Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

CANADIAN LIFE LINE LIMITED ACT, 1995

CONTENTS

Wednesday 24 April 1996

Canadian Life Line Limited Act, 1995 Bill Pr39, Mr Kwinter

Monte Kwinter, MPP

Murray Thompson, solicitor, Blaney, McMurtry, Stapells, Friedman

Daniel Kahan, president, Canadian Life Line Ltd

Stephen Bingham, senior associate, Veritas Communications Inc

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Chair / Président: Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)

*Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)

*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

*Boushy, Dave (Sarnia PC)

*Hastings, John (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)

*O'Toole, John R. (Durham East / -Est PC)

Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Pouliot, Gilles (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)

*Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)

*Rollins, E. J. Douglas (Quinte PC)

Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)

Sergio, Mario (Yorkview L)

*Shea, Derwyn (High Park-Swansea PC); parliamentary assistant

to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

*Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)

*Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)

*In attendance / présents

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Sampson, Rob (Mississauga West / -Ouest PC); parliamentary assistant

to the Minister of Finance

Clerk / Greffière: Lisa Freedman

Staff / Personnel: Susan Klein, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1005 in committee room 1.

CANADIAN LIFE LINE LIMITED ACT, 1995

Consideration of Bill Pr39, An Act respecting Canadian Life Line Limited.

The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning. I call this meeting to order. Our first order of business is consideration of Bill Pr39. All members of the committee have received a memo from legal counsel. There is an issue of procedure to deal with, and for that purpose I will briefly turn the meeting over to our clerk.

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): I'd just like to explain why this meeting is going to be a little different from our normal process. The standing orders provide that any application for a private bill that does not comply with the standing orders may be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to determine whether it's a private bill. We're in a slightly different situation today. This bill was introduced and referred to this committee before there was a determination made that this is not the proper subject matter for a private bill. In essence, we were no longer at the application stage and no longer able to refer it to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for it to make the final determination on whether this is the proper subject matter for a private bill.

What we're going to do today is spend the first part of the meeting dealing with the procedural issue: Is this a proper subject matter for a private bill? If the committee decides it is the proper subject matter for a private bill, we will then continue in our normal way and listen to the arguments of the bill on its merits. If this committee determines that it's not the proper subject matter for a private bill, that's the end of the issue right there.

I'd also like to point out that I do have one precedent that we found, in 1984, where the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly dealt with one issue that was slightly similar to this and decided, as Susan Klein pointed out in her memo, that it not go ahead. I will be Xeroxing that. I want to point out that the vote on that bill was 6 to 4, the point being that this committee has the absolute right to vote one way or the other. There is no legal issue or necessarily right answer. It's totally up to the committee to decide whether it feels it's the proper subject matter for a private bill.

The Chair: I mentioned that all members of the committee received an April 18 memo from legislative counsel, and I would ask Susan Klein to briefly walk us through that memo.

Ms Susan Klein: The memo concludes that the subject matter of Bill Pr39, An Act respecting Canadian Life Line Ltd, is not appropriate for private legislation. I'm going to deal briefly with the points made in that memo in support of my opinion.

Bill Pr39 provides that Canadian Life Line Ltd, a limited company incorporated in Nova Scotia, may traffic and trade in life insurance policies. The bill states that this activity is permitted despite section 115 of the Insurance Act. Section 115 of the Insurance Act makes it an offence for any person who is not an insurer under the Insurance Act to traffic and trade in life insurance policies. This offence is punishable by a maximum fine of $100,000 on a first conviction and a maximum fine of $200,000 on a subsequent conviction. Put simply, this bill would give the applicant the right to engage in activities that are prohibited to every other individual and corporation in the province except insurance companies.

This is an exception from the general law in favour of the applicant. On a superficial level, this is exactly what private bills are for: to create exceptions from the general law or to grant benefits not available under the general law. However, a more careful look at the bill, together with the procedural principles that govern private legislation in Ontario, shows that the bill is not really in the nature of private legislation. The bill offends three of the four principles that are considered when determining that a bill should not proceed as private legislation.

The first principle is that public policy should not be affected. In this case, it is. The Insurance Act governs all insurance matters in Ontario. The public policy, as expressed in section 115 of the Insurance Act, is that only insurers may traffic and trade in life insurance policies. There is nothing unique about this applicant to justify its being given preferential treatment contrary to this public policy.

The second principle is that a multiplicity of interests should not be involved. In this case, there are. The persons most affected by this bill are numerous, unknown and unrepresented here: the policyholders who will deal with the applicant and their beneficiaries.

The third principle is that the bill should not have as its main object a public matter. In this case, it has. The main object of the bill, as explained in the applicant's compendium, is to provide money for dying people to live on from their life insurance policies. I should point out that the bill does not limit the applicant to transactions with terminally ill persons. If the bill is passed in its present form, the applicant could conduct business with anyone in need of cash who holds a life insurance policy.

The question of how to provide terminally ill people with money to live on from their life insurance policies is a public matter. The issue was addressed in 1994 in a bulletin issued by the Ontario Insurance Commission to life insurance companies. The bulletin set out 14 best practices to guide the industry in providing living benefits. The issue is being currently addressed by the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which is studying both living benefits and viatical settlements.

To conclude, my advice to this committee on the procedural issue is that Bill Pr39 is not in the nature of a private bill.

The Chair: The sponsor for this bill is MPP Monte Kwinter, and I would ask Mr Kwinter if he has any brief comments. Following that, we would ask the applicants to introduce themselves and make any comments with respect to this bill.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): As you know, under the standing procedures in the Legislature private bills must be sponsored by a member. A constituent of mine approached me and asked if I would introduce this bill, which I am pleased to do, feeling that whether or not it was appropriate was not my decision to make but that legislative counsel could make that decision. When the applicant proceeded in the process, the legislative counsel did not say this was not an appropriate committee in which to deal with this bill, so it has gone forward. The bill has been printed and it was only after that point that I assume the Ministry of the Attorney General raised concerns, and I think it's for this committee to determine what those concerns are and their validity. I have served my constituent in the way that I felt I should. I have supported his application, but it's really up to this committee to adjudicate whether this is the proper place for it to be dealt with. That's your determination.

The Chair: I would ask the applicants for any comments, if they could limit their comments to this procedural issue first.

Mr Murray Thompson: I am Murray Thompson of the Blaney, McMurtry law firm and I have the privilege of representing Canadian Life Line Ltd. Its president is Mr Daniel Kahan. Let me point out that this matter has been in progress for quite some time and has been of some expense to the applicant in advertising before this, if I may call it, last-minute intervention.

I would refer to the memorandum that this is a procedural matter, not a legal matter, and I would compliment legislative counsel on bringing that to the attention of the committee. I would ask the committee's indulgence in that fact, because in counsel's memorandum they point out, "A private bill is a bill which, if enacted, alters the general law in relation to a particular locality, institution or individual." That, to me, is precisely why we are here on it.

I am wondering if this is not simply form. I notice in the Insurance Act of Ontario that there is regulation-making power to exempt individuals from being a licensed insurance agent in the province of Ontario. If that is a regulation-making power in that act, does it not accomplish the same thing that we are requesting the committee's indulgence upon? Perhaps the forum is different, but if it is our only remedy to appeal to the elected representatives of this province, that is why we are here.

I don't want to get into the merits of Canadian Life Line. This is simply our position at this stage, and we would be pleased to consider any form of amendment to the bill. If one looks at 115 we could make the point that we would be deemed to be an insurer if that would make it more palatable. We would be pleased to do so, and I would also like to point out that with reference to the section which has been in the Insurance Act since 1934, there have been no prosecutions or any case law that we have been able to determine under this section.

I do not know what the word "trafficking" means, except the Oxford dictionary, which says it's buying and selling. I fear I must get into the merits of my client's case, that they do not want to buy or traffic in that sense of the word; they want to lend on the security of life insurance benefits.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Thompson. Mr Kahan, did you have any procedural comments?

Mr Daniel Kahan: Yes. I'd like to first of all thank the committee for letting us come, at least to get as far as we have so far. I hope we get a little bit farther.

We did actually prepare quite an extensive compendium of exactly how we operate in Nova Scotia, where we do not have these problems. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Saskatchewan did not put in this trafficking restriction 60 years ago. When I started looking into being able to do business in Ontario -- I live in Toronto and we'd like to do business in Ontario and provide services to Ontario residents -- through Monte Kwinter's good offices I was able to get into the legislative library and work my way backwards to find out when this was put in. It's a copy of the 1934 act. It wasn't section 115 in those days; it was section 76(a) where they added, "The Insurance Act is amended by adding the following section."

In 1934 there was no Hansard, so unfortunately we were unable to find out exactly what was going on, but there was a little notice, a sort of footnote, saying it was put in there because, "People who are advertising want to buy your policies." Originally, we thought people were concerned that someone might sell their insurance policy and then they would arrange for the Mafia or whoever to bump the guy off so they could get the money. Al Capone was around in those days. But I did some research. I went to the Toronto Star, I went to the Metropolitan library, and I managed to get a copy of the Toronto Star back on March 1, 1934.

Basically, what was happening was that in the Depression people were actually selling their policies. Healthy people needed money -- maybe as they do nowadays as well -- and they were cashing in their life insurance policies. There were companies, very similar to what H&R Block does nowadays with the tax returns, saying: "We'll give you the money straight away. You don't have to wait for a month or two months until the insurance company processes your claim and sends you the cheque. We'll give you the money today on the spot, but for a discount." Some companies were giving a 20% discount, some were even steeper. Basically, it seems there were concerns about what was going on and the government of the day decided just to outlaw the whole thing. That's where this trafficking restriction came about. It was not dealing with people who were sick, terminally ill. In those days they were dealing with people who were healthy but needed their money. It seems in those days they didn't say, "You can do it but you can only charge a 15% discount"; they just said, "We'll ban the whole thing."

I don't have the actual act, but there is a federal act which regulates H&R Block and other similar discounting. It is tax time now; people have until April 30 to file their tax returns. You can get your money back straight away but there are certain regulations stipulating how much you can get back, I think 15% for the first $400 and a different rate for beyond that. So there are regulations.

What we are proposing is that 60 years ago there was no Consumer Protection Act. I think the main concern of the Ontario Insurance Commission, quite rightly so, is to look after and protect the interests of the public, the consumer, but 60 years ago there was no Consumer Protection Act in Ontario. There is now an Ontario Consumer Protection Act, and we feel that if we were allowed to do business, we would be regulated by the Consumer Protection Act, we would register under the Consumer Protection Act, and we think that would give the public protection. We would disclose exactly how we operate, what sort of discounts, rates of interest we would charge, what application fees we would charge, how we would do business. This is how we actually operate in Nova Scotia.

1020

As I said, Nova Scotia does not have that section of the Insurance Act. To be able to be a money lender in Nova Scotia, we had to get a certificate of lending, which is in appendix B. It took us about eight months to get the certificate because the superintendent of loans, who happens to be also the superintendent of insurance, Mr LeBlanc, looked into exactly what we were doing and referred this to the Nova Scotia government. Again that's something which we brought up with counsel, and they told us the logistics were rather difficult, but the superintendent of loans in Nova Scotia, Mr LeBlanc, is quite happy to take a conference call from this committee and explain to them what the situation is in Nova Scotia and how the Nova Scotia government deals with us.

Basically, they have no problems with the way we're operating, and we have just recently had our loan agreement approved by the consumer protection department in Nova Scotia. Again, it took us quite a bit of time and effort, but we finally got it approved. I have just had a letter from our lawyers in Halifax confirming that the official document will be out in a few days.

Obviously, each province is different, each province can do whatever it likes, but the fact that we are allowed to operate in Nova Scotia, we are allowed to operate in Quebec -- we've had discussions with Mr Boivert, the superintendent of insurance there; he's aware of what we want to do and we've been issued a money lender's licence -- I think does indicate that other provinces do not have a particular concern with the way we operate. We do appreciate that there are concerns. This is a very, shall we say, emotional issue. We are dealing with people who are vulnerable and we are certainly aware that there have to be regulations.

As I said, we feel that there is sufficient regulation under the Consumer Protection Act to protect the public. However, if the Ontario Insurance Commission feels that because we are dealing with insurance policies, although we're not actually selling insurance -- we're just lending money and taking the insurance policies as collateral -- they would like to regulate us, we're more than happy to be regulated by the Ontario Insurance Commission. Legal counsel for the Ontario Insurance Commission -- I don't know if the committee is aware of it, but Josephine Atri is here, and we've had several meetings with Grant Swanson, who's the acting superintendent, and in the past with Lawrie Savage, who's the previous superintendent.

I should bring to the committee's attention -- I don't know if they're aware -- that our legal counsel, Mr Murray Thompson, was the former Ontario superintendent of insurance, so I think he's well versed in insurance matters, and also that Monte Kwinter -- maybe it's the Honourable Monte Kwinter -- was in a previous government the Minister of Financial Institutions, so I think he does have some understanding of insurance matters as well.

What I would like to bring to the committee's attention and put it for the record is a letter I addressed to Laura Hopkins -- Susan Klein was on vacation -- addressing several of the points which Susan Klein and other members of the government or the civil service have brought up. We've made copies so we can pass them around, but if I could just read it out briefly --

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I don't want to truncate the deputant's presentation, but the issue before the committee in the first instance is whether this is appropriately before the committee, and I think the deputant's counsel was trying to address that in his opening comments. It strikes me that in some ways we're beginning to move into the merits of the case and so forth before we have settled the first issue, and I'd ask you to rule in that case.

The Chair: Yes, the first order of business before us right now is that this committee has to decide whether to hear this bill first. It's a procedural matter, and I know there's at least one question from the committee on a procedural argument. We have to deal with that before we consider the merits of the bill. I may not have made that clear at the beginning.

Is there any final statement from the applicants? I know I have at least one question from the committee.

Mr Kahan: If the committee would like to read this letter, as I said, it was addressed to the legislative counsel and certainly the first paragraph does address that point. Basically it said:

"It has been agreed the standing committee should consider and decide this issue. There appears to be a considerable `grey' area after reviewing the minutes of the Hamilton-Wentworth case in 1984."

Susan Klein gave me a copy of the Hamilton-Wentworth case, and I would like to quote from the legal counsel at the time, Mr Revell. He says, "I will use Mr Plant's own example to show what I mean." On page 4, he cites the Belfast Corporation bill. "You will see that it is decided on the facts being applied to the particular case. The Speaker finds it does refer to a public matter and that public statutes were involved," but he decides the matters that were involved just were not so numerous or so important as to necessitate the use of a public bill.

Even where you are using a precedent to support your case, you find that the language in fact goes both ways. In this particular case, I think you have to take a look at those three matters. Basically, from what I understand -- I'm not a lawyer -- I think this was decided by the committee on political grounds, not on the legal grounds.

What we are trying to suggest to the committee -- and we've actually brought a video. In all fairness to your constituents, some of whom may be terminally ill or once they become terminally ill may want to be able to make use of the facilities we're offering, you should actually consider the context of the bill.

We are not asking to change section 115 of the act. We say in our covering letter we feel this is something the government should be doing; the Ontario Law Reform Commission is looking at this. For the record, I went to see Barbara Hendrickson, the counsel, on Friday afternoon as soon as I became aware they were looking at it. She told me they have been looking at it since the fall of last year, they may come up with a report by next year, and it's possible the government may consider doing something or may just file it. Whether that is a useful use of taxpayers' money I don't know.

But the point I'd like to make to this committee, and that's why we're here, is that we're dealing with people who are terminally ill. The people who are terminally ill at the moment will not be around in six months' time or 12 months' time to be able to get these loans. If their insurance companies are not prepared to give them the loans at the moment, the only recourse they have at the moment is to go outside Ontario and to sell their policies to American viatical companies south of the border.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kahan. Ever bearing in mind that we are discussing procedural issues, whether we should consider this bill as a private bill, I have a question from Mr Bisson.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): To leg counsel in regard to the three points that go into the decision whether a bill can come before the committee, the third point I didn't quite catch. I understand what you're getting at with the first and second, but could you go through again the third point you raised?

Ms Klein: That's dealing with a public matter?

Mr Bisson: The first one was that public policy should not be affected. The second one was that a multiplicity of interests should not be involved. The third point I didn't catch.

Ms Klein: The third principle is that the bill should not have as its main object a public matter. My argument is that what this bill is about is providing money to terminally ill people for them to live on from their life insurance policies, and that the question of how to provide dying people with money from life insurance policies is a public question.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I have a question perhaps to legal counsel or the PA to the minister.

Should we go forward today and address the bill, and let's say we were to vote in favour of it, where would it go from there if in fact we find it wasn't appropriate to have gone through this committee? What is the procedure if we were to go ahead and address the issue?

The Chair: I'd ask the clerk to respond to that.

Clerk of the Committee: Actually, I can answer that. It's totally within the purview of this committee. If this committee decides this is the proper subject matter for a private bill, then it is the proper subject matter for a private bill. If they then go ahead and pass the bill, there wouldn't be any retroactive question about, was this committee right or wrong? It's totally within the purview of this committee to decide that first question.

1030

Mr Bisson: If that's the case, we would be in a situation where if we allowed this to go to committee and we were to decide to pass this bill, we'd be contravening other acts that are the property of the province through the Legislature. Where does that leave us?

Mr Shea: That's why we're here to look at procedures first.

The Chair: Is that a question directed to --

Mr Bisson: I'm asking leg counsel.

Ms Klein: It doesn't create a conflict with the act. It creates an exception. It says: Everybody else in Ontario, this is the law for you. Canadian Life Line, this is the law for you.

The Chair: Before I go to the next question, the applicant has indicated -- is that a response to a question?

Mr Stephen Bingham: No, it's a supplementary question. I'm Stephen Bingham from Veritas Communications. I'm communications counsel to Dan Kahan and Canadian Life Line. I just wanted to ask a question. Could the committee or the clerk clarify the criteria by which one decides a public or a private issue is at hand? I heard the three principles mentioned and there seemed to be a lot of grey area there that's left unspecified. I wonder if we could clarify that further.

The Chair: I think that question would be directed to legislative counsel.

Ms Klein: It's a procedural decision for the committee of the assembly to make. We have literature on it that sets out four principles. I haven't mentioned the fourth principle, because I don't think it applies here. The committee is on its own to decide the matter.

Mr Bingham: As a supplementary comment, it seems to me that if you're going to decide it's a public or private issue, that really tends to rest on the merits of the case, does it not, and on public policy in Ontario?

Ms Klein: I think there is a procedural issue and there's a policy issue, and there's a context for the procedural issue but it's a separate issue.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): More or less dealing with the procedural aspect of it, if I might just refer people to the memo of April 23, distributed by the clerk, directed to the Chair from Dina Palozzi, Deputy Minister of Finance.

Things have changed since the original act; I'm certain of that. And is it not correct, in the last paragraph, page 2, that it's sort of being looked at now and that this may not be the appropriate time, the appropriate place for this kind of decision, that is for the content of the private bill, to be looked at and examined? Certainly not at this committee.

That's to you, is it?

Ms Klein: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: I'm referring to the memo dated April 23 from Dina Palozzi, deputy minister, last paragraph, page 2. It says that they really are looking at access to policies, the whole issue, under the current act, and that's probably the way this should be done, as opposed to what constitutes an amendment to a section here, an exemption.

Ms Klein: Or a particular privilege.

Mr O'Toole: I'm not trying to deal with the exemption or privilege issue. I think it's the appropriate place. Right now it's being dealt with. Would you agree that that's the right place for it to be --

Ms Klein: I agree that it's a public issue and the right place to deal with it is in the public forum.

The Chair: I would ask the clerk, any further comments on that?

Clerk of the Committee: Just with respect to the question where the right place is, I again want to stress, without taking any position, that this committee does have the absolute authority to decide that this is the right place. It may be that there may be a better place or whatever, but in terms of a right place, there isn't a right or wrong in this issue. It's whatever the committee ultimately decides.

Mr O'Toole: I just want to respond to that. I'm sympathetic to the issue, the underlying issue. The priority decision as to where it's best dealt with, we have information here to tell us that, but I'm sympathetic to this being an important issue today.

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): I have a question and I'm trying to get my mind around some of these things. The matter of recovering from a life insurance contract, as far as I'm concerned, having been in the insurance business, is a business deal. There are set regulations governing that. Apparently, not everyone in the life insurance business is prepared to make these viatical settlements and this company is offering the public an additional vehicle to obtain access to moneys that belong to them.

I really would like to support the people, but I am concerned about -- and maybe you can help me out. I'm having a problem, being a free-enterpriser, what the government's got to do with this thing: "I made a contract with an insurance company to buy some life insurance and there's an estopment here somewhere and I don't know why it's there."

Ms Klein: It's largely a policy question that you're asking, and all I can speak to is the procedural concern, but I guess if I can put it one way, it's that we have a public policy on the issue that says insurance companies can do this kind of transaction; non-insurers cannot. If this bill were passed, the result would be that no one in Ontario would be allowed to do this business except this one particular company, and the question is, do we make this kind of decision on the basis of one company?

Mr Sheehan: Why does it limit that only this company can do this?

Ms Klein: That's what this bill does; it's an application for an exception for this company.

The Chair: Before I go to the next order on the roster, which is Mrs Pupatello, Mr Thompson, did you have a comment?

Mr Thompson: I just wanted to say and to emphasize the fact that anybody who wants to go into competition, should Canadian Life Line be so favoured, would have the benefit of appearing before this committee and making their case, so there is no absolute bar.

Mrs Pupatello: I think, from the information we're getting, all of us would like to get into the issue in terms of the content, because I do have questions about it but I think there is some level of support in its content. However, if it doesn't go to this committee because we find that it's inappropriate in allowing permission to one particular company and not the rest in terms of giving this company an exception, how quickly would it move through in the discussions? Mr Kahan was mentioning that it could be a year away, that there is a report being written. Are you aware of a time frame or any quicker way to move it through the appropriate procedure if it's not this committee?

The Chair: Did you hear all of that question?

Ms Klein: I don't think I can answer how long it takes a government or a private member to introduce and pass a public bill, if that's the question.

Mrs Pupatello: Assume we don't deal with this today. Where is it going to go? Perhaps the minister's assistant has a thought on how he would address the issue. If it doesn't belong here, how will you be addressing this issue?

The Chair: I'll ask the clerk first.

Clerk of the Committee: I can address that procedurally. If this committee decides this is not the proper subject matter for a private bill, this private bill goes nowhere, in essence. It's going to stay referred to this committee but the committee will not deal with it again, and that will be the end of that matter for the private bill. What the other options are, I think as Susan said, whether a private member wishes to introduce something as a private member's bill to amend the Insurance Act or whether the government goes ahead and changes its policy is in the normal course of things.

Mrs Pupatello: That would be the comments from the parliamentary assistant, then?

Mr Shea: I would echo that, but I would also say that at that point the applicant might very well want to confer with Mr Kwinter and approach the appropriate ministry that may indeed be reviewing this in a broader sense and might wish to make application for a general consideration.

Mrs Pupatello: So we don't know at this point which ministry, where it would go. I just assumed it would be something dealing with financial institutions, either consumer and commercial relations --

Mr Shea: I think the question is whether it's appropriately before consumer and commercial or whether it's before the Ministry of Finance. I would suspect the Ministry of Finance. The parliamentary assistant for the minister is with us. We certainly have a letter from the ministry, from the deputy minister, which is a very powerful memo. It would strike me, in reading that, that the ministry has more than a passing interest in this issue in a very general way as well as specifically.

The Chair: Mr Sampson is on the roster, but I will continue in order with committee members at this point. We have heard the position from the applicants. Mr Bisson?

1040

Mr Bisson: I would like to move a motion, but just prior to that I would make the suggestion that really this matter could be dealt with as a private member's bill if a member wants to sponsor it in order to be able to deal with the issue, because I think there's a product that is needed on the part of some people in this province, if the applicants would want to approach one of the members and move it as a private member's bill in order to make the amendments to the various acts that need to be made. With that in mind, I would move that this Bill Pr39 is not a private bill.

The Chair: This motion is debatable, and what I will do is continue with the roster of committee members I have listed here.

Mr Bisson: The motion is basically saying that this is not a private bill to be dealt with by this committee.

The Chair: We've all heard the motion, and I will continue with this roster. Mr Smith.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Just as a follow-up to Mr Bisson's comments, I would have to concur with his opinion. We've had the comments from legislative counsel and the concerns with respect to the three principles that have been addressed by counsel. Although I won't speak for my colleagues Messrs O'Toole and Sheehan, I think there's a genuine concern about proceeding with the bill in advance of a more comprehensive look at the issue. Point well taken, to my colleague opposite, about the opportunity to pursue it in a different format. I would concur with that as well and certainly support his motion as presented.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): I think we're now in the process of debating the motion as it relates to not the merits of the bill, but whether it is in order, so I'll try to restrict my comments to that.

I would have to support, if I were a voting member of this committee, that particular motion. However, I would like to suggest that I believe it would be within the authority of this committee to suggest to the Minister of Finance that this issue be reviewed as a public policy issue in the course of the review of other financial institutions matters, including life insurance. That may well expedite some of the review that's currently being undertaken by the ministry in this regard for this particular product.

I am sympathetic, but it doesn't help the deputants in regard to their issue currently. But in the face of the fact that I think this is a public policy issue, frankly, that needs full consideration by a number of ministries, inclusive of finance, it should be dealt with in the traditional format for those type of bills, of which this is not the traditional format. I think, Mr Chairman, that's the extent of my discussion on that.

Mr Shea: I'd be very pleased to embrace the essence of Mr Sampson's recommendation in amendment to Mr Bisson's motion, which I am very pleased to support as well. I'm always pleased when I can support a motion by Mr Bisson.

Mr Bisson: Vote for the one on rent control, then.

Mr Shea: I will watch Mr Bisson on that one very carefully.

In terms of the issue before us, the procedural issue, may I first of all say that in my opinion Mr Kwinter is to be complimented. He has brought forward this application in an appropriate fashion and he has discharged his responsibilities as a representative very diligently and is to be complimented for it. Indeed, in his presentation, as I read between the lines, and I have known the honourable member for many years, he obviously reflected the agony of the discussion before us: Is this appropriately before us or not? So I appreciated that as well. I think many of us have the same sense that this applicant is trying to move in some new directions, but it has to proceed in an orderly fashion.

The merits of the case, in my opinion, are more appropriately argued in another setting, one that deals with an industry review in general. For that reason, my amendment asks the Minister of Finance to give consideration to this as part of an overall industry review that may or may not be taking place specifically at this time. But above all, in terms of the merit of this issue being before this committee, I think legislative counsel has made a very powerful presentation for us that it is a public issue. We have had three points outlined for us very clearly why this matter should not be placed before us, and I concur totally with that.

As you take a look also at the memo that we have received from the deputy minister of revenue and financial institutions, the Ministry of Finance, certainly in that memo the last paragraph on page 1 and the first paragraph on page 2 make the point very clear, again, that this matter is appropriately launched in some other jurisdiction. And the memo from the Ministry of the Attorney General, the last paragraph on the first page, also makes it very clear that this is a significant issue that transcends the appropriate jurisdiction of private bills.

For that reason, I do support the motion put forward by Mr Bisson and I hope that likewise members will support the amendment that I have placed to his as well.

The Chair: This committee has a motion before it, Mr Bisson's motion that this bill is not proper subject matter for a private bill, which means it is not proper subject matter for this committee. All in favour of --

Mr Kahan: Can I say something before you vote?

Mr Shea: No, it's before the committee.

The Chair: This is before the committee at this point.

Mr Kahan: Once you vote and you vote no, then I can't say anything.

The Chair: Again, this is addressed just to the committee.

All in favour of Mr Bisson's motion? A show of hands. All opposed? We declare unanimous consent for Mr Bisson's motion.

Mr Shea: My motion was a separate motion.

The Chair: Would you perhaps summarize or repeat the second motion?

Mr Shea: I think the clerk will pick that up, the motion. It was the sentiment expressed by Mr Sampson that this matter be also brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance and that it be brought to his attention that this should be the subject of review. If it is not ongoing, it should be considered by the ministry.

The Chair: All in favour of Mr Shea's motion? A show of hands. Opposed? I declare that motion passed unanimously.

Is there any other business? I declare this meeting adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1047.