Hansard Transcripts 1979-Jun-12 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Warner: That is where we left off last time, Mr. Chairman. There were some comments by my colleague from Kitchener who had shown interest in the amendment but also was interested that it be further amended to add to that subsection the words: “or persons who hold landed immigrant status.”

I have had an opportunity to mull over the suggestion and certainly concur, so I would amend my amendment to include “or of landed immigrant status,” if that is the correct phraseology.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Would it be easier if I sent this amendment back to you so you can revise the original amendment, rather than making an amendment to your own amendment?

Mr. Warner: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Motion withdrawn.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think I should to some extent correct my view of the discussion the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere had on the last occasion of this bill coming before the House in committee.

You may recall I had suggested the term “Canadian citizen” did not appear to me to be of any particular merit in this kind of circumstance, since land held by organizations referred to under the act might likely be held by a limited company, or a Canadian citizen who would be holding as a trustee would not necessarily be a beneficial owner for whom that trust would be exercised.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere then suggested in discussion with me the phrase “or a landed immigrant.” I suggested to him that I would be interested in hearing the comments of the parliamentary assistant as to whether he saw merit in having both of those parties defined, or whether he was of the view that the amendment as such was still not acceptable, even with that amplification.

I suppose that once the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere places his amended amendment we would then be able to hear from the parliamentary assistant the views he has now that he’s had the opportunity of further considering that possibility.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, after having considered the amendment on a previous occasion I come to the same conclusion I have stated before; that is, we are dealing with the trustees under section 3 and I can see no reason why we should stipulate in this legislation what citizenship those trustees should hold.

The lands that would be held under this particular act are controlled by both sections 6 and 15. I believe the section would add nothing to the act. It could create some confusion by creating a qualification for the trustee. If there was some concern about the ownership of the land held this way, it could be very easily steered around by having a straw man, a Canadian lawyer as a trustee, if someone wanted to get --

Mr. Haggerty: They wouldn’t do a thing like that, would they?

Mr. Sterling: -- around that particular section.

The beneficial owner is the religious organization which can control the sale or lease under section 6. Under section 15: “The trustees of a religious organization selling or leasing lands shall on the first Monday in June in each year have ready and open for inspection a detailed statement showing the rents that accrued during the preceding year and all sums in their hands for the use and benefit of the organization that were in any manner derived from land under their control or subject to their management ... ”

There’s adequate control within the act. I think you have to remember that this act is created to allow religious organizations a simple way to hold land, and I don’t think there’s any need for a qualification on the citizenship of the trustees. In my view, it can only create confusion.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, I’ll be brief. The member for Kitchener and I had some discussions earlier. He shows, and has always shown, some deep concern about the people who direct the activities of things which function in this province and within the country.

He’s always had a deep commitment to this country. I’ve listened carefully on many occasions when he’s spoken and I appreciate very much the kind of opinions he’s expressed. What I don’t understand, quite frankly, is the attitude of the government.

This amendment may not have any substantial effect. I appreciate that. You’re right that if a foreign-controlled organization is determined to hold land under the guise of a religious organization in the province of Ontario, even if my amendment carries it will be able to do so by way of using Canadian lawyers. That’s what you were saying, and I understand that. It’s accurate. If it were for the appearance alone, you should at least be having a public voice which says, “We want to have Canadians involved in the ownership of the land which will be used for religious purposes.” Maybe some group can circumvent that, but at least start out from the premise that we want lands which are used for religious purposes to be directed by people who are Canadians or of landed immigrant status. If groups can find a way to circumvent that, fine, you have to deal with that problem. Maybe you can’t. But at least start from that basis.

I think that’s the first principle. That’s why I’m rather surprised at the attitude of the government. If you view the amendment as not being significant, surely you can pass it. It’s not going to hurt your legislation. If it causes a significant problem to your legislation, tell me how. Otherwise, I will assume that my amendment can carry. If it’s going to upset the functioning of the acquisition of lands for religious purposes, explain to me how that will occur, otherwise I’ll think that what I’ve done has made, at the very least, a significant gesture -- maybe substantive, I don’t know, time will tell. But at least it is a gesture that we are sending out a signal to say we want Canadians to be involved in the ownership of land; not people who are neither Canadians nor of landed immigrant status. I’m very puzzled by the government approach to this.

Mr. Sterling: First of all, I’m looking at it in terms of the very practical context of conveyancing that would occur both at the time of couveyancing and subsequent to conveyancing.

When you’re dealing with these particular matters there are certain procedures to be gone through. It’s not very often that this type of property changes hands. I would suggest that in most cases, the legal profession or whoever prepared the deed would not be aware of this kind of a qualification in an act. If you are conveyancing and are aware of this particular qualification in this act for this particular type of property, then included in the affidavit should be that the person is either a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant -- if your amendment carries.

The problem is, though, there is no other requirement for that within our conveyancing law for other types of property, so to me it’s an impracticality to say that the law will be probably widely known for this very particular circumstance. That makes no excuse for the lawyers who don’t do their work, or whatever it is, down the line. It’s a practical problem that I can foresee happening.

Also, as I mentioned before, what has citizenship to do with the owning of church property through this act? It just doesn’t make any sense to me when it’s the trustee we’re talking about. The trustee doesn’t own the property. The trustee is a figurehead.

Mr. Warner: I understand a little more clearly now, Mr. Chairman. It certainly is in keeping with this government’s attitude that anyone can come in and purchase any amounts of land they so desire. All you have to do is look at the cottage country in Ontario. The extent of foreign ownership of our cottage country and our farm land is significant now, and this government isn’t prepared to do anything about it.

Mr. Sterling: We have the land transfer tax.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, I think it’s time to place the amendment for voting.

[8:15]

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does any other member wish to discuss this amendment?

Mr. Warner moves that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection: “(7) A trustee shall be a Canadian citizen or a person of landed immigrant status.”

All those in favour of Mr. Warner’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 3 agreed to.

Sections 4 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Warner: I have a question regarding section 10. I’ll be quite open about it; I have some questions and if they’re not answered I’m prepared to put an amendment. It appears to me section 10 is the loophole through which a phoney organization could acquire land for the purpose of establishing a commercial venture --

Mr. Bradley: You’re not referring to the NDP?

Mr. Warner: -- a plaza or some other type of venture from which they would derive commercial gain, using the guise of having established the land for religious purposes.

That is my interpretation of that section. I would like a definitive answer from the government because, as I said, if I’m not satisfied I will be placing an amendment to delete section 10.

Mr. Sterling: Basically my answer to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is that if an organization came in under the guise of this act -- first, the only thing provided under this act is a method of holding that land. It doesn’t affect its taxability. It doesn’t confer on it any taxation rights or alleviation. All it means is you can have one or two or three or a dozen trustees named as the owners on a deed. That’s what this act says.

Second, section 1(1)(b) defines what a religious organization might be. If, for instance, an organization did come in and wanted to use this act just for the sake of holding the land, they can be challenged; there’s one section in the act whereby a person can apply to a court in order to have it determined whether they fall within the definition of the act. Yes, it is under section 23(2): “ ... the public trustee may apply to have determined whether any organization or other body that purports to hold and possess or that intends to acquire, hold and possess land under this act is entitled to do so.”

The time period we have set under this lease is in agreement with the Ontario Law Reform Commission -- the 40-year period. Whether it be 20 years or 40 years, were not really concerned one way or the other. We’re just following the recommendations of the law reform commission on that end of it. If that doesn’t answer I would be pleased to provide further clarification if you could better define your question.

Mr. Warner: There are two things. First, I don’t believe that section 23(2) answers the problem. It may determine that the organization is entitled to hold the land. I am talking about the organization as having been established. Obviously, we are not talking about well-known religious organizations, such as the Anglican church, near and dear to the heart of the government leader --

Mr. Nixon: We have our own bill.

Mr. Warner: -- or the Roman Catholic church or the United Church, and so on. We are talking about other organizations, one of which is the Church of Scientology, about which I raised a question earlier during second reading which was never answered. I asked whether or not it would be covered. The government chose not to respond to that. I believe they are covered under this bill. Further, I believe they could, if they wished, embark on establishing a plaza or a store or a company on lands they acquired for religious purposes and derive an income from that free of taxes for the land because it is established as land for religious purposes. That is the part I am trying to zero in on.

I may be wrong. That is why I said earlier, that I have a question about it because there is some doubt in my mind. If you can satisfy my doubt, I will not place an amendment. But at this point you haven’t said anything which satisfied my doubt that under section 10 a religious organization is able to establish itself tax free on land acquired for religions purposes, set up a business or a company or a plaza or some commercial enterprise, derive profit from it and not have to pay taxes. I see section 10 as the loophole through which they can do that.

Perhaps you can satisfy my mind that that is not correct.

Mr. Bradley: What a cynical mind!

Mr. Cureatz: Cynical.

Mr. Warner: No, only inquisitive.

Mr. Sterling: As I mentioned before, this bill is basically a bill constructed to provide a method of holding the land. If an organization doesn’t fall within the confines of this bill, it must hold it as any other organization might hold it. If it wants to do it in a perpetual sense, it would have to incorporate a company and have that company hold the land. As the shareholders and the directors change, then the company could hold the land now and could hold it 100 years from now.

This bill allows that process to go on through the use of trustees. This bill has nothing to do with taxation at all in the municipal sense, the income tax sense or any other sense. It only identifies religious organizations in terms of how they can hold the land and convey that land in the future.

The intent of this section is to give the religious organization which has chosen to hold the land in this way the rights most other land holders have; that is, to lease land they are not using for a period of time. As I mentioned, it has nothing to do with taxation, so they can’t avoid the tax laws by proving they are a religious organization under this bill. They would have to go to other taxation legislation, the Assessment Act --

Hon. Mr. Welch: The Assessment Act and all kinds of other acts.

Mr. Sterling: -- which has nothing to do with this piece of legislation.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The member for Kitchener.

(Applause).

Mr. Breithaupt: One doesn’t often hear such applause from so many at one time.

Mr. Bradley: A tremendous acclamation.

Mr. Breithaupt: In discussing with the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere his concerns on this matter of the possibility of holding land as a means of avoiding taxation, I had suggested to him that I thought, for municipal purposes, the Assessment Act would be able to ensure any commercial operation would be so assessed. In addition, I was of the opinion the income tax regulations would also acquire for the crown, either provincially or federally, the requisite amount of tax from any commercial operation, even though an ultimate benefit might flow to the group, the congregation or the religious organization that held title to the property.

In that instance, I suppose, an area of land which might not be required out of a parcel could be developed into a shopping plaza or an office building or whatever else it might be. However, it would be my view that the normal taxation rules of assessment and also income or corporate tax would apply and, therefore, the holding of title to the property would not avoid any commercial involvement and the taxes which would properly flow from that operation.

Of course, if the land was held and the title was of such involvement that the organization was trying to avoid taxes, then the courts could be turned to to see if that residence or auditorium was being used for religious purposes compared with the office building or the plaza. That would be my interpretation. If the parliamentary assistant can confirm that that is his view as well, maybe that answers the concerns of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Sterling: That is exactly my understanding of this piece of legislation. It’s the use of the land that governs the taxation of it and not how it is owned or who owns it. Income tax depends upon the nature of the enterprise and not upon the fact that the land may have been acquired originally for religious purposes and then leased out under this particular act.

Mr. Lawlor: Has the parliamentary assistant personally checked this out in terms of the Municipal Act, the Assessment Act, et cetera? There is a designation here as a religious organization and the religious organization has built-in exemptions.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Only for the sanctuary. Even the clergyman’s house is taxable.

Mr. Lawlor: I know the clergyman’s house is brought within the tax dimension generally.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Anything that is not considered to be the sanctuary is taxable.

Mr. Lawlor: There’s no diminution of tax with respect to any other portion of the property at all?

Mr. Warner: You’re worth at least a nuisance tax.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s a curious matter. Such a case arose three years ago before the justice committee on private bills. True, it tended to be in the opposite direction, namely, that the organization in question was renting from a commercial operation and wished a tax exemption to which it wasn’t entitled in that particular context. We recommended to the Metropolitan council that they alleviate them from the tax.

Okay, I’ll accept that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps one happy result of this evening is that the provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is in his place. Perhaps the Treasurer might confirm that the holding of title in this manner would in no way alleviate anyone from the taxes to which they would be properly required to pay. I am sure that the provincial Treasurer would not see this legislation as in any way loosening his grasp upon revenue or indeed rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.

Mr. Conway: He looks like Caesar’s wife.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member for Renfrew North looks like one of Caesar’s grandchildren.

Mr. Sterling: There is no designation of any kind under this act. All there is is a right to use trustees to hold land. This isn’t any different from the existing law now. Taxes are determined without regard to this particular act.

Mr. Warner: In section 10(5), I am wondering if the parliamentary assistant could explain the reason for the three-year term.

[8:30]

Mr. Sterling: I think this is just a recommendation of the law reform commission in coming to some reasonable term under a general authorization, rather than having to call a general meeting to further the commitment for another three-year term.

Again, we are not held to this particular figure. I am informed that it wasn’t the Ontario Law Reform Commission. It was just arbitrarily picked as a relatively short period of time in order not to have go back again and again for authority when the trustees have a lessee who they want to roll over continually every three years.

Mr. Warner: On the question of the law reform commission, and certainly granting that the government is always arbitrary, it still doesn’t explain why it is three and not two or four or some other period of time.

You showed some faith in allowing a 40-year lease, but you had to have a three-year term. I still don’t understand the purpose of having the three years. Why is that significant?

Mr. Sterling: I don’t think the three years is significant. We are at the disposal of the House. If you want to make an amendment to make it four years or two years, we are quite willing to accept it. We are just picking a figure of a reasonable period of time.

Mr. Breithaupt: I would think that in a variety of lease opportunities, whether it is for some parking spaces that aren’t needed or whatever, an annual or even a two-year lease would be a normal sort of thing. I would have only presumed that other than half the cabinet wanting two and half wanting four, and this being a satisfactory division or compromise, this would presumably be a practical, almost minimal kind of term which would not require specific authorization. I have no quarrel with the three years.

Section 10 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the parliamentary assistant have an amendment to section 11?

Mr. Sterling: Yes, I have an amendment to add a section.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Sterling moves that the bill be amended by renumbering sections 11 to 30 as sections 12 to 31, respectively, and by adding thereto the following section:

“11. The trustees of a religious organization may, upon such terms and conditions as the organization may by resolution approve, grant easements or enter into covenants in respect of land held by them.”

Mr. Warner: I would like an explanation about the granting of easements. My understanding of the Municipal Act is that the easements generally come under municipal control, which means there would then be a conflict between the religious organization and the municipality.

Mr. Sterling: In an easement, there is a person who gives the easement and then there is a person who takes the easement -- or a body which takes the easement and a body which gives the easement. This is designed specifically to give the trustees the same power they would have if they were incorporated or held the land as an individual where one could grant an easement for a sewer to go across the lands, whether it has to do with heritage easements with the Ministry of Culture and Recreation or agreements that any other body can enter into. As we have been specific as to the powers the trustees have with the land, it was felt this was an additional power those trustees should have to deal with the property.

Motion agreed to.

Section 11 agreed to.

Section 12, as renumbered, agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I will refer, if I may, to the numbering as we have it in the bill and proceed on that basis, although this does change it.

Sections 12 to 14, as printed, agreed to.

On section 15:

Mr. Breithaupt: I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether this approach was to develop a new provincial holiday. It would appear all of us in this chamber and indeed across the province are going to be busy scurrying around and checking into the respective books of the organizations to which we happen to belong. So on the first Monday in June very little will be done other than to page through resolutions in the variety of sanctuaries that dot this province. I hope this is not just a means of establishing a new provincial holiday, but I will take the parliamentary assistant’s word for it.

An hon. member: Trustees’ Day.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, Trustees’ Day; that’s great.

Mr. Sterling: This is not to be a new religious holiday.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, I rise again in this section as I have in others, anticipating I will once again not get an answer from the government, whether or not the Church of Scientology is included in this act. I have asked that on every opportunity and the government chooses not to answer my question. I do not understand why. Who can explain stubbornness?

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, I did not want to mention any specific religious organization, or any organization -- as to whether or not they are included in this act. But I mentioned to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere before if they qualified under section 1(b) of the act, the Church of Scientology could apply to a court under section 23 if they want to go through that process to qualify to hold land in this way. They are quite entitled to do so. I do not know whether they are within this act or not; I do not know that much about their organization. That organization now holds its land through a corporation, as I understand it, so it would not be interested in this act.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I believe this refers back to the original discussions we had with respect to section 1. While I am not debating the merits of the section, is it not correct that in the explanation given at that point any religious organization had to fulfill three conditions? Then, for descriptive purposes only, you refer to a number of groups which are automatically included. That, therefore, does not exclude anyone.

Indeed, I suppose, if some groups said they were, for example, of the Buddhist faith, that would likely mean that questions with respect to subsections 1, 2, or 3 might not be pursued. They would have simply been accepted because of those observations that they were of that faith. It is where other groups might choose to become involved, as suggested by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere in that example, that they might have to satisfy those three points. If such is the case, then every group, including his example or any of the others, are included. Is that not correct?

Mr. Sterling: That is exactly correct.

Mr. Warner: The perceptive member for Kitchener has put the issue again. I just wish when we started, when we were in second reading, that the parliamentary assistant had said that straight away. All I can say is that when we pass this bill, as I expect we are going to do this evening, the government had better be aware that certain groups outside of the commonly known organized groups of religious organizations are likely to apply for land holdings. That includes the Church of Scientology and there are many others. I hope the parliamentary assistant is aware of that and is prepared to deal with it.

It tests our religious tolerance to a certain extent, there is no question about that. On the other hand, we also know that we have a Mr. Hill, who is conducting an examination. All of those people he is examining, I submit, are included, in this bill. They can apply for the holding of lands for religious purposes. I hope the government is prepared to deal with it, because I think you have opened a can of worms, quite frankly.

Mr. Sterling: I would just say again that this is only a method of holding land. I draw the member’s attention to section 15, which we are now dealing with and which actually provides for more scrutiny than they would have to go through if they were incorporated. If someone wanted to be covert about their motives for holding land they certainly wouldn’t choose this particular act.

Section 15, as printed, agreed to.

Sections 16 to 30, inclusive, as printed, agreed to.

Bill 93 reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported one bill, with amendment.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 108, An Act to amend the Public Accountancy Act.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, this bill is introduced to include a new section which changes the procedure for amending the licensing of public accountants. The public accountants are charging $25 for the licence now. They need $50 in order to properly discipline their own profession, and it’s necessary to go through this change in order to achieve that end.

[8:45]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

(Applause).

Mr. Breithaupt: I’m not really overwhelmed but I’m somewhat surprised.

I realize this is not a bill with particular substance to it but I just had one question before we agree that these opportunities for changing fees should be allowed by regulation. Does the parliamentary assistant have any suggestion as to the schedule of fees that is going to be charged? This $25 maximum figure could quite clearly be out of date. Is there some prospect or some information he can give us as to the expectations in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The parliamentary assistant must realize we’re in second reading and a member only speaks once to the bill.

Mr. Roy: You don’t want to get caught like Reuben Baetz. He got up too early.

Mr. Warner: We will support the bill on second reading. I find it rather curious, Mr. Speaker, that the bill is drafted in such a way as to give the appearance the fee will be set by a self-governing body of the public accountants’ council, when in fact the government is setting the licence fee.

The section we’re being asked to approve says, “subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.” That means that regardless of whatever amount is set by the public accountants’ council, the government can veto that. It’s really a government bill. It’s probably inspired by the Treasurer, who wishes to extract extra amounts of money from those people he probably views as earning substantial incomes and can well afford to pay more than the $25 established in 1950. Be that as it may, it’s a government bill, and surely the government could have been more forthright and simply have said, “We want to tax these people who are public accountants.” Because that’s what the bill does.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It’s their money for them.

Mr. Warner: But we’ll support it.

Mr. Roy: Apart from getting up, Mr. Speaker, and with your indulgence, recognizing the fact that this evening all of us are honoured to know the member for York Mills is celebrating her 31st wedding anniversary this evening --

Mr. Nixon: The other principals in the wedding party are in the gallery.

Mr. Roy: I hope so because, as I expressed to the member, I would like to meet her husband.

Mr. Nixon: I hope you had better things to do on the other 30 than this.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Duty calls.

Mr. Nixon: What devotion.

Mr. Roy: I just want to ask the parliamentary assistant how it is the accountants have been able to get away with the same fee since 1950. I was reading recently that of all the professions, the accountants -- and I don’t have anything against accountants; they’re fine people, fine professionals, very competent and all that--

Interjection.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I know. My colleague tells me it’s for their own licences. It’s unusual that a profession, which of all the professionals has had the highest increase in remuneration over the last 10 years, is fortunate enough to have kept their licensing fee at the same level since 1950. I suppose maybe that’s one reason -- if they were able to do that with their own association and were able to do it with their other expenses, possibly that’s why their income has increased so much. I would say to my colleague from York Mills, if she compares the medical profession’s increase over the last 10 years to that of the accountants, they really look like pikers. It is unusual that this has taken place --

Mr. Nixon: It doesn’t compare with the lawyers’ increase, after all.

Mr. Roy: My colleague mentions the lawyers.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a principle of this bill, though.

Mr. Roy: I hope not, because he is usually off the principle when he talks about lawyers.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that lawyers are not much further ahead than the doctors; so certainly we are in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to this bill? If not, the honourable the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer why they have been able to hold their licence fees so low, but I think the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere should know that these fees go to the professional association and have nothing to do with the Treasurer’s bank accounts. They are strictly used by that association and have nothing to do with us.

We are establishing a maximum under their professional act. We have established a maximum in the past of $25; they only reached that in the recent past and have found that it is too low at this time to carry out their functions within their organization. This section is in tune with most of the other professional associations, whereby the Lieutenant Governor does approve the increases for the associations.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 109, An Act to amend the Evidence Act.

Interjection.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, the act, I feel, is self-explanatory. It provides for copies of the statutes of Ontario to he translated into the French language as outlined in the throne speech of this year.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

(Applause.)

Mr. Warner: There are fewer this time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of Bill 109.

A week or so ago an interesting item came across my desk from some association or other that was involved -- in their own view, at least -- with the preservation of the English language in Ontario. They, in their comments, suggested that the ramparts should be manned because the government of Ontario was doing things through the back door that it dared not do through the front door. That, at least, was their point of view, which is one that I trust is not shared by too many people within this province.

It is certainly long overdue that the proper translation of statutes should not, in any way, be compromised in its use in the courts where those persons of French language within Ontario would have the opportunity of otherwise using them. The necessity to prove a translation is a difficult one, requiring certain attestations, and I think this is an opportunity to clarify that matter once and for all.

I would appreciate hearing generally from the parliamentary assistant as to what statutes now have been translated and will be admitted in evidence. For example, the Evidence Act itself, no doubt, is in translation, and probably a statute such as the Highway Traffic Act. Are there a substantial number of others? Perhaps he could tell us, just as a matter of general interest, even though it may not be particular to this point in this act, what the prospects are for translation of the variety of statutes. I would presume, perhaps, that not absolutely every statute within the province requires to be translated. Some, such as the Highway Traffic Act or the Evidence Act, would have a more immediate use than many others would, such as the Stallions Act or the Bees Act or a variety of others we see if not every day, at last every second day.

Mr. Warner: Picking up on the comments of the member for Kitchener, I agree. I read that material from the society for the preservation of English -- was that it? Some such name. It bordered on hate literature, quite frankly. I was appalled, absolutely appalled. I have criticisms of this government and its lack of a stand on French as an official language and I remember all too well that unfortunate moment in our history when the member for Ottawa East had a bill which we all supported and then the Premier (Mr. Davis) ran outside and scuttled the whole thing. I remember that.

Nonetheless, I firmly believe that the members of this assembly for the most part have a very deep commitment to two official languages. The government has made some effort. The government has brought in programs and attempted to establish programs in the French language. I don’t think they’re forthright enough about it. I don’t think they’ve done enough, but they have done something.

I’m hoping that the parliamentary assistant can tell me -- and by raising it now perhaps we will not have to go through the committee stage -- I’m interested to know how many statutes of Ontario have been translated into the French language, how many more are to be done and how long it will take to get that done. It’s important and it has to be done, the sooner the better. It’s a long, involved and arduous process to make sure that all of our courts eventually function in the two languages in the areas where people whose first language is French can be served. It’s not happening fast enough for my taste, but maybe it satisfies the government.

I have one other question to raise which is that this bill provides that while the translation into French can be entered as evidence, if there’s a conflict the Statutes Act shall prevail. I’d like to know why. I’d like to know why, at the point of conflict between the two, the Statutes Act should prevail over the translation into French. I’ll be quite open about it, Mr. Speaker. If the parliamentary assistant can assure me on those two items then I’m prepared to pass the bill on second reading and to avoid the committee stage as well.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak?

Mr. Roy: I’m always pleased to speak in support of this legislation.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Moi?

Mr. Roy: Qu’est-ce que tu as à dire, toi là?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Oui.

Mr. Roy: I’m sorry, he was interrupting me and I thought I should deal harshly with him in the other official language.

As I was saying, I’m always pleased to support this type of legislation. On different occasions I’ve congratulated the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) for showing initiative in this field. I’ve been critical of the government, of course, on a number of occasions in their delay at not having recognized the situation existing in our courts -- the situation, for instance, in the province of Quebec and what they have been able to do for over a century now as compared to what was happening here in Ontario. But steps are being taken. I suppose possibly it is with age and experience in this House, but perhaps I am getting less radical, more mellow and so on.

[9:00]

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Oh, never.

Mr. Roy: I hear my friend. I’ll never be as conservative as him. He can be sure of that. I don’t think I will ever reach that point.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: You may mature completely.

Mr. Roy: This Attorney General has in the past shown some initiative. I considered the amendments to the Judicature Act to be for the francophone minority and in the overall scheme of things when we are talking about constitutional reform, national unity and so on, possibly the most significant legislation for Franco-Ontarians since the Education Act back in 1967-68.

It follows that if we are going to allow the use of French in the courts, if cases are going to be pleaded in that language the next step has to be to be able to plead the statutes as well. Of course, it follows that we need translation of statutes. If we get into that, we have to give certain status to the translated version of the statutes. All of this legislation logically follows a process which has been initiated now for some years.

I do want to make certain comments about the approach taken by the government. I do it more out of cynicism than I do out of partisan aggressiveness.

The Minister of Education is smiling and I am not sure if she is smiling because of the occasion or because of what I am saying. Nevertheless, I want to say to my colleagues on different occasions the Premier of this province has taken a pretty harsh and radical approach to demands made by the Franco-Ontarian community. In that sense, I can recall more than a year ago when they were asking for official status for the French language and he came along and in a very tough, harsh, brutal fashion said, “No way, nor will we be taking a single step to give any official recognition to the French language in this province.” It was only a few months later we were talking in this House about the Judicature Act. We talk about certain other amendments, and gradually we see a whole process in the field of services being implemented and so on.

When the government is presenting this type of legislation, he is by his actions contradicting his words back in February, but it is part of the process. It is good politics. It is excellent politics for Ontario and I can’t deny that. A lot of people in Ontario have the perception the Premier is there defending the status quo and so on. He will get votes for it. We saw it last year dealing with Bill 89. When the bill was presented the Premier came down very harshly, brutally and vetoed it and said, “Nor will we be giving any recognition to official status for the French language,” again distorting what the bill was saying. By presenting legislation such as this, a certain status is given.

The point I am trying to make basically is this: It may be an ingenious way of progressing gradually by giving services in this province, and politically speaking, it may be a very good way of doing it without annoying a certain element in this province against this sort of approach, but the government does it in a very subtle fashion. The public perception out there is basically that we are defending the status quo but subtly, underneath it, the government is printing certain things in French. Last year, the Treasurer had the budget speech printed in French and he did it again this year. The government is proposing legislation such as this. This subtle approach or scheme may be, as I say, good politics for Ontario, but I repeat, unfortunately the Premier and the Attorney General have said things on different occasions.

In the province of Quebec they have no perception of what we are doing here. Is it any small wonder that is happening? It seems to me that there should be this perception by people in Quebec, that it’s important they know we in Ontario are moving gradually and progressively into that area and proposing legislation such as this.

Now I want to say this to the parliamentary assistant: I think this legislation follows logically, I don’t disagree with any parts in it; if we are going to be using translated statutes they should be given certain status, but should there be conflict between the translation and the official version in English, the official version in English prevails. But I want to say this to him, and he can convey this or possibly he can answer it this evening: Having passed the Judicature Act, and having understood at the time that we passed it we would move progressively in allowing the use of French in our courts, we started doing it over the past two or three years now in the Ottawa area -- at the provincial level, at the criminal division; and we’ve gone into the family court and so on. What are we waiting for, for instance in areas like that of my good colleague, who I’m sure is interested in this, the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger)? What are we doing there? For instance, why don’t we have French in the courts at the county level or the provincial level all the way up? What are we waiting to do?

Look at what they did in New Brunswick on May 1, allowing the use of French in the courts. I mean that was the purpose of passing the Judicature Act; that was the purpose of the federal government making amendments to the Criminal Code. What is going to be the use of a bill such as this if there are no courts in the French language?

What is the delay? We understood the situation last year, my colleague the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) and I, when we discussed it with the Attorney General; we said to him, “Yes, we understand that you move progressively in certain areas, at certain levels of the courts.” I say to the parliamentary assistant, what’s been the delay? I’d like to see amendments such as this have some use; to feel we’re not just going through an academic exercise in passing legislation such as this. I want to know, from him, what is in store. He has our full support, and there’s no question that he has the support of my colleagues to the left, but let’s show that we’re doing something, let’s not just pass legislation.

I really do think that in some areas of the province, and I mentioned the area of my colleague, the member for Prescott and Russell, as one area where there is great interest in this. I say to him: When 85 per cent of the people in his area are French-speaking -- the judge is French-speaking, the crown attorney; everybody is French-speaking, what are we waiting for?

Mr. Belanger: And everything in L’Orignal is in French; and you know that.

Mr. Roy: Well, Albert, you haven’t gone --

Mr. Warner: Then formalize it; put it in the statutes.

Mr. Roy: If I’ve done nothing else I’ve got him going; way to go, I’m with him all the way. But if he thinks that everything in the courts in L’Orignal is in French he has been to the wrong court. He’s been sticking around family court only, only provincial courts. Has he been to the county courts recently out there and seen what’s going on?

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the member for Ottawa East that he should confine his remarks to what is in the bill, not what has been left out of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I got carried away, I apologize for that, but my aggressive colleague from Prescott and Russell got on my nerves; he became provocative.

I say to the parliamentary assistant, we are in full support of what he is doing. Convey our best to the Attorney General, we appreciate the leadership he has given here, but let’s see some action. We’re giving him the jurisdiction under the Judicature Act, and this amendment to the Evidence Act, but let’s make some use of it. After all, it’s not an academic exercise, it’s for real people, who have real problems out there and let’s give them a chance to use it.

Mr. Conway: Wait until they hear about this in Chesterville.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Renfrew North interject from his own seat?

Mr. Lawlor: Exactly, if he is going to blow a pibroch let him blow it in the right quarters.

Mr. Warner: Better still from outside the chamber.

Mr. Lawlor: Very shortly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know in the reply, in order probably to avoid the necessity of taking it into committee, which I don’t think is necessary, how and who is doing this translation; and whether Arthur Stone is studying French so that he may check it out very assiduously.

Second, I would like to know, if the parliamentary assistant is clued in, how they handle the matter in Quebec on the contrary, particularly in the light of the rather curious clause written into the section. That clause: “But in the event of a conflict between the version published under the Statutes Act, and the French language translation, the version published under the Statutes Act shall prevail.” I will bet dollars that is not the way it is set up in Quebec; that there is total equality as between the two and they are au fond with respect to the uses of the languages such that either version has complete equality of status.

I would like to hear the parliamentary assistant’s explanation of this particular clause. Is it because of the predominancy of English here? Do we set the norm on the English aspect and, if some putative conflict arises, we give paramountcy to the English version? I just find it curious and would like to hear an explanation.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I will try to address my remarks to the points raised by the various members in the debate.

There is an intention that there will be somewhat more than 150 acts translated within the next period of time; it will take approximately about four to five years to do it properly. At the present time the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, the Ministry of Northern Affairs Act, the Retail Business Holidays Act, the Development Corporations Act and the Human Tissue Gift Act have been all translated and published at this point in time. Three more will be published by the end of the month. They are the General Welfare Act and the regulations under that act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Family Law Reform Act, which is already translated, but there will be a revision of the original translation.

The second point that was raised was with reference to the part of the bill which says the French translation must defer to the version under the Statutes Act. The fact of the matter is that the legislation under the Statutes Act is and has been passed in the Legislature in English and, therefore, it has to be the prime language when a conflict occurs.

The member for Lakeshore brought up the situation in the province of Quebec. I am informed that, under the government’s recent language bill, French is the only official version and the English translation is totally unofficial although it could he challenged at this time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid having the bill go to committee, may I ask one question of the parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Speaker: Well, it is not customary, and I don’t want it to be a precedent.

Mr. Breithaupt: I referred to the Evidence Act itself and to the Highway Traffic Act two items which presumably would be very high in priority, because those would be statutes used very much so by persons of the French language. Can the parliamentary assistant advise me if or when those two statutes will be available?

Mr. Roy: What is the delay in going forward on the Judicature Act? You didn’t answer my question?

[9:15]

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, while I am receiving some advice in relation to the member’s question, I would like to indicate to the member for Ottawa East that the Attorney General has indicated he will be implementing Bill C-42 under the Criminal Code to provide for bilingual indictable offence trials anywhere in Ontario, subject to a change in venue where necessary. He has committed himself to that being proclaimed before the end of this year. I know that doesn’t answer all the member’s questions. I have to defer his questions to the Attorney General on the other areas he raised.

In relation to the question asked by the member for Kitchener, the Highway Traffic Act is very high in terms of priority and is expected to be done within the next year. The Evidence Act is lower as it tends to be lawyers’ law, and as there are very many pressures for various acts. What we are trying to do is the make priorities those that are of the most public concern.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 110, An Act to amend the Administration of Justice Act.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, basically this bill amends the Administration of Justice Act to transfer the jurisdiction for fees for services within the court system from the rules committee to the government or orders in council. Basically these are administrative procedures and do not relate to things in which the rules committee are that interested. They are for such costs as issuing a writ of summons, subpoena, issuing a copy of a judgement or order, setting down an action for trial, filing a notice of appeal, for service of documents by the sheriff, the mileage charges related to the service of documents and other administrative services the Attorney General is providing that do not relate specifically to the matter before the court.

The rules committee will still maintain jurisdiction over setting fees allowed to a solicitor pursuant to an order of a judge, either on a party and party basis or otherwise; the counsel fee including preparation for trial; the brief of trial; written argument, et cetera. The party and party costs are all subject to a taxing master after they are heard.

Basically, the problem is these administration costs are rising and we are unable to provide the service at the old costs. We would like to keep them more in tune with the actual costs of the services so we can offer better service in the county court office and in the Supreme Court office. Often, we hear complaints from lawyers that they are quite willing to pay more for the service if they could, for instance, get additional personnel in those offices to serve them at the counter and that kind of thing. This will allow us more leeway to bring the fees charged more in line with the costs to the government.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the time of the various rule-making bodies for each of the courts has to be used to best advantage. We have an opportunity here to have one co-ordination of the variety of charges that are made so that we will have both consistency and the proper proportion as to the costs and the time spent, as well as the other matters that are looked into. I believe in this circumstance the manner of dealing with it by regulation is a satisfactory one because we are dealing with a series of payments almost in a mechanical way for a variety of services which are being provided.

As I mentioned, the groups that are charged with the responsibility of making changes to the various rules have certainly much better things to do with their time than to worry about minor changes in fee structures. If this can be done in a more consistent and efficient way, then we will certainly support the bill.

Mr. Warner: We will support the principle of the bill, but I am a bit puzzled. I had read back to the act of 1968 and those of 1970 and 1971 and had fried to follow the progression of events, where the section was put in, repealed and then put in again.

I understand that, until this bill we are operating under the 1971 amendments. I don’t see anything in that act which precludes doing what the government purports to want to do in Bill 110 which is before us tonight. For example, I don’t know why what it wishes to accomplish in having the Lieutenant Governor in Council fix the fees, rather than have this done by the rules committee, can’t be done under the existing legislation. If it can’t, that is fine. Obviously, the government has determined that it can’t be and that is why it has the legislation in front of us. But unless I have missed something -- and maybe I have as I’m a novice at this business -- it seems to me the 1971 act to amend the Administration of Justice Act, 1968, provides the power required to set the fees. There isn’t anything in that act which precludes it.

From the way I read it, it allows the rules committee to set the fees, but it would also allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to do it by regulation.

Mr. Lawlor: I think my colleague makes a good point on that. The wording is slightly different. It is directed to services in the earlier statute, rather than as it reads here, court proceedings in any court. It is a question of terminology and of how one construes it. I would be most interested in hearing the parliamentary assistant’s answer to that.

I have a couple of other points and rather than go into committee I will raise a couple of questions. This bill mentions that this particular power is being taken away from the rules committee to be reposed in the solitary bosom of the ministry. It does have one beneficial effect. The scale of fees with respect to these diverse matters -- the issuance of writs, taking judgement and so on -- differs vis-à-vis the various courts, although there is uniformity, I think, within the sheriff’s office itself with respect to matters of service. At least now the bill sets it up in a rational way and there will be certain uniformity between the county court and the Supreme Court with respect to those internal court matters.

The parliamentary assistant said he wanted to keep it in tune with the escalating needs. Sometimes as far as law is concerned, I think it must be in tune with the infinite. Court costs, including the kind of fees he is talking about in issuance of documents, are escalating at such an enormous pace that it is probably better in most instances for human beings to bear the affliction from which they suffer than to launch into court proceedings. The cost at the end of the day will outdistance any benefit they may gain.

That is becoming increasingly a sore in the system and by sheer monetary weight it overcomes and trespasses upon the whole realm of the administration of justice in this province and, apparently, all over the place.

Have members seen court costs and legal bills, et cetera, recently with respect to even a week’s trial? If anyone thinks it’s worth suing for $5,000 and be tied up in proceedings for a week or two, he’ll find that he’s out of pocket, even if he wins.

I’m hoping Williston, when he comes in, will bring in some nostrums with respect to this. What I’m saying is this: watch those costs.

The Attorney General’s is one of the few ministries in this government that is self-financing -- or darn close to being so. One shouldn’t try to make a profit on the deal. It’s not the role of justice and the minister should try to keep those fees down.

Mr. Sterling: I can assure the member for Lakeshore the intention is not for the Attorney General to make a profit on any of the fees that would be charged. We would like to make it more in tune with a user-pays principle in terms of some of the services we provide.

As to the question by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere in relation to the present act, there is some question as to whether the present act provides the jurisdiction to charge all these administration fees we think should be under the order in council. This act is drafted in order to clarify exactly what we are allowed to charge. If he checks the previous section of the act he will find it is more restrictive.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 111, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, this bill really strikes off in two or three different directions to correct three or four areas which needed housekeeping amendments.

First of all, section 1 deals with defining an associate chief justice so that he is enabled to sit on the rules committee as an associate chief justice and qualifies for that office.

One of the sections, section 4, deals with interest after judgement. I believe in 1977 we formally amended section 38 of the Judicature Act in order to deal with interest prior to judgement. This is to take care of the case for interest on judgements after they are made.

Section 6 deals with the reorganizing of the rules committee and goes through various changes within that particular rules committee.

Section 5 deals with the divisional court in dealing with the appeals heard to the divisional court where they can in fairly minor matters instead of being heard by a panel be heard by one judge of the divisional court.

I expect to take this particular piece of legislation to committee as I have one amendment to section 5.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, in looking at Bill 111 it somewhat reminds me of what one hears about in high schools and universities these days -- that is grade inflation.

In this instance we’re going to be dealing with rank inflation, because whereas before this act is passed we have senior judges and judges, now we’re going to have judges and junior judges. I’m sorry, it’s the reverse.

Before this bill is passed we would have judges and junior judges. And, of course, when the bill is passed we will have senior judges and judges.

I don’t know that it would have made too much difference which way the province would have gone in legislation such as this. However, it would appear that we don’t want to call anyone a junior judge in future.

This same circumstance we see in a bill like this where we’re adding additional terms to the word “judge.” I realize that this other bill, Bill 112 I think, refers to the junior judge circumstance, but in this area we’re dealing with other minor things, really. We are going to add the registrar of the Supreme Court to the rules committee. We’re going to deal with -- the final point -- the registrar as secretary of the rules committee -- a variety of items which will, I think, be useful and none of them particularly earth-shattering but certainly all of which we will support.

Mr. Warner: The parliamentary assistant will be relieved to know that we’re supporting this bill.

It seems to me, as I read through it, there is something in the bill which begs some definition and that is the term “prime rate” -- how it’s to be determined; whether it will be set by regulation; whether there will be a mechanism for review. Will there be an automatic way of altering the prime rate? How will you determine it?

My understanding is that at one time it was about five per cent and recently it’s been established by the courts that the rate which is applied is about 10 per cent. Obviously it’s an arbitrary amount, but I’d like to know about it. I agree with the idea of establishing the prime rate. That’s fine, but I’d like to know whose measurement you’re going to use; how you’re going to determine it and why you wouldn’t put it in as a definition in the bill.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Call the Bank of Canada. Did you ever hear of them?

Mr. Warner: That’s not what it says in the bill -- to the Minister of Transportation and Communications who is interjecting from someone else’s seat.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Right. Mine’s occupied.

Mr. Warner: If it was meant that the prime rate of the Bank of Canada be put in then it should say so. That’s what should be put in, the prime rate of the Bank of Canada, or a definition: “Prime rate means the Bank of Canada prime rate.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: The Bank of Canada is in good hands. Two or three weeks ago, not so good.

Mr. Roy: How would you know?

Mr. Warner: The Minister of Transportation and Communications may want to defend sloppy draftsmanship, but I don’t.

Mr. Roy: The minister’s wrong on that one. The dollar went down since the Tories took over federally.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, but do you know why?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: I’d like to know then, if that’s the ease, is it to be altered yearly?

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has the floor.

Mr. Warner: There’s a considerable amount of static in this chamber, Mr. Speaker.

An hon. member: It’s the provincial Legislature.

Mr. Warner: It’s a curious thing about section 5 -- I was hoping that the parliamentary assistant would speak to it -- as to why it would be determined to have one judge only instead of three. It would appear to me that there are matters which are dealt with in the divisional court in which it is prudent to have three judges instead of one. I’d be interested to know the parliamentary assistant’s view as to why that was changed.

Just one last point of curiosity is that section 6 reduces the number of judges on the rules committee by one. It may not be significant but, again, any time the government chooses to make a change I want to know why. Why do they make that change?

Those are the particular questions I have. Again, in an effort to be expedient and cooperative, if those questions can be answered then we need not go through the committee stage.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise in support of this legislation. There are certain matters in the bill, of course, that are housekeeping and are interesting. My colleague mentioned the following bill where we’ll deal with judges and junior judges, but I notice that part of this bill mentions the rank and precedence of judges. That’s always important to determine this rank and precedence to keep our members of the judiciary pleased.

To me, the most important aspect of the housekeeping amendment is section 4, dealing with interest. You will recall, as the parliamentary assistant mentioned, that back in 1977 amendments were brought forward to section 38 of the Judicature Act allowing interest on judgements or on the liquidated amount of damages prior to judgement. I want to tell the House that I thought that was a very significant amendment.

In many claims, but mostly in motor vehicle claims when we were dealing with insurance companies, very often on large claims it was to the advantage of the insurance company to wait and not settle an action until they arrived at the courtroom door because at that point they were better off. It was cheaper for them to hold off. The high rate of legal fees and so on didn’t really come into being until you started the actual trial. That’s when costs really started getting heavy. In fact, the delays were caused because there was no interest. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the amendments to section 38 have encouraged settlements because from the day of the accident when notice of claim is given and that there will be a claim and possibly a claim for interest under the Judicature Act, there’s an incentive, a built-in incentive for people who owe money to pay this amount prior to dillydallying in the courts because they know they’ll have to pay interest on it. I thought that was a very significant amendment.

As I recall, at the time we were discussing the legislation I wondered why it was that we stopped at the judgement. Why did we not allow interest on the judgement after it was given until the time that it was paid? As I recall, we were told that after the judgement the jurisdiction over interest was within the purview of the federal government. I don’t have the Hansard here but I recall that aspect being mentioned when we were discussing the matter of interest. Possibly the parliamentary assistant can enlighten me. I remember being told that up until the time of judgement, interest was within the realm of provincial jurisdiction, but after judgement it came within the competence of the federal government

Being annoyed about this, some time ago I wrote to the federal Minister of Justice saying, “Look, it seems to me that there is a certain anomaly here, that interest can be paid until the judgement is given or awarded but after it’s awarded there is no interest.” The result of this is that it encouraged -- I saw it in different cases -- undue delays on the part of people owing judgements to pay these judgements. In fact, there may be some encouragement even to fool around, to put in a notice of appeal for a period of time and possibly delay paying the judgement for six months to a year. The interest at that point I think was at a fixed rate of only five or six per cent, which was absolutely ridiculous.

I would like some enlightenment as to why the province feels it can establish interest at prime rate after judgement. I think it is an important step. I see no reason why interest should not be paid at prime rate before and after judgement.

All of these are factors that encourage people to settle actions; to complete actions to finality.

I also notice that in subsection 2 the judge will have a certain amount of discretion either to disallow the interest or to fix the rate of interest higher or lower than the prime rate. I just wonder how one goes about doing that if the judgement has already been awarded. Which judge are we referring to? Would it be the appeal judge who would be fixing interest at a higher or lower amount?

My question to the parliamentary assistant is this: Once you obtain a judge’s decision and you are awarded judgement, who decides after that point? Which judge are we referring to who will have the discretion to disallow interest under this section? Do we go back to the trial judge at that point to determine whether the interest should be higher or lower or whether the date should be different?

I suppose, out of necessity, this section does not apply to a verdict rendered or judgement given before this section comes into force. I just wish there were some other way of doing that. I feel it should apply as of the date the section is proclaimed. The sooner we include the largest number of awards and judgements under a section such as this, the better it is going to be.

Section 5 deals with appeals to the divisional court. I guess these appeals are coming from small claims courts. My colleague has asked why that section is needed. As I understand it, appeals from -- I always get confused when talking about appeals as to how you end up in divisional court or in Court of Appeal; which go where.

Mr. Breithaupt: You always win your cases, so you’d never know.

Mr. Roy: That’s right. I seldom have the problem of going to that level. But I must say I am confused.

Talking about divisional court, I really wonder whether it was needed; whether we couldn’t have just had a High Court on all matters, whether dealing with statutory procedures or otherwise. I don’t want to offend anybody, certainly not the members of that court, because the judges of divisional court are judges of the High Court who sit on that, but I must admit I get confused as to how you end up in divisional court or High Court and so on.

Our system of courts is still somewhat confusing. I think the Attorney General could show some leadership in making the process a bit more simple so that the lay people might understand it. If the lawyers are confused, we can have some sympathy with the people on the street.

The other matters in the bill, as my colleague has said, are basically of a housekeeping nature, and I do not have much to say on them, although I say again that I am pleased to see section 4 dealing with interest; it is something that I think is long overdue.

I would like to hear the parliamentary assistant’s comments. Am I confused? Somebody kept telling me it was federal jurisdiction after judgement.

[9:45]

Mr. Lawlor: Just a couple of points, Mr. Speaker: This is a pretty disparate bill -- desperate too. One has to take it almost section by section. Just to comment on the second one -- the supernumerary judges situation -- and this business of seniority from the time of appointment, et cetera. Supernumerary judges would no doubt have, overwhelmingly, the seniority. Therefore their ranking in appointment would remain substantially as it is today. This is not of great consequence to the Attorney General or me but among the judges it is a matter of great importance as to who gets the perks. “I have this office with the bathroom attached.”

Mr. Roy: They’re not really any different from MPPs.

Mr. Speaker: Meanwhile, back at the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, back to the ranch. He is to be commended on section 4 on interest. It’s a very wise move to broaden that out and give discretionary powers to whatever judge it is -- the trial judge basically -- in this determination. It gives him a double weapon in court, doesn’t it? He has control over the costs with respect to the lawyers’ fees and as to his handling of the matter and can milk them in costs if he wished to do that. On the other hand he can direct his attention to the interest situation as it affects the client with respect to lowering and varying it throughout. I think the greatest ambit that can possibly be given to judges in the courts is a dimension of the justice that may he administered at that end.

The single judge sitting in the divisional court: The subsection has to do with final orders proceeding from a master, on appeal. I can’t take much exception to that. I’m just wondering whether in the (h) part of that there might be something like “on consent of the party.”

In a matter where the judge is satisfied from the nature of the issue -- and the minister doesn’t seek to give any delineation of what those issues might be -- and the necessity for expedition can and ought to be heard by a single judge. I say: “Sure, provided that the parties are in agreement.” But normally there are three judges and that court is set up in a very special way for very specific purposes. In a sort of division from the court of appeal process as it was known in ancestral times, this is a new court, relatively speaking -- it’s only been in existence in the last few years. I’m saying that type of arbitrary power ought not to be reposed at this time in its history in that court. I ask the parliamentary assistant in any event to think about it and to give me some indication of his response in this matter. I much prefer and I’m sure he does, the three judges sitting there, where there are many others appointed to that court.

It has become an extremely busy court, handling all those rights matters within the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and that whole package of prerogative writs and all this kind of thing. So I think we have to be very careful about reposing the power in a single judge.

As I understand it in the instance an appeal may be taken from that court on a multiple range of matters to the Court of Appeal itself; it is not a final court. Do the provisions with respect to that apply to the single judge, or does the member consider that covered within the terms of divisional courts legislation?

Well, yes, the final thing is what we have just covered with respect to the fees under the previous legislation.

Mr. Sterling: As I mentioned in my opening remarks this bill, because of its nature, sort of shoots off in three or four different directions; the matters aren’t really related one to the other.

In relation to section 4, in terms of the interest, as I understand it there was some concern about the provincial and federal jurisdiction in this area. The Attorney General is of the opinion that this particular area is an area where there is concurrent jurisdiction basically, both by the federal and the provincial governments, on this particular matter, and they take their power from that -- that is their constitutional opinion on their power to create this.

Mr. Roy: You realize its record is no hell on constitutional matters.

Mr. Sterling: The other concern of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere related to how the interest was calculated. I would refer him to section 38 of the Judicature Amendment Act which was passed in the fall of 1977. It ties the prime rate to the rate established by the Bank of Canada, and I believe the Bank of Canada review establishes that each month. Section 38 is a rather lengthy section, but it deals with the various circumstance to delineate exactly what that section might be.

Mr. Lawlor: What is it right now?

Mr. Sterling: I am afraid I couldn’t answer that particular question.

The other question in relation to that is that the section refers to a judge and in that instance it refers to the judge who is trying the case. If he makes no order as to the interest, then the interest would run in accordance with section 38 and how it would be calculated out, but it gives him the opportunity either to increase or decrease the interest rate.

Say for instance there was an interest rate on a contractual basis which was much higher than the prime rate, then why should the person after judgement be treated better than before judgement? Or vice versa; the prime interest rate could be much higher than the contracted rate and the judge may say, “Well, the plaintiff is right in seeking a breach, but the breach of the contract may have been sought to collect a debt earlier than its maturity date.”

Under section 5 in relation to the divisional court, basically this section and the other section too were introduced at the request of the court. The first section of the bill, section 5(1a)(a), dealing with appeals under section 17(1)(f) of the act, deals with interlocutory matters from the local judge or the master which are generally of a minor nature. I intend to amend the second clause of that, section 5(1a)(b).

I passed to the critics an amendment, so it will read, I would hope, if amended in committee, “in a matter that a justice of the High Court or a judge designated by him is satisfied.” Basically, the justice of the High Court would have to be satisfied there was an urgency. This section really is put in there for a case of urgency outside of town where one cannot convene a panel of three judges in a short period of time. I believe there are appeals to divisional court for certiorari or mandamus and often urgency is of prime importance. That is sort of the impact behind that particular section.

As to section 6 regarding the rules committee, I understand the total result of these amendments will basically remove the registrar of the Supreme Court from a secretary and nonvoting member, to a member. The total result of this amendment, I am informed, increases the number on the rules committee by one.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

COUNTY JUDGES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 112, An Act to amend the County Judges Act.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, basically this bill removes the reference to a junior judge. It makes two kinds of judges: county court judges and a senior county court judge. Before, there was a senior county court judge and junior county court judges. This is done to remove the connotations related to the word “junior” as to the competence of those judges. Really, their jurisdiction in a courtroom is exactly the same, whether they be senior or junior judges, and this is to remove that connotation.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I had made certain remarks on an earlier bill with respect to this item which I will now briefly repeat.

Mr. Lawlor: I thought you were talking about this one.

Mr. Breithaupt: To some extent, of course, it is much like Alice in Wonderland.

Mr. Speaker: You mean you are now in order.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, you may remember the race in Alice in Wonderland. As I recall, while quite clearly some had won and some had lost the race, the results were phrased, “All have won and all must get prizes.” In this circumstance, we now have judges and junior judges, but we are soon to have senior judges and judges. Presumably, all have won and all must get prizes.

The importance of this inflation of rank is perhaps worthwhile in that it does set out somewhat more clearly the responsibilities within a county that there in fact be a senior judge. This becomes more involved as a number of counties, such as my own, Waterloo, have three or four judges. Indeed, in the more populous counties within the province this is the thing which is happening now, rather than having it only as an exception within Metropolitan Toronto or in fact within the county of York as it then was. Other counties are now developing three and four judges because of their populations.

Presumably, it is better to set out the responsibilities of a senior judge so all the other members of the bench are considered in some form responsible to that person for at least some administrative reasons within the particular county. I note there is an amendment which does develop this further, so the bill will have to go to committee. Other than that, the interesting comment I would have is with respect to the changes in section 18 regarding surrogate courts.

[10:00]

It was my understanding that the appointment of surrogate court judges was not necessarily restrained or restricted to simply one surrogate court judge per county. As a result, I am wondering whether this is any particular change in the practice which had gone on before. I presume that practice was that as many judges of the surrogate courts would be appointed as would be necessary. I am wondering whether this is any particular change to the amendments since 1970, when this section was last amended or at least section 4 of that amendment was changed at that time.

Perhaps if the parliamentary assistant could advise us as to whether there are changes in the surrogate court appointments that might be of interest to the House.

Mr. Warner: If the parliamentary assistant had answered my questions on the last bill, we wouldn’t have gone into committee. I’ll try on this one. I support the principle of the bill. I have some questions regarding section 18. I certainly agree with the concept that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can remove judges for inability, incapacity or misbehaviour. That might apply to some members of the assembly, but the Lieutenant Governor can’t remove any of the members that way. Only the public can do that.

It appears to me that that definition sets the surrogate court judges apart from other judges as to how they will be treated. It also raises a question as to who will establish how this is done. There are very subjective kinds of impressions as regards ability, capacity and misbehaviour. Who establishes these? Are there formal provisions? Who will make the determination and how will it be brought to the attention of the Lieutenant Governor in Council?

Is there a hearing involved? Is there a form of appeal for the person who has been accused of being unable, incapacitated or misbehaving? I would like to be satisfied on those questions. I will put forward again my appeal, which didn’t meet with approval in the last bill. If my questions can be answered, we can avoid the committee stage; otherwise, we have to go to committee.

Mr. Bolan: I would like to make a couple of comments on this bill. First of all, I heartily approve of the bill. I think it is long overdue. I could never understand during the last 19 years that I have been practising law what the difference was between a junior judge and a senior judge.

Mr. Roy: Nineteen years?

Mr. Bolan: Yes, 19 years this month in fact.

I have to confess that in many instances the junior judge literally carried the senior judge in and out of the courtroom. I can understand why the senior judge requested a junior judge; he simply could not carry out his duties. It really was a sad commentary on a judicial system, when one saw people getting on in age who would have some younger judge come in who, for all intents and purposes, was doing all the work. He was doing all the appeal work, all of the criminal work and all of the jury work. The so-called senior judge ended up taking motions or hearing uncontested divorces when the proper amendments were made to the Divorce Act to allow matrimonial causes courts.

It certainly is something which is long overdue. I can only say on behalf of all of those junior judges who have been striving so hard over the past years to get rid of this title, which was bestowed upon them by the Ontario Legislature for all of these years, that it is certainly very welcome.

Just as an aside, I might say that the minister still has a long way to go before he gets to the real root of the problem with the county and district court judges, and that is regionalization of your judges. I’ve spoken about this before in this House, I have spoken to judges about it. As soon as you break up the province into regions, each region then would have a senior judge whose function and whose duty it would be to dispatch county or district court judges throughout that region.

Does the minister know that now, if there are three judges assigned, let’s say to Sudbury, there is no way that one of those judges from that district can be compelled, can he ordered under the County Court Judges’ Criminal Courts Act, to come down to the district of Nipissing to help the judge who may have an extra heavy load there? That’s one of the problems we have, and I would hope the parliamentary assistant would again bring that to the attention of the Attorney General, I certainly have brought that so his attention.

Once we have our county court judges regionalized, we are just one step away from having a complete, unified court system in the province of Ontario, whereby all of the judges, other than provincial judges, all of the so-called section 96 judges who are appointed by the federal government, would all be Supreme Court judges. They would all be in the same classification, such as they have, for example, in the province of Quebec, which I think is the proper way to deal with the judiciary in this province.

Mr. Lawlor: This is a halting attempt to democratize the judiciary.

Do you know of the horrendous case of the two judges, Mr. Speaker? They were together for quite a long time. One man was 25 years older than the other -- this is the opposite case -- and continued to be called “junior” throughout the whole thing, particularly by his younger colleague. The man felt so badly over such a long period of time that he could hardly judge. I’m sure he’s the one behind this legislation; he must have protested finally and vigorously enough for it to be able to get through.

Why isn’t there a judicial council operative in this particular area, as my colleagues say, rather than this rather skimpy, threadbare piece of business with respect to the removal of such judges, that is surrogate court judges?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I think one feels compelled to speak on this bill. As my colleague the member for Nipissing mentioned, if the Attorney General was really serious about making amendments or changes to the Judicature Act or County Courts Act, it seems to me that he could start getting at the root of the thing, at the nub of the thing as my colleague has suggested.

I think many of us in this Legislature, surely my colleague the member for Lakeshore and others, have mentioned this question of regionalization, the distinction between Supreme Court judges and county court judges. It’s still a confusing process. We’re moving, with the unified family courts, hopefully, in that direction.

But I can’t help, when I open this bill and read some 19 or 20 sections which basically deal with one thing, eliminating the word “junior” --

Mr. Bolan: They must have an inferiority complex by now.

Mr. Roy: It makes you wonder, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the member for Lakeshore was saying, about someone having an inferiority complex if we refer to junior judges in so many sections of the act. When one talks about juniors and seniors, I keep thinking of hockey leagues and something like that. How many occasions have I seen where an older member of the bench would be appointed subsequent to a younger member and here one is considered the senior and the other one is the junior; junior judge such and such, you would see this in the press.

It’s certainly an expression to get rid of, and hopefully after this is done, as my colleagues have mentioned here, a lot of judges in Ontario will no longer have this inferiority complex. Let me tell you from experience, Mr. Speaker, many senior judges did not let their colleagues forget that they were junior judges.

It surprises me that section 6 is necessary. Section 6 says: “A senior judge of a county or district court may regulate and supervise the other judges of the court in the exercise of their authority.”

I may be confused on this. However, in Ottawa-Carleton it’s true we’ve had some pretty domineering senior judges, but I always thought they had the jurisdiction. They certainly acted like people who had the jurisdiction to regulate and supervise the other judges of the court in the exercise of their authority. I always thought they already had that authority and I’m surprised to see that it’s necessary by this amendment.

It says something about the process of judges and courts -- and we’re spending the whole evening here talking about that process. Can one imagine using 20 sections basically to take the words “junior judges” out of one of our statutes? How those words ever cropped up in there in the first place is beyond my understanding, especially at a time when the appointment to the county court was considered a status symbol. That one would accept the appointment of becoming a county court judge and then turn around and say, “I’m just a junior judge of the county court,” sounds contradictory in terms that one would accept that high office and all the status involved and the recognition from society and then be called a junior judge.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, it’s my intention to take this into committee as I have a minor amendment to section 6.

Basically, in answer to the inquiry of the member for Kitchener about the appointment of surrogate court judges, there will be no change in that area. In relation to disciplinary action, members will note that this particular bill does not deal with a county court judge in regard to disciplining him. Every surrogate court judge is a county court judge and that falls within the federal jurisdiction. Their appointment and their discipline falls within that purview so that the appeal procedure in relation to disciplinary action falls within the federal jurisdiction and, therefore, it is not dealt with here. That is basically the reason for there not being any appeal procedure set out here.

As I mentioned, I will take it into committee of the whole House. If there are specific questions about specific sections that someone would like to raise again, I would be pleased to answer them.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

PROVINCIAL COURT (CIVIL DIVISION) PROJECT ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 113, An Act for the establishment and conduct of a Project in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for the development of improved methods of processing certain Civil Actions.

Mr. Lawlor: Read that again.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have an opening comment?

Mr. Sterling: Yes. Maybe I should first comment by apologizing to the clerk for the lengthy title of this particular act.

Mr. Lawlor: You well may do so.

Mr. Sterling: This act is basically a trial project --

Mr. Lawlor: It will cost the taxpayers of the province something.

[10:15]

Mr. Sterling: -- in Metropolitan Toronto to increase the jurisdiction of the small claims court from $1,000 to $3,000. The idea behind this piece of legislation is to provide wide latitude to a rules committee to formulate rules to deal with actions which fall within this monetary jurisdiction. It is hoped that as a result of this project we will be able to make the litigation process more accessible to the public at a lower cost. In other words, what we’re trying to do is establish a procedure which falls somewhere between small claims procedure and the county court procedure for actions of this type.

Mr. Breithaupt: This bill is really the first this evening in a series of bills that has a clearly defined principle to it. We have moved to develop both criminal and family divisions of the provincial courts. Now we have the opportunity to develop, in effect, a civil division by the changes which are being suggested this evening in this bill.

It’s true this is to be an experiment in that the act repeals itself on January 1, 1983. What we have generally in the small claims courts around the province is a jurisdiction of $1,000. In this instance we’re increasing the jurisdiction to $3,000, but we’re also moving to develop a new type of procedure, as the parliamentary assistant mentioned. His comments with respect of developing this as a type of intermediate step between the traditional small claims or division courts, as they used to be called, and the county court system is an interesting one.

I believe we must clearly know the intentions of the Attorney General as he launches out into this particular experiment. My colleague, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), has particular concern that we perhaps would be better off setting out the mechanics of the court and having those mechanics in place before we substantially increase the jurisdiction. After all, when we are dealing with $3,000 as a jurisdictional level one must be certain that justice is going to be available but not unnecessarily speeded through without the full opportunity of persons to have their cases heard and to have the necessary protection which the courts can give.

I understand, of course, that the proposal here will, we hope, reduce the cost and the delay that causes between that $1,000 and $3,000 figure have in their present existence in the county court system. Certainly the cost and the delay are important factors. Here we have the opportunity of having, hopefully, speedy and adequate justice in the resolution of these particular disputes but at a substantially increased financial level. For many of the persons who will be coming before this court this additional dollar amount is going to be of great personal consequence to them.

We have had the opportunities to see, through trials involving a variety of motor vehicle accidents, that perhaps on some occasions the solicitors acting for insurance companies have all of the tools available to them to possibly delay or postpone actions, tools which the claimant may not have. As we reduce the procedures and have an easier system of dealing with claims, I hope that we will be able to ensure that the average citizen will still be able to have a simplified approach to the court system, which the county court system, with its more particular rules and procedures, does not otherwise allow.

We are, of course, as the project sets out in the second section, using a limited class of civil action. I realize that it’s the wish of the Attorney General and the parliamentary assistant, who has had much responsibility in developing and assisting with this project, to get on with the opportunity of sorting out the procedures and the manner in which this experiment is going to take place.

I have raised the point of my colleague from St. George with respect to the dollar amount. The dollar amount is going to be important for many people in Metropolitan Toronto.

It is going to be a difficult matter to deal thoroughly with the balance of keeping these courts easily available to the average citizen without having them bogged down in the rules and procedures of pleadings and other details that are ordinarily the prerogative of lawyers who are appearing in the county and supreme courts within the province. It is going to require the wisdom of Solomon perhaps to set up judicial procedures and to ensure that the people who are involved in these actions, both plaintiffs and defendants, will not be snowed under by procedural niceties or by the difficulties which often come before the other courts.

Some of the pre-trial settlement procedures that now exist in the county and supreme courts are likely going to be built into this kind of system. I am certainly looking forward to seeing just how successful this group, the advisory committee, is going to be in trying to sort out the best of the present division court attitudes with the more practical values of documentation and rules that the county court system now has.

I would appreciate a response from the parliamentary assistant with respect to the persons who are going to be involved under section 8 in the advisory committee. He cites seven persons to be included, namely, the Deputy Attorney General, the senior judge of the provincial court or his nominee, and five others. One of these is going to be a county court judge, and at least two others are going to be members of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Could the parliamentary assistant advise me now the types of qualifications he is expecting for the other two -- what will we call them? -- citizen appointments? I suppose it would be possible that one or the other of those two could be lawyers as well, but there may be value in other kinds of appointments. I would be interested in hearing the type of person he has in mind to bring what I would presume would be a kind of consumer input into the balance we are seeking in the rules this advisory committee will develop.

On this side of the House we certainly welcome this opportunity for a new departure in the administration of justice within Metropolitan Toronto. I wish the committee well as they attempt to strike that balance to which I referred earlier, and I hope the experiment will be a successful one.

I understand that only full-time judges will be involved in this project; the opportunity for lawyers of 10 years’ experience who are ordinarily available in the small claims courts to the county judge who may wish to use them, or who needs to use them from time to time, is something which I think should properly be avoided in this instance.

To have consistency in the development and thoroughness in the project which is being set out, it is best to be using the full-time staff of judges we have -- persons who are appointed to familiarize themselves particularly with the small claims procedures and activities -- and, therefore, perhaps better able to deal more quickly with the details of cases because of their full-time commitment and involvement in these matters.

As I say, I hope this project is a successful one. If the parliamentary assistant can enlighten me on the details of those other two persons on the advisory committee I would certainly appreciate having that information.

Mr. Warner: I certainly would recommend to my colleagues, and have, any measure by which we can enter at any time into an experiment which might benefit the people in Ontario in having access to the courts with less formality and with a greater opportunity of having their case heard in a way that isn’t going to cost them an arm and a leg. Part of the problem, as I understand it, is that through the small claims court process often the cost for legal fees may be more than what a person is going to get back in the settlement. So the person involved thinks twice about going into the court.

I welcome the experiment. I think it’s important, but I am very concerned about a number of matters, some of which have been touched on by the member for Kitchener. What procedures will be involved and how will we know how this experiment is proceeding? An advisory committee will be set up, but will that committee be reporting -- I know it’s reporting to the Attorney General -- to the Legislature?

I think it’s important that the advisory committee report to the Legislature, and not at the end of 1982. The act is repealed on January 1, 1983. We need to have a report, after say six months, then after a year and then after 18 months and so on, as to how this is proceeding. I have a concern about the advisory committee. I’d like to know, as the member for Kitchener has asked, who the other members are going to be. I’d like to know what members of the public will be on it. I’d like to know what kind of criteria are involved and how the members of the public will be selected. I think it is important to have more than just lawyers on that advisory committee.

Unfortunately, section 8 is rather loosely worded in terms of the reporting mechanism. As I read it, they actually could get by with reporting on December 1, 1982 and that would be sufficient. It’s extremely important, if we’re going to enter into an experiment by which we hope to better serve the needs of the people in Metropolitan Toronto first and then the rest of the province, to let members know on a regular basis how it is proceeding, what are the problems, what are the good points from it and are the people being served. Obviously, if there are changes that have to occur then we should bring in the necessary legislation to do that. I urge the ministry to do that.

Like the member for Kitchener, I also welcome any changes which will make access to the courts easier for people who don’t have great means behind them and which will also mean they will see that justice is being done so that they can be part of it. Then when they have a problem they can bring it into court where it’s going to be resolved and it’s not going to be expensive. I welcome that, but I want to be assured this assembly will be able to examine this experiment right from the beginning to the end. I think part of doing that is reporting back to the assembly; but part of it also is ensuring that members of the public who are not lawyers are included on that advisory committee and that they do make regular reports back to the assembly.

[10:30]

Again, as on the other bills, if those questions can be answered we may not have to go through the committee stage. I welcome the experiment and hope that it is successful, successful to the point where it will be expanded into the rest of the province beyond Metro Toronto.

On motion by Mr. Lawlor the debate was adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: Under the provisions of standing order 28, I will now hear the member from Downsview for up to five minutes. I deem the motion to adjourn to have been made.

AUTO PACT

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I raised a question on the auto pact the other day and the answer given to me by the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) was unsatisfactory, because he showed either lack of knowledge or outright ignorance of the facts; in fact he said that the situation today is better than it was before and that we are dealing with cycles.

The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Industry and Tourism doesn’t understand that the auto pact has been working consistently against the best interests of Canada. As a matter of fact, in the life of the auto pact there has been an increasing deficit every year. In 1977 we had a $1 billion deficit. Even during 1978, when there was a reduction of the total deficit, we had a deficit from the auto pact in the amount of $3 billion; and in 1979, in the first four months, we had a total deficit of $766 million and in the parts segment we have a staggering deficit of $1.6 billion.

I think the minister should understand that the long-term viability of the Canadian industry will depend to an important degree on a significant capacity to perform research and development in Canada and there is now a lack of R and D in Canada. In fact, according to a federal government paper, R and D expenditures by the big three in the US amounted to approximately $3 billion in 1977. An additional $245 million was spent in the US by the 21 leading parts suppliers. In comparison, the total automotive R and D expenditures in Canada at the same time amounted to about $8 million. Canada’s population relative to that of the United States, is in the order of one to 10; Canada’s auto R and D relative to that of the United States is in the order of one to 406.

What we know, but what the minister doesn’t know, is that there is a design revolution going on, a wild rush to produce lighter, more efficient automobiles, which will use less of what is certain to be scarce, high-cost fuel. What we know, and the minister doesn’t know, is that where most of the research and development is done more of the jobs will be created. That has been the problem with the auto pact; we have been pursuing, since its inception, the prestige of the assembly line. In fact the Minister of Industry and Tourism mentioned the other day that while he was in Japan be asked the Japanese, he begged them, to set up some assembly lines in Ontario. What he didn’t ask the Japanese about was the fact that they will be getting rid of all the assembly lines in Japan by the end of the 1980s, and they are doing more research and development in Japan because that is where the jobs are, that is where the profits are.

The Minister of Industry and Tourism should also know that we have a huge deficit in what the federal government calls “non-merchandise items” which accounted for $448 million in 1978. I want to tell the minister that if he thinks we are better off he should tell the House why he has not come up with any response to the task force as he promised on March 15. Why has he not come up with any concrete proposals on investments in the auto industry? Why has he not come up with any idea as to how the government intends to improve the structure of the automotive industry in Ontario and what kinds of measures of assistance for the automotive industry and especially for the automotive parts industry the government is devising?

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. di Santo: These are the real problems that the government has to come to grips with, which the minister is unable to do at this point.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, essentially the problem of auto trade between Canada and the United States is that in order to assemble vehicles in Canada a substantial proportion of the parts and components must be imported from the United States. Consequently, when new car sales are strong in Canada but are slack in the United States, Canada must import parts to serve our own market while the export of vehicles and parts to the United States obviously decreases. The effect is that our high importation of parts is not sufficiently offset by our export of parts and vehicles.

During the first five months of this year, registrations for North American cars in the United States dropped by some three and a half per cent. Industry sources tell us that the main market-retarding condition in the United States has been fuel shortage. In Canada we have not experienced a downturn of sales over the first five months. In fact, the industry dealer vehicle sales for the five-month period increased by six and a half per cent over last year, according to Ward’s Automotive Reports.

The problem essentially is that the structure of the industry in Canada is such that it is not able, either through Canadian suppliers or through motor vehicle manufacturers’ in-house facilities, to provide the capability of the US industry. A change in industry structure and breadth of capability is a solution to better trade balance for Canada. Implementing the change is the major policy thrust of this government to complement industry capability.

We, together with the federal government, and the recent Reisman commission review have recognized the need to make the industry in this country less dependent on the US parts industry. It is for this reason we have provided an incentive to Ford in Windsor and have supported the Hayes-Dana investment in Barrie and have provided assistance to TRW and Tridon.

Mr. di Santo: That’s nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Reference has been made to the Treasurer of Ontario stating on June 5 that the auto pact has improved our position rather than making it worse. I would like to point out to the honourable member that in 1964, the year prior to the auto pact, Canada’s auto trade deficit with the United States represented over 72 per cent of total trade with the US, whereas the deficit of $766 million accrued in the first four months of this year represents less than nine per cent of total trade for the period, which was $8.9 billion.

On this basis, I think it can clearly be stated that the auto pact has been good for Canada and Ontario, but cannot be said to be the perfect solution. It does not alter the fact that the capability of the parts industry must be changed to improve Canada’s balance of trade with the United States. This government is dedicated to bringing about the industry changes to make this possible.

I would point out to the member that this has been recognized by the auto parts association, which is I think quite supportive of all the actions taken by this government and quite satisfied with the role and activities of this government.

Mr. di Santo: It’s not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member might interject and say they are not. I invite him to contact them and ask them point blank whether they are satisfied and comfortable with the activities of this government.

Mr. di Santo: I spoke to them.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I suggest he will find them quite supportive of the activities of this government.

Mr. Speaker: This dispenses with this item.

The House adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

June 12, 1979

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS’ LANDS ACT (CONCLUDED)

PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY AMENDMENT ACT

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

COUNTY JUDGES AMENDMENT ACT

PROVINCIAL COURT (CIVIL DIVISION) PROJECT ACT

AUTO PACT