Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee.

COMPULSORY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of the adjourned consideration of Bill 160, The Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, 1979.

On section 8:

Mr. M. N. Davison: I was just handed a list from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I assume this is the list of the board of directors of the Facility Association?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Which Facility Association?

Mr. M. N. Davison: The same Facility Association, Mr. Chairman, that was presenting briefs to the select committee on company law back in 1977. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. M. N. Davison: And these are the proposed board of directors for the new Facility Association, is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Drea: And the servicing carriers on the front.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Thank you.

Section 8 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions prior to section 11?

Mr. Breithaupt: I was concerned, Mr. Chairman, with a comment in section 10, but I believe the matter concerning the superintendent’s power to allow or disallow rates has been dealt with already.

Section 9 agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. M. N. Davison: In section 10(1) and (2): “The articles of the association and bylaws of the association shall be filed by the association with the superintendent on or before December 1, 1979.” Also, the superintendent has certain powers in regard to those bylaws, et cetera, of the association up until December 31.

Has it occurred to the ministry that members of the assembly might want to make comment or examine the so-called plan of operation and the bylaws of the association? Has any consideration been given within the ministry, or by the minister, to some proposal whereby either members of the assembly, or a committee such as the standing committee on the administration of justice, would have a chance to go over these documents before we got into a fully authorized flight by the new association?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, the reason for filing with the superintendent is because the association is nonprofit and the rates are controlled. It has to be operated to the satisfaction of the superintendent. It is virtually the same as any filing with the superintendent. The superintendent either approves or disapproves, in which case it can come back with the annual report of the superintendent, which is filed with the Legislature. That is the disposition of the matter.

As I said the other night, the superintendent does file an annual report through the minister, and there will be a special section of the annual report dealing with the Facility Association. I think in that way, the Legislature has every opportunity for an overview. Bear in mind that the bylaws, until they are approved by the superintendent, are only proposed bylaws that are being put forward by the Facility Association.

I read a communication to the Facility Association the other night outlining a number of matters the superintendent wanted clarified to his satisfaction.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Let me put my concern in this way: Normally with a piece of legislation like this, from my experience dealing with the ministry, the process has been given the kind of time frame where the bill might well have been introduced towards the end of last session and there would have been adequate time for public analysis and input.

The bill may have received second reading in the spring and it might have gone through an outside committee during the summer, or indeed it might have been introduced early in the fall session and then sent to a committee outside of the assembly, which I think would have been the best way to deal with it. However, the bill wasn’t introduced until November 2, so we didn’t start into second reading until a very short time ago. The ministry does, and I can understand the rationale behind it, want to get this legislation in place by the beginning of next month so we are forced to deal with it in committee of the whole House.

Frankly, there are some things that are worrisome about what the Facility Association may be doing. One is the point raised by my colleague from Sudbury on Tuesday night in regard to the undemocratic way in which the association will function, with the bigger, wealthier companies getting more votes than the smaller companies in the association. Another real concern is the amount of profit that will be made by the people who sell plans under the association.

There are other legitimate concerns members of the assembly aren’t having a chance to look at because, as the minister points out, and rightly so, the document entitled Facility Association Plan or Operation, which was submitted to the select committee, may not be the plan of operation the Facility Association will have next month. Consequently, we have a situation where a fairly important agency or association which is going to be affecting consumers in the province will be operating on a plan members of the assembly will never even have a chance to look at before it goes into force. What I can’t understand is why the minister, given the fact there are some time problems, wouldn’t have arranged or thought of arranging some process by which members or the assembly could have examined the plan of operation and perhaps have questioned people from the Facility Association before the plan was given final stamp of approval.

I don’t mean those comments in any way to run down the superintendent of insurance or any of the people within the ministry, they are fine and conscientious people; but it seems to me in such a controversial matter the minister might well, or should have, considered providing some mechanism by which members of the assembly could have examined the plan before it went into effect.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, first of all, this insurance arrangement doesn’t go into effect, no matter how many proposals are before the Legislature or are being studied by members of the Legislature, until this bill is passed. Second, as I said before, the superintendent has to report in detail on it. Third, I don’t think the Facility Association is controversial.

The controversy arises and I will try to put this as objectively as possible, from philosophical differences by a party and certain members in this Legislature as to how insurance will be provided in Ontario. Bear in mind, too, that when you talk about putting things forward, and so on and so forth, the select committee on company law has rather exhaustively looked at this entire subject. There is a great deal of background.

The select committee on company law is probably the oldest specialized committee of the Legislature and it did indeed set out guidelines for the ministry. It may not have set out guidelines for a Facility Association, it left room for discretion there. It recommended one way of dealing with this matter, but I haven’t heard any comments from members of that committee saying we went against the thrust of their approach towards the introduction of compulsory insurance.

I would have loved to have been in a position to put forward this bill during the spring session. That we did not was no fault on the part of the insurance industry or my staff. Because of the nature of this ministry, there were certain impediments to my being able to put it forward, or even to having the time to give it adequate debate, or put it into committee.

Secondly, as the honourable member knows, because of certain impediments even my estimates were blocked for many weeks and had to be put through relatively quickly this fall. I am sure the insurance industry -- not only the carriers but the agents; everybody involved, my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) on behalf of his licence issuers -- all would have been absolutely delighted had this bill received royal assent during the last session, but given the circumstances it was presented to the Legislature at the earliest possible time.

What it really comes down to is that the superintendent of insurance has been given a mandate, not only by the minister but by the select committee of company law, which because of the scope of that committee I would take as a mandate from the entire Legislature to do certain things. He is doing them.

It really comes down to the question of whether you trust the ability of the superintendent of insurance to consummate certain agreements that will be reflected in the operations of the Facility Association. I am not talking about the abilities of Mr. Thompson, I am talking about this in the abstract.

There will be monitoring. There will be a special section of his annual report, the first one obviously, that deals solely with the formation and the initial operation of the Facility Association. Latterly, there will be quite an extensive monitoring function, that in fairness I think the Legislature granted within a relatively brief period of time, and has had a very adequate opportunity to do so.

I would take you to page 34 of the report of the committee: “Accordingly the committee has concluded that the industry should be free to determine the structure of the pooling mechanism required to implement the take-all-comers approach.” The industry has been doing that for quite a period of time.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Just a final word, Mr. Chairman. I don’t mean to belabour some of the inadequacies of the Facility Association for too long.

On the question of timing the issue still remains, Mr. Minister, that you have had almost two years -- not you personally but your ministry and your government -- from the promise to bring in compulsory auto insurance back in February 1978, to the realization of the fact in the dying days of November 1979. It seems to me that in two years, with some sort of proper planning the government and the ministry could have found the time to bring this to the House so that members would have had a chance to examine this thoroughly in a committee outside of the committee of the whole House.

Mr. Foulds: Where was the two-for-one tree promise for one? Now we are fighting that.

Mr. M. N. Davison: That’s right, here we get another example.

On another issue, the issue of the select committee, I have a great deal of respect for the select committee on company law, but that doesn’t make them perfect. If the minister will remember the detail of the report from which he just read, he will recall there was a dissent to that report on the issue of public auto insurance. Need I say more about that? If you had moved with such a plan we wouldn’t be having the kind of debate we are having now.

[8:15]

The matter of trust of the superintendent of insurance is not the issue. As a member of the assembly I think there are certain things which the members of the assembly have the right to examine; and of course I have my preferences. I don’t think the minister will disagree with me when I say I think it would have been better if members of the assembly had a chance to go through a proposed plan of operation from the facility and make their comments and suggestions or philosophical differences by a party and cer- of the timing.

Finally, I don’t find any difficulty in criticizing the proposed plan of operation for this Facility Association. I may have an anticorporate bias, but let me say in the area I come from and from the background I have, I know maybe a bit more about democracy in the parliamentary sense, or democracy in the street sense, the city sense or the trade union sense, than I do about democracy in the corporate sense.

From what I can tell about corporate democracy, it doesn’t exist. I have a great deal of difficulty justifying what passes for democratic rights within the Facility Association, when engrained in article four of the Facility Association plan of operation is a procedure that allows voting by the amount of money one has. If one has around half a million dollars that allows one vote; if one has approximately 10 times that amount it means five votes; that is not democracy in the way I know it in Hamilton Centre. Maybe that’s the way democracy operates on Bay Street, and maybe that’s the kind of thing some people in the government opposite would hold up as fine examples of corporate democracy, but that is not democracy as I know it.

I have serious concerns about any organization that operates in the kind of way that the bigger one is and the more money one has the more votes one has. That provides cause for me to question the Facility Association, regardless of who supports it as a concept. I think there are real problems resulting from the fact the assembly hasn’t had enough time to look at the Facility Association. I think there are problems that result from the fact the plan of operation has never been before the assembly and will not be before the assembly this year. I think it is unfortunate, since I think we had the time to find a better way to handle this bill.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the differences in the member’s view as long as it was insurance under conventional methods.

I would like to say just one thing on this democracy and the more money one has. I think the member, if he would look at it objectively, would realize this is corporate responsibility. The multiple vote is based on the fact the more risk one is carrying on one’s shoulders the more one is going to have to pay out. If the member wants a pooling arrangement where those who are taking the biggest risks are going to be in a minority position, and there is no method to attempt to equalize that situation of the enormous financial responsibility they are carrying, then indeed I suggest to him he is verging on corporate anarchy.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I would prefer to call it democracy: one corporation, one vote.

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a comment with respect to subsection 15 of section 10. It is interesting to see the Regulations Act does not apply in this instance to an order of the superintendent made under the section. Why is that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: There is nothing sinister about it. On the recommendation of the legislative counsel when the superintendent makes an order it is his order, not an order as of the whole of the government or of the executive council as you would have in a regulation.

Mr. Breithaupt: So presumably this allows him a quicker way of getting an order in place, rather than going through the regulations approach with publication and approval by cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It could; but you could, of course, have a convenient day for putting out an order, if you were under the regulation method. Thursday is a very good day in the off season. It is possible you could get through all the intricacies on a Thursday, including having it filed. But if it happened to be a Monday, a Tuesday, or late Friday, it would be extremely difficult. It would be virtually in the form of an order which the courts hopefully would interpret as having been finally legitimized by the regulation when it came out.

I have been informed by other legislative counsel that without this subsection 15 there was doubt as to whether these were administrative orders or legislative matters. This provision dispels that doubt, it is an administrative order.

Mr. Sweeney: I would ask the minister’s indulgence in raising this particular point, because I am not sure whether it belongs under section 10 or whether it may come under the making of regulations in section 15 or section 16.

I am thinking of a situation where a company makes a decision to pay out a claim and on the basis of that the insured has his premiums increased the next time around. If the one being insured wishes to challenge the company on whether they should have paid the claim and asks for the right to see the company’s file, does that right reside as an article or a bylaw of the Facility Association or does that right reside as a regulation of the ministry? Where does such a right reside, if in fact it resides anywhere?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is not under the Facility Association. As I explained the other night, your policy doesn’t have on it Facility Association. Your policy is a conventional one, from either the agency or the particular company it went to before you were referred to the Facility Association.

While the right to see your file isn’t stated specifically in the Insurance Act, nonetheless it is established by administrative order for as long as there has been a superintendent of insurance. If the company refuses you your file, then obviously the superintendent of insurance will obtain that file and will take care of the matter. That has worked extremely well over the years.

I think in fairness to the companies, there hasn’t been that reluctance, over the past few years, if indeed there ever was any, because the number of inquiries about it are diminishing quite rapidly in the superintendent’s office. I say that on the basis of particular referrals from members of the Legislature. Quite obviously, with the increased scope of individual members of the Legislature, if there were ever any real difficulty out there I am sure it would be reflected in the inquiries being referred to the superintendent of insurance.

Mr. Sweeney: If I may react just very briefly to that. The question was raised at this time because a constituent of mine had that very problem. It was brought to the attention of at least the superintendent’s office, if not the superintendent himself. My recollection is that the company more or less told us to go jump in the lake. We didn’t in fact get the information we wanted. When we challenged the company, they said there was nothing that forced them to do so, it was entirely at their discretion whether they should do so.

The reason I am raising it at this particular point, Mr. Minister, is that I’m wondering whether or not the sort of general bylaws of this Facility Association might say they are or are not going to let our insured people see the files. I am raising the point in that context. I wonder whether or not we shouldn’t have something more concrete if the experiences I and my constituents have had are in any way a general experience?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I say to the honourable member, I don’t know who told him that showing the file was a discretionary matter. That may have been an initial reaction to the letter, but I would be somewhat irate if a carrier were to tell the superintendent of insurance this was a discretionary matter. After he came down from the ceiling, there would be a sudden summons for a chat.

I understand the member’s point, but the Facility Association wouldn’t have his record. The record he wants to check is how the Facility Association rated him which would be with the carrier or the agent on the face of his policy. There is no need to query the Facility Association. By the same token, the policy must show the classification into which he is placed and he has every right to challenge that.

I am informed by the superintendent of insurance that we rarely have cases where the customer is in doubt. In this case, the member says the customer apparently is still in doubt. I would like to see that case, because as I said to the member the administrative practice has been there a long time and collectively, is working extremely well. I really would like to see the specifics on this matter, and I am sure the superintendent would like to take a look. It may be one thing to write a letter and say to somebody it is discretionary; it is not very discretionary if the superintendent of insurance orders it done.

It is very interesting. A member of this Legislature very seriously questioned his rating because he was being charged very high rates, although he was conviction free. He discovered these high rates were the result of a few things his son and wife hadn’t got around to telling him. The son had a little bit more than one conviction; the wife had a little bit less than a perfect driving record. He apologized to the insurance company, but the point is, he had quite free access without us. So I would like to go into that particular case.

I give you section 12 of the Insurance Act:

“The superintendent may direct to an insurer any inquiry touching the contracts or financial affairs of the insurer, and the insurer shall make prompt and explicit answer to any such inquiry, and in the case of refusal or neglect to answer is guilty of an offence.”

So that I would like to see that.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, one last point: Do I also understand that an insured person has the right to challenge the company on the basis upon which his rate is set?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes; and the most effective way is through the superintendent of insurance, because the superintendent of insurance gets the documents and checks off that the rate actually has been applied correctly.

In most cases where a rate is challenged there has been a typographical error or some error in transmission, and it is settled very easily. In some cases more than one person has been driving the vehicle and they sometimes haven’t exactly confided with the insured. These things are done very amicably.

The difficulty is that the accident reports or the driver’s record of the accidents does not show who was at fault. Obviously, if a person has been with a company for years and the company paid out a claim, they know that person was at fault. But when people changing insurance companies for any number of reasons -- they like somebody better or rates or convenience or they have moved to another area -- they are a fresh case. The convictions are listed on an MTC abstract, but one of the difficulties is it may say Mr. Drea has had two accidents, but it doesn’t say whether Mr. Drea was at fault or innocent. It just says there has been an accident involving me reported. Then, of course, you get into additional information.

[8:30]

When you’ve been with one company and it has paid out or collected for you and handled the matter, obviously from its own records it knows. Sometimes you get into an area of difficulty when they want to know some details about the accident and so on. Sometimes it’s also true that a motorist who was in an accident is really convinced he is innocent and he’s really upset when the insurance company pays out. It’s all right for you to feel you’re innocent and that person up there really did it to you, but when you get down to the objectivity of it there has to be responsibility assigned and the one group which does this is the company. People say, “The insurance company paid out because it was cheaper to settle than to fight it in a court.” That’s a very difficult thing to sustain, because obviously then everybody would be paying out great amounts of money to stay out of court and the whole system wouldn’t be there.

In addition to that section I read we have the catch-all, which is probably the greatest catch-all of all, the “unfair discrimination” clause, which is section 388 of the Insurance Act. We can call them in on anything we regard as potentially discriminatory and the obligation is on the carrier to show it is not discriminatory, in other words that the rate or class or what have you in the policy is verified and is on the basis of objectivity rather than a particular whim.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Only one last question, Mr. Chairman, before we leave the Facility Association part. It arises out of the Facility Association board of directors list the minister gave me. I have two questions: Does the minister feel it’s inappropriate for those insurance companies that were nabbed by the Anti-Inflation Board for overcharging their consumers to be represented on the Facility Association board of directors; secondly, does he not think it’s improper for a member of the board of directors of the Facility Association to be either resident outside Ontario or representative of a firm from outside Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Drea: On the second one, very simply the answer is no, because of course people don’t necessarily just drive or have accidents in the province of Ontario.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What’s that got to do with it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: You may be driving your vehicle in another province where you’re hit by an uninsured driver and the same Facility Association may become involved in the other province. I doubt if there would be anybody from Saskatchewan, British Columbia or Manitoba. Their systems are a little different; their insurance is really only valid as long as you are in the province.

Going back to the first one about the AIB --

Mr. Foulds: What was that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The AIB.

Mr. Foulds: The way you muttered --

Hon. Mr. Drea: I would say to the member for Port Arthur that I’ve been accused of a lot of things in this Legislature but never of speaking in less than very pungent tones.

Mr. Foulds: Pungent is sometimes not clear.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I’m no defender of profiteering, nor a great admirer of the MB, but it is far too simplistic a statement to say “we’re nabbed by the AIB.”

Mr. M. N. Davison: It’s true though.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, it is true, but it is true on the statistical and guideline basis devised by the AIB.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Well?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will tell the member. The AIB rated insurance companies on the basis that the best insurance company was the one that paid out lots of claims, had constant losses and didn’t try to get good drivers, and so on and so forth.

Mr. M. N. Davison: You can’t cover up the Allstate $15 million ripoff.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I’m not covering up for anybody. I would say to the honourable member -- and I’m going to make it short and sweet -- the answer to the first part of his question is no; the answer to the second part is no.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I can understand the AIB ripoff part because I’ve raised this issue numerous times with the ministry --

Hon. Mr. Drea: Not with me.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Oh yes, I have raised it with you. I’ll be happy to get the Hansard out for the minister. I raised it with you on second reading debate of this bill and I raised it during your first set of estimates in the House. If the minister can’t recall, I’ll be happy to get copies of both of those Hansards so he can read them.

I can understand the way the government has reacted to the AIB ripoff and I can understand their kidglove approach with Allstate which is guilty of nothing short of profiteering, but the out-of-province one I’m not quite sure I understand.

Under the current Facility Association there are only two out-of-province companies or individuals named on the board of directors. If the minister says there is no reason for a BC, Saskatchewan or Manitoba representative, I’m not at all sure of the reason for representatives from Quebec and Alberta, without representatives from the other provinces in the country. I’m not quite sure I understand his argument.

Is his argument that we have to have out- of-province representation in case an Ontario driver is driving in one of those provinces? If that’s his argument, then he should have somebody on here from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, what have you -- or the United States, because we have drivers who zip across the border on occasion.

If that’s his argument, I’m not quite sure -- What is his argument on the out-of-province one?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Very simply, these are where their head offices are. Pm sorry I misunderstood the member’s question.

All these companies are licensed in Ontario. They do business here. They have many operations here. It’s a simple fact of having on the association board a director from that company and where that particular person resides doesn’t matter. All these companies have capital in this province. They have offices. They have agents or they are direct sellers. They have been in business here for a very long time.

I don’t know what the member’s suspicions are about the province of Quebec. There’s a company there that sells insurance in this province. It’s going to carry a portion of the risk. Why shouldn’t somebody from that company be on the association’s board of directors?

You know for a man who believes in international trade unions that is a question that should be asked.

Mr. M. N. Davison: All the servicing carriers are Ontario companies; every one of them. But on the board of directors of the Facility Association it appears to me there is somebody who is the general manager of Western Union Insurance Company and the address given for this person is a Calgary address.

Is the minister suggesting that that person, Mr. Kenny, is resident in Ontario personally but the head office of the company he represents is in Alberta?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes. Because - the company is licensed to sell in Ontario. There are companies whose head offices are in the UK; they’re licensed to sell in Ontario. There may be a company that has its head office in Ontario and is not licensed to sell here. I don’t understand the member’s concern about the geography.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Let me put it very simply. We have a Facility Association to deal with problems in Ontario that is selling to a captive market of Ontario citizens. What I don’t understand is why 20 per cent -- unless my mathematics are wrong -- of the board of directors is from out of the province or representative of companies from out of Ontario. I don’t see why it isn’t an all-Ontario board of directors.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Because the insurance companies that are licensed to sell in this province have their head offices and their operations in other areas. If a company licensed to sell in Ontario happens to have a head office in Alberta, none the less it is a Canadian company. The person who is sitting on the board is a Canadian.

The simple fact of the matter is that company is bearing a proportion of the risk in Ontario. If you’re talking about the gentleman from Alberta, he is not sitting there because of what happens in Alberta. He’s representing his firm, which is assuming this risk.

Remember, the Facility Association isn’t for you, as I presume you’re not a high-risk driver. The Facility Association isn’t an insurance company, it is a pooling arrangement. The directorship and so forth are based upon the servicing carriers. Secondly, the votes in there are based upon the degree of responsibility for those high-risk drivers.

If you want to turn it around and have compulsory insurance without the Facility Association and just say, “Mr. Motorist, go on out and try to buy it,” then say so. It’s a pooling arrangement that allows prompt and proper issuance of insurance. Secondly, it doesn’t disturb someone like me who happens to insure with a relatively small company, because if that company were compelled to take a large number of high risks, and those high risks proved accurate, then my premium would have to go up because that company would have to recover its money to stay in business. It’s a pooling arrangement. I don’t understand the concern.

Section 10 agreed to.

On section 11:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Davison moves that section 11 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the words, “and the minister shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session.”

Hon. Mr. Drea: We will accept the motion.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I understand the minister is going to accept the amendment as offered.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Are you going to talk or not? If you’re going to talk, I’ll listen and then I’ll have to make up my mind.

Mr. Foulds: You already said you’d accept it.

Mr. McClellan: I heard you.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What? I thought I heard you say you were going to accept it.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, he did.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Then I will sit down.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Let’s hear what the member for Kitchener has to say about the proposed amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: No, I’m quite prepared to listen to the proposer, Mr. Chairman. I would have presumed this information would be included in the annual report anyway. Why it would have to be precisely, or separately, brought before the assembly is beyond me. I am interested to hear what the proposer has to say.

Mr. M. N. Davison: There are reports and unless a report specifically has to be tabled before the assembly, it’s up to the minister to decide.

I might remind the Liberal critic that until a very short time ago, this was one of the few ministries, if not the only ministry in the entire government, that wasn’t compelled by legislation to provide an annual report to members of the assembly; hence, there were no annual reports from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to the assembly. The ministry now, however, provides them.

I’d like very much to nail this down and make sure it’s a legislative requirement to provide those reports because, who knows, at some date there may be a minister more secretive than the current minister and we wouldn’t necessarily be getting those reports tabled before the assembly. With them tabled before the assembly, we are then able to put them out to committee to examine anything that may be contained in that report.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It’s one of my responsibilities to table the annual report of the superintendent of insurance. We’ve said there will be a special section in there dealing with the Facility Association in addition to all else that is there. That is tabled before the assembly.

Yes, I’ll accept this amendment but as I said the other night, I consider it redundant.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why accept it then? Why put the taxpayers to the extra cost?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Because I have to do it anyway.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why do it twice?

[8:45]

Hon. Mr. Drea: We don’t have to do it twice, it will only be done once.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You don’t need the amendment at all.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will say to the member for Rainy River, I regard it as redundant. I am sure he regards it as redundant. I am sure the member of Kitchener regards it as redundant. But there seems to be a paranoia around here that unless you get things like this spelled out, they don’t occur.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You have given a commitment that you are going to do it, so why put the taxpayer --

Hon. Mr. Drea: In all fairness, if the member was here the other night, the suggestion was that things might change, and that somebody would come along who would ignore the particular commitment.

It isn’t going to cost the taxpayer any more, I will still table the same blue-covered report with the Clerk. Obviously it is perfectly available to committee or to anything else.

Mr. M. N. Davison: With the greatest respect, whatever the personal guarantees of the minister, they are not worth anything after he has left that ministry. I am sure I can argue with the current minister to live up to his guarantees. But it is clear that when ministers change portfolios in that government, the guarantees of the former minister go with that person to his new hunting ground.

I suggest the member for Rainy River read section 11 and he will find the following phrase, regardless of what it is the minister says, “The superintendent shall make an annual report to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on the affairs of the association.” There is nothing in that section which guarantees that this report will find its way before the assembly, unless we adopt something like the amendment I propose, and I would like to make sure.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further discussion?

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Foulds: You should have said “aye,” Frank.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I did, but I can realize some of the sentiments in here.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: There was no question that the “nays” were much louder than the “ayes.”

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, you heard mine. I tried to be as loud as possible.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: No, I didn’t.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, this puts me in a very difficult position, because you made your ruling and it is extremely difficult for a minister of the government to challenge a ruling. There are some implications in that.

I think in fairness, Mr. Chairman, the member was assured, and I think other members may have been lulled into a certain sense of complacency, by the fact that the amendment appeared to be rather routine in its passage. It puts me in an extremely difficult position, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: By unanimous consent I am prepared to reopen the matter.

Mr. Breithaupt: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the minister had given an undertaking that this should be included, then the House should honour that, and perhaps we could take the vote again.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: With unanimous consent then, I will place the vote again. You have heard the amendment.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion this time the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. M. N. Davison: Knowing the minister’s dislike for legalese as it appears in legislation, I have a question on 12(2)(a). I think we have come across a new language called corporatese. I am not sure, in the context of that subsection, what the phrase, “an insurer running off its business” means. I wonder if the minister would enlighten me as to that. Could the minister tell me exactly what is meant by that phrase?

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is where the company has the consent of the superintendent to cancel its business. It has become insolvent or is winding up its business for any number of reasons. Bear in mind, the company cannot cancel policies. If the company is going out of business and there is still a remnant of policy left, it obviously has to have some vehicle where, with consent, it can dispose of that contract. It may be a company which has become insolvent.

I know an automobile insurance company that is on the ropes now because of certain other circumstances in the province. They have some general lines not involving automobile or casualty insurance. They are in a rather delicate position at the moment.

There is always a provision in an insurance act that if a company gets into a technical insolvency, which means it has enough money to pay claims now but it has no reserves to anticipate future business, no reserves on the honour and premium of additional policies, the superintendent of insurance has the authority to begin a winddown procedure to make sure the honour and premium insurance is reinsured elsewhere so the particular person who is insured is protected.

The superintendent has to approve the company going out of this business and it must do so under conditions ordered by the superintendent. This is of great benefit to the customer. If a company were going out of business because of insolvency or because it didn’t like eastern Canada any more, or any number of reasons and decided to cancel its automobile line, there are people out there with seven, eight, nine, 10 months of insurance left and here is a company saying, “No, you can’t cancel or transfer to somebody else,” that person will have proper insurance, proper service and so on. The reason for this is because the bulk of the section deals with the fact a company cannot cancel.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I didn’t raise this because I disagreed, I raised it because I don’t understand. I take it what the minister is saying is the phrase in this context, “an insurer running off its business” means not that it is getting rid of one or more contracts, not that it is getting out of the automobile insurance business, but that as a corporate entity, it is disappearing. Do I understand him rightly?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I don’t know whether it is going to disappear or not. It is not getting rid of one or two high-risk policies, it is not getting rid of part of its portfolio; it is getting rid of all its portfolios.

All we are concerned with in this act is the automobile insurance. It may very well be they decided there is not enough volume for them. Perhaps it is a small company which at one time or another had volume in a specific area of Ontario. I can see something like this occurring with the extension of the Farm Mutual, the Ontario companies, into this field. They may decide the volume isn’t sufficient. They want to run off the business.

The difficulty is without this the customer would be left protected, but not quite as well and as conveniently protected, because of the overall thing that you cannot cancel. It’s not one or two or a portion, it is all.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The company then has to get rid of all of its automobile business. It can keep any other business that it has --

Mr. Breithaupt: All of the one kind.

Hon. Mr. Drea: All of the one kind, all of the auto.

Mr. M. N. Davison: All of the auto, right. It can keep any other insurance business or --

Hon. Mr. Drea: It can’t keep you as an excellent driver and cancel everyone else.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Yes.

Mr. Breithaupt: Or vice versa.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I have only one other question about that. Is there some procedure by which that company can at another time, more than a week later I suppose, get back into the auto insurance business?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Only with the approval of the superintendent.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I take it that approval would be withheld if the superintendent had some suspicions about the reason for which the company was running off its business?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Once we have a wind-down or the running off of a business, the person historically hasn’t come back. It’s a big decision, because first of all, they’re letting go their whole portfolio; they are not going to have any renewals; they are virtually having to start all over again. We will want to know, since they left at this particular time and they are out, what terribly unusual circumstance has brought them back in to make them think they will do well this time. We would really like to have it documented.

There are some examples. A number of American carriers vacated the province some years ago because of the refusal of the superintendent of insurance to allow them to pass on rates that reflected losses in the United States. They felt because they had substantial losses in the United States and had raised their rates there, they should be entitled to that identical raise in Ontario, notwithstanding their claim experience in this province was much lower and didn’t justify that. On the basis of not being able to treat Ontario as part of a continental market, they left.

All right. If one of those were to attempt to come back, I will say before the superintendent of insurance even discussed the matter seriously with them, both the minister and the superintendent would want to know what extraordinary thing had taken place that, having disposed of their business, their law firms, their offices, their whole portfolio, they suddenly found this possible. It just doesn’t happen.

On the insolvency, of course, if there was an insolvency obviously they wouldn’t be in a financial position to meet the tests to be able to come back anyway.

Mr. M. N. Davison: One very quick final aspect of that: Is it normal in the case of insolvency or maybe in some case that was suspicious, that the superintendent would be watching for the names of directors of that company reappearing under a different corporate name?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I can assure the honourable member, in that particular branch and in other branches of the ministry, we have pioneered the approaches that are going to be taken under the new Bankruptcy Act. I have assurances from the federal government in front of their poor draftsman who has been languishing for years trying to get one, that those tests will be there. Very, very simply, insurance is just too delicate, intricate and intimate and a dependency relationship where people have to rely on the integrity of the company to have standards that might be acceptable in some areas of the marketplace where the relationship is very impersonal.

Section 12 agreed to.

Section 13 agreed to.

On section 14:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Davison moves that section 14(2) of the bill be amended by adding the words, “the minimum penalty that may be imposed upon the insurer is $5,000” following the words, “subsection 1.”

[9:00]

He further moves that section 14(2) of the bill be amended by striking out “$25,000” in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof $50,000.”

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Chairman, I have two reasons why I am concerned about this, the first dealing with the minimum. Since I have entered the assembly I have seen cases where, not only in this kind of legislation but in all sorts of legislation, we have what I would regard as substantial fine clauses of $25,000, $50,000 for a corporation, and a pattern of decisions handed down -- fines of $300, fines of $27, fines of $600 -- time after time in other broad areas of legislation.

That worries me because that’s no kind of fine for these sorts of corporations. It seems I bring this up every time I speak on one of these amendments, but Allstate, a $15 million ripoff type of corporation, you threaten them with a fine of $25,000 if they’re caught breaking the law and they get a fine of $400. That’s not a fine, that’s a licence to operate. If we put in some kind of bare minimum -- I’m suggesting $5,000 and we’re willing to listen to a compromise, but I think $5,000 would be reasonable -- I think that would be a good idea.

If the members think it’s unfair to treat a corporation in that way, I would refer them to the way we are treating citizens of Ontario under this same legislation. I refer them to section 2 where we talk about fines for individuals contravening that section.

If yon get caught driving without your insurance card, the appropriate section says a person “guilty of an offence and on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $2,500.” If we’re going to say that we’re going to dump on an individual to the tune of $500 I think we have to have a parallel sort of situation for the corporation that breaches these laws.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Five thousand dollars and $50,000?

Mr. M. N. Davison: Five thousand and $50,000.

Hon. Mr. Drea: All right.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Drea: One of the reasons why the minimum wasn’t put in there -- and with all due respect I think I’ve got the largest fines under my prosecutions that have ever been imposed against corporations, especially in the business practices area -- the reason we didn’t put in a minimum is that the penalty that is not here in dollar terms is far more substantial, because it can be loss of licence.

However, I agree, for the sake of consistency. The member is quite right. The penalties for those individuals who are convicted are laid out very, very graphically for the rather obvious reason that they are the key to enforcement, they are the key to adherence to this legislation. Five thousand dollars and $50,000 is fine with me. There was a reason for the figures in the bill. It wasn’t an ignorance of the implications, but it was because the penalty, the loss of the right to do business, which is enormously substantial, wasn’t in that particular section. So the amendment the member proposed is all right.

It is $5,000 and $50,000 on your amendment?

Mr. M. N. Davison: It is.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Davison moves that section 14(4) be amended by adding the words “not less than $5,000 and” following the word “of” in the fourth line.

He further moves that section 14(4) of the bill be amended by striking out “$25,000” in the fifth line and inserting in lieu thereof “$50,000.”

Mr. M. N. Davison: For the record, I might say this simply applies to the association as opposed to the corporate offenders that might have been cited under section 14(2).

Motion agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

On section 15:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Davison moves that section 15(a) of the bill be deleted and that subsequent subsections be renumbered accordingly.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the subsections that always bother me, the regulatory powers as opposed to the power of the assembly, and it is one that has appeared in a number of proposed bills from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On at least one previous occasion that I can recall -- the old Income Tax Discounters Act -- I moved the same amendment and the then minister accepted it.

I don’t know what the current minister’s position is on this kind of regulatory power, but it seems to me it would be a fairly modest sort of amendment to the bill if the minister wanted to exempt any person or group of persons. If it isn’t modest, then one assumes it is highly controversial; if it is highly controversial, it is the kind of thing which should come back to the assembly rather than the exemption taking place by regulatory powers.

I think it is important that as frequently as possible we strike blows in this assembly for government by legislation rather than government by regulation. If there is good reason for the minister to want to exempt any individual person or corporation, or any group of persons or corporations, or what have you, from conditions set out in the regulations, then he should come back to the assembly and provide those good and sufficient reasons.

I would urge members to support this amendment so that we in this assembly can be making the decisions rather than having the decisions made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, with respect to this amendment, I wish to advise you that we are completely opposed to the making of this amendment.

If the member had looked at the first volume of our report, in chapter 24, he would have seen that particular representations were made to the select committee by the Conservative Mennonite Churches of Ontario; this report, of course, was agreed to by the four members of his party at the time.

The way this exemption is being handled is by having the section -- section 2, as I recall -- requiring that insurance be compulsory, and this section 15(a) is what is available to us to accommodate this particular exemption. There are some other possible exemptions which may occur with respect to some of the self-insuring operations of government, and that is something the cabinet may decide on.

In any event, the exemption is there following the request of this special and small group which, because of religious conviction, has asked not to have to purchase insurance but will be covering their obligation by the placing of a bond, or some indenture of that nature, in accordance with the instructions and directions of the superintendent.

The bond approach is the way in which this problem has been resolved satisfactorily in several of the northern United States, and it is one which I believe can be readily accommodated following the comments in the report and following the traditions of this group, which is not a new group suddenly on the horizon but one that has followed this substantial matter of principle as long as there have been automobiles in Ontario.

As a result, Mr. Chairman, the continuation of this exemption, knowing its purpose, is something that we favour and we will oppose the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the minister wish to reply?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. The member for Kitchener, who is also the chairman of the select committee, has put forward his case. We do intend to exempt that religious community, no question about it. I don’t know under which particular standard I will exempt but if I do not have the flexibility to exempt, there’s no question at all that the Mennonite community will provide an acceptable device that will ensure prompt payment whenever any of its congregation are at fault.

If I have legislation, I don’t want to be in a position of being so much affected by the details of the legislation that I can’t, from time to time -- through the superintendent of insurance -- be flexible. The only other one we foresee is the federal government. I suppose I could start a war with the federal government by saying, “As of December 1, your vehicles had better have insurance with an insurer within the meaning of this act.” The federal government will tell me to go whistle and I’m rather afraid if we go to the courts that the courts will tell me that the federal government can tell me to do the same.

I do want some flexibility in here. There may be another religious community, there may be other places. I happen to think that government is big enough so that from time to time it can be flexible enough to meet very substantial and sincere matters, particularly of conscience or a religious or a moral sanction that people have imposed upon themselves as part of their beliefs. I don’t think it weakens the act at all but I do want the flexibility and will not accept that particular regulation.

I don’t understand the suspicion about this bill. I am also directed by this report -- it tells me what to do. The member shakes his head. If there’s anything in here that’s clear, it’s where it says, “Given exemption to a religious community that is established . . .” et cetera.

If you want to start putting this in legislation I’m going to be faced with all kinds of definitions of religious communities, et cetera, one of which I have now on another matter. If I can deal with it in regulations, the intent of the select committee will be met in a flexible manner. I really don’t see the need to put it into legislation, which only ties my hands and then I have to start getting all kinds of sections in there to make sure we can deal with every eventuality that comes along.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I’m not going to argue to convince members of the other two parties to support my position. I would like to explain the situation in regard to the recommendations of the select committee and the way in which the minister has chosen to act on them.

The minister had two choices before him when he saw he wanted to accept those recommendations. The first choice was to put them into legislation and say the select committee has proposed a valid exemption that this church should not be subject to all of these various changes, that the situation for this church should be as follows, that the situation for the federal government should be as follows.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I can’t do that with the feds, you know that.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The minister just argued that if he had to, he may have to make some adjustments because of that.

[9:15]

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry if I misled the member. I want to tell him there is no way, constitutionally, this province can say to the federal government it is going to do this on its own property and with its own property. That’s the point I was trying to make. The federal government does not have to buy compulsory insurance. They can tell me they are self-insured, and we have to issue them a licence.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I make the point only with the church that is cited in the select committee report. The minister had the capacity to put that in the legislation so that church and its members would be exempt from those provisions and could continue to take care of their problems as they have always done. Every member of this House would have respected that decision.

The second choice the minister had was to give himself a broad power by way of regulation to exempt persons and corporations and anything else from those parts of the act. And the minister didn’t do that. He took a third alternative, which I think is not an appropriate one. I would ask that people understand what that exemption power is.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations, the cabinet may make regulations, exempting any person or group of persons from the provisions of this act, subject to such conditions as may be set out in the regulations. The “subject to” is not relevant because those regulations will be set by the same process.

This means the minister can exempt any person or group of persons from the provisions of this act. This means the minister can decide that Bell Telephone can be self-insured. It means the minister can do a lot of things and those exemptions will in no way be ultra vires because he will have such a broad power to make regulations, to make exemptions by way of regulation.

It seems to me the minister had two choices. One was to put it in the legislation so we could deal with that problem. The second was to give the minister a very narrow and well-defined regulatory power. The third choice, which the minister has made, is to provide himself with a power to exempt anybody, for any reason, from any provision of the legislation. That’s not flexibility; that’s pretty far from flexibility. We run into that so frequently in this House. The government can change a piece of legislation by regulation, over a fairly short period of time, so that it’s almost unrecognizable from the original legislation passed in the assembly.

I really believe that kind of broad power to exempt is inappropriate in this case and in almost every other case I’ve seen since I’ve been a member here. I suggest we remove that power and put into place this exemption for this church or give the minister a better-defined power to exempt.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In brief reply, the minister considers the flexibility that he wants only fitting and proper.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 15 agreed to.

On section 16:

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the first thing to do is to deal with subsection 1, which refers to the carrying of an insurance card. The repeal of that subsection causes no problem sit all.

Section 214 of the Insurance Act deals with certain exceptions from liability. They are set out under three circumstances: subsection (a) refers to liability which is imposed by any workmen’s compensation law upon any person insured by the contract; subsection (b) refers to liability resulting from bodily injury to or death of any person insured by the contract; subsection (c) refers to liability resulting from bodily injury to or the death of any employee of any person insured by the contract while engaged in the operation or repair of the automobile.

It could be said then that section 214 deals with three particular themes: first, the workmen’s compensation situation; second, a husband and wife situation; and, third, the garage employee who may take the car out for a test drive and be involved in an accident, resulting in some question as to which insurance applies. It seems to me it may be reasonable, perhaps, to remove the second matter of the husband and wife circumstance; indeed, it may even be reasonable to consider removing the garage circumstance; but I cannot understand why we are removing the compensation board situation.

I asked for comments from various parts of the industry with respect to the sections of the bill and the ones dealing particularly with section 16 have been referred to me by the legal division of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, through the actions of Mr. Kennedy, who is the assistant general counsel. Mr. Kennedy reviews these various parts repealed by section 16(2) and he refers to this particular area I referred to dealing with the Workmen’s Compensation Board circumstance. His letter, in part, goes as follows:

“It seems to us that if an employee of a schedule two employer is injured or killed while driving a vehicle in the course of his employment, even if it is entirely due to his own fault, his employer is liable up to the Workmen’s Compensation Board scale and would then, with the repeal of this particular provision, be able to make a claim against the automobile liability insurer. Quite frankly, this is an additional exposure for insurers and has nothing whatsoever to do with the introduction of compulsory automobile insurance. We would much prefer to see this provision retained, for it may have implications for insurance companies beyond what is expressed above.

“Paragraph (b) of section 214 has been repealed, presumably because of the introduction of the uninsured motorist cover. We are not very concerned about this, although it may have some odd results; for example, if I’m a passenger in my own vehicle and the driver is negligent, I’ll be able to sue him and, if successful, recover from my own insurer.

“As in the case of paragraph (a), we feel that the repeal of paragraph (c) of section 214 has little, if anything, to do with the introduction of compulsory automobile insurance. While we’re not terribly concerned about this, we would prefer to see it left as it is.”

I pointed out the three component parts and the circumstances whereby perhaps the latter two may well be repealed and not considered important. The matter of the compensation board situation, though, is of some concern, and I’d appreciate hearing from the minister as to why he thinks the whole section should be repealed.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Quite frankly, the reason is that it is of such limited application we don’t think it is significant. Secondly, we want the person to be able to have the claim settled as rapidly as possible. We feel by deletion of that section we just make it a little clearer. It’s a compulsory program.

It’s our concern that when we didn’t have compulsory insurance a number of these things were introduced over a period of time, and now we are in the process of bringing in compulsory insurance we are trying to get rid of a number of things that may not be important any more. That was our particular choice on this. Were it to be left in I don’t think it would be extremely significant, but in terms of faster and more efficient claims settlement, we think it might have a small benefit.

It is one of those sections that has been around for a while and I suppose that, as in any other field but particularly insurance, somebody has had a particular case involving its application and that is probably why it was in there in the first place. It is therefore carried on and when one has once relied upon it, perhaps in a different situation, then obviously one is somewhat reluctant to see it go. But quite frankly, its significance staying or its significance going is very, very minor, because of its extremely limited application.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I have managed to become totally lost. The member for Kitchener had a set of amendments that I received the other day, a replacement set of amendments, and I thought I just heard him discussing the section that one of the amendments applied to. Does that mean that --

Mr. Breithaupt: If I may, Mr. Chairman, my amendments refer to subsection 3 of this section. In this instance we are dealing with subsection 2, which is the repeal of another section of the Insurance Act, section 214. The three areas I referred to are the background of section 214, which I will bring over to the member so that he knows what I am talking about.

Mr. M. N. Davison: My understanding is that what we have just been discussing is section 16(2).

Mr. Chairman: Correct.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Okay, now I understand the whole process.

Mr. Chairman: Any further questions on section 16(2)?

Shall section 18(2) stand as part of the bill?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 16(3), the member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, this is where things are going to get a little involved and I hope you will be able to bear with me because I will be, at some length, discussing a variety of amendments with the hopes that they can all be turned into a final master amendment that will be put at the end of my comments.

Section 16(3) deals with a rewording of section 230 of the act. This rewording is somewhat intricate and, as you will see from the bill, goes on for some two and a half pages. A number of matters were raised with me by Mr. Kennedy concerning some possible changes that might clarify section 230, as I will refer to it from now on.

These matters dealt primarily with certain changes which might somewhat clarify the details of those persons who would be insured under the contract of insurance. The various changes that were suggested were set out at length in the letter I had received dealing with various minor sub-parts of this section 230.

There were four of these areas and I believe that the legislative counsel and I have been able to agree on a reworking of the entire section so it will include the variety of amendments that had been suggested and make it somewhat more clear just as to how the section is to proceed.

[9:30]

With that, Mr. Chairman, I should advise you that the amendments I had proposed with respect to parts of section 230(2)(b)(iii) have all been accommodated and therefore, I will withdraw those three amendments you have.

In addition, there was an amendment by the minister with respect to a correction of wording to include the phrase “employee or partner,” which I believe you will have before you. I understand that too will be withdrawn.

I will now proceed to give you the new amendments which will be proposed and which include all the changes that have been referred to, as best we have been able to do, together with somewhat clearer language with respect to the use of the term “uninsured automobile.” This is the result of a complete reworking of the portion following the section 230(2)(b)(iii).

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Breithaupt moves that section 230(2)(b)(iii) of the Insurance Act as set out in section 16(3) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(iii) in respect of a claim for bodily injuries or death;

“a. any person while an occupant of the insured automobile;

“b. the insured and, if residing in the same dwelling premises as the insured, his or her spouse and any dependent relative of either; 1. while an occupant of an uninsured automobile, or 2. while not the occupant of an automobile or of railway rolling stock that runs on rails who is struck by an uninsured or unidentified automobile;

“c. if the insured is a corporation, unincorporated association or partnership, any director, officer, employee or partner of the insured for whose regular use the insured automobile is furnished and, if residing in the same dwelling premises as such person, his or her spouse and any dependent relative of the person or the spouse, 1. while an occupant of an uninsured automobile, or 2. while not the occupant of an automobile or of railway rolling stock that runs on rails who is struck by an uninsured or unidentified automobile, where such director, officer, employee or partner or his or her spouse is not the owner of an automobile insured under a contract.”

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I seem to have been able to clear out most of the members of the House with the placing of that amendment.

This matter is a particularly intricate one, and there have been some attempts to shorten the proposed amendment as set out in the draft bill by using to some extent the term “uninsured automobile,” which is later defined as subsection d of the subsection to which I am now referring. While it may surprise a number of members in the House, the amendment I am proposing clarifies somewhat the situation that now exists, believe it or not.

There is a further amendment later on, but I think at this point with respect to section 230(1) and (2) as set out in section 16(3) of the act, that would complete my remarks in that area.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments or questions on the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I find it very helpful in clarifying the act and we will accept it.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I will offer no comments because I wouldn’t want to destroy the accord and the rapport the member for Kitchener and the minister have developed over the past 20 minutes.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, let it be shown for the record tonight, I was very magnanimous when the member for Hamilton Centre, by misadventure, lost his amendment. It was this minister who prevailed upon the chairman at the time to get unanimous consent. I want to get some recognition for this. My usual approach is unlike Harold Ballard.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Are there any further comments on the amendment before the committee?

Mr. M. N. Davison: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: What is your point of privilege?

Mr. M. N. Davison: The minister has raised the incident which occurred earlier in the evening and said it was part of his magnanimous gesture towards me, so my amendment could be incorporated in the act. Mr. Chairman, while I agree his gesture was magnanimous I can’t agree it was directed towards being of assistance to me but rather to the Liberal Party so they could correct a voting error that would have blotted their record for decades to come.

Mr. Chairman: That wasn’t a point of privilege. Are there any further comments or questions on Mr. Breithaupt’s amendment to section 16(3)?

Mr. Foulds: I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, the minister dealt with that amendment with the same foresight and talent and dexterity he dealt with the amendment by my colleague from Hamilton Centre.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, moving right along, we have an amendment which will become section 230(2a).

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Breithaupt moves that section 230 of the Insurance Act as set out in section 16(3) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection (2a):

“Where a dependent relative referred to in section 230(2)(b)(iii)

(a) is the owner of an automobile insured under a contract or,

(b) sustains bodily injuries or dies as the result of accident while the occupant of his own uninsured automobile, such relative shall be deemed not to be a dependent relative for the purposes of this section.”

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, as a result of the earlier group of amendments that have now been replaced by this composite amendment, it was necessary to add a subsection which would protect a claim in a circumstance where a person may be considered to be a dependent relative. The example that may be used, as I understand it, is if the parents know a son’s car is not insured and they get into it and drive along with him, they cannot claim against their own insurance coverage. This problem may be resolved because in the ordinary circumstance the young person might be considered a dependent of the parents, but in a circumstance where the situation is reversed, there may be problems on coverage.

The details of this will probably have to be dealt with in a regulation to ensure that there is no gap in the coverage that is presumed, but in the meantime it is my understanding that subsection 2a which is now proposed will bolster subsection 2 as it has now been accepted by the committee to complete the intent of the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is the view of the legislative counsel that this further clarifies the act by reinforcing the previous amendment which has been agreed upon.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Breithaupt moves that section 230(5) of the act as set out in section 16(3) of the bill be amended by adding in the first line thereof the words “or available” after the third word “made.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on section 16?

Mr. Breithaupt: No, Mr. Chairman, not directly on the section, other than to comment on an additional area that had been raised with respect to how section 230 would fit into the act in accordance with section 234(a) thereof.

Section 234(a) of the act refers to the rights of unnamed insureds and it deals with particulars of liability. It was suggested that reference should be made to section 230 as well as sections 231 and 232 in this section 234(a).

I understand from the legislative counsel that a review of the particulars in the act shows there are presently just three circumstances when uninsured motor coverage ordinarily applies. It applies, of course, when a person is driving his own automobile and where the occupants of that automobile are in collision with a vehicle that is uninsured. It also covers the occupant of an uninsured motor vehicle. Thirdly, of course, it deals with the abilities to protect a pedestrian.

In discussing the matter with legislative counsel there was, of course, an understanding of the concerns that might occur with respect to the liability chain that would exist as sections 231 and 232 would be referred to. There may be some requirement to consider, at some point in the future, whether section 230 should also be referred to in section 234(a).

It is my understanding at the moment that the minister and his staff feel that it is not at present necessary to include section 230 in this listing. As a result I have made the point with respect to its history and background and I acknowledge that this is a matter which is going to be reviewed if necessary. With the knowledge that that review is going to occur, I withdraw the amendment.

[9:45]

Mr. Chairman: In other words, there is no amendment. Are there any further comments on section 16?

Mr. M. N. Davison: I want to be clear. The member for Kitchener is not going to place the amendment he had thought of placing?

Mr. Chairman: The honourable member has not placed an amendment.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

On section 17:

Mr. M. N. Davison: I have a question on a matter that is not clear from my reading of section 17. When the time comes in the very near future, that a motorist in the province has to buy compulsory auto insurance and that motorist had earlier paid the $150 fee to the motor vehicle accident claims fund, will he get a portion of that rebated to him?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No. It is no different. You have to take a look at the licensing period. You could have bought a new plate and paid $150 on January 1 of last year -- although we don’t get many takers for the $150 before February 27 or February 28 -- but you could have purchased it. You could decide to buy your licence sticker on December 1. But even without this you would still have to pay another $150.

The $150, or the penalty fee, was not insurance. That is the difference. It was not insurance. It was a penalty for saying you would not buy insurance -- it is for the licence year. Your licence year can go 15 months. It could have gone from December 1, 1978, when the sticker or the plate was first issued, right through this year, so you get 15 months and one day, because there is February 29. So anybody showing up on that Saturday who wants a plate will have to sign the back of that form which states the insurance company and the number; it is no different.

Theoretically some years you could have paid the $150 and only carried the sticker for 10 months; you may have carried it for only one month. It is the same with the fee you pay for your licence plate. In some years, if you want to carry it to 15 months, okay, you divide the $80 by 15. Other years it might be 10.

There couldn’t possibly be a rebate because you purchased nothing. You paid a penalty fee which didn’t absolve you from paying dollar for dollar the claim that was against you. When you said, “No, I do not have insurance,” that penalty fee was there and that went into the fund, but it gave you nothing.

I am the last to say there will not be some people complaining, because they really thought they bought insurance. I will tell you what we have done, because I don’t want those licence plate lines to be inconvenienced. I don’t want the responsible people of this province to have to wait a moment longer. There is a special telephone number and the licence issuers have been told, “Don’t argue with these cats. Just put them on to this telephone number. The department of insurance in our ministry will deal with them.” We want the lines to move nicely.

Mr. M. N. Davison: So the situation would be that if somebody bought a used car last week and paid the $150, then as of the time this comes into force they will immediately have to purchase compulsory automobile insurance?

Hon. Mr. Drea: You have to remember the licence issuing time is three months. You could have bought a used car last week and paid the $150. You don’t have to buy another sticker until February 29. But after that Saturday, starting at 12:01 on Saturday morning, you cannot get a sticker or a plate of any description in this province -- a new plate, a renewal, an interim, an anything -- without having insurance.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It may be I totally misunderstood the way that fund was operated because I always had insurance and didn’t personally go through it.

Does the minister mean that in a year, if a driver owned 12 different cars, he would on 12 separate occasions have paid the $150 fee?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, why do you think they cheated us in ever-increasing numbers?

Mr. Breithaupt: It is a fee, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You got nothing for it, it was a penalty fee. You were a bad actor; you had to pay into a fund so we could pay out from it.

Section 17 agreed to.

Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.

Bill 160, as amended, reported.

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

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 160, The Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

CERTIFICATION OF TITLES ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 148, An Act to revise the Certification of Titles Act.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, you’ll recall that perhaps when we last met on this bill I was leaving the chamber and trying to find the file because the bill was called somewhat --

Mr. Cunningham: Hastily?

Mr. Breithaupt: -- hastily, that’s exactly the word. In any event, this changes the Certification of Titles Act and the changes which are in the bill are certainly worthy of support.

The points set out do eliminate some of the steps that have occurred in the past with respect to certification of titles and a number of administrative procedures have been improved upon by the legislation.

The act is quite clear and I don’t think there will be a need to go to committee if we can just have a couple of questions answered by the minister in response. The basic questions in which I’m interested deal with the assurance fund.

Can the minister advise us of the size of the fund at the present time, what claims have been paid out or may be pending, if any, and the reasons behind changing the maximum to $500 from the present $300? I recognize, of course, a minimum fee of $25 instead of the earlier $1 is quite understandable as these larger and more expensive properties move under the certification of titles.

There has been the tradition, even in the registry office areas, that under some circumstances there was the opportunity for lands in a certification area to go under the land titles system, whereby all the earlier possible easements, rights of way, old fence corners, or whatever it might be, would be cleared up and the title would be free and clear of any of those ancient wagon paths, driveways, or whatever might have been in the downtown part of the city, as a new, large project is being assembled.

I recognize the need for this assurance fund but, as these funds are built up over the years, one does wonder just how much is enough. Perhaps the minister can comment as to how he sees the present funds and their use. Are they simply sitting there waiting to be used and not being used for some provincial purpose that might be a better use?

Eventually, if we all go into the certification of titles, presumably that fund will become very wealthy. There may be some claims from time to time. That is only understandable. But if we can just get an idea of where the fund is at present, and what the expectations are, there would probably be no requirement, at least from my point of view, to go into committee.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, I have no great objection to anything in the bill to revise the Certification of Titles Act. I would make one request of the minister; perhaps he could respond by nodding his head. If the minister could address himself to a brief answer to the question, after I ask it, when he concludes debate, I don’t see any need to send the bill to committee either. He could then save incredible amounts of time by that process.

Will the minister assure us that if this bill and the two other bills that are before us this evening, the Land Titles Act and the Registry Act, that when the ministry gets its Polaris project in full working order, which will totally revolutionize, speed up and make so simple the entire process, that will result in an adjustment of the ridiculously high fees that are charged by lawyers for assisting the home buyers of the province in making sure they have met all of the legal requirements that might be necessary? It seems to me that’s a problem we have in this province. It’s bad enough that we’re not doing anything about mortgage rates; these lawyers are getting away with very high charges for what seems like not a great deal of work. I hope somehow this process of his will bring them into line.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the member for Kitchener, the amount of the fund is $250,000. No claims are pending. The maximum is increased from $300 to $500. The Ontario rate remains at $1 per $1,000 of the combined value of land and buildings to reflect the increase in land values. The fund is not used for government purposes. It is held by an accountant of the Supreme Court.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Does that mean the answer is no?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The answer is no to what? That was in response to the member for Kitchener.

Regarding the second question that was raised, about lawyers’ fees, quite obviously the member knows it is beyond my capability to use other than moral suasion concerning fees of the legal profession.

It may dazzle this Legislature, but I’m not one of those who thinks that solicitors in this province are overpaid.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LAND TITLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved second reading of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Land Titles Act.

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

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do not.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of comments I would like to make with respect to Bill 149.

In one way I think it’s rather sad that the term “master of titles” is being removed from the traditions within Ontario. The registry office system has seemingly gobbled up the other program and this term is now going to be replaced by the term “land registrar.” I rather thought the master of titles had a certain pleasingly archaic ring to it, but it’s something which apparently is going to pass by in the name of progress.

There are only a couple of other items I would like to refer to. Again, other than for this brief amendment which the minister has to correct a typographical error, I would think there need be no lengthy term for this bill in committee.

In his reply perhaps the minister could refer particularly to section 20 of the bill and advise me if there have been any claims recently, or are any outstanding at the present time on this account. The account here is to be built up to the amount of $1 million if necessary and I would like to know what the size of the account is at the present time.

Most of the other sections in the bill deal with particular items, all of which are quite mechanical. But there are two that I think are worth referring to.

In section 35, matters are clearly set out that it will be “unnecessary to register consents under the Succession Duty Act in respect to death before 1970.” In addition, in section 36 variance of the subsections therein also allows for automatic expiry of cautions that have been registered on titles to real property. There are two circumstances, of course, which I think are to be encouraged because they again work towards the removal of various encumbrances and additional paper work on the titles to a variety of properties. They will make the task of those buying and selling properties somewhat less burdensome and, perhaps, may even lower the costs as far as solicitors may be concerned.

The other item I would like to reflect upon for a moment is set out in section 49 where the maximum penalty for altering records is increased from $1,000 to $5,000. Can the minister advise me in his comments as to whether there have ever been any prosecutions under this section? Have there been any convictions and, if so, what sort of fines were levied?

I presume the occasional circumstance of the ruling-out of an undischarged mortgage or something like that may have occurred when, unfortunately, some fraudulent practices may have been entered into by the occasional solicitor or staff person. No doubt these matters reflected themselves eventually in various disciplinary or other actions by the law society, but if the minister could advise me of the circumstances of ever using this provision, I would appreciate hearing it.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I have difficulty with a part of this bill other than the two parts referenced by my colleague from Kitchener. It is another one of these bills, Mr. Speaker, which will tend to solve some of the problems in the process about which the minister and I were having a dialogue on the previous bill.

Just for the record, I think lawyers are overpaid on these kinds of transactions as it is now and I think they are going to be even more overpaid when the minister’s speeded up, streamlined registry process goes into effect. I think it is about time we looked at the amount of money those people are making when they handle the sale of a home for an individual.

My major concern with the Land Titles Act doesn’t have to do with the fact lawyers are overpaid on these transactions, but rather with the implications of section 40 and the other sections of this bill and the other legislation that affects condominiums.

At the moment I am prepared to accept and support the housekeeping portions of the Land Titles Act and its sister act, the Registry Act, with the exception of those sections that deal with the condominiums. I have a real problem with those parts of these two pieces of legislation.

Over the last decade one of the central problems we had with condominiums dealt with the registration process. When the government of Ontario could no longer ignore the demands of condominium unit owners in the province to step in and do a rewrite of the legislation, they finally appointed, as I am sure you will recall, a defeated Conservative candidate to head up the commission, which later became known as the Kealey commission. There was nothing unusual about the process. The Kealey commission produced a rather interesting report and on balance, a fairly good report. They concentrated, at that time, on the problems faced at the registration end of the condominium world.

The government finally brought in the new Condominium Act to address a number of problems pointed out by the Kealey commission work and to respond to other difficulties. At that time, for reasons which to this day I don’t understand, the government virtually ignored the area of registration and the difficulties that were caused to condominium unit owners because of the registration rules.

In spite of amendments my party and I put forward at the time, the government refused to deal with that matter. We finally ended up with the Condominium Act, as we know it now, chapter 84 of the Statutes of Ontario, 1978, which doesn’t deal with the problem.

Since that time, the government has had a considerable chance to pick up on its promises to eventually come to grips with the registration aspect, and they didn’t do it. There were no changes forthcoming to the Condominium Act. Surely, in the past decade, the government could have done something. They didn’t; they brought in the Condominium Act, which was the perfect time to deal with the registration problems. They didn’t do it, and they have had considerable time since the Condominium Act was introduced and passed to do something about the registration problems. Now what happens is the government brings in changes to the Land Titles Act and to the Registry Act which simply remove some of the contentious questions of registration in the acts.

Under the companion bill the government is going to delete from the Condominium Act section 2(4) and (5) as its answer to dealing with the registration problem. That doesn’t make any sense at all. I think the government has an obligation that rather than making this kind of technical adjustment at this point it should finally realize the time has come to do something about the registration problems involved with condominiums.

Instead of proposing the phoney or non-solution of Bills 149 and 150, I think it would be much better if the government was to go back to the Condominium Act and deal with those.

I am going to propose that this bill be sent to committee of the whole House so we can deal in an across-the-floor manner with this aspect, particularly with section 40 of this bill and with sections of the Registry Act, which I will delineate later on, unless the minister thinks in his windup on second reading he can somehow address the failure of the government to deal with the real problems of registration of condominiums.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to draw to the attention of the House the term “master of titles” was removed in 1972 when “land registrar” was substituted. Obviously it took six years to catch up in this particular act.

The assurance fund is about $25,000 above the $1 million. Several claims are made and many paid each year.

On the other concern of the member for Kitchener, there have been no recent prosecutions. We regard the penalties really as a deterrent, rather than something after the fact. We had a near case when a woman removed part of a page from a Registry Act record, but the sheriff -- one of the few apprehensions or recoveries by a sheriff lately, I suppose -- went out and got the page back.

Actually I suppose that is not terribly unusual. The land registry in this province dates back to John Graves Simcoe. It has been very successful since 1795. The Americans certainly wish they had had it, so I suppose in 1979 it is not terribly unusual that the sheriff is able to function within the Registry Act system.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Did you say 1795?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Are you suggesting that was one of the causes of the War of 1812?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, though I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things John Graves Simcoe has never received credit for is the land transfer system and the land registry system in this province. The Americans today dearly wish that they had our system because, state-by-state, they are in dreadful difficulties.

When, at the beginning of this province, albeit under another name, a very distinguished administrative officer could produce a system which has withstood the test of almost two centuries with the only change being from the quill to the nib pen, to the fountain pen, to the ballpoint and when today we are going to launch the most extensive computerization system in land registry on the continent and still base it upon Simcoe, I really think that as an administrative officer he was without parallel.

Mr. Speaker, the maximum fine is being increased because, as I said, we would like to keep it as a deterrent rather than as a punishment after the fact. A considerable amount of difficulty, of personal hardship and of rather permanent loss can be occasioned by someone who wants to do an act of theft or an act of vandalism in a registry office.

With respect to the registration of condominium problem, it’s the requirement interpreted to mean that the building must be substantially completed before the declaration can be registered. That is viewed as essential to protect purchasers who might otherwise buy a unit in a building that may never be completed.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What does “substantially” mean?

Hon. Mr. Drea: If the honourable member is going to committee would he stop interrupting me on second reading? Has he forgotten where he is? I am attempting to answer his question.

I have no objection to going to committee, Mr. Speaker. I want a typographical error corrected. I think we could have got unanimous consent to change an “a” to “the,” but if the member wants to have a dialogue -- and the results will not change -- far be it from me to object to committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker: Before I put the question it is my understanding the House would be asked to give unanimous consent to change a word on second reading and it’s my understanding that that might be forthcoming from the House. However, if the member insists on the bill going to committee, I’ll now put the question.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in no way was the member suggesting it go to committee for that. He wanted some other dialogue.

Mr. Speaker: I am well aware of that.

The motion is for second reading of Bill 149.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved second reading of Bill 150, An Act to amend the Registry Act.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of reviewing the contents of this bill and it deals particularly with a great variety of minor sections which clarify and reorganize various component parts of the Registry Act. I don’t think there is anything particular that could be said to be a principle in this bill since it is based on a variety of these clarifications.

It is interesting to see that the requirement for mortmain affidavits to be registered is being repealed. This is something that comes out of the most ancient traditions of the British common law and it is worth while to see that again will be a saving of work and involvement as we continue to develop the registry system within Ontario.

The matters dealing later on, including the one which does away with the requirement of certain entries in red ink, is something that I am sure would be of interest to a great number of members of the House. One would have thought that with the development of deficits in Ontario, over these past 10 years the one thing we would have lots of is red ink. But in any event, wherever we are going to use it, it certainly is no longer going to be necessary as far as the entry of certain notices and cautions is concerned -- and, as I recall, discharged mortgages had to be lined out in red ink over recent history.

I don’t know whether this also dates back to the earliest days of the province. Perhaps it even goes back to John Graves Simcoe’s involvement in the thin red line or something of that ilk. But in any event, whatever use we have for red ink, we won’t be using it in our registry system any longer.

Again, the matter of increase in maximum penalty from $1,000 to $5,000 will apply in the registry system; the minister has already explained the circumstances under land title. As he has said, this has the prospect of being a deterrent and I suppose in inflationary times it becomes somewhat more meaningful than the earlier $1,000 maximum penalty.

The other provisions, as I mentioned, all deal with particular minor points none of which I think need detain us any further. The minister has a variety of amendments; so the bill will have to go to committee of the whole, wherein we will be able to talk about some of these other points if it is worthwhile to do so.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre.

Applause.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I thank the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini).

Mr. Kerrio: It wasn’t for you.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It’s just as well. I would worry if you applauded me.

Mr. Speaker, I trust the minister will take the suggestion of my colleague from Kitchener and explain the relation of the Registry Act to one Sir John Graves Simcoe if, indeed, its origins can be traced back to that fine fellow. I am always interested in hearing about Ontario’s Tory folklore.

I also have the same concern about the Registry Act and its amendments as I have about the Land Titles Act; it deals with the way we are removing sections from the Condominium Act. It seems to me one of the best things about the Condominium Act is it provides, as it were, one-stop shopping for the individual interested in condominiums. Once again I want to say I have a lot of difficulty understanding the government’s desire to start now a process to cut up and subdivide the Condominium Act and to put sections of it into other pieces of legislation, to provide powers of regulation under acts other than the Condominium Act, to make changes by regulation to things affecting condominiums.

Mr. Philip: Condo Ontario can explain it to them. That gives it something to do other than sending out propaganda.

Mr. M. N. Davison: That’s right. That’s a very good suggestion.

Perhaps it will be possible for the minister, when we send this bill to committee, also to engage in a little dialogue about his amendment to section 27 and the rationale behind sections 34, 41 and 47 so we can try to understand why the government wants to remove this area from the Condominium Act and put it into pieces of legislation that condominium consumers are less likely to have recourse to and therefore they will be able to understand less well the matters they involve themselves in when they decide to purchase a condominium.

While I support the bill on second reading, largely because most of the sections are housekeeping or updating sections, I do have those concerns about the sections that deal with condominiums. Aside from the necessity to go to committee to deal with the minister’s amendments, I think it should go to committee to discuss those points.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of amendments to the bill; therefore, obviously it will go to committee. The matters that have been raised are relatively minor and the proper place to discuss them is in a dialogue. Once again, I say the result will not be altered; but I am magnanimous tonight, and I want to have the privilege of going into committee. I will not be magnanimous this time -- I don’t want it to become a trend -- so I will reserve comment until the bill goes to committee of the whole.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 146, An Act to amend the Municipal Franchises Act;

Bill 147, An Act to amend the Local Improvement Act;

Bill 156, An Act to amend the Securities Act, 1978;

Bill 165, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972;

Bill 172, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Speaker: It being 10:30 of the clock a motion to adjourn is deemed to have been made. I will recognize the member for Scarborough West for up to five minutes.

EAST OF BAY PROJECT

Mr. B. F. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In regard to a question on the east of Bay property which I raised with the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) today, the block in question is a superblock bounded by Bay, Wellesley, Gloucester and Yonge. My request was that the government deal in good faith with the city of Toronto in the planning process. The minister did not respond when I asked him if he would agree to the request from the executive of the city of Toronto to involve himself in a reasonable planning process with them.

The minister also did not indicate what his long-term plans for this area were, although he indicated a couple of proclivities in terms of a bus station, which would be totally inappropriate and which the city already believes to be totally inappropriate. He would not indicate why he thinks this land is not appropriate to housing uses. Instead he indicated the city could do just as the province has done, and I quote, “If the mayor wants some additional housing property he can go out and assemble a piece of land in the way we did”; a totally ridiculous suggestion. The opportunity is there right now for the province of Ontario to provide serviced land at a cheap cost so affordable housing can be made available to people in the city of Toronto.

I just want to outline very briefly what has gone on with this property, Mr. Speaker. Initially, there was a grandiose and expensive plan to erect all sorts of government office space in that area. That was withdrawn, partially because the government realized it would be in trouble with the electorate if it tried that because of its overspending and partially because it decided to move, wisely, into decentralization of its services.

In March 1973 the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- and I quoted this in my question -- said he wanted to turn this property over to uses that would be compatible with the desires of the city of Toronto, thereby opening dialogue with the city of Toronto. Toronto then established a working and planning group which established a number of uses for this land, mixed-use planning of housing, as I mentioned in my question, as well as commercial uses, office and park land.

It seemed there was general agreement in principle by the provincial government during the years 1975 on. John Rhodes, in a letter to the commissioner of planning, said, “With respect to the provision of housing, I readily agree to the proposal for senior citizens and assisted family housing accommodation.” The plan for the city seemed to have acceptance at that time.

Rhodes writing to Crombie in 1976, about consultation -- something I was asking the minister to look into -- said, “I would also like to request that you” -- that is Mayor Crombie -- “would consent to be consulted from time to time by the Minister of Government Services and myself regarding policies at all levels of government as they may effect the development of the site.” A very rational suggestion, something I would commend to the minister again; I suggest that he establish those lines of communication instead of waiting for a month to meet with the mayor as he did when the mayor wrote to him in October.

Mayor Beavis wrote to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) suggesting that the city and the province jointly retain consultants for production of a more detailed site plan; an excellent idea.

On January 29, all of a sudden we understand from the new minister that other parties have approached the provincial government, but that even so it was suggested these potential users would be advised to move to the city first; again the idea there should be consultation. Yet this minister has decided not to do so. My question is why? Why won’t he involve himself in the planning process? I suggest to him that if he doesn’t it’s a very dangerous thing because the housing proposal the city of Toronto is making is extremely serious for three reasons.

First, there’s a shortage of affordable housing in Metro Toronto today with only a one per cent vacancy rate. Second, to preserve the integrity of the core area idea for the city of Toronto, affordable housing at that location is crucial. Third, there’s a real need to develop more co-operative and non-profit housing in Metropolitan Toronto, in the city of Toronto in particular.

If the minister decides now, on his own, to go ahead and build more government buildings and put in a bus service which is totally inappropriate when the city is looking for a location which is much better -- it would be closer to Union Station, much more integrated with the transit system in this city -- all I can say is, he is crazy, he has to talk to these people. They are the most rational planners we have in terms of cities in Ontario at this point; they know what they’re doing; they’ve shown their capacity to organize major planning ideas in the city. That the minister should somehow supersede them because of interests that he’s aware of, is totally incorrect.

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

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would just like to conclude by saying that by not responding to my question the minister is treating this Legislature in the same way the government has been treating the mayor of Toronto. There’s an easy way to correct that which is to say he will establish a planning process with the mayor at this time.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned this afternoon, we have had discussions with the YMCA and preliminary discussions with the bus people; no decision has been made as yet. If a decision were to be made to sell any of our property east of Bay, it would be at market value and would have to meet any restrictions that the city of Toronto would have on that property. It would not be the responsibility of my ministry to negotiate on behalf of those companies; they’d have to do that themselves.

I’d just like to say to the members here we assembled this land for the use of the province and I feel we have to look out for the long-term future needs of the province. As I said this afternoon, we have put this land assembly together and we would not get another opportunity to put together a parcel of land like that for some time in the future to meet the needs of the province.

Again, if the mayor wishes to, he could go out and put together a land assembly for himself.

The House adjourned at 10:35 p.m.