seems a very short time ago -- that this bill was passed. It is two chairmen of the Ontario Securities Commission ago, almost, since this bill was passed, so we have a kind of revolving door. The relevance of this assembly to this kind of legislation will be illustrated by the competence of the assembly to devise the method by which we effectively deal with the bill.
I want to speak through the minister to the commission. The commission has an absolute responsibility to this assembly, to which it is accountable, to come before the standing committee on the administration of justice and to explain each and every item in the bill. I want the commission to understand that this assembly is not equipped and does not have the staff, the talent or the ability to be other than reliant on the commission. They must not wait for members of the assembly to question them but, in a forthcoming way, they must come to the assembly in its committees and say to the assembly: "This is what this section means in the English language. This is why it is being proposed. This is the problem with which we are faced. These are the conflicting views we have heard. This is the resolution."
9:40 p.m.
I am saying this to the assembly because I assured the commission that if there is a change of government -- I emphasize the "if," because one is not sanguine that there is going to be a change of government -- this commission is going to have to respond to the assembly.
We have been involved and we were involved in Re-Mor on the ridiculous proposition put forward by the commission that it was independent of the assembly, that it was not accountable to the assembly and that we were to pass legislation establishing the further autonomy of that body. That is not an exaggeration; the letter is on the record.
We all understand that the commission in its quasi-judicial functions has a certain degree of independence and autonomy. In its administrative functions and in the ambit of the legislation that is before us I want the commission, the new chairman of the commission and the new members of the commission, to understand that this is the body that is paramount. Having said that, I say to the assembly that if they want this assembly to be relevant, then they have to deal with this kind of legislation.
I say this with a certain amount of diffidence. There was a time when I used to know a lot about securities law, a lot about corporate financing. I lived in the world, I earned my living by it and I understood it. I do not understand it any more. I perhaps understand more than some other people understand, but it is with considerable diffidence that I want to say again to the commission and I want to say to the assembly that the capacity of this assembly to be relevant is a question of whether or not it has the capacity to deal with this legislation. This assembly cannot deal with this legislation unless the members of the commission understand that they are accountable to this assembly and that they must come before this assembly and explain each and every section of this bill.
I am not kidding. We in this party do not have any authority; the members of the Liberal Party do not have any authority. But I am serving warning that, should there be a change of government and should this party become the government of Ontario -- members can laugh or whatever they want. Whether it happens or not has nothing to do with what is going on here; the responsibility of that commission has to be understood.
I have been in this assembly for a long period of time dealing with the Securities Act. I want this House to know that when the last securities bill, the whole bill, was before the assembly, not one single amendment was accepted by the government or by the commission as having any validity. If members can tell me that there is any God-given right in the drafters of the Securities Act that we passed three years ago to believe it is so perfect that not a single amendment can be made to it, then I ask this assembly, What are we about?
I am sick and tired of the commission. I believe in the regulation of the securities industry, but I have not had and I do not have, regardless of the individual confidence I may have in a particular commissioner or chairman, confidence in the commission as a whole to understand anything about its responsibility to this assembly. That is merely a simple way of underlining what I want to say about this bill.
This bill is coming to us without any suggestion by the minister as to how it is going to be dealt with. In this, I agree with my rather more generous colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). We are supposed to make the suggestion as to how it is to be dealt with. We are supposed to pretend somehow or other that all of this game can be played in an irrelevant and irresponsible way in this assembly, and we can pass this bill without any serious consideration being given to it.
I want the House to know the bill is comprehensive in scope and contains 54 sections and about 30 amendments to the Securities Act, all of which reflect, apparently, experience with the new Securities Act which came into force on September 15, 1979, having been previously enacted by this assembly.
That is what it is about. It expresses the experience of the commission with the bill we passed three years ago. I expect the commission to come forward in the committee and explain to the standing committee on administration of justice each and every section of this bill.
I am not going to take a great deal of time to go through the provisions. I tried to provide a synopsis for my colleagues in the caucus of the New Democratic Party so we could understand what it was about.
We give the government the benefit of the doubt. We are not going to oppose it. It would be ridiculous. It would be irrelevant for us to oppose the bill in this session. All I know is I managed to work out about nine areas of concern.
The minister talks about four areas of concern. There are 54 sections in the bill. There is the incorporation in the bill of many areas that are now covered by regulations. There are immense changes in this bill.
It is very interesting to note, of course, that those of us who bothered to follow it in the newspapers, day in and day out, read that the controversial follow-up provisions after takeover bids have not been changed in any way. Yet that is what one hears about all the time. We hear about the takeover bids and the controversy about the follow-up on it.
I have given thought, as my colleague the member for Kitchener has given thought, to this question about how one deals with it. The answer is the commission should deal with it. If the commission cannot deal with it before the standing committee on administration of justice, then it is up to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to dismiss the commissioners and get commissioners who can understand they have to come to this assembly and speak about their bill and justify it.
In the responsibility for general legislation we have to our constituents, we do not have the time, the energy or the competence to deal with the jargon of the securities industry. It is pure jargon.
The minister talks about back-door underwriting, timely disclosure, evergreen provision and all of that nonsense. Unless one is part of the in-group, one cannot talk the language and understand it. Let us not have anybody kid anybody else about it. This assembly is an assembly of plain-spoken men and women who say what they mean when they mean it, and they try to say it as best they can, forgiving those of us who speak in elliptical ways on occasion.
I doubt if there is a commissioner sitting under the gallery tonight while the bill is being discussed. I may be quite wrong. I do not know all of the commissioners, but I doubt if a commissioner has bothered to come before the assembly tonight and listen to the debate on second reading. I doubt very much, unless somebody draws it to their attention, they would even bother to read the provisions in the bill.
I want to say to the members of the assembly, and through the assembly to the commission, that I want explanations. I want somebody to read sections 26 and 47 of this bill and tell us what the problem was that led to those sections. We have little tidy notes which make us all feel we must be part of the in-game that is being played in the securities industry because it talks about amending the Securities Act to pass section 75a dealing with tipping. This sounds very nice. What does tipping mean? Nobody knows what it means. All we know is that there are people on the street who know what is happening before anybody else bloody well knows about it, and there is no way of catching them. That is what it is talking about.
9:50 p.m.
We are going to be asked to pass intricate legislation, which is generally characterized as gobbledegook, which will never be used to prosecute anybody successfully and which will cost the crown thousands of dollars when it attempts to prosecute somebody. That is what we are going to be asked to pass. We have a complementary section, 131a, dealing with liability for tipping. I defy anybody to read section 47, which asks us to enact section 131a as a part of the Securities Act, and to understand what it means. It goes on and on and on.
I am not as sanguine or as polite or as kind as my friend the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). We both have been through the same mill several times. He wants still to maintain the club. I have had the club. I tried the club when the Securities Act came through. I tried to indicate, in all co-operative interest, concerns about the bill, to ask questions about the bill, and we had a very able chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission there. But nothing happened in the committee, not one single, solitary thing. I waited for the three years, for the gestation period to come about, until we got the 54 sections with the 30 amendments about a statute that none of us know anything about.
I am saying to the members of the commission that the club is over. This party will oppose this bill on third reading. Whether it is relevant or not is not of concern. The government members can laugh or do whatever they want to do about it. I am saying to the commission members that we must request that the bill go before the standing committee on the administration of justice, and they should be prepared to come and express to that committee clearly and in English what they are doing in the securities field and what the major problems are.
It is only going to be a short time, if they have not already started, before the estimates of the ministry will be before the general government committee as well, and the votes of the securities commission will be before that committee. There are a thousand and one pressures on this assembly, in its work and what it has to do. We will have a limited amount of time to deal with the commission before the estimates, let alone on this particular bill. I serve warning on the commission, not that I am going to spend every waking hour I have in concern about what the bill is about, but if the commission members want my confidence, and they probably do not give a good goddamn whether I have confidence in that commission, or whether my party has confidence in it, or whether this House has confidence in it --
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is not part of my vocabulary. It is part of yours.
Mr. Renwick: Oh, come on. Will the member for God's sake go home. Will he go home, please?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is where you should have gone quite a few hours ago.
Mr. Renwick: Why does he not go home? Will the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) for heaven's sake go back to his office, revise the assessment procedure in the province, and leave the people in my riding alone? Just leave them alone. Just stay away.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Somebody has to take care of them.
The Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the bill.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that minister has a profound capacity for irrelevant interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: I found your remarks very interesting. I sat on that committee three years ago too.
Mr. Renwick: All I am saying is that, for once and for all, I want this bill to be dealt with adequately in the standing committee on the administration of justice. I am asking the minister to commit it to that committee and I am asking that the remarks I made about the commission be understood.
There is one small ray of light about the commission although there may be others that I have not discerned in the encircling gloom. It is interesting that one of the new commissioners is Mr. Jack Blain, who was formerly the counsel to the select committee on company law. At least he has some understanding of the processes of the assembly and it may well be that he or some other member of the commission can speak to the assembly with respect, knowledge and competence on what the commission is about.
I am not going to go on at greater length on the second reading of this bill. Those are my views on the bill. We will not oppose it on second reading. We will look forward to the debate in the standing committee on administration of justice some time in January or early February, just before this particular session of the assembly is over. Then we will have an opportunity on third reading to express our views. Whether they are relevant or irrelevant, or will make any difference to the world, we will let the future take charge of that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I thank the honourable member. Does any other honourable member wish to participate in this debate? There being no other speaker, I call upon the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Honourable R.G. Elgie.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: You said that so well, Mr. Speaker. It sounds so much nicer than "Order."
The Acting Speaker: You are supposed to be speaking to Bill 176.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, if I have inadvertently not communicated my feeling about the bill to my colleagues in both opposition parties, it is that I share their view. I feel as much an amateur as the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) on this issue, perhaps more so. But, like him, I am very interested in it because it is a fascinating area and a very difficult one.
I am sure he appreciates, as does the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), that securities law, complex and involved though it may be, is something that is always evolving and changing. The commission and its advisers endeavour to respond to those changes in an appropriate way.
One thing we can say quite frankly and in all fairness is that the commission has gone out of its way to make sure there is firm and well-documented publicity about these amendments. If I may go back over the history, they were first published in December 1980. There was a general review, comments were received and they were then republished. Further comments were received and then there was a meeting with anyone who was interested for a lengthy discussion about each section. Finally, the results of those discussions were published in November 1982. Following my review and the introduction of this bill, they were published again this summer for comment.
As the member for Kitchener said, if you sounded out the industry, they would agree it has been a well-publicized bill. That does not make it any easier for us to understand it and I agree with the member for Riverdale about that.
I had always intended that the bill go to committee and I can assure members that I will be requesting that this bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.
The member for Riverdale said that the issue of takeovers, which has, indeed, been the issue before the public in the press, was not dealt with in this bill. That is true. It will be of interest to him to know that a few months ago, the present chairman appointed a committee to look into the whole issue of takeover legislation. They came in with some preliminary recommendations. The member may recall that has become known, again in the jargon of the club, as "topping up the offer." They are continuing to prepare a lengthier and more detailed report with respect to the whole issue of takeovers. That is why it is not being dealt with in this bill.
The chairman and the commission felt other issues had arisen over the years that needed to be addressed; and although it is a very lengthy and in a sense a very complicated housekeeping bill, many of the sections spring from existing regulations in the statute. Having been tried out for a period of time in regulations, they are now being brought into statute.
10 p.m.
I am assured, and I can assure members, that there will be no hesitation on the part of the commission -- I know its counsel is here this evening -- to be present at those hearings and to go over the bill section by section in great detail. If there is any information we can provide beforehand, perhaps on a section-by-section basis, I will certainly ask them to get to work on preparing it.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 177, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to introduce, for second reading, amendments to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.
As stated in the compendium that was provided with this bill, the principal purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism whereby persons who have claims or judgements against persons who are insured by a designated insurer -- for example, Pitts Insurance Co. -- may apply for payments out of the motor vehicle accident claims fund. A designated insurer is an insurer which, in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, is not paying or is unable to pay claims and which has by regulation been named as a designated insurer.
The amendments provide a procedure for making applications for payment out of the motor vehicle accident claims fund. The amendments also provide for the payment of an additional amount out of the fund where the minister receives final payment from the designated insurer in respect of a judgement that exceeds the limits of the fund.
Persons who have received the benefit of this new legislation will not have to repay the fund, and any amounts paid on their behalf, nor will they have their licences suspended because of such payments.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, in the development of means with which to deal with insurance companies in this province that are not able to meet their obligations, we have certainly required some sort of bridge to protect the policyholders. That bridge appears to be one that connects those possible claims to the ongoing mechanism we have, and that mechanism, of course, is the motor vehicle accident claims fund, which is generally known, perhaps from its earlier title, as the unsatisfied judgement fund.
Under the motor vehicle accident claims fund it is required in this province to continue a form of coverage to deal with vehicles that may be stolen, or involved in hit-and-run or unreported accidents or, indeed, that are involved in situations where the drivers or the vehicles have not been insured.
We recognize, of course, that we have compulsory automobile insurance in this province, and I am happy to have had some part in encouraging that during the involvement I had as chairman of the select committee on company law as we dealt with the enforcement of compulsory insurance in the second volume of our series of reports. In spite of the fact that we have compulsory insurance, it is necessary to have this formal opportunity to protect our residents of Ontario from those who even then do not become insured or who are otherwise involved as I have described.
We have had in Ontario in these last several years, unfortunately, circumstances in which companies -- and Pitts Insurance, of course, comes immediately to mind -- have not been able for a variety of reasons to properly meet their obligations for the coverage of insurance policies they had entered into.
We all recognize as we look at the increasing cost of insurance for motor vehicles that much of that premium depends on a variety of uncertainties the underwriter has to face. Those uncertainties are based on what parts may cost in a year or two down the line, how a jury or a judge sitting alone might deal with a variety of injuries, what sort of awards might be developed and a variety of other things that all lead to the underwriting formulas upon which premiums are based.
In looking at the premium calculation, the responsibility of the provincial authority -- and indeed we have had a superintendent of insurance in this province for more than 100 years -- has been to attempt to come to grips with the obligations of companies in the future to citizens who have paid premiums and who expect to receive a variety of coverages according to the terms of contracts.
That is really where the provinces come into this whole scene: not to attempt to set rates, not to attempt to describe in detail a variety of things a policy might or should contain, but solely to see that obligations entered into are responsibly and actuarially attended to.
I think that is a proper function for government: to make sure, when one is dealing with intangibles such as insurance coverage, that the purchase of protection is going to be properly accounted for, that reserves are going to be kept, that assets are going to be in the province and the variety of other things with which many members are familiar.
Unfortunately, we have had this experience where recently, because of underwriting and investment losses, a number of companies have been skating rather close to the edge of meeting their expected actuarial obligations in the next several years.
The increase in premiums is one way of dealing with some of this, and all of us are concerned about making sure any increases in premiums are justifiable as a result of expected and proven changes in cost structures, changes in award results and changes in repair, labour and all the other component parts that are particularly reflected in the automobile and the society that revolves around it.
As I said initially, in this bill we are attempting to find a mechanism by which a company that cannot meet its obligations will have payments to the policyholder protected and insured. That insurance almost comes from a source of last resort.
As the members are aware, in our motor vehicle licence fee, which traditionally has been $3 per year, $1 of that $3 goes to provide funding for the motor vehicle accident claims fund or, now that we are on a three-year renewal situation on our particular birth dates, $3 of the $9 goes to this fund to protect people against the variety of hazards I have outlined before.
Those hazards exist whether a person happens to be insured or not. It is a means whereby the drivers of the province are each making a very modest contribution. Even a dollar is not what it used to be in this province or anywhere else in the world, but that modest contribution clearly adds up to millions of dollars available to take care of these kinds of obligations. That is what insurance is all about. They have the opportunity of a small contribution from many people, providing a fund from which those who suffer losses are able to receive some form of compensation.
What happens when the contract is not honoured? Here we have the opportunity in this legislation to correct that particular theme, an unfortunate one but one whereby, whether it be a mutual company that has built up its capital over a variety of better-earning years, or a shareholders company the contributions to which have been made through investment, if that company cannot meet its obligations and that capital is lost or otherwise committed, it is surely up to us where we have required compulsory insurance to ensure the result of that insurance will be that people will receive the appropriate coverages that have been entered into by contract.
10:10 p.m.
I commend the minister for bringing forward this legislation so that if there are unfortunate losses through undercapitalization or through the default of corporations in the future, we will have the ability to deal with the claims that can be made appropriately by the persons who believed they were fully insured and who paid premiums to attend to that.
I will not ask the minister to attempt to deal with an explanation of the formula that appears at the bottom of page 4, where A equals J minus F in brackets times R over J. It is something with which many of the members of the House are intimately familiar, and I do not think his explanation would add much to our knowledge of the details at this point. These particular calculations of payments out of the fund, and other matters, have to be referred to in the same way that the various mechanical abilities of axles to carry certain weights must necessarily find their way into the Highway Traffic Act.
The amendment with respect to the clarification of the $100 deductible provision is also something that should be attended to, so that everyone realizes it applies only to claims related to property loss and damage. We welcome this bill in that it does clarify a particular point of insurance law which again, as it comes before this House, brings its own language, its own jargon, in the same way the Securities Act does.
As I recall, in some 77 bills for which this minister is responsible, it seems almost each one of them has its own peculiar language, its terms of art or terms of practice, and a very particular involvement in detail, whether dealing with business brokers or stuffed animals or the safety of energy transportation, a variety of themes that I dare say even the minister, in the best of his goodwill, has not fully come to grips with. Certainly those of us in the opposition, even as critics for the ministry, have had time to ponder all the varieties that deal with everything that ministry has as its responsibility.
We welcome this bill. It is an important thing to ensure that the people of this province are protected in this particular circumstance, which is a most unfortunate one. It will lead as a result not only to better legislation but also to ensuring that the coverages that have been contracted for will be attended to.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill on behalf of my party, but I do not support it with the enthusiasm the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) shows. I support it with some pretty severe reservations that I will mention as we go along.
On the surface, this bill carries out the promise the minister made to this House around the time the Pitts Insurance Co. became insolvent. I commend the minister for carrying through, for tabling the bill, and for seeing that it has some priority in the business of this House.
Certainly on the surface it provides some assistance, some security, to people who have their insurance with an insurance company that is no longer solvent. It carries out the promise of the minister so that a motorist who is involved in an accident with another motorist, who has his liability with an insurance company that cannot pay the claim, will have his claim paid.
I want to say to the minister too that we welcome the fact this is retroactive and retroactive for a good number of years, almost ad infinitum. It goes back many decades for claims that have not been settled and on which the insurance company is no longer able to pay those claims.
I do not suppose we really have any argument with the proposal that claims prior to 1977 have a limit of $100,000 rather than the present $200,000, for a variety of reasons. That seems to be fair. Of course, if we go back to before September 1969, the maximum payment is $50,000, which probably represents the true situation as existed at that time.
I also welcome the provision that it may not be necessary in many instances to sue the fund. The payments will be made as long as it is verified by the insurer or the person acting on behalf of the insurer. That all sounds very good.
There is a growing need for this. I have here an article from the Toronto Star, which I am sure the minister will have seen, dated October 21, 1982, in which the headline is, "Some Insurers Don't Pass the Tests: Consultant." The article beneath it states:
"A prominent consultant says the solvency of some general insurers is so precarious that buyers should be seeking written assurances from their brokers. Peter Armour, who advises big corporate buyers of insurance, said he would avoid some companies that are still on brokers' approved lists and suggests hard-nosed consumers -- whether buying home, car or business insurance -- should be asking about a company's solvency rating in a new report on federally registered companies."
Then it goes on to list the three companies that have become insolvent.
The article continues to say that something like 10 per cent of the companies now operating do not pass all the tests which this consultant says determine whether they are companies that are very solid financially.
There is no question that protection is needed as never before for motorists who will have done their duty in providing protection for themselves and other motorists but who find, when they come to collect, that their insurance company is no longer solvent.
There is very real need. As the member for Kitchener said, it is a trend in this province, and I guess I would say it is a very desirable trend, to provide some kind of protection to consumers against companies -- with which they are doing business or have paid in funds and which by their very nature do not give out the services immediately -- against those companies going broke, or becoming insolvent, before they collect from them.
We have the Ontario travel compensation fund which was set up by the government. I think that was a desirable move. We now have a bill before this House to establish the motor vehicle dealers compensation fund. In both of those areas, within certain limits, there are guarantees given that the consumers will not be left, in the vernacular, holding the bag because the company with which they were dealing has gone broke.
This is desirable legislation and it is needed. But I want to point out that it is needed only because of the inadequacy of the auto insurance system we have in this province. That is the only reason.
It is not necessary to have this kind of a bill in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or British Columbia, where there are public auto insurance plans. The public auto insurance plans in those provinces were instituted by New Democratic Party governments and, incidentally, kept by the Liberals and Conservatives and Social Credit because they were so effective, and they had to make those promises at election time that they would not disband their public auto insurance systems.
We would not need this bill if we had that kind of system. It is a crutch to a crippled system. What we should be doing in this province is changing the system to the provincially operated type in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
10:20 p.m.
Mr. McClellan: The first step is November 4.
Mr. Swart: Yes, the first step in this direction is November 4, and the people of this province can expect, when they get an NDP government, that they will get a public auto insurance plan like the ones they have in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, a program that will save hundreds of millions of dollars for the people of this province over a period of a very few years.
It does not matter whether we are talking about premiums. In those plans out there, the premiums are lower for the same coverage and yes, the same conditions too.
Mr. McClennan: The minister knows that is right.
Mr. Swart: Yes. And if he does not know it is right, all he has to do is read the report of the select committee on company law from 1978, where the government's own people reported on the effectiveness and the superiority of the public plans in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
They pointed out, for instance, that the administrative costs of operating the plans in those three provinces are far lower than they are here in Ontario and in the other provinces where they do not have the public systems.
On page 93 of that document of the select committee on company law in 1978, on the insurance industry, the second report on automobile insurance, it pointed out in table 5 the apparent spread of operating costs between a government insurance system and private industry in Ontario. Total estimated operating costs as a percentage of premiums earned: 21 per cent in the government system and 41 per cent in the private system, a 20 per cent differential.
It does not matter whether one is talking about the lower premiums or a faster settlement of claims because of the public system, this is all documented and there is no question about it. In fact, it does not matter whether one is talking about no-fault auto insurance, which this government adopted to some extent 20 or 30 years after they had it in Saskatchewan, instituted by the NDP government there, or whether one is talking about this type of a bill to protect the public.
It does not matter which of those one is talking about. If we had a comprehensive, provincially run auto insurance plan such as they have in those three western provinces, we would not need this bill; we would have a much better system.
In the New Democratic Party we are sometimes accused of encouraging bureaucracy and all that sort of thing. Those auto insurance plans in western Canada, apart from being so much more reasonable and providing service that is so much better, do away with a lot of the bureaucracy such as the minister is bringing in here. My God, the administration of this fund is likely to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year; that is a very real possibility with the situation we are in.
I repeat: this bill is necessary only because we have an inadequate automobile insurance system; there is no question about that. The minister is propping up a system that is pretty ineffective and pretty costly.
Another fault or shortcoming of the bill is the fact that it covers only certain types of damage or injury: third-party liability. Is that not right? The situation is, then, that a great many automobile owners are going to be involved in accidents who will get no settlement because it is a collision.
You can have a situation -- in fact, I have already had one in my area -- where a person came to see me about Pitts Insurance. He was involved in a collision in which substantial damage was done to his car; of course, that is not going to be covered under this bill.
If the minister really believes in no-fault insurance, why does he exempt that classification? A person could be involved in a collision; he could slip on the ice, go in the ditch and demolish a $10,000 car. He could be fairly seriously injured himself so that he is unable to work for a period of time. He could have losses in the neighbourhood of $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000, maybe even up to $50,000, and he would not be covered under this bill.
That is not the pattern the minister has been following with the other bills. Surely he must be aware that under his travel compensation fund you do not compensate some people and not others, yet here the minister has a bill before us that does that under the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Amendment Act, the bill that is before us. In his bill to establish a motor vehicle dealers compensation fund there is no proposal to exclude certain groups. Why does the minister do it here?
I know there will be additional costs to it, but those costs are not that great. The minister will be aware that the majority of insurance claims that are paid out to motorists are paid under the bodily injury and property damage third-party liability.
The document I have before me, which actually documents the 1981 automobile insurance experience, shows the actual loss ratio experience for private passenger automobiles, excluding farmers, in Ontario. The claims paid out under bodily injury and property damage were $562 million. Any claims under that particular section, as I understand this bill, will be covered.
But some $66 million was also paid out in accident benefits, and that will not be covered under this bill. Under collision, $259 million was paid out. Sure, that is only half as much as was paid out for bodily injury and property damage, but why should those people not be entitled to that? If their car is damaged to the tune of $5,000 or $10,000 and they have had collision insurance, why should they not be covered under this compensation bill? Why make fish of one and flesh of another?
Under comprehensive coverage, $135 million was paid out in Ontario last year. They will not be covered under this bill for that.
I repeat: there can be motorists who have adequately provided protection for themselves and paid the premiums for that, very high premiums, who now may collect nothing under this bill the government has before us this evening.
On motion by Mr. Swart, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.