Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Bill 36 - Land Titles Amendment Act, 2008

October 28, 2008 - Second Reading

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to be able to join in the debate on Bill 36, the Land Titles Amendment Act, 2008. I get to be the new critic for this sector. I’ve just taken over this file and have done a very fast read of the legislation. My memory of the sort of outline of this bill is that it was to be assigning a numbering process to the queue or creating a queuing process for – well, the legal wording is instruments and caveats. I think what they really mean there is for the land titles search requests that are going through the process. That allows the department or the officials that are doing the searches to do it in a particular order.

We made some interesting choices before when we established the system for what we were going to use here in Alberta. In looking at it now, I think, actually, that we made a pretty good choice because I think it’s allowing us to move forward on some of the modifications that are being brought forward in this bill. What the bill is trying to do is create a searchable database because we’re adding to it this idea of a registration queue so that you’ve got something that you can search in a database; that is, the number. This is specific to documents that have been submitted but not yet processed. I think I’m right, or I’m sure that the sponsor of the bill will correct me, but it strikes me that it’s a bit like the courier process that’s available today with FedEx or DHL or whatever. As soon as they take something in, it gets assigned a bar code, and you can look it up online at any point and figure out where your package is in the system.

I think this system is trying to do the same thing. You’re essentially assigned a number and now you can go into a database and find out where your request is in the system. At various times there have been very long processing lineups for land titles, and that has caused some hardship for people. I think it would be, at a minimum, helpful to know where you are in the process and how long the lineup is sort of taking these days. It also allows you to go to others and go: “Look. This is where I am in the queue; I’m number 400 out of 500. So this is going to take me a bit, and I should make some other plans here.” Information, I think, in almost every case is a good thing.

Finally, because you’re making it a searchable database now, I think it’s going to allow members of the public to look at the registrations that are pending against a particular property so that they can make informed decisions to proceed with it or not, depending on what’s already on there. It does provide clarification about the assurance claim for nonfraudulent purchasers, that this does begin as soon as – weird language is used – the instrument is registered. So we’re going to get a database that is publicly accessible. I think it should give us more transparency in the system because as I was giving the example of the courier company, anybody can go on and see where it is in the system. It clarifies the assurance protection.

Now, why do we have assurance protection? Let me go back to where I started, which was the choice about how we set up our land titles system. I hope I’m not repeating anything anyone else has said. Essentially, we used the Torrens system, which has a mirror principle, a curtain principle, and an insurance principle.

The mirror principle is that any information that you need to know is readily apparent. Nothing is hidden; nothing is sort of in the background. Anything you need to know is there. The language that’s being used is: reflect completely and accurately all the current facts of the title, that it’s “free of adverse claims or burdens” unless they are specifically mentioned. So the title is supposed to show exactly what is going on. All the relevant information that you need is supposed to be right up front along with any liens or claims or warnings or anything else that’s attached to it. That’s the mirror principle.

The curtain principle is: that’s it; you’ve got it all up front. You don’t need to go looking for anything sort of behind a curtain that might be hidden away, unless you’re looking specifically for who owned the property previously, but you don’t need to go looking for any other information. Everything you need is up front.

Finally, because those two previous principles go hand in hand, the third piece of that is that there is an insurance fund that’s in place that will compensate anyone who suffers as a result of a mistake being made concerning the validity or accuracy of the title. The idea is that the registry guarantees the accuracy of title to land. Once you’ve looked at it and you’ve seen what there is to say, if you proceeded based on that and that information was inaccurate, there is an insurance program in place to compensate you for any harm that you suffered or any financial loss that you experienced.

That’s the principle we chose, and as a result of that, especially, I think, using the mirror principle, we can move forward and get into this queuing and numbering system in the queuing. For the most part what we’re doing is adding two new sections and clarifying a bunch of other ones just to clear up any misunderstandings that have sort of developed through the system over the years.

The new sections are the details about that registration queue and adding that an application to the courts under a particular subsection to alter a plan can be made. This is the requirement about land surveyors signing stuff off. In some cases the people that signed it off are no longer working, or they could even be deceased, so it’s allowing that for someone that’s “unable to act” – that’s the wording that they’re using – someone can be appointed by the council of the Alberta Land Surveyors’ Association to okay their signature or to allow a modification to be made. Those are the two new parts, and the rest are clarification.

Now, the one question that I had – and the sponsor of the bill and I didn’t have quite enough time to go over that. I’m curious as to why under the regulations, the ever-present empowering section, the Lieutenant Governor in Council – that is, the cabinet – gets additional regulation-making powers. I absolutely loathe that, but the government is putting it in every single bill that it brings before the House. As part of that regulation-making authority that it’s being granted, it’s allowing for the cabinet to basically queue-jump certain properties in the queue. It’s like cabinet-authorized queue-jumping. I want to know the circumstances in which there would need to be a cabinet-authorized queue-jumping of a land titles search. That’s what it is.

In the original act section 213 says, “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,” the famous and ever-present section, and then it goes on, “prescribing forms” to use, et cetera. The new sections that are being added are:

prescribing the conditions under which instruments and caveats may be registered in a different order, in respect of other instruments and caveats that affect the same land, than the order in which they were entered in the pending registration queue.

So it’s allowing the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the cabinet, by an order in council to change the queuing of these instruments and caveats. I want to know: why does the government need this? It seems to me that if you go to all of this effort to, one, create a queue and, two, create a queue that has bread crumbs that you can follow the queuing and the registration process – you’ve numbered it; it’s now in a searchable database – why would you go to all that effort to do it just so that you can have the cabinet queue-jump?

I’m feeling generous; I don’t know why, considering the day I’ve had, but I’d like the government or the sponsor of the bill to explain to me, please, why they put that section in there. They must have anticipated something where they would have to get involved. I’m casting my mind about going: “Okay. Well, I guess if they wanted to purchase land themselves and wanted to queue-jump ahead of somebody else that wanted to get it, or if there was some land they were selling.” It’s just not clear to me why they need the ability to queue-jump. So I’m looking for an explanation from the sponsor of the bill. As I said, he is aware that I would be putting this question on the record, and I think he’s prepared to answer me once we get into Committee of the Whole.

This is not a long bill; you know, it’s five pages long. Essentially, the Official Opposition is in favour of what’s being anticipated here. I think that given the technology that’s available to us, why wouldn’t we take advantage of that and make a system that is easier for people to work with? As I say, we’ve had different times in our history when the lineup has been longer than other times, and I think this would be a great help to people. At one point I think it was taking people, like, six months or nine months to process these claims and searches. Boy, was that ever becoming problematic in the sale of residential homes and things. So I can see how this would be very helpful in that circumstance.

That’s the major question that I have here. We’re very willing to support the legislation. Otherwise, I’m just looking for the explanation on that, and I expect that I will get it from the member either when he closes debate or at the beginning of Committee of the Whole. This member is actually quite good in getting back to me, so I expect there will be an answer to it.

Those are all the comments that I wanted to put on the record of debate for this bill, and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to do that. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 29(2)(a) allows for five minutes of questions and comments.

Mr. Chase: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre reviewed the process that I commented on last night about the Torrens system: the mirror, the curtain, the insurance, and the assurance. Do you get a sense from this bill that people who are dealt with in a fraudulent manner – it covers the nonfraudulent, the mistake in the registration of the property. Do you believe that this bill protects an individual from the potential of fraud, or do they have to still go to litigation to get that one resolved? Is it clear in your mind? It’s not clear in mine, obviously.

Ms Blakeman: I’m not a lawyer, but it’s fairly clear to me in the legislation that the assurance that is offered through that system is to the accuracy of all legitimate and truthfully arrived at information. In other words, if the system itself has made a mistake in entering information about a given land title and any of the caveats or liens or anything that’s involved with it, then they take responsibility for that. They basically guarantee you that the information they’ve got up front is good information, it’s reliable information, and you should take it as that and not go looking any further. If they’ve made a mistake and omitted something or added something in error, they will assume the financial responsibility that you may incur if you followed through on that inaccurate information or omitted information or added-to information.

As far as somebody that is out to actually commit fraud and they have given the department inaccurate information or tried to perpetuate a fraud through the department, clearly the department can’t be held responsible.