Journal des débats 1994-mars-22 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): The people of Vaughan, and indeed of all York region, have been fighting for the past three years to convince the government of Ontario that their proposal to put a massive new waste fill -- landfill -- site in the city of Vaughan is both misguided and must be defeated.

The organization Vaughan CARES has been working diligently on behalf of the people of my community in order to ensure that this message about the disastrous effects of Bill 143 and the government's determination to arbitrarily select Vaughan as the site for a new 20-year dump site has been carried certainly throughout my riding and all of York region.

In addition, recently the people of Vaughan CARES took that message to the riding of York South, the riding represented by Bob Rae, the Premier of Ontario. They canvassed some 500 or more homes, doing a survey determining how many people supported the government's position on waste management and Bill 143. Amazingly, almost 90% of the people said they did not support the government's position. They rejected virtually every aspect of it, and they signed cards indicating that if the government does not change its mind, they will vote against the Premier in the next provincial election.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Last week Team Harris toured eastern Ontario to enable people to come forth with their thoughts and ideas about how we can ensure growth and prosperity in rural Ontario. The name of our group is the Team Harris Task Force on Rural Economic Development. Our mission is to obtain public input as to how a government can provide the right environment so that people of rural Ontario can obtain their own economic prosperity.

In every town we visited, the message was clear: Government has become too big, unresponsive and unaccountable, and we as politicians had better learn to listen.

In my riding of Lanark-Renfrew, we held a town-hall-style public forum in the county town, Perth, which drew over 100 people from every corner of the riding. The meeting in Perth attracted a wide-ranging audience, including the wardens of both Lanark and Renfrew counties, the reeves, representatives of agriculture, tourism, housing, small business and many members of the general public.

The attendants at the Perth meeting gave us solid, commonsense proposals for development in eastern Ontario. These proposals will form the policies that will put rural Ontario back on the right track when Mike Harris forms the next government.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'd like to draw the attention of the House to a new accessible transit service in the community of Whitchurch-Stouffville, of course in my riding of Durham-York.

In April 1990 a dedicated group of citizens in Whitchurch-Stouffville recognized the need for an accessible transit system in their community to help the disabled residents move about. I am pleased to announce to this House that in February of this year, the group, the Whitchurch-Stouffville Mobility Transit Committee, launched its service with the help of City-Peel Taxi company and the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. That's a mouthful.

With the two accessible taxis, about 90 eligible users use the service. These taxis are making an average of four trips a day to help these citizens who would otherwise have a great deal of difficulty in getting about their community.

However, despite this service's great success, there is a serious problem that has developed, particularly travelling between the regional municipalities, and particularly between York region and Metro Toronto. Under the current Municipal Act regulations and the Metro Toronto taxi bylaw prohibiting cross-boundary accessible taxis, cross-boundary mobility for disabled taxis becomes very difficult. While it is possible to go from York region down to Metro and to go from Metro back, they have got to use different services, and of course the pickup to get these people home is very difficult. So we have a one-way service only.

This is a very small jurisdictional problem that obviously creates some significant mobility problems for the people concerned. I want to take this opportunity in this House to recognize the tremendous effort by the committee. I will be approaching Municipal Affairs and Metro council about this.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): This government has recently been calling for greater safety on our highways, yet it appears that rather than coming up with real solutions that address the physical aspects of busy thoroughfares, it proposes actions that best suit its needs, such as a blatant revenue grab with the introduction of photo-radar; or, on the other hand, they act in a manner that best suits them politically. To illustrate this latter point, I would like to give you an example of how this government has obviously compromised the safety of its citizens in the name of sheer political expediency.

The Highway 3 bypass is a stretch of two-lane highway running from Ruthven, near Leamington, to Windsor. On Monday morning, March 14, a young man in his 20s died as a result of an accident on this stretch of highway, and there have been a number of accidents and deaths in the near past. Two other recent deaths, as a matter of fact, were the result of an accident between a school bus and an auto.

1340

In a Windsor Star article, a senior project manager for MTO's southwestern region said he has heard tales of woe from numerous concerned commuters on this stretch of highway.

The NDP candidate in the by-election said, "The funding is available to repair and widen this road, but will not be successful without an elected representative inside the government."

As a member of this Legislature and as a frequent commuter on this dangerous stretch of highway, I find it deplorable that these funds that are apparently available have not been used to make this a four-lane highway.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today in support of a Collingwood area petition campaign which is being driven by members of the community who are concerned about the rash of bed closures at the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital.

I'm proud to say that I drafted this petition so that concerned citizens and labour groups could send a message to the NDP government that bed closures are killing jobs and they are threatening the provision of quality health care services in the Collingwood area.

Earlier this month the General and Marine Hospital board announced that eight beds would be closed because of budget pressures and social contract obligations. As a result, 20 more hospital-based jobs could be affected and more jobs and beds could also be hacked if the government acts on its threat to rip an additional $214 million out of the budgets of Ontario hospitals. Just a few years ago we had 133 beds at Collingwood General and Marine Hospital. Today, and after last week's announcement, we have 74 beds left.

At the same time the government is forcing the General and Marine Hospital to cut beds at a stunning pace, the NDP refused to release the funds to redevelop the Collingwood hospital. Area residents have watched helplessly while the previous Liberal government announced this redevelopment funding twice and the NDP has followed with two reannouncements of its own. Seven years, two governments and four separate announcements later, Collingwood still has a hospital wing that was built in the 1880s.

If the NDP still cares about health care, it must give Collingwood a green light to rebuild its hospital and it must give all hospitals in this province some breathing space so that we can accurately assess the impact on the people of this province of these bed closures.

LANDFILL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to share some good news about, of all things, a dump. After more than 10 years of planning and studies, the municipalities of Grimsby, Lincoln, Pelham and West Lincoln will get their much-needed new landfill site. It was approved this week without an environmental assessment hearing, thanks to the hard work of local politicians who make up the joint board of waste management, also known as the dump board.

Reaching this agreement took a great deal of time and effort from both the dump board and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, but it was well worth it. Avoiding a hearing means huge savings for the province and the four municipalities, which is very good news for the taxpayers.

The new landfill site, to be located in West Lincoln, is the second all-new landfill site approved without a hearing under the province's new, streamlined environmental assessment review process.

While planning for their new dump, the four municipalities implemented one of Ontario's most effective waste diversion programs. In 1985 they were one of the first jurisdictions in Ontario to introduce the blue box program, and they have since banned compostable and yard waste from their existing landfill site in Grimsby.

Also, they have provided backyard composters for all households and established Niagara region's first permanent household hazardous waste depot, and they've launched a highly effective promotion and advertising program.

I offer sincere congratulations to my local politicians and the staff who worked so hard on this project. I fully believe that the people of Lincoln riding are the most efficient recyclers in all of Canada.

NATIVE HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is for the Minister of Health. I rise today on behalf of the residents of Red Lake, Ear Falls, Golden and the remote first nation communities to the north of these three. These folks are totally frustrated with the Minister of Health's refusal to address the legitimate concerns of physicians who staff the emergency department at the Red Lake Margaret Cochenour Memorial Hospital.

For over 18 months the physicians in Red Lake have been in discussions with ministry officials and staff regarding the issue of fee-for-service compensation for doctors covering emergency services in the Red Lake Margaret Cochenour Memorial Hospital.

As a result of this government's inaction, the five doctors who work at the Red Lake hospital's emergency department informed the minister, hospital board and communities many months ago that they will not provide emergency coverage past March 31, 1994.

The hospital board and residents have requested the minister's attendance at a public meeting in Red Lake this Thursday, March 24. As I stated, the residents of these communities are facing the imminent closure of their emergency department and possibly the hospital.

The minister has an obligation to assure my constituents that there will be no interruption of health services at Red Lake Margaret Cochenour Memorial Hospital. I will be attending the March 24 meeting in Red Lake, and should the minister not be in attendance, I would like to know what information this government will provide me to alleviate the concerns of my constituents. Does this minister really have a plan?

LORING DEER YARD

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise in the House today to call upon the Minister of Natural Resources to personally review the investigation conducted by his ministry relating to some 15 deer which were killed at the Loring deer yard recently. As the minister will be aware, the MNR officials who led this investigation have decided not to lay charges against the alleged perpetrators.

This winter and others, MNR officials and local fish and game clubs have been providing food for deer at the Loring deer yard. The 12,000 deer at this yard are estimated to be the largest concentration of deer in the entire province of Ontario. The Loring deer yard has become a very popular viewing spot for old and young people alike.

My main concern is that of public safety. Both my office and that of Mike Harris, whose constituency borders on mine, have received numerous telephone calls from concerned residents and constituents. We have heard stories that shots may have actually been fired towards the raised viewing platform and may have even been fired from the viewing platform.

Conservation is the other issue at the heart of this matter. In late winter and early spring deer are quite vulnerable. They are starving, and a good number of female deer are pregnant. The fact that a feeding station is a baited area cannot be overlooked.

I must express my disappointment with the manner in which this matter has been dealt with by MNR officials. The MNR officials have now removed the deer feeders and posted signs warning visitors that the public may be in danger because of hunting at the feeding and viewing stations. I am not confident that the MNR has acted in the interests of either public safety or conservation.

PETERBOROUGH GREEN-UP

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I want to congratulate Peterborough Green-Up on having passed their 1,000th green home visit. The green communities initiative which the Ministry of Environment and Energy is funding in several communities is a win-win project and a fine example of sustainable, community-based economic development. It creates jobs where we need them: in the community where people live. It is good value, because it lessens our need for costly infrastructure by reducing the use of energy and water and the generation of waste.

I am very proud that the Ontario government is supporting this initiative. Green-Up exemplifies the positive message that environmental, economic and social goals can be pursued in a mutually supportive fashion.

The green home visit program has generated more than $1 million in expenditures to local firms doing renovations or providing insulation, new furnaces, windows etc. This impact will rise to $2 million next year, when Green-Up plans to visit 2,000 homes. Green-Up has many other projects, including a major toilet retrofit program to reduce the flow of waste water.

David McLeod and all his staff are a wonderful group of people, rooted in the community to which they are giving so much. Thank you, all of you.

VISITOR

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to bring to the Speaker's and other members' attention that the member-elect for Victoria-Haliburton, Chris Hodgson, is in the gallery.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for his point of order.

It is now time for oral questions.

Interjections.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As my colleagues are pointing out, it is a little bit difficult to pose questions when there are so few members of the cabinet present to respond. I did understand that the Minister of Labour was to be present. May I ask of the government House leader whether in fact the Minister of Labour is expected?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Can the government House leader assist?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): To the best of my knowledge, the Minister of Labour is expected, yes.

The Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to stand down her first question?

1350

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will place my first question to the Minister of Education and Training, and wait for the arrival of the Minister of Labour.

I am concerned about a statement which was made in a letter some months ago, a letter that was written by Mr Jim Turk, who is a government appointee to the Council of Regents for the community colleges. Mr Turk's letter is addressing the matter of appointments to college boards of governors and raises the issue of whether or not boards are sufficiently representative of the population.

The statement in the letter which causes me concern is this: "In other words, although there are more women and more visible minorities, they are remarkably like the white men that they have replaced."

Minister, we have already seen that your government has pursued an approach to employment equity in a way which excludes white men. Mr Turk's comments push this kind of exclusionary approach to seemingly new limits. I ask you today, how far does this go? What criteria do you have to meet in order to be appointed to a board in Bob Rae's Ontario?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): When I became aware of the comments that Mr Turk had made, I very much expressed my upset at those comments. They do not reflect this government's point of view and they do not reflect the Ministry of Education and Training's point of view.

I also want to indicate to the member that I felt strongly enough about it that I wrote to the chair of the Council of Regents and indicated in writing that our ministry and our government did not agree with Mr Turk's comments, that he was not speaking for the government, and that's where it stands.

Mrs McLeod: I'm sure you are aware that individuals who now sit on college boards were very offended by Mr Turk's comments as well. One of the people who was offended was a Conestoga College board member, Jacqueline Mitchell, who happens to be female and happens to be black. Her reported comments are: "First of all, he's stereotyping me as a visible minority, then he's stereotyping me as a white man, so he's insulting me. I'm not here as a token." Minister, I trust you would agree that tokenism is not employment equity.

I appreciate the fact that you have taken some offence at Mr Turk's comments yourself and that you have written to the Council of Regents. I ask whether or not you would share that letter with us and whether your letter makes it abundantly clear to the Council of Regents and to people across this province that the policy for appointments on the part of this government is that they are open to all who are qualified and are willing to serve. Will you make it absolutely clear that there is no hidden ideological agenda and there is not to be any hidden ideological agenda applied, a hidden test of how people think before they are considered to be eligible to serve?

Hon Mr Cooke: I would be glad to share the letter I've written to the chair of the Council of Regents with the member where it specifically refers to Mr Turk's comments. Mr Turk was appointed by the Liberal government to the Council of Regents.

I would also like to make it absolutely clear to the Leader of the Opposition that the policy of the Council of Regents and the policy of our government is one of inclusion for boards of governors. We want boards of governors for colleges to reflect the communities in which they reside.

There is currently a consultation going on that flows out of the Stephen Lewis report and there will be recommendations that come forward from the Council of Regents in terms of policy for appointments to boards of governors. Ultimately that policy will be decided by myself as minister, and I would be glad to have your involvement or the involvement of your critic in the development or review of that proposed policy from the Council of Regents.

Mrs McLeod: To pick up on your comment that the appointments to boards of governors of colleges should be reflective of the communities in which they reside, I would then like to ask you to respond to a concern that has arisen about what appears to be an exclusionary practice on the part of the Council of Regents.

Conestoga College recommended that Mr Larry Zepf be appointed to its board. Mr Zepf is a graduate of Conestoga College. He has established a successful high-tech business in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. He employs graduates and students of the college. He is clearly a leading citizen of the Kitchener-Waterloo community and is eager to give back to the college. Mr Zepf's appointment, we understand, was vetoed in favour of the appointment of a teachers' union employee who works in Toronto.

Minister, would you not clearly agree that Mr Zepf was a qualified appointee, can you explain why his appointment would have been vetoed for any reason other than the exercise of an exclusionary policy, and will you then ensure that this kind of exclusionary practice stops?

Hon Mr Cooke: I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition, as a former Minister of Colleges and Universities, understands that the Council of Regents appoints members of the board. There will be a policy and there should be a policy in place in terms of the criteria and the objectives of the process for appointing members to the board. That policy will have to be approved by the government, so that's where our responsibility is, up front.

If the member is inquiring about a specific appointment, which I can tell you I know nothing about, if she wants information on that she should go, as she would understand, to the chair of the Council of Regents and ask that specific question.

I can tell the member that 90% of the names that come forward from boards of governors from colleges are approved by the council for appointment -- 90%. So there's no plot; there's no hidden agenda here. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the names for boards of governors comes from the boards of governors themselves and the Council of Regents accepts that.

Mrs McLeod: I will then await the clarification, with the minister's written response, on exactly the kinds of policies that his government will pursue, and we will expect to see those reflected in the policies adopted by the Council of Regents.

FAMILY FARMS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): The Minister of Labour has returned, and I would place my second question to him. I am concerned about the plans you have in place to unionize family farms under Bill 91. I raised this issue with the minister last fall and the minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs McLeod: If the members opposite are not aware that this is a concern for people in rural communities, they have not been listening --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): If you were so concerned, you wouldn't mislead the public.

The Speaker: The member for Sarnia knows better. I ask the member to withdraw that unparliamentary remark.

Mr Huget: Withdrawn, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with her question.

Mrs McLeod: I can appreciate the fact that perhaps the member for Sarnia has not been speaking to people who are farming outside the Sarnia community, but I can assure him that the members of my caucus and I have been talking to people who are extremely concerned about this government's legislation intended to unionize the family farm.

This is not the first time we have raised the issue with the Minister of Labour. When we raised this issue in the fall, the minister insisted that the legislation he was presenting to this House met the concerns of the farm community that were set out in the Agriculture-Labour task force report.

We would agree that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was willing to accept the task report framework, but this federation, in a report on February 9 to cabinet, said very clearly that Bill 91 in its present form cannot provide that framework. The OFA goes on to list five specific examples of the way in which this minister's bill betrays the recommendations of the task force report.

Minister, will you now admit that Bill 91 is fundamentally flawed? Will you make a commitment today to the farm groups to talk to them, to fix the legislation, to keep the promises that you made to the farmers of this province?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I reject the contention of the leader of the official opposition. There has been extensive consultation with the farm community and there is agreement with the bill and the amendments we've agreed to make to it at this point in time. I can't understand where she's getting her information from.

1400

Mrs McLeod: I would be more than happy to give the minister the opportunity to tell us exactly what his amendments are and whether his amendments respond to the broken promises which the Ontario Federation of Agriculture identified in its February 9 brief to cabinet. Let me just remind the minister of just three of those areas where the OFA believed that this minister had betrayed his commitments so that he can assure that his amendments address those areas.

Firstly, under the Agricultural Labour Relations Task Force, there was a promise of new and separate labour legislation. Bill 91, as we have seen it, only makes amendments to the existing Labour Relations Act. The task force minister recommended that no family member be forced to join a union, but under Bill 91, as we have seen it, uncles, aunts, nephews, part of the larger family, could be forced to join a union. Perhaps most importantly, the task force said that any new legislation must prevent strikes. Bill 91 is silent on that issue.

Will you explain why your original legislation betrayed these recommendations and will you assure us specifically that any recommendations will address the OFA's concerns?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I know of few pieces of legislation where we have had as much consultation as we have had on this bill. I certainly got a clear message when I spoke to the OFA last year on proceeding with the piece of legislation. We did set up a committee again, after the bill was in the House last fall. They have gone through it once again and have suggested some additional amendments. Most of them are minor. We've agreed to them and we'll be before the House with that bill very shortly. I can't understand where some of the false information you're picking up is coming from.

Mrs McLeod: I made it abundantly clear to the minister where the concerns were coming from. The concerns were coming from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They were very specifically stated in a February 9 brief to cabinet. They have been echoed in the concerns that we have heard from farmers across this province. These are not minor amendments. These are fundamental issues of the family farm being able to continue, they are fundamental issues of the need for agriculture to have separate legislation and they are fundamental issues about the impossibility of farm organizations continuing if there is not a guarantee against strike action.

I say to the minister that this is a very important issue to people in agriculture, an industry that is struggling to survive. The only response of this government to this group of people has been to change the name of the Ministry of Agriculture. I ask the minister today, if he does not understand how important these changes to Bill 91 are to make sure that the family farm can continue and that agricultural jobs can be protected, will he assure us that he will present amendments that deal with each of those five concerns of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The only difficulty I have is that I don't think it would matter what I told the member across the way. I don't think she's read the bill carefully. She certainly will be satisfied, I'm sure, when she sees the amendments. If not, nothing will satisfy her.

STUDENT SUSPENSION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My first question is to the Minister of Education. One of the most crucial issues in our schools today is the issue of violence, the issue of ensuring that our children can, in the classrooms, attend school free from fear of violence, that they can feel secure. Last spring, you amended the Education Act with a series of amendments that were called "housekeeping."

One of those amendments, and I'd like to quote from your own explanatory note to that bill, said, "The suspension of a pupil will not be able to exceed 20 school days." The Scarborough Board of Education believes that if it had the discretion to suspend some students for violent behaviour beyond 20 days, it would be able to consider fewer expulsions. If school boards believe that they can more effectively combat violence in our schools with longer suspensions, why are you preventing them from doing just that?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I don't believe that there can be any credible accusation that the Ministry of Education is doing anything but developing the most comprehensive policy to fight violence in our school system that has ever been developed in the history of this province, and the member knows that.

If the leader of the third party is actually saying that an additional tool that should be available to the schools is to have what amounts to expulsion by the use of a suspension, then I disagree. The law now says that a student can be expelled or suspended for up to a month without it going to the trustees.

There's got to be accountability in our education system and the accountability means that there has to be some accountability to the board, and that means that if a board feels or the principal feels that there should be a longer suspension, that can be done under the act by the board, or if there is an expulsion, then that can be done by the board. That's accountability and that will fight violence in our system more than leaving it up in the air, as was the case under the Education Act for many years.

Mr Harris: Your amendment specifically stated, and the explanatory note of what the legalese was, that the suspension will not be able to exceed 20 days. That was passed in the bill in spite of the fact that the Ontario public school boards were opposed. The boards themselves, which you say you want to have control -- it was so they could have control -- were opposed to this amendment.

Our critic, if you will recall, attempted to amend your legislation to give boards the option of longer suspensions, but you voted us down. You voted the critic down. We spent a couple of days, I think, if you'll recall, talking about what was supposed to be at that time a housekeeping piece of legislation.

Clearly the goal that each of us would share, whether educators or legislators or parents or students, is to ensure a safe school environment for our children. And in the absence, and it has been an absence, of leadership from you -- you've been falling behind on this from day one -- school boards are now asking that they be given the option of suspending a violent student for more than 20 days. Will you amend the bill so that they can suspend, or clarify that they can suspend, beyond 20 days?

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm not going to argue about whose lawyers are correct. The legal opinion from the Ministry of Education is that the boards already have that power. We've explained that to the Metro representatives from the school boards, but I don't think that is the basis of the argument.

If a board wants a student to be removed from the school system for a longer period of time, it has that power under the Education Act and it's called an expulsion. Under that section of the act, a student has the right to apply to the board to be re-entered into the school system, so the board should set some expectations and conditions for that student to get back into the system.

I really believe that we're arguing about nothing. The board has that power and the board has a lot of tools in order to deal with this, but if you believe that a student should be expelled by the use of longer suspensions, I don't agree with that. That in fact means that there's no accountability and gives power to principals that I think goes beyond what should be allowed for in the Education Act.

Mr Harris: You are trying to represent that expulsions and suspensions are the same things. Expulsions are a very serious matter -- that's it, tout fini, you're expelled, you're out. Then you're into the legal system, then you're into the cost, then you're into the rest of it.

What school boards are telling you is that there was a tool that they had between the suspension -- maximum 20 days -- and expulsion and they are asking for that tool. They believe it's an important tool and it is you who has taken it away from them and they are asking to get it back.

Secondly, it is still concerning many of the boards and certainly concerning us, that in the absence of any provincial leadership on expulsions, where children are supposed to go to school once they've been expelled -- the fact of the matter is, you've sat back. In the absence of any provincial program to ensure a spot for children who have been expelled, school boards really are left in a vacuum. It's either a pilot project or try to get them into another board, and they're asking for leadership from you as well on this. No student should fall through a crack in our education system because you can't get your act together.

1410

I would ask you two things: Will you make it easier and give them the tool of longer suspensions so they don't have to go the expulsion route, and in those rare cases where the expulsion route is taken will you ensure that there will be a place, a program, a school, for every student in this province following expulsion? Will you ensure that takes place on a province-wide basis as quickly as possible?

Hon Mr Cooke: I really don't understand the logic of the leader of the third party, because what he is basically saying is that he would like to have the Education Act changed so that kids can be expelled by using the route of suspensions. I don't agree with that.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): No, he's not.

Hon Mr Cooke: It's exactly what he's saying. He's saying that he would use suspensions and have longer suspensions. That is nonsense. It's politically popular, but it's nonsense.

In terms of programs for students who are expelled, I think the member should also realize that expulsions are not new to Ontario's system. They've existed for many, many years. What we are trying to do, in cooperation with the boards, is to put those alternative programs in place. We've said that we'll do it under a pilot project, and that's all we can afford to do at this point in time. We'd like to have programs right across the province. There's not the amount of money available that we need to do that, so we'll do a pilot project. If the member is suggesting that we should find money someplace else and increase the deficit in order to fund it, let him say that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Harris: I don't think the solution is to tell school boards that what they want is nonsense. I don't think that is helping --

Hon Mr Cooke: I said what you said.

Mr Harris: What I said is what the school boards are asking for.

The Speaker: And your second question?

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): In the absence of the Premier and the Attorney General, who I understand are off to open the new Bill Davis courthouse, I would like to direct my next question to the Deputy Premier.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): The deputy Deputy Premier?

Mr Harris: No, I'll go right to the Deputy Premier today.

This morning the Toronto Sun reported that your government is firing 90 senior citizens from their part-time contracts -- half of these are Second World War veterans -- in order to meet some employment equity targets. The Globe and Mail estimates that number, by the way, at 200. Whether it is 200 or whether it is 90 or whether it is one, I couldn't believe this type of insensitivity, this type of inhumanity would be carried out by a government in Ontario.

Is it true that you've given the pink slip, you're actually firing 90 elderly Ontarians who work for the Ministry of the Attorney General from their part-time contract work for the sake of somebody's definition of political correctness?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): It has nothing to do with political correctness, to which the leader of the third party refers. It's my understanding that the Attorney General is applying the same kind of rules for unclassified courtroom staff as apply for the public sector in general. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that she's doing it in a very, very humane way, in a phased-in way, to people who are 65, 70, 75 years old.

I'm not sure that the leader of the third party has his facts correct, but is he suggesting that there should not be a program in which people who are well over the age of 65, in some cases, should be treated equally with the way other people in the public sector are treated? Is that what he's saying?

Mr Harris: Judge Campbell said, "It's one thing to have affirmative action in hiring; it's another thing to fire people for affirmative action purposes." These are not employees; they're not on the civil service payroll. They are contract positions. They are part-time positions. Some call them commissionaire-type positions. They are positions, the courts have told you, where the jobs they have done have been carried out in an exemplary fashion. They are elderly workers who after you have fired them from these part-time contract positions, will no longer have the dignity of providing a public service, will no longer have that extra little bit of income, because you are tossing them aside and you are replacing them with people for the purposes you have deemed are politically correct. I would ask you again, if this is what's happening, will you put a stop to this nonsense today?

Hon Mr Laughren: It's my understanding that all that's happening is that people who are over the age of 65, in some cases 70 and 75, are being asked to take retirement, as are other people in the public sector. I don't think there's anything unusual about asking people who are over the age of 65 to take retirement. It's being done in a very humane and staged way and those people are being replaced, it's my understanding, by people who are on the surplus list who are certainly under the age of 65. So I'm not sure why the leader of the third party is objecting.

Is the leader of the third party saying that there should be no limits whatsoever on people in this particular category of employment, nobody else in the public sector but in this particular category of employment there should be absolutely no rules on retirement whatsoever? Is that what the leader of the third party is saying?

Mr Harris: Mr Deputy Premier, your government has gone too far. You stand in this House day in and day out and preach to the rest of the public about fairness and equity. Some of these people were hired on their contracts when they were already 65. In many cases it was because they were 65 that they were given the part-time contracts. I suggest to you that if you will look into this -- I don't know where you're getting your information from -- I believe that you, on behalf of your government, will feel ashamed.

In half the cases we're talking about Second World War veterans who fought for each and every one of us in this House. In many cases we're talking about a part-time supplementary income, in many cases people who have been brought on after they reached the age of 65. You are not asking them to leave; you're firing them. Will you change this policy today and allow these people the dignity, as long as they're capable of doing the contract, of carrying on and doing the job for which they were retained in the first place?

Hon Mr Laughren: The fact that these people are over the age of 65 and are being asked to take retirement does not mean they have not served their country extremely well. Of course they have. I hope you won't try and paint a picture in which people who have served their country well are not being treated fairly. That's simply not the case. If the Tory party in this province is now on the record as saying it is opposed to mandatory retirement in the public sector, then let them stand in their place and say so. I'll tell you these --

Mr Eves: That's not what we said at all. They're not public servants. They're hired because they are 65. They are part-time employees and you're firing them, not retiring them. I know it's difficult to grasp, but put it in your head and keep it there.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Had the minister completed his response?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll try and --

Mr Harris: The only job creation you've got is to fire somebody else to create a job.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Quit playing politics.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the minister complete his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I shall try, but as soon as I raise the issue that the Tory party now is opposed to mandatory retirement in the public sector, they go strange over there. They start yelling and shouting and screaming at me. I don't understand what they're talking about.

1420

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could the Deputy Premier please show us, or could you show us, an Instant Hansard where the leader of the third party said that he's in favour of mandatory retirement? I'd like to see it.

The Speaker: The member will know that he does not have a point of order.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I shall try very hard to refrain from teasing the bears.

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Come on, Floyd, get to the point.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will get to the point; I'm trying to get to the point. The fact is that the people to whom the leader of the third party is referring are in the public sector and are paid for by the taxpayers of this province. All I'm suggesting to the leader of the third party is that if we were to change the policy and say that there is no requirement that these people take retirement over the age of 65, is he then saying by extension that all the public sector now has no mandatory requirement? Is that what he's saying? That's a strange way to deal with the creation of jobs in the province of Ontario.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION SPENDING

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Mr Minister, are you aware that at approximately 10 o'clock this morning 196 of the senior management people in your ministry boarded a bus bound for the Nottawasaga Inn for two days of meetings to discuss their relationship with the staff in the ministry?

If so, sir, were you aware that there are costs associated with this two-day junket of $31,000 for rooms, food and booze for these people, $5,000 for travel that actually includes flying people into Pearson and then busing them up to the Nottawasaga Inn for this retreat, $10,000 in staff costs specifically paid to try to organize this particular two-day junket for your senior staff, and $6,000 in consultant costs to come in to tell your senior management staff how they can better get along with the junior management staff in your ministry?

Minister, are you aware of this almost $52,000 junket being expended by your senior staff, 196 bureaucrats enjoying two days at the Nottawasaga Inn at the expense of the taxpayer?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I welcome the interest and the inquiry vis-à-vis those women and men who are providing essential services by way of the Ministry of Transportation to the province of Ontario. Let's keep things in the right context, please. Given the decentralized nature of Transportation Ontario, we're talking about 9,700 employees from all over the province, 22,000 kilometres of road, 3,000 bridges and on and on. We're decentralized indeed. So 196 managers right outside here using a chartered bus, two people to a room, a semiannual meeting is nothing, peanuts, has no relevance compared to what you people spent when you were on this side of the House. This is no Taj Mahal. This is managers, those are leaders, meeting twice a year to make the system even better. I thank the member opposite for his interest.

Mr Mahoney: Well, Minister, not only do I have some interest, but a lot of the staff in your department have some interest and are pretty upset at what they see as a very blatant waste of the taxpayers' money. At a time in this economy when you're asking them to take Rae days off without pay, you don't mind sending these -- why didn't you bring them to Queen's Park? Nobody is suggesting they shouldn't get together and talk about the future of the ministry. Nobody is suggesting they shouldn't get together and talk about their relationship with their junior members of staff.

Why would you have to send them to a posh resort north of this city, at a cost in excess of $50,000 for two days, to discuss issues of concern to everybody in this province, when you have meeting rooms sitting empty right here at Queen's Park, right in your own ministry, where these people could have got together and talked?

Listen to this: This sounds like a wonderful time. Maybe you're the dinner speaker tonight; I'm not sure. It says, "Tuesday's dinner banquet will be served in a private ballroom at the Nottawasaga Inn." It sounds very nice.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place his question, please.

Mr Mahoney: They have a happy-hour session here. They have cocktails. Minister, you just don't get it. The taxpayers are fed up with this kind of irresponsible spending.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question.

Mr Mahoney: Will you assure this House, Minister, that you will stop authorizing this kind of expenditure and be a responsible minister and satisfy the concerns of all the staff at the MTO?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member is right. We should spend a moment or two in looking at cost comparison. What we're looking at here is $95 per person. A few short years back -- the official opposition was the government then -- 14 people went to Italy and it cost $1,000 for the room alone per person, $14,000 per night for elected officials. Those are public servants, putting their best foot forward at $95 per day, including meals. This is 1994. He is still in the age of horse-and-buggy. When is he going to wake up and smell the roses? Get a grip on. Get a life.

The Speaker: New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, earlier this month the Premier demanded that Metropolitan Toronto council find municipal tax dollars to fund four subway lines, and if they didn't, the infrastructure funding for the new trade centre in Metropolitan Toronto would be in jeopardy.

Minister, you're aware that the Metropolitan Toronto capital program for TTC improvements is completely separate and distinct from the federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program. The two are not linked. You're also aware that the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto have said no to additional property taxes and the Metropolitan Toronto council has said no to additional property taxes.

The question, Minister, is, will you give us your commitment today, yes or no, that you will not use the infrastructure program as a form of blackmail to impose your will on the democratically elected Metropolitan Toronto council?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): It's not my style nor the style of this government to use blackmail to impose our will on anybody, on any municipality. That's not the intent of the discussions that we've entered into with Metro.

1430

I will be very straight with the member and say that we have an interest, a very strong interest, in seeing all four subway projects proceed. We believe it is possible without imposing tax increases on the residents of Metro. We think there are ways in which the financing can be accomplished and we're working with Metro to try and pursue those ways and to try and put forward a proposal which would see all four subway lines under way and which would see 60,000-odd people back to work in Toronto, as opposed to the 30,000.

I've said all along that the 30,000 to 35,000 jobs that would be created by getting two lines started are good. We welcome that decision by Metro. We're there, we're supportive of seeing two lines go forward, but we think more can be done.

Metro council's resolution and decision did not close the door on the other two lines. They've set up a committee to explore financing. We're working on it with them and we're in a period of negotiations. My very, very strong belief and hope is that all four subway lines and the Metro trade centre can be commenced before the end of the year.

Mr David Johnson: The question about the infrastructure program is not a complicated one. The answer is either, "Yes, I respect the rights of the municipal councils to make a democratic decision and represent their people," or the answer is no and that you feel it necessary to threaten the municipalities to get your way. Which one is it? Is it yes or no?

With respect to other forms of financing, we all support the private sector being involved in the subway projects, but nobody seriously believes there is enough private sector funding to pay for two additional subway lines.

I'm asking you, will you give an undertaking not to force Metro to increase taxes and not to get involved in some funding formula, an unreasonable and unworkable funding formula, that can't possibly work except to result in additional tax increases?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think in all of the statements that I've made on this subject, it would be obvious that my answer to both those questions is no. No, we're not threatening anyone, and no, we wouldn't force a funding formula that would force an increase in taxes.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I don't understand the member properly from Don Mills. I know you make a reference twice to all the "blackmails." I'm just wondering if there are any "whitemails" around here.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member does not have a point of privilege.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): My question today is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Last year the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario produced a report called A Blueprint for Success, and their proposals could save $100 million a year. The authorities continue to claim that there is $100 million to be saved by reducing duplication in resource management and giving them more responsibility.

I'm also aware that many people have criticized the report as lacking substance and simply being an attempt to gain increased funding at a time when other government agencies are having to reduce spending. I'm also aware that the report gives no details on where the money can be found.

What I and my conservation authorities want to know is, has the minister done any analysis of the claims made in the blueprint document on the potential for cost savings from reducing duplication?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for a very relevant question. In fact we've had some time to review the report of the association of conservation authorities called A Blueprint for Success.

I should say to the member that the assertion that somehow $100 million can be produced out of thin air is indeed an absurd assertion in this day and age. The reality is that the association of conservation authorities, while every other public body in the province is constraining and working hard to constrain their budgets, insists that it should have more money. We have given the conservation authorities some suggestions as to how they could produce more efficiency and how they could work more effectively.

The Provincial Auditor in his report last year made the following comments. He said that over 15 of the 38 conservation authorities spend over 33% of their budget on administration. Imagine that: in this day and age of tough economic times, spending over 33% of your budget on administration.

The auditor also suggested that some of the smaller conservation authorities should amalgamate to save money and some should look at --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- copayment for services to save money.

We expect the same sort of dedicated effort in these tough economic times from conservation authorities as we expect from everyone else.

Mr Duignan: I appreciate the answer by the minister. However, when I read stories like this in the newspaper and when I listen to concerns from my conservation authorities and I also listen to concerns from my constituents, and that is the threat by some conservation authorities to sell significant natural areas if the province does not provide additional funding, I wonder, can the minister tell me, tell the constituents and tell the conservation authorities what progress has been made in developing a longer-term solution to ensuring taxes can be paid on significant lands owned by the conservation authorities and that these lands will not be sold to the private sector?

Hon Mr Hampton: First of all, last year we within the Ministry of Natural Resources reallocated $2.3 million in funding to cover the taxes on some of the lands owned by conservation authorities. We indicated at that time that we were willing to work with conservation authorities to find longer-term solutions to this problem. However, simply asking for more money in these tough economic times is not an answer and it is not a reasonable request either.

I should say to the member that one of the things that is unfortunately left out in some of the statements that conservation authorities make is that they cannot sell conservation lands without the permission of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. So to threaten that conservation authorities will sell lands is simply a threat that has no reality. Those lands can't be sold without the permission and without an order in council from cabinet.

Secondly, the reality is that if there are some lands that conservation authorities want to sell and they're not strictly conservation lands, they can't sell or lease those. The Ministry of Natural Resources can use a number of legislative mechanisms, including the federal Fisheries Act and the federal fisheries regulations to ensure that the sensitive parts of those non-conservation lands continue to be protected.

TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton J. P. McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. In December past, my colleague the member for York-Mackenzie asked you if you were planning to accept the 14% increase in tuition fees over two years which had been recommended to you by your officials. You said you rejected that recommendation, and the one million or so people in this province who were enrolled in our colleges and universities were grateful for that. But that was then.

We are now hearing that you will be announcing shortly a 20% increase over two years in tuition fees. This would mean that the legacy of your party, the party that promised to freeze and even eliminate tuition fees, would be to have raised tuition fees by 42%. Mr Minister, can you assure Ontario's college and university students that you have not changed your mind since December 3 and that you still feel that a 7% annual increase or anything higher is unacceptable?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think that the member should just hang in there and wait until the announcement is made. I would just ask him also not to really rewrite what I said last year. I said I rejected the recommendation. I did not indicate anything about a view of that rate, anything lower or anything higher. I said the policy was being reviewed.

Mr McGuinty: Let me address something then that I'm sure the minister would agree that he has been saying. He's been saying that we're going to be seeing a substantial tuition fee increase and that this is the fault of the federal government. Let me share three important facts on this matter.

First fact: The federal transfer payments for colleges' and universities' funding remain the same this year as in years past. No cuts have been made to this funding.

Point number 2: Every province in Canada receives the same per capita funding when it comes to colleges and universities. Ontario is not the subject of any discrimination when it comes to funding of our colleges and universities.

Point number 3, and this is very important: The numbers show that between 1990 and 1994, in terms of actual dollars paid to Ontario, transfers from the feds for health and post-secondary education have increased by 25%, but this minister has only passed on 18% to colleges and universities. He's actually held back money given by the feds for colleges and universities, and this government has decided to use it elsewhere.

1440

I ask the minister to inform this House now how it is that he can blame the federal government for tuition fee increases when no cuts are being made to this funding and when he hasn't even been passing along all of the funding he's already getting from the feds.

Hon Mr Cooke: I think that's a rather silly way to take a look at the numbers that a provincial government must deal with. We have to take a look at the bottom line, and the bottom line is that the previous federal government had been ripping off the province of Ontario for a number of years, and the current Liberal government did nothing to correct that problem.

As a result, we have to do something to inject more money into the college and university system and we still have to pay our other bills. That's the reality. No matter how Liberals try to defend Martin's budget, the fact of the matter is that Ontario is being discriminated against by the current federal government, just as we were before. If he wants to do something about it, he should go talk to Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien.

ROLE OF MINISTER

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, it's great to see you back following this serious car accident. We hope that you're able to shed the crutches very soon.

Now to the question: While you were convalescing, the Premier recognized there were areas outside of Toronto called food-producing areas in rural Ontario and decided to change the name of your ministry to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Mr Minister, how much more power and money do you now have?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I didn't hear the announcement about having any additional money, but I understand that I will have additional influence. This is not about power, but it's about influence in terms of rural Ontario and recognizing the interests of rural communities in our efforts to create jobs and maintain the population of rural Ontario and economic growth in rural Ontario where it belongs instead of all moving to the cities where it's not necessarily needed today.

Mr Villeneuve: I think the minister said, between the lines, that political correctness is more important than power and influence.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Downsview.

Mr Villeneuve: The minister realizes and knows full well that the Ministry of Labour will be operating Bill 91, which involves and affects agriculture very directly. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs, with the Sewell commission, will be very much overpowering your ministry. The Ministry of Environment and Energy does it all the time. The Ministry of Natural Resources does it all the time with the designation of wetlands etc.

Mr Minister, we are with you, we want you to have more power. Would you convey to your friends at the cabinet table that you are the lead minister in rural affairs and food production? Please, could you convey this to the Premier now that he knows there is a food-producing area out there?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Some of my friends at the cabinet table think I already have too much to say when it comes to representing rural Ontario, but I want to say a couple of things in response to the question.

What the Premier was doing was recognizing the role we have been playing unofficially over the last year or so. In fact, within my ministry we have now designated 51 people, I believe it is, across the province in our field offices who are involved in looking at community economic development in rural Ontario. We have been a spokesperson and we have worked with other ministries, and the member mentioned a few, that are from time to time a concern for rural Ontarians.

I want to give the member an example of the kind of thing we've been doing. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations just handed me a letter as I came to the House today. The member didn't mention this particular program but it was one that was announced over the wintertime by the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. In the rural newspapers across this province, that particular agency, which is a crown agency, I believe, or --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Buchanan: -- an appointed body from that ministry, had decided that septic tanks in rural Ontario would have to have a civil engineer's drawing before they could be put in place. Immediately upon hearing that, I went to the minister and we lobbied very hard for her to talk to that agency to have that reversed.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I have in my hand a letter that the ministry has looked at that; it's going to suspend that and it will no longer be necessary in the interim. People in rural Ontario are very pleased with that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Perhaps the minister could table a detailed reply.

Mr Villeneuve: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Does this now mean Agriculture, Food, Rural Affairs and Septic Tanks?

The Speaker: That is not a point of order.

DE LA SALLE COLLEGE

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. I would like to ask a question on behalf of parents and students who attend De La Salle College. As you are aware, the Brothers of the Christian Schools, owners of the school property, entered negotiations with the Metropolitan Separate School Board last October with the intention of converting De La Salle school back to a privately run institution. In February of this year negotiations broke down when the Brothers of the Christian Schools withdrew. To date, no further negotiations have taken place, and parents are naturally worried about their children's future.

Mr Minister, these parents are now faced with two possibilities, either having to pay exorbitant tuition fees so their children remain enrolled at De La Salle or having to transfer them to another school. This is not fair, and I wish to ask the minister, what action does the ministry plan to take to ensure that the students' education is not jeopardized?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I appreciate the question and I certainly appreciate the interest and involvement this member has had in this particular issue. I must say that on this issue I've been very disappointed right from the beginning that the brothers who own this particular school have decided to move in the direction of privatization when, as all of us know, it's not even 10 years ago that this Legislature made a major move in terms of extension of funding, and part of that obviously was that the existing schools would come into the public sector and the students would have the kind of accessibility that goes with that.

Unfortunately, the school is owned privately and therefore the ministry has its hands tied and can't do a lot about this. We are involved with the Metropolitan Separate School Board and are trying to facilitate negotiations. There have been some offers back and forth. We'll continue to try to work on this.

Mr Rizzo: Will the minister guarantee that the children currently enrolled in this institution will not be forced to transfer to another school because they now find themselves in a school that is no longer publicly funded?

Hon Mr Cooke: The fact is that if this school goes entirely private and there is no arrangement with the Metropolitan Separate School Board, then public funds cannot flow into a private school to pay a private tuition. That is a reality. There was an offer made by the Metropolitan Separate School Board to continue an arrangement for the current students to completion of their high school that was rejected by the brothers. There is an effort being made by the separate school board, and neighbouring schools will attempt, to the best of their ability, to keep those --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Sit down. He just looked at the clock.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm not going to take a lecture from Jim Bradley about the length of answers. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

1450

JOB CREATION

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): Mr Speaker, I know question period has gone on for quite a while today, but I have a very important question -- at least I feel it is a very important question -- dealing with eastern Ontario and job creation. I would like to address it to the Treasurer.

Minister, yesterday in the Legislature our leader, Lyn McLeod, raised the issue of job losses with the Premier. Specifically she mentioned the Trenton-Belleville area, which has been very hard-hit with the loss of approximately 2,600 jobs, consisting of over 100 layoffs or closures during the past three years.

Some of the largest losses were Corby Distilleries, 180 people; Stewart-Warner, 60 people; Stouffers, 130 people; Murata Erie, from a high of 1,000 to a plant that is now empty; Freightmasters, 60 people; Paperboard Industries, 180 people; and the closing of the General Electric plant, affecting 160 workers.

Treasurer, I want to send these 16 pages of layoffs and closures that were provided to me by the UIC offices in Belleville and Trenton over to you and also to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

I want to add to that, which is part of my second question, that yesterday again the Premier mentioned action your government has taken for other areas hard-hit by high unemployment. Those were Kapuskasing, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay. Also, yesterday the Minister of Economic Development and Trade announced a new $24-million Windsor assistance package to create or maintain 1,495 jobs. You have mentioned other job creation areas you've created in the north and in the south.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question.

Mr O'Neil: What I'm asking is that none of these were in eastern Ontario. Where do the Quinte area especially, and eastern Ontario, stand in your jobs strategy for some type of special employment assistance? We are only asking for our fair share of job creation in eastern Ontario.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I wonder if I could refer that very important question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): First, I want to address the point the member raised with respect to the assistance package to Windsor and the announcement that was made this week. It's very important that he recall that our government made a decision, and announced it in the last budget, to cancel a number of relocations of government offices to communities across the province: Windsor, Chatham, Brantford, Kingston, the Haileybury/Tri-Town area and Elliot Lake.

We also announced at that time that we were setting aside a pool of money, $100 million, to work with those affected communities to try to replace at least the same number of public sector jobs that weren't moving there with private sector jobs, and we've worked very hard to do that. We have had successful completion of packages in a number of communities.

Kingston was one of those communities. You referenced that there was no eastern Ontario involvement. There was also a portion of money that went to Renfrew as a result of the cancellation and the change in relocation there. With respect to that particular announcement and the treatment of Windsor, in fact all communities affected in the same way have been treated in the same way, so the member should put his question in the proper context.

He raises the serious question of job loss. It is a very serious issue right across the province. We've been working through the Ontario Development Corp with companies like Perth Soaps and others that have been brought to our attention, and we're working in eastern Ontario and in all parts of the province. I'd be pleased to sit down and look at the list you're providing and particular issues of assistance on which we can work with you, but I assure the member that our efforts have been, if not as intense, even more intense in parts of eastern Ontario, if you look down through Cornwall and other areas that have been tragically affected by the recession and the job loss that has affected not just this province but this whole country.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

APOLOGY

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Yesterday during a vote, I made a comment with respect to the newly elected member for the third party that was intemperate, and for that comment, I withdraw it and apologize.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the standing committees:

The standing committee on the administration of justice: Mr Bisson for Mr Duignan, and Ms Haeck for Mr Mills.

The standing committee on estimates: Mr Fletcher for Ms Haeck, and Mr Duignan for Mr Bisson.

The standing committee on general government: Mr Mills for Mr Fletcher.

The standing committee on government agencies: Mr Malkowski for Mr Marchese.

The standing committee on public accounts: Mr Marchese for Mr Duignan.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, I would like to stand on a point of order and ask you if you could investigate whether the issues about the shortfall this year in the financing, some $2 billion -- there have been many reports in the newspapers with respect to a $2-billion shortfall in revenues and the expenditures having to be cut.

The Speaker: What is the member's point of order?

Mr Stockwell: I would ask, through you, Mr Speaker, to the Treasurer, on a point of order, that I think this Legislature has a right to know exactly where we stand in our fiscal forecasts and financial positions.

The Speaker: The member has been here long enough to know that points of order are directed to the Speaker. The member has what sounds like very good subject material for question period, and we will have another question period tomorrow.

PETITIONS

PAY EQUITY

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario undertook to provide a down payment to female-dominated employees of community agencies funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in anticipation of required increases in salary rates because of the proxy comparison method under the pay equity legislation; and

"Whereas there were a number of female-dominated agencies which had been approved for the proxy comparison method by the Pay Equity Commission but whose employees were not provided with the down payment in the original government process because of the criteria used; and

"Whereas approximately 90% of similar agencies funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in Ontario have received the down payment, we as a female-dominated organization, along with a few other community agencies in the province, have not to date received the promissory down payment that was initiated in the summer of 1992; and

"Whereas we applaud this initiative in its attempt to assist women in low-paying jobs to bring their wages to a proportionate level of their male counterparts, and furthermore

"We request" -- and this part is underlined -- "that the government of Ontario fulfil its commitment to the female-dominated workforce in the province and equity by agreeing to provide the same down payment to the employees of those community agencies who have been approved for proxy comparison and who were not provided with that funding to date."

This was signed by several employees and supporters of the York South Association for Community Living who have been denied the same benefits that hundreds of others have been given. That has to be corrected and that's the purpose of the petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition and it reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe there will be an enormous negative impact on our society over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code and may include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

I support this petition. I've signed it.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here to the government of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario undertook to provide a down payment to the female-dominated employees of community agencies funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in anticipation of the required increases in salary rates because of the proxy comparison method under the pay equity legislation; and

"Whereas there were a large number of female-dominated agencies which have been approved for the proxy comparison method by the Pay Equity Commission but whose employees were not provided with the down payment in the original government process because of the criteria used; and

"Whereas 90% of similar agencies funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in Ontario have received the down payment, we as a female-dominated organization, along with a few other community agencies in the province, have not to date received the promissory down payment that was initiated in the summer of 1992; and

"Whereas we applaud this initiative and its attempt to assist women in lower-paying jobs to bring their wages to a proportionate level of their male counterparts; and furthermore,

"We request that the government of Ontario fulfil its commitment to the female-dominated workforce in the province and equity by agreeing to provide the same down payment to the employees in these community agencies who have been approved for proxy comparison and who have not been provided with that funding to date."

1500

"I, the undersigned," and there are many employees who have signed this, "am an employee of the York South Association for Community Living, 475 Edward Avenue, Richmond Hill, and feel a strong sense of injustice due to the fact that I was unfairly denied the pay equity down payment awarded by the government of Ontario to similar community agencies."

It's been signed by many employees. In fact, even those few male employees have signed this petition. They're here at a meeting with folks from the ministry to present their concerns directly, and some of the members of the opposition were there as well to deal with this inequity. I hope it gets dealt with in due course.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you. Your point has been made.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I also have several petitions which I'd like to present. These petitions come from the riding of Quinte, as an example, from the Salvation Army, from many people in the Belleville, Sydney, Trenton and Frankford areas, and they concern Bills 45, 55, and 56. I submit these bills and add my signature in support of the petitions.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the New Tecumseth area are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas the current dialysis system is discriminatory because some patients have dialysis machines and are treated in home while others have to travel long distances to receive care, and one local patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in Alliston and Collingwood,

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth."

That petition is signed by myself and a number of people who join a list of thousands of petitions I have received from both the amalgamated town of New Tecumseth, which contains the previous town of Alliston, and the Collingwood area.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition that was sent to the Lieutenant Governor. It's from Claire Marriott, and it's against Bill 45 because of its changing the meaning of the words "spouse" and "marital status." It's from residents of Hamilton Mountain.

GUN CONTROL

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Solicitor General allow a provincial exemption as provided for in federal law to possess and use high-capacity firearm magazines for the purpose of competitive shooting in Ontario."

I have signed my name to that as well.

PAY EQUITY

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario undertook to provide a down payment to female-dominated employees of community agencies funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in anticipation of required increases in the salary rates because of the proxy comparison method under the pay equity legislation; and

"Whereas there were a number of female-dominated agencies which have been approved for the proxy comparison method by the Pay Equity Commission but whose employees were not provided with the down payment in the original government process because of the criteria used; and

"Whereas approximately 90% of similar agencies funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in Ontario have received the down payment, we, as a female-dominated organization, along with a few other community agencies in the province, have not to date received the promissory down payment that was initiated in the summer of 1992; and

"Whereas we applaud this initiative in its attempt to assist women in low-paying jobs to bring their wages to a proportionate level of their male counterparts; and furthermore,

"We request that the government of Ontario fulfil its commitment to the female-dominated workforce in the province and equity by agreeing to provide the same down payment to the employees in those community agencies who have been approved for proxy comparison and who were not provided with that funding to date.

"We, the undersigned employees of the York South Association for Community Living, feel a strong sense of injustice due to the fact that we were unfairly denied the pay equity down payment awarded by the government of Ontario to other similar community agency staff."

I affix my signature to this petition and submit it in the same way as Mr Sorbara and my friend Mr O'Connor have done.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario that reads:

"Whereas every year in North America animals are used in cruel, outdated tests for cosmetics and household products; and

"Whereas these tests are not required by provincial or federal law; and

"Whereas many non-animal alternatives tests are available and are already in use by many companies,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass into law a bill which prohibits the use of animals in cosmetic and household product testing."

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition signed by 109 constituents sent to me by Pastor John Bergman. It's addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe such reference should be removed from the code.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

In agreement, I affix my signature to this.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition which is sent to me by Pastor John Foster of the Evangel Temple in my riding and it reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and may include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe such references should be removed from the code.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

This has been signed by some 212 signatories, and to which I too attach my signature.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I have two petitions, one on behalf of the member for Scarborough West and of course one for Yorkview. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 supports the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education and the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12 OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Toronto School Board educates more than 103,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas this is equivalent to 30% of all the students in the area; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Toronto School Board is expected to provide the same programs and services as its public school counterparts and must do so by receiving $1,822 less for each elementary school student and $2,542 less per secondary school student based on 1993 estimates,

"We, the undersigned" -- and there's a few of them -- "petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now to ensure that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded fully and equally."

I support this 100%.

1510

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I was afraid I wasn't going to get this very important petition on the record. It is from 200 people from the Trenton trailer park and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario take action on the matter of Bill 21 to protect people living in mobile homes and living on leased land from being removed from their homes."

I've signed the petition.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 48 signatures addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the recent announcement by the NDP government to choose three superdumps within the greater Toronto area has disturbed and upset local residents; and

"Whereas these superdumps may have been prevented if Bill 143 had allowed the Interim Waste Authority to look at all alternatives during the site selection process; and

"Whereas we would like to ensure the province of Ontario is making the best decision based on all of the facts regarding incineration and long rail-haul and garbage management;

"We demand that the NDP government of Ontario repeal Bill 143, disband the IWA and place a moratorium on the process of finding a landfill to serve all of the greater Toronto area until all alternatives can be properly studied and debated."

I have signed this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 13th through 16th reports, inclusive.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): No, thank you. I do not have any comment.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11, the reports are deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF BOTHWELL ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Hope, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr89, An Act respecting the Town of Bothwell.

TOWNSHIP OF HURON AND VILLAGE OF RIPLEY ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Elston, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr78, An Act respecting the Township of Huron and the Village of Ripley.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

On motion by Mr Jim Wilson, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 142, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 142, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a few statements?

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Yes. The intention of the bill is to exempt new short-line railway line operators from the new provisions of the NDP's Bill 40 labour laws, which require that with federally incorporated companies selling to provincially incorporated companies, those new provincial companies would have to respect the successor rights of the employees of the former federal company.

The problem is acute in the Collingwood and Simcoe county areas, where 1,900 jobs are at stake if the government doesn't move to rectify the problem that it has created with its labour laws. I hope the government will eventually support this piece of legislation, which attempts, as I said, to rectify a very serious matter.

The Deputy Speaker: I just want to remind the members that the statement must be brief.

The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I move second reading of the Financial Services Statute Law Reform Amendment Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that introduction of bills?

The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

CAPITOL THEATRE AND ARTS CENTRE (WINDSOR) ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Dadamo, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr71, An Act respecting the Capitol Theatre and Arts Centre (Windsor).

On motion by Mr Philip, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 143, An Act to amend certain Acts related to The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and to amend the Education Act in respect of French-Language School Boards / Projet de loi 143, Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives à la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton et la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui a trait aux conseils scolaires de langue française.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could the minister clarify? Does this now supersede Bill 77? Does he withdraw Bill 77? Is this the new bill here, or what are we dealing with?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): That's not a point of order.

Minister, do you wish to make a brief statement?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I wish to reintroduce for first reading a bill that will reform local government in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

As members may recall, I introduced a similar bill last session which was designed to give a greater regional focus to the area's governance arrangements. It proposed that regional council be directly elected, that mayors of local municipalities not be on regional council, that the region be given responsibility for policing services and that it be given a new and stronger role in economic development. The changes in the electoral process were to be in effect for 1994 municipal elections.

The bill I'm introducing today retains all of these provisions and incorporates several new provisions as well. Some of these are necessary because of the delay in passing this bill. The Ontario Municipal Board will be given authority to make changes in the electoral areas of wards of school boards as a result of changes to local, municipal and regional wards.

The bill includes several police-related measures: the establishment of a regional police planning committee and a regional police services board, clarification of the region's authority to phase in any changes in costs for policing, and the extension of the date for amalgamation of the three existing police forces until January 1, 1997.

As well, street vending provisions have been corrected and provisions have been added which will ensure that the 1994 municipal and school board elections run smoothly.

Finally, the bill is being changed to deal with the operation of Ottawa-Carleton's French-language school board. There has been extensive consultation in the Ottawa-Carleton area, including three studies in the past five years. The time for action has come, and I urge all honourable members to support fast passage of the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your statement has been made.

1520

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In relation to whether or not this bill can be introduced, I think we would have a better understanding of whether or not it complies with the standing orders by not mirroring another existing bill if the Minister of Municipal Affairs would have told us that this also was an act of administration which would withdraw the existing bill, which does virtually the same thing with the exception of the addition of some items around school boards.

It is very well known here that the standing orders do not allow the introduction of two bills to the same purpose at the same time in this Legislative Assembly. I think the minister must now tell us if he is going to withdraw Bill 77. In fact, if Bill 77 is not immediately withdrawn, this bill must be refused acceptance on the floor of this House.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry to say, but this is not a point of order.

Mr Daigeler: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You have not asked for a vote on this matter.

The Deputy Speaker: I just mentioned that it was not a point of order.

Mr Daigeler: That's correct, but you have not asked for a vote on this first reading of the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, I did.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Abel, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Gary Wilson, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr91, An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FINANCIAL SERVICES STATUTE LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 PORTANT RÉFORME DE DIVERSES LOIS RELATIVES AUX SERVICES FINANCIERS

Mr Owens, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 134, An Act to revise the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act and to amend certain other Acts relating to financial services / Projet de loi 134, Loi révisant la Loi sur les caisses populaires et les credit unions et modifiant d'autres lois relatives aux services financiers.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'm very pleased today to move that Bill 134, the Financial Services Statute Law Reform Amendment Act, be given second reading, as you can tell by my exuberance earlier in standing up to move this particular bill.

As members of this House will know, this financial services reform bill was introduced by the Minister of Finance in December 1993. It sets out important and forward-looking reforms for the credit unions and caisses populaires in the Insurance Act and the Securities Act.

The reforms in Bill 134 reflect this government's commitment to modernize the regulation of financial services in Ontario. Our clear direction is to remove outdated and unnecessary barriers to capital for Ontario businesses and Ontario entrepreneurs; to provide the lending and investment tools needed to support economic development in communities across the province; to strengthen the ability of Ontario's financial institutions to compete in the marketplace so Ontario businesses and Ontario residents can have a strong alternative to the banks when they need sources of financing; and finally, to ensure that in all we do, Ontario consumers are well protected in an increasingly complex and dynamic financial services environment.

We made clear, when the minister introduced Bill 134, that it was the first step in this modernization process, and what a significant step it is.

The first and largest part of Bill 134 is the package with respect to comprehensive reforms to the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act. These reforms are the result of more than two years of consultation and close collaboration with the credit union and caisse populaire movement and with the financial services sector as a whole.

Beginning in 1991, the credit unions and caisses populaires formed the legislative reform committee to make recommendations to the government. The consultation continues today and the different parts of the movement have come together to form a new coalition and a dynamic working group to work through some of the issues that have arisen. This industry consistently demonstrated its ability to rise above its internal differences to identify common goals and objectives and worked with the government in a professional, businesslike way to make reform a reality.

The credit union and caisse populaire movement is the smallest of the "pillars" which make up the financial services sector in Ontario. It has operated for nearly 20 years with legislation that limited its business powers, limited its lending powers, limited its ability to attract capital for growth and development and imposed a regulatory regime where government approval was required for many day-to-day operations.

In the face of these restrictions, credit unions and caisses populaires have continued to serve their communities well. This industry consistently rates high in consumer polls in areas of quality, quality of service, accessibility and innovation, and in the face of these restrictions, this industry has never stopped supporting local economic development in communities across Ontario.

But the environment in which credit unions and caisses populaires operate has changed dramatically and the statutory limitations which they face have now become serious obstacles to progress. The marketplace has become more complex and more competitive. Many other financial institutions with whom credit unions must compete on a daily basis have been given modern business powers and a much broader scope in offering financial services and are moving ahead rapidly.

In the economy as a whole, the recession has taken a serious toll on Ontario businesses and the lives of Ontario residents. Now, as never before, we need to ensure that local job creation initiatives have a ready and adequate source of financing and that communities have the tools to help themselves.

Through Bill 134, the government has responded to these challenges in a number of ways. First, we are providing specific tools to strengthen the movement's traditional role of supporting economic development in their communities. Second, we are providing credit unions and caisses populaires with the business powers they need to remain profitable and competitive and to provide Ontarians with a real choice in the financial services marketplace. Third, we are ensuring that our rules are made more effective and are more carefully targeted to areas of risk within the system. Finally, we are establishing a modern consumer protection measures process within the credit union system.

After a wait of nearly two decades, the credit union and caisse populaire movement will have an array of modern financial services, powers and tools at their disposal. Unlike the current system, which limits credit unions to the specific activities listed in the statute, Bill 134 provides credit unions with broad-based, general powers to conduct the business of the financial services.

Where the current statute imposes restrictive caps on commercial lending and then limits these caps even further by lumping together agricultural lending with commercial lending, Bill 134 provides an expanded and more flexible framework for business lending. Caps will be raised on both agricultural and commercial lending, and, through a new lending licence system, credit unions will be able to expand their lending activity as their operations expand. Credit unions and caisses populaires will be able to syndicate loans; that is, band together to support larger-scale commercial lending.

1530

Nearly $1.5 billion is now in the system but is restrained by existing rules. This $1.5 billion will be made available for new loans and investments. Credit unions and caisses populaires will be given a much broader ability to own subsidiaries. This will enable them to offer a wide range of specialty services to their members, to enter profitable lines of financial services and to undertake specialized forms of community development activities.

The movement has made clear to the government that access to capital is of critical importance. Without capital, credit unions cannot grow, innovate, fully utilize technology or support community development. Bill 134 provides the movement with new options for raising capital, including tapping into the public equity markets in addition to the traditional sources. At the same time, however, we have taken care to ensure that the cooperative, "one member, one vote" character of the movement is preserved.

Innovative and flexible marketing arrangements are increasingly common among financial institutions. These are becoming more important sources of revenue. Bill 134 allows credit unions and caisses populaires to sell the products of other financial institutions and so be able to increase the range of profitable services they can offer to their membership.

I would like to note here that the government has taken particular care in crafting the sections of Bill 134 relating to insurance retailing. It's important that we do not disrupt the marketplace standards that have been established under federal legislation. I'm pleased to state that we have worked very, very closely and, most importantly, successfully with the credit union movement and the insurance industry on this matter.

As members of the House will know, each credit union and caisse populaire is formed around the bond of association, individuals sharing a common bond joined together on a cooperative basis to help each other address their financial needs. Because the population and the industrial bases are changing in Ontario, credit unions need greater flexibility in expanding or adjusting their bonds of association. Our reforms will allow for a percentage of the total membership to include business corporations and governmental bodies. These bodies currently fall outside the bond.

As we modernize the range of powers available to credit unions, we must also take care to ensure that the regulatory system keeps pace. A modern regulatory system must be effective but must not impose unnecessary burdens on the industry. A modern regulatory system must clearly allocate responsibility between the government and the industry. A modern regulatory system must be able to spot problems and move to correct them before they grow to serious proportions.

In Bill 134, we have established a regulatory system which satisfies all these criteria:

-- We have strengthened the movement's responsibilities for managing its own affairs, and we have established the requirement for audit committees and new eligibility requirements for boards of directors.

-- We have strengthened disclosure requirements for potential conflicts of interest.

-- We have established a system-wide monitoring program to enable the deposit insurer and the credit unions and caisses populaires themselves to identify and correct emerging problems.

-- We have made the regulator's powers more focused and more directed towards potential problem areas in the system, rather than waiting until a problem has blown up.

Finally, as I noted, in all we do and in all of our reforms, we must never forget the need to ensure that the consumer of financial services in Ontario is protected. We have taken important steps directly with Bill 134, and we have provided the legislative framework to take further steps as marketplace conditions continue to evolve.

We have, for instance, required credit unions to disclose to members what products and services are covered by deposit insurance, and to what dollar amount. We have prohibited tied selling, where the purchase of one product is made conditional on the purchase of another product. We have required credit unions to disclose the terms and conditions on arrangements to sell the products of other financial institutions. And we have provided new powers to make regulations on consumer protection issues, including enhanced disclosure to consumers, the use of confidential consumer information and acceptable marketing practices.

When the Minister of Finance introduced Bill 134 last December, he said, "These reforms will begin a new era for Ontario's credit unions and caisses populaires and their communities." The minister was speaking of the specific provisions of Bill 134. I would add that the process of reform and the strong and growing spirit of cooperation within the movement itself also mark a new and exciting era for the credit unions and caisses populaires in Ontario.

On the issue of life agent reform, in the second part of this bill we are updating the Insurance Act. We want to modernize how Ontario regulates life insurance agents. This will make the financial services sector more competitive and better protect those who buy life insurance.

This framework will allow us to introduce higher educational standards and two levels of licences, and to establish a strict code of ethics and set out serious penalties for violating it.

It will also broaden agents' ability to offer the products of other insurance companies to better provide for the diverse needs of consumers. Let me provide some details on this.

The amendments will provide a regulation-making power to permit the introduction of a two-step examination and licensing system. All applicants for licensing would be required to pass an entry-level examination to be followed two years later by a more comprehensive examination.

It will broaden the ability of experienced life insurance agents to better sell the products of more than one life insurer, so consumers have a choice of products at the point of purchase. It will provide increased protection for consumers through the power to make regulations prescribing an agents' code of ethics.

It will introduce regulation-making power to govern networking arrangements between insurance companies, agents, brokers and other businesses or financial institutions.

It will provide for authority for an organization, a life insurance council composed of people from the life insurance industry and representatives of the public, to license and regulate life insurance agents.

It will require that licences of life insurance agents be renewed once every two years on their birthday rather than the current requirement of annually on a single day.

Most of the new proposals will be put into place by amending regulations. We will consult with interested parties on how to change these regulations.

The life agent reforms in Bill 134 are necessary to keep the sector vital and able to contribute to the province's economic renewal.

On the issue of securities, the third part of the bill, again we are in the process of strengthening protection for investors in securities. These measures will further enhance confidence in Ontario's markets as a safe place to invest.

Bill 134 amends the Securities Act to update the Ontario Securities Commission's powers to investigate alleged misconduct and to deal with misconduct when it's found.

To make monitoring the conduct of participants more efficient and effective, we will also extend the OSC's authority to recognize and oversee self-regulatory organizations.

The financial services sector plays an important part in Ontario's economy. It is a major employer that provides thousands of jobs. It also provides services to individuals and families, and supports businesses.

Modernizing the rules for the financial services in Bill 134 reflects this government's commitment to a strong and competitive financial services sector needed to contribute to Ontario's economic growth.

With that, I'd like to thank the members of the credit union and caisse populaire movement, the members of the securities community and also the members of the life agent community for their hard work and their continued support of the government in its move to keep Ontario's economy strong and to promote the strong financial services sector that we have in this province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I was very interested to listen to the remarks. Basically, they reflect in a little broader terms what was said by the minister when he introduced this on December 9.

It would be interesting to have the parliamentary assistant tell us about the omissions from the bill. It would be interesting, when he talks about an all-encompassing financial services reform, if he would tell us why they have chosen as a government not to include other players like mutual insurance companies and trust companies that are also interested in playing on the same level playing field that they seem to be creating under the auspices of this bill.

I am also interested in whether they are willing to entertain amendments to this bill that would allow that level playing field to be established. Perhaps he can explain to us why he has omitted to address those particular areas, and that might give us some insight about why the bill takes its current form.

Finally, it would be interesting to have the parliamentary assistant explain to us why there could not be three separate pieces of legislation so that this Legislative Assembly can keep each particular element of the financial services package separate and so that we can study in some detail and with some specifics each particular area without having to run from one item into another.

We do run into the prospect of causing some confusion around the legislation, as we have caused in relation to the passage of Bills 108, 109 and 110 in a previous sitting in this House. Those bills, having been dealt with together under an agreement by this House, ultimately ended up causing widespread public confusion around what was intended by the government with respect to the Powers of Attorney Act. It seems to me that we should be very wary indeed of establishing any legislative agenda that causes that sort of public confusion.

1540

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I share in the comments presented by the member of the Liberal Party, but I would like to go further. His points are all valid.

One thing that concerns me is that the Ministry of Financial Institutions on October 29, 1992, issued a news release, which I have a copy of here, that announced, "Sweeping review of Ontario financial services regulation announced," and then went on to talk about the importance of the financial sector, with which we would all agree, I'm sure. But then it says:

"While the review will concentrate on much-needed reforms to the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, the Insurance Act and the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, Mr Charlton stressed that all interested parties are encouraged to identify other areas and issues for consideration."

Well, what you've brought forward is the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, and you're making changes to the Insurance Act through this, but there's been nothing on the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

That was back on October 29, 1992, that your government indicated you were beginning the study. I have to admit with some pleasure that there is a sense in which your government has communicated with different groups with regard to issues in the credit unions and the life insurance industry and the insurance industry. And there are major issues, because when you're dealing with a bill that's 185 pages long, this is no simple act; there's an awful lot to it.

I really would like to ask you why the government has not dealt with the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, and in your response, if you'd indicate what your timetable is in dealing with that. The expectation was that it would be covered, but certainly it has not been, either in your remarks or in the bill. If you could deal with that, I would be very grateful.

Mr Owens: I'd like to thank the members for Bruce and Markham for their comments in terms of the issues with respect to -- I imagine the member for Bruce is addressing the issue with respect to farm mutuals and the issue with respect to the loan and trust act.

The government is clearly dedicated to the proposition that these pieces of legislation will be brought forward. I take it, and I hope by your generous comments and questions with respect to these two issues in particular that I'm hearing, that this particular bill and the others would proceed with very little opposition.

In terms of the timetable the member for Markham has asked for, we are still working out some issues with respect to the loan and trust industry. It's our view, as I indicated in my remarks, that the financial services industry is very important to this province, and we want to make sure that things are done right, done cooperatively and done with a sense of building on a strong foundation. I certainly hope we can finish up the work quickly, and as I say, the generous remarks by both members indicate that there will be warm support in the House for these pieces of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: To the honourable member for Scarborough Centre, my interest in the issues of loan and trust and interest in the Insurance Act and in the mutual insurance businesses is real and genuine, but the support for any draft legislation or legislation at all will depend on what he and his minister friend and others intend to put in that legislation.

I think that, interestingly enough, this is not a bad bill to start a new session with. This perhaps will set a tone that will allow us to be fairly cooperative in dealing with some of the legislative agenda of the New Democratic Party because we see this as a step forward; not a step that is taken without some problems, in our view. It is not, however, a piece of legislation where problems in it are serious enough in nature for us to cause any delay in any way, shape or form, and when the vote is taken in principle, our caucus will be supporting this particular legislation.

Having said that, I do want to repeat in the context of my own remarks, as opposed to replying or at least asking questions on the remarks of the member for Scarborough Centre, that we are concerned about the government's propensity now to include in one large bill several pieces of legislative initiative in the manner that this one is constructed. I don't think it is fair to the credit unions, I don't think it's fair to the life people nor do I think it's fair to the securities industry that they all be wrapped together, because in each of these very special and specialized segments, there are very interesting issues of principle around each of those items.

The principles involved in the securities legislative amendments and those principles involved with the credit unions are considerably different in many ways because they deal with functions which are separate in very many ways. If you cast your eyes on this piece of legislation, on this omnibus legislation, it is very difficult to get a single principle out of it that binds it all together with the exception that it all deals with some aspect of financial services.

That should mean, by the way, that in the context of committee deliberations, which have been agreed to by the member for Hamilton Mountain at the request of both myself and the member for Markham, there should be a very wide leeway and latitude given to us when we introduce amendments to this bill that deal with financial services in the province, because the only principle I can see running straight through this particular bill is that it deals with some financial services in the province of Ontario. So if we move amendments which deal with others, those should be just as acceptable to the government as any other or, at least, they should be acceptable to the Chair so the debate can be had around making sure that the even playing field with respect to provision of financial services is indeed established throughout the financial services market.

I am interested in looking at the run-up to the legislation and its deployment here in the form of Bill 134. There's no question that these initiatives didn't start just two years ago. In fact, when I was Minister of Financial Institutions there were discussions about the revision of the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act because, of course, that was important to the caisses populaires and the credit unions and has been for some time.

One of the difficulties that was with us in those days was the fact that there were significant difficulties from a financial stability point of view with some of the credit unions and some of the caisses populaires. I think we should stop for a moment right here and indicate that the very difficult circumstances around the early 1980s situations with some of the credit unions and caisses populaires have to a large extent been dealt with. There are some, I think, that have to be acknowledged that exist even now with respect to some of the caisses populaires and some of the credit unions, although I must say here as well that I think the reservoir of difficulties probably is more associated with some of the credit union members as opposed to the caisses populaires.

Alliance and Fédération, it seems to me, have probably got all of their members on board. At least, that was the report I have received in the sense that they are all fairly stable. If I'm in error, the member for Scarborough Centre can correct me or some of the people who are off in the wings can send me a note via the mails at some other time and say, "X, Y and Z caisse populaire or the credit union here or there is not stable," but generally speaking, there has been a marvellous advance with respect to stabilizing some of those financial circumstances.

1550

I would like to see, by the way, when the member for Scarborough Centre has a chance to respond to my remarks, that he would undertake to table with us as critics the current status of the caisses populaires and the credit unions so that we can be absolutely sure that the plans to renovate their financial circumstances have all been carried out to the satisfaction of the ministry of financial institutions and to the satisfaction of the Minister of Finance, so that we are absolutely certain that these new initiatives which they are going to be allowed to undertake with respect to lending and other things -- and raising money, as far as that goes -- will be done on a very steady and stable financial basis indeed.

I think that probably is one of the very necessary first pieces of business when we go to the committee. It's actually a credit to the member for Hamilton Mountain, who has agreed with us that we should go to committee briefly during this session, that he has recognized that we need to have that information right up front, right at the beginning; the status of the movement, the status of the credit unions, the status of the caisses populaires, made very plain so that there will be no harm rendered to any of the members of the current movement with regard to putting in place new financial services.

I'm pleased to see that there has been apparently an endorsement of the current circumstances of the credit unions and caisses populaires in the province of Ontario by the minister and by the parliamentary assistant. It seems to me that this legislation indicates a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. To me, it looks like there has been a reward for the renovation of any difficult financial circumstances in the credit union movement. I will take that as a given with respect to the balance of my remarks, because it is in my view necessary for us to allow an even playing field for these people to carry out their business, just as it is necessary for all other institutions to be able to compete on that same level playing field in the Ontario market.

I agree with the member for Scarborough Centre that it is important to have that level playing field. I agree with him that these are initiatives that will allow that to occur. I do have to differ with him just a wee bit though with regard to whether or not the ability for the credit unions to sell insurance is mirrored on that which is given to the banks under the federal legislation. It seems to me that they have reversed the legislative provisions. I think in the federal provisions, the banks cannot sell insurance unless there are some circumstances met, the regulations allow it. Here the legislation reads, "Credit unions and caisses populaires can sell insurance except...." So the two sections, it seems to me, indicate a very real difference of opinion as to how best to regulate the expansion of the sale of insurance.

Perhaps the member for Scarborough Centre can tell us about the differences of opinion between his ministry and those in the federal jurisdiction and the reasons why the provision is different. In fact, if that is discussed for us with some degree of detail, perhaps that will allow some of the people who remain concerned about these particular amendments as being proposed to understand their background and perhaps it will remove some of the concern that has been expressed to us by those people who have not been included in the legislation which has been held out as an example of levelling the playing field.

I am interested in the politics associated with this particular piece of legislation.

Mr Cousens: That's something you know a lot about.

Mr Elston: Mr Cousens, my friend from Markham, identifies the fact that I know something about politics. That of course is flattering, because I'm usually accused of not knowing much of anything about very much. Don, you're very flattering today and I'm sure I will reciprocate when your turn to speak arrives.

There's a holding out, in the amendments that are proposed for the caisses populaires and credit unions by the government, that these will allow new community development, new community initiatives, new farm initiatives, new funding for those local developments, which many of the communities that I happen to represent would be happy to see taking place.

The politics around this is that, I believe, the amendments proposed here will form the backdrop for a big release which will include in it the change of name of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, will include the credit union advancement of powers, will include the program where you can deposit money locally and have it guaranteed by the province -- I've forgotten what the government's name for it is -- where local money can be used and pooled and reloaned through credit unions.

Mr Owens: The community loan fund.

Mr Elston: The community loan fund, if that's what it's called. I accede to superior knowledge by the member for Scarborough Centre.

All of those will be packaged to produce some kind of a fog that makes people think that the New Democrats in this government are concerned about rural, or at least non-large-urban, Ontario, that they are concerned about all of those places outside Toronto and outside Ottawa, the smaller communities of the province, about their development.

But what is so interesting about that is that while they establish the programs and while the trappings are all around, the New Democratic Party government will probably very easily forget to talk about the amount of money that it has cut back with respect to agricultural funding in Ontario.

They will forget to talk about the cutbacks that they have produced which are causing severe jeopardy for conservation authorities and thereby the holding or retention of sensitive lands in the rural and outlying areas of this province. In fact, in my area the conservation authorities are thinking of selling land to pay the taxes which are now accruing on their publicly held properties, and the government is holding firm and cutting back, to change the way our landscape looks.

They will probably also forget to talk about the Sewell report when they come out to rural or non-large-urban Ontario. I said this is going to be part of a package and it will include these items -- Mr Speaker, I don't understand what is wrong with what I'm saying.

The Deputy Speaker: Okay, continue.

Mr Elston: Thank you very much. To start to get back to where my thoughts were, I believe this will form part of a package that says they're concerned about rural Ontario, that OMAF and its renaming and a series of other initiatives -- the community loan program and others -- will be packaged so that they can say they're concerned. But they will forget to talk about the Sewell report. The Sewell report is one of those plans, if implemented, which would probably extract almost all of the ability of the local people to take any part in active development out in the hinterland.

I was pleased to hear today in the House, actually, that the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- and he chose his words very carefully -- was able to tell us that part of his duties were going to be to assert the rural interest with respect to certain government programs. He produced a letter from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that said that they were going to -- and this is where he was very careful -- "suspend" the operation of a government policy which prevented the development of public housing with septic tanks. I thought that was a very interesting choice of words. It is being "suspended"; it's not being withdrawn. In fact, in so many areas outside of Metro Toronto the whole issue around septic tanks, which was raised by Mr Sewell and which has caused a whole series of problems up my way and around the general vicinity, has really told rural Ontario that they won't be able to develop.

It is very interesting because it may very well be that the credit unions or the caisses populaires, when they come to looking at a request by some local entrepreneur, some woman or man who believes that they have a new business idea that is worth being supported, will be stymied by the very report that I've just mentioned; that is, the Sewell report. They will be precluded from developing their small business idea and the development of their real estate in a way which will promote their businesses. As a result, the credit unions, although they have the authority, will be stymied by the veto of the Sewell report's implementation.

That's a very important issue for me and that is why I've included some of those other items that seem to contradict what this item was set up to determine, because, you see, it doesn't matter if the credit unions have the authority to make the loans if some other government department has a policy which precludes the development taking place.

1600

In the end, the government of Ontario will have to make a decision about whether or not all the local abilities which are being given under this act to the credit unions when they make loans to entrepreneurs, whether they be farm entrepreneurs or agricultural business related, or whether they end up being primary resource people up in the Cochrane North area or anyplace around the province -- they will have to decide that perhaps they will also have to let the local authorities decide that they should allow a development to occur.

If I go and the credit union says, "Good," but the Ministry of Municipal Affairs says, "Bad," or if the Ministry of Natural Resources says, "Bad," then this extension of powers to the credit unions and caisses populaires will not be of any assistance whatsoever to the promotion of the local economies. So we have to be very, very careful that we don't oversimplify the effects of this particular piece of legislation unless the government is willing to tell us that it is prepared to go all the way with this local authority and local decision-making.

I think it's interesting as well, and this is a very interesting part of the politics around this legislation, that it isn't purely, in my view, just to give the credit unions and caisses populaires some extra abilities; it is the answer, when the New Democrats go out, to taking on the banks. It's a very popular activity these days. I think there are all kinds of members here from all parties -- I have seen some circumstances where some local people in my area have, I think, had to face some unreal requests for securities from the chartered banks. While that is an issue which we have all struggled with, at least for the time I've been here, and I've been here for 13 years --

Mr Cousens: No.

Mr Elston: Well, the same length of time as the member from Markham, who just groaned, under some impression that he was not languishing with the same clock I was.

The issue of the banks is never going to cease, but here I think the New Democrats are going to say that the credit unions and caisses populaires are their answer to the banks' failure, as expressed by some, to promote small business or to stay firm as part of the supplier of capital to the farming or agricultural market or supplying capital to the primary resource base. For me, that doesn't provide the whole answer, although it does provide those people with a very interesting short answer for anybody who criticises them for not taking on the banks.

There are several other items of politics which are attached to this, and I can tell you that I'm sympathetic to seeing the credit unions and caisses populaires grow and be able to handle more business affairs. But I really have to be very concerned about their use as pawns in their next election, because that is going to be how the New Democrats try and market themselves as individuals of the people. I really see that starting to come about as I look at the releases. I have watched this very, very carefully and I know the politics that are being played with it.

I've been at a couple of speeches by a couple of the backbenchers who get sent out with the form notes, you know? I've seen them. What you do is that when you go out, you have a whole series of notes that the government informationites prepare for you, and when you go to your market, you put the asterisks beside the points that you want to mention where you're speaking. I've seen a couple of guys do this. Actually, they are guys, both men, I happened to be watching. There haven't been any speeches otherwise, but I was watching how they've packaged this, and it's a very interesting and very subtle piece of work that they're performing. They're using this and their community loans program as part of a demonstration that "We, the New Democrats, really care."

I don't think the New Democrats care any more for local development and local initiative and a movement of the economy of our locales than a Tory does or a Grit does. To be quite honest, we all want this economy to move.

Mr Owens: Come on Murray, read the Hansard on Algoma and Kapuskasing.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Where were you guys?

Mr Elston: Oh, I woke somebody up. It's very interesting, the member who represents Northern Development has finally awakened. I hadn't heard about her since she was talking to doctors, but my God, she's awake now and she's piping up. She is really piping up and I'm happy to see that she has finally come back to start participating again because, you know something, this is very interesting. My locale, Tobermory, was interested in what was going on with the ferry that moves between Tobermory and Manitoulin Island. They invited me to go to a meeting and we were all invited to go to a meeting, both myself and Mike Brown, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. And you know what happened? You won't believe this.

Mr Cousens: Tell us what happened, Murray.

Mr Elston: You won't believe this either. Did you know, Ms Martel's office called and told the people who were going to the meeting that if they bring Elston and Brown, the minister will cancel the meeting.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): No.

Mr Elston: And you know what it was about? It was about economic development and economic opportunities for Manitoulin and Tobermory and that minister, Ms Martel, directed her people to tell the members, Brown and Elston, not to come. That's the type of local interest that she has. But just let her carry on and listen to a few more remarks. Perhaps she'll go back to sleep again.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Could you relate this to Bill 134, please.

Mr Elston: Oh, sure. We were talking about some local development opportunities, which of course are allowed under this legislation, but I'll tell you what the government does. What they do and what they say they're doing under this is belied by their actions out in the public and the types of activities that those people would have yelled and screamed about when they were in opposition. Of course, they're in power. They are in power and they are asserting power in a way it has never been before. It is very interesting to know that the world is changing and that the New Democrats are going to help it change.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): And the Liberals are finally catching up with that reality.

Mr Elston: Another one woke up. The member for Oxford is back. He too was away for quite a little while. It's nice to see him home again on his perch where he's able to tell us what is right for the locale. I saw him vote on matters which were not liked very much in Oxford. I can tell him I've been in Oxford riding a few times and there are some people who are very concerned about your activities, just to let you know. I'm glad you woke up in time for me to recognize that you were here. We will come back --

Mr Sutherland: Tell them to come see me.

Mr Elston: They can't see you. You're hardly ever there.

Mr Sutherland: Baloney.

Mr Elston: The member for Oxford is an interesting guy. He probably has some credit unions in his area --

The Acting Speaker: I would really like to hear what you have to say about the bill.

Mr Elston: -- but I want him to tell us whether or not he will be speaking on this legislation to tell me how he is going to allow his local credit unions to get around all the interference that will be occurring from the ministries of Natural Resources or Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs or any of those with respect to some of these local developments.

It seems to me that he will be able when his turn comes to stand up and deliver that speech and explain how this legislation is going to work, but I suspect, if the pattern stays, that very few of the New Democrats will actually stand up and talk about this legislation because they've been told not to, because they may say something that will ruin the political package that is going to be put around this.

In any event, I am not going to go on at length. I'm not going to go on for the whole hour and a half in any event; I will go on for a little bit longer. But I do want to raise a couple of other issues with respect to the credit unions and caisses populaires.

1610

The concern I have, and it has been expressed to us, is that the powers that are given under this legislation will put some of the members of the credit union movement and some of the caisses populaires at a distinct disadvantage with some of their larger compatriots in the movements. In fact, there has been some expression of real concern by the small organizations because there's quite a variation among the organizations in the credit union and caisse populaire movements.

There is a real concern that the disadvantage now will not be between credit unions and trust companies or credit unions and insurance sales or credit unions and banks in terms of providing the service, but that there will be a very big disadvantage, among internal members, in the same movement. I started off by asking that the ministry explain to us the current status of all of the caisses populaires and credit unions with respect to their financial stability. There is a concern, among some of those small organizations that are stable but which are not large enough to cushion a broad expansion, that they will have to in fact help support some organizations which perhaps take this expansion of financial ability too far.

I think it is a reasonable concern to have expressed to us. I can understand it, because the credit union movement has not been easily established and achieved by the membership in this province. It has been a struggle for some organizations. I have marvelled at some of the local organizations and their tenacity in not only establishing but maintaining the credit union strength in a small pocket, because the credit unions really do exactly as the member for Scarborough Centre indicated: They do occupy areas which were not occupied by other financial institutions.

The people did come together, with some degree of difficulty, and they've held themselves together. There is a real concern among those people who are small in size that either (1) they may in fact be pushed to a point which removes the stability of their organization by providing more services, or (2) if they do resist the movement, they may be asked to pool to help cover the problems associated with someone who has not been as successful in maintaining his financial stability.

I don't raise this as an issue which should be used to veto the bill or prevent it from moving further, but I do raise it as a valid concern about where the credit union movement is going and the degree of concern that has been expressed to me by some of those smaller organizations which are, because of their size, not as able to withstand some financial difficulties.

I'd also like to raise an issue which is my own favourite pet with regard to credit unions and caisses populaires, and that is the philosophy behind their beginnings. The whole idea, of course, cooperative movement and otherwise, was that you're all members and you come together and you win by participating together. You're advantaged by participating together. Here in this legislation we are introducing a change to that, and the issue of how you raise capital, if you don't change that, I guess is a real one for me, but I still have to ask the question: If you are going to issue stocks -- and that's what is being issued, or allowed to be issued under this legislation -- does that mean that you are still a credit union or does that mean that you are still a caisse populaire?

I can buy a preference stock in a trust company or I can buy a preference share in a bank. I can now buy or I will be able to buy soon a non-voting share in the credit unions. My question becomes, if I can do that with all of them, is there any difference? Is there any difference whatsoever as among the various types of financial institutions which we have in the province? I think generally the answer is yes, but it may depend on the size of the institution more than anything else and it may depend on the style of management that is associated with each of the caisses populaires or the credit unions.

I am concerned that in some circumstances the issuance of stocks will mean that there will be the prospect of someone with a lot of money coming in and virtually taking over the operation of a credit union because they have so much of a financial stake in it, not because they necessarily are a member, although for a dollar they could be a member as well with one vote, but they would really force the operation of the credit union or caisse populaire to change, not because the membership democratically voted it to change but because the authority of the dollars invested by one or two people could force the credit union to take the steps that one or two people want them to, because if you take the money out there would be very big problems indeed for the credit union.

I am concerned about that, and I have raised it with the credit union people who have come to speak with me. They are not as concerned about it because their overriding need at this point is to expand their ability to attract finances. They want to expand, or at least the people who've talked to me more often than others, want to expand the financial services they have to offer. It's one of those very interesting points in the development of credit unions, like other organizations, where you have to make a very gut-wrenching decision about how your organization moves. You come to a point where you have to decide, "We're going to take this road or that road."

In some ways, this is a watershed for the development of credit unions and caisses populaires in the province of Ontario, and that more than anything else is what is driving the concern among some of the smaller organizations, because perhaps they are not there with some of their larger compatriots in the movement, that they feel they may be forced to make a decision before they are ready to make a decision. That spells a degree of uncertainty in the organization which could be bad for the general membership. That is a concern to me, and during our committee hearings we will probably hear a little bit about that.

More than anything else, what I want is to have the ministry assure us that there is in place some plan to assist in making sure there is genuine stability in the movement for those people.

I should raise here just briefly another concern that's been raised, and it has been an issue of long-standing nature; that is, the concerns raised by the people at OSDIC, who are of course likewise concerned with financial stability. In fact, it's their mandate to make sure they are there to step in when financial security is lost. As a regulator or as a guarantor they have to be very wary, in fact, of the pressures that are put on credit unions or caisses populaires and they have to be very concerned that the membership is protected. I think it is right for us to be going into committee to hear about some of the background concerns and then be given some sense of the steps the government is taking to ensure that stability reigns in the caisse populaire and credit union movement.

I'm taken very much with a sense of -- "security" perhaps isn't quite the right word, but a bit of a sense of security that these questions are out there and that the people who are responsible are genuinely asking for some direction with regard to these, or at least that they want to provide us with some information which may help us to ask the government to provide us with direction of how it is going to ensure that there are not going to be failures if some of the organizations go too far in some of their financial dealings. I feel very good about that, because those issues coming to our committee is what the legislative process is all about, and having the public aware that those concerns are out there is what this forum is all about, and that's why I raise them in the manner I do.

We should also understand with respect to credit unions and caisses populaires that when we move in this area -- and although I mentioned it before I will mention it again -- there are those people who feel that the movement towards broadening the powers of credit unions and caisses populaires means as of necessity that they will be omitted and that they won't be brought along in giving them the same powers and the same abilities to expand their line of financial products.

We've talked very briefly and I appreciate that the member for Scarborough Centre has indicated that he will be moving forward, at least the ministry will be moving forward, to bring in amendments to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and to the Insurance Act that will help, for instance, the mutual insurance companies to also expand their line of products. I wish I had a time frame for that, because as we go to committee, it would be nice to know that when people express concerns about being disadvantaged in that playing field out there, they can expect to have their concerns addressed within a very short time period indeed.

1620

I took what the member for Scarborough Centre said here today as an undertaking to us all that those pieces of legislation would be forthcoming very, very soon. I'm not talking about a matter of months or whatever. I would hope he was basically saying that those things are very close indeed; in fact, that if we could see drafts of the legislation which might be brought forward, he and the Minister of Finance would perhaps entertain the introduction of those pieces of legislation even in this sitting so we could get on with establishing that there is a real level playing field out there for all of the participants.

I have to say something else too, as I think about this piece of legislation. Generally, I think the people would say the New Democrats are not seen to be the biggest proponents of earning income from capital. You're not generally seen to be capitalists, Madam Speaker, although I don't mean to say "you" as it applies to your own financial circumstances or whatever.

In my time here, which is only 13 years, there seems to have been a series of speeches made by New Democrats in opposition which really were against anybody making money from the investment of capital. A capitalist was a bad, bad person. "Profit," for heaven's sake, is a bad word. In fact, "profit" is still a bit of a bad word these days as it applies to certain government initiatives, although I don't know what the circumstances are.

In any event, with that background and my bias established by those years of listening to New Democrats speak about capitalists and profit, I congratulate you for coming forward and recognizing that the financial services industry is an important feature of Ontario's economy, that the investment of capital is an important feature of a stable economy, that the securities industry is an important feature of our economy, that the life insurance industry is an important feature of our economy, and bringing this bill forward.

I have to say at this point that I was surprised, actually, that this bill has come to us in this form at this time. Forget about the omnibus nature of it; I just didn't expect non-capitalists, or at least people who frowned on people making money from capital investment, to be the proponents of this, and I congratulate the New Democrats for actually having the stamina to come forward and develop this legislation and move it here.

Mr Owens: There are more business people on this side.

Mr Elston: The member for Scarborough Centre just told me that there are more business people in the New Democratic Party membership than there are over here.

Mr Owens: Absolutely.

Mr Elston: He said, "Absolutely." Well, it's very surprising. We'll have to go bit by bit across the general membership and establish who is doing what. But it is, for me, a very big indication that the New Democrats are going to have a very difficult time indeed with some of the old speeches that were made. I know the Minister of Finance, who used to talk about nationalizing all kinds of things, backed away from that. Bob Rae gave us a 60-page treatise in January 1990 which basically said: "Oh, we're not so bad. We don't want to nationalize everything." He has retreated from their traditional roots.

Perhaps this is a real sign that they have really been moved into the modern world themselves, that they now recognize that what has been a focus of economic activity in the province of Ontario is actually okay. It didn't used to be okay, when I recall listening to Floyd and Bob Rae and Michael Cassidy and all those other people as they then were in opposition, but now I think with Bill 134 we have seen the movement of the New Democratic Party to give a sense of their political party's legitimacy badge to making money from the investment of capital, in fact for making a profit from the investment of capital. I think that's a marvellous step forward.

It's also interesting to note that while they have introduced some amendments to the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, they have spent a fair bit of time as well dealing with securities. I think what they did was try to hide the fact that they were dealing with the Securities Act. They tried to put it underground, so to speak, so that they wouldn't be seen to be doing very much with the securities industry. What they have done with the securities industry is that they have gone into promotion of the role of the self-regulating organizations.

As I recall, when I was minister and before -- and I can be corrected if I'm wrong -- the New Democrats were against that type of initiative. The mandating of self-regulating organizations to take over the regulatory role in the province was not on the NDP agenda. But they have come out with this legislation, and things like the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada and others are now given a Good Housekeeping badge of approval by the New Democrats. That wasn't where they always were.

I think the member for Scarborough Centre is pretty close to saying, "He's right." His head is going on a 45-degree angle. I know he's not sleeping, because his eyes are still open. His face, now getting slightly redder than it was before, perhaps displays the embarrassment of the change of heart or the recognition of the real world in a manner which confirms that they have tried to hide this new change of direction of the New Democratic Party.

It's interesting when they do this, not because they have done it, because in the circumstances in which we find ourselves now, a very tight fiscal situation -- all of us recognize that -- they have gone to do what they believe is practically possible. Perhaps this shows a wee bit of a pragmatic streak in a couple of the people, probably most notably in the Minister of Finance, for whom I have a very real regard. At the end of the day, while the member for Nickel Belt is seen to be the most secure in his philosophical roots, he is also seen, as the Minister of Finance, to be a person who is most practical about ensuring that there is a survival of a financial markets industry in the province. I congratulate him for that.

But one of the things that has occurred is that while they have gone forward to checkmark the self-regulating organizations and their role in providing regulation, because the government, quite honestly, can't do it, they have not been able to give precise instructions about how the role is to be carried out or what the authorities for the role being carried out are, in fact the manner in which the self-regulating organizations are to actually do business. That is every bit as important as actually indicating that they are to do business, because the manner in which their instructions are given will determine how effectively the regulation is to be carried on. That is very important.

I raise an issue here for us all to consider, for instance, and it deals with a couple of parts of the bill. When shares are issued by Murray Elston Inc, I have to provide a public prospectus so that if you, Madam Speaker, were interested in investing in my company, you could go to the prospectus. The prospectus is supposed to say, "Elston is made up of the following assets, the following liabilities. They do this business, they do that. Here are the officers," and give you the whole story. It's a public recitation of all of the facts you need to know so that you're not deceived when you are led to put money into my organization.

It will be interesting to see what sort of prospectus is provided when the shares are issued from credit unions and caisses populaires, because it's a brand-new activity. For instance, is the issue of those stocks, the issue of those shares, governed by the Securities Act? Should there be a prospectus accompanying the public offering of those shares to the public? Who is to monitor the type of information that is made available when those shares are issued?

Perhaps the member for Scarborough Centre can tell us that all of those details have been worked out, except I haven't been informed of how those are to be worked out. It may be just that I haven't read all of my mail from the Minister of Finance or the member for Scarborough Centre. Perhaps they have told us how the public offering of shares in credit unions is to be governed, what sort of information is to be made available and where the information is to be made available and how people are to be given full public advice on the situation with each of the credit unions that chooses to offer the shares for capital.

1630

That's just one interesting example, and I'm sure that people will be able to provide me with the answers. It will be interesting to receive those answers when we get to committee, or even before, if the people are able to provide that information to me.

I think we should also be aware that while some activities that are talked about in this legislation are going on, there are other activities which are going on which actually conspire against the investment of money in small-town Ontario. I just raise as an issue what is only partially related to this, because you've opened the issue of the Securities Act, that there is a part-time dealers' provision in the Securities Act which has now been enforced by the securities commission. Somebody who offers as a part of their business the sale of GICs is now being required to pay a levy of some $1,500 to be registered, plus I think $250 per person for each individual who's selling, plus, plus, plus, plus, which really means to say that at the end of the day some of the people who sell GICs and other financial products in small towns are really being forced to pay huge amounts of money proportionate to the amount of money they collect for investment in small-town Ontario, or the villages of Ontario, if I can put it in those terms.

Sometimes the commissions which people earn are less than $3,000 or $4,000, but the cost of getting enrolled in the program could be upwards of $2,100, $2,200, $2,300 as a minimum, which really tells the person that they have to get out of the business; otherwise, they'll be faced with fines because the regulation for part-time dealers becomes too costly, not because the regulation itself shows that there is a problem but because the expense of being registered or the expense of being found to be selling and not registered is so high that it basically says, "We cannot afford to do business in the small towns in the province of Ontario."

That results, by the way, in making sure that the small dealers are all eliminated and only the large survive. The banks, by the way, are not registered under part-time dealers, and it seems rather strange that as a result of that particular policy, it would seem to clash against the movement that was made on the credit unions and caisses populaires, which is to provide a broader service of financial products for credit unions to provide in small-town Ontario, while we eliminate in others the ability of part-time dealers to provide financial services in those places.

By the way, not all small communities have credit unions or caisses populaires. In the riding of Bruce, for instance, we don't have a large number of credit unions and caisses populaires, but we have generally had a series of small, part-time dealers who basically sell GICs and a few other services. But those people have been put out of business and, as a result, the movement of investment of funds has now had to be made to the banks and other large institutions, which means that perhaps the money is being taken out of the community, in direct conflict with the policy which I see being enunciated under Bill 134.

I am concerned about some of the conflicts. I'm concerned about some of the differences which are being shown by the initiatives here and by some of the initiatives which are being practically delivered under some of the existing legislation. This legislation doesn't solve all of the difficulties in small-town or rural Ontario or northern Ontario with respect to financial services. It does say that there should be a broader playing field for the credit unions and caisses populaires. It does say that for some credit unions and caisses populaires there will be watershed decisions taken about how far they choose to move in this area.

It's one which concerns me only from the standpoint of the security of individual members. That really is at the heart of the caisse populaire and credit union movement. The general welfare of the membership is what has brought them all together and it is what has to be shown in our committee time is not going to be harmed or hindered whatsoever.

I think that in some ways this legislation may provoke the end of some of our smaller credit unions or caisses populaires. I am concerned that some people will say: "I can't compete. I have waged the struggle very hard to make sure we've got a stable organization, but the membership is too small to get into this business and I have but one option and that is to go out of business or to find an organization which will take me over."

I think that may be in the back of the minds of the OSDIC people who are concerned about financial stability, only from a different point of view. They say, not that they've waged the war, but they are sort of concerned and saying, "Oh, my gosh, this may mean that the small credit unions will be forced to do things they're not able to do, that we don't see any other option but we'll have to step in" -- "we" being OSDIC -- "and provide the security for the membership of those small organizations."

It would be too bad, I think, at the end of the day, if in fact this legislation forced the elimination of some of our smaller members because, in my view, they do provide a real service. In some ways what is charming about the way credit unions do business -- and I don't mean charming from some sort of quaint or whatever manner of speech -- but what gives them such a strong local essence is that they know their people, they count on the bond in a real way, the bond of commitment and honesty that sometimes would not be seen by a larger institution when they go about receiving an application for financing.

They know, for instance, that Joe Blow perhaps doesn't have as much security as they might otherwise require but, because I am the chairman of the credit union, or the president, or I am the manager and I have known that Joe and his family have for years worked their backsides off and have always come through with the money, I know they'll do it again, and that in real essence the bond to the credit union and the bond to the community is used as part of the security for the loan that the credit union might very well make to a person who wouldn't have enough security to get financed by another organization.

If we eliminate all of that type of activity and we force the end to that type of lending practice which gave Joe credit for his intentions, then, of course, we are eliminating part of what is very valuable about caisses populaires and credit unions. There is an intangible element in the financial services provided by credit unions and caisses populaires which is not duplicated anyplace else, and if we lose that, then I think we lose a fine asset in the province of Ontario. Perhaps that's what behind part of the concern expressed to me by some people about this legislation's intent.

I should mention I don't want to indicate that there is not a real importance in it but I would like to say that, likewise, the life insurance industry is an important aspect, an important player, in our economy and there have been for some years some efforts being taken by life agents to update their legislation. It has been going on for at least as long as when I was minister and since then, and there were some real differences of opinion between a couple of associations on how they would work out the whole issue of sponsorship and for whom I may work. Some people want to issue products for more than one company, but generally speaking the life agent was a person who offered only one company's product.

1640

The whole issue now is obviously being resolved to the satisfaction of the life agents. They are writing to me and indicating they want to move forward with the legislation. I'm happy to say we will be moving forward with the legislation, but at the same time I would like to see them come in to our committee just to provide us with the sense of security that we need as legislators that the movement is going to be good for the people of the province of Ontario and that we can be assured that while this step is being taken, all are satisfied that the securities of the people who will buy life insurance products will be in no way influenced negatively by the movement.

Having said all the things I've said, I'm looking forward to this legislation moving fairly quickly. We have to get together with the other House leaders to see how long it will be in committee. I don't expect that to be long, but we would like to hear from the interested parties so that we can receive some assurances. We certainly want to hear from the ministry so that it can provide us with the sense of security we need to be absolutely sure we are stable and well established, on sound footing, so that we can get a good start to these new programs.

Finally, I would like to hear a definite time period from the ministry or from the minister with respect to the other areas I've enumerated that need amendments as well. I think that if we can do that between now and the next few weeks, that will be a real service to the financial services industry in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Comments or questions? The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Owens: I want to thank the member for Bruce for his comments. He's addressed a number of areas all coming back to essentially the same issue, which is the issue of investor-member protection, and I think that we share, I know that we share the same concern.

I believe it was either the member for Bruce or the member for Wilson Heights, during the auto insurance, both former ministers of Financial Institutions -- we had the opportunity to have a conversation about what happens when a financial institution goes down. There was an acknowledgement of some personal pain that's associated with the failure of a financial institution.

I think what happens, particularly with credit unions in smaller communities, when a smaller credit union goes down or goes out of business, it's the neighbours who know each other. We're not talking about some kind of Re-Mor/Astra Trust companies where there's a huge number of people and they may or may not know each other. In terms of some of the communities that the member for Bruce represents, or some of the folks in my community of Scarborough Centre, because they know each other, because there is this bond of association, when there's a credit union failure it's a very personal and a very painful process for people to lose their savings and possibly their homes as a result of a failure.

I think that in terms of this bill we will provide that protection and we will ensure that the credit unions keep their community base, and we are simply allowing the credit unions to expand their operations with that added consumer protection.

Mr Tilson: Just a few comments on what the member has indicated, and it's really in addition to the comments that have been made by the member for Scarborough Centre. I think that generally speaking most members of the House will be supporting this legislation, although there may be some changes that may be suggested.

One of the concerns I have was reiterated by you when you were making your comments. You commented about the issuance of stock, about someone coming along and taking over these credit unions. There's that issue, and there's the issue of the monopoly. I don't know. Hopefully, as the debate goes on or as we hear more about it, that assurance will be given by the government or there'll be something the government can refer to in which the little guy -- is the little guy going to be able to handle all of this legislation? Is the little guy going to be able to survive this legislation? Life is becoming more and more complicated for the little guy. In other words, we're dealing more and more with big government, big credit union, big almost everything.

It gets back to the small communities that this member represents and that I represent, in the rural communities specifically, where there is that understanding, that personal feeling of dealing with individuals. Hopefully, that won't be lost with this legislation. That is the major reservation I have to this entire legislation, the fear of the creation of a monopoly, the fear that the little person may not have the service that was provided in the past. That is a point on which I think the member should be congratulated in his speech to this House and hopefully he will reiterate it again in his two-minute response.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you to the member for Dufferin-Peel. Any further comments or questions? The member for Bruce has two minutes to respond.

Mr Elston: I appreciate that there will probably be more information available to us when we get into committee and I think the answers to those questions perhaps will be forthcoming in another forum, but they are important for us to have for the public when these pieces of legislation go through. The sense of security is what the financial regulation of business is all about, and that's the nature of the questions I have.

I started to say, I think at the beginning of my remarks, that this is probably a good piece of legislation to start a new session with, or at least this new sitting with, because of the fact that generally speaking I think there is a fair bit of cooperation around this. I don't think any of our organizations are opposed. I'll await the member for Markham. He has given me some assurances earlier that he is going to support it as well, and I suspect he will.

Perhaps we can demonstrate to the public that in areas of common interest where the legislation is generally balanced and moderate, it is easy, or easier, to move through the legislative process. That this is an example of that at the beginning of this session is probably a good way to begin it. It seems to me it will demonstrate that where there are not real differences, we're prepared to work soundly and firmly together to promote some genuinely good pieces of legislation.

At the same time, I guess we have to tell people that not all the pieces of legislation are going to be received like this one, and that's why, when somebody says, "Of course you're going to support the next couple that are going to come along and that we're going to introduce," I can't always commit to that because we haven't seen the product yet. But when the product arrives, we'll be able to deliver a verdict on those.

Mr Owens: Trust me.

Mr Elston: The member for Scarborough Centre says trust him. I'm prepared to trust myself when I see the legislation that he has prepared in those other areas.

Mr Cousens: As we continue this debate on Bill 134, I am pleased to participate, and as my honourable friend from Bruce has just indicated, I think there is a general consensus that the government in approaching the credit unions has done some good homework.

It's a complicated bill, and once we start touching on the financial institutions in our province, we have to make sure that everyone is protected, the consumers most of all, the investors. All the participants must understand the changes as they are going on. Not only do we have to understand the details of the bill; we also have to have a good feeling of what the regulations are going to be bringing out.

I see it as one of the important pieces of legislation we'll be dealing with. Certainly we can't be so fickle as to say everything in it is perfect. There are going to be a number of issues we want to work through and discuss further with the government, and as we do that, hopefully the government will have some good responses and also a willingness to address these concerns.

1650

When the member for Scarborough Centre completed his opening remarks, I asked him rather specifically why it was that the government hadn't dealt with the whole issue of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. His answer wasn't acceptable at all, because he didn't indicate when this would begin.

We're dealing with a news release, and I have a copy of it. The advantage of having a great assistant is that you don't lose anything: They gather it, and when you want to bring it out, it's there ready for you.

On October 29, the Minister of Financial Institutions at that time, Brian Charlton, said, "Okay, we're going to do something about financial services." He said, "It's of vital importance to the Ontario economy," and we all agree with that.

Then he said, "It's a major employer and provides a principal source of financing for economic growth, development and renewal in the province." That to me is also an important statement. You've got the pillars of the financial institutions that can and are able to provide the investment capital for entrepreneurs and business people, the small business person especially, to expand their business, to open up a new business. Anything we can do to try to make capital available for the reactivation of our economy is something we really must do. That was part of the intent behind this bill, and I was looking for more of that.

To the credit of the Minister of Finance, that is one thing that is going to be accomplished by this change in the legislation for the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act. It will mean that the credit unions that have large amounts of capital available will be able to invest more than just the 15% that they have until now, up to 35% or thereabouts, in entrepreneurial small business enterprise. This again is a way of touching on what is one of the urgent needs in our society, the availability of capital for small business. If anything is going to lead to jobs, it will be to have money available so that business people who want to make those jobs available can draw upon capital for whatever it is that it takes to produce those jobs.

To that extent, they have touched on it here. It's at least one of the ways in which it can be done, through the credit union system, but I am disappointed when we look for results on behalf of the government for these initiatives.

The government has done something about credit unions and caisses populaires. It has done something on the Insurance Act, and I'm supportive of the changes to the Insurance Act. It would appear that the insurance industry, and we'll touch upon this as we go through further debate of the bill, will have more of a self-policing capability. There will also be an increased educational service for those who are selling life insurance and more of a statement of whom they're brokering for. The whole insurance industry will be in a position to continue to regulate itself.

I was worried, and I think the insurance industry as well was concerned, that with banks especially and now credit unions having the ability to sell insurance services, was it going to cut into the insurance industry's ability to continue to provide its services? I want to touch on that, because to me it's one of those very important issues.

Having had excellent insurance agents wherever I've been and whomever I've dealt with, not only for my life services but also for my car, my household and my belongings, I have to say that the insurance industry is one of the most important industries in our province. We must do everything we can to keep a strong, independent insurance industry active and alive, allowing it to make a reasonable profit but allowing and encouraging it to continue to provide the services that are so essential to society. As one who has drawn upon them -- you buy insurance, and you want to make sure you have it. It's terrible when you have to cash in, to use some of those services when you've had a leak in your house or whatever it is, but at least you have it there and it protects you.

On the life insurance side in particular, I think the government is showing a responsible attitude towards the insurance industry and is doing it in such a way that it's not giving away the ship, as it has been inclined to do in so many other things this government has touched, to allow the government to take over or undermine that industry.

In fact, what is interesting about this bill is that both the credit union and caisse populaire and the insurance industry are saying, "We support the general intent of the bill." Whereas earlier there was some concern that the bill was going to be a problem, I'm satisfied that the discussion and dialogue between the government and industry representatives have been generally conducive to a good atmosphere of working things through.

I can't say the same, though, for what's happening with this ministry on the third issue that was addressed in this press release of October 29. The government said, "We will review and concentrate on much-needed reforms as well to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act." I have to ask specifically, and I already did ask the parliamentary assistant, when are you going to deal with the Loan and Trust Corporations Act? There are so many things that can be done to help those companies. The banks are having magnificent and wonderful changes allowing them to become far more all-encompassing financial institutions, and meanwhile trust companies are being limited on what their options are.

I can't emphasize that enough, on behalf not only of the trust companies -- they're not the concern -- but of the people across Ontario, where in small communities and elsewhere those trust companies have provided a long-time service to those communities. We really want to ensure that they have the opportunity to provide the services people are looking for, that we do something to eliminate the regulatory overlap and duplication that goes on between the different systems, something to achieve harmonization between the banks, the trust companies and now the credit unions. Let's not deal with them totally in isolation. Let there be some kind of effort on the part of the government that says, "We're going to deal with the important issue of the trust companies."

You've got all kinds of regulations coming on, and there's a high cost of the regulations for the trust companies. What is happening is that along the way we have seen a number of trust companies collapse over the last few years. There's an urgent need to deal with that, because indeed we have seen what happened with Seaway, Standard Trust, quite a series of them that have got into trouble.

What I would like is to see that we look at the trust companies, have a sense of what the regulations are at the different levels. Wouldn't this be an amazing thing, if the Ontario government were to say we're going to eliminate the Ontario government supervisory groups over trust companies, that as long as trust companies are compliant with the federal laws, we can eliminate the Ontario review side of it? What's that going to save? Why can't we start looking for ways that at the provincial level we try to be more compatible with the federal jurisdiction? To me, that is something we should be aiming for. As well, we should be looking for ways to see that those trust companies can offer a broader range of services.

I have every reason to believe that if we were to look at these issues, significant savings could be brought about. Not only would the savings assist the province in its costs of running this huge, monstrous system we've got, but they would go right to the depositors, the investors and the people who have money tied up with those institutions.

One more thing on Bill 134. What a bill. It's unfortunate that the government continues to try to put everything into one little binder, although it's not so little this time. With 184 pages, you begin to say that's an awful lot of legislation. I can accept the fact that you're going to have a large bill, because what we're doing is rewriting the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act -- that's really largely what's here -- but then the government, in its lack of wisdom, starts putting in lots of other sections beyond that.

After the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, then we come in with the life insurance act and its changes. How many life insurance agents do we have in Ontario? This is going to touch on every one of them. How informed are they as to the changes in this legislation? How ready are they for the changes that are being wrought upon them? I think there's an element there of educating those who are involved in the industry, and maybe their own industry has been doing a job to make sure they're aware of it, but there is also a ramping up that will go on so that those who are involved in the life insurance industry will become -- well, they are professional people as it is, but they want to become better at their job and more equipped to do what's going to be required of them because of Bill 134.

1700

The third issue is the Ontario Securities Commission. We bring in a number of changes that affect the Ontario Securities Commission. So there's a third bill that is tied into this general bill. Most people will be thinking, well, it's just a credit union act. It isn't. It affects three major institutions in the province of Ontario.

While I was waiting, I had a chance -- reading all the sections becomes a challenge with the time we have, but at the very back of the bill there are other sections that are amendments to other acts, and the bill touches upon 11 other acts. It's one thing to just deal with the credit union business, the life insurance and the Securities Act, but then when you start realizing that the bill, and I just want to touch on it, deals with the Cemeteries Act, and that has to do with certain credit-union-related things -- I just wish somehow or other that it could be tied in to another part of the bill.

Then we have another section where the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act is referred to. I suggest that people have a look at that because it has to do with regulations on motor vehicles requiring them to have a contract for automobile insurance. I thought that was required already, but maybe there was one section that didn't have it.

Certainly I would ask Mr Owens, the member for Scarborough Centre, to comment or to be prepared when we get to committee to discuss some of these other acts that are involved.

It also deals with the County of Oxford Act as it relates to them with their credit unions. It deals with the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

It deals with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That's something I will touch on in my remarks, because one of the concerns we have had in the past is that when people ask for information through their credit unions through the freedom of information act, they are not able to get that information. If this is an approach to try to expand that availability of information, I think that would be good. I don't think it is, but I will be anxious because they have now opened this up in this bill, to make some amendments with regard to making it possible for members of credit unions and caisses populaires to obtain, through freedom of information, certain information that would be required of their boards of directors.

The other act at the back of this important piece of legislation is the Law Society Act. It's making a number of changes, again, as it applies to credit unions. I have to see why.

The Loan and Trust Corporations Act is being amended. The Power Corporation Act is being amended. The Regional Municipalities Act is being amended. The Toronto Futures Exchange Act is being amended. I have to admit that I'm going to have to have other specialists look at that in order to assist me in understanding what those changes mean. I don't expect the honourable parliamentary assistant to have those answers, but I know that it behooves ourselves to make sure we understand what that is all about.

Finally, there are changes to the Stock Exchange Act.

So at the very back of this Bill 134, there are 11 other acts mentioned in addition to the three at the very beginning. When people come along and say, "What are you doing at Queen's Park, guys and gals?" we're not just reading acts; we've got to understand what they're all about and what impact they have.

I am one who has belonged to the credit union since 1967. I've been part of the credit union movement for a long time. Since 1967, I've belonged to one credit union and have followed the success and the peaks and valleys of that credit union. I have to go on record as saying I think it's one of the best little financial institutions that you could possibly have. I personally think there is a service level that we, as members of the credit union, any credit union -- I haven't seen people knock credit unions. I know there are issues in credit unions and there are many that have failed or have had trouble because they have not kept up to the regulatory standards, and the new bill will address the audit standards and other changes that are required.

But let's just talk about those credit unions that are doing such an outstanding job. Let's give them credit. Let's understand them as being what they are: very responsible, people-owned, people-operated operations that help people. Where a bank would turn them down and where other institutions didn't understand their need, a person could go into their credit union and if they're putting an addition on their home or they're buying a car or they even have repairs to their car -- it doesn't really matter what it might be -- they can sit down with a financial adviser and know that their situation is going to be listened to; it's going to be understood.

The other thing that happens so often that isn't available everywhere, but I know it is in the credit union, is you'll get some advice and they'll come back and -- I know some of the advice has been, "Hey, don't do that now. Let's look at your whole financial picture," the kind of thing a good financial counsellor would tell someone, but from the credit union counsellor it really has meaning because they're like ourselves and when you go to them they're in a position to say, "This is the good advice you need."

If you think I'm happy with the credit unions, I am. I've been so fortunate to have been a member of -- and I'll mention the name of the credit union and then I've done my little plug for the day. It's the Honeywell credit union and I'm still a member of it. They're just fabulous people doing a wonderful job for common, everyday people. The only other thing that's really good to give them a plug is where you can have --

Mr Sutherland: Politicians.

Mr Cousens: Politicians -- I think we should have our own credit union here. I'd go for it because in one way it's a disciplined way of saving when you can have it right off your salary and you can put it in and then you can have your little nest egg and then use it for Christmas or something else.

Mr Owens: What about solvency?

Mr Cousens: Oh, yes, it helps the solvency.

Mr Sutherland: We don't want this like the bank of Congress.

Mr Cousens: No, we don't want it like that. But let's just understand, people of Ontario, that credit unions have a very important place, caisses populaires as well, in our society and as part of our financial system.

I worried when I saw how some of them have been in very, very serious trouble in recent years. It's not an easy thing when you start seeing people's money getting into trouble because those very credit unions just haven't had the kind of -- it's supervision as much as anything and it's an audit supervision. It's saying you can be out there doing it right. If you're going to be self-regulated, that's wonderful, but there has to be some kind of Big Brother who's watching over it to make sure that those operations are according to a financial standard that is acceptable such as our own Provincial Auditor would lay down for the province, that every organization will have its own internal auditor but there's also going to be an external audit capability.

For some credit unions it might be a little hard and a little new discipline to start accepting some of the changes, but implicit to this bill, it's saying as a government there's been discussion and debate, the credit union can continue to be strong, it has an opportunity to continue to operate but the guidelines are being tightened, they're being changed and they're generally in a position to make sure that the credit unions don't let down their investors, their shareholders, the people who are part of them.

There are going to be issues in this bill -- and I really sincerely hope that the government is open-minded to a number of the issues that are going to be raised -- that keep coming up. I'm going to be very careful not to mention the name of the person or the particular credit union that has been referred to in this letter, and I'm not exactly sure that all the points are addressed by the bill nor are they solved by the bill, but may I just say that as early as early March this year I had a letter from an Ontario citizen who is outlining concerns about credit unions.

He says that there are some 230 credit unions that have had to be liquidated or amalgamated since September 1987, some of them through plant closures, and I can see how that would happen. So the credit unions are going through massive change in and of themselves. I haven't seen the total impact that has had on the unions. In fact, if anything may be going on, there may be an amalgamation of credit unions happening so you're getting bigger and bigger credit unions.

1710

The point the member for Bruce brought up, which I want to touch on, is that the very small credit unions may be the ones that have a hard time surviving with the change. I don't want to take away from the ability of the small credit union to continue to operate, or to start up, and that if there's going to be an opportunity for some group that wants to start a credit union, it is still possible for them to pool their resources and find a way of doing that.

This person who wrote this letter -- I will make sure the member for Scarborough Centre gets a copy of this letter and then is in a position, privately, to comment on it, especially as to the issues -- makes great complaint that the financial ministry also controls the freedom of information, "which makes it impossible for credit union members to get the facts when the ministry doesn't want to give them, allowing them to virtually be able to control through no information, misinformation, delayed information," and it goes on.

I am concerned and would like to at least have discussed at some point that issue for members of credit unions, when they are shareholders and they are members: Is there any way for them, presently or in the bill or in the future, to have access to information that's going on within that credit union through the freedom of information? I think it's always our intent to make sure that things are open, and if there is some way in which we can address the bill to make sure that access to information is an open door -- I know it is in my situation. I just want to make sure we've protected all people.

The second point in this particular letter has to do with the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp. It talks about the lack of control of that and how the superintendent investigative unit may not have the freedom to do the things it should be able to do as it pertains to the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp. I want to see that we review that to the extent that the person makes another point in this letter and says, "Local police forces are ill-equipped to handle any theft or fraud that exists in these institutions or to enforce the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, and leaves the enforcing in the hands of the ministry."

I think the new audit approach that's being developed by the government in the new Bill 134 will begin to address some of these concerns and means that if a person -- I'm going to be interested in having a clear answer on this question -- under the new act has some concerns of any kind about the goings-on in the credit union of a financial nature as it pertains to their investments and their shares, or whatever assets that make up the credit union, through the auditor that information would at least be reviewed, investigated and there would be some satisfaction to the person who raised the question.

I'm going to leave this issue, but there are some credit unions where they have not abided by the existing regulations. When that has happened, then we've seen default and breakdown and closing down of those credit unions. The concern that this person has, and it's really the same point I was just touching on, is that it needs to be enforced in the proper manner, and to what degree are we sure the act is being enforced evenly and evenhandedly across the province.

The person goes on and talks about another point, the violation of his rights as a credit union member. He feels there are certain fraudulent acts that have taken place within an existing credit union and that he hasn't been allowed to get the information he needs.

It all ties very closely together as one series of points. If Bill 134, as an act to revise the credit union act, is going to address some of those types of concerns, then those are steps in the correct direction.

When we start looking at this bill, we understand just how big and complicated this whole system is. All you have to do is look at the table of contents to gain an understanding of all the elements that go into making a credit union. The index itself takes several pages. What you start looking at is how you establish a credit union; the objects, the powers and miscellaneous; who the memberships are; the capital structure; capital and liquidity; governing the credit union, the whole sense of how that is done; the powers they have in business; the restricted party transactions; their meetings, how they are; returns and inspections; enforcement; the credit union league, which is an important part of it; the Ontario Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corp, how that's going to work and all those; the dissolution, amalgamation and reorganization of credit unions is dealt with; the regulations of the credit unions; offences when you're in breach of some of the regulations; and miscellaneous and review. So what we're really seeing is a total rewrite of the act.

As I started looking at it, what I'd like to know is if we're really in a position -- on the one hand, we want to see more money available to business to expand, to develop, to grow, and what we really also want to do is strengthen the credit union movement. I understand an estimated 1.8 million Ontario citizens, roughly 18% of the Ontario population, are members of a credit union, and what the credit unions have long argued is that provincial laws and regulations have put them at a competitive disadvantage relative to other financial institutions by limiting the range and type of products and services they could offer. By virtue of that failure to understand it, hopefully Bill 134 will address this imbalance.

Bill 134 parallels at the provincial level federal legislation passed last June affecting the credit union centrals in Canada. These are the central banks of the credit unions. The federal law, as I understand it, was designed to put the centrals on a more equal footing with banks and help them position credit unions to compete more directly with banks. That's something I really support. Canada's well served by its banks, but boy, they sure have a monopoly on things, and then the banks are moving into so many other financial services.

Not to look at the credit unions and not to give the credit unions the opportunity to be more competitive than they have been is a mistake. So now what we're in a position of doing, since the federal government has given leadership to this, is that Ontario legislation can again follow suit and assist us in providing that extra competitive edge for this, the smallest pillar in the financial kingdom in the province of Ontario.

We see the bill that's been presented as part of a continuing effort on the part of both the provincial and the federal governments and the regulators to level the playing field in the financial services sector in response to the erosion of the traditional four-pillars system caused by the breakdown in the institutional segregation in the delivery of products and services which used to be the hallmarks of this sector in Canada.

What we're really facing up to is a changing financial system, and through the credit unions we're going to see some new opportunities for them to expand and to grow. So what we're seeing is that this new act as it affects credit unions will supplant the regulatory regime imposed on credit unions and caisses populaires by their current act, which will be repealed and replaced with a system which will allow credit unions to become more of a one-stop shopping financial service centre.

Among the major changes proposed by this bill for credit unions, what we're really seeing is new rules governing the lending practices of credit unions and caisses populaires. Current law requires that each credit union pass bylaws approved by its members and the provincial government before it can lend money, and that it can only lend money in accordance with those bylaws. In addition, the amount a credit union can lend is limited presently at only 15% of its assets, which can only be put out for commercial loans. Bill 134 proposes a general prudent standard test for lending and investment decisions and the development of a written lending policy as a requirement for a lending licence, which will define the parameters to give them the power to do it.

That makes a lot of sense. The board of directors for the credit union will be able to say: "Okay, these are the kinds of terms of reference we want. This is our own membership's money. Therefore, we want to make sure that whenever we invest that in a loan situation, we have done it according to very clearly defined terms."

1720

What will happen now -- I think this is one of the highlights of this bill and I take a certain amount of satisfaction in supporting this particular section. The indication is that the regulations to come out on lending and investment policies in terms of the capability of the unions to lend more money to other agencies for commercial lending will be as high as 35%. I wish I had the exact amount of dollars that's going to put out into the marketplace, but I would think it's probably going to be in the order of $1.5 billion, that range of dollars, from the total reserves of credit unions. It means that some of the reserves that otherwise were locked up, untouchable, unavailable for the entrepreneur, who is starving for opportunities to make investment, can now be made available to them.

I wish the government would look to other ways of making capital available to the small business person. I realize that there are other special financial plans being set up, but the more we can make our own money work for us here in the province, the better.

Start thinking of how much money has gone from our jurisdiction south of the border and into other jurisdictions out of Canada. If we were to make changes to, for instance, the amount of money that pension funds can invest for new opportunities, for venture capital, if even up to 5% of the pension moneys could be made available for that, we would have billions of dollars made available to small business, or big business: Canadians lending to Canadians to help Canadians, Ontario investors putting money out to Ontario small business enterprises to help them.

Mr Sutherland: What about the Ontario investment fund?

Mr Cousens: That kind of thing, but even more so, because what we're talking about is pension funds that are separated and by virtue of the laws around them can't be used for this kind of investment into new business enterprises. That is what's holding us back as much an anything. There are a lot of things that hold us back in the province of Ontario: Bill 40, the dumb labour legislation of this province. There are many things the NDP has done that are absolutely wrong.

There is no doubt that they have created an environment that is antagonistic to business and that business has never had a tougher time just to stay alive and succeed and stay in business because of all the regulations of government. If you want to talk about a government that has done more to hurt business, there's never been anything as bad as Bob Rae's socialist crew. Since they came in with the wrecking gang to the province of Ontario on September 6, 1990, they've had a great time changing the whole environment for business in the province.

I'm starting to get mad again. I was doing well until now, but I have to say that the government really has to -- I'm just getting back to it. I was doing okay until I started thinking about all --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): To the member for Markham, we're dealing with Bill 134.

Mr Owens: That's the problem, Don: You started thinking.

Mr Cousens: The member for Scarborough Centre is probably right. Once I started to think, I started to get in trouble.

But the people of the province of Ontario had better understand that there may be some things that are right in Bill 134, but the rest of what's gone on with this government since it came into operation -- you start looking at the automobile insurance, where we're paying 24% more this year than last year. You start looking at what they're doing with Bill 40, and you talk to the member from Simcoe and see that some 2,000 jobs could be lost because of Bill 40. You start looking at the WCB premiums, up by 33%. You start seeing them destroying the horse racing industry with their casino gambling. You've got a business regulation fee of $50 a year. You start seeing what they're doing with health care, day care, seniors' care. Anyway, I don't want to get off on some of the tangents where things couldn't be worse.

There isn't any doubt that under this government we have massive cleanup of things to go on once we take over and when Mike Harris becomes Premier of the province. When Mr Rae calls the election, I'm satisfied that the people of Ontario will see the Conservatives as having a very realistic alternative to offer over what the Liberals did when they were in -- you guys will start agreeing now -- with their 33 taxes, and your 32 taxes. We'll at least be freezing taxes.

There are enough things to be done here in the province to clean things up. Hopefully -- and I want to get back to the bill, Mr Speaker -- Bill 134 will have been cleaned up enough that we're not going to have to go back and reopen the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): You're talking to the future mayor of Markham. Be careful.

Mr Cousens: I wish the honourable member would listen and deal with Bill 134, which is the issue we're dealing with at present. You shouldn't be interrupting from someone else's seat either. There are rules in this House and you've got to learn --

Mr Mammoliti: I am in my seat.

Mr Cousens: I don't know where you sit any more; you're all over the place.

The issue we're dealing with is that if the bill is going to be correct, it's going to have to be looked at and is going to have to be dealt with. At least it may be one of those issues we can set aside and agree on after there's been a full discussion and debate so we don't have to rewrite it next year when we take over the government of Ontario.

I was dealing with the one issue in Bill 134 that has to do with availability of funds, the fact that the asset ratio for larger institutions can be as high as 35%. The fact that the government is recognizing that the caisses populaires and the credit unions are an excellent vehicle to provide investment capital for entrepreneur activity in the province of Ontario is one of those things that is a model of government.

I would like to have some comparison, and the parliamentary assistant may put this down on the list of things when we have further debate on it. In Quebec, the caisses populaires have been a tremendous boon, and we have quite a number in Ontario. I'm anxious to know what the lending ratio is in some of the other jurisdictions by legislation and regulation. Is it as high as 35%? What's the magic in that number? The fact that it's better than 15% of the total assets of the credit unions shows that there is a capital fund we can use for investing in new business enterprises, expansion of business, new machinery, whatever. But is there a rationale why the government is saying it's going to be 35%, some 20% better than what we have now?

I'd really like to make sure there isn't any magic to the number, that there may well be -- and I like the fact that each individual credit union will have the option to go back to its own shareholders and make its own regulations that would maybe limit their amount of investment in other ventures to something less than that. Again, they have that imperative from within that gives them an even tighter set of controls over what they're doing.

My own credit union lost $70,000 in 1992, and that was a really tough year, but some credit unions lost a lot more and it's taking a while to get out of it. We have to make sure that when we're setting up the guidelines, as we are through this bill, those guidelines are realistic and workable and competitive with other provinces and jurisdictions.

Indeed, the thrust of this bill I think is extremely positive, coming from a socialist government, inasmuch as it's going to allow lenders to have more money available to them. I take that as a positive point.

But there are a number of things around it. The bottom-line question to the parliamentary assistant or to the minister is: Is there any magic to any percentage? What really are the ingredients that you look at on that? What is it that financial specialists would be saying? Would they be saying it should be higher or lower? Not being an economist, it becomes an issue that would be worthwhile assessing further.

1730

I'm satisfied as well that the credit unions will have a broader range of activities, as set out in section 174 of the bill. To me, this makes an awful lot of sense. It goes through them in quite some detail. The simple one that I can understand, urban transit tickets and tickets in respect to lotteries -- I mean, this government's going to put lotteries anywhere it can, so you'll be able to buy your lottery tickets at the credit union, and then tickets on a non-profit, public service basis.

Mr Owens: Computer stores.

Mr Cousens: And computer stores. Well, they'll have lots of things for sale.

But the worry I have, and I have to say it only in the sense that, don't ever lose the specialty that goes on within some of these institutions. When an institution comes along and starts having too many powers, will it forget and lose sight of the primary objective of those institutions? I sincerely hope not.

Credit unions: Let's not forget they're a financial institution and that they're servicing their depositors and their creditors, they're serving the community that they're responsible for. When you start giving them all the extra financial services that are now going to be available to them, I challenge the whole system to pause and reflect that if you're going to do something, do it well. Don't try to be all things to all people. You can't just come along and say, "Hey, I'm going to dabble in all these 10 different things."

That was one of the concerns that I had in the earlier stages of discussions about this bill, that in fact you'd see quite an expansion within the credit unions selling insurance services, and in fact what the bill has now done is say, "When prudent levels are being followed." So the bill has accepted that and is putting some guidelines around those credit unions or caisses populaires that might want to get into it.

There isn't any doubt that those services are often provided by Ontario mutual insurance associations that are next door or upstairs or nearby, so there's been an insurance link with the credit unions for generations. I just want to make sure that we don't ever take away the specialty and the value of dealing with people who truly understand their business, understand their clients, understand what it is to make investments, follow them through and do that well. That's got to be the prime focus that goes on within this. If you do that well, then the other things will flow. Then you're going to have the kind of success we all dream for them.

What we've seen here is quite an expansion of the powers that can be given out to the different credit unions to carry on business or business activity other than just purely the traditional credit union services. I don't have big problems with that. I just want to make sure we continue to remember the very purpose for which we're established.

I have the section here where we dealt with the issue on insurance services. Section 177 says, "A credit union may undertake the business of insurance or act as an agent for any person in placing insurance only to the extent permitted by the regulations." So I'm satisfied that we're not going to be taking away opportunities for other people.

I haven't seen the regulations, and I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could in fact, if there is a draft set of regulations that are being prepared -- and I understand that they are being made available to the industry -- I'd be very interested in having a set of those available as well. People who follow the Legislature will often forget how the system works. We come along in the Legislature, and we'll pass Bill 134. Everything passes if the government brings it up, as the member for Leeds-Grenville will know, if the government brings in a bill and it uses the majority to put the rubber stamp on it and give it first, second and third reading.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): That's right.

Mr Cousens: We in opposition have a chance to comment at each of those stages, but once it passes third reading, then it goes out and is dealt with by the bureaucracy and the civil servants. At that point, and shortly after that, the regulations, which are the translation of all the ways in which the bill is going to work, are passed by order in council. So when they're passed, who knows the impact that they're going to have upon the industry? It would be very, very helpful to us in trying to assess the far-reaching implications of this bill, if the regulations are close to being ready, if the draft is being circulated outside the Legislature to other groups, to make them available to ourselves so that we can again understand and interpret the impact that those regulations are going to have upon the industry.

That's all part and parcel of the discussion, because what happens is that the Legislature comes along, we pass this bill, and then the regulations are dealt with separately and we have no way of changing that. The legislation we deal with; the regulations are dealt with by the bureaucrats or a group of parliamentary assistants. That isn't totally satisfying, because there's so much power in the regulations.

I'm trying to think of the bill in particular -- and one of my colleagues might remember the one for seniors. Was it Bill 109 or Bill 106 that was dealing with seniors, and then within the regulations the government had the right to increase the cost of care for seniors, and it resulted in something like a 30% increase to seniors. It wasn't in the bill; it was in the regulations of the bill, so it was out of our control.

If we had known -- and we debated it extensively in the Legislature -- how heinous, how substandard, how rotten and how horrible the regulations were going to be, we would have started raising more of a noise during the debate on the bill itself. But the regulations came out after the fact and, as a result, the seniors of the province of Ontario living in seniors homes were hit with -- I think it was a 27% to 30% increase in costs for those who were paying for their own services. There was one section in there, but it was all through regulations.

I'm saying then that if the government is in a position that it has the draft regulations, make them available to us, let us understand them. We'll understand them by reading them and discussing them with our advisers, and then we'll be in a position to see that those proposed draft regulations are consistent with the intent that the government has said in all its speeches.

The problem you have is, I, in opposition, don't trust the government. It's my job in responsible opposition to look at everything the government's coming out with, and if it's positive, admit that it's positive and support it. If there is something that we can improve upon and review and test, then we have to do that as well. But our job is to be an honest opposition to do that.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): We do that over here too.

Mr Cousens: You're saying no. I have to say that there are one or two things your government's done right, and I'll stand up and admit to it.

Mr Runciman: In three and a half years.

Mr Cousens: I think in three and a half years, if you do anything right, I'm willing to -- the fact that you're putting in Highway 407 across northern Toronto and even the toll road, as much as I hate it, I'm willing to support it. But if you start talking about dumps and Bill 143 and the other things that your government's been doing, I can't find too much to support. It's the regulations you've got. Bill 143 is an example where the government sets up the Interim Waste Authority and that Interim Waste Authority is decided by regulations and we never hear about it. So it's done outside of the legislation itself.

Mr Klopp: I think we're getting a little off the bill.

The Acting Speaker: To the honourable member, it's 134 and not 143 we're dealing with.

Mr Cousens: I have to get into Bill 143. There's such a similarity sometimes. When the government's dealing with things --

Mr Runciman: It's understandable.

Mr Cousens: It's totally understandable that I would come along and start thinking of Bill 143 when I'm dealing with Bill 134, because --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Only you would do that.

Mr Cousens: I'll tell you, I've been dealing with Bill 143, which is the whole business of dumps in and around the greater Toronto area --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: We've been dumped on by you guys, that's what's happened, and I'm telling you that I'm going to be fighting that every chance I have. I was talking about the regulations under Bill 143 and this is -- the poor people taking this in will be more suicidal now than they were when they started watching. It's just a very simple fact that has to do with the --

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Need help on your speaking style?

Mr Cousens: I need all the help I can get. I know the problem we have in dealing with your guys; I'm sure you must think there are problems in dealing with people like me. You don't like to hear the truth, and that's my job, to come along and try to make honest politicians out of you people and to make sure that what you do is done correctly and well for the benefit of the province of Ontario. If I do it with a touch of humour, it's only because it's so laughable the way you've done most of the other things.

We're just fresh back and we're supposed to be all in a good spirit and a good mood --

Mr Huget: Who told you that?

Mr Cousens: I don't know. The Speaker yesterday took me aside and asked me if I'd behave myself, and I promised him that I would yesterday.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): That was then, this is now.

Mr Cousens: That was for yesterday. That was my commitment. This is a new day.

1740

I understand that the regulations are in draft form and that the government has them somewhere. I'd like to see the government make them available to us so that we can analyse them, assess and evaluate them to see the total impact. I'm interested in them because it would be good to allow people in trust companies and banks and other areas in financial institutions to have a look at those in case they show some of the new and fresh intent that may be coming from the government.

One of the other things that's coming out of this bill is the investment powers, including the ability to invest in shares in community investment corporations and community loan funds for small businesses, the type provided by the earlier legislative initiative. If we're able to see credit unions invest their capital in some of the community investment activities -- we've got to find ways of doing that, and I'm supportive of that intent.

One of the things the member for Bruce touched upon, and I have to give him credit for having at least one good point in his speech, has to do with the issue where the credit unions are expanding their membership base. In section 34, public sector institutions, corporations, municipalities, unincorporated businesses and partnerships may all become members of a credit unit. Under Bill 134, credit unions would be able to accept deposits from municipalities, the provincial and federal governments, crown agencies and other institutions specified in the bill.

I think there is good value in that, that that has benefits. I also want to put a proviso on that. One of the strengths of a credit union, if you take the Dutch credit union or the different unions that have credit unions -- Stelco would, and the major industries -- the people who are members know each other. They want to help each other.

When you start expanding the membership to go outside the existing definitions of how those groups have been formed, you are possibly eroding one of the real binding factors of the strengths of the credit unions, where those who are members have something in common, and because they've had something in common they have not wanted to be put in the position of letting down their friends, their neighbours, their co-workers, their co-inhabitants, whatever it was that brought them together within this community movement. I therefore want to make sure that we keep something of the identity of the credit unions that's in danger of being diluted by allowing an expansion to the membership of the credit union or the caisse populaire, by allowing people who have not got the identity of the original group that formed it.

One of the strengths, you see, is the credit union debt-to-capital ratio, especially in those that have gone defunct: People have paid back the credit union. The problem with other institutions, because they don't have that identity with the group, is that they will not have the same payback attributes. The credit union has a better ratio of collecting the money it loans out. If you no longer have the identity of the group really clear in the minds of everybody, you're going to have strangers without that kind of membership qualification and criterion who may then do something that undermines the best interests of the whole group.

I challenge both the government and the credit unions to do what they can to maintain the identity of the group in such a way that there is that continuing obligation of the membership to help each other.

Mr Mammoliti: Don, you are becoming boring. You need to spice it up a bit.

Mr Cousens: I'm being told that I'm becoming boring. Well, I'm usually boring, and I'm short of spice.

That is one issue. The next one I will go to, as I speed through, is the provision in part V of the bill to allow credit unions to raise capital by issuing non-membership shares. This is also tied in to that whole issue of the membership base that goes outside of the group you're talking about. I have some concerns about that. It's on page 30, and I was looking at that yesterday, this whole capital structure. I'll leave it this way right now: that there be further discussion about the impact this will have on investments in the credit union. I'd be very interested if the parliamentary assistant would review what's happened in other jurisdictions. He certainly has the resources, far more than we have in opposition, to see what has happened in other jurisdictions where they have expanded the membership and the capital structure into non-membership groups. I leave it at that. It sounds dry, and I'm sorry there isn't more spice.

I'm satisfied that the bill will allow credit unions to join the leagues formed by 10 or more credit unions. The vast majority of credit unions are members of leagues, and these leagues would, pursuant to another section in the bill, accept deposits and make loans and guarantee loans. The intent seems to be to provide a mechanism whereby credit unions could band together to finance larger projects. That is also in the intent of making money available where it's needed.

We could say a few more things about credit unions, but I'll leave that for the moment. There are a number of questions yet to be raised. It is a very large rewrite of existing legislation as it affects credit unions, and I'm satisfied that the general thrust the government has followed is in keeping with good dialogue with the industry and that it has addressed major concerns that have been raised. It leaves a number of questions yet to be answered and it will not be possible to deal with this in only first and second reading of the bill.

I think the way to deal with those parts of the bill is that we refer it to committee, and I would hope very much that we have public hearings so that others might be able to comment and share their views. It's so important, when you're effecting legislation that touches upon 1.8 million Ontario citizens in a very serious financial way, that we give everyone an opportunity to comment on it. If there are any insights they have that can help us refine, fine-tune or improve this legislation, it's important for us to do that.

The tougher standards for life insurance agents I think will change the way life insurance agents are regulated in Ontario. The intention here seems to be to balance the elimination of the prohibition against brokerage in life insurance of the current Insurance Act with a new regulatory scheme involving a two-tier licensing system, higher educational standards, a complaints process and a code of conduct. The insurance industry, by commenting to us that they're generally in favour of these changes, shows something that I think has been very present in the life insurance industry in particular. They have been pushing for higher standards among themselves. I know the kind of training meetings very close friends of mine have on a regular basis. They're on top of annuities and retirement plans and benefit plans in a way that it's a specialty that is a service to our society. What we'll have here is a new system to deal with complaints that people have, and the code of conduct will have to be followed.

I'm satisfied too that the industry will be able to move towards more self-regulation. And isn't that a good thing? Doctors have that now. With self-regulation comes that responsibility to monitor themselves and make sure the standards are at the highest level: that the standard of education is high, that the review of discipline and the conduct and behaviour of its members are also at the highest level.

I think we are also seeing an improvement here where this bill will eliminate the current blanket prohibition against brokerage in life insurance in the sole occupation and full-time employment requirements. The whole blanket prohibition that you can just deal with one life insurance company will be changed. That you can be a broker for more than one is good.

We're dealing in an age where you can't just be working on one activity; you have to be capable of doing other things. Someone might be working for a transit company and selling life insurance; they might have two jobs. In our society it's unfortunate that we're at that point where people are having to carry two, three and four jobs in order to make ends meet and keep it going. Certainly, the insurance industry understands the shortfalls in not being able to sell at certain times. You've got to have some stability in your income.

1750

I'm satisfied that is in the right direction. I'm satisfied as well that there's a new two-tier licensing and examination process for life insurance agents. It'll create a more stringent test to qualify for a level one licence and then it throws in an experience factor for the level two licence. That is also good.

I'm satisfied as well that there's good protection for the consumer coming up. I hope that when we are discussing this bill further, we'll see that it satisfies the needs of all the consumer protection we should have. Agents now don't have to carry this kind of insurance. Agents will be forced to carry errors and omissions insurance. First of all, they'll have to have insurance so that if they make a mistake in dealing with someone, there'll be an insurance policy that protects them. If you buy a piece of property, your real estate agent also has insurance. The same kind of insurance will now apply to life insurance agents and I think that makes good sense. They'll also be required to disclose their company affiliations, and that too should be right out in the open.

The Ontario Securities Commission changes in the act make sense to me. It gives the Ontario Securities Commission the opportunity to investigate and sanction breaches in the Securities Act and it allows it to levy the penalty according to the misdemeanour that was created by whoever was involved. It strengthens their powers, and it softens their powers in certain areas so that they don't have to necessarily use the big club all the time. They're then in a position that they can sit down, collect evidence, have a hearing and develop remedies and adjudications more in keeping with the situation they're dealing with. So what we are dealing with are these two sections there that are important.

I am concerned with one area that will be coming up in the public hearings. We end up hearing from the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association. Is this not the opportunity to build within the legislation some form of addressing the concerns they have? Again, I pose it as a question.

I hope that by our party supporting the fact that this legislation, Bill 134, would go out for public hearings -- those public hearings don't have to take a long time, by the way. I'm not indicating that there should be extended, protracted public hearings at all. If this bill is dealt with within the next two weeks in the Legislature, it could be referred to the finance committee. We could be in public hearings on this certainly by the middle or end of April and we could be back in the House by May 1 with some findings on it. I don't think there is any intention here of stalling or keeping this off the books or from being acted upon by the government.

There are two issues that recently were raised by the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association, and two resolutions were unanimously supported by its membership way back on November 8 of last year. What they asked for was the possibility of establishing a loan corporation to be owned by farm mutuals so that additional financial services products could be offered to the policyholders of farm mutuals. All they're asking is, are there other financial services such as some of the things that are presently available through the credit unions that could also be made available to the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association?

I'm not sure of the validity of this. I know it's a concern that's being raised by very legitimate organizations. I'm putting it on the table so the ministry can understand that issue better, look into it and maybe establish more dialogue with them. If it can't be done through this Bill 134, maybe there are other ways in which we could begin to address methods by which the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association can provide other financial services to its membership, because the membership in Ontario mutual insurances is in many respects similar to credit unions. Though I'm not a member of them, and so I don't have the same intimate knowledge that I have through the credit union movement, it's an issue that I at least want to table and allow to receive some consideration.

Another issue raised as well by the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association was for farm mutuals to either enter into a networking arrangement with a life insurance company to provide customized life products to their policyholders or to establish a life insurance subsidiary to be owned by the farm mutuals. Inasmuch as this Bill 134 has opened up the life insurance issue in a number of significant ways, is this the time to raise this whole issue on the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association?

By virtue of the fact that we're dealing with such important bills that affect so many people, I think one of the issues -- we were caucusing this this morning in our own caucus, the Conservative caucus. The honourable member for SDG & East Grenville, Mr Noble Villeneuve, was raising this as an issue that he wanted to make sure was addressed. People had raised it with him. In fact, as I look up, the Acting Speaker is now Mr Villeneuve, who was raising this subject with me. On his behalf, I have been very careful to present this issue. The agricultural community has a genuine concern and love for their mutuals, and if there's any way in which their concerns could be considered by the government during the process of considering Bill 134, then it would satisfy those concerns.

I table that. I wish I knew more about how it would work, but I'm satisfied that if the government can carry on in a spirit of give and take, we can at least take another four to eight weeks to work out some of these details and make sure that everybody goes away with a sense of satisfaction in it.

There are many more things to comment on in the bill. It's probably an appropriate time to pause and allow other members, if they want, to react or respond in any way on my comments, and as the debate continues, others will be able to raise their own points of view. I appreciate the attention that's been given to the bill and I apologize if I started comparing it to Bill 143, though it's Bill 134. I have such horrible memories of Bill 143 that my memories of Bill 134 don't even compare with those agonizing moments.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'd like to congratulate the member for Markham for a very thorough analysis of Bill 134, and 143, I suppose, at the same time.

The member has an excellent insight into financial matters and several of his comments touched a chord with me, because during my municipal career I was associated with a credit union in East York. The member for Markham has expressed concern with regard to small credit unions, and the East York credit union would fit the bill.

Certainly, there's an example of a credit union that is very close to its constituency, its constituency being the employees of the borough of East York. There is a credit union that involves the employees, the people who work in East York. They volunteer for the executive committee. They make the decisions. They're involved in the whole process in terms of people making contributions to the credit union, in terms of how the money is loaned out. There's a total involvement, and it's an excellent organization.

The member has expressed concern for the smaller credit unions: Will they be able to survive? Are we looking at a future where we're looking at the survival of larger credit unions but where the smaller credit unions, perhaps unintentionally but perhaps partly as a result of this bill -- there are many excellent aspects of this bill, and the member for Markham has put them forward. But for example, in the bill the reserves will have to be at a higher rate. This may impact on the smaller credit unions. The capital can be raised from non-members. Again, this may have an impact on the smaller credit unions. So I thank the member for Markham for raising many of these points and putting them forward to us here today.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? The parliamentary assistant and member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Owens: Mr Cousens raises a number of interesting issues, and some very unique issues that may not have been related to Bill 134 before, but are still unique anyway.

In terms of some of the questions Mr Cousens raised, on the issue with respect to the loan and trust amendments that were announced in the press release, there was never an intention that loan and trust legislation would precede the credit union act. It was always understood that the credit union act would go first and that the loan and trust act would follow second. So in terms of where we are at on that, we are still working with the industry and certainly hope that at some point in the future we will resolve some of the issues that are still outstanding.

In terms of the lending limits under the old legislation, as the member is aware, the percentage was 15% for commercial loans. Under our bill, up to 35% is being proposed for commercial lending in regulation. However, in terms of the kinds of consultation that are going on, there isn't an amount yet set and we will continue to work with the credit union movement to ensure that there is an appropriate figure with, again, appropriate safeguards put into place.

The issue with respect to keeping credit unions local and keeping them community-based: I think today we have the pleasure of having Mr Jonathan Guss with us and I can tell you that he has worked hard for this.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further comments? If not, the honourable member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: First of all, I thank the honourable member for Don Mills. I don't think there's any way we can underestimate the importance of the small credit unions, and anything we can do to make sure they thrive and continue to survive through the changes that are going on and be strong is important.

I thank the honourable parliamentary assistant. I look forward to further discussions on the bill. I think there are a number of things that will come out of the discussion and I appreciate the good intent that he's shown this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker: It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Wednesday, March 23, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1803.

22 mars 1994