LAND REGISTRATION REFORM ACT (CONCLUDED)
FARM PRODUCTS PAYMENTS AMENDMENT ACT
FARM PRODUCTS GRADES AND SALES AMENDMENT ACT
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
LAND REGISTRATION REFORM ACT (CONCLUDED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 66, An Act respecting Conveyancing Documents and Procedures and Recording of Title to Real Property.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak very briefly on this land registration bill, as did the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), first because at least some people in this assembly think we are getting into something of a time bind and we should not waste any words unless they are meaningful.
Second, this bill is highly technical. I am sure any registrar of land titles would understand the bill thoroughly because what it does is give him new machinery and new technology to perform his duties. To members of this Legislature who are not wholly familiar with the procedures, many parts of the bill have little meaning and lay members here have some difficulty in deciding whether the application of the technologies in the manner proposed is beneficial.
Third, speaking briefly, I think we all agree that the thrust of this legislation is desirable, because the attempt to modernize and update our land registration system is long overdue. Certainly our registration system currently lags far behind the technology that exists. Furthermore, we have known for decades of systems that would better serve the public, such as the land titles system, which is enforced exclusively in the western provinces of this nation and throughout much of the world. In Ontario we have been very slow to adapt to the land titles system.
I attended the opening of the new land registration building in Welland just last week. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) was there, along with some other cabinet ministers. Incidentally, the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) frequently complains, as do other members, about how all the dignitaries are up on the platform without the sitting member for the area. That is quite all right with me because it always backfires politically. Last time they did that, there was an editorial in the paper condemning the government for being so biased as not to have the sitting member there.
I want to refer to a conversation I had with the registrar. I asked him how far they had moved towards the use of the Land Titles Act. He told me that after 25 years -- I was on county council and one of those who fought to bring it in -- most, if not all, of the new registrations are coming under the Land Titles Act, but unless there had been very major problems in an area, there was no general swing to the land titles use.
It seems to me that because the system is so superior for the public, the government should take action to encourage putting our land in this province under land titles for the sake of land owners. I am not going to take time to go into what I think are the real benefits of land titles, but we certainly move very slowly in that field.
In this beautiful new land registration office -- which involved an expenditure of $1.4 million, if I remember correctly, by the government of Ontario -- we saw the same old files and practically the same old filing system and documents that were there when I was on county council almost 30 years ago.
I think we can do better than that. Quite frankly, I believe the reason we have not moved ahead much more rapidly in the modernization and updating of our land registration system and in moving to land titles is that the government has been protecting the legal fraternity to a very substantial extent.
I see the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) on the other side shaking his head and waving his hand. I want to point out that when we tried to get the land titles system into Welland county, it was the legal fraternity that fought it coming in. Everyone else was in favour of it because everyone knew how beneficial it was, but not the legal fraternity.
I would not want to say that all members of the legal fraternity were opposed to it, but there were enough of them, a majority, who wanted to have the opportunity to go on searching titles with all that cost to the purchaser of land as it changes hands instead of having the guarantee under the land titles system. There is no question that it has been, to some extent at least, the lawyers and their association who have prevented us from moving into the 20th century on our land registration system.
As the member for Huron-Middlesex stated, one of the problems of our present system is knowing who even owns the property in this province. All of us are aware of the tremendous disadvantage there was in the Cadillac Fairview transaction because we did not know who the real owners were. I guess we still do not know. Perhaps the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), when he gets up to speak -- because he looks as though he is going to get on his feet -- will tell us who the real owners are. But after all that, we do not know who the real owners are. That situation exists, as the member for Huron-Middlesex said, to a very substantial degree. It has moved in the last few years to the farm land of this province.
Concerning the numbered companies, I concede that we now have a declaration whereby the government says foreign owners must declare their interest in land when they acquire it. But there is no real way of forcing them to do that, because we really do not know; they can buy into a numbered corporation and not declare their interest. This government has no way of finding out and forcing Ontario ownership of the farm land we have.
I am not going to repeat what the member for Huron-Middlesex said, but I was concerned enough about this issue that I introduced a private member's bill back on April 10. Of course, the Corporations Act has to be changed to make the disclosure and prevention of foreign ownership of our farm lands fully operative, but I introduced a private member's bill that would much more effectively prevent the foreign ownership of our land and provide for the disclosure of the foreign ownership of our land.
8:10 p.m.
Something like 173,000 acres of our land, according to the government's own figures, are now owned by nonresidents of this nation, people who are not citizens of this province or even of this nation. That may not sound like a lot, but when we realize that is our best farm land, it means something like 1.5 per cent of our prime farm land is foreign-owned.
That may not be as serious as it is in other provinces, but it is going to become much more serious because the other provinces have taken action to prevent it. Therefore, any foreigners who wish to purchase land in this country will now be coming to Ontario. Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and most of the other provinces have legislation. Those four even have legislation to prevent out-of-province ownership of land over a 10-hectare limit; I am not sure I agree with that. We need that kind of legislation. The farmers feel we need it too.
After I introduced my private member's bill in the Legislature, I received a copy of a letter from the Elgin County Federation of Agriculture. This letter was addressed to the Premier (Mr. Davis). Copies were sent to the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), the member for Huron-Middlesex, myself, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and Harry Pelissero, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I will read two or three paragraphs.
"Dear Mr. Davis:
"It has been brought to our attention that Mel Swart, the NDP agriculture critic in the Legislative Assembly, has tabled a private member's bill designed to sharply curtail nonresident foreign ownership of Ontario farm land.
"We are aware that without unanimous consent, this bill will not be debated in the Legislature. Therefore, we respectfully request you to put aside partisan politics for the moment and support this bill. We are of the firm opinion that this legislation is immediately required in order to conserve the family farm as we now know it. This legislation is of the utmost importance."
There are several other paragraphs. The final paragraph says, "In closing, I would again strongly urge you to support this bill because we believe it is urgently required in Ontario today."
Even if the government were to adopt this bill, the first requirement for making it effective would be a registration system so we would know who the owners of the land and properties are.
We in this party are going to support Bill 66 because it does move us ahead a few decades, although belatedly. We should have had this bill 20 years ago, but we have it now and even though it is late, we in the New Democratic Party are not going to vote against it.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the participation of members on all sides of the House in this debate on a very important piece of legislation, the significance of which is probably lost sight of because of some of the more immediate and equally important legislation that has been before the House in recent days.
As the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) indicated, this legislation has been in process for some time. It has evolved over a considerable period of time; a time frame of 15 years, no less. I think it is only fitting and proper that I touch briefly on the evolutionary process during that period so the members have a full appreciation and understanding of the significance and importance of this legislation which we hope we will be enacting before the conclusion of this session of the Legislature.
I cannot think of another piece of legislation that has had the involvement of so many people over such a prolonged period of time. While the matter has been of particular interest not only to members of this Legislature down through the years but also to members of the legal profession, the real thrust and purpose of this legislation is to provide a better land registration system for the benefit of the people of Ontario.
As an example of the ongoing interest that has been shown in the progress of this legislation over the years, I think it was the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) who in estimates after estimates over the years has always seen fit to inquire about the progress of this legislation, as I have had the opportunity to do as well. I think it is indicative of the continuing high interest in seeing this principle of a new land registration system brought to fruition in a meaningful, workable fashion.
I know the member for Oxford has had a particular interest in this legislation. I have certainly taken into consideration his interest and concerns in bringing this legislation forward, because I know his interest arises not only out of his professional involvement as a member of the bar but also by reason of the fact that the prototype system was launched in his own bailiwick.
The prototype system we have developed to date, and which will be launched officially with the enactment of this legislation, has been evolving within the registry office in the city of Woodstock. I have sought his counsel and have been most pleased, as has the minister, with his continuing interest and involvement in this process.
The process began long before many of us, including myself and the member of Oxford, were even in this Legislature. I might very briefly point out that it all began back in the late 1960s when the Ontario Law Reform Commission, under the mandate that it had under the Ontario Law Reform Commission Act, decided it would embark upon a major undertaking to assess land registration in this province. It was a very masterful and significant work that was authored through a period of two or three years, emerging in 1971 as a report that launched, at least in concept, the program we hope to put in place in a very practical, working way this week after the enactment of this legislation.
There were three major proposals that emerged from that report. First, the recommendation was to improve the form of legal documentation, to modernize and simplify it and probably follow as precedent the type of forms that are used in other neighbouring jurisdictions within our own country, such as the western provinces referred to by the member for Welland-Thorold, and other jurisdictions where the land titles system operates. Even though we have the dual system of land titles and registry system, there is no reason why the legal forms in use cannot be simplified and modernized to adapt to both systems. Indeed, this is what we are about here with this legislation.
8:20 p.m.
Another of the major recommendations was that the form of legal documentation be modernized and simplified and that we move into the computer age, because even back in 1971 there was enough foresight by the members of that committee to see that the technological age was moving very quickly and that we were going to lose the benefit of it if we did not start to participate at the early stages.
This recognition and concern at the time arose out of the fact that the number of registrations occurring in the province were growing at an alarming rate. The registrars were sending the message very strongly into Queen's Park that their inability to cope and keep pace with the degree of activity in the heyday of land purchases and other land transactions was stressing the system, to say the least.
This was an extremely important direction in which to recommend change. In concert with that was the need to develop a more sophisticated mapping system. This system has been embarked upon in our eastern neighbouring provinces in the Maritimes where some considerable degree of success and progress has been made with regard to developing the co-ordinate and mapping system. We will be mirroring that type of mapping progress here in Ontario with the enactment of this legislation.
These were three major considerations proposed by the Ontario Law Reform Commission at the time that gave reason for the ministry then to -- did you wish to say something, Mr. Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): No, the honourable member has the floor.
Mr. Nixon: He wanted to know if this is a filibuster.
Mr. Williams: I am just getting warmed up.
We moved then to stage 2. As we move to the enactment of this legislation, I hope this week, with the support of the members of the opposition and all members of the House, we will actually be at stage 6, the most important and significant stage of all.
Moving from the Ontario Law Reform Commission report to the involvement of the property rights division of our ministry, stage 2 was the next significant step. It was determined at that stage that such a major undertaking as had been recommended by the commission had to be analysed from a practical point of view of whether it was achievable in a very practical way and beyond the conceptual stage.
It was, therefore, the responsibility of the property rights division in 1971 to embark upon a feasibility study, which it did in earnest and with vigour. It took another six years to develop a massive concepts report that produced all the necessary information that would ensure this was not only a conceptually sound program but also one that realistically would improve the land registration system in this province. It was achievable from a cost point of view and from an administrative point of view.
The concepts report issued by the property rights division in 1977 did recommend two basic things. First, the technology to be applied was built into the report and should be pursued. They thought it was the appropriate type of technology. Second, their concepts report showed the program could be implemented and properly funded with the strategy they proposed in their report. That was stage 2, another very significant development in the historical evolution of the reform of the land registration system.
I have to stress, and I think the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) in particular will be interested to know when I respond to the specific matters he raised in the debate the other day, one of the major considerations was whether or not, at the same time as revising and modernizing the system, we should move immediately to the land titles system.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If you use your calculator, you will find there are only 12 members here. Maybe you would like to call a quorum.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.
8:29 p.m.
The Acting Speaker: I am informed that there is now a quorum. We invite the member for Oriole, who had the floor, to continue.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I resume the process of saying, particularly to the member for Prescott-Russell, one of the important decisions made in 1977 within the concepts report was that a conversion of the system to the land titles system would be deferred until after the existing systems had been automated, so that a valid cost-benefit comparison could then be made.
It is important that the member for Prescott-Russell bear this in mind, because members will recall he asked a number of questions the other evening as to why we had not gone directly to the land titles system and converted the registry system at that time. I will be speaking further on that, but the decision was made in 1977 that the conversion to a total land titles system would be deferred until this system had proven itself, particularly on a cost-benefit basis.
That took us through stage 2, and it was stage 3 that brought us to review by the cabinet and the approval emanating therefrom in 1979. That was the next significant and important stage in the evolving of this system. This, of course, gave the green light to the property rights division of the ministry to proceed with haste to set up a prototype system known as the province of Ontario land registration and information system, so that it could move from the drawing board to an operations mode.
It is with thanks to many dedicated and hardworking people that the Polaris system, which is the term used as an acronym for the province of Ontario land registration and information system, moved into high gear at that time.
Under the directorship of Norm Harris of the Polaris staff, a small group of dedicated people within the legal section, such as Bob Blomsma, Gillian Burton and Peter Wechselmann, along with operations people such as Steve Manol, the survey people under Ray Scott and the systems people under Andy Datlen, have worked tirelessly to bring this system into an operational mode.
They are to be given a great deal of credit for bringing us from the drawing board to a working system, but they need this legislation to complete the job. This is the beginning of a new era and a new stage of the proceedings that will bring this system truly into operation throughout Ontario.
While the prototype was being developed as stage 4, in conjunction with that legislation was being developed to help to modernize the system. In conjunction with the establishment of the prototype, two bills were enacted in 1981 and 1982 respectively that helped to modernize the registration system. I refer specifically to the Registry Amendment Act, enacted in 1981, which in effect was to shorten title searching for users of the system.
This was accomplished in two ways. First, it limited the title search to a specific 40-year period, whereas prior thereto one had to ensure there was good title for at least 40 years. As many of us who have practised real estate law over the years know, on occasion one would have to search back even beyond the 40-year period in order to make good title.
The period was set at 40 years. Therefore, with the enactment of this bill, one did not have to search back beyond that period.
At the same time, it eliminated a great deal of paperwork in the system because it eliminated all discharges of mortgages from the registry. Lawyers no longer had to be continually drawing out mortgages and discharges of mortgages for inspection to ensure that title was or was not encumbered by this type of security document. With the ruling off of the mortgages, it has significantly cut down the paperwork and is therefore, in itself, a cost-efficient move.
The second piece of complementary legislation enacted was the Certification of Titles Amendment Act in 1982. This legislation provided that a certificate could be issued to guarantee, in effect, the title behind registered plans of subdivision. Lawyers would no longer have to search behind the registered plans of subdivisions which came under the Certification of Titles Act.
While the original Certification of Titles Act had been enacted at an earlier time, the amending act gave the initiative to the registry system and the operators of the system to speed up the process by bringing existing plans of subdivision under the Certification of Titles Act.
Those were the five historical steps taken to bring us to the landmark action we are taking here today with the hoped-for enactment of Bill 66. This bill will take us into the computer age for land registration purposes.
In moving in this direction, the member for Prescott-Russell addressed himself specifically to the bill the other day. He dealt with the very major concerns he, I and others have shared as to the benefits and the related cost-benefits of the system. While this revolutionary move will be of benefit to the people of Ontario, first and foremost we had to satisfy ourselves that the system was going to be cost-efficient.
It was the member for Prescott-Russell who really pursued these extremely important matters in the House the other day. I would now like to specifically address my reply to the concerns and questions he raised. After having done so, I would hope the members of the House will see the bill moves into committee and we can deal with the more specific aspects of the legislation at that time. I will have one specific amendment to put forward when we move into committee.
However, before doing so, I want to deal a little further with the principle of the bill and deal specifically with the matters raised by the member for Prescott-Russell. It will not take me as long to deal with those matters raised by the other members who have participated in the debate. I find many of their concerns were somewhat peripheral to the main thrust and purpose of this legislation, although I will comment briefly on their concerns as well.
The member for Prescott-Russell initially asked how long it would take for the system to be implemented throughout the whole of the province.
Is he waving a flag of surrender there? Bear with me.
Mr. Ruston: Hang out the white flag. We will give in. We want to get the minister's bill done.
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Williams: That is right. I am sorry, but I think the member for Prescott-Russell deserves nothing but the best in the way of a detailed response and he shall have it.
Interjections.
Mr. Williams: Another one. They are coming out of the trenches. This is indeed heartening, and it is not even a controversial bill. It reminds me of the Wine Content Act that we were debating here a few weeks back.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member will speak to the bill. Do not get sidetracked.
Mr. Williams: The answer to the member's question on how long it would take to implement the system throughout the whole of the province is approximately 12 to 15 years. I hasten to clarify that this is to implement the modernization or computerization of the system and to put on stream the new set of forms that would be put into use throughout the province. This is not dealing with the conversion of the registry system into land titles, for the reasons I had told members earlier. That is a determination that will be made after this system has proved itself after a short period of time in place.
The member had expressed concern about how long it would take to have the forms available throughout the whole of the province. There are two aspects of it. One is to get the computerized system totally operational. It will be isolated for the immediate future in the registry office system in the Woodstock area, but we hope to be moving out of that area within the year and into other registry offices to set up the system. But as far as the use of the new, simplified forms is concerned, we hope those forms can be officially put into use throughout the province within the coming year.
Mr. Boudria: I wanted to know how long it would take to setup the whole system throughout the province.
Mr. Williams: As I have indicated twice, it will take a period of between 12 and 15 years to have it operational across the province. I will explain the time frame in a moment or two.
The member had inquired whether we were planning to do something similar to what has been done in the maritime provinces. In fact, he appeared to have the impression that a system like this was in place and operating in the maritime provinces. That is not factually correct. They are very much in the conceptual stage of considering this system in the Maritimes. While a great deal of money has been spent in the Maritimes -- and I do not question the $78 million the member suggested may have been spent up to this point to develop that system in the Maritimes -- in fact, they are still not off the drawing board.
The $78 million is approximately correct from the information I am able to obtain from my officials. That money is largely made up of federal funds that have been injected into the development of the system under the equalization grants program that the federal authorities have had in place.
That program has been in process for some 15 years in the Maritimes. It so happens that they have been concentrating on the development of the co-ordinated mapping system and their survey system has been given high priority. With regard to the development of forms and the computerization of the registration system itself, they are still very much behind where we are.
I know the members are anxious that I put before the House the full details of the system in response to the member's detailed concerns, but I hope to be able to accomplish that within the next 15 minutes so the House leader will not be too thrown off with regard to the scheduling of other legislation this evening.
In addressing the other specific points the member had raised, I would point out that the $78 million that appears to have been spent over the past 15 years in the Maritimes does not overshadow the $3 million we have spent on the system in the past three years. I think the costs are probably comparable if we could equate it to the same time period.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I hate to interfere again, but the member keeps driving everyone out. Would you call a quorum. Let the Tories suffer with us.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.
8:49 p.m.
The Acting Speaker: I am pleased to inform the members we have a quorum.
Mr. Williams: I have just received a note of unconditional surrender from the other side. In five minutes I wish to address the remaining issues raised by the member for Prescott-Russell.
He asked me in the House the other day what the total costs of the system would be. It is guesstimated it would cost at least $30 million to put the existing system totally into place. It would be at least double that if we tried to convert to the land titles system. It could run anywhere from $60 million to $100 million. That is why we have to proceed very cautiously towards the land titles system at this time.
The total cost of the system is estimated to be about $30 million, but there are cross-benefits to be received in savings incurred. On another occasion I hope we will have an opportunity to debate that at some length. To some extent, members will have to support the legislation on blind trust this evening because I do not have the time to give all the cost figures, but I will send over a breakdown of what it has cost to date for the program.
It is $4.2 million, and the cost of the prototype operation in the Woodstock office has run to $315,000 in this part of the program. These are some of the specific cost figure responses that I am providing to the member for Prescott-Russell. It is hoped we can have the new forms available for distribution throughout Ontario and the system under way early in the new year. As we move into stage 6, this will be a giant step forward in the reform of the land registration system in Ontario.
There is one amendment that will be introduced in the committee stage. It is a technical amendment pertaining to section 25 of the act, and I will send a copy of it to the members opposite. It simply corrects a typographical error. The first line in subsection 25(2) refers to striking out subsection 22(25). It should read "subsection 25(26)."
With those few brief comments, I will let the matter move to committee stage.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.
House in committee of the whole.
LAND REGISTRATION REFORM ACT
Consideration of Bill 66, An Act respecting Conveyancing Documents and Procedures and Recording of Title to Real Property.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Gillies): Any comments, questions or amendments to Bill 66.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, the explanatory note in the bill speaks for itself. It shows the breakdown of the legislation in part I dealing with the new documentation I discussed at some length when speaking to the principle of the bill.
The Acting Chairman: Would the parliamentary assistant speak to a section of the bill, please? We are in clause by clause.
Mr. Williams: Part II deals with the automated recording and property mapping, which is the extremely important cost consideration feature of the bill. The appropriate part III deals with the necessary amendments to other land registration legislation. I would only be putting the amendment I referred to a moment ago to subsection 25(2) to correct a technical error in the draft bill.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make a number of remarks, but I think I will refrain so we can get this business done. This one-man filibuster by the parliamentary assistant has gone on for one hour.
Mr. Cureatz: You never do it.
Mr. Martel: I am only here to make sure things run smoothly. I could speak for an hour. If I am provoked, I might well do that. I have a private member's bill dealing with land registration in Orders and Notices. It has to do with guaranteeing that we know who is buying up property in Ontario, particularly farm lands. A number of years ago I sat on the select committee which made a whole series of recommendations. But I will refrain.
What worries me is this opening statement. I would say to the government House leader we are falling into a trap. These opening statements on the clause-by-clause study of a bill got him in trouble once on another piece of legislation, and it has been repeated again tonight. I suggest once the chair recognizes --
Hon. Mr. Wells: There should not be opening statements.
Mr. Martel: You did not, but my friend did. The government creates the opportunity to make another speech ad infinitum.
The Acting Chairman: Could I ask the member --
Mr. Martel: Please do not interfere. The member made the opening statement. You invited it, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting Chairman: Order. I have asked members that we not compound any problems at this point, that we speak to sections of the bill. We are in clause by clause.
Mr. Martel: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. You made the same mistake the last chairman did. You asked if there were any introductory remarks. We do not have any introductory remarks. The only one who had them was my friend. You invite long, needless, lengthy debates by doing that. It is not in the rules, to my knowledge.
The Acting Chairman: I would ask members for questions or comments on the clauses.
Mr. Boudria: Could the parliamentary assistant enlighten us? If one reads this amendment, it refers to subsection 25(2), but subsection 25(2) of which section?
The Acting Chairman: We are on page 35, subsection 25(2). It is part IV of the bill.
Sections 1 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 25:
The Acting Chairman: Mr. William moves that subsection 25(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "subclause 25" in the first line and inserting "subclause 26" in lieu thereof.
9 p.m.
Motion agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.
FARM PRODUCTS PAYMENTS AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved second reading of Bill 104, An Act to amend the Farm Products Payments Act.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit for second reading the Farm Products Payments Amendment Act, which will extend its application to include farm produce stored under the Grain Elevator Storage Act. In addition, this legislation will assist in establishing the legal framework to allow the government to put in place by regulation, producer protection funds for corn and soybeans. This act will work in concert with the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act.
These protection funds are essential to the long-term security of our grain producers. They represent a continuation of a trend towards financial protection for Ontario's food producers that began in the 1960s with the creation of the first of these funds, for milk. Subsequent financial protection funds have been set up for egg and beef cattle producers and, earlier this year, for producers of vegetables for processing.
Existing financial protection programs generally include four elements: the licensing of dealers or buyers, proof of the financial responsibility of dealers, mandatory payment periods and an industry-financed fund to compensate sellers in the event of a default. This act is the legal basis for the protection funds.
Furthermore, the Farm Products Payments Amendment Act will also allow the cost of assuming the financial responsibility of the dealer to be paid by the fund, because financial responsibility is of course the key condition of the granting of a licence. Without this provision, the costs of these assessments would have to borne by the government, and it is our aim to make these protection programs self-supporting.
This act and the regulations that will follow, will provide the financial protection that both this government and the industry feel is vital to its future. Indeed, these measures have been brought forward in response to the requests of, and in consultation with, corn and soybean producers.
I commend this piece of legislation to my colleagues in the House as a necessary and important step towards extending the umbrella of financial protection to Ontario producers of corn and soybeans.
Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I know this bill has nothing to do with the payment for milk, but I have been bothered all night about the term that was used this afternoon to refer to our good Premier (Mr. Davis), Buttermilk Bill. I thought it was a real discredit to the Premier until I got thinking about it, and I thought maybe it is an appropriate term because buttermilk is milk lacking the ingredient that gives it substance, and that is the reason it takes on kind of a bluish tinge.
Anyway, getting back to the bill, it is somewhat annoying to have these bills come into the Legislature for speedy passage at the last minute, just before the summer adjournment, when I consider the time that was lost before the introduction of the budget, when we did absolutely nothing around here, and when I consider the amount of time the minister had to introduce this legislation. I can go as far back as June 1983, when we were debating the Grain Elevator Storage Act, at which time I stated -- and if the minister wants to check Hansard, he can -- it was imperative that a fund be established for the protection of farmers in the case of default of payment.
The minister looked upon it very lightly at that time -- I am going to have more to say about it as I get along in my remarks -- but unfortunately it took the financial collapse of Niagara Grain and Feed Ltd. to convince the minister that the Grain Elevator Storage Act, passed in June 1983, was nothing more than show-window legislation. I said so at the time we debated the act, and my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), who knew what he was talking about, also said it was nothing more than show-window legislation.
I am sure that company going into receivership must have been extremely embarrassing for the minister, so much so that he realized his obligation and moral responsibility to compensate the affected farmers for their losses.
As I have already stated, during the latter part of 1983, a company by the name of Niagara Grain and Feed Ltd. in Smithville went into receivership. Some 87 farmers who had grain stored at the elevators, and others who sold grain to the elevator and were left with worthless cheques, remained without payment for their product and with no answers from the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) to the number of serious questions surrounding the collapse of the elevator company.
The Minister of Agriculture and Food assured farmers at the annual meeting of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on November 29, 1983, that this was the first time the Ontario Grain Elevator Storage Act was to be tested, and unless it was challenged in the court, it should not take long for the farmers to recover the money.
It did not take long for the minister to discover that farmers had little protection in the case of default of payment. As in the past, the minister created a false sense of security among farmers with statements that led them to believe their financial interest would be protected in cases such as this.
The minister stated in the Legislature on February 18, 1983, in introducing the Grain Elevators Storage Act, "It would further protect the producer in sales transactions by declaring that the owner retains title to the grain until he receives his money."
The report of the government's own financial protection task force in March 1977 stated:
"It is important that any legislation concerning preferred credit status of farm products be effective rather than merely appear to be effective. Illusory protection is probably more harmful to a farmer's long-run financial interest than no protection at all. Under a no-protection situation, he tends to operate by prudent business practices, while under illusory protection, even the prudent manager is lulled into a false sense of security. The financial protection task force believes the adoption of illusory priority credit status measures is unfair to farmers, legislators and the buyers of farm products."
Moreover, this case is another example of the government's failed regulatory function similar to the collapse of a number of trust and investment companies over the past three years. A warning to the ministry by a trucker-broker some four weeks prior to the receivership went unheeded, and the licence of this elevator company was renewed by the ministry shortly before its collapse which allowed it to remain in operation during the harvest season. We will likely have a little more to say about that when we get on to the next bill, the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act.
9:10 p.m.
During the summer of 1983, the Minister of Agriculture and Food warned farmers that when they bought machinery at auction sales, they should be aware that if there was a lien on the item they would lose title to the equipment even though they had paid for it. The minister's statements about retaining title to the grain until paid for created the illusion that the farmers had a lien on the grain until they received their money. To their sorrow, the farmers found this belief to be an illusion.
We in the Liberal Party labelled the Grain Elevator Storage Act as show-window legislation when it was debated on June 21, 1983. The farmers soon learned it was nothing more than show-window legislation, and it was certainly up to the minister to share some of the loss which, to give him credit, he did. Rather than act, the minister reacted, which is very typical of this government's procedure, but at least we now have the fund my colleagues and I called for more than a year ago.
Basically, the amendment we are dealing with tonight will allow the minister to establish a financial protection fund, through regulation, to cover not only losses from the sale of corn but also losses from corn in storage. If corn happens to go missing from the elevator storage, for whatever reason, producers will still get back 90 per cent of the crop value. This protection is designed to avoid such situations as the Niagara Grain and Food receivership last year about which, I repeat, the minister must certainly be embarrassed.
It is of concern to us that this legislation has taken so long to be introduced, in the last minutes before this Legislature recesses. The minister will recall that during the debate on the second reading of the Grain Elevator Storage Act, on June 21,1983, we on this side of the House told him his amendments were certainly lacking as far as a financial protection fund was concerned.
Picking up the Hansard of June 21, 1983, I will read a quote from my statement when we were debating the Grain Elevator Storage Act, "I regret very much having to say, however, that the minister's amendments to the Grain Elevator Storage Act, as found in Bill 40, is nothing more than show-window legislation."
A little further on, I said: "We take issue with this bill because no fund has been established to which moneys can be directed whereby, in the case of bankruptcies, the producers who have sent their grain to the elevators for storage will receive their payment if the grain elevator operator happens to go bankrupt."
All through my debate I talked about this fund, which was most important for the protection of producers who were either selling grain or putting grain in storage. Then the New Democratic Party opposition critic got up and said, "I find myself supporting in principle the comments made by the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell); however, I am a little bit confused about them."
Mr. Martel: We want higher interest rates.
Mr. Ruston: Why would the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) not come in and vote on it?
Mr. Martel: Come on, give us some higher interest rates.
Mr. Riddell: Just listen. If it takes all night, I will say what I have to say. The NDP opposition critic said, "I find myself supporting in principle the comments made by the member for Huron-Middlesex; however, I am a little bit confused about them." That is not uncommon. He went on to say, "...it seems the intent of this bill is that the producer retain title to his grain while it is in the elevator until it is paid for."
The member for Kent-Elgin interjected and asked, "What if there is no money behind it?" The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) replied: "He still retains title to the grain. I think it is a little different from the situation where the farmer sells his produce, they process it, then there is a bankruptcy and obviously he cannot get his produce back. But this bill, as I understand it, provides title to the farmer for his grain until it is paid for. Therefore, it does not have the same need, I would suggest, as other areas of bankruptcies, because if he owns that grain -- "
I interjected, asking what happens if the grain is squandered. The New Democratic Party critic said: "He owns it. That is what the legislation is for and what I understand they inspect it for. The whole purpose of the legislation is to ensure that he owns that grain until it is paid for."
Here is an example of where the minister not only had the wool pulled over the eyes of the producers but also had the wool pulled over the eyes of the NDP critic. The NDP critic thought this bill would give the producers the kind of protection they needed.
My colleague the member for Kent-Elgin and I were trying to tell him all through that debate in June that legislation would do absolutely nothing to protect the producer in the case of defaulted payment, and it was proven with the bankruptcy of Niagara Grain and Feed Ltd.
I suppose what finally convinced the minister that he should be introducing some kind of legislation whereby a fund would be established was the visit by the Ontario Corn Producers' Association on April 11, 1984. They visited with members of the various caucuses to get their assistance for the creation of a financial protection plan to protect farmers from default in the sale and storage of commercial grain corn.
It took a debate in June 1983 where we in the Liberal Party insisted that a fund be established, the bankruptcy of a fairly large company that sells and stores grain and a visit by the Ontario Corn Producers' Association to finally convince the minister there had to be a fund established to protect the producers of grain from default of payment.
Now that we have the fund established, we certainly do give credit to the minister for eventually seeing the light and bringing in legislation, although at the last minute. I am certainly pleased we are dealing with it now rather than after we come back from the summer recess. The chances are that it would be too late then to really benefit the producers, because the grain harvest will be starting at that time.
We have the legislation before us and I do not think I need to tell the minister we are supporting it. It is something we should have had last year for the protection of those farmers who probably took quite a loss, although the minister did come to their aid. I thank him for it, but some of these producers probably took a loss they would not have taken had the legislation been in place last year.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my party to support this legislation, which meets a request by the corn producers to establish a financial protection plan such as there is at present for eggs, some livestock, milk and cream, and more lately vegetables for processing. It also provides that the fund can pay -- and I have some reservations about this -- for the cost of determining the financial responsibility, because that can use up a lot of money. It applies to grain in storage, or at least to the corn that will be in storage; of course, we are very supportive of that in this party.
9:20 p.m.
I recognize it is necessary for the minister to produce and gazette the regulations. In fact, the legislation we are passing is meaningless, as was the legislation passed to amend the Grain Elevator Storage Act last year, unless regulations are produced and gazetted. One year after that bill was passed, we still do not have the regulations and therefore the legislation has not yet been proclaimed.
When the minister gets up to reply to those of us who speak on this bill, I hope he will give us some indication when the regulations will be produced and gazetted, and whether they will apply to both corn and soybeans or, for that matter, any of the other grains. We want some details and some commitments from the minister this time, after the negligence by he and his ministry in producing regulations for the amendments to the Grain Elevator Storage Act which was passed last year.
We want to compliment the Ontario Corn Producers' Association for getting a handle on the corn industry so quickly in the short 18 months it has been in business. Even if it is at the end of the session and even if we did pass legislation a couple of weeks ago relating to financial support for the association so it can continue its work, I have no doubt this legislation is before us now because of the collapse of the elevator at Niagara Grain and Feed Ltd. in Smithville. The minister is very embarrassed and has moved a little further in this direction and at a little greater speed than he otherwise would have done if that had not taken place.
The member for Huron-Middlesex took great pains to read into the record the comments I made when we debated the amendments to the Grain Elevator Storage Act. I want to say that we clearly have a separate issue before us tonight. It does not matter what kind of amendments we moved at that time; we could not have introduced an insurance plan. We were told it at the time and it could have been fact if the minister had produced the appropriate regulations in time.
There would have been protection for those who had sold their grain to the elevator. They would not have had to pay out the $280,000. I think my figure is about right, is it not? The government paid out some $280,000 to the farmers who had sold their grain to the Smithville elevator.
Mr. Martel: Do you need a rest?
Mr. Swart: Is the member for Sudbury East going to call for a quorum again?
Mr. Martel: You might want to count the members again. Do not count the Speaker. Get off the nonsense. They waited until the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) got in. There were 18. I checked twice. Do not play the game with me.
The Deputy Speaker: With all due respect --
Mr. Lane: Look who is playing games.
Mr. Martel: Darned right. If the government wants to sit at night it should have enough members in here. Take a look where they are from. Most of them are from out of town.
The Deputy Speaker: I was at the table. I did a count and things were in order. The member for Welland-Thorold will please continue.
Mr. Swart: I can understand the feeling of our House leader. We have a few more members on the other side tonight, but for most of the evening the Conservative benches have been much more sparsely populated, as a proportion of their members, than either of the opposition parties. That is not abnormal in this House. It is not abnormal to have no cabinet ministers in here, or only one or two, when very important debates are taking place.
I was speaking about the collapse of the elevator at Smithville and the fact that if the legislation had been passed, the regulations proclaimed and the appropriate regulations tabled, the government would not have had to pay out the kind of money it had to pay out. The government may dispute it, but the simple fact is the government could have tabled the kind of regulations that would have prevented that payout.
I recognize there are two ways of providing security to the producer in these transactions. One is the insurance program, which will provide security even in case of fraud. The other is the type of legislation that will require the elevator operators and the other dealers in grain to issue cheques that do not bounce.
As the minister well knows, about a month ago I tabled a private member's bill that would require the owner of the elevator to pay either in cash or by certified cheque. If he paid by an ordinary draft against a bank, the producer would retain title to his grain for up to 10 days. This would prevent the probability that the elevator owner would be issuing cheques that were going to bounce. He would not dare do it because he would be in a position of fraud.
There are two aspects to this. One is to ensure the elevator operator does not sell grain before he owns it, as apparently was done in the case at Smithville. Then there is the insurance program we have before us tonight, which will provide that regardless of what may happen to the dealer financially, the producer will get his money.
Corn producers do not feel the legislation we have before us is the ultimate in all respects, but they are anxious to have this legislation passed to get in place, before the fall season, some assurance that they will not be caught by a bankrupt purchaser as has happened in many other commodities.
I too have some concerns about the intent of the legislation, which will levy the total insurance premium against the farmers. This is in contravention of the general insurance programs where the dealers also have to take some responsibility and pay some levy.
9:30 p.m.
I am aware the minister has the power, under the Farm Products Payments Act as it exists, to levy against the dealer as well, but the corn producers are not asking for this and I think I am correct in saying it is the understanding, at least at this time, that there will be no levy against the dealers and that is one reason the dealers have no objection to this legislation.
I am sure the minister agrees with me that in the long term the dealers themselves have some obligation to pay part of the premium, that farmers should not be paying the whole shot for their insurance, especially when the legislation we have before us provides that the dealer gets some insurance as well. A dealer also, if he does not get payment when he sells the grain, can apparently, according to this legislation, lay a claim against the fund. It just seems a little bit unjust that a dealer who pays no premium can get reimbursement out of this fund.
I know the reasons for it, and we are voting for this legislation because if the farmers had insisted there be a premium against the dealers it would have delayed the bill longer. They are willing to take this risk and perhaps an unfair levy so we can get this legislation in at the present time to apply to this year. I am supporting it because I understand that, but I hope when the minister gets up he will make some comments about his longer-term intention with regard to the levying of the premiums for this insurance for the producers in this province.
Because of this situation, my party and I will be supporting this legislation. I just want to conclude by saying once again that the Ontario Corn Producers' Association should be commended, not only for moving so rapidly in getting protective legislation and legislation that will permit it to finance its own organization but also for its willingness at this time to pay perhaps somewhat unfair levies to get the plan into effect.
I just want to say to the minister that in the passage of this legislation, which we are supporting, I hope he will take a look at the private member's bill I submitted, because it could be very valuable companion legislation to this.
There is, I suggest, some danger that when we have this insurance program in place for the corn producers so that they will be reimbursed regardless of bankruptcy, bad management or whatever may take place with regard to the elevators, the elevator operators and dealers may not be quite as careful as they would be if such legislation were not in place. Some of them may be more apt to sell grain that is not their own, to go deeper into debt than they otherwise would or to sell grain they do not yet own.
Therefore, because of this probability that the dealers will not operate their businesses in as good a business manner as they would have if this legislation were not in place, I suggest that my bill, which would require them to have the funds there to pay the farmer, is a very necessary appendage to what we have before us this evening.
Mr. Riddell: Oh ye of so little faith.
Mr. Swart: Yes, and we are people of small interest rates. You have never heard this party justify the high interest rates for farmers, as the member for Huron-Middlesex did. No, we think there should be intervention to --
Interjections.
Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The information the member has provided is factually incorrect, but regardless of what one says about interest rates, at least I did not call farmers prostitutes as the member for Welland-Thorold did when he suggested that anyone who deals in a futures market is comparable to a prostitute. I wanted to have that copy of Hansard here.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Riddell: He has called farmers a bunch of prostitutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. That language is simply not permissible.
Mr. Riddell: It is in Hansard.
The Deputy Speaker: It may be, but it is not permissible to repeat it.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I did not say that. Even if it was said, that is unparliamentary and the member should retract that statement.
The Deputy Speaker: The member really ought to lift it from his use.
Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, as sure as I am standing here -- and I shall bring it down the next time I come --
Mr. Martel: Show it now.
Mr. Riddell: It is quoted in Hansard that he said anyone who deals in futures --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Take your seat please. A dispute between two members is not something the chair is about to deliberate on. We are here to remind us all of decorum and all our rules of order and have the debate proceed accordingly.
Has the member for Welland-Thorold completed his remarks, or is he wrapping up?
Mr. Swart: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I have had some difficulty hearing.
The Deputy Speaker: I wondered if the member had completed his remarks.
Mr. Swart: Yes. I have completed my remarks.
Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise and give my support to Bill 104. I take some personal pride in this because one of my goals in the agricultural field when I came to this Legislature was to see adequate protection for the sellers of farm products.
We are not quite finished yet. We have the processing products, the fresh fruit and vegetables and there are probably one or two other items to cover. In our myriad of farm product marketing acts there are some which assume ownership of the product and there is some protection given to farmers through those acts.
It is rather sad that we had to go to 1984 to bring in the first good act of coverage that actually gives protection. It was recognized by the government back in 1975, when it brought in the protection act, that there was a problem. It passed the original legislation and gave itself a bit of an out to come back to farmers and say: "The basic legislation was passed. It is up to you to put it into action." The government gave itself a bit of protection from what might come from behind.
The government was very quiet in advertising and pushing and talking to farmers about the need for protection. One might say that is not the government's purpose. It seems to me it is its purpose. If our agriculture ministers had played the advocacy role played by the federal Minister of Agriculture for the last 14 years -- he went out and fought his own cabinet or anybody willing to stand up against him for the rights and the protection of farmers; had ministers in this House done that, we would not be talking about this bill today.
9:40 p.m.
This government has played a role of benign neglect of farmers with respect to payment for their crops. There is nothing more frustrating than to have grown a crop, whether it is a field crop, an orchard crop or livestock, to have suffered all the perils and risks involved from the natural phenomena of weather, to have suffered the slings and arrows of markets, and then, increasingly, to come up against the actions of governments, not only governments here in Canada but those abroad.
I could give many instances where people have been shafted. They have grown a crop expecting it to go on the world market, and then a government that was interested in protecting its own producers passed a regulation and knocked the market right out the window.
I could give an example brought about by President Reagan. When he first took office, he took a look at the marketing orders they have in the United States and said, "We are going to take away from those marketing orders any aspect of price enhancement." They have a marketing order that has been in effect for many years with pie cherries. That is probably the most variable crop we have. Yields jump and fall by 100 per cent a year.
In the United States they had a system whereby they would set aside a portion of that crop in a big year because that crop is easily stored in frozen form. They would set it aside from the market and that had a price-enhancing effect. It took away the oversupply and, instead of being a very depressed market, it was a reasonable market.
Two years ago, just about at harvest time for the cherries, President Reagan said, "You can no longer set those aside because that is price enhancing." It knocked six cents a pound or $120 a ton off the price of our Canadian cherries. It had nothing to do with the risks of growing those cherries, such as the weather and so on. It was simply by a political act in another jurisdiction that money was lost.
To have gone through all those risks, to have delivered the crop, to have a storage ticket or a cheque and to find it is of no value, is a most disheartening part of farming. I wish I could tell members --
Mr. Martel: Go ahead.
Mr. McGuigan: All right, I will.
There was a young farmer in my riding who turned down a very promising career in the National Hockey League. He was doing very well. He had an offer from one of the teams to go on a farm team. The prospects were that this chap would become a professional hockey player. He liked to farm, so he turned down the opportunity. His father started him out farming. Two years ago he had a nice crop of tomatoes.
Because he was a new farmer coming into the business, he could not get a contract with one of the old-line companies such as H. J. Heinz Co., Campbell Soup or Aylmer. He got a contract with what we might call a speculative company, a new company starting out. This company itself had very bad luck. It was not all bad management by any means. That company ran into a streak of bad luck.
The upshot was that his $40,000 crop became nothing. When it was finally due, the interest had brought it up to about $44,000. With the help of both the provincial and federal governments, he did get about 56 per cent.
When I was with that chap, he was on the point of breaking into tears. His body was shaking. I was feeling as badly as he was that I could not do more for him. I would have liked to achieve 100 per cent for that fellow. If members could meet these fellows, they would realize.
It would have been so simple to pass this legislation back in 1975 when the need was quite apparent, but this government has a system: "Don't fix it unless it is broken. Don't take any chances. Don't do any leading. Wait for the proper conditions to come along. Wait for a big bankruptcy to come along. Wait until there are 50 or 20 farmers out there in bad straits. There are just a small number of people. Why worry about them? What can 15, 20 or 30 farmers do to us? Such a few people are not going to vote us out of office. They give us the momentum and the springboard to come through with the legislation."
That system has kept the government in office for 40 years. From that standpoint, I suppose they cannot knock it. If we were to achieve power, we would not be there for 40 years. There is no way we would be there for 40 years. We would do well to get through two sessions of parliament.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Two sessions or two terms?
Mr. McGuigan: Terms.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member was probably right the first time.
Mr. McGuigan: We would do well to get through two terms because we would do something for people. We would not wait for situations where a bunch of people were crushed before we took some action. I am not a very nasty or unforgiving person, but I cannot forgive the government for what it has done to those people. I will not be satisfied until I see the government carrying this legislation through to cover all aspects of agriculture.
By way of a compliment, I think the route the minister has taken is the correct route. I guess the minister has heard me talk often enough about the routes they have taken in the United States and I have praised them, but I am certainly willing to say here and now this system of an insurance fund is by far the best system there is.
If we go back a minute and think of the banking system of the early people who became the first custodians of gold bullion, they soon discovered they could run the banking system for a fraction of the moneys on deposit in the vault. There are banks in the United States today that have zero figures in the vault. We can look upon foreign debts that are absolutely worthless; yet they continue operating banks with zero funds in their vaults. The point is that it only takes a very small amount of money in the vault to make the system work.
For the billions of dollars of farm products that are handled in Ontario, we would probably need just a few million dollars to cover the losses that occur in any given year. In fact, I anticipate that after the government had collected money for four or five years, if this money is actually set aside and farmers collect interest on it -- I do not know whether the government is going to operate it that way or whether it is simply going to take it out of the consolidated revenue fund -- if it was looked upon as an interest-bearing fund, it would not be very long before it was self-supporting. It would not be costing anybody anything because only a very small amount of money would be required to provide a backup to take care of the few bankruptcies that occur in any given year.
The other system that has been mentioned several times is that of making sure the buyer of the farm product has a sum of money set aside in the form of cash, guarantees, bonds or whatever, but in any case an amount of money that would cover the cost of the product he buys.
9:50 p.m.
I want to pause here to point out, especially to my friend the member for Welland-Thorold, that anybody who understands agricultural economics will agree, although not all farmers would, that it is always the farmer who pays in our whole marketing system. The price of corn, for example, is established in Chicago, and it includes the unloading and insurance charges, the transport by boat, the money charges and the unloading charges here in Toronto or Montreal, right through to where it is being used.
They tote up all those charges, and even a little bit for the shrinkage that occurs, because every time one moves a grain product from one position to another, some of it grinds into dust. If you have ever watched them unloading a boatload or a truckload of grain, you would see a bit of dust blowing away. That is the grain blowing away. They even factor in that infinitesimal amount of product that actually disappears in the process.
At the very end what is left is the price they pay to the farmer. We farmers complain about that a great deal, but it is not always bad. If one looks at the price of corn today, it is pushing $5, and some people think it is even going to go over that, but it is ranging between $4.60 and $4.75. I am not sure of the price today, but it is getting close to $5. When the farmers planted that corn, most of them would have been pretty happy to get a price guarantee of, let us say, $3.50, because the crop that sold the year before was selling for about $2.50. When they planted that corn, it would have looked pretty good at a price of $3.50. They are getting $4.50. The farmer gets what is left, and in some cases he does very handsomely on it; in some cases he wins.
I can recall in 1972 soybeans were up to $12 a bushel. The people who had planted those soybeans were looking for a market somewhere in the range of probably $2.65. The member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) would recall those days; it was back about 1970-71. They would have been glad to get $3, maybe even as low as $2, but in the final analysis some of those people got $12. The system is not always against the farmer when he gets what is left.
I want to point out to the member for Welland-Thorold that it really does not matter whether the farmer pays the fee, whether the receiver pays the fee or whether each one of them pay the fee; in the final analysis it comes out of the farmer.
When the minister makes that split, as he has done with cattle producers -- it looks good, and I am not knocking it -- in the final analysis the cost all comes back to the producer. Anyone who knows his beans about farm economics, like the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson), who is an agricultural economist, would agree. I would like to see him and the member for Welland-Thorold perhaps talk this over. It is the farmer who pays these costs.
By going to an insurance program where you require only a very small amount of money, you save financing that crop twice. The farmer has financed it to grow it and put it in storage. Then if you are also asking the receiver to set aside enough money to finance that crop -- and when you are talking about crops worth $5 a bushel, you are talking about a lot of money to finance them -- he is financing that crop twice. It is the farmer who is paying in both cases.
In the case of the misinformation we had a year ago about it being the farmer's property until it was paid for, I suppose we could theorize about that, but if we ever had such a piece of legislation that was enforced by law we would knock out most of the small receivers of farm products. What buyer, for example, Kellogg's buying for human food or the distilleries buying to produce alcohol or the starch companies buying to produce starch, would buy a product from a small company?
What major buyer would buy a product from a small company unless he had a signed statement backed up with money, which would be a cost. He would have to have a signed statement backed up with money that the product was paid for. Is the minister following me? He would not want to take the chance, after he got that into his elevator or into his cornflake box or into the bottles or whatever it went into, that farmer Joe would come along and say: "My dealer did not pay me for it. That is my product in your storage. Even though you paid for it, you can pay me again."
Of course, there is the question of co-mingling when one mixes products. One cannot co-mingle a combine. A farmer might buy a combine at a sale -- the minister pointed this out a year or so ago -- but he should make sure that combine did not have a lien on it. In that case, the combine has a serial number on it, so it can be traced. It cannot be mixed up with a neighbour's combine. But when one gets grain in an elevator and it co-mingles, one has a lot of problems. That avenue is perhaps a theoretical avenue, but in a practical sense, it is of no value.
I wonder if the minister would clear up a point for me. I could not find it in Bill 104. He said this was just to cover corn and soybeans. I suppose that would be by regulation. Is it because he looked at other grains and decided they do not need coverage? I know there is not that much oats grown in the province any more, but some are grown. There is barley and rapeseed.
I suppose white beans are probably covered by the Farm Products Marketing Act. When one looks at some of the minor grains, they may be minor in volume in Ontario, but they certainly are not minor in terms of a person who might be growing them, especially as we move towards opening up more and more of northern Ontario agriculture, the three million acres the minister speaks of quite frequently. They certainly are not going to be able to grow corn on them, at least not any varieties we know of today.
The grain crop that is open to them is largely rape. Even barley would hardly mature. Perhaps oats would mature in some of those areas. I wonder if the minister could give some thought to whether or not grains other than corn and soybeans are covered. Offhand, I cannot think of any reason they should be left out. I would appreciate an answer on that.
In summing up, the minister has taken the correct route. I believe he has gone the full way. I think he has gone the extra mile. I am sorry it has taken this long, but I think he has done the right thing as far as these products are concerned. I look forward to the day when any product, other than a few minor products that are going to escape the net, to the day when all the major crops are covered by legislation that guarantees that the farmer who produced those gets paid for them.
10 p.m.
Mr. Riddell: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: You were not in the chair when a little earlier on I accused the member for Welland-Thorold of suggesting that farmers were participating in prostitution. I want either to correct the record or to verify the record. I leave that entirely to your discretion.
I have in my hand a copy of Hansard dated February 14, 1983. It was during the debate of Bill 7, the Toronto Futures Exchange Act. I quote the member for Welland-Thorold: "But this business of the commodity futures exchange reminds me of prostitution. If you are in favour of the principle of it, then maybe you need some regulation with regard to it. The regulations can perhaps make it a bit more acceptable. You could have health tests for prostitutes, now and then you could get them off the streets. You could put them in a certain area. So I suppose if you support prostitution, then you want to regulate and control it."
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Honourable member, I have very great difficulty in seeing how your personal privilege has been abused by what you are trying to raise.
Mr. Riddell: I was just correcting the record. They asked me to produce Hansard with the direct quote.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you.
Mr. Riddell: All I want to say is that if the member is wrong in suggesting that other members advocate high interest rates, I am sure he is wrong in suggesting that farmers participate in prostitution.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is trying to make more --
Mr. Riddell: Farmers use commodity futures extensively so is the member for Welland-Thorold suggesting that they are participating in prostitution?
The Acting Speaker: Indeed, the honourable member stood on a point of personal privilege, and I just have to rule that this is not one. But I think you have really tried to get in --
Mr. Roy: I thought it was clearly a point of privilege.
The Acting Speaker: I do not think it is a point of personal privilege; and no, that is not the way to raise it.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the point of privilege was not against my friend. He had to withdraw some comments because he made an accusation against my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold that he was not able to substantiate.
Mr. Riddell: I did.
Mr. Martel: It is a pile of nonsense. Anyone can distort what is being read.
Mr. Riddell: It is right in Hansard.
Mr. Martel: If the member is that simpleminded and he cannot understand what is there, that is his problem. But he cannot take fact and distort it to suit his own convenience. He can play all the games he wants, but he has to withdraw and he knows it.
The Acting Speaker: We are on Bill 104, An Act to amend the Farm Products Payments Act.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I take pleasure in calling upon the Minister of Agriculture and Food.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it remains to be seen how great a pleasure it will be.
I will try to respond briefly to the various points raised, but I will start by answering the last question raised by the member for Kent-Elgin inasmuch as we will not be going into committee of the whole House on this act. I do not have any amendments and, as I understand it, neither do the opposition parties. I would like to answer that now.
We have been discussing for some considerable time with the various producer organizations the question of the creation of these financial protection funds. The discussion goes back to the legislation we discussed in this chamber a year ago today. In fact, it predates it, I guess. I can only share in the frustration of the members opposite that it has taken this long.
The policy we have followed for about six or seven years since the legislation was passed has been to promote the concept of the financial protection funds but not to force them. There have been instances since I became minister in which I suppose one could say I forced the beef protection fund. I felt it was pointless to carry on the debate that was under way at the time; it was not going to end up anywhere.
I suppose in a way I forced the vegetables for processing protection fund. Neither the growers' marketing board nor the processors were very keen on that when I raised it with them about nine or 10 months ago for the first time. In this case, after we passed that legislation a year ago, I remind the member and his friend the member for Huron-Middlesex that if they look at the Hansard for a year ago today, I said then that the piece of legislation we were discussing on that occasion was not the be-all and end-all, that it should not be considered as the total protection package and that there was a need for a financial protection plan to complete the package. Even after that, there was no enthusiasm shown by the producer organizations.
Like the member, I too look forward to the day when there will be a complete package of financial protection plans covering all commodities. I do not think, though, given the nature of the agricultural community -- and I fully concede that the member for Kent-Elgin knows it better than I do -- that it would be wise to ram it down the throat of every producer of every commodity. We do have a responsibility to promote the concept, and I know that in this respect we are helped by members such as the member for Kent-Elgin, because I know that wherever he goes in his constituency or in the province he promotes the concept.
Mr. McGuigan: Friendly persuasion.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Friendly persuasion.
At this time, the representatives of the corn and soybean producers are supportive of having plans put in place for their commodities. We have talked to members of the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board; at this time, they do not want coverage. We have talked with the members of the Ontario Bean Producers' Marketing Board; they are considering the question. Therefore, it may well be that in addition to the two to which I have referred in my statement, we will be bringing forward in the coming months, by regulation, a plan for white bean growers.
I would hope the Ontario Wheat Board would also see the wisdom of developing such a plan over time. However, I do not think we should go beyond keeping the question or the option before them and our willingness to work with them.
With respect to the funds, I should point out that except for the milk fund -- which was the first of the funds, established in 1966 -- these moneys do not go into the consolidated revenue fund; they are held separately. Each of the funds is administered by a board appointed on my recommendation. The moneys are invested. The interest earned on those investments is credited to the fund.
I do not know that one would ever totally eliminate the checkoff. I recently reduced the checkoff for the beef protection fund from 20 cents to 10 cents. As long as I am the minister, I do not anticipate that I will ever recommend totally eliminating it. I think its very presence, even if it is reduced to a mere fraction of its original amount, and the fact that it shows in every settlement cheque and every statement of account, has to reinforce the reasons for the plan and the role of the producer. It polices the system. I would think it would have a very salutary effect. I think members can see the wisdom of this.
Mr. McGuigan: I do not think we should have the marketing board running the minister; he should make them respond.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That may be.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Several members have referred to the Niagara Grain and Feed Ltd. situation. I think the facts are well known. It would take me a great deal more time than is available to go through it all. However, suffice to say this legislation and its companion bill, Bill 105, were not inspired by the problem at Niagara Grain and Feed as far as the government is concerned. As I said earlier, we had raised it even before the debate of the Grain Elevator Storage Act, a year ago today. However, the enthusiasm among producers certainly increased after Niagara Grain and Feed went into receivership.
I would like to say this sort of thing could easily be developed. Some of the members have asked, "Why has it taken so long?" These plans involve a number of organizations, producers, the grain and feed dealers' associations, the Ontario Grain Corn Council and others who have an interest, a stake and a concern in the issues.
It is not that one can go to the registrar of regulations office or the legal branch of a ministry and pull a protection plan off the shelf and say, "There, that will do nicely for grain corn." One simply cannot do that. Negotiations have taken a great deal of time.
I would like to answer the member for Huron-Middlesex. I would have liked very much to have had this legislation a couple of months ago. I would have liked to have had this at the time of my earlier pieces of legislation and done it as a complete package of five bills. I did three then and I am doing two now. It simply was not possible because of the discussions and negotiations which have been going on for months with the affected and interested parties.
10:10 p.m.
On my recommendation at cabinet yesterday, the Grain Elevator Storage Act will come into force on July 1. I will be taking the regulations for the act to cabinet next Wednesday. Assuming they will accept my regulations, which they normally do, thank goodness, they will take effect soon afterwards.
By the way, the payout for Niagara Grain and Feed was not as high as the member for Welland-Thorold indicated. It was $197,000, not $280,000.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude on that point, so we can deal with this bill and perhaps in the 20 minutes remaining deal with Bill 105.
Mr. Martel: No, we have a vote.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Oh, we have a little thing called a vote. In that case, Mr. Speaker, we will finish Bill 104 tonight and go on to Bill 105 tomorrow or this month or next, whenever the House leaders arrange the schedule.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
FARM PRODUCTS GRADES AND SALES AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved second reading of Bill 105, An Act to amend the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act.
Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a few very brief remarks on this one. A proposed amendment provides for the licensing of grain dealers who purchase grain from producers. The primary criterion for licensing is to be financial responsibility. The present act allows licensing to be carried out but the provisions for financial responsibility and payment by dealers require strengthening.
The bill also includes amendments to bring the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act parallel with the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, as amended recently by Bill 69. We were happy to see the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) has at last agreed with the position the Ontario Liberal Party pointed out to him during the debate on the Grain Elevator Storage Act on June 21, 1983. We stated then that an insurance fund must be established in the future to protect farmers in cases such as this.
We went on to tell the minister government protection must go much further. The licensing procedure must be much more comprehensive in investigating the ability of a company to meet its financial obligations. Terms of payment must be clearly spelled out. The fund must be guarded by examination and audits of receivers of farm produce. The fund cannot become a blank cheque to cover the transgressions of irresponsible or incompetent receivers of farm produce.
I hope the licensing of the dealers might be more effective than it has been under the act establishing the licensing of dealers in meat products. It was somewhat interesting to me to learn, during the standing committee on public accounts in March of this year, that government administrators of the program revealed that only 388 licences had been issued and 74 other applicants were deemed to have been licensed, and there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,200 dealers --
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No.
Mr. Riddell: Yes, there are. It was verified during the public accounts committee where I suggested there were about 1,200 dealers, and I believe the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food said that figure was in the ball park. The fact is the licensing program to date has not been too effective. I hope the licensing of grain dealers will be far more effective and take place in a much shorter period of time.
Finally, we call on the minister to move immediately to increase inspection staff under the chief grain inspector. I have no qualms about the chief grain inspector. I think he has had a tremendous burden placed upon his shoulders. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food's horse-and-buggy inspection services, with one chief inspector and one part-time assistant to cover 280 elevators in Ontario, is simply not good enough.
I hope the minister, in his response, will tell us he is going to have more inspectors to enforce the licensing, to see that the dealers are licensed and properly complying with their licenses, because we cannot expect one chief inspector and one part-time inspector to do the job that is going to have to be done.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this bill and we have no amendments to propose.
The bill gives authorization to the minister in many ways to establish regulations. I hope he will respond and say when he expects to have those regulations produced and gazetted, because if this bill is going to have any meaning it can only have that according to the regulations which he indicates are going to be produced.
We also support the principle that fines should be substantially increased for those operating without licences. However, I am concerned about the policing of this act as with the policing of the other dealers on other commodities. I wonder whether the minister can tell us how much he expects the policing and licensing of this act is going to cost, because that will really tell us a lot.
If he is prepared to put money into it, it will tell us the type of policing. If he is not prepared to put money into it, it is going to be like the licensing of the livestock dealers and it will not have a great deal of meaning. When he rises, perhaps he can tell us his licensing plans and how much he plans on spending in setting up the licensing and policing system.
Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 105. I notice in subsection 1(2) of the bill it says, "Any regulation made under this section may adopt by reference, in whole or in part, with such changes as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary, any grade...under the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act." As I read this, it means the provincial inspector can adopt and enforce the regulations of the Canada act.
I want to note an interesting point. At the moment, Ontario producers are shipping strawberries to the United States. The United States has always had a regulation, as we do, that products must be marked "Product of Canada." The master container contains eight quart boxes. The master container is marked "Product of Canada" but the quart boxes are not.
If they wish to enforce the law, they can make our producers put that mark on every quart. They have not done it for a number of years. Through the Canadian Horticultural Council we have word that they are attempting to enforce that this year. That puts a terrible burden on Canadian shippers.
The way one combats that is to threaten them or actually to go ahead and do the same to them with some of their products. They send lots of products over here in master containers which are later sold in smaller containers that do not show the point of origin. This really is a bargaining tool. I hope we do not have to use it, but it is pertinent with the trading practices we have today with all governments fighting protectionism. They are trying to resist protectionism, but nevertheless it keeps creeping in, especially in an election year. I take it that is one of the reasons the minister has brought in that regulation.
10:20 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the support of the parties opposite. With the enactment of this legislation, the creation of the protection fund and the attendant reviews that will be made of the financial position of each of the elevator operators by ministry staff, other than the chief inspector and his assistant, we do not foresee adding any more inspectors at this time. With this additional process, we think he will be in a position, as he has been for a number of years, to be able to exercise his authority properly. I believe we went over this a year ago. The ultimate policing for the ministry would be to have an inspector on every premise, just as we have a federal meat inspector at every --
Mr. Riddell: That is not necessary.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is the only way we could have staff to meet the ultimate objective we are talking about. Through Mr. Taylor and his assistant, and aided by Mr. Bath and his staff who will review the financial position of each of the applicants, it will afford effective coverage.
The cattle dealers' question was discussed at public accounts on March 7 in my absence, and I believe we also discussed it at my estimates last fall. When we began the plan, we estimated -- and it was only an estimate because there is no provincial association of cattle drovers and there is no provincial association of country dealers. We estimated there were as many as 1,000 or 1,200 cattle dealers in the province. We knew how many community sales and how many slaughterhouses there were, large and small. We knew of organizations such as Olex, the Ontario Livestock Exchange, but we were only guessing. I believe the total number of licences issued at this time is around 500.
Mr. Riddell: Out of how many? How many dealers?
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Nobody knows --
Mr. Riddell: Yes, but more than 500.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I told the member, when we started, the estimate was 1,000 or 1,200. We have 500. We have a number of hearings under way looking into individuals who are alleged to be dealing without licences. We have launched prosecutions and we have won all but one of the prosecutions. There have been about 14 so far.
I want to come back to the point that the individual producer is very much the policeman, the front-line defence. When we get complaints about people dealing without licences, we investigate through Mr. Grout and his investigatory staff. When there is substance to the complaint, we lay a charge and we pursue it very vigorously. Where there is no substance, obviously that is where the matter is left. We would certainly do the same here. Off the top of my head, I cannot give an estimate of the cost. I would certainly be glad to get that for the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).
Mr. Swart: What about the timing of the regulations clause?
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I indicated I am taking the regulations for the Grain Elevator Storage Act to cabinet next week. The work is under way now with the producer organizations. We want to do everything possible to get protection funds and plans in place for the 1984 crop -- by October 1, let us say. I am sure the producer organizations, the grain and feed dealer associations, to the extent they are involved, will be just as anxious as we are to complete that in a timely fashion.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
House in committee of the whole.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 36(1) of the act as set out in subsection 2(1) of the bill, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 36; nays 55.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 43(8) of the act as set out in section 3 of the bill, which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 3 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subclauses 44(a)(i) and 44(b)(i) of the act as set out in subsection 4(1) of the bill, which was negatived on the same vote
Section 4 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 45(1) of the act as set out in subsection 5(1) of the bill, which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 5 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to clause 52(3)(b) of the act as set out in clause 6(1)(b) of the bill, which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 6 agreed to.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the consent of the House to move one motion.
Agreed to.
MOTION
ORDERING OF BILL 62
Hon. Mr. Wells moved that order 1 for third reading of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, be rescinded and that the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole House.
Motion agreed to.
10:40 p.m.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Perhaps I could indicate the order of business for tomorrow. After routine proceedings we will deal with third readings in Orders and Notices; any private bills in Orders and Notices; Bills 84 and 85, second reading and committee of the whole House; Bill 62, committee of the whole House; and Bill 142, committee of the whole House.
ACTIVITIES OF POLICE
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice today under the standing orders that I was dissatisfied with the response of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) to the question I had placed with him with respect to William Franklin Baker. Perhaps I should wait until everyone has left.
Mr. McClellan: Stop the clock.
Mr. Speaker: Would you hold the clock there?
Mr. McClellan: Does the Solicitor General want to hear?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are waiting, the member for Niagara Falls.
Mr. Kerrio: What are you trying to do?
Mr. Speaker: We are trying to get your attention so we can hear the member for Riverdale.
Mr. Renwick: In expressing dissatisfaction with the response of the Solicitor General to my questions relating to the matter of William Franklin Baker, I want to refresh the Solicitor General's memory about the facts of the case.
Mr. Louis Dunphie was murdered in front of the Moose Head Tavern in Hamilton on December 30, 1983. On January 2, 1984, William Franklin Baker was arrested and was held without bail from then until April 24. On that date in a brief appearance in court, on the motion of the agent of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), Ms. Anne Watson, and a brief statement that the veracity of the confession was in question, the charges were withdrawn and Mr. Baker was released.
He was 17 years of age when he was arrested. He was 18 years of age when he was released.
There was a preliminary inquiry of some length in this matter in March 1984. He was committed for trial by provincial court Judge Anton Zuraw.
The circumstances of his arrest, his detention, the question of the confession, the laconic comment of the crown attorney in the court, the circumstances disclosed in the press, all lead me to believe the Solicitor General has shown no sense of concern or urgency about this matter.
I asked in the assembly, and others have asked, that there be a public inquiry either by the Ontario Police Commission under the Police Act or under the Public Inquiries Act.
The Solicitor General will recall that one of the circumstances was that Donald Baker, the father of William Franklin Baker, at his own expense -- estimated to be in the neighbourhood of some $5,000 -- retained one Kenneth Mitchell, a private investigator, to investigate the circumstances and to follow up the leads that ultimately led, if the inferences can be drawn, to the conclusion that the boy was not guilty of the offence for which he had been charged and that the confession had been extracted from him in ways that would lead one to believe that an investigation is essential.
There are certain fundamental principles. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms one is not to be deprived of his life or liberty or to be detained in any way except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
I want to know and I think the public and this House are entitled to know what took place from the time that boy was arrested until the time he was a free man on April 24, a period of almost four months when he was totally deprived of his liberty, when there had been a lengthy preliminary inquiry and when the father had been put to immense expense in connection with the investigation to try to produce the kind of evidence which would prove, as the event turned out to be, that his son was not guilty of the offence for which he was charged.
There has been no initiative, either by the Solicitor General or the Attorney General. The Solicitor General has had a passive role throughout the whole of this activity. His sole response has been that he is going to wait until the police report comes in. The police report, as I understand it, was requested by the Hamilton police. He has not done anything to show the sense of urgency and concern with respect to the integrity of the administration of justice in this province, bearing in mind that if one in this province is black, male and adolescent one has the likelihood of serious problems in certain areas of the province with the police.
I think the public and the family are entitled to know exactly what took place. I think the father of that boy is entitled to be reimbursed. I demand, as I have tried to emphasize, a public inquiry into this matter right from the inception of the arrest of that boy until he was released from the court, so the public will be aware of exactly what took place.
Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I accept the comments made by the member. I accept the knowledge of his concern on this particular matter. From my knowledge of him, I believe him to be a man who respects and knows the law. I, too, have that knowledge. I also have that respect for the law and I also have that respect for those people that are involved in our judicial or procedural system.
However, as I indicated to the member this afternoon, when this matter was brought to our attention, an investigation was immediately commenced, through the services of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ontario Provincial Police, into the activities of the individual police officers in this matter. We have commenced that investigation. I have not received a report of that investigation. I know the member has desired an alternate route, but at this particular time I am not willing to move to that alternate route of inquiry until I have the information from those individual police officers who did the investigation.
I know some investigations do not move at the speed some members would desire in here, nor do they move at the speed the media would have us move for their purposes. However, as much as the member would desire the speed and as much as I would desire to see them move more quickly, we all know that in respect for that judicial system and in respect for an investigation that we want to be done properly sometimes speed is not the criterion that is uppermost in those investigations.
Although I challenge the member's one statement, I know it has gone on a long time. I also know there was the incarceration, there was the end product of the incarceration and the charges were withdrawn. Again, I will not accept his comment that the judicial system. through the police or otherwise -- I use the whole justice system when I include the police -- in any way look upon an individual who happens to have a different pigmentation, who happens to be a different age or happens to be of a different sex in any different manner than they do anybody else. There is no question of sex, pigmentation or age.
They do not look at those. I say that with all due regard to what the member has said. I think they all face our judicial system in the same way. Indeed, if it were not so, I am sure we would hear from them more often and people on this side of the House, the government benches, would revolt in the same way as the member has expressed his concern about it.
I acknowledge the comments. I will try to get a status report as quickly as I can, if it is not yet completed, in consultation with the Attorney General on the direction in which we are going to go. I am sure the investigating officers have been consulting all along with the crown law officers on the direction and route to go. When we have that information, I will be glad to share it with this Legislature.
The House adjourned at 10:49 p.m.