Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

CREDIT UNIONS ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: When we rose at 6 o’clock we were debating second reading of Bill 79. The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) I believe, was speaking and he hadn’t quite finished -- no; he hadn’t really started, had he?

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): He was just getting going.

Mr. Speaker: All right, the member for Ottawa East then.

Mr. Roy: I just have brief remarks to make, Mr. Speaker, on this bill. As I understand it, through legislation the credit unions had been limited to an interest rate of 12 per cent. The purpose of this bill is to give them more flexibility between their borrowing and their lending rate. But I think my colleague, the critic, has raised certain matters about this bill which are of concern to this party and which I think it important we bring to the attention of the minister.

As I see the amendment and as I understood the previous legislation, the interest rate was regulated by legislation and not regulation, and any increase in the interest rate required the public debate of any other type of legislation. However, in this case, as I read the legislation, it prescribes that the interest rate and other charges that may be charged in connection with loans made by credit unions to members may be established by regulation.

When you are dealing with an inflationary period as we are now and interest becomes so important a topic -- whether you are talking mortgages or lending rates or otherwise -- and especially when you are talking about institutions such as credit unions, we just wonder, Mr. Speaker, why it is necessary to provide that such changes be made by way of regulation rather than by legislation.

I suppose the minister will say it gives more flexibility. The interest rate can be changed, especially when you are dealing with an inflationary period as we are now, without having to come back to the Legislature. On the other hand, we feel that as members of the Legislature representing the public -- and after all these credit unions are there to serve the public -- that it is important that we get some idea of the fluctuation of the interest rate and what the government has in mind.

It seems to us, Mr. Speaker, that if an interest increase is necessary, this should receive some public perusal. Surely if it is necessary this Legislature, just as it is doing now -- there has not been any waste of time, for instance, in bringing in this bill and the debate on it will be relatively short -- can give its approval rather than have it just handled by regulation.

We are extremely concerned, Mr. Speaker, that more and more the government is being administered, or I should say directives are being sent to the people in this province by way of regulation rather than legislation. I would be extremely pleased to hear the minister’s comments as to why he is changing the approach in relation to the interest rate.

I’ve had discussions with some of the credit unions in my area, and they of course are concerned about the major legislation being drafted, or certainly that has been discussed for a number of years now, dealing with the whole spectrum of credit unions; for instance, dealing with provisions for a fund to protect people who deposit in credit unions. They are very anxious to see some legislation come in. I would like to hear the minister’s comments as to when we can expect that type of legislation, even though this might not be on topic in dealing with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to express the concern of critics for this party, and I would like to reiterate as well that when the ministry is dealing with interest rates and with what we call public institutions in the sense that they are set up as a co-operative to serve a public need, any changes in interest rates should go through this Legislature so that the public will get some idea of what the government has in mind.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that in general terms we support the change, not because we understand it so much as we hope that what it’s going to do will be beneficial.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The member for Riverdale understands it.

Mr. Deans: I think you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the apprehension we have about the government making decisions as to what the rate will be. Up to now we have had a fixed rate and this worked fairly well in a reasonably stable period. We have hit a period where the stability of the money markets is in question if not in chaos. Therefore we understand the change.

What I want to talk about is whether this is the appropriate change. I ask the minister to consider whether, in a member-oriented lending society, the government ought to be involved in establishing the rate at all; whether in a society established for the purpose of lending money to members and members alone, there ought not to be a greater degree of flexibility in the lending and the charges apportioned thereto.

Consider, for example, that other lending institutions don’t require government approval for the rates they charge. The finance companies charge whatever the traffic will bear. The banks, though subject to the Bank of Canada, are fairly well free to establish their lending rates. The lending institutions and the finance companies establish rates according to their own practice and performance. None of them is answerable to those who borrow from them, not one.

What I’m suggesting is that, as member-oriented organizations, credit unions should be answerable only to the members in determination of interest rates. If the members want to elect people to determine what the rates will be, they should have that kind of power. I want to suggest to the minister that he consider a new way of approaching this particular problem. Rather than have the matter determined by the cabinet or the government, the Ontario Credit Union League or some other body, which will encompass the majority, if not all of the credit unions, should have the power to determine what rates will be charged by way of interest on loans that are procured, rather than the government having any say whatsoever in that determination. I am a bit reluctant continuing to pursue the rather laborious procedure we’ve had in the past. I don’t see why the credit unions, through their organizations, should have to approach government for approval of lending rates.

Obviously at this particularly point in time they are having some considerable difficulty being competitive -- not competitive in terms of lending, because they are very competitive in that regard, but competitive with regard to the securing of deposit funds.

In thinking this through, I have come to the conclusion that one avenue which we really must explore in dealing with primarily a private lending institution, and that is what a credit union is, is that the members who belong to that organization and who deposit their funds for the purpose of assisting others and for the purpose of lending and acquiring interest should have the final say in whatever it is that the interest rate should be in the actual lending of the money they invest.

The minister was tied up for a minute. In trying to make it clear to him, I want to say I am not persuaded that government should have a function at all. Since they have, obviously this Act isn’t changing their function. I’m asking simply that the minister reconsider the government function and try to visualize that here is an institution made up of members, all of whom have to be shareholders in order to borrow and all of whom have voting powers, every single one; and each chartered organization having voting power within the umbrella organization, assuming they want to belong. I think that it makes some sense that the government should divorce itself from the operation, other than to set down the conditions under which it may be chartered and to grant to the credit unions the right to establish for themselves from time to time, as conditions may warrant, whatever it is the interest rates must be in order to maintain their viability.

Under the present system many credit unions have faced some very severe problems as a result, in the first place of having the interest rates established by law and now having to have the interest rates established by regulation. I know, and the minister must surely know, that there are going to be rather serious delays in changing the interest rates as time requires and as circumstances require. It would seem to me in a member-oriented lending society, in which each member has the power to determine its own directorship and in which each directorship has the power to determine its own umbrella organization, or whatever you may want to call it, that for the government suddenly to impose itself at the level of determining the interest rates that may be charged is in question.

I suggest to the minister that in any future changes he might want to make in the Credit Unions Act he consider an amendment which will not only not establish the interest rate by law but will also enable those organizations that are relatively self-supporting and answerable to their own memberships to establish their own interest rates.

I think the minister realizes -- I’m sure he does in fact -- that the credit unions in most areas have been having difficulty competing with the trust companies and the banks, not in the lending end but in the deposit end. And that’s the reason for the change. I think that in order to maintain some form of balance and in order to make credit unions continue to flourish we are obviously going to have to consider a much broader change than this change, this change also isn’t going to suffice.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member is right. He is dead on.

Mr. Deans: I’m pleased that I’m dead on. This change isn’t going to suffice. We are going to have to establish for them an operation which is in itself answerable to its own membership and which does not require approval of government other than within the terms of their charter. I suggest to the minister that some time within the next year he might maintain some very clear interest in what the rates to be charged are to ensure they are competitive; and secondly that he work towards a rewriting of the Credit Unions Act to establish an autonomy which really ought to be there and which doesn’t make them answerable through this Legislature, which has really no function to perform.

The government should establish through an Act an answerability of the operations of the credit union to its members and to its members alone. Then let them make the decision as to the interest rates to be charged or the amounts to be paid, or, for that matter the viability of the operation as it operates in the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple of questions with respect to this bill, An Act to amend the Credit Unions Act. I quite appreciate the situation that the credit unions find themselves in at the moment. Being able to borrow a certain factor times the amount of money they have in deposit at the moment, with the interest rates at which they have to borrow being 11 per cent or more, doesn’t give them very much working margin at all. It is probably effectively zero when it comes to their operations, when they themselves can only charge 12 per cent.

However, I have a great interest in knowing exactly what maximum amount the minister has in mind to prescribe now in the regulations. I know the suggestion by many of the credit unions -- and I’m not sure whether it is formally through the Ontario Credit Union League or not -- is 15 per cent a year or 1.25 per cent per month. Is that what the minister has in mind now in this legislation? I see him nodding.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): In the affirmative.

Mr. Bounsall: In the affirmative. In a sense, although I’ve listened to the argument by the last speaker, my colleague, from Wentworth, which would allow that maximum amount to be set by its members, I can see a disadvantage there, because one credit union would differ very widely from another.

Mr. Deans: Through their umbrella organization?

Mr. Bounsall: Through their umbrella organization. That has certain advantages. Why would the minister not allow that to occur? It seems like a reasonable thing to do. I can see if one just allowed any rate to be set by credit unions this could have an adverse effect on the credit unions. But through their umbrella operation, in which they meet in conventions, they could agree among themselves at that convention and arrive at the proper amount which they wish to charge. However here again, with the other speakers that have spoken so far, I am concerned that one of the changes in this Act is that hereafter it will all be done via the regulations. We have far too much government by regulation in this province now.

I appreciate it is faster to do it that way. When the government decides to bring in a change through regulations they can simply make the announcement and do it. I appreciate that point. Yet the Act we have before us tonight would have been through debate by now if it wasn’t for the fact that we were making this change through regulations.

I don’t think any member in this House would have opposed, or spoken at very great length, if we had seen the 15 per cent or the 1 1/4 per month before us. But the debate has been the power given to the government to change it by regulation, rather than bring it back to the House -- which I think one should do if the government is still going to be in the position of setting the rate. I would like to hear a convincing argument from the minister as to why he feels dealing with it by regulation is preferable to bringing in a short bill like this when the interest rate needs to be varied. This way the general public gets to know about it much more readily, and we do have a say if there is an argument on it.

I would suspect the debate over one change in figures would not be very long or involved. I agree the general Credit Unions Act needs a thorough overhaul and changing, I’m disappointed that has not come forward already.

However, a series of Acts every six months if necessary changing one figure of this sort, would be agreeable to the House and not take up too much of the House’s debating time, and could be handled.

I don’t see why it cannot be done that way. I suspect members of the House here tonight would support that 15 per cent, if that’s the figure you have in mind to bring forward at this moment. We would have had the debate completed by now.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, I do not, I confess, regard this as absolutely catastrophic legislation this evening.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Catastrophic?

Mr. Lawlor: I can’t, Vesuvius-like, pour out my lava on the minister on this as I promised to do before dinner. There are two points I would like to raise.

I want to raise the hoary chestnut of the constitutional grounds upon which you arrived at the setting of interest rates. This kind of legislation, as the minister well knows, falls under section 91 of the British North America Act, subsection 16 if I remember correctly, as a peculiarly federal power.

Secondly, I’m somewhat divided about the argument that has been used earlier, particularly by the hon. member for Wentworth. With the rapidly escalating interest rates, I can see no alternative to this kind of legislation at this present time, regrettable as it may be.

And even more regrettable, that it has to be done by way of regulation: because you may have to alter it very rapidly, while this House is not in session as the impact of credit purchasing and credit borrowing gains momentum or has an impact on the overall economic market. And that has taken place.

The argument that they should be self- determining in this particular regard has some appeal -- as much for a Tory as for a New Democrat, curiously enough. I think the minister will agree with me that perhaps the most catastrophic act committed in economic terms in this country in the last decade was the stupid move made by Mr. Diefenbaker when he was Prime Minister of this country -- in company and liaison with a Mr. Fleming, who now spends his time consorting with E. P. down Nassau way. Ill-advising the government of the poor Bahamas along the way -- I think he works for the Royal Bank of Canada now or one of the great banks.

At any rate, lifting the bank interest rates which were under determination by the federal government, and giving them carte blanche to do whatever they pleased from that day forth, was an initial cause of the inflation then, and it’s a worse cause in the inflation now, and probably is a prime factor in the way we stand economically and monetarily in this country today. I don’t think anyone has ever been able to live that one down. And if he was rejected by his own party -- not for that reason incidentally, they always do it for the wrong reasons -- there was good grounds.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): The member doesn’t believe that, does he?

Mr. Lawlor: So in this particular context, for an autonomous group to determine its own internal destiny, weighing the market and competing with it, would have some kind of appeal. The difficulty, as I see it, is this so-called umbrella.

As things presently stand, there is no such umbrella recognized in law as such. Of course, the government could amend this credit union legislation to give them some status. But even if that happened, would they be given plenary power? Suppose some credit union saw fit to remain outside the umbrella, as in a democratic way you would think it had a perfect right to do. Would the parent company, would its illegitimate child out there be obliged -- with the illegitimate child having reached 18 -- would it be obliged to subscribe to the mandates of the parent in this particular regard? Could we really, within legislation, bring that about? If we could, well all right, I wouldn’t be particularly difficult about it if it came before the House in that particular form. But must be accepted as the best we can do under the circumstances.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe that I can express adequately the sense of concern which I have about the bill. I agree with my colleague the member for Lakeshore that somehow or other we are not really dealing with credit unions in the way in which we should deal with them. I just don’t think for a moment that as an isolated matter, it is possible for our party to oppose what the minister proposes. But somehow or other the credit union movement -- if I may use that term; and I spend a good deal of my time in the New Democratic Party talking about a New Democratic Party and not the New Democratic Party movement, because it tends to put it out somewhere beyond my particular life span.

I think the minister must have read in the Globe and Mail over a period of months the articles in the Report on Business which have been devoted to the immense expansion of the credit union movement in Canada -- particularly in the provinces where it has real, indigenous roots. This is distinct from the Province of Ontario where for practical purposes it only came into existence after 1940; and then as an almost perfect example, what the Conservative Party and the Tory government deny, as an offshoot of what was happening in the United States.

In so many areas what the New Democratic Party stands for is opposed to that kind of response by the Province of Ontario to the fashions of the United States. There are many good fashions in the United States. But what I am simply saying is that never at any time has the Conservative Party in the Province of Ontario, or its predecessor the Liberal Party, ever had a real feeling about something called the credit union movement.

I think the legislation reflects it. I think the inability of the minister, despite all the goodwill that he may have to the particular committee of which he was chairman at one point, still fools around bringing in the kind of legislation which, whether it mirrors exactly the recommendations of the 1969 report on credit unions, is irrelevant.

We are not asking that it be a blind acceptance of that report, but the government doesn’t bring it in. And because the minister doesn’t bring it in, the credit union movement isn’t allowed the kind of a base that would provide for a substantial stimulation of the credit union operation as part of the financial community of the Province of Ontario and of Canada.

The reports in the Report on Business about the credit union movement, which have been put in from time to time, ought to be a real warning signal to the minister and to his government that the credit union movement has a role of great importance to play in the financial community.

When you come down to it -- and this is where, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking precisely on the bill -- the question of a financial institution and its importance depends upon the rate of interest which it charges for the loans which it makes, and the rate of interest or dividend payments which it makes to the members who participate in the organization. Therefore, this bill is of immense significance in the financial life of the Province of Ontario; and because he and his ministry cannot come to grips with the problems and the questions raised in the 1969 report, we don’t have it.

The funny thing about the select committee on company law is that the government always moves relatively promptly to implement reports. The report on the co-operative movement was implemented last year, a very short time after the report was tabled. The report on the company law provisions of the earlier report, was implemented quite promptly. I have not had an opportunity to examine in detail the proposed securities legislation that the minister has introduced but certainly some of the things which were recommended in the report of the select committee on amalgamations and mergers, the merger study and so on, have been implemented in this bill.

But for some reason or other the credit union movement does not appeal to the Tory government. Somehow or other they can’t come to grips with it and I don’t know what the reasons are. I wish I did know what the reasons are. I certainly can’t put it on a political basis, because I don’t believe for one single moment that credit union members are attached in political allegiance to the New Democratic Party in the way the credit union movement, say in the Province of Saskatchewan or in the Province of Manitoba or in the Province of British Columbia, were more or less in a short span of traditional history attached to the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation movement. I don’t think that is so in the Province of Ontario, but somehow or other the attitude of this government has been depressive of the credit union movement. The reports in the Globe and Mail and the Report on Business show vital, thriving credit union movements are part of the financial institutions of those provinces where the governmental atmosphere has been hospitable to them. Ontario is far and away behind what it could be with respect to the introduction and vitality of the credit union movement in this province in relation both to other financial institutions and in relation to population, and in relation to the kind of assets which are involved in their operations.

All right. I think there is one fundamental problem involved in the credit union movement and this is where on reflection since 1969, I now would change my view about the recommendations of the select committee and vote in a different way.

If I had my druthers at this point in time I would say that I think it is absolutely essential that the government of the Province of Ontario requires every credit union to be a member of a single credit union league. As the minister obviously knows, the report talks about the four credit union leagues in the province, three of which are active, and so on and so forth, and certain credit unions are not members of any league.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There is only one today.

Mr. Renwick: Only one now? What, the CSAO?

Hon. Mr. Clements: No. Excuse me. As a matter of clarification, Mr. Speaker, there is only one league today. There have been certain mergers.

Mr. Renwick: They amalgamated.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There is a league which represents certain credit union members. There is a federation made up of members of the caisses populaires. Not all caisses populaires are members of the federation and not all credit unions are members of the league, but there has been a merger since --

Mr. Renwick: There are two.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- there are really two groups; the federation and the league.

Mr. Renwick: Right, and there are also substantial credit unions which are not members of either such as, I understand, the credit union of the Civil Service Association of the Province of Ontario --

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is correct.

Mr. Renwick: -- and, I think, a couple of others.

All right; I think that is what poses the problem and I think it is not an insurmountable problem at all. It is my view, at this point in time, that the credit unions should be required by legislation to belong to a league and there should be only one league in the Province of Ontario.

The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker -- and I am not suggesting I am being black and white about it; I am talking about a debate we might have during the course of this bill on this question -- is I am inclined to think the government of the Province of Ontario and the Legislature of the Province of Ontario should not be legislating interest rates, either by Act of the Legislature, which we are now asked to repeal, or by delegated legislation by way of regulation. I am inclined to think that, as financial institutions with a particular philosophy and background, they should be allowed to set their own interest rate, but I can’t possibly conceive that they should be allowed to do that except through some such body as the Ontario Credit Union League.

In other words, there should be a single body related to the Province of Ontario controlling the way in which these various organizations operate. They are scattered throughout the province, some of large size, some small size; some with expertise, some with rudimentary expertise but they should be subject to that overall kind of control. That is the way that ultimately it should be done.

Again, I think the sophistication of a period of time always allows a certain amount of reflection about what we in the select committee at that particular time recommended.

I am sure the minister is well aware of the sections of the report which dealt with this particular problem but I think in this particular debate it is worthwhile putting on the record what the select committee said on the question of interest and the Act, for two reasons. One is because I’d like to revitalize the interest of anybody who is interested in the credit union movement in the report of this select committee on credit unions. I happen to think it is one of the most readable and intelligent reports -- I don’t make any invidious comparisons but I am very proud that we were members of the committee which produced this report and I’m certain we all feel that way about it. It is intensely readable and intensely real about the problems.

In that report, in chapter 19, dealing with the topic of loans, paragraph 4, it referred to:

“Interest on loans is responsible for most of the profits of a credit union. The maximum rate of interest a credit union may charge is limited by statute to one per cent per month and although the maximum rate appears to have become the normal rate, for personal consumer loans at least, some credit unions give rebates of loan interest and almost all credit unions arrange life insurance for members on outstanding loan balances.”

To the extent that I could inquire, and I can’t inquire all that extensively, the fact of the matter is that the fixing by the statute of the rate of interest for credit unions at one per cent per month means, for practical purposes -- with the exception of a few credit unions which, as the report indicates, grant rebates -- everybody in a credit union gets the same rate of interest.

One gets no credit in a credit union for one’s track record. One can be a member in most credit unions, a faithful member, say for 15, 20 or 30 years; have borrowed money and repaid it; have a share investment in the credit union and all the rest of it, and one will get the same rate as the fellow who walks in the door, joins the credit union, is approved as a credit risk and is granted a loan.

I happen to think that, somehow or other, one part of the development of the credit union movement is going to be to do as banks do -- grant different rates to different customers, depending upon their track record and their credit worthiness. This distinguishes them from finance companies and from the loan companies, to the extent that they are allowed to circumvent the provisions of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and make something called loans to their depositors, usually at a single rate.

Now what I want to see -- and I am quite certain that the government must also, if it is really aware of what is happening -- is the credit union movement become something called a banking institution in the sense of being sophisticated enough to be able to make distinctions within the interest rates which they charge.

That statement is quite accurate -- it is for practical purposes. The official rate that every member of a credit union in the Province of Ontario is charged is that rate, subject only to the fact that certain credit unions grant rebates of a certain amount. But I think that could be called a particular variation of insignificant proportion in the whole of the credit union movement.

Then in paragraph 9 of the select committee’s report, it went on to say:

“The rate of interest the credit union may charge on loan to members is limited by statute in Ontario to one per cent per month. A similar restriction exists in the Act or standard bylaws of each province except Quebec, where there is no restriction.”

I pause to interpolate in parentheses that, of course, it is in the Province of Quebec that the caisse populaire movement is different from and had different origins from the credit union movement in the Province of Ontario and elsewhere. In the Province of Quebec the caisse populaire are much more analogous to banking institutions, in the sense of the chartered bank, than the credit union movement has been allowed to be in the Province of Ontario, because it tended to be a consumer loan operation related to finance companies.

I guess what I am really saying to the minister is that I want -- to the extent that government policy with respect to credit unions can accomplish the purpose -- the credit unions in the Province of Ontario to move to the kind of thing which the caisse populaire are doing in the Province of Quebec, therefor, moving more to a kind of sophisticated banking operation. And it is quite legitimate for us to do that.

My colleague the member for Lakeshore has stated this question about constitutionality. I think that it is very important, that in the clash of financial institutions in a competitive market, the credit unions be allowed to play a role at that subterranean level where the chartered banks only recently have moved -- recently being about the same time as the credit union movement has expanded in the province.

With that interpolation, I simply want to go on:

“The draft of the new Manitoba Act would limit the maximum rate of interest on loans to that prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor and the standard bylaws. As previously noted, the maximum rate appears to have become the normal rate of interest, at least for personal consumer loans; but a large number of credit unions give rebates of interest, and nearly all credit unions arrange life insurance for borrowers on the outstanding balance.”

That part of it is almost a repetition of the earlier paragraph 4, which I recited.

“With the high prevailing interest rates” -- and when I think of it, that statement in 1969 almost sounds ludicrous; that we were talking about the high prevailing interest rates at that time. I would assume those members of the committee who are still alive would turn over in their graves at the thought of the high prevailing interest rates of 1974.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The ones who are still alive would turn over in their graves?

Mr. Renwick: Yes; and members of the assembly. There’s a distinction to be made.

Mr. Roy: They don’t have to be in their graves to turn over.

Mr. Renwick: Could be. Turn over in their seats maybe. To continue:

“With the high prevailing interest rates, credit unions are finding it more difficult to maintain a sufficient spread between the cost of borrowing money from members or from outside sources and the interest ceiling, and the committee received sub- missions urging the interest ceiling be either raised or removed altogether from the Act.”

And then it comes on to what I think a very important paragraph. This is the part where I am suggesting to the minister I don’t really understand what the resolution of the problem is. I am not being didactic about it, but I think the next paragraph adequately expresses the problem which is involved in this question. This is paragraph 10 of the select committee report:

“Credit unions are in our opinion non-profit institutions [that’s essential to what we are talking about in relation to the credit union movement] one of whose principal aims is to provide credit services for members at the lowest possible cost. We are therefore reluctant to recommend any change in the maximum interest rates which might encourage credit unions to charge more than is absolutely necessary to function in an effective manner. Al- though it might be argued, and in many cases it would be true, that an increase in interest rates would be offset where possible by increased rebates of loan interest, there is no requirement that interest rebates be made. To remove a limit on the permitted lending rate of credit unions might, in our view, favour poorly-managed credit unions by enabling them to cover managerial inefficiencies by increasing their lending rates.”

Mr. Speaker, I’ll just wait until the Minister of Government Services has stopped interrupting the concentration of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on the debate, which I think is important and in which we are engaged.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): We’re both listening.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, out of one ear.

“On the other hand, we recognize that credit unions may suffer from a competitive disadvantage, particularly under present economic conditions, by not being able to offer members a return on their investment comparable to that offered by chartered banks and trust companies, which are now permitted to adjust at will both their borrowing and lending rates.

“The committee therefore recommends that the Act be amended to provide for an interest ceiling of one per cent per month, subject to such increase as may be prescribed by regulation which will enable adjustments to be made as necessary to meet market conditions. A similar provision exists in British Columbia and in that province a regulation approved Oct. 17, 1969, has provided for an increase in interest rates.”

I am not particularly interested in the solution to the problem found by other jurisdictions. But I think that paragraph specifically states to me the problem with which we are involved.

I cannot help being driven to the conclusion that basically what I want to see is, subject to the overall supervision of the government through the administration of the Credit Unions Act, when and if ever the new Credit Unions Act is brought into force in the Province of Ontario, that every credit union in the Province of Ontario should be required and I am quite prepared to admit the differentiation between the caisses populaires and credit unions in the Province of Ontario -- either to be a member of the Federation de Caisse Populaire or the Ontario Credit Union League.

I would cut out at this point mavericks such as the credit union movement of the credit union organization of the civil service of the Province of Ontario. Then we could say to those organizations that, subject to our overall supervision: “You have the responsibility to determine what the interest rates are going to be,” in the hope and anticipation that there would be the kind of “sophisticated” differentiation between rates which is now in effect in the chartered banks of Canada. I use sophisticated in quotations because they are not all that sophisticated about their lending operations.

I want to divert a little to the fact that in the United States, for example, the Chase Manhattan Bank and a number of other major commercial banks, in concert with the federal reserve system, have decided as a matter of policy that so far as small businesses are concerned, they will lend money at less than the prime rate. To the extent that the prime rate is a symbolic rate, it will be charged to those customers of the banks which can afford to pay it. The big borrowers are the ones who are going to be part of this symbolic operation of the so-called prime rate, or what is called in Canada the bank rate, and then the prime rate which is three-quarters of a point or a point and one-quarter above the bank rate.

In the United States those major banks, as a matter of announced policy, are lending, to small businesses up to a working capital of $500,000, at a rate somewhere in the neighbourhood of two to three per cent below the prime rate. If there is one single thing the Province of Ontario could do to stimulate, protect and support small business operations it would be to urge upon the government in Ottawa -- be it Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat after the July 8 election -- the adoption of a similar policy with respect to interest rates to small businesses.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Is this in the bill?

Mr. Renwick: That is an interpretation of mine. All I am now saying is that the problem which this little bill -- what is it, about four or five lines --

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): The new bill will be in in less than a week.

Mr. Ruston: If the member wants to read it.

Mr. Renwick: I’ve been holding my breath since 1969 about when it will come in.

Mr. Good: That is straight from the horse’s mouth.

Mr. Ruston: You can’t get much better information than that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Renwick: I think the minister will be upset, but I can’t find the bill to which I am speaking. The single section is to eliminate the fixed rate in the statute and to provide for the prescribing of the rate. It is very interesting that the Act says: “Prescribing the rate of interest and other charges that may be charged in connection with loans made by credit unions to members.” The very fact that rate is in the singular and not in the plural is part of the argument I have been making to the minister.

Somehow or other this minister, I am inclined to think, and his advisers, must end their preoccupation now with the Securities Commission, the Business Corporations Act and all the other peripheral things which are involved, and devote the talent, time and attention which they have given to the Securities Act and to other Acts over the last many months to making the credit union movement, for the first time in the Province of Ontario, a government-sponsored and supported movement. When that can be done, we in the Province of Ontario will have the advantage of a distinctive form of financial institution which can play a role in the financial markets of the Province of Ontario of significant benefit to the citizens.

This is not in any way to suggest that in some way we are going to challenge the Royal Bank of Canada or the Bank of Montreal or any of the other chartered banks, but for the first time we will admit in this province what this province has never admitted -- that there is a place for non-profit-making co-operative financial institutions.

When that comes about, we can grant that same kind of authority to the credit union movement, which I think it is entitled to, provided the government is prepared to say that every credit union must be a member either of the Ontario Credit Union League or the Federation de Caisse Populaire in the Province of Ontario. Maybe in due course they will be amalgamated, but I want to see the credit union movement given the opportunity in Ontario to become something as indigenous and as important to the life of the province as the Caisse Populaire is in the Province of Quebec.

That is why, with this little short bill, I have taken up the time of the House to speak for some time about this problem. It is the guts of what the credit union movement is all about. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to address himself to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes one thing in essence -- to repeal the existing section of the Act, section 32, which fixes the interest at one per cent per month on the unpaid balance, and to allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to change the amount of interest which can be charged on loans made by credit unions.

Quite frankly, I’m not that knowledgeable in discussing the development and history of the credit union movement in this province. their philosophies and the co-operative attitude that has existed and the benefits that have flowed from it. But I am well aware that it is a very positive economic force in this province and has on deposit today about $1.3 billion.

I think the House has to turn itself to these questions: Are we willing to allow the credit unions to increase their rate of interest? Secondly, and this question was raised I think first by the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) and taken up by the member for Windsor West:

Are we prepared to allow this to be done by the Lieutenant Governor in Council? There are two sides to the coin; the Lieutenant Governor in Council setting the rates or this House.

Going back for a moment to the 1969 select report or select committee report touched on by the member for Riverdale --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Touched on!

Hon. Mr. Clement: Touched on for some time; and I’m glad to listen to his remarks. I think he was a member of that committee --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, he is always great to listen to, particularly on these one section Acts.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t intend to embark into the recommendations made by that very august committee, of which I presume the hon. member from Riverdale was a member. I’m not sure. I think he was.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I was.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Perhaps that explains some of the enthusiasm that has been displayed here tonight. But it really is a good report in spite of the fact that he was on the committee, and he makes a real contribution to committees. I remember many nights in London, England, when the hon. member and I had discussions about the select committee report --

Mr. Renwick: Please, if there is one thing I don’t need tonight it is for the minister to put me down. I am in a particularly ebullient mood and I don’t want to go out of here paranoid because the minister put me down.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What was this night in London, England.

Mr. Lawlor: I applaud the report.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am glad to hear that, because there are a couple of remarks the member for Riverdale made tonight -- he said he likes to go around talking about the NDP but he doesn’t like to talk about the NDP movement. He said he doesn’t like to talk about it. I accept that. Because socially we can go around talking about bowels, but it isn’t socially acceptable to go around talking about movements from same.

In any event --

Mr. Renwick: That wasn’t the conclusion that I made.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh I am sorry, I have drawn the wrong conclusion. I’ll change my notes.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I thought he had.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister is always a child of Sigmund Freud.

Mr. Renwick: I think I will go down to the members’ lounge.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member for Lakeshore drew it to my attention that he is really concerned about the -- catastrophic is it?

Mr. Drea: Catatonic.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Catatonic! Anyway he called it a hoary chestnut. He has been very concerned about section 91 of the BNA Act since the moment of his conception.

Mr. Lawlor: That is right. I was born with it in the back of my mind.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I want to tell members about the moment of conception of the Credit Union Act in this province. It happened in 1939.

Mr. Bounsall: What about other movements?

Hon. Mr. Clement: And they haven’t really been concerned about the interest rates and that sort of thing in the past 35 years.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was what one calls a “liberal” movement.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I can only believe -- and I put this fairly to the member for Lakeshore -- that his remarks tonight were an attempt to transmogrify the members of this House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Could the minister spell that for Hansard please?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I hope we are not paraded before the Speaker tomorrow for using improper language in this House tonight, but I just draw that to the attention of the member for Lakeshore --

Mr. Lawlor: I seldom use language like that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- and if he should ever return --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the Criminal Code allow a transmogrification?

Hon. Mr. Clement: If he should ever return to Ireland or those lands from whence he came, please get the assurance of his folks and his relatives that he is not really concerned about section 91 of the BNA Act, because I don’t think it’s applicable tonight.

Mr. Renwick: When the minister mentioned Ireland the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) looked up.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Getting on to the re- commendations in the report of the select committee -- and seriously it’s a good one -- I have met over the past few months with representatives of the federation and of the league. They have made representations to me, asking that certain changes be made in the proposed Act that I undertake to introduce in the very near future dealing with credit unions.

The representations that have been made to me within the last few months from my study have not differed from those that were made before the select committee in 1969 and, in many instances, ignored by that select committee. I pass no judgement. Rightly or wrongly, they were ignored; and the same representations were made to me.

There will be a new Credit Unions Act introduced in this House in the not too distant future dealing with credit unions. They are a very significant banking institution, a very significant economic factor in this province today; anyone in this House who denies that is being ignorant of the facts -- and I am not suggesting anyone here is guilty of that type of thing.

The facts of the matter are these, Mr. Speaker: When the rate was set under section 32 of the Act, it was one per cent per month or 12 per cent per annum chargeable on loans payable by members. The economic vice has closed in the last few weeks, wherein the prime rate charged by the Bank of Canada now is 11 per cent. Credit unions cannot compete in today’s economic atmosphere. The depositor who would normally deposit into his account at the credit union is being seduced off into other forms of more attractive investments, and he’s putting his money into guaranteed investment certificates and certain types of bank accounts that are very attractive.

Mr. Renwick: And getting 10.25 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Clement: They are unable to attract funds into the credit union because even if they get the money in and pay the prime rate of 11 per cent and lend it at 12 per cent, which is the maximum, there is a one-point spread on which all their administrative costs and everything else must flow. The credit unions have come to us and said: “Please release the limit set under section 32.” This piece of legislation has been introduced to permit that.

Now the next question: Do we set the rate in this House or do we set it under regulation? That’s a very bona fide question. I am not going to minimize it and suggest that the Lieutenant Governor in his or her wisdom has more collective wisdom than the members of this House. But there’s a very practical consideration. I am going to introduce a new Act in the very distant future --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Distant?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, “distant” being perhaps next week or at the resumption of the session in the fall, because when we talk for an hour and a half or two hours on a section that’s a line and a half long, I don’t know what time I have got left. But I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker: The Credit Unions Act is drafted and it is on my desk; and if we can get on with the business of government, I will introduce it next week. If we don’t have that time, I have no alternative but to wait until fall.

But the point remains: Credit unions cannot compete today. A month from now, if the prime rate runs to 12 per cent, it will be a great business. They can put money out as 12 per cent and pay 12 per cent on the money they get in. In other words, they are not getting anywhere, but their administrative costs are taking them further underground.

I am not suggesting for a minute that the Lieutenant Governor in his or her wisdom has more knowledge of the problems, economic or otherwise, in this province than the members of this House, because it simply isn’t true. I am just saying there is a very practical problem before the credit unions of this province, because if the prime rate jumps in the next two or three weeks and if this House isn’t in session until September or October, we’re doing the credit union movement a disservice. In fact we may be actually heralding economic doom for them if we don’t give them the flexibility they require by allowing the Lieutenant Governor in Council the flexibility to change the rate by regulation.

What I propose, should this legislation pass this House, is to set a maximum rate for the time being -- and I hope I don’t have to ask the Lieutenant Governor to change it -- of 15 per cent per annum or 1 1/4 per cent per month, which will mean that that will be the rate, save and except any additional in- crease is required because of the economic squeeze. This is the maximum only that the credit union may set -- not must set. It’s not mandatory. If a credit union can negotiate on its present rates, fine. If a credit union cannot compete on the present 12 per cent, then it has the flexibility to move to 15 or 1 1/4 per cent per month on the unpaid balance.

I am not prepared to embark on a long discourse on the philosophy of the credit union movement. I accept that. I have met with these people over the past many months and it’s been a very educational thing. I’m quite familiar, I think, with the 1969 select committee report. It’s an excellent report.

The hon. member for Riverdale asked why the minister and his people don’t get off their preoccupations and get down to a government-sponsored and supported movement. Let me tell the member for Riverdale that the league doesn’t want the proposal as unanimously submitted by the select committee in 1969.

Mr. Renwick: I made that point perfectly clear that I didn’t want to recommend presentation of our recommendations.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s fine. The member very properly drew to my attention that the flexibility of setting rates by regulation was adopted in British Columbia in 1969, and this is what I ask now. I’m not asking on a permanent basis that government by regulation be inserted in substitution of government by the Legislature.

Mr. Renwick: The minister doesn’t have to worry. We’re not fighting it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know what members opposite were doing. We started at 6:10 o’clock and here we are at 9:10.

Mr. Lawlor: We are trying to educate the minister.

Mr. Renwick: We were trying to get him to understand what it was all about.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I see. Are members opposite in favour of this legislation as introduced?

Mr. Renwick: That’s what we said.

Mr. Lawlor: What has that got to do with it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: If they’re in favour of this, I take it that section 1, saying that section 32 is repealed, is not really an issue.

Mr. Renwick: We will deal with that when we go into committee.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister knows what we’re like when we don’t agree with legislation.

An hon. member: I know what members opposite are like all right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: How about the name of the Act? Is there any discussion on that?

Mr. Lawlor: Is the minister going to amend it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would consider it.

Mr. Renwick: We will deal with that in committee.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There is just one other thing I’d like to say to the hon. member for Riverdale.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): The cost of democracy comes high tonight.

Mr. Renwick: The minister is right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The hon. member for Riverdale didn’t say anything about something being a catastrophe or being a hoary chestnut. I wonder if he is overlooking some of the problems that exist, perhaps, in this legislation.

He made me very nervous, because I thought I was going to have to go to the Speaker shortly because he accused me of fooling around. He said: “Where’s the bill? The minister fools around.” I didn’t go for that. I’m the father of several children in this province, most of whom bear my name.

Then he went on to say the credit union movement doesn’t appeal to a Tory government. I became more objective then instead of subjective, because I forgot about the children.

He said, Mr. Speaker, that the credit union movement doesn’t appeal to a Tory government. It doesn’t only appeal to it, but we recognize the very important role that credit unions play in this province. Because we recognize it, we try to be responsive; because we try to be responsive we introduce legislation, and because we introduce legislation we end up having a discourse on whether section 91 is a hoary chestnut.

All I’m asking members to do is to support this bill so that we, in turn, can support the requests of the credit unions of this province, which to me seem very valid.

Mr. Lawlor: How about the caisse populaire?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Let’s get on with the business of government. Let’s not talk about who is right and who is wrong.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, the minister has taken 20 minutes.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in a moment of flexibility-

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: -- if the minister wants us to put the bill in committee --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is out of order. Order. Will the hon. member be seated?

The motion is for second reading of Bill 79. Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Committee of the whole house?

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: The second order.

House in committee of the whole.

CREDIT UNIONS ACT

House in committee on Bill 79, An Act to amend the Credit Unions Act.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 79, An Act to amend the Credit Unions Act. Any discussion on this bill?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Yes, on section 1 of the bill, I wanted to point out to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that my colleague, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), remarked that it was a non-catastrophic bill. The minister heard only the “catastrophic” part of it. Most of the remarks that he made on second reading, therefore, were irrelevant.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): May I speak to that?

Mr. Renwick: Yes he can speak to this.

Hon. Mr. Clement: May the record show for posterity -- because I know that for years to come students will look up the remarks tendered in this debate -- that my notes show that I said it was catastrophic. May the record show that it has now been corrected and may scholars for years to come recognize the contribution that the member for Lake- shore made with his remarks dealing with section 91 of the British North America Act. Sir John A. Macdonald would indeed be proud of him this evening.

Mr. Renwick: The other matter on section 1 of the bill is, I would like to ask the minister a little bit more about these negotiations which he had. Is he proposing that all of the credit unions in the Province of Ontario belong either to the Ontario Credit Union League or to the Federation of Caisses Populaires?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have made no such suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that they belong to any such association.

Mr. Renwick: What is the bill going to say?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I recognize that the bill recommends that there be a stabilization fund provided for the depositors in the credit unions and caisses populaires. I recognize that. I recognize that the substantial amount of money on deposit -- well in excess of $1 billion -- should be protected by some type of insurance or stabilization fund. I also recognize that the Canada Deposits Insurance Corp. will only accept deposits monitored by a provincial stabilization fund inspected by the provincial inspectors. I recognize that. I have had discussions along these lines. It has been suggested that the caisses populaires or the federation run their own stabilization funds and that those credit unions that belong to the league run their own stabilization fund --

Mr. Renwick: And what about --

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- and those that don’t belong to any perhaps be subject to a provincial stabilization fund --

Mr. Renwick: Much better.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- and I have had some discussions pointing out the difficulties there, and I say this very seriously -- we have had some fun tonight but I say this very seriously -- I recognize the validity, or what I presume to be the validity, of the report of that 1969 select committee on credit unions, and I find it very difficult at this period in time to accede to the requests of both the federation and the league to vary the unanimous report of that committee which was rendered in 1969. I find it very difficult to find a rationale to change the recommendations made at that time.

Mr. Renwick: There are only three members of the committee left. I take it that what the minister is saying is that there are going to be three stabilization funds --

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Mr. Renwick: -- one for the league, one for the federation and a provincial one for the maverick credit unions that don’t belong to either?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is what has been, in effect, suggested up to the present time. That is not what I am recommending. I don’t wish to get into that.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): It is entirely irrelevant.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Why don’t you call for order here?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I only have one other question. The minister, during the course of his remarks, referred on one occasion to the not-too-distant future and the next time to the distant future with respect to the introduction of the bill. What did he mean? Are you going to introduce it before we adjourn next week?

Mr. Chairman: Order please. I would like to say to the member for Riverdale that I don’t consider that question really on section 1 of this particular bill.

Mr. Renwick: I think, Mr. Chairman, that you are probably right.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 carry?

Section 1 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on section 2?

On section 2:

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Yes, just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Section 2 is where we get to the problems that I had in setting the rate by regulations rather than by legislation.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Sorry, go ahead.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I have never seen Rusty so incensed.

Mr. Bounsall: The minister correctly pointed out that if the prime rate continued to escalate, he would want to have that flexibility very quickly, with the House not sitting, to change that rate by regulation.

Surely we could have had an in-between position. If we weren’t going to have it go through the House, and in view of our suspicions as to how things occur in regulations, instead of doing it by regulation or by legislation through this Legislature, he could have set a fixed percentage above whatever the prime interest might go to. He is agreeing now to set it by regulation at 15 per cent, which is four per cent above the prime rate of 11 per cent. The way to amend this Act would have been to allow them to go to a maximum of four per cent above whatever the prime rate is. He wouldn’t even have to do it by regulation then.

I hope the minister will take this into consideration for the larger bill he is going to bring in and since he said several times, by implication, that there might be something done about this section at that time.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I think that any discussion of one system as opposed to the other -- that is, the rate being fixed by the House or by the Lieutenant Governor -- is probably academic at this particular moment. I suggest that we have got off on a bit of a tangent in discussing things like the philosophy and what our select committee has recommended in years gone by. They are not relative or pertinent to our discussion tonight.

I think the members opposite recognize there is a critical situation facing the credit unions in this province --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That’s right.

Mr. Bounsall: We recognize that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- and I am prepared to enter into a lengthy debate when the new bill is before this House at some time in the future.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The distant future.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t wish to limit that --

Mr. Renwick: That’s what we were talking about.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, the members opposite are very sincere in their criticism and suggestions pertaining to that Act, because it’s a very important piece of legislation --

Mr. Renwick: Catastrophic.

Hon. Mr. Clement: And perception -- did the member say “perception”?

Mr. Bounsall: The minister said it.

Mr. Renwick: Perception.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Catastrophic.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, perception; I see.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): The minister is wasting time.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would just like to urge the House to consider this legislation here and tonight on today’s terms, bearing in mind that we may not be here in this particular arena long in the future, a month from now, two months or three months from now. Yet if the prime rate changes, as it is fixed by the Bank of Canada, the credit unions must have some flexibility. We cannot recall the House to debate the same issues that we have debated here tonight.

Mr. Roy: We can’t expect Bob Stanfield to do it, because he would freeze everything.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would ask the members to seriously consider it and, I hope, to support it; because to not support it really will be --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All this is palaver. Nobody is against it.

Mr. Renwick: Why is the minister taking so long about such a simple bill?

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- a blow against the credit union movement in this month.

Mr. Lawlor: I have never seen anyone so defensive.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Shall section 2 stand as part of the bill?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, just continuing on this point, that was precisely my suggestion; this section of the amendment Act could have easily set the rate as a fixed percentage above whatever the prime rate went to. If the prime rate went to 12 per cent, if four per cent was written in this section, it would let the credit unions charge 16 per cent. We appreciate that they need this increased interest rate at this point, regrettably because the cost of living and the cost of interest on loans have gone to what they are. We’re not fighting that.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Why don’t you deal with it in committee?

Mr. Bounsall: What we’re saying, though --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Bounsall: We’re speaking to the section dealing with --

Mr. Chairman: I should say to the member I think this particular point was decided in principle on second reading. Now we’re repeating the same thing.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if there are any new questions or anything else other than that?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): There’s nothing new about them.

Mr. Chairman: If not, we should get on with the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t take your orders from Rusty Ruston. That’s all I can say.

Mr. Ruston: Stop that.

Mr. Bounsall: The new point here is that under this section, and the way in which it’s done --

Mr. Ruston: I would like to give a half-hour speech on it.

Mr. Roy: His interjections will make as much sense as your speeches.

Mr. Bounsall: -- my suggestion is that it should have been tied to a fixed rate above the prime interest rate in this country; then we wouldn’t have had to worry about doing it by regulation, which we find an unacceptable way of changing things.

Mr. Roy: Good for you, Ted. That was a great point.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief because I know that this is very important legislation. I realize the position --

Mr. Lawlor: The member had better be brief. He has effrontery to stand up at all.

Mr. Ruston: -- the credit unions are in now. The opposition to the left, of course, is, filibustering on this bill but I think the credit unions are in a very precarious situation at this time.

Mr. Lawlor: Stop filibustering.

Mr. Ruston: They need this very badly right now.

Mr. Havrot: Well, get on with the business.

Mr. Ruston: Now, sure, I would like to see it by legislation --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Ruston: -- but, on the other hand, if this Legislature is not in session to take care of it, I guess we will have to go along with regulations. I feel now the credit unions do need this legislation immediately.

I happen to be in an area where we have one of the largest credit unions in Ontario. It acts, actually, I suppose, as a bank and looks after the collection of all bills in the area so it serves a real need.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just like the caisses populaire.

Mr. Ruston: I don’t think we should filibuster on this bill, Mr. Chairman. I think we should go ahead and pass it and give the credit unions the right to charge a higher rate of interest due to the extreme high interest rates in Canada right now.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 2 stand as part of the bill?

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

Bill 79 reported.

Hon, Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports a certain bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 79, An Act to amend the Credit Unions Act.

DENTURE THERAPISTS ACT

Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 70, the Denture Therapists Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have expected the minister to be sitting there because we have a few things to say to him. I suppose a lot of other people have something to say to him, but in the light of the fact he’s a relatively elderly man he gave it to one of the younger parliamentary assistants. I suppose he wants to give him something to get his teeth into.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): The member is younger than I am.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, it seems to us the only slogan one can use at this stage is, “Here we go again” on the question of dentists and denturists,

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to review the history of this particular conflict as it is possibly the best evidence we have since 1971 of the incompetence of a government in relation to what I consider to be a relatively minor problem in the overall administration of this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That’s right.

Mr. Roy: When one reviews the legislation from the start and recalls that -- I think it was --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They have their share of flip-flops.

Mr. Roy: -- the present Attorney General (Mr. Welch) who, when he was Minister of Health, introduced the original bill --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He was the policy secretary.

Mr. Roy: He was policy secretary. Was he policy secretary then?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Mr. Roy: Yes, we used to call them super- ministers at that time. He was policy secretary and at that time he introduced a bill which we in the opposition debated at length in caucus and felt, after looking at the pros and cons, that we should support.

To our surprise, over the summer period and after the bill was introduced in first reading, the then Minister of Health (Mr. Potter) came along and tried to introduce an amendment on second reading of this bill. The Minister of Health at that time had a reputation as a fellow who was -- well, as a backbencher, he had a reputation as a guy who was somewhat gung-ho; who was going to bring in changes and bring in what we considered to be a progressive type of legislation or amendments to legislation --

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Get to the point.

Mr. Roy: -- and here was the start of the downfall. I mean we are seeing now what happened to him when we sent him over to Correctional Services, and it’s somewhat ironic that he should end up there. I mean, he wasn’t that bad. But in any event, he attempts, Mr. Speaker, to introduce legislation on second reading, which would, in fact, change the principle of the bill. After much debate -- it’s painful, I know, for the member for Scarborough Centre to have to listen to a review of the pitfalls the government went through.

Mr. Drea: Why do I always have to listen to this member at his worst?

Mr. Roy: What’s that?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member supported the government in every one of its changes.

Mr. Speaker: I think the member should get to the principle of this particular bill.

Mr. Roy: I am getting to the principle of this bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, we’ve got to build up to it. And there is just no way, Mr. Speaker, that the government is going to weasel out of the pitfalls, or the --

Mr. Speaker: I see nothing in the bill about weaseling. Let’s get to this bill.

Mr. Roy: That’s right -- the pitfalls.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): But there are pitfalls.

Mr. Roy: We are talking about pitfalls.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And decay.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): There are cavities.

Mr. Roy: In any event, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health at that time tried to introduce on second reading an amendment which would change the principle of the bill, and had to withdraw the bill --

Mr. Speaker: Is that in the bill?

Mr. Roy: That’s right, it is.

Mr. Drea: Have you read it?

Mr. Speaker: The member is not speaking to this bill.

Mr. Roy: That’s right in the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member should speak to this bill only.

Mr. Roy: I wish you would quit interrupting me, Mr. Speaker, it’s breaking up my train of thought here. I am having problems.

Mr. Drea: You never had a train of thought.

Mr. Roy: In any event, the member for Scarborough Centre should not fall over backwards. He’ll hurt my feelings. In any event, Mr. Speaker, on second reading he had to withdraw the bill, introduce a new bill which would force the denturists to --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member should speak to this bill. Now, I don’t want to have to warn him again.

Mr. Roy: I am speaking to this bill.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): He is talking about the bill --

Mr. Speaker: There is no need to review the whole history -- speak to this bill only.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Listen, Mr. Speaker, you listened to a debate on a whole select committee report just a minute ago.

Mr. Speaker: I wasn’t in the chair.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, you were on second reading.

Mr. Roy: In any event, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a piece of legislation now which is contrary to a piece of legislation amended about a year ago, against the opposition of this House. The then minister went ahead and passed the bill which would force the denturists to work under the supervision of dentists, and after having passed this legislation, Mr. Speaker, he proclaimed certain parts of it in pieces. And the denturists, of course, defied the bill, which led up to this bill.

Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order please. The member will please resume his seat. I must point out to him that a complete review of the proceedings regarding the denturists’ bills of the past, or any actions, are not necessary.

The bill before us has certain principles which are enumerated. And the member can surely stick to the principles enumerated in this bill without going back over everything else.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: Keep on going. Ignore him.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Start over. Let’s talk about the bill now.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I find it extremely restrictive when we are to discuss policy --

Mr. Turner: When you have to talk about the bill.

Mr. Roy: -- and I know that you are trying to protect them on the other side there, that it’s embarrassing to discuss the whole history of this bill.

Mr. Good: Absolutely. It’s a whole --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Where is the minister? Where is Welch? Where is Potter?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): All three ministers --

Mr. Roy: I just feel, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are hiding in an ante-room.

Mr. Roy: I just feel, Mr. Speaker, that in discussing policy, in discussing a principle of a bill, that it is within the terms of reference and rules of this House to discuss what happened and what led up to this bill. We always do it.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Get down to business.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Of course.

Mr. Ruston: They do that in Ottawa. It’s parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Turner: This is not Ottawa.

Mr. Roy: And as embarrassing as it might be, Mr. Speaker, and I have a certain amount of sympathy with the other side to have to bring this up --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A lot of them are blushing.

Mr. Roy: -- and I think it’s important that we do so.

Mr. Ruston: The Minister of Education is even blushing.

Mr. Roy: In any event, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): I am not blushing.

Mr. Good: The minister should be if he’s not. He changed his mind three times in a year.

Mr. Roy: The minister passed a piece of legislation which would force the denturists to work under the supervision of the --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is definitely and distinctly disobeying the orders of the Chair. I would ask him to please stick to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am getting to the principle of this bill, but I can’t get to it by just jumping on it.

Mr. Lawlor: See how much trouble the Liberals have with principles?

Mr. Roy: I’ve got to work out gradually, logically, and I understand that proceeding logically is difficult for the other side to understand without their procedure --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: In any event, Mr. Speaker, the denturists defied the legislation, even though the minister didn’t even know that the legislation had, in fact, been proclaimed. In fact, charges were laid, subsequent to the previous bill, and after great public pressure, here we have --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Here comes one of them now.

Mr. Roy: -- this present bill now. Here we have one of them now. One of the culprits in this whole --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for Oxford (Mr. Parrott) is on the way.

Mr. Roy: In any event, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will have to oppose this bill, because it satisfies no one at all.

Mr. Drea: The member has got to be kidding.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: We will be opposing this bill because the minister, in introducing this legislation, reminds one of a reluctant virgin. He is afraid to go all the way.

Mr. Turner: Who is afraid?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: In any event, Mr. Speaker, we feel that the minister has succeeded -- There is something rattling on the member’s desk over there, Mr. Speaker. It is annoying, and I wish you would bring him to order.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, we feel that the bill satisfies no one and, in fact, confuses the public. Mr. Speaker, I should bring it to the attention of the House that the previous Minister of Health, the member for Quinte, seems to have dropped something on his desk; and it is extremely annoying.

Mr. Good: He has been toothless before.

Mr. Ruston: That’s his toothless bill over there.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, for various reasons we were forced to oppose this bill. First of all, it confuses the public as to what they are entitled to in relation to a new profession that has been created. It has changed names so often -- it is now called the Denture Therapists Act. We feel in allowing only complete denture -- Is there something wrong with the member for Scarborough Centre?

Mr. Drea: I just don’t understand.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: He has difficulty understanding. Yes, I guess he would. He has been led up and down the valley so often that he --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He will follow wherever they go.

Mr. Ruston: He will follow over hill and dale.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He has his reward; third assistant parliamentary deputy secretary to somebody.

Mr. Roy: What is difficult to understand, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that under the present bill, partial removable dentures will be allowed only under supervised denture therapy, and we feel that this is not satisfactory.

In fact, with this bill the minister has succeeded in I suppose having both sides of the question --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And having neither.

Mr. Roy: -- against him. The dentists are mad at him, because he has allowed certain things for the denturists to do. The denturists are not pleased, because they are only allowed to go so far. And, of course, the public is confused, not knowing what to expect from either profession. We feel, Mr. Speaker, that bringing in this type of legislation is irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of matters. Of course, we will be prepared to support the bill if the government decides to accept our amendments, which we feel will enhance the bill and will bring some logic back in this confused mess, which it really is.

We feel, Mr. Speaker, that if the government was prepared to accept our amendment -- in other words, after clause (1) of section 1 of the bill, to allow any upper or lower removable partial dentures -- that we would consider supporting this bill.

There is the other matter that is difficult for us to understand, Mr. Speaker. Not only has the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) not interceded, but apparently the Attorney General, is continuing with certain prosecutions, which we consider to be patently unfair. Charges have been laid under a piece of legislation which is being amended to allow denturists to do what they were stopped from doing under the old bill.

How can the government possibly convince the public of its sincerity, or convince the profession of its sincerity, in amending what was clearly a mistake in the past, when it is prepared to continue to prosecute individuals who, according to the government, were breaking laws which are being amended and which would make what they were doing in the past legal today?

Mr. Good: Like hanging a guy after you have abolished capital punishment.

Mr. Roy: And this is where we feel, Mr. Speaker, the government loses credibility.

We feel that other aspects of the bill are weak. For instance, we don’t see any reason for the creation of the appeal board under this particular bill. Why can’t the appeal board created, for example, under the Health Disciplines Act be used by anyone appealing a decision by the committee under this bill? Are you not, in fact, creating what we consider to be heavy bureaucracy for a very limited group of people?

Why not use the appeal board which has been set up under your -- well, it has not been passed yet, Mr. Speaker, but it has gone through the committee -- the appeal board under the Health Disciplines Act? Surely, I would think it is only a question of time, if you are going to proceed logically in this matter, that all professions, all disciplines in the area of health will be included under the Health Disciplines Act. They will be looking to the appeal board under the Health Disciplines Act, whether it is the individual or the public who has a grievance.

Mr. Walker: It is going to be one and the same.

Mr. Roy: What’s that? It is going to be one and the same. We feel it is being redundant, when under this particular Act the minister is creating another appeal board.

Mr. Walker: It’s the same thing.

Mr. Roy: It is the same thing? He doesn’t say it under this bill. The parliamentary assistant replies, Mr. Speaker, that it’s the same thing. It’s hard for us to decide that from reading this bill and we feel there should be some reference to it if the minister is creating the same thing. He would not have to create it under this bill if he would just refer an appeal to the appeal board as established under the Health Disciplines Act. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the amendments the minister should look at.

Mr. Turner: The poor old member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: The second point that should -- or another point made -- what’s the problem?

Mr. Turner: No problem.

Mr. Roy: No problem? I don’t have any problems, either, Mr. Speaker. In any event, another point that should be looked at under this bill --

Mr. Good: He did a few moments ago.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I did a little while ago.

Mr. Good: Not of his own making.

Mr. Roy: Yes. I was being interrupted, Mr. Speaker. That’s the problem.

Another matter which should be looked at is that under section 2 of the present Act is created what is called a board of denture therapists which will have nine members; three members representing the public interest and six denture therapists. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant and the minister have given consideration to the possibility that we will have two classes of denture therapists under this Act, those practising under the supervision of a dentist and those not practising under the supervision of a dentist.

We have therapists who have acceded to the requirements of the previous bill and have taken the exams and we have the association which, throughout this conflict, since 1971, has been somewhat outlawed. They are the ones who have put pressure on the government and they are the ones the minister is trying to pacify with this bill. Yet they have no assurance under this legislation that some of their members will be part of this board.

It would seem to me that the minister should look at the fair distribution of individuals on the board. If he is going to name six denture therapists he should assure the association which, I would expect, would have more members than the number of dentists who passed the exam, that some of its members would be included on this board.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Good point.

Mr. Good: Once they have passed their exams.

Mr. Roy: There is another matter, Mr. Speaker, which I feel should be looked into. I saw, prior to the debate on this bill the parliamentary assistant and some of the staff under the galleries passing pieces of paper back and forth. I take it he will have some amendments to this Act and I would like to have same idea of what the amendments are. Surely one of the amendments will be to section 30 of this Act which deals with the limitation period during which actions can be taken.

Mr. Walker: Section 30 will be amended.

Mr. Roy: Section 30 will be amended? I take it he will be amending section 30 to conform to his --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He gave me these.

Mr. Roy: I am sorry.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member doesn’t have to give himself away. Don’t worry about that.

Mr. Roy: In any event, my leader has just handed me a number of amendments. How many are there? Something like 15 amendments to the bill.

One of the amendments which should be looked at is the amendment brought before the committee on the Health Disciplines Act, dealing with the limitation period. I feel this bill should conform to the Health Disciplines Act. All disciplines should, I suppose, be regulated under a common limitation period as far as actions are concerned, if we are going to have consistency within the health field.

Mr. Walker: We have picked up that one.

Mr. Roy: He has picked that one up?

Mr. Walker: We have picked up all the amendments in the Health Disciplines Act.

Mr. Roy: He has picked up all the amendments in the Health Disciplines Act? If he has, obviously this will be an improvement.

Mr. Turner: He has to be kidding.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks on this bill, I must again emphasize the great and painful conflict we are going through again over what I consider to be a relatively minor problem in the health field, or even in the administration of this government. How the government through stages has flopped from one side to the next! The minister started with the reputation of being one who would bring back some logic within the health field and he is attempting to tone down a very volatile situation because the conflict is on. Charges have been laid, Mr. Speaker, against denturists who were practising against the law and these charges obviously brought in some public response.

It was obvious that the previous minister was very concerned about enforcing this legislation but having decided to bring in some amendments to the legislation, why did the government not bring in reasonable amendments? Having decided to antagonize the dentists, why didn’t it decide to go all the way and at least give the denturists something that was workable?

With this bill, Mr. Speaker, the government has succeeded in antagonizing both factions. It has lost both sides and in the process confused the public as to what they can obtain and what they cannot obtain. The amendments we will be proposing are reasonable amendments which the government should accept.

I suppose if the Tories were to be honest with themselves and if the minister was to be honest with all members of the Legislature, he should be up on his feet, having made a statement thanking the opposition and thanking my leader for the bill he has brought into this House on two occasions. It was the reasonable approach and the government has plagiarized his bill but only halfway. That’s the trouble with this government; it only goes halfway. Having decided to do something why, for God’s sake, doesn’t it do it right?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The reluctant virgins.

Mr. Roy: That’s right. They are reluctant virgins and I would hate ever to call the member for Scarborough Centre a virgin but he is part of that group. In any event, I cannot understand --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He’s a philosophical virgin.

Mr. Roy: -- and I would be very interested --

Mr. Drea: Sit down; down.

Mr. Roy: He’s out of order.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: On a point of privilege.

Mr. Roy: On a point of privilege? He is going to deny he’s not a virgin. Let him count on his fingers; how many times?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Everybody is silent; cast a pearl.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, while I recognize the intellectual incapacities of the member for Ottawa East, I am not prepared to accept that type of criticism about my character.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member would withdraw his criticism?

Mr. Roy: Okay, Mr. Speaker; I withdraw the criticism. The member is not a virgin. I withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker: Is that acceptable to the hon. member?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege it seems to me that when someone, in his own esteem, is as high, in a relatively small party, as the member for Ottawa East is, he should be able to contribute a little bit more to the language of this assembly than making wisecracks about my character.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): The member will tell them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is quite right. Perhaps the hon. member would withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Roy: What remarks are they?

Mr. Speaker: They are hardly appropriate in this chamber.

Mr. Roy: What remarks? I called him a virgin, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw that remark. I wouldn’t want to offend his character by having said that. I can’t recall anything else I called him. If there are some other words --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Do you think that is un- parliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has taken objection to it. As Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I thought his point of privilege --

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, to carry on the point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am continuing on a point of privilege. I can remember an occasion in here when I gave a rather apt description of the member for Ottawa East. I called him a militant coward. I was directed to withdraw that remark on the grounds that the second part of the description was unparliamentary. I did so. On this one, I feel the member is wisecracking about certain aspects of my character which I am not prepared to discuss in this House or anywhere, at any time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He withdrew it.

Mr. Drea: He did not withdraw it. He did not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He said he did.

Mr. Drea: He made another wisecrack. Now either he’s going to withdraw it or he’s not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He said he withdrew it, for heaven’s sake.

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member withdrawn the remark?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He didn’t say anything unparliamentary.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the remark that I made was that I’d called him a virgin and I said that I’m sorry I called him a virgin, he’s not a virgin, and I withdraw that remark.

Mr. G. Nixon: Very immature.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He did it again.

Mr. Roy: I’m sorry if I hurt his feelings. What else can I say?

Mr. Drea: A yo-yo like him couldn’t hurt my feelings.

Mr. Roy: Maybe my remarks were unparliamentary, but in any event, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would have thought the member for Scarborough Centre would not be quite as sensitive, especially in this particular debate.

Mr. Lawlor: Leave him alone and get on with it.

Mr. Turner: Why doesn’t the member talk about the bill?

Mr. Roy: I was talking about the bill when I was rudely interrupted.

Mr. Speaker, for the reasons that I have outlined, unless the government is prepared to accept some of the amendments that we shall be proposing, I feel that we cannot support this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few statements on Bill 70, the Denture Therapists Act 1974, and I would like to read a sentence from a ministerial statement. It says:

“After very careful consideration the government has decided that a new health practitioner to be known as a dental technologist should be permitted to deal directly with the public in the taking of impressions for ...”

And it goes on, blah, blah, blah.

Now, you might suspect that this ministerial statement was read in the House recently. But, lo and behold, this statement was read June 26, 1972. It shows the House, Mr. Speaker, that this government, by jumping from side to side, has progressed nowhere since June 1972, because we are right back at the same position that we were then. It demonstrates the incompetence and the poor way in which the ministry has handled what has been described by the member for Ottawa East as a relatively small segment of the problems which face the people of Ontario.

Just last month in the House, on May 16, the Minister of Health said: “The changes being introduced today specify how a person wishing to become a licensed denture therapist must qualify.” So, all we’ve done in two years is change the word from “technologist” to “therapist”. That’s about the extent of the progress that’s been made. I think the House should not be under any illusions that this bill presently before the House is going to solve the problem.

Already there is evidence that the bill introduced is weak in 13 different sections. I was just recently handed 13 amendments which apparently are going to be introduced when the bill goes into committee of the whole House. It’s a further demonstration of the type of thinking which has been going on surrounding the problem of dealing with the denturists, who, Mr. Speaker, grew by spontaneous demand of the general public.

I think there is no stronger force in the world than an idea whose time has arrived. I think the reason that the government has been having trouble over these past two years in dealing with the problem is that it fails to realize that the general public has got fed up with the services which have been provided in the past by the dental societies and it has opted for a technician to do certain works in the supply of dental prosthesis for the mouth.

This failure by the government to recognize this principle is the reason that they have been stumbling and lurching for the past two years, and they have offended thousands of people, not only those people in the dental society, not only those people in the denturists’ society, but thousands and thousands of legitimate citizens across this province. Citizens at the rate of 6,000 a week are seeking service from non-dentist people in order to supply themselves with their needs.

This is the kind of force which has been building up and it is continuing to flourish, and yet the government brings in a bill such as Bill 70, which still does not meet the needs and demands that the general public has demonstrated by its acceptance of, and use of, a dental technician. The bill does not meet the needs of the people as they have known them in the past. Despite a major effort by this government to try to downgrade the supply of services by this group, the government has still failed.

The next bill which will probably be coming up is going to repeal the section which provided for low-cost dentures. This was a ruse by the government in collaboration with the dental society to try to cut the ground out from under what the denturists have built up in the public mind. Even though the government pumped thousands and thousands of dollars into such a subversive programme, it still has not reached its goal.

I believe the reason for the discontent that has been growing in the province as it relates to this one aspect of healthy delivery services is the continuous rise of health care delivery costs on all fronts. In the dentistry field this has been one of the most pronounced increases. The high cost of dental service has caused people not to be able to have service. We know there are thousands of people who have never gone to a dentist. There are thousands of old age pensioners on limited and fixed incomes who cannot pay the prices which have been demanded.

This is where the strength of public opinion came from. The vacuum was there. Any time you create a vacuum someone is going to rush in and fill the void. This is precisely what the government has been trying to fight. It has been trying to fight a vacuum, and it hasn’t been able to hold up, because the vacuum is getting greater day by day.

I think this is the basic principle in the bill, Mr. Speaker, that the government is trying to maintain a position in the face of such a public force and it cannot maintain it. The battle is just beginning as far as I understand the position of the denturists. The minister has not played fair with the denturists as far as that is concerned.

Mr. Roy: Neither have the dentists.

Mr. Germa: The minister promised he would consult with them and try to resolve the issue which has pitted one group against the other. And yet the bill comes in without consultation. Certainly there was a lot of consultation with the dental society, with the ODA, but there was very little or no consultation with the denturists who are the second group in this agonizing affair.

I have no vested interest in either one of the groups. I am here as a member of the general public. Many of my constituents have contacted me personally. They have used the services of denture technicians and they are satisfied with them. Yet the government saw fit to deny them those when it brought in the infamous Bill 246. Bill 70 will not last on the books any longer than Bill 246 did.

The government is still in trouble, and I don’t know why it persists in maintaining this position. It seems to me that the government is acting like musk-oxen, which, when they are faced with danger just form a circle, put their heads down and close their eyes. This is what the government is doing. It is trying to railroad it through with brute force.

Take a look at the penalty clause within Bill 70. It provides for fines up to $5,000 --

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Good.

Mr. Germa: -- and fines up to $2,000 for different offences. Take a look at any other legislation and one doesn’t see such extreme penalties. In a bill we passed just tonight, the Private Vocational Schools Act, for falsifying documents there was a fine provision of $1,000. It has got nothing to do with this but it is a comparative thing. It is something we just dealt with. For falsification of documents in that case the fine would be $1,000. Falsification of documents in Bill 70 would call for a fine of $5,000.

Is it any greater crime to falsify a document under this bill than it is to falsify a document under another bill? It only proves to me that the government has set its course and is going to smash the Denturist Society of Ontario. I can just see that this is what is happening. The government is going to try to railroad them right out of business as far as I am concerned. Legislation that doesn’t have popular support is not necessarily good legislation. I believe that a government, when it sees fit to introduce unpopular legislation, has a right to do it. In fact, it’s incumbent upon it to do so, if it deems it to be in the best interest of the public.

Here we have a case of unpopular legislation, and the government is ramming it through. But I think whenever the government puts legislation like this before the people, and rams it through, with all its power, that it should explain it. There is a responsibility on the government to make the reasons good and clear why it is necessary to impose this legislation on the public. The government, in all its movements in the past, has not made clear why it should pass this unpopular legislation.

We are not going into a new area here, either, Mr. Speaker. We know that most of Canada right now has legislation on the books somewhat similar to this. Most of it is better than this, and it is what the public has demanded.

The basic objection that we have to this bill is that it does not give this denture therapist, as you call him now, the right to deliver the services that the public has got used to receiving from him. You are cutting back on the delivery of services the public is used to and which the public demands. I think this is the basic principle that you have missed, and the reason that we have to vote against this bill.

There is no reason, Mr. Speaker, why the service the public has been receiving for these past many years should not be continued. There is no evidence that I have been able to uncover, or that anyone has been able to uncover, that these technicians, by working directly in the mouth of a patient, are causing a serious health hazard.

There have never been malpractice suits in the Province of Ontario. Each and every one of these people operating have liability insurance by Lloyd’s of London. Lloyd’s of London has never had a claim in the Province of Ontario. There is no evidence that these people whom you are legislating practically out of business are a danger to the health of the average person in Ontario. Certainly, as a layman, I am willing to take my chances with them, and apparently 6,000 other laymen per week are willing to take their chances, because they know they have been getting ripped off by the dental association and the dentists in the Province of Ontario.

The bill will also, Mr. Speaker, effectively destroy the denturists’ society. This is the organization which rushed in to fill a need when the service was not being supplied by the dental association. Now, unless we allow the denturists free access to make partial dentures, we are going to rob them of over 50 per cent of their business, and you are going to rob the public of Ontario of access to 50 per cent of their services. That’s the serious part of it -- the people who cannot afford to go to where you are trying to direct them. You are denying them the right to go someplace else.

I think the people in the health disciplines section of our community are the last to understand that the consumer -- in this case he is called the patient and he is not a patient; call him a consumer -- has had very little to say about the type of service he gets, or where he is going to get the service. I think it is time you realized that the patient, or the consumer, has a right to determine this. He should have some choice, within certain guidelines and boundaries, as dictated by the government.

But, by this one stroke of the pen, the minister is now denying him of 50 per cent of the access that he enjoys at present -- albeit illegally. And the reason he is still enjoying it illegally is because the force of public opinion is so great that no government, not even the big, blue machine government, can stand against it.

I would also like to bring to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, that the minister -- I said before that he hadn’t been playing ball with the denturists as we presently know them -- is not only not co-operating, but has taken certain steps even to subvert their organization by sending out private letters to each and every person in the denturist association, reminding them that they weren’t necessarily wedded to their executive and that they should maybe question the direction in which their executive was taking them.

But I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that even despite the minister’s attempt at subverting the denturists’ society, that a meeting was held on Sunday, June 2, and a decision was made, I will quote now, Mr. Speaker, from a letter dated June 3, 1974, and addressed to the Hon. Frank Miller, Minister of Health. It says:

“A decision was taken by all present at the meeting resulting in the members voting unanimously (with one abstention) that:

“(a) The members are fully prepared to write examinations, provided that reasonable guidelines can be agreed to between this society and your ministry; and

“(b) That Bill 70 as it now stands is unacceptable to this society so long as it unreasonably restricts denturists from providing those services to the public which the public have come to expect and have a right to receive.”

I endorse that statement, Mr. Speaker. The public has a right to receive this kind of service. The public has a right to decide what they want -- and the minister is denying them that right.

In a further letter to the Hon. Frank Miller, the denturist society said: the failure of Bill 70 was in not allowing denturists to provide partial dentures directly to the public; despite the fact that they have been doing so successfully for the past several years.

Now it is no secret that I, and members of this party, have supported the licensing of non-professionals in the denturist field, who have carried the name of denturist for these past many years. I am quite proud, Mr. Speaker, to be here tonight to speak to this bill and to also vote against it as far as second reading is concerned.

The bill is quite a complex bill. It provides for two types of denture therapists. It provides for a supervised denture therapist and it provides for a denture therapist who works without supervision. It also provides for a governing board of denture therapists and it calls for the creation of several committees -- an executive committee, a registration committee, a complaints committee, a denture therapist appeal board. As well as the denture therapist appeal board, decisions can be also appealed to the Supreme Court.

But even despite all of these safeguards, Mr. Speaker, the basic principle of the bill has been lost -- and for this purpose and for this reason we have to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words regarding this bill. We in this party are very sorry that the bill does not go all the way and include the legal making of partial denture plates by those who will be trained and licensed to make dentures where the mouth is completely vacant of teeth.

The matter of the bill being brought in its present form before the Legislature is one that has been under speculation for some time. We know very well, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Health has been surveying the political attitudes around the province on this particular subject; and having found that there was no other way but to bring in something, he has brought in what we consider to be a bill deficient in its major principles.

The reason for the minister not allowing licensed denture therapists to make any kind of removable prosthetic dentures is hard to understand. The minister must surely realize that it is not the capability of the licensed denture therapists that is in question, because those who have been licensed who were formerly registered dental technicians, have been making partial plates on nothing more than a prescription written by the dentist.

I have seen these prescriptions; I have had them shown to me. The prescriptions simply say: “Make teeth to fill vacancies 4, 5 and 6 and hook them onto ...” and they number the other teeth. That’s about all that was stated on the prescriptions.

From that point on, the registered dental technician was on his own; he had to construct and make the appliance that went back into the patient’s mouth, and he was responsible for it fitting properly.

There is no problem there; so it must be something deeper. As was said by the member for Ottawa East, we think it is a matter of trying to partially satisfy one group that has a great deal of public sympathy, and rightly so, and still not go all the way to completely dissatisfy the dentists in the province.

Unfortunately, the dentists have shown that their low-cost dental clinics have not been a success. In my own area, only nine of 77 dentists in the area subscribe to the low-cost dental clinic. It has been definitely shown that their clinics were not putting out the quality of dentures that one expects to get even for the price that was paid.

I think the whole thing is a matter of attitudes that will have to be changed over the years. People in the dental profession to whom I have spoken have said they see the need for support staff in the dental profession to take some of the workload from them so that they, as dentists, can spend their time more advantageously on preventive dentistry and on doing the work on live teeth that has to be done to preserve those teeth; work which is presently so badly needed by people, especially as they grow a little older.

This can only be accomplished over a period of time when the complete matter of making artificial teeth or dentures is taken away and rightly given to people who are technicians, who are trained as laboratory people and who are trained in the making of impressions.

Some people who have already received their licences as licensed denture therapists, have explained to me in detail what the course consisted of; and it was very comprehensive. It meant the taking of impressions, the building of the denture, the fitting of the denture, and everything completely associated with it from the beginning to the end.

I don’t think the capability of the licensed denture therapists is in question at all. I think the minister must realize that they are going to be properly trained or he wouldn’t let them make dentures at all.

We object very strenuously to the fact that the work is being restricted and that partial dentures cannot be made. What I think is needed, of course, is co-operation between the dentists and the licensed denture therapists so that this work can be given to one who is well qualified and dealing with it on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps in the long run he will become more expert and better at it than many dentists who are doing it on a more irregular basis.

I think there is a very great principle involved here. Under this Act, the licensed denture therapists would be restricted from making partial plate repairs. They would not even be allowed to make repairs to partial plates.

Mr. Speaker, let me relate to you what happens in most instances when repairs are required. A person goes to the dentist, walks up to the desk and gives the nurse his partial denture. The nurse picks up the phone, calls a laboratory which sends a taxi or a messenger over to pick up the plate; he takes it back to the lab which repairs it. It goes back to the dentist. She phones the patient that the repair is waiting, sometimes the same afternoon, and he picks it up. The only difference is that the dentist probably marks up the repair costs from the lab by 100 per cent.

In many instances, the patient is not seen by the dentist. The patient simply leaves his or her partial plate with the nurse in the reception office. This happens on many occasions. Why the licensed denture therapist should be restricted from making repairs to partial plates, I do not know.

The one thing of major concern, of course, in the making of partial dental plates, is the health of the remaining teeth. Here, of course, is the obstacle to allowing the denture therapist responsibility -- that is, the lack of co-operation on the part of the dentist to certify that the mouth is orally healthy and the condition of the teeth is such that they can receive a partial plate. Why has the minister not been more firm in stating that it will be a requirement of dentists to relay information to other professional people? That is, to the licensed denture therapists who are going to be trained in a field and a skill which is disassociated, in many aspects, from the practice of dentistry. Why the minister does not require that certificates can and should be given by other professional people I do not understand.

It’s the only thing one could even raise a question on as to why a licensed denture therapist should not be able to make a partial plate and that is simply that somebody must certify as to the health of the existing teeth. This, of course, must be done by x-rays which the licensed denture therapists are not trained to handle; but there is no reason in the world why a dentist couldn’t say: “You need a partial plate. Your teeth look good. Here is a prescription. Go to the licensed denture therapist of your choice and have a partial plate made.”

I dare say 10 years from now that is what will be happening; maybe even five years from now that’s what will happen. If we don’t have co-operation among the medical and the support staff and the dentists and the support staff there, all our health delivery systems in the province are going to be jeopardized. I don’t think they should be jeopardized by the small attitudes and the restrictive thinking of one professional group. Unless that part of the bill is going to be amended, we will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, we are voting against this bill on three grounds. One is that the bill does not deal with the group called denturists. The government has dealt with them very unfairly now for some time and this bill does not satisfy their legitimate aspirations and needs. Two, the bill does not deal with the need of the public for cheap dentures. It does not deal with them fully. It provides for full dentures but does not allow for cheaper, partial dentures, which the denturists have been able to provide before.

Thirdly, and which is the most important point, the bill does not deal with the present crisis in health care in Ontario. The government has not dealt with the crisis and does not understand what the problem in the health care system is in Ontario. Typically, as in the Health Disciplines Act, the government acts partially, temporarily patching up the system, without understanding the need for a massive reform in the health care system.

It does not understand the intellectual change which has occurred in the thinking about health care. It does not understand the need for a complete change in terms of moving towards preventive medicine. And it does not understand the financial problem people have in meeting their health care needs, and I don’t mean only OHIP necessarily, because there is also the need to pay for drugs and dental care.

The government fails to deal with this, and on these grounds above all, we must vote against the government on this bill to show that it is no use to continue producing minor bills. It is essential now to deal thoroughly with the problem and I do not believe, nor does this party believe, that the present government is able either to understand the crisis nor to do anything about it.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in the debate? The hon. leader of the opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, as you know, sir, I have had on the order paper a bill in my name which would essentially permit denturists to practise independently of direct dental supervision. Although we were prepared to support the bill, introduced now many months ago by the present Attorney General in his then capacity as policy secretary, we have had an opportunity to examine the ramifications of the procedures for, let us say, making the dental prosthesis, in more detail, sir, than really I had wished to know.

We have had the opportunity of a good deal of advice, both from the dentists in their professional organization, and from the denturists in their organization as well. We have even come to know well, on a first-name basis, the people from both organizations, as over the many months we have had the opportunity to discuss that subject which seems to grow in interest week by week.

To be frank, I am sick to death of the controversy, and I know most members of the Legislature are too. I am sure you would not rule me out of order when I would say that this legislation is an example of grave incompetence and bad judgement on the part of the various ministers of health and those who have advised them.

The rumour network around here gives the credit, really, to a former Attorney General, who is not now an elected member of the House, for having brought to some sort of conclusion, the policy of the government based in the bill we are debating tonight. Some sort of a compromise which, although it offends the dentists and the denturists, is something that the Minister of Health could get approved by his caucus colleagues, and which would meet the criticism directed by opposition members, and by editorialists in the community, against the unacceptable government policy for so many months.

It is true this bill takes what politicians like to call a step in the right direction. It will allow properly qualified denture therapists as they are now called -- we might refer to them as denturists since that is the word that is normally used to describe them in the community -- to practice their skills and abilities without direct dental supervision. It draws the line, however, at partial plates. We have heard from professionals the warning that if denturists are permitted to fit partial plates there would be a grave danger to those living teeth remaining in the gums; and that therefore the denturists should be restricted to an adentulous arch, or more specifically from the dentists to an adentulous mouth.

It is very difficult, of course, to say that we don’t agree with the dentists’ judgement in this regard. We can look at examples in other jurisdictions which do permit the denturist to build these partial plates and there are not great lists of cases where serious damage has been done. As a matter of fact it has not been possible to determine any greater level of serious damage than that which might have taken place if the work was done either under the direction of a dentist or by a dentist directly.

So we don’t discount the advice that has been given to us from either side or from impartial people. I suppose it comes down to the fact that since we are empowered to establish the scope of the procedures that various professionals and para-professionals have, we simply have to make the judgement as individuals, and in our system as a caucus, and we have decided that we cannot accept the provisions of this bill.

The step in the right direction does not go far enough, but in fact smacks of a ridiculous political compromise which is not going to meet the requirements either of the dentists, who feel the government is endangering the good health of the citizens; and the denturists, who feel that with these provisions they cannot adequately serve the need of the community which has been established over years.

I hope it is not irresponsible to suggest that the past legislation has led denturists to flout the law because they felt, and the community felt and we felt, that the law which this bill attempts to amend was unenforceable. It did not meet the needs of the community and the community did not see the threat to their dental health which was postulated by the dentists in their statements both individually and as a professional group.

So the bill itself, in restricting the practice of the denture therapists, is unacceptable. The restrictions have to come somewhere, because there are those who say if you allow denturists to build partials, then of course they are going to have to make certain in- dentations in living teeth to which the partials will be attached. Once that is permitted the next step would be, I suppose, the possible use of x-rays to see what the state of the living teeth is.

And so it goes. The next thing would be the installation of x-ray equipment or the installation of dental drilling equipment and so on until you would have an unwarranted intrusion into the professional aspects of dentistry.

So we really have the responsibility of establishing the scope of the practice of dental therapy. I suppose this, once again, is a matter of individual judgement and in our case, of course, a party judgment arrived at after a considerable amount of research and consultation.

We believe that the scope should be enlarged to include partial plates. In a sense it embarrasses me to be even talking about the matter as a matter of public debate here. Surely it should have been possible to reach a meeting of reasonable minds so that the legislation could have come forward many months ago, if not years ago, in a manner which would not be subject to debate but be approved on all sides.

We have seen the scope of denture therapy broadening in many jurisdictions, including Canada. We have seen it expanding from one province to another until it became a matter of some real concern here. Since it was apparent that denturists were practising outside the law as it then was, many people in the community were quite prepared to follow the advice of their friends and neighbours and relatives, who had availed themselves of those services without any apparent ill effects, and, as a matter of fact, at costs far below those which were charged by the dental profession for similar services.

There was the feeling that these services were overly expensive and that the dental profession itself now sees at least an error in its public relations procedures in that the community was not prepared to accord to them the kind of support based on what the dentists had expected at that time.

So, I suppose they were the authors of their own misfortune, if they see it that way, over these many months, in fact, years.

Then, when the government was pushed to take some action, by questions in the House, speeches in the House and articles in the various publications saying that the community ought to be permitted to legally avail itself of these services at a much lower cost, the government moved as a matter of policy so to do. The pressures were brought to bear on members of all caucuses in this regard, and as has already been put before you, Mr. Speaker, over your mild objection, there was a change in policy on more than one occasion.

We are now presented with this bill, which is the latest attempt by the government to regulate the practice of dentistry and denture therapy so that the people are served, in the wisdom of the government, in an effective way. We feel that the community is not well enough served by this bill in that it is not given the legal right to have a denture therapist provide a partial plate.

We also feel that the bill has other shortcomings that have already been described. It is not really necessary to repeat those matters, because I think the crux of the opposition has got to be the scope of the practice of denture therapy itself.

We feel the government’s proposal is un- necessarily limiting that scope, that the range should be broadened, since we are dealing with dental prosthesis, dentures in other words, to include partials. The denturists have indicated by a letter to the Minister of Health, copies of which have been made available to us, that they are prepared to, I suppose, bargain in this; and that they feel they could reasonably limit their practice with their patients if the partials were those which, I think, in the words of people knowledgeable in these matters, oppose dentures in the opposite arch.

I don’t choose to concern myself with the exact meaning of that, because it is beyond my competence and to some extent even a bit beyond my interest. But it is our judgement that partials have been admitted to the scope of the practice of denture therapy in other jurisdictions without ill effects; and although there are those who can point to ill effects, that in comparison they are the same ill effects that are found whether it is a professional dentist or some other who has actually done the prescribing, the fitting and everything that goes with it.

We feel, Mr. Speaker, that the government has still not come up with an acceptable solution to that matter, and we intend to oppose the bill on that basis.

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, what your plans are regarding the conduct of the business further tonight. There may be others besides the minister who would speak, but as I have said, our position is before you and I would hope, sir, that it is not your intention to proceed with the division at this time. However, we do intend to divide the House in our opposition when the time comes.

Mr. Speaker: Are there other members wishing to participate? I recognize the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr). In view of the hour perhaps he would move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Burr moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House I would like to say that by some agreement, I believe quite acceptable, we will continue this debate tomorrow and continue with the other bill, the second bill, as well. Then, provided we accomplish those two items, we will proceed to Bill 80, the Succession Duty Act.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.