PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 178, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold.
Mr. Swan: I have concluded my comments, thank you. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other honourable member wishing to participate in this debate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, prior to our adjournment for supper, the member for Welland-Thorold raised a concern about subsection 9(3) of the bill, adding clause (ga) to subsection 38(1) of the act. As a bit of background for the honourable member, back in the spring of 1982, the minister received a request from the employees of Fittings (1980) Inc. for an exemption from a part of the act, being that area under the investment requirements set out in the regulations.
The employees wanted to lend the pension plan moneys to the employer. Under the act, they can lend up to about 10 per cent. In this case, they wanted to lend an amount that would have equalled somewhere, if my memory serves me right, in the vicinity of 30 per cent. The company appeared to be a viable business but because they were experiencing cash-flow problems both the union and the employer believed the loan was necessary to keep the company in business and the employees active.
An exemption was made by regulation. However, the question still remains that under clause 38(l)(g), the other area of concern, all that is allowed is that employees can be removed from the whole of the act and not from a part. Hence we feel the necessity for clause (ga) to be there.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for third reading.
CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT
Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 216, An Act to revise the Mechanics' Lien Act.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I do have a statement, Mr. Speaker.
The Construction Lien Act which is before this assembly for second reading is the culmination of a long process of consultation by the ministry with all sectors of the construction industry. That industry, as we know, is complex and diverse, and those involved in it often have conflicting interests.
A house, apartment building, renovated store, a sewage treatment plant, an office tower and a steel mill are all examples of construction; so are bridges and streets. There are different considerations involved in owning, financing, designing, supervising, and supplying materials and labour to each of these forms of construction.
Lien legislation must, therefore, be designed to protect those who supply services and materials to each form of construction. It must attempt to do so without destroying the desire to build, or indeed the integrity of the building process.
A construction project usually involves numerous specialists who have little or often no contact with one another. Mortgage lenders do not deal directly with contractors, subcontractors or other suppliers of services or materials. Subcontractors and labour material suppliers do not deal with the owner.
Lien legislation is intended to protect those who supply services and materials to a construction project from the actions of those with whom they deal directly and from those with whom they have no contact. It is, of course, a difficult task.
The impetus for this revision in the lien legislation came from the Council of Ontario Contractor Associations, COCA, and in particular its lien committee. The chairman of that committee, Mr. Wesley Watts, together with the president, Mr. Matthew Tomjenovic, and Mr. Cliff Bulmer and their colleagues are in the Speaker's gallery tonight. I welcome them, on behalf of all of our members, to this provincial Parliament, and congratulate them for the very significant contribution they have made.
This association represents a meeting ground of contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers and others from a broad spectrum of the industry. After a long internal struggle to achieve agreements on the changes to the Mechanics' Lien Act that it sought, a brief was submitted to me in 1978. It was clear that so many new concepts could not be easily drafted under the existing Mechanics' Lien Act. A full revision of the legislation was required.
In November 1980 the Ministry of the Attorney General published a discussion paper on the draft Construction Lien Act. The draft included most of the proposals made by COCA. It also included numerous suggestions from other sources, and codified much of the existing case law. The discussion paper was designed and did serve as a framework to stimulate discussions regarding reform of the lien legislation. All sectors of the industry accepted my invitation to participate in the process of developing new lien legislation, and the ministry received many briefs and submissions.
In May 1981, I established my advisory committee on the draft Construction Lien Act under the chairmanship of Stephen Fram of the policy development division of the ministry. It goes without saying that this has been a very personal and professional commitment on the part of Mr. Fram who is with us tonight. I would like to compliment him as a colleague and friend for the excellent work he has done in chairing this important committee and reconciling the many different interests in this most important of industries.
8:10 p.m.
I asked all sectors of the industry to suggest members. The committee was composed of lawyers, experts in mechanics' lien law nominated by labour, contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, residential builders and industrial owners, commercial sureties, the banks, municipalities, the crown and the courts.
I asked the committee to review the draft legislation and the discussion paper, to consider the responses the ministry had received from the construction industry, to prepare a report embodying its findings and recommendations and to examine and approve draft legislation to implement its recommendations. I invited my advisory committee to develop its own proposals for reform based on the experience and expertise of its members.
On April 21, 1982, I tabled in the assembly the extensive report of my committee. That report, I am happy to relate once again and remind the members, was unanimous. The committee made it clear that its proposals were a balanced package. Every interest group lost something it had hoped to gain, but the committee felt its package should fairly meet the needs of all segments of the construction industry. I believe the committee was correct.
The bill before members for second reading this evening is substantially the same as the one proposed by the advisory committee. Changes have been made to make the bill more closely reflect the committee's intentions, to cover certain technical and procedural omissions and to correct a few errors in drafting.
How has the bill been received by the industry? With one exception, which I will soon explain, it has been very well received. Almost every interest group quickly perceived what it had lost, but after careful consideration felt the bill was a significant improvement over the Mechanics' Lien Act. Those representing workers, contractors and subcontractors, material suppliers, industrial and commercial owners, commercial sureties, municipalities, the crown and the courts, have accepted the bill as a package.
Mortgage lenders, apartment and hotel builders and some residential house builders have expressed opposition to subsection 80(2) which provides holdback security. Since 1978 holdback security has been a major principle underlying the revision of lien legislation. In the discussion paper of 1980, holdback security was set out in the draft in the form of a joint trust account in the names of the owner and the contractor. It should be noted that apartment builders and lenders strongly opposed this form of holdback security as well.
My advisory committee rejected the joint trust account approach because it involved excessive costs to major institutional owners, who were seldom if ever in default of their obligations. At the same time they felt it did not really protect suppliers of services and materials to improvements, such as residential construction, whose owners created a greater risk of default.
My advisory committee, after great consideration, proposed subsection 80(2). That subsection gives lien claimants priority over building mortgages to the extent of any deficiency in the holdback that the owner is required, under this legislation, to retain, I believe that holdback security is imperative. I believe that without holdback security, the lien legislation simply would be a sham.
Let me briefly explain. The lien legislation requires an owner to withhold from payment to a contractor a percentage of the contract price already earned for the protection of those under the contractor or contractors. This bill sets the percentage at 10 per cent. Earlier legislative proposals set it at percentages varying between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. The law tells the owner not to pay that amount. If he does pay it the law requires him to pay it again, and the courts will sell his interest in the premises to pay lien claimants.
It is worth remembering that the basic assumption underlying lien legislation since 1873 is that the owner's interest in the property, his equity, would be security for the lien. Since the concept of holdback was introduced in 1887 the assumption has been that the right to withhold payment from the contractor is not for the owner's benefit but for the benefit of subcontractors and other suppliers of services and materials.
The Legislature has assumed that the owner's equity in the property could be sold to recover at least the amount of the holdback. If it is not sufficient, the Legislature, by requiring the holdback, has done a great disservice to the construction industry.
Institutional lenders are required to observe statutory limits in granting mortgages. There requirements are imposed primarily for the protection of investors and depositors, and possible violations of those limits have been of great concern, as we have heard only too often in recent days.
In both the case of those who improve real property and the case of the depositors, investors and institutional lenders, legislation is designed to protect those who may be harmed by risks undertaken by those over whom they have no control. The role of the Legislature has been to protect innocent persons from the effects of risks undertaken by others. It is not risk-taking to which we as legislators object; it is risk-taking with other people's money.
Section 82 is the form of holdback security recommended to me by my advisory committee. It gives lien claimants a priority over mortgages to the extent of a deficiency in the 10 per cent holdback that the owner is required to retain. It is designed to ensure that the owner has sufficient money or interest in a property to secure the holdback that the act requires the owner to retain.
Where a building mortgage is advanced, the mortgage lender is in the best position to take steps to require an owner to have this amount available for lien claimants. Prudent mortgage lenders have practices today that, with little if any change, will result in no loss to themselves as a result of this priority. Where a building mortgagee advances funds to an extent and in a manner that does not protect the holdback, the mortgagee forced to sell should in those circumstances bear the loss of priority.
I believe the fears that have been spread about the adverse effects of the provision are totally out of proportion. Those who have objected to section 82 are not opposed to the principle of holdback security; they are simply fearful about the approach taken, I believe, with respect, that their fearfulness exceeds their creative ability. In the more than two years since the publication of the minister's discussion paper not a single suggestion for a system of holdback security has come from either the apartment builders or the mortgage lenders.
While holdback security is an essential part of the package of provisions making up this bill, there are of course many other provisions that should improve the operation of lien legislation. The entire thrust of the revision has been to prevent needless impediments to the flow of money on a construction project while protecting the interests of those who have contributed services and materials.
The legislation has been made universal in its application. No longer may the unsuspecting be asked to sign away their lien rights. The trust provisions of this bill are more intelligible and should be more effective.
8:20 p.m.
One owner's trust that is new constitutes the proceeds of an owner's sale as a trust until the price of the improvement is paid. The nine-month limitation preventing the bringing of a trust action against a tender has been eliminated.
Receivers acting for lenders who suspect money in their possession may be subject to a trust may apply to a court for directions. This should result in more trust money being made available to claimants.
The holdback is reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent of the value of services and materials supplied. This is more in keeping with contractors' profit margins. It should reduce the cost of borrowing by contractors and subcontractors while still offering protection.
Another very important principle and aspect of the legislation is that the priority over other claimants of workers' lien claims for wages has been extended from 30 days to 40 working days. Unions and trustees for workers' trust funds are able to enforce payment directly on behalf of workers. Trustees for those funds have the right to determine if there are arrears in payment. This bill reflects the needs of workers in the industry of today.
The lien period is extended from the existing 37 to 45 days to make the lien remedy work for material suppliers and workers. Those who build subdivision roads dedicated to a municipality are given a right to lien where now there is no right.
The concept of substantial performance of the contract has been codified to allow for early release of most of the holdback while protecting the finishing trades.
Provision is made for publication of the certificate to permit material suppliers and trustees of workers' trusts to protect those interests. Voluntary certification of completed subcontracts is retained.
There are provisions to limit lien claims to services and materials that have been supplied, while allowing further claims for lien to be preserved when services and materials have been supplied.
These provisions should improve the position of the owner, the contractor and others awaiting payment on a project. The right to examine a claimant on his claim for liens should save owners and contractors considerable amounts of money and should facilitate reasonable settlements of claims.
There are significant procedural improvements to reduce unnecessary delay in lien trials. Defendants for claims must file defences or lose their right to object. The right of persons to demand relevant information has been made more effective without interfering unduly with business confidentiality. By taking this approach and providing a procedure for enforcement, the process should benefit all those involved in construction.
Those whose payment is guaranteed by a labour and material bond have been given a direct right of action on the bond. Construction lien legislation is a system for protecting vulnerable interests that unlike health, welfare or education does not require significant public expenditures.
Of course, there are limits to the protection that can be accomplished with this approach. However, the fact that after 110 years the legislation is still advocated by all segments of the industry is a fact that speaks for itself. Perhaps more than any earlier revision, this legislation is a creation of the construction industry representing the many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of citizens of our province who are involved in that industry. It is a balanced bill based on intelligent compromises. I trust it will serve the industry well.
In conclusion, I would like once again to thank the many people who served with such dedication on my advisory committee, some of whom are in the gallery. I particularly thank those who served without any compensation other than knowing they were serving the public interest and, of course, the public as a whole in this very important industry. I would also like to thank the opposition members who have been interested in this legislation and the positive approach they have taken to what they recognize as important legislation.
All members can be confident this legislation -- while involving a number of delicate compromises -- should serve the industry well and, therefore, serve the public interest of our province.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General mentioned that when he first introduced this legislation on June 8 he referred to the ongoing involvement that had occurred since 1978 as the industry-wide consultation had begun to bring us a modern Mechanics' Lien Act. Following the initial report of his advisory committee, as was mentioned, we saw the legislation that came before the House as Bill 216.
Since that time a number of suggestions have been made concerning improvements to the bill. Certainly a variety of contracting groups and companies has expressed concern as to the progress this bill might receive before the Legislature. As the Attorney General mentioned we began this in 1978. I think it is fair to say the legislation before us does attempt to embody the principles of fairness, expedition and inexpensiveness, which have been generally agreed to by the various parties in the industry.
The details of the principles of the bill reflect compromise among the various parties; and typical of all compromises, the proposals in Bill 139 are obviously not all held in equal favour by the groups that had joined in the preparation of the statute.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and I met with representatives of the construction industry. I too welcome Mr. Matthew Tomjenovic, the president of that organization, and the members who have served on his advisory council who advised on the bill and who are with the Attorney General's representatives tonight in the Speaker's gallery.
Our support for the bill at that time was assured. It was interesting that meeting came after a series of letters had been received which had asked late in December for the bill to proceed as promised and to be in place on January 1, 1983. For letters that were dated December 23 and later, when the House had adjourned for at least several weeks, that, of course, was not going to be possible.
It was important, though, to assure the numbers of constituents with an interest in this legislation, who I am sure wrote to each one of us, that the bill would be proceeding. We assured them we would be back in session in January.
My leader and I met with Mr. Tomjenovic and others who were involved and who sought our support for the speedy passage of Bill 139. Where legislation such as this is the result of a variety of compromises one might have expected to have heard from persons who were not content with how this or that particular item was dealt with. There were several such letters, although they were quite in the minority. It is my understanding that some views expressed, particularly in the areas dealing with section 80, which has been referred to by the Attorney General, were not accepted. Rather, the bill as it has generally gone through the system is what we see before us tonight.
8:30 p.m.
A prominent labour lawyer, Mr. Raymond Koskie, QC, wrote, in some concluding remarks in an article entitled The Construction Worker as an Unsecured Creditor, as follows:
"The new bill contains extensive reform in the way of protection of construction workers and their interests. The extension and clarification of the wage priority, the extension of the period for preserving a lien and the recognition of workers' trust funds and their role in providing benefits to workers all point in this direction.
"Nevertheless, reduction of the statutory hold- back from 15 per cent to 10 per cent of the value of work performed may render many of these reforms to be of a purely academic nature in practical terms. A reduction of the amount of the holdback available to the workers simply provides less protection in the event of the inability of a construction industry employer to meet his payroll and larger amounts against which an owner or contractor can set off his additional costs of completing the contract.
"Accordingly, while the initial objectives of the legislation in providing additional protection for workers are enhanced in many of the provisions of the new bill, it remains to be seen whether in practice these objectives will be furthered any by reducing the basic protection which mechanics' lien legislation has always afforded to all lien claimants, namely, the statutory holdback.
"The reduction of the holdback was by far the most divisive issue among the members of the Attorney General's advisory committee on the draft Construction Lien Act and, as indicated in the report of that committee, several of its members do not recommend the reduction in the rate of holdback, although the majority did recommend the reduction.
"For contractors and subcontractors, a reduced holdback is probably a worthwhile tradeoff for the benefit of five per cent improved cash flow on a construction project. The question still remains as to whether the benefit of the additional protections granted to workers under the new bill will result, as a practical matter, in an equally worthwhile tradeoff."
That article simply confirms from another point of view that the legislation before us has been a process of give and take and a result of a number of compromises. Indeed, we have suddenly moved from dealing with Bill 139 to dealing with Bill 216. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the earlier order was discharged and the bill before us now, which was introduced yesterday, is the result of further changes the Attorney General has brought together through the various aspects of the organizations involved.
I must confess that perhaps unlike the way we are treating certain other ministers at this time, I have very little choice but to take the Attorney General on trust in these matters.
Mr. T. P. Reid: That has been a mistake in the past.
Mr. Breithaupt: I hope it is not a mistake this time. In the typescript pages we received before this bill was brought in again, there are some 30 or so pages of additional corrections and changes that are very difficult to read in the small print they are in, but they were done with the best of goodwill and good spirit by the scribes in the ministry. The comment on the cover is really the only thing we can compare on such short notice. It says, "All changes have been vetted with the members of the Attorney General's advisory committee and no objections have been made."
Trust is a relevant thing, and I was able to speak with Mr. Tomjenovic just as we adjourned at six o'clock. He confirms that such is the case, that the interested parties have had an opportunity to make further submissions and to review the changes that now appear before us as Bill 216. The bill is an involved one, as would be anything that deals with principles of law that are more than 100 years old in Ontario. I believe we would be well advised to accept the bill and recognize that there may well be the occasion for further amendments once we have sorted out whether the changes are practical or require some additional information.
As a result, rather than have the bill go to a committee of the House for further public input when I do not think it would be required, or to committee of the whole House, which I believe will be unnecessary as a result of these additional amendments and the new form of the bill, I think the Legislature can prudently proceed to pass the bill through this House without the committee stage.
No doubt there will be additional comments made from time to time on the legislation. For example, one looks at the compromise made in the suggestion of moving the holdback from 37 days to the 60 days and finding that the committee could agree on 45 days. I do not know whether 45 days is going to be the practical result; however, we will have the opportunity to see how it works.
At least there will be the requirement that the Attorney General guarantee not to let another 112 years go by before possible changes can be considered. I realize that one does not want to rush into these things -- and we have been waiting for freedom of information legislation for almost that long, but we will talk about that in concurrence one of these days.
I am prepared to accept the bill, recognizing that many of the details have been sorted out. Yet there no doubt will be questions asked and other developments in the next several months or possibly years. In some instances the lending institutions are not entirely pleased with the changes that deal with certain priority positions, but the bill has been a result of some compromise and, as a result, I think it is worthy of support.
Certainly we will support the bill. We welcome its being in place so that the law will be clear and all those involved in aspects of the construction industry will know their rights and responsibilities.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to repeat a number of the comments made by the Attorney General and by my colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), but I want to say that I too welcome the appearance in the gallery of Mr. Matthew Tomjenovic, Mr. W. L. B. Watts, Mr. Cliff Bulmer and their colleagues of the Council of Ontario Contractor Associations, who have been in contact with each and all of the caucuses.
I want to deal very briefly with the events of the past few days with respect to this bill and then go on to some substantial matters. I appreciate the courtesy which, as always, has been extended to me by Mr. Stephen Fram in relation to this bill in his anxiety to be certain that any changes which developed in the course of the refinement of this bill would be brought to our attention promptly and readily, which they were at the end of last week and over the weekend.
I have no problem with the significant number of procedural and, if one wants to talk about them, technical changes, which were introduced into the bill and led to the motion to withdraw Bill 139 and to introduce what now is Bill 216.
I appreciate the courtesy of the past few days, as do my colleagues in our caucus. I think it reflects the general view of the kind of co-operative activity that can take place in this assembly among the parties when a matter of this importance is before us, affecting, as it does, so many people.
Let me go back to Bill 216 or Bill 139, whatever one wishes to call it, and talk a little bit about the substance of the bill. The Attorney General is to be complimented on the process by which he involved all the people from the many divergent interests that were involved in a very complex topic. I know, as I guess does every lawyer who has practised in the commercial and business world, that whatever one likes to think about the simplicity of the law, it is not possible, when you have many conflicting interests, to devise a process that is simple and easy.
I think the experience over the years with the Mechanics' Lien Act and the result of the work of the Attorney General in the preparation of the original discussion paper, followed by the work of the advisory committee and then the final refinements that have taken place since that time, indicate quite clearly that the bill is both complex and difficult and one in which practitioners have an immense interest as they advance the interests of the clients they may represent where there are disputes about the priorities that are to be given under the act.
8:40 p.m.
Having said that, I think one must go back to the fundamental principle that is involved and perhaps state it, as did the then Chief Justice of the common pleas court in 1919, Mr. Chief Justice Meredith, when he said about the Mechanics' Lien Act: "The general purpose of the Mechanics' Lien Act is to give those whose work or services or materials go, in the manner provided in the act, to the owner in enhancement of the value of the land, security, as far as is just and practicable, upon the land and its improvements for payment of such work or services or materials."
I think that is the principle stated as well as it can be stated, and it indicates that the owner of land must not have an unjust enrichment at the expense of those who supply the materials and the labour that enhance the value of that land. That still is the guiding principle, as I understand it, in the bill that is before us this evening for second reading.
One perhaps would have liked to think that the ancient term "Mechanics' Lien Act" could have been preserved. Perhaps the Construction Lien Act will begin to indicate something less than what it was intended to do as an informative act to indicate that working people supplying their labour and supplying materials to construction sites to improve land are entitled to a priority that only this Legislature can give because it was a priority that was not available at common law.
I think that is an important and very significant point that has to be made about the bill. It is a legislation-created recognition that those at the bottom of the construction pile who have the least ultimate recourse for payment for goods and services should have the additional protection that is provided.
I know it is a difficult concept when that priority is asserted at the expense of those who under ordinary principles of the common law with respect to mortgages find that their position is somewhat affected because working people and suppliers of materials are given a priority in a limited sense over and above what the common law otherwise would provide.
I am pleased; indeed, from the point of view of our caucus, if one had to reduce the question to something simple, which is often difficult with a bill like this, I would have said we were prepared to accept the reduction of the holdback from 15 per cent to 10 per cent in return for the enhanced lien priority given under the bill.
I recognize and can understand, without being pejorative in any sense, the concern expressed about that priority by the Canadian Bankers' Association and the Urban Development Institute, but I simply say, as I said in our discussions in the caucus and elsewhere, we would not have supported the reduction of the holdback had we not had something that could be called a tradeoff in the sense of the enhanced priority of the lien in this bill.
That is a very simplistic way of reducing a complex bill to a matter of what ultimately makes the decision for us. I need not repeat what my colleague the member for Kitchener has said about the reservation we still have. I will just repeat the last sentence of the excellent paper prepared by Mr. Raymond Koskie, a member in a sense representing the labour interests on the advisory committee, where he stated: "The question still remains as to whether the benefit of the additional protections granted to workers under the new bill will result, as a practical matter, in an equally worthwhile tradeoff." Meaning, of course, the reduction of the holdback from 15 per cent to 10 per cent.
I am indebted again to Mr. Koskie for pointing out very clearly that there are significant clarifications with respect to that aspect of the wage package of working people who are protected in the bill.
In the course of the history of the Mechanics Lien Act there have been a number of developments about fringe benefits payable either by statute, under collective agreements or otherwise to working people. It is important to understand that the wage package of a working person does not consist solely of the dollar amount he receives each week, but that some steps had to be taken to make certain that those who were trustees of fringe benefits would also have a right to assert a lien in appropriate circumstances on behalf of the beneficiaries of those trust funds with respect to the fringe benefits that are covered by the definition.
Those of us who follow these matters know that wage package covers a wide range of topics. Vacation and statutory holiday pay funds are one; pension funds are another. There are welfare funds, training funds, supplementary unemployment benefits funds, union dues and working dues. Then there are numerous other variations of what now constitutes that wage package. The recognition of that trust fund concept is important in the refining and modernizing of the law related to working people.
I do not believe I need to go on about that aspect of the revised bill at any great length. Those are the principal points that were of concern to me, and they all relate to part III of the bill.
However, I could not conclude my remarks on the bill without referring to the vexed problem of part II; that is, the trust provisions, which are separate and distinct from the assertion of the lien by the claimant on the property with respect to wages or for materials.
It always has been a vexed problem to me that the statute provided for in the ancient Mechanics' Lien Act would be repealed and that this bill provides for a trust fund and a trustee without any requirement of segregation. That was a vexed problem that faced the advisory committee and undoubtedly faced those who prepared the discussion paper on the bill. Indeed, it was a vexed problem for anyone, when he read the Mechanics' Lien Act for the first time, to understand what they were talking about, to conceive what was this trust fund, where it was, where could one find it if one went to look for it.
Even though the statute specifically stated there was a trust fund and that there was a trustee of the trust fund, there was no obligation of segregation. There was no obligation to make certain that somehow or other it was not commingled in some way, and that is a problem that has not been resolved by those who have had the work involved in reaching the compromise which this bill reflects before the assembly tonight.
It may well be a long time before this bill is next reviewed -- even the Attorney General, the member for Kitchener and myself may not be in the chamber 40 or 50 years from now when that happens -- but if this bill does not work and provide the clear and ready protection it is designed to provide, it may well be that someone else down the road is going to have to look again at the question of segregation of the trust fund and protection of the workers through the trust fund coming to the contractor.
8:50 p.m.
I need not read the whole of section 7 of the bill in part II on the trust provisions to emphasize that point. I will read the one salient subsection which states, "All amounts received by an owner that are to be used in the financing of the improvement, including any amount that is to be used in the payment of the purchase price of the land and the payment of prior encumbrances, constitute, subject to the payment of the purchase price of the land and prior encumbrances, a trust fund for the benefit of the contractor."
Then subsection 4 states, "The owner is the trustee of the trust fund created and he shall not appropriate or convert any part of a fund to his own use or to any use inconsistent with the trust until the contractor is paid all amounts related to the improvement owed to him by the owner."
The vexed question of whether ultimately there should be a segregation of that fund in a way that would be able to say the trustee is separate from the person who is in a sense the ultimate beneficiary of the obligations that are there is one that may have to be left for another occasion.
It is confusing in the bill for anyone who tries to understand how that trust fund works, because it is so separate and distinct from the traditional view of the bill as establishing the lien claim part of the bill in the next part. I thought I should bring that to the attention of the House.
As there has been substantially little change in that area of the bill, it may be lost sight of that it was because that problem could not be solved by the advisory committee in working out the compromise of the arrangements that we have part II in its rather laconic way, and then we have the very detailed provisions of part III dealing with the more readily grasped concept of the lien itself.
When we received the bill in June 1982, and the report of the advisory committee in April 1982, we consulted with colleagues in the Ontario Federation of Labour about the matter. As far as we are concerned, we have had no specific objections registered by those who represent organized labour in the province. It is fair to say that they recognize, as well as the Council of Ontario Contractor Associations, all the subcontractors' organizations and all the diverse interests that were involved, that, as the Attorney General has said on more than one occasion and again tonight, the bill represents a significant attempt to modernize an ancient statute to meet the needs of a more complex world and protect the basic fundamental lien to which I referred in those remarks by the then chief justice of the common pleas, Mr. Chief Justice Meredith. At the same time, it is a significant compromise by all the people working on the bill to attempt to achieve a workable model.
Time alone will tell whether that model is workable. I expect, with the attention that has been given to it, that it will be seen to have been a significant improvement. There undoubtedly will be problems that will come up that were not thought of, but as I said when I made my recommendation to caucus on the bill, "For once I agree with the Attorney General that the process of consultation renders committee abortive on this bill, and there is no reason why we should not support the whole of the revision on second reading."
That has been our position since last June and remains our position today. We accept the bill in the way in which it has been developed and put before us with the study we have been able to give to it. We feel no need that the bill should go into committee of the whole House,
I end where I began. I think those who have been involved in the process, the Attorney General and all the other people, are to be complimented on the process by which this bill has finally come to us. I hope it will receive the unanimous consent of the House.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Carleton-Grenville.
Mr. Conway: The minister for hiding information; his second speech in four hours.
Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no piece of legislation that could come before --
Mr. T. P. Reid: Free Norm Sterling.
Mr. Conway: Is the Tory nomination in Carleton-Grenville --
Hon. Mr. Sterling: I do not know how I can evoke such a response when I am talking about the Construction Lien Act. As I was saying before I was interrupted, I do not believe there is another piece of legislation that could touch more closely the two professions I had the privilege to practise prior to becoming a legislator.
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Sterling: I hope to say something about information prior to the closing of my brief remarks.
I think this bill is a prime example of the kind of work Stephen Fram, a dedicated servant of the Attorney General, is capable of and has achieved, not only on this piece of legislation but also on previous pieces of legislation. I know he is also working on future legislation, I hope with as good results as this bill.
The classic balance between the dropping of the holdback from 15 per cent to 10 per cent as against the giving up of the priority of the mortgagee is a fair compromise, in my view. The reasons as outlined in the report perhaps should be read into the record, as they are brief, clear and cogent. The reasons for giving up the priority of the mortgagee to the workers, the suppliers and the subcontractors are simply stated:
"Mortgagees are usually better able to spread the risk of a default than are the suppliers to an improvement. The bargaining strength of mortgagees vis-à-vis an owner will enable them to obtain alternate security from owners to compensate them for any additional risks which they may run as a result of their reduced priority."
I think the burden is being placed where it should be. I believe in the past mortgagees have perhaps not taken a significant enough role in the construction phase of buildings going on land on which they have lent money.
I also like many of the other provisions of the bill which will clarify and simplify the procedure necessary for a subcontractor or worker to go through to claim what is due him.
I understand a great deal of interest has been generated as a result of the initial bill that was tabled by the Attorney General. As many as 1,300 lawyers have attended various conferences to discuss and examine these provisions. I hope the playback from those lawyers, who examined this proposed act in detail, to which the Attorney General has reacted in clarifying the act and its most recent amendment, will make it as flawless as possible.
My greatest hope is that the new act will encourage less use of its provisions than has been common in the past. My hope is that the quicker and clearer provisions will lead more quickly to bona fide negotiations resulting in settlements, rather than in needless and costly litigation.
9 p.m.
Finally, to those who made various comments about another responsibility which I bear, may I draw to their attention a section entitled Rights to Information, on page 34, dealing with the reasoning behind the particular act, the second paragraph of which reads: "In our opinion, the problem with the existing provisions of the Mechanics' Lien Act is that they require the disclosure of too much information. Much of this information is likely to be irrelevant to the conduct of the lien action."
Then it goes on to explain that it confuses rather than clarifies a situation.
I do not know whether we should continue with that kind of thrust in other pieces of legislation, but I would like to add my congratulations to the working committee which worked so hard to put this together. I congratulate them on the balance and the logic of their final conclusions. Indeed, I indicate my unqualified support for this bill.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I defer to my colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley). I will be next.
Mr. Bradley: I will speak briefly to this bill, Mr. Speaker, because the Attorney General and other members of the Legislature would know that those of us who reside in areas where there are a number of construction companies, contractors and subcontractors, have received an avalanche of mail from these people, all of which urges upon the Legislature the quick passage of this legislation.
Indeed, we received representations from these individuals and companies before the Christmas break. There was apparently a promise on the part of the Ministry of the Attorney General, or someone on the government side, that this bill would pass and be in effect by January 1, 1983. That was not to be the case. But to show our support for this kind of bill and the need and urgency of this legislation, I think it is very wise that we not spend considerable time in debate this evening.
But I would like to draw a parallel here tonight, if I may, Mr. Speaker -- I know that you and the Attorney General will find it very relevant -- and that is the approach taken in this bill compared to the approach taken in Bill 127.
In this particular bill, the initial reaction to it might well have been somewhat negative. There may have been some problems way back in the early stages. Instead of being bullheaded about it, the Attorney General, who is a very conciliatory individual, said: "There are a lot of changes that have to be made. Why don't we withdraw the bill and start anew?"
So, lo and behold, the Attorney General, being the reasonable individual that he can be on occasion, decided he would withdraw the entire legislation, start anew rather than adding amendments here and there, and he came forward with a new bill, which I believe is now going to be accepted by both opposition parties and certainly by those who have made strong representations to the Attorney General and to his officials.
Mr. Philip: Too had you guys did not do that on Bill 179.
Mr. Bradley: The landlord from Etobicoke has a comment to make here this evening. He wishes to distract us. He wants to tell everybody if it were a different crowd in the gallery tonight he would have a different speech; but we accept it. I know when more than five are gathered together, my good friend the member for Etobicoke would want to point out the virtue of his case in each and every piece of legislation that comes forward.
However, I know the Speaker would want me to address myself to the legislation that is before us and not to the interjections from my good friend from Etobicoke.
The Deputy Speaker: Or Bill 127.
Mr. Bradley: Yes. I simply wanted to draw that parallel to demonstrate how legislation can pass quickly through this House after having been studied carefully in its early stages and when we have a minister who is prepared to be responsive to the representations of the opposition and certainly those who are going to be directly affected by this bill.
That is why I want to commend him and urge upon him a course of action in relation to Bill 127: that he counsel the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) to follow the same conciliatory and reasonable course of action the Attorney General has followed in this piece of legislation. He deserves a good deal of credit and the praise of those of us in the opposition.
It has been pointed out by those who are more learned in the law than I, that this will modernize this particular piece of legislation, bring it up to date, bring it into the 1980s at a time when this kind of change is needed. It is certainly going to provide those in the contracting and subcontracting business far more peace of mind than existed in the past. These are people you would know from your own riding, Mr. Speaker, who have been hit hard by the recession in which we currently find ourselves.
They are looking for every possible assistance from the government, monetary and nonmonetary. When it is a change in legislation that is going to be beneficial to them, of course, they are going to want to be supportive of that. We in the opposition are pleased to see this legislation before us. Because we do not see any major flaws in it, we are certainly prepared to see this legislation pass as quickly as possible.
We urged the minister to do so before Christmas but he recognized he had to make some changes. We know now we are in a relatively short session, which I am sure will end by about July 8 or 9. Based on that, we want to ensure this legislation gets through relatively quickly.
In keeping with the kind of consensus that has developed this evening, and therefore the lack of need for a confrontation such as the kind which exists over Bill 127, I am going to keep my remarks uncharacteristically short and yield the floor to my good friend the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), who no doubt will find some very good things to say about the Attorney General, the bill and its relationship to Bill 127.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I will be my usual brief self.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Not everybody has to have a say.
Mr. Roy: Does the minister's tie clip hurt him again? No? Okay. I do not know about the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe). He gets annoyed sometimes and I just feel he is leaning forward too much and gets bothered by his tie clip.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: We only worry about you Albert, Tuesday and Thursday.
Mr. Roy: Has the minister ever said anything original in all his years here?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: To you, no, because we see you only Tuesday and Thursday.
Mr. Roy: I do not mind being kidded about my presence here because it is obvious that whether I am here or not it is noticed; but sometimes I would like the minister to say something original, just change the wording around and maybe talk about Thursday before Tuesday or something like that. I would just like to have something --
The Deputy Speaker: My microphone is not working.
Mr. Roy: It is not working and you cannot keep them under control. I promise I shall be brief and to the point on this issue. My task is exceedingly difficult this evening because I am following the excellent speech of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling).
Mr. T. P. Reid: Minister of noninformation.
Mr. Roy: My colleague the member for Rainy River called him the minister of noninformation but that is unfair.
I applaud the initiative of the Provincial Secretary for Justice because, given whatever opportunity is around, he takes advantage of it. Things are slow in the ministry right now, especially on the information side, so he spends his time here keeping an eye on the Attorney General, which is a good idea. After all, he should make his point and he should not be afraid to say so.
When the minister is getting up in the House he is actually his boss; he is the Provincial Secretary for Justice. It is well that he keeps an eye on the Attorney General when he brings forward legislation, especially a bill that is as thick as this one involving 93 sections. Most of us will sleep better at night knowing the Provincial Secretary for Justice has looked at this and has approved it. So I can only say to the Attorney General, given that tacit approval how can I oppose it.
9:10 p.m.
I used to know something about the Mechanics' Lien Act. Unfortunately, I know much less. In my early days, when the construction business --
Mr. Conway: His practice has moved on to other concerns.
Mr. T. P. Reid: He lowered the tariffs on mechanics' lien actions.
Mr. Roy: No. The construction business has slowed down; we get much less lien work than we used to. I think that is probably the same --
Mr. Conway: During question period you are into the divorce side of things.
Mr. Roy: Even in the divorce aspect of it, my cynical friend the member for Renfrew North should know, my involvement is limited as well.
I will say candidly that at one time I knew the Mechanics' Lien Act quite well. I once spent 14 days at trial involving drywall. Does the Attorney General not think a 14-day mechanics' lien trial involving drywall was exciting?
Mr. T. P. Reid: Justice triumphed, a major bill.
Mr. Roy: I say to my friend the member for Rainy River not to worry about my fee or my bill. It was well taken care of.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Justice was done, they paid his bill.
Mr. Roy: Did he have a point of order? In any event, the Attorney General should know that I was successful. One of the important points in the action was whether or not there was substantial completion of the contract. I notice that in this legislation the minister now corrects that. There is a definition of what is substantial completion. That is important.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It is 97 per cent.
Mr. Roy: It is more than that. Now it has to be something more than one per cent of the purchase price or $1,000. Does he remember in the old days when a client would come in and say: "The 37 days are over, I am in trouble. I have not registered my lien"? He would take a run down there and put a plug in the wall or something to get the period running again. It is going to be more difficult. It will have to be an expensive outlet now if one is to get an extension of the time.
Mr. Bradley: If the member keeps walking, they will have to put all the microphones on. They have two on now.
Mr. Roy: They should. I like a lot of lights in front of me when I am speaking.
That is one element that has been corrected in the legislation. It is an important one. The other matter of importance is the 15 per cent holdback. Again, a compromise was arrived at. It does make sense, when one looks at the interests of the contractor and the owner, to determine that maybe the 15 per cent holdback was unduly harsh in some circumstances.
I also like the idea of having different types of holdback, what is called the basic holdback for a certain period of time and then another involving the finishing work. Again, that is innovative and something that can be helpful in the business.
The other matter which had a lot of people pulling their hair was the 37 days to register one's lien. To make sure a lien was registered was at times traumatic in the practice. I notice it has been increased to 45 days. Again, this is more sensible.
There were times when liens were registered creating great financial difficulties on a project because people were hustling. They thought they were not going to get paid and so they were registering their liens. In the process, one knows what happened to the mortgage moneys and everything else. This is an important improvement in the act.
One other matter I would like to mention is that I see there are now provisions for damages if one registers a lien or has a lien that is grossly exaggerated. That was always a problem. We would get into these pretrials with an individual who had a lien for $100.000, but upon looking at it I would find out it was something less. I see there are provisions for damages for one who exaggerates the amount or who has a lien that is not registered in good faith, as I understand it, so that frivolous and vexatious claims will be discouraged. I think that is an important improvement in the act.
I know this is not exciting stuff and I am trying to be as interesting as possible. When one is talking about mechanics' lien it is not easy.
The Deputy Speaker: I am listening.
Mr. Roy: I know you are listening, Mr. Speaker, although it is quite a burden and sacrifice. Nevertheless, I shall carry on. The final thing I would like to mention that used to cause no end of difficulty was the question of costs.
The Deputy Speaker: For the lawyer.
Mr. Roy: Not only for the lawyer, but for the client, to make sure he got reasonable costs. I saw many circumstances. As I recall, it used to be that one could not get more than 25 per cent. Sometimes in small lien actions it was unfair. I notice more discretion is given now on the question of costs. I understand the courts are given much more discretion in awarding costs. I think that is important.
I can only echo the fine words of the Provincial Secretary for Justice, who said this legislation was an attempt to balance the rights of the people involved in the construction industry with all those working in it. By and large, I think the Attorney General will understand that the approval given this legislation by all of us is some evidence and some indication that he has achieved that.
We have had some complaints. During the Christmas holidays we had some complaints from some small contractors who claimed some people had got to the Attorney General and forced him to delay this legislation. I came to the Attorney General's defence and indicated that if we did not get to the legislation prior to the Christmas period it was not his fault but the fault of the New Democratic Party and my friend the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip). That party had filibustered for three months and in the process had not given us an opportunity to discuss the legislation.
We are pleased now to have the opportunity to see it pass, to see improvement in this field and I hope the optimism we now have about the legislation will continue to apply in practice as it becomes law and as individuals act and operate under it in the future.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on Bill 216, An Act to revise the Mechanics' Lien Act. This act has had a tremendous impact on the construction industry and has had a substantial number of years of input from all sides of the construction industry.
I could make substantial comments on the bill but I would only be repeating many of the comments that have been made by the members. For the sake of brevity, I would like to inform the House that, as have others in this House, I have received input from a series of contractors in our community, hoping that the government would have come down with legislation a little earlier than it did.
I understand why we could not have proceeded with it prior to the end of last year, because of what was going on in the House and in the committee which took up substantial amounts of time and prevented this legislation from being before the House much earlier. Had the earlier bill come in, there would have been substantially more objections registered by various contractors, especially in my own community.
I have received letters from certain contractors that I would like to read into the record because this is probably about the only difference in my comments from those that were made by previous speakers.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. C.B. McIntosh of McIntosh Paving Co. Ltd. in Windsor suggested that the bill get speedy passage now that it has been revised. Mr. Scodeller of Scofan Contractors Ltd. in Windsor expressed similar comments. The Windsor Electrical Association, which included the Windsor Electrical Contractors, the Mechanical Contractors Association of Windsor and the Windsor Sheet Metal Contractors Association, likewise made representation to me by a letter expressing their concern and interest in having the new bill put through as quickly as possible.
Woodall Construction Co., through the manager, F. David Woodall, expressed similar concerns, as did José Soares and Antonio Fontana of Plaza Ontario Marble and Tile Co., Mr. Alassio D'Andrea of D'Andrea-Csendes Construction Co. Ltd. in Windsor and Rorison Industrial Electric Co. Ltd. in Windsor. They expressed concern that the legislation receive speedy approval so that the contractors in the Windsor area could rest at ease.
Those are the limit of my comments, because other comments I may have made would only be repetitious.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to Bill 216, An Act to revise the Mechanics' Lien Act. I, like other members from the Niagara Peninsula, received a number of letters from the Niagara Construction Association requesting that we support the bill. The letters urged the minister to bring it forward so that third reading can be completed in the early part of the new year.
I support the principle of the bill. I am not like some of the lawyers here who are familiar with law. I am a layman in that regard. However, in my experience in the construction industry I had the occasion to encounter a bankruptcy and I see nothing in this bill mentioning a guarantee of employees' wages when a bankruptcy occurs.
The Deputy Speaker: That is under federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Haggerty: I know it is under federal jurisdiction, but the matter has been raised here on a number of occasions. For example, if I can use this industry I worked for, wages were lost and wages are lost today because of the number of bankruptcies that are occurring. Many employees of the industry may have to wait two, three or four months before they can be compensated for their lost wages. This is rather difficult in the economic situation we are facing today. There is more likelihood today of companies going bankrupt. It is pretty easy today to get into that area without any consideration for the employees.
For example, I can cite a case in my area -- a plumber or a construction carpenter who was doing some work with the local contractor renovating some of the downtown premises in the village of Crystal Beach, now the town of Fort Erie. During this construction work they spent quite a bit of money in providing services. The materials were purchased from a local building supplier. To this day those people -- the building suppliers and the electrical contractors and the plumbing contractors -- have never been paid for their services.
One way they can get around it without paying these people, and I do not see it covered under this act, is by the flipping of property. The owners will flip the land, in other words. They have a method by which they can circumvent the law. It has gone through lawyers, who try to get the money back for persons who provided the material and labour, but there is no way they can get it, because apparently they are within the borderline of fraud, in a sense. There is no way these persons can be paid for their services because of this flipping of ownership.
We can have one person go under, and then the partner in the business can come back and get the business for almost nothing. He says. "I am not obligated to pay those contractors, subcontractors and suppliers." I see nothing in this bill that provides protection in this area.
The more we get into this business of mechanics' lien the more persons we find who are employed in industry, if I may put it that way, who are shortchanged when a business goes under. For example, they close the door, and because there are no funds available there is no payment to the employees.
I have a private school in my area, Saint Barnabas Farm School in Fort Erie, which owed teachers almost $22,000 in back wages. They carried on providing services to the school hoping they would get their wages this month, this week or next week. They never received them. They closed the school down, and there are no provisions in the Employment Standards Act that can guarantee them their wages.
A little money came in from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, so it was prorated and each of the eight or nine employees of that school got maybe $600 or $700 and that was the end of it. The school property apparently was sold, and I understand that they could not apply a mechanics' lien against it.
So there we are. What do we do in a case like that? I do not think the bill itself goes far enough. It may protect those in the construction industry -- the contractor, the subcontractor and those in the building areas -- but it does not provide protection for people in other areas who may be employed by someone who has gone into receivership or bankruptcy. There is nothing under the Employment Standards Act that says we will secure their wages.
I bring this to the attention of the minister. It is something I think he is going to have to address himself to. Every time the matter is raised in the House he says bankruptcy is a federal matter. That is not good enough. He has a responsibility here in Ontario to guarantee employees' wages regardless of what legislation it comes under.
I think he has the obligation to do that, but I suggest to him that there are loopholes today such that owners and persons holding mortgages on property will circumvent the legislation in certain areas. It provides some protection to the subcontractor, and I have to support the bill on that principle, but there are other problems out there that should be addressed by this government.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments of the honourable members who have contributed and made submissions to this very important debate. I would simply like to thank them again for their support of this important legislation and for the positive manner in which they have approached it.
There obviously will have to be adjustments along the way in any important and comprehensive legislation such as this, and we will all be monitoring it very closely to see how well it works. But I think all members of the House are making a significant contribution towards improving the legal climate with respect to the construction industry, and once again I would simply like to state that I appreciate their support very much.
Motion agreed to. Ordered for third reading.
9:30 p.m.
CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT
Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved third reading of Bill 216, An Act to revise the Mechanics' Lien Act.
The Deputy Speaker: We are going to have a discussion on third reading here, about why the bill should be moved for third reading.
Mr. Roy: Before we get carried away, Mr. Speaker, you know that when there are members in the gallery we always question each other as to what is going on. Normally we are cynical enough to suggest that maybe the Tories are having a tea party or something. However, I notice we have in the Speaker's gallery people from the construction association who have been listening to the debate on this legislation and have been very supportive. Our critic, the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), has welcomed them here but I wanted to put on the record that they have been here a good part of the afternoon and are now here this evening.
After this long debate, and after listening to various speeches, they should be given marks for their astuteness in keeping an eye on the minister to see that the legislation was passed. But they also deserve marks, as my House leader said, for having listened to all those very interesting speeches all evening long. The record should indicate they have been here. They have been supportive and on third reading we are very pleased to see to it that they get their legislation.
Motion agreed to.
PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Wells on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elgie, moved third reading of Bill 178, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act.
Motion agreed to.
JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 183, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is certainly a bill that will be of great interest to the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy).
Very briefly, this bill will permit designation of courts sitting in areas outside the designated counties and districts for the purpose of proceedings before a judge or a judge and jury where both the French and the English languages are understood. As I said when I introduced the bill, this bill would give greater flexibility in providing this important right in courts where resources permit it, where it may not be possible to provide a full range of service across a particular county or district.
I would simply urge the members to support this legislation. The members opposite indicated their support for this legislation when it was introduced and I would again like to thank them for what I trust will be their continuing support.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) certainly has the continuing support of the opposition when it comes to bringing forward this bill. I hope the 60-odd members of his own caucus who are not present at the moment know what we are doing this evening. We are, in fact, adding to the support of French services in Ontario.
I would not want anyone to be unaware as to what we are doing in the Legislature. I certainly hope all the members of the government will take the opportunity to read Hansard to realize that we are moving a further step down that slippery slope that some of them seem to fear.
An interesting article appeared in the Toronto Star on Christmas Eve as a small reminder of some of the benefits of francophone services within this province. The title of the article was most interesting: "Courting Francophones in Ontario -- Unofficially." There was a small cut -- a charming, although somewhat dated, picture of the government House leader (Mr. Wells) -- and the comment, "Should the right to bilingual services be enshrined in the Charter of Rights? Tom Wells thinks so." It was a most interesting article and I will refer to it in the next few moments.
What we are doing today is making what appears to be a very minor change in the statute. Indeed, about all we are doing is adding a very small phrase, that is, "courts sitting in any designated place." We are adding that to the list of the dozen or so areas in which French-language services are now in place. What is the situation in Ontario? I am wondering if a number of members not only in the opposition but on the government side may not be fully aware of just what the circumstances are with respect to services in the French language.
Quoting briefly, from this article I will outline some of them. We are told that some 83 per cent of Ontario's francophones now have bilingual court services available and that there are 31 judges, 13 justices of the peace, 33 crown attorneys and 11 court stenographers who are fully bilingual. Indeed, there are some 500 lawyers within the province who are considered bilingual, and the use of the French language is growing right across the province.
We know the Criminal Code guarantees the right of all citizens to be tried in French in all criminal matters in all courts of Ontario. Until this amendment the Judicature Act had given the guarantees in some 12 designated judicial districts for noncriminal matters. That is really what we are expanding upon by the passage of this amendment. We are told the forms in the provincial courts, both criminal and family divisions, the small claims court and the provincial offences court are all available in both official languages. The Assessment Review Board and a variety of other agencies, boards and commissions also have services available for those who wish to have the various procedures in the French language.
So we see there have been quite a number of steps. Of the 540 provincial statutes, 100 or so are available in both languages, including laws such as the Highway Traffic Act, the Provincial Offences Act and, more particularly, the statutes that are in common, day-to-day use. This is necessary as we move to have these services available in areas now to be designated from time to time beyond the 12 to which I referred. In July the expectation is that French-language services will be available in the small claims, provincial offences and family courts in Hamilton, St. Catharines and Oshawa, which are communities that are not now in those 12 designated areas.
I think it is important to take a look at the comments made by Mr. Chief Justice Howland of Ontario, at the opening of the courts on January 7, when he referred to the whole theme of bilingual trials. This is what His Lordship says, if I may just read it into the record, because I think it sets out a theme and an overview of where we are in the province at this time. Mr. Chief Justice Howland notes as follows:
9:40 p.m.
"On April 1, 1982, the right of the French-speaking members of the population to a trial in their own language was extended to civil cases in the Supreme Court in the judicial districts of York and Ottawa-Carleton and the united counties of Prescott and Russell, and in the county, district and provincial courts of those counties and districts where there was a significant francophone population.
"The Attorney General, who has been giving strong leadership in connection with bilingual trials, has recently announced that the right to bilingual trials will be further extended on July 1, 1983, to include civil cases in the Supreme Court in Algoma; Cochrane, Essex; Nipissing; Niagara South; Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; Sudbury and Renfrew, and also to embrace the provincial court family division, the small claims court and the provincial offences court in certain designated locations.
"There has been a gradually increasing demand for trials in the French lanugage in the provincial court, criminal division, and also in the provincial offences court in Metropolitan Toronto.
"During the year a number of procedural problems in connection with bilingual trials have been resolved. I think it is very important that the right to bilingual trials should be supported by all those involved in the administration of justice. Procedural problems will no doubt arise from time to time, but I am confident with the goodwill which exists, a solution will be found."
I think it is important not only to refer to the comments made by the Chief Justice of this province but to raise just a few other comments from this article in the Toronto Star which Rick Haliechuk did as a Christmas Eve present to the government House leader. One of the comments he made which I think is most interesting was: "The danger to the government, of course, is that many people might think enshrining services is just official bilingualism through the back door."
Mr. Bradley: Oh, never. Does it say the Conservatives would try to bring it in through the back door and tell only the francophones they are bringing it in? I don't believe that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.
Mr. Breithaupt: Here is the quotation which was ascribed to the government House leader: "I think that is a hazard and that is why we have to be explicitly clear we are not making Ontario officially bilingual."
Certainly that is a point of view the government has had over the years. They have ascribed other views to other parties from time to time, but we need not go into that tonight.
What is important for all of us to recognize in this Legislature is that services are being provided rather well in Ontario. There has been progress. Other areas have been brought in and the number of statutes and procedures involved in this is really something which one would have thought the government might properly wish to make widely known.
Indeed, I am the first to congratulate the Attorney General in moving forward in this series of steps. I suppose there are those who may say the publicity given to them in certain parts of the province perhaps is not as pointed as it might be in the designated areas that I have spoken about. However, I do not think we should let that omission bother us particularly. I recognize that the opportunity to advertise the good works this government does has to be restrained in these difficult days. Consequently, perhaps it is just impossible right now to tell everyone in Ontario about these services in the French language which virtually are available throughout the province.
I think the government should take credit for moving forward, and the Attorney General has been a leader in this area. I want to give him the credit he deserves because it is important for all of us in the Legislature to know what is being accomplished and the steps which are being taken.
Mr. Conway: A leader must be a leader.
Mr. Breithaupt: In this instance the leader may not wish to have all the followers know just where things may be going. But that is something, as Mackenzie King might have said, that would be referred to because of possible political motives, and this would be the last place where we would want politics to enter.
So we have virtually a one-line bill. We have a comment that otherwise might be missed in a busy legislative schedule and which apparently adds very little to the sum total of legislation in this province. But, in fact, it adds quite a bit. It moves us forward in areas which not only the Chief Justice but the Attorney General have suggested are appropriate, proper and positive for the future. It certainly reinforces the series of steps that have been taken to which I have already referred. We welcome this legislation and we hope that across Ontario it gets the publicity it so richly deserves.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I know the Attorney General is interested in this area of his work. Indeed, I think he prides himself and quite rightly so on the contribution he has made to extending the availability of French-language services in the justice system in Ontario.
There was a compendium of information provided to us, and there was the information available to us from the opening statement of the Attorney General to the standing committee on administration of justice in his estimates last December. We also have listened again tonight to those comments made by the Chief Justice of Ontario at the opening of the courts earlier this month. So one should be pleased with the progress that has been made when one compares it with the situation we were in 10 years ago in this province. There is no doubt about that.
Some have designated it as the pragmatic approach, the approach that will cause the least concern to people, and suggested we simply move in that direction. There is some merit to that kind of gradualism in any approach to a matter where there are deep and intense feelings. But in a funny way it seems to submerge for me the kind of principle which is involved in the nature of the country.
That bothers me considerably, as it did throughout the course of the constitutional discussions. I do not want to go into a debate on the merits or demerits of particular provisions of the Constitution. However, I have never understood why the province outside of Quebec that has the largest French-speaking population of any jurisdiction does not have the grace to deal with the question in the way in which, by evolution and in many ways by the processes of the law, New Brunswick and Manitoba have dealt with it. It is a difficult question and a very real question. My colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) has alluded to it in relation to the government House leader.
I want to come back to the principle. The bill which is in front of us tonight is simply a bill to amend section 130 of the Judicature Act. The funny thing is we had to be devious -- some will say pragmatic -- in coping with the language of section 130. It was formerly section 127 of the Judicature Act. That is what was referred to as the stumbling block. That stumbling block is still there.
When it was section 127, now in subsection 130(1), when the problem had to be dealt with, what were they faced with? They were faced with a provision in the Judicature Act which said, "Writs, pleadings and proceedings in all courts shall be in the English language only, but the proper or known names of writs or other process, or technical words, may be used in the same language as has been commonly used."
Instead of repealing that and providing for an equal relationship between the English language and the French language, with the genius that only lawyers can find to defeat a matter of principle, they came up with the provisions of what are now subsections 2 to 9 of section 130. They amended that obnoxious clause to read, "Subject to subsections 2 to 9, writs, pleadings and proceedings in all courts shall be in the English language" So you start out with the primacy again of the English language in court proceedings in this province, and you can only have the benefit of the French language in court proceedings -- and I am speaking of civil matters -- if you come within the exceptions that are spelled out by virtue of the designated court concept.
9:50 p.m.
I do not need to elaborate on it. I happen to think the time has come so that when the Judicature Act and the rules of court are before the assembly, as they may well be in the next year or two, the equality of the two languages will be recognized front and centre. Everybody understands, as the Chief Justice understood, that there were practical problems in its implementation. That did not alter the fact that the practical problems were going to exist however you did it.
The problem with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and with the Attorney General is that they cannot bring themselves to give for court purposes that equality which they pride themselves is now a part of the law of Ontario because of the provisions of Bill C-42, which was introduced around the first of the year in 1980. It was at the request of the Attorney General that the amendments to the Criminal Code were made so that trials in the criminal courts in this province would be dealt with in the French language should a person desire it.
I come back again to the very simple, straightforward position that our party would like to take on the question of proceedings in the court. We recognize the practical problems there may be in implementation. Most of those problems have now been ironed out, and from my point of view the way to deal with this matter is up front.
I am sure my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus would agree with me, as would many of my colleagues in the Liberal Party and even some of the members of the government party, that the opening subsection of section 130 is obnoxious in the light of the concept of the country as it has been attempted to be reframed and moulded in the new Constitution.
I hope the matter will be dealt with on that basis. I hope that at some point we will remove that subsection, and again I read it: "Subject to subsections 2 to 9, writs, pleadings and proceedings in all courts shall be in the English language only" Then it goes on about "the proper or known names of writs or other process, or technical words," which may be in the same language as has been commonly used, which of course speaks about Norman French and about the Latin phrases so dear to the hearts of lawyers.
Until we grow up in this assembly and have the grace and courtesy to the people who speak French in the province, I just want to record my view that while I support the extension that is going to take place because of this bill, I object very much and find it obnoxious that the Judicature Act -- imagine that, the Judicature Act of this province -- should give that kind of ultimate primacy to the English language in the courts.
It is offensive to me, it is offensive to the party I represent and it is contrary to the policy of the New Democratic Party. I hope that at some point the question of principle will surmount the pragmatic, fearful and politically astute approach of the government and that they will come out and deal with this matter as it should be dealt with: as a matter of the equality of the languages in this province in those fundamental institutions that we are all concerned with, of which in my view one of the principal ones is the primacy of the administration of justice.
With those remarks, we will support the bill, but I wanted to make a point that is of immense concern to me.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my comments to this section and add my support as one who for many years has felt that the fairness of the process required that if we thought we were really fair with the French-speaking minority in the province, a system of justice that they could understand and that would process their criminal and civil cases in their language was something that was necessary.
We spoke about that without much progress until 1975, when the present incumbent became the chief law officer of the crown. Since that time promises have been made and promises kept about proceeding in the criminal courts to allow an individual who happens to be French-speaking to have a process in that language, and now this is a process that is proceeding methodically in the civil courts as well.
The initiative and the methodical approach taken by the Attorney General should be underlined and supported. He should be congratulated for this initiative.
My colleague the member for Kitchener made excellent comments about the process and quoted comments made by Mr. Haliechuk in the Toronto Star. Then he read from statements made by the Chief Justice of Ontario, who showed a lot of goodwill and good sense in attending the last convention by the French-speaking lawyers of Ontario.
The Chief Justice was there along with the Attorney General, and I think he was able to observe the vitality and initiative that exist in that association. I say with a certain amount of humility that I fought on this issue for quite a long time. Having succeeded and having witnessed the improvements we are making in that field, it is very important to underline the fact that there is a follow-through on this.
There is an association, as my colleague the member for Kitchener said, that involves more than 500 Ontario lawyers who are bilingual and able to operate in both languages in our courts. That association has vitality as well. The president since its foundation has been M. Robert Paris. His contribution also should be underlined as an individual who has given this association leadership and the sense that he is fully supporting and assisting the Attorney General's ministry in implementing the ministry's policy.
This is another step in the process, and we support it. I do not want to repeat the comments made by my colleague the member for Kitchener or by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). I only emphasize again that I can recall when we were asking for this five or 10 years ago, there was talk that if we moved too fast there would be a revolt in the province; hordes would be at the gates, the rednecks would be bringing the government down and Ontario would never be the same. And yet we are in a situation where substantial progress is being made.
To my knowledge, we are getting very little opposition. I am sure the Attorney General occasionally receives some letters, even from members of the bar who are annoyed to have their area or a particular court, as will be the case here, designated to operate both in English and French. But by and large the public has accepted the policy.
It has been my experience, as one who practises in a limited capacity in the courts, that applications are being made and are being accepted. In the civil courts it creates more problems. I do not have to underline that the ideal situation is that all parties speak the French language: all counsel, the judge, everybody. There is no problem in those circumstances.
As well, there are no problems when you get a situation, as you do in certain parts of Quebec, where everybody is bilingual. At that point the court operates in the language of the witness. That does not cause any problems.
10 p.m.
The problem is, what happens when the lawyer -- for instance, on the other side -- happens to be representing a French-speaking litigant? Is that litigant deprived of that counsel because he cannot speak French and the fellow on the other side has made an application that the proceedings be in French?
Those are the problems that can be caused. But it has been my experience so far that it has proceeded well. There will be problems, but it is important to underline that it is being accepted across Ontario with little dispute.
The Attorney General's office has published a legal lexicon that has all the terms. It is very helpful to those of us who have by and large practised in the English language before the courts for all these years and sometimes have some difficulty knowing the right terminology in French. The lexicon is another publication printed under the initiative of the Attorney General but prepared, I believe, with the help of l'Association des jurists d'expression française de l'Ontario and people such as M. Robert Paris.
We are pleased to see the progress. We are supportive of it, and I hope it will continue. I will make one comment to the Attorney General; I am sure it has been mentioned to him. The present section 130 seems to refer only to the language of individuals, and some of us have wondered whether an institution or corporation can make an application to have a proceeding in the French language.
If we look at subsection 130(4), which is the section that talks about the language of the one making the application, it states that "the court shall, upon the application of a party who speaks the French language" Is the party involved in this case only an individual? Can it involve an institution; for instance, a caisse populaire or a corporation? Can such a party in an action make an application and say, "We as an institution speak the French language"? I think that will require some clarification, and I am sure somebody or some of my colleagues at the bar have already mentioned this problem.
I mention this to the Attorney General because there are many institutions that operate in the French language and may be prohibited by the present section from having a trial or a proceeding in that language.
M. le Président, je voudrais conclure tout simplement en disant que nous sommes ici --
Interjection.
M. Roy: Bon voyons, si je n'ai rien fait d'autre ici ce soir, j'ai au moins réveillé mon ami Piché là-bas. Je suis content de voir ça. Je suis bien content. J'espère que tu vas profiter de l'occasion pour dire quelques mots pour féliciter le Procureur général d'avoir pris l'initiative de présenter cette législation-là. J'espère que tu ne seras pas gêné.
Je suis convaincu que le député de Cochrane-nord va saisir l'opportunité et va nous faire un discours en français sans pareil, disant comment il supporte ou il appuie cette législation-là, et qu'il va féliciter le Procureur général d'avoir pris cette initiative. Certainement sachant qu'il attend l'occasion de se lever, moi, comme de raison, je vais faire un discours qui va être plus court. Je vais ralentir mon enthousiasme, je vais limiter mes commentaires pour permettre à mon collègue de Cochrane-nord de faire ses commentaires sur cette législation-là.
Je dirai tout simplement qu'on fait du progrès, ça avance. J'aimerais dire que les autres ministères démontrent autant d'enthousiasme que le ministère du Procureur général. J'aimerais voir du progrès, disons, au ministère de l'Éducation qu'il montre une ouverture d'esprit ou une flexibilité aussi bonne que celle du Procureur général. Malheureusement, je ne peux pas dire ça. Mais comme disait mon collègue de Kitchener, malheureusement il y a certaines contradictions entre l'initiative d'un ministère et le manque d'initiative d'un autre ministère.
Ou même des fois, on a des contradictions entre certains discours faits par le Procureur général, le ministre des Affaires gouvernementales, qui fait des discours, qui nous parle, qui veut garantir les services en français au niveau de la Constitution, mais d'un autre côté on a d'autres ministres et d'autres députés qui ne nous envoient pas tout à fait le même message.
A mon ami Piché, des fois ça semble contradictoire, c'est contradictoire par bouts. Mais tout de même, vous savez, on accepte, on est patient, on applaudit l'initiative du ministre. Et je suis convaincu, encore une fois, que si je ralentis et raccourcis mon discours, on aura l'opportunité d'entendre mon ami Piché dire comment il est en faveur de cette législation-là.
M. Samis: M. le Président, j'aimerais parler quelques moments du projet de loi présenté par le Procureur général. J'aimerais dire d'abord que je partage l'espoir du député d'Ottawa-est et que j'espère voir une intervention du député de Cochrane-nord sur ce projet de loi en français pour la première fois dans cette session. Ce sera un évènement très intéressant surtout pour ses électeurs de Cochrane-nord d'entendre et de lire les commentaires du député --
Interjection.
M. Samis: Je crois que je suis le seul orateur ayant parlé de ce projet de loi qui ne soit pas un avocat et j'aimerais parler dans un sens plus général. Je crois que mon collègue de Riverdale a parlé des arguments légaux concernant le projet de loi hier soir, et de quelques fautes dans d'autres législations précédant ce projet de loi. J'aimerais dire que c'est un signe de progrès et j'aimerais féliciter le Procureur général parce que je crois qu'il a eu les ministres les plus progressistes dans ce domaine et les plus intéressés dans la loi de la minorité, dans un cabinet qui semble très conservateur et qui a très peur du "backlash," très peur de l'Ontario rural, et très peur de donner un vrai sens de leadership dans la province, dans l'assemblée et dans le pays.
Je crois que la chose principale qui manque, c'est un signe de progrès dans les tribunaux. Nous avons fait quelques progrès dans le système d'éducation, mais la chose dont nous manquons en Ontario, c'est une reconnaissance officielle de la langue française. Nous avons d'ailleurs fait des progrès dans le domaine de la santé, dans le domaine de l'éducation, surtout dans le domaine juridique, mais nous manquons de choses principales qui garantissent le droit fondamental de la minorité francophone: la reconnaissance officielle de leur langue, comme M. Hatfield a fait au Nouveau-Brunswick avec son projet de loi de reconnaissance.
J'aimerais le citer parce que c'est une province très traditionnelle; c'est fait par un premier ministre conservateur contre la tradition de son parti, la tradition du comté loyaliste dans le Nouveau-Brunswick. Pour moi, il a vraiment manifesté son leadership dans sa province, contre la tradition, parce qu'il a pris un engagement, un "commitment" comme on dit en anglais; il a fait l'égalité, pas légalité seulement légale mais aussi culturelle, sociale et économique.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say very briefly that I will vote in favour of this bill because I think it represents another sign of progress for our Franco-Ontarian minority. It is kind of sad that bills like this and the other signs of progress displayed by this minister in particular have taken so long in the history of Ontario. This particular one, we see, comes 116 years after Confederation.
But I do want to make special mention of the fact that this minister has displayed considerable interest, initiative and concern about the rights of francophones in the province. Since his accession to the ministry, he has been one of the few ministers on that side who has backed up any form of verbal commitment with some form of legislative action. The only thing I want to point out is we still lack the final formal framework for Franco-Ontarian rights, whether it be in education, health or the courts, and that is official recognition of their language.
10:10 p.m.
My colleague the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) brought in a bill four or five years ago dealing with the question of services in French and providing the legal framework for it. We in this party would go further than that and provide official recognition for the language.
I again cite the example of New Brunswick where a Conservative Premier has bucked the tradition of his own party, the Loyalist tradition of a very conservative province, because he believes in the principle of equality and was prepared to legislate it. He was prepared to take on the rednecks; he was prepared to take on the bigots; he was prepared to take on those who had legitimate differences, and as my colleague from Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) points out, he was re-elected with the largest majority he has ever enjoyed despite it.
Mr. Breithaupt: Of course those others were voting for him anyway.
Mr. Samis: They didn't have anywhere to go, did they?
I would suggest the same political situation applies in this province: There would be no real problem on the opposition side; if the government were to make that formal commitment, it would find general support within this chamber; and the so-called rednecks, or those most opposed to this form of advancement, would have nowhere to go politically.
I do say, once again, that the Attorney General has displayed considerable initiative in this field. I commend him for it. We in the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry have seen signs of the changes he has introduced and in my own riding I know that the francophone population is pleased with the changes. There is still more to be done in the courts, especially in small claims court, and more to be done in the field of health services, but this minister deserves to be commended for his initiative.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly cede the floor to the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) if he insists on participating in the debate. All of us on this side of the House would have been more than pleased to listen to the very worthwhile contribution the member for Cochrane North would have made in this debate. Unfortunately, he has seemingly chosen not to make one.
I hope that perhaps in the next legislation the Attorney General introduces -- or perhaps on the day the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) gets the wish he has stated in the past and does obtain the constitutional amendments to make Ontario a truly bilingual province, or at least to recognize the Franco-Ontarian rights he has spoken for so eloquently during the debates on his estimates -- the member for Cochrane North will choose to participate very positively in that debate. Since there probably is a bit of time left before that happens, I would suggest that gives an ample opportunity to the honourable member to get a good prepared speech ready for that particular occasion.
Mr. Roy: Don't wait too long, René. You may not be around.
Mr. Boudria: As the member for Ottawa East states, perhaps it would not be a good idea to wait for too long because we do recognize the majority by which the member for Cochrane North was elected; some 180 votes or so. Perhaps waiting for an extensive period of time would not be the best idea, given those circumstances.
The member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) has just stated that his party wanted to have official recognition of the rights of francophones and not something which, in that honourable member's opinion, is better than the original bill introduced by my colleague the member for Ottawa East. I would like to bring to the attention of all honourable members in the House that there was also a resolution introduced by the member for Ottawa East which would, in fact. have constitutional rights guaranteed for the francophones of this population. It is very important for all of us to remember that not only has that member introduced that bill, but since we now have a new Constitution he has also gone that additional step and introduced this resolution and should be congratulated for doing that.
Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to make a statement, as one of the members of this government who is a francophone, that the present and future position and interest of francophones in Ontario is being looked after very well by this government. I could go on, but it is very unfortunate when the member for Ottawa East --
The Acting Speaker(Mr. Cousens): I thank the honourable member, but that does not come under this area as a point of order.
Mr. Piché: On as point of privilege then, Mr. Speaker --
The Acting Speaker: No, that is not a point. If you want to participate in the debate, you can be recognized.
Mr. Piché: But I would like to be recognized right now.
The Acting Speaker: You will resume your seat.
Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker --
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is not to be recognized because of the initial remarks he has made.
Mr. Piché: I want to be recognized and I will pursue the matter.
The Acting Speaker: But that was not a point of order.
Mr. Piché: All right; on a point of privilege --
The Acting Speaker: Is it the same point you were trying to make?
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member's privileges have not been abused. I would ask the member to resume his seat.
Mr. Piché: No, I will not.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is out of order. The point he is trying to make does not fall under the area as a point of order nor is it a point of personal privilege.
Mr. Breithaupt: But he may speak next.
Mr. Boudria: That is right. In view of the willingness of the member for Cochrane North to participate in the debate, I will make my contribution shorter in order to allow him the time to make the statements he was attempting to make a moment ago. I am very pleased that he was attempting to do that.
In reference to Bill 183, honourable members know I am not a lawyer; but I am the member of this Legislative Assembly who represents the largest francophone population in this province. Some 80 per cent of the constituents in my riding are of French-speaking extraction. Also, in my riding we have the phenomenon that a considerable number of my constituents are unilingual francophones. So these courts which are offered in my area are not just something nice to have; they are not a luxury but indeed a necessity, if we want to provide the people of my constituency with fundamental justice.
I wanted to make more remarks on this bill, but recognizing the lateness of the hour I will just take a minute to state that I too am very pleased with some of the work the Attorney General has done towards improving the legislation for offering services to a francophone population. I mentioned that to the minister in his estimates and I am sure he will recall my saying so. I say this truly and sincerely.
There are ministers of the government who state as clearly and unequivocally as they can that they are not interested in improving francophone services. Other ministers in the government, and I think of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), make lengthy statements about how they will improve the services and then do nothing.
On the other hand, we have the more recent phenomenon of using francophones as a shield. We say "un bouclier" en François. It is a very interesting and recent concept, which was adopted by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), for instance. When he referred yesterday to the closure of certain facilities, he stated, "We cannot close such-and-such a facility because that would mean moving people from another facility and then, of course, they would be deprived of francophone services." He is using them as he would use a shield to fend off a sword when he is being attacked. That is a new and interesting concept to some ministers. As I said, it is a recent phenomenon.
10:20 p.m.
Then again there are what we call the back-door ministers, like the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) who introduces two bills in one day, one relating to francophone services and one about used cars, and who makes a lengthy statement about the used-car deal and forgets about the other one very conveniently until the press has left and then, of course, goes on and introduces his bill.
That is what I believe is actually going on with various ministers. Very fortunately the Attorney General does not fit any of those descriptions. I do believe the Attorney General is sincere when he tries to improve the services to francophones.
Members will recall that in the debate we had on the estimates of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs I stated that I was inspired by the American senator who gives the Golden Fleece Award, Senator William Proxmire. This award is given to government officials who spend their money the most foolishly. Here in Ontario I was thinking of having what I refer to as l'Ordre de la grenouille, which would be a big trophy shaped like a frog that we would give every year to the cabinet minister who gives the worst service to francophones.
Of course, the two cabinet ministers who are here now would never win this award, because I do believe they both are doing an exceptionally good job, especially when compared to what other ministers are offering.
I will be giving that award shortly, Mr. Speaker, and I want to take this opportunity to state that now because it sounds like an appropriate time.
When I made that statement in the House, the French press picked it up arid publicized it quite heavily. I had said it mostly in jest that day, but now I think I have arrived at a situation where I pretty well have to buy the trophy now. Because it seems to have been popularized that much, I will do it with great pleasure.
There are quite a few hot contenders, of course: the Minister of Education, the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) -- not because of him but because of the Workmen's Compensation Board -- and various other ministers who would fit in that category.
But the Attorney General, again to reiterate that position, would certainly not fit the category of a nominee to l'Ordre de la grenouille, and neither, of course, would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Brièvement, M. le Président, pour exprimer l'avis que le projet de Loi numéro 183, tel qu'introduit par le Procureur général de cette province, est une loi très favorable aux francophones de l'Ontario. Le Conseil de planification sociale d'Ottawa-Carleton a récemment publié son rapport sur les différents services en langue française offerts dans la région de la capitale nationale et sur certaines améliorations qui, à leur avis, seraient nécessaires afin d'améliorer les services offerts aux franco-ontariens.
Il est très intéressant de noter que dans son exposé, le Conseil du développement social d'Ottawa-Carleton énumère plusieurs ministères dans lesquels on n'offre pas les services qu'on devrait. Il est aussi intéressant de noter que le ministère du Procureur général n'est même pas mentionné dans ce texte. Alors, on peut en conclure que cet organisme semble être raisonnablement satisfait, ou plus satisfait, des services offerts par le Procureur général que par les autres ministères.
I would just like to repeat that briefly. The Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton has just published a needs study of francophone services in the national capital area identifying all the deficiencies that seem to exist in various services offered by different levels of government. It is interesting to note that the Ministry of the Attorney General is not mentioned in this document as being one that has these deficiencies. That is not to say, of course, that everything is perfect everywhere; Utopia just does not exist. Nevertheless, it does suggest that his ministry is further ahead than several others, and perhaps all of them in this province, in so far as the offering of services is concerned.
I just want to take one moment to express one view as it relates to the offering of services by the Attorney General and others. It is interesting to note that we are beginning to offer more and more services in the French language in this province. No doubt you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the social development committee of this Legislature has just issued a report for the first time in the history of this province published in bilingual form. I am referring to the report on wife battering. Again, that serves to illustrate the kind of advancement we have achieved.
It is interesting to note that I and others have the privilege of addressing this Legislature in two languages. It is also interesting to note that, although I can speak two languages in this Legislature, for practical purposes I can only be heard in one.
Mr. Bradley: I understand the member in both.
Mr. Boudria: Perhaps the member for St. Catharines understands me in both, and I am sure you do too, Mr. Speaker, but that is not the case everywhere in this Legislature. As services improve, I hope some day we will see to improving various services so that these inequities are corrected.
I congratulate the Attorney General for his initiatives on this bill.
Hon. M. McMurtry: M. le Président, je veux exprimer mon appréciation aux députés de l'opposition, aux députés de l'autre côté, pour leur support et leurs félicitations. Ces initiatives législatives sont très importantes. Je crois que ces initiatives représentent la dualité de notre pays et qu'elles sont d'une importance fondamentale.
Mr. Speaker, time does not permit me to burden my colleagues further with my efforts in the French language. I am also mindful of the new charter, which protects all citizens in our community from cruel and unusual punishment.
I do appreciate the support. Time permitting I would have liked to reply at length, particularly to my friend and colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) with respect to his remarks suggesting we had moved overly cautiously in not making it clear that the English and French languages enjoyed equal status in every respect as far as the courts of this province are concerned.
I think the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) recognized some of the difficult problems that exist, particularly in relation to civil litigation. For some years now, I have had the advice of a French-language advisory group made up of distinguished lawyers, both Franco-Ontarian lawyers and others, who have advised us to go cautiously, particularly in the area of civil litigation, with respect to pretrial proceedings, pleadings and what not, in the interests of all citizens. I would like to discuss with the member at greater length why we have moved more slowly in this area.
Before concluding, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the senior judges of the province for the support they have given these very important initiatives. I would certainly like to echo the comments of my friend the member for Ottawa East when he refers to the very important leadership that has been provided by Robert Paris and his colleagues with respect to the French-speaking association of lawyers in this province, all of whom are continuing to make a very important contribution.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the members for their support and some of their very kind comments about initiatives which are very close to my heart and which I, as the Attorney General of this province, feel very privileged to have had the opportunity of introducing.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for third reading.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have one brief comment. It is unfortunate that my colleagues and I have not given full opportunity to my friend the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) to express his comments on this legislation and he has not afforded himself of this opportunity. He could speak on third reading. I invite him again to support and applaud his colleague the Attorney General in providing and taking the initiative with this legislation.
Third reading also agreed to on motion.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask for the consent of the House to revert to motions in order that I might make a motion to dispense with the private members' afternoon on Thursday?
Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed to.
MOTION
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding standing order 64, government business be called on Thursday afternoon, January 27.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to call Bill 215, standing in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), immediately following routine proceedings on Thursday.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10:33 p.m.