Journal des débats 1994-mars-23 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Partout dans le monde cette semaine, on célèbre l'appartenance à cette grande famille qu'est la francophonie. À Hearst, à Port-au-Prince, à Bruxelles, à Port Louis on fête, mais aussi on s'interroge sur ce que deviendra cette langue dont nous sommes tous si fiers dans notre petit coin de la planète.

J'aimerais souhaiter à tous les francophones, d'où qu'ils soient, une bonne et productive Semaine de la francophonie. Je m'en voudrais de ne pas avoir une pensée tout à fait spéciale pour nos frères et soeurs qui font partie des minorités francophones canadiennes. Je voudrais leur dire qu'il y a des raisons d'avoir de l'espoir. Je souhaite aussi qu'ils auront, au cours de la semaine, l'occasion de réfléchir sur la façon dont chacun d'entre nous peut contribuer au mieux-être de nos collectivités respectives.

Je souhaite aussi une bonne Semaine de la francophonie au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. Comme vous le savez probablement, beaucoup de Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes pensent que leur communauté connaît à l'heure actuelle des reculs inacceptables. J'espère que cette semaine sera pour le Ministre une occasion privilégiée de réfléchir à propos de toutes les choses urgentes qui doivent être faites en Ontario français, de se lever debout bien droit et de défendre les intérêts de ceux qu'il doit représenter.

DAFFODIL FESTIVAL

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I would like to take this opportunity to make members of this Legislature and residents of Ontario aware of the Daffodil Festival that begins today and runs through to Saturday. April is cancer month in Ontario, and the Daffodil Festival is a precursor to this important time of the year when cancer societies band together to make Ontarians aware of the importance of fighting this deadly disease.

This week, provincial cancer societies are selling daffodils in an effort to raise money to stem the tide of cancer that grows annually in Canada. The numbers reflect this growth. More than one in three Canadians will develop some form of cancer during their lifetime. This probability has increased from one in four since 1977. As well, an estimated 121,300 cases of cancer and 61,000 deaths from cancer will occur in Canada in 1994.

But there is hope. The daffodil embodies precisely that, a sense of hope and a renewal of life. Last year more than 6.2 million daffodils were sold and millions of dollars were raised in an effort to find a cure and to develop new treatments to battle cancer. There is hope, because the people of Ontario have given generously in the past, and an army of volunteers will knock on virtually every door in the province during the month of April asking for the public's help in this fight against this deadly disease.

I urge all members of this assembly and citizens from all across Ontario to join the crusade against cancer and to purchase daffodils this week from their local cancer society.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): In the time since we recessed, I've had the good fortune to attend two Jobs Ontario graduations in the London-Middlesex area. I would like to thank the Jobs Ontario brokers, trainers, employers and students for making the program so successful.

I've had much positive feedback from Middlesex employers and graduates regarding the benefits that both business and trainees have derived from Jobs Ontario.

In Middlesex, more than 1,000 people have moved from unemployment insurance and social assistance rolls to long-term employment. Province-wide, the number of jobs created is almost 40,000. That's a success story.

I also think we should congratulate the trainees who had the courage to go back to the classroom to upgrade their skills. Some of those from Middlesex are: Simone de Schiffert, Carrie de Smit, Karen Haggis, Linda Jones, Doris Jordan, Linda Josh, Susan Kemp, Mary-Anne Lopes, Linda Moss, Debbie Pierce and Bev Wilcox.

I think the graduates say it best. Valedictorian Bev Wilcox told her class and proud family members, friends and instructors: "I would sincerely like to thank Jobs Ontario for providing us with this opportunity to return to school, and to be able to learn the appropriate skills which will allow us to re-enter the workforce. We have discovered areas of talent that we never realized, and we have proven to ourselves that we have the ability of setting goals and reaching them. New doors have been opened, and we truly do appreciate that and everyone for all that's been done for us."

Jobs Ontario graduates have given us much and we thank them.

NEW LISKEARD COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I stand in my place today to ask the government to delay by at least six months the disposition of the assets of the New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology.

Since April 23 of last year, when the government brought that fatal blow to that college and closed it, the community has gathered around to try to pick up the pieces, and presently there is a proposal being put forward by Northern College and our federal MP with regard to opening this school up in another guise; that is, we're looking at the federal government, and it has agreed to put some money towards a feasibility study to redirect some of the foreign aid money this country spends in other countries to bring students over to that New Liskeard campus site to train them here in this country.

I think it's an idea that deserves attention. Unfortunately, the government is moving with, I believe, undue haste in trying to sell these assets. I'd ask the government if it would delay that by six months to give the community in Timiskaming the opportunity to see if this proposal can be brought to fruition.

I'd also ask the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs that the resource material in the resource centre be frozen there in northern Ontario, so to speak, and be left in New Liskeard and at the college; that all that documentation and the studies and the resource material on northern agriculture remain in northern Ontario, remain at that site so that Northern College, if this deal is successful, can use that to carry on northern agriculture in another forum in the Timiskaming district. I would ask this government to slow this down so that we in the north can look at this proposal and see what we can make of it.

1340

FOOD BANKS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): One of the NDP's first election promises in 1990 was to eliminate food banks in Ontario. While food banks help the needy, they fail to provide a sense of personal economic independence and fulfilment in actively earning one's daily food. This is why those most involved with food banks are also most vocal in calling on government to help end the need for them.

The NDP could have done much more in the intervening years to realize this noble goal. In this assembly, however, PC leader Mike Harris has been the sole voice in promoting school breakfast programs for children in need, and I acknowledge his leadership and support in developing four such programs in my riding.

As the chairman of Burlington Food Share, and on behalf of our food bank coalition, including the Salvation Army Family Services, St Vincent de Paul, Burlington East Emergency Food Bank and Partnership West Family Services, I wish to announce our annual Easter food drive that will continue until April 2 and will help replenish our severely strained food supplies.

Tonight at 5:30 I will host the official start of our food drive at a lasagna dinner and family night at St Mary's Ukrainian Catholic hall. In this annual event, which is cosponsored by myself and the Burlington South Provincial Progressive Conservative Riding Association, adults are asked to bring a non-perishable food donation while children are free to enjoy pizza, ice cream and a visit from the Easter bunny. Easter is a time to celebrate the renewal of life. At Easter, may we all make an effort to renew our compassion for those in our community who experience true need, through no fault of their own. I can think of no better way than this to spread the message of a truly happy Easter.

PRINCE EDWARD REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Today I would like to talk about the Prince Edward Region Conservation Authority. PERCA, as it is known locally, is doing some very important work in maintaining the natural environment in Prince Edward county. They are doing this through such programs as Clean Up Rural Beaches, or CURB, which contribute in a large way to cleaner waterways, and through the Trash Bash, a day organized to clean up county roads, which will be held this May.

I would also like to say that PERCA is about to hold its seventh annual dinner this coming Saturday, in cooperation with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the local dinner committee, and that this event has been a very successful fund-raiser for the conservation authority in past years.

Dini Petty, the television talk show host, will be the master of ceremonies, and wildlife artist Mia Lane of Adolphustown will be the featured artist. Many items, such as paintings, carvings and other works of art donated by the community, will be auctioned to raise funds. This is the kind of event that unites our communities and makes them better places to live.

I hope we will all recognize the kind of work done by our conservation authorities and the contribution they make to our respective communities. I'd also like to make a special mention of the staff and board members of PERCA who work so hard to make events like this happen so our conservation authority can go on doing the important work it is doing.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I've got a proposal to speed up question period for you, Mr Speaker. It's clear that the Premier, on virtually every question now, is going to blame the federal government. I think we can speed up question period by letting the Premier adopt what I call the RAE answer approach. RAE stands for rapid automatic excuse. We can speed things up around here by simply allowing him to say, "The answer to the question is" -- and then I've given four typical RAE, rapid automatic excuse, answers.

Number 1 -- and he'd just have to say, "This is a number 1," -- is, "If it's a problem, it must be the fault of the federal government."

Number 2: "The Ontario taxpayers can't afford this. We'll simply get the federal taxpayers" -- as if they're someone different -- "to pay for it."

Number 3: "I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, but it must be the fault of the federal government."

Number 4: "I know the federal government has absolutely nothing to do with this, but if they did, I know it would be their fault."

I think we can save a lot of time. I will hand these out to the members, and yes, to the Premier. You'll just be able to say, "It's number 4." Number 4 is, "I know the federal government has nothing to do with it, but if they did, it would certainly be their fault."

Mr Speaker, I think it will be helpful to you, because yesterday I noticed how slowly we got the questions in. I will send a page to report this to you immediately.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My community is outraged by the comments made by Jim Turk, the vice-chair of the Ontario Council of Regents, about the need to have designated group members on the boards of Ontario's community colleges who don't think like white men.

Furthermore, I disagree with the attempt by the minister to centralize control of community colleges at the expense of local autonomy.

The representatives of Conestoga College have indicated to me that they are deeply concerned that four of their appointments were rejected in favour of your political appointee and that five others were only granted one-year extensions, giving rise to concerns that they too will be replaced by your political appointees.

While I acknowledge the assurances given by you yesterday that Mr Turk's words do not reflect government policy, I am concerned that given this government's record on employment equity and the extremely biased nature of the Lewis report, there are indeed legitimate grounds for concern and that at the end of the day we will have a policy similar to the one advocated by Mr Turk. This is totally unacceptable.

I urge the minister to ensure that his new appointments policy for college boards continues to reflect an emphasis on experience, expertise and community representation rather than Toronto politically dictated representation, since this will only result in power blocs with special interests at heart rather than the best interests of the community and the college.

MARY WESTLEY

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Today, I'd like to talk about a dear friend of mine, a special person, Mary Westley, who was one of my constituency assistants.

Mary was a very giving person. She cared about people. When Mary discovered people who needed support or encouragement, she did something about it. When Mary faced challenges in her own life, she found ways to help others who were facing the same challenges.

On January 25, Mary died after a long battle with cancer.

Mary knew first hand the challenges of raising a child in a single-parent home. She carried this over into her work with the Big Brothers of Guelph. She handled recruitment, publicity and special events, including their major fund-raising event, Bowl for Millions. She also served as a board member for Big Brothers for many years.

Mary knew it wasn't easy for many parents to afford sports equipment and fees, so she helped found the Kids Can Play Association of Guelph. This organization makes sure that no child is denied sports, arts and cultural programs due to financial reasons. It is making a difference for many families in Guelph. Mary thought governments should make research and treatment for breast cancer a priority, so she helped found the Breast Cancer Support Group of Guelph to give support to women and to lobby government.

Friends of Mary Westley and the Kids Can Play Association are remembering Mary's contribution to the community by organizing a fund-raising dance to be held in her memory on May 7 at the John McCrae Legion in Guelph.

Mary started working for me shortly after my election. She helped many, many people in my riding with different problems. She organized a local injured workers' advisory group.

Mary loved her job. When I visited her shortly before her death, she talked about how she missed her work.

I will miss Mary's physical presence, but she will always be with me, for she touched my life, as she touched so many others.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I rise today to inform the House of the decisions this government has made on transfers to municipalities, schools, hospitals, colleges, universities, and on social assistance and post-secondary education.

Over the past several weeks, my cabinet colleagues and I have considered our fiscal options. In January, we were looking at the need to make some tough decisions because of a shortfall of about $1.6 billion in our revenues for next year.

Our situation has been made even more difficult by two recent decisions of the federal government. They cut tobacco taxes, forcing Ontario to reduce its own tax on tobacco products, and in its budget the federal government enshrined unfairness to Ontario by extending the previous government's cap on its social assistance funding to Ontario.

The tobacco tax decision alone will cost Ontario half a billion dollars, pushing our revenue shortfall to about $2.1 billion.

The tobacco tax blow came on top of the lingering effect of a recession that took jobs away and a recovery that has been slow to return them. We all understand that there are unique spending pressures in such an economic cycle, and we are still grappling with these.

We could have slashed transfers unthinkingly, cut into programs mercilessly and turned our backs on the most vulnerable people in our society. We could have copied the federal government in Ottawa and downloaded our fiscal problems on to our transfer partners. We could have let thousands of public sector jobs disappear. We could have ignored the sick who need treatment, the children who need schooling and the people who need a helping hand through tough times.

We refused to take that route. I am pleased to tell the House today that we are keeping the funding commitments we made to our transfer partners last year.

We acknowledge that our partners in Ontario's public sector are already working to make their services more affordable and to sustain those savings over the longer term through ongoing restructuring measures. These long-term savings flow directly from the expenditure control plan and the social contract.

We have achieved what we set out to achieve in last year's budget. With the help of 900,000 public sector workers and the contribution of Ontario taxpayers, we are preserving jobs and public services throughout this province.

At the same time we intend, in our upcoming budget, to keep the deficit on a downward track, albeit at a slower pace than we would like. Because taxpayers have already done their part, we will not raise taxes in this budget.

We have gone through the spending plans of every ministry on a line-by-line basis. We have identified, and will continue to identify, program savings that will help us meet our goal while preserving jobs and services.

We are freezing social assistance rates at their current level for the upcoming year and implementing a number of changes to the social assistance program to reduce costs.

We have also had to make tough decisions about our plans to overhaul the entire social assistance system. We cannot afford to go it alone, and the federal government does not share our priorities. Unless Ottawa steps in, we will be forced to shelve the Ontario child income program, first outlined in the white paper on social assistance reform last July. However, we have not compromised our determination to help social assistance recipients enter the workforce.

The Minister of Education and Training will also outline changes to some elements of post-secondary education as part of today's announcements.

Our measures are aimed at controlling our deficit. But we have never lost sight of our goal: to spend wisely in order to create jobs and preserve services. Other jurisdictions may make cuts across the board without careful thought about the implications, but that goes right against our idea of good fiscal management, which must also be humane management.

The need to continue our commonsense approach is one of the messages I heard in our pre-budget consultations with people across this province. In crafting our 1994 budget, we will continue to use the same common sense in managing our priorities and controlling our spending.

We have the evidence that our approach is working. The lines are all moving in the right direction: The deficit is coming down and job creation is increasing. Private sector indicators, like higher housing starts and a lower bankruptcy rate, show that the benefits are being felt throughout the entire economy. My announcement today builds on our success.

TUITION FEES

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Our colleges and universities have a vital role to play in the economic renewal of the province. Their importance is recognized in the Finance minister's decision to maintain the level of transfer payments to the post-secondary sector as previously announced. This will allow our colleges and universities to continue their restructuring efforts and adapt to the changing economy.

Post-secondary education is well subsidized by the taxpayers. Some 75% of the revenues received by colleges and universities come from the provincial government.

In addition to the transfer payments to our post-secondary institutions, tuition fees play an important role in the ability of this province to maintain high-quality post-secondary education. I have discussed tuition fees with college and university students, faculty and administrators. We have emphasized that our objective is to maintain a fair and workable balance between the revenues needed for our post-secondary institutions and the affordability of this education to students.

I understand why students are concerned about tuition increases. The cost of post-secondary education can be difficult to manage in times of economic strain. But even in these difficult economic times, we know that graduates of colleges and universities are more likely to have jobs and earn higher incomes than people who do not have post-secondary degrees or diplomas.

The contribution of tuition fees to the post-secondary sector will ensure that students get excellent value for their post-secondary investment and a lifetime of dividends from their college or university education. This is one of the reasons we must maximize access to colleges and universities. More opportunities and spaces are needed in all of our colleges and universities.

That is why I am announcing an increase in tuition levels. The increase is aimed at assisting colleges and universities to make additional spaces available and at protecting the quality of post-secondary education. I expect that our colleges and universities will follow through on their commitment to use the tuition revenues to increase enrolment.

Let me be specific. In the 1994-95 school year, tuition fees for undergraduate arts and science students will increase by $202, to $2,228. The following year, tuition fees for these university students will increase by $223, to $2,451. The standard tuition fee for college students will increase by $92, to $1,008, in the 1994-95 academic year, and the next year, the standard tuition fee will increase by $101, to $1,109. At these levels, Ontario students will continue to have tuition fees that are among the lowest in Canada.

I would like to point out that because of the social contract, this tuition increase will go directly into programs and not into salaries.

I want to emphasize that the colleges and universities must change the way that they do work. They must continue to restructure and find more --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Stop the clock, please.

The opposition will have an opportunity, under the rules, for a reply. I ask the members of the House to allow the minister an opportunity to complete his statement, and then there will be an opportunity for replies from the opposition.

Hon Mr Cooke: Maybe I should go back to the paragraph that emphasizes that even with these tuition increases, our tuitions will be among the lowest in all of Canada.

I want to emphasize that colleges and universities must change the way they do work. They must continue to restructure and find more efficient ways to operate. All of those affected, especially students, should be involved in this process.

1400

The Ontario student assistance program will cover these tuition increases for low-income students, and at the same time the loan forgiveness level will be increased from $5,570 to $6,000. We have called on the federal government to work with the provinces to develop a system whereby graduates pay back student loans based on their income once they're in the workforce.

Finally, I am announcing that the government will be freezing compulsory ancillary fees charged to students by colleges and universities. Ancillary fees are charged by colleges and universities in addition to tuition fees and can include charges for instructional materials kept by students, student activity fees and athletic fees. We have decided not to allow increases in ancillary fees until an agreement is achieved, developed by each institution with its students.

Over the next few weeks, officials in the ministry will be consulting with organizations from the post-secondary sector about implementing this new policy on ancillary fees.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want first to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Finance. Here we are at the end of March and we're facing another end-of-March budget crisis on the part of this government. Here we have, after a whole series of rumours, of building up concern, a government that comes to the Legislature today and actually, I think, is expecting to have people congratulate it for saying, "We are now managing things so well that they're not going to be nearly as bad as we made you think they were going to be."

I for one am not prepared to congratulate the government on this because I believe this is political gamesmanship and not financial management.

I am pleased there will be no further offloading of this government's financial problems on to the colleges and universities and hospitals and municipalities and school boards of this province. This does come as a relief, since it comes from a government that has given as its first response to its budget problems every other year the cuts to all of the transfer partners. In fact, sometimes it's been twice a year that they've reached out to make cuts to the transfer partners.

I notice that once again they blame the federal government for the problems they are still facing. I categorically reject any indication from this government that after three and a half years of financial mismanagement it can blame its budget problems on a government that has been in office for five months.

I make it absolutely clear that as this Treasurer, as this Finance minister, struggles to deal with his budget shortfall, it is not a budget shortfall that's been caused by a cut in transfer payments from the federal government. The transfer payments from the federal government for health, for post-secondary education, for social assistance, as the Treasurer knows well, are exactly what this Treasurer had in his budget last spring.

There is a real concern about the budget that this Treasurer will bring in. There is a real budget revenue shortfall, but it is a budget revenue shortfall that's caused because this government has completely failed to predict with accuracy either its expenditures or its revenues.

This government has completely failed to get its expenditures under control. This government has completely failed to get the economy going again in spite of the fact that the Premier talks about things getting better. They refuse to acknowledge that this is an Ontario where there are 10,000 fewer jobs in February 1994 than there were in February 1993. I find it appalling that in the minister's statement he suggests that things are getting better because there are fewer bankruptcies. Since when did economic recovery consist of a slowing in the rate of bankruptcies? If this is economic recovery, there is little hope for job creation for the people of this province.

I am relieved that the Finance minister has indicated that there will be no taxes taken as a way of solving the budget problems the government has. I think he's finally understood, as he looks at his numbers, that after $3 billion in tax increases, when he's getting $2 billion less in tax revenue, that's clearly an approach that's not going to work. But I say to the Finance minister and to the Premier and to this government that you cannot stop here today, that you must continue to get your deficit down. Your statement today means that you must take a serious look at your own operations, at your own programs.

Again we say, how can you have been spending money on the IWA with all of its millions of dollars spent to make decisions nobody accepts? How can you have spent millions of dollars on an Advocacy Act that none of its supporters even see as a good act? Can you not find a better way of counting your computers than spending $4 million?

Government, go back and look at your own programs. Most particularly, if it is going to manage this revenue shortfall, if it is going to get its financial situation under control, this government has now got to look at how it can get the economy of this province truly growing again so that we get the jobs we need.

This announcement clearly indicates that the government is prepared to look at social assistance reform. We as a party will welcome that, since for three and a half years we've had a government that has talked about social assistance reform and has done virtually nothing. We hope that what the minister is saying today is that they are prepared now to work with the federal government, not just to continue to blame it.

But I say again, you cannot have social assistance reform, you cannot give people the support they need to get off welfare and back to work, until there are jobs for them to go to. We have got to get this economy going so people can get back to work.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses, the leader of the third party.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Come on, Mike. You can do better than that.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): As the Premier has just challenged me to do, in as constructive a way as I can, I would like to comment on the statement that was just made by the Treasurer.

You know, I find it a little distressing, I find it a little ironic that we are to congratulate the Treasurer for keeping his promise. They've broken so many promises to so many transfer partners in their time in office that it's good news saying, "We told you we'd give you this, and we're actually going to do what we said we're going to do." Has it come to this, where we're to congratulate somebody for not lying?

Hon Mr Rae: You were doing so well at the beginning, Mike. The other line was a good one. That wasn't so good.

Mr Harris: Has it come to this? Has it come to this, where this is supposed to be the norm, this is supposed to be good news?

The Speaker: The leader of the third party knows better.

Mr Harris: Has it come to this level in the province of Ontario?

The Speaker: The experienced member from North Bay knows better. I ask him to withdraw the remark and to continue with his --

Mr Harris: Okay. If the remark offends anybody, I withdraw it.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Maybe they did lie.

Mr Harris: Maybe they did, the Liberals say. I don't know.

But so many promises have been broken. So many commitments have been broken. You promised the transfer partners 1%, 2%, 2%. Then last year you said: "No, it's not going to be that. We're breaking that promise." So now we're to congratulate you, a quarter of the way through the fiscal year, for saying: "We told you this is how you should budget. We told you this is what you should expect to get. Pat us on the back for actually doing what we said we're going to do."

You have broken more promises, you have mismanaged the economy of this province --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): From a Tory?

Mr Harris: That's right -- that it has come to this point where we're supposed to congratulate you for that.

What does this mean for transfers to hospitals? What this means is 2% less than last year. You promised them you would give them 2% less this year than last year. I assume you're saying, "Yep, we're cutting you 2% over last year."

I read the release by the minister. It says, "Responding to media reports that transfers would be cut..." Well, the media reported that because you told them that. This was your trial balloon. This is what you said. Nobody else said that. So you're responding to your own media reports. We're supposed to applaud you for that?

At the end of your press release, you say this: "We have the evidence that our balanced approach is working." You say, "Our balanced approach is working." Your approach and the Liberal approach for the lost decade of this province, your definition of working is half a million people on unemployment insurance, 1.3 million people on social assistance, three credit rating declines.

The two of you, your agenda for the first part and then the Liberals on their own in this lost decade, have taken the deficit of the province of Ontario from some $30 billion to $80 billion. You've added $50 billion worth of debt, three downgrades of the credit rating. I am told privately that you've abandoned the fight on the deficit. You don't think you can win an election if you carry on with that.

I want to tell you that your definition that your approach is working is not a definition that is shared by any of the Ontarians I've been talking to. It is not a definition that is acceptable. I'll tell you that if you don't change course, your definition of success is a 6% definition and that is the extent of it in this province.

1410

TUITION FEES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'd like to respond to the announcement on tuition. Mr Minister, I can only say one thing: This would have been an extremely acceptable plan if you had introduced it along with student aid reform. You know that the students in this province are supportive of this government if it increases tuition at the same time as it looks at student aid reform. You should be putting your ministry officials on to the income-contingent loan repayment plan with the federal government, but you should be showing the leadership. We have no leadership in this government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I want to ask you a question about the announcement which has just been made by the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I say to you that thousands of young people and their families are going to be sitting at home this evening feeling a very real sense of despair because of the announcement that has just been made. This announcement is one more blow to young people who are trying to make their way in what is a very tough world.

The minister, in his statement about tuition increases, says, "Post-secondary education matters," and it does. Students who get college and university education are much more likely to find jobs. So what has the policy been of this government for post-secondary education? I say to you, Premier, that your policy for educating our young people has been to cut funding to colleges and universities year after year, to cut grants and loan support to students, to increase tuition fees by what will now be a shocking 42% during the life of this government.

I ask you, is this the kind of value that you place on post-secondary education, and is this the kind of value that you place on a generation that is facing the toughest economic times we've seen since the Depression?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that to the minister.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): What I don't understand about the Leader of the Opposition's question is that it just simply ignores the facts. The fact of the matter is that in the current school year that we're in, 179,727 students are receiving student aid from this government. That's up from 100,000 students in 1989-90, when you were the government. This government is helping more students access colleges and universities than has ever been the case, because we believe in access.

I would like the Leader of the Opposition, for once, to tell us what her position is. Are you suggesting in the midst of the most difficult financial circumstances since the Depression for this province that the deficit should go up or that taxes should go up? What is your position?

Mrs McLeod: I had an opportunity to speak to my caucus's and my party's position on post-secondary education when I served as Minister of Colleges and Universities. I well remember this party that is now the government when they were in opposition and I asked them to speak for their policy. Where is the consistency in the policy that they bring to post-secondary education and tuition fees? I remember when we used to bring in tuition increases that were at the rate of inflation and this party opposite considered those increases to be absolutely unconscionable. I remember when the people on the other side of the Legislature used to say there should be no tuition; not a 20% increase but no tuition.

Mr Minister, will you tell us what the policy of your government is and where the consistency of your policy for post-secondary education and for the students of this province is today?

Hon Mr Cooke: The leader asked what the policy of this government is. The policy of this government is to increase enrolment at the colleges and the universities and the only way that we can do that is to get more money in the system. Our decision is that it's going to be done this year by tuitions because of the financial problems that the province is in. What I'm asking the Leader of the Opposition is, does she want to freeze enrolment? Does she want to decrease enrolment? If she wants to increase enrolment, how would she fund it? That's the question. Put your policy on the record.

Mrs McLeod: At one time in the province of Ontario, there was a commitment to at least increasing student assistance so that access to post-secondary education would not be limited by ability to pay. This minister brings in an announcement of a 20% increase in student tuition with absolutely no real indication of how student assistance will increase. I cannot believe the sheer gall of the Minister of Colleges and Universities in suggesting that there are more students receiving loans in our colleges and universities today. He knows full well that is because there is no longer grant support and the only route our students can go is to acquire greater debts to get their post-secondary education.

I cannot believe that when we are facing a student unemployment level, a youth unemployment level that is now at 19.8% he doesn't realize that the reason there are more students in colleges and universities is because there are no jobs for them. Surely he realizes that as students look towards a summer when there will not be jobs, they will not be able to afford a 10% increase in their tuition fees. This is an unprecedented tax on the students of this province. How can you justify this kind of unprecedented tax increase?

Hon Mr Cooke: The Leader of the Opposition is wrong. The number of students assisted under OSAP in 1989-90 was 100,000; the number in 1993-94 is 179,000, an increase of 80%. I suspect that the reason the Leader of the Opposition doesn't want to put her position on the record is because I have it right here, Critical Issues in Post-Secondary Education, Liberal Party, January 1994, "Tuition Policy." Let me read it. "In order to reasonably assess the issue of student tuition fees, we must first determine the proportion of cost to be borne by the province and the student, respectively. The notion of zero tuition is not something that can be considered in light of the economic situation."

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): No, no, you have no jobs for students.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Cooke: Let me finish. Here is the zinger: "Students must contribute to the cost of their education." The policy of the Liberal Party? "The question is: how much?" What's the answer? Where's your policy?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

There was a point of privilege which escaped my eye at the moment. The member for York East with his point of privilege.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I would ask both members in the Liberal and Conservative parties to cooperate a little. Your behaviour is a little unbecoming. Let's have a little smoother communication. You wake up over there and grow up. Be more sensitive to the answers.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of privilege.

1420

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro. Can the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro confirm that on Friday of this week, two days from now, Ontario Hydro will begin the orderly shutdown of facilities related to its nuclear power program in this province?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): In response to my friend from Renfrew North, he is aware that the contract for the Power Workers' Union with Ontario Hydro runs until the end of this month and that we are at a critical stage in negotiations between the union representing the workers and Ontario Hydro management. We are confident that those negotiations will result in a voluntary collective agreement settlement. Both sides are working diligently to bring that about to ensure there is no disruption in service and no work stoppage.

Mr Conway: I'm aware of all that. I repeat: Can the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro confirm that on or by Friday of this week, two days from now, the giant utility will begin an orderly shutdown of facilities related to its nuclear power plant? By that I mean the non-generating facilities: the tritium processing plant out at Darlington and the Bruce heavy water plant. That orderly shutdown will begin on Friday. Can he confirm that?

Can he further confirm that by Monday morning of next week, now less than five days from this hour, the giant utility Ontario Hydro will begin an orderly shutdown of all its nuclear power plants in this province, which power plants last week produced over 70% of the electrical supply to the homes, farms, hospitals, mines and other places in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member is correct in the percentage that he puts before the House in terms of the generating capacity. He will be aware that as a result of recent court decisions, the nuclear generating workers are under federal jurisdiction. He will also be aware that we are confident and hopeful that there will be a settlement prior to any precipitous decisions having to be made.

Mr Conway: A very interesting response, because the minister in that response has indicated to the House and to the province that this situation is now even more complicated than on previous occasions when we faced this kind of deadline.

My question is to the government responsible for the giant utility, the Rae-Wildman government, whose responsibility it is to keep the lights on. The clock is ticking and the orderly shutdown of the nuclear power facilities begins in less than 48 hours. What is your plan, Mr Minister, to keep the lights on so the hospital patients, so the research scientists, so the farmers and the other 10 million people in this province will have some certainty and security that, come what may next week, they are going to have a secure supply of this most vital resource, electricity?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member opposite raises a question as to what is the plan to be able to ensure the supply of electricity to the people of this province. The plan that all of us support and are working diligently to implement is a negotiated settlement.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Finance. A year ago next week -- we're approaching the anniversary -- you announced what has become known as the social contract. You told us that the goal was to cut $290 million from the Ontario public service government payroll. You also told us, on page 77 of your budget, exactly how much you intended to save in each of the other public service sectors.

Nearly one year later, do you have any idea exactly how much you have saved of your own $290 million for our own public sector workers and how much the other sectors have been able to save of the balance of the $2 billion that they were to save? Do you have any idea?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the question, because there has been some speculation on the fact that we might be losing some of the targeted savings through the social contract. I want to reassure the leader of the third party that we believe we will achieve the savings, or very close to the savings, that are laid out in the social contract targets.

It was clearly understood from the beginning that while the bulk of the savings would come from compensation in the public sector -- and as a matter of fact, we encouraged the fact that negotiations should go on that could change the balance between all public sector compensation savings and productivity savings in the public sector, both the OPS, the Ontario public service, our direct employees, and the broader public sector as well. We think we're going to come very close to achieving the savings that were laid out in the social contract a year ago.

Mr Harris: Last week you renegotiated Rae days for the public service union at a cost of $30 million. Metro child care services will spend almost $900,000 on replacement workers. Correction officials say replacement workers will cost $3 million. Patients in towns like Kincardine, where medical clinics closed last week, went to emergency rooms for more expensive examinations. With all this mounting evidence, the truth is that you don't know if savings are actually being realized by the transfer partners.

Will you, as I called for over two months ago, ask the Provincial Auditor to step in to ensure that the social contract is actually saving both the government and Ontario taxpayers and the transfer partners the money that you say it's supposed to save?

Hon Mr Laughren: I recall having an exchange with the leader of the third party before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs on this very issue. I tried to explain it at that point, but I obviously didn't succeed. Perhaps it's the way I expressed myself. But I want to assure the leader of the third party that when we reduced our transfers to our transfer partners, reflecting the social contract goals, they no longer had that money to spend. If a transfer partner out there, whether it's Metro Toronto or a social service agency, uses some other means, such as a productivity saving, that's fine, their target will already be achieved, because we've already reduced our transfers to them.

It makes no sense for them, quite frankly, to use time-and-a-half overtime. It's not in their own best interests for them to do that because we already have reduced our transfers to them. That's why I can say to you that we've already extracted the money from them and that it's in their own best interests to do as best they can within their budgets, because they have to live within their budgets.

Mr Harris: Exactly my point. If, under your legislation, as many of the transfer partners are telling us, they are unable to achieve the 5% savings, they have been given a transfer of minus 5%. Today, you told us that the transfer partners were frozen, that they're going to get the same amount of money. That assumes they can save 5% using your social contract legislation, because you have cut their transfers by 5%. They are telling us they cannot.

1430

We have example after example after example of where your legislation is a barrier to achieving those savings. You have no internal provisions to evaluate the current savings, either for your own $270 million or for the other $1.3 billion to the transfer partners. You have no idea how much a wage bubble at the end of the social contract might cost. With your track record on budget predictions and deficit projections, Ontario taxpayers are a little sceptical, and quite frankly, I am a lot sceptical.

On behalf of the public service workers, who are taking home smaller paycheques, on behalf of all Ontario taxpayers, who are demanding more efficient and smarter government spending, will you today ask the Provincial Auditor to audit the sectoral agreements to ensure that the reality of the social contract matches your rhetoric?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, there will be a fuller accounting of the social contract savings in the budget --

Mr Harris: When?

Hon Mr Laughren: Within the next month, so I don't think there's any need to launch into a major investigation of savings, which we largely know will be there anyway.

It's the first time I've heard the leader of the third party call for what I think was an increase in transfers to our partners out there. I'm not sure if that's what he was saying, but I wanted to --

Mr Harris: I'm quite sure that isn't what I said. I said the social contract is not working.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, it sounded like that's what it was. A year ago, our transfers to our partners out there reflected the $2 billion in savings under the social contract, so those savings are already built into the budgets of those transfer partners. That's all that was transferred to them, an amount minus the social contract savings targets for each sector, so I don't think there's any reason to doubt the amount of savings, because they're going to be there.

Mr Harris: Savings to you, sure. What about the partners?

Hon Mr Laughren: I guess this calls for a longer debate, Mr Speaker. It's in the interest of our transfer partners to effect long-term productivity savings. That's the key. At least as important as the compensation savings in the social contract is the need for long-term restructuring of the public sector so we can deliver services more productively and more efficiently and at a more affordable level. That's the big part of the social contract.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier. During our consultations for New Directions, Volume Three, which is A Blueprint for Justice and Community Safety in Ontario, we travelled this province. We had open house after open house. We had questionnaires. We heard from the public. We were told repeatedly, at every stop, that the federal Young Offenders Act must be reformed.

Today, federal-provincial attorneys general are meeting in Ottawa to discuss just that. This morning on Canada AM, the Manitoba Attorney General said that she wants the act toughened, and that's the message that she has taken to that federal-provincial meeting. Ontarians we heard from agree with that position. However, your Attorney General said on the same show and in the same interview that there were too many incarcerations. She implied that the Young Offenders Act needs to be softened, and that was the message that came through.

Contrary to what the public of Ontario is asking for, contrary to what we recommended in New Directions, Volume Three, is this the message we heard this morning? Is this the message your Attorney General has taken to Ottawa?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I regret that the minister is not here to answer the question. Obviously, she is in Ottawa at the meeting in question. In a spirit of complete candour, I would say to the member that I have not had the opportunity to read New Directions, Volume Three, but I look forward to reading it. And I did not see the interview on Canada AM, as I was otherwise engaged this morning.

I'm going to try not to enter too much into the partisan bantering and just say directly to the honourable member that I think he is doing a real disservice to the minister and to what she said, in terms of the quotation he gave and his interpretation, which I think is completely wrong and most unfair to the minister personally as well as to the government. But I accept that these things are said in a moment of partisan time.

My sense is that there is very strong support in the province for a review of the Young Offenders Act. It's not a matter of entering into clichés about what should be tougher and what shouldn't be. The federal Attorney General has indicated a direction for reform. We look forward to seeing those details and to discussing those details.

I can tell him my own personal view, which I'm reluctant to do but I feel a need to do, is that for some offences I happen to believe there is a clear need for reform in terms of the maximum sentences that can be applied to offenders who are under the age of 18 and over the age of 16.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I happen to think that for very serious offences we need to look hard, as a community and as a society, to see whether that bill is adequate. I also would say to the honourable member, as he's raised a serious question, that I happen to think that throughout the justice system there needs to be a review of whether incarceration is the best route to go in all cases.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: It may be that for some serious offences we may need to be tougher; in other areas, there may be alternatives to incarceration, and I make no apology for that statement.

We have to look at that in a balanced way, but with respect to community safety and with respect to what takes place, I think that yes --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please take his seat.

Mr Harris: It's too bad, Premier, that you didn't read New Directions, because it dealt with a number of the alternatives to incarceration. I think you'll find the document very good, because it comes from people here in this province.

In the first five years after the Liberals introduced the Young Offenders Act, violent crimes by youth increased 30%. We called for two specific measures in New Directions, Volume Three, to combat this trend. One was for youth courts to be able to sentence violent young offenders more severely. The second was for young offenders who have committed extremely violent crimes to be able to be tried in adult court.

Other attorneys general from across the country have gone to Ottawa with some specific recommendations. Our caucus and our party put forward specific recommendations. As a government, as Premier, does your Attorney General have any recommendations to take to the table?

Hon Mr Rae: The Attorney General is armed with a clear mandate from this government to act responsibly and constructively in the discussions of the changes required with respect to the Young Offenders Act. I can assure the honourable member that when it comes to federal legislation, we believe the primary responsibility lies with governments that have been in power in Ottawa for the last 15 to 20 years. Unless my memory fails me, the governments in question were occupied by Conservatives and Liberals, the people on whose behalf you were campaigning so vigorously in the last federal election. Why didn't Brian Mulroney do something about this problem if it's so serious, at some point, at some level, in some way?

If you've got a problem, we're all prepared to deal with it. My understanding is that this is not something to be taken lightly. I would say to the honourable member that the general direction of the kinds of reforms which have been indicated by the federal government I think have the support of most of the citizens of Canada, and they certainly have mine. I can tell you that.

Mr Harris: When a young person is lost to a life of crime, I think you would agree with me, Premier, we all lose. Your Attorney General had an opportunity today to help ensure that that doesn't happen by taking a position, by being part of the solution. Obviously, it's not a priority for you. She had an opportunity to bring a position to help strengthen the act, to provide a greater deterrent.

Let me quote to you, Premier, what one 16-year-old Ontarian told the Toronto Star in a March 9 interview referring to the Young Offenders Act. "Like, the Young Offenders Act is like nothing. Everybody knows it's a joke. Like, being a young offender, the only thing that would really suck if you did a robbery and never got caught is if you didn't stash the cash."

1440

That's the attitude many young people in Ontario have towards the Young Offenders Act. When we travelled this province, people told us it was a priority; that not only does crime cost us dollars, but crime and the loss of a young person to a life of crime is a tremendous cost to society, a tremendous burden to themselves. It's a tragic loss as well.

I got the sense from your Attorney General's comment this morning that she has no position, that she was going there in a vacuum, that she didn't know what the people of Ontario thought, and I got the sense that other attorneys general were informed and were representing the people of their province with a new government in Ottawa that needs to hear that. What is the message that your Attorney General took to Ottawa? Can you tell us that, please?

Hon Mr Rae: If the leader of the third party in the House is trying to assume that somehow he has a monopoly with respect to a concern about violence or a concern about crime, or if he is asserting for a moment --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: He is saying his document discusses alternatives to incarceration. That's exactly the position that's been taken by the Attorney General with respect to some offences.

Mr Harris: What's your position? You've got no position.

Hon Mr Rae: No, you don't like the answer I've given you. What I'm telling you and what I'm telling the people of the province is that it is the view of this government and it is my personal view that there is room for considerable reform with respect to the Young Offenders Act. I would say specifically, and I would repeat the answer I gave, that with respect to serious offences there needs to be consideration. That consideration is apparently being given by the Attorney General for Canada, as I understand it and as I have heard it being expressed by him, and we look forward to a constructive discussion.

But if there is a responsibility, if there is a gap, surely it is the government that was in power from 1984 to 1992, of which you were such an advocate and supporter. Surely there's some logic in asking, where were you between 1984 and 1992? Where were you?

Mr Harris: Why didn't you send Charlie Harnick to represent Ontario? Why didn't you send Bob Runciman?

The Speaker: Order, the leader of the third party.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): A question to the Minister of Finance that has to do with the upcoming budget and how he's planning to deal with it. We'd like some assurances from the government that you're not planning to load more of the deficit and the debt into the teachers' pension. The minister will know we passed legislation -- at least, the government passed legislation -- that allowed the government to actually withdraw cash from the teachers' pension. The unfunded liability in the teachers' pension is right now at about $8 billion. It is going, as the minister knows, to almost $14 billion. In spite of that, the government already is taking a three-and-a-half-year holiday from making any payments against that. That bill has been passed and that's done.

But I'm looking for, from the Minister of Finance today -- because they are planning this with the teachers' pension and the same thing with the public service pension -- some assurance from the minister that he is not planning any further additions to loading the debt and the deficit into the unfunded liabilities in the pension plans.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I did notice a story in one of the Toronto tabloids this morning on the whole pension issue. I appreciate the opportunity to clear the air in that regard, because there are no talks going on with the teachers, and there is no intention to do anything more with the teachers' pension fund vis-à-vis withdrawing any kind of moneys from it for any purpose whatsoever.

Mr Phillips: I have to weigh the words carefully, when he said "withdraw money." That wasn't my question, and I have a lot of confidence in the Minister of Finance. My question was different. Are you planning any further reductions beyond your planned payments in the upcoming budget?

The reason I ask is this: You can see this unfunded liability, money that the government, the people of Ontario, have 100% responsibility for. The unfunded liability, and this is from the teachers' pension commission, is going up to almost $14 billion. There's a similar chart for the public sector pensions.

The government, unprecedented, passed a bill that allowed it to take cash out of the pension fund. I don't think it's ever been done before, where with an unfunded liability, money was allowed to be taken out of the fund.

I'll ask my question as specifically as I can. Can the minister assure us that in the upcoming budget you will not be looking at further reductions in your planned pension payments to the teachers' pension and to the public sector pension?

Hon Mr Laughren: I can assure the member that there will be no actions taken that will increase the unfunded liability of the teachers' fund. That's correct, so the answer to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt I think is clear: No.

On the Ontario public service pension fund, the Ontario public service representatives have for some time now, I suspect even when the former government was in office, been talking to government about sitting down and discussing their pension plan and ways in which there can be joint trusteeship, ways in which they are more involved in the administration of the fund. Those kinds of talks go on all the time.

To answer the member very directly on the teachers' fund, the answer is no.

TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the minister responsible for the environment. Waste Management of Canada Inc has released a proposal that would see Metro's garbage shipped by rail to willing host sites in Ohio. This proposal would give the municipalities in the greater Toronto area an alternative to the three superdumps that are now going to be proposed by your Interim Waste Authority for Vaughan, Durham and Caledon.

Under Bill 143, as you know, you do not allow municipalities to ship waste beyond their borders, but WMI has shown that you, the province of Ontario, can't stop the private sector from shipping its waste to the United States. You, Minister, as a result of this, have lost control of your agenda with respect to waste management in the province of Ontario. The best you can do, at least from recent reports, is to ask the federal Minister of the Environment to tax garbage that's leaving Ontario. That seems to be your only plan.

Minister, are you prepared to admit that Bill 143 is not only inconsistent but unenforceable and should be repealed?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The answer is no, no and no.

The member should be aware that under the previous federal government the borders were opened for the export of waste to the United States. That was a most regrettable decision taken by the Mulroney Conservative government. This government campaigned very hard against that. I met with both the previous ministers of the Environment at the federal level and asked them to move to close the border. Neither one of them took any action. I've also met with the current Minister of the Environment at the federal level and asked her to take similar action.

The reference to taxing was as an interim measure to deal with the particular kinds of issues the member refers to in the meantime, before the federal government actually takes its responsibility in hand and closes the border.

Mr Tilson: The problem, Minister, is that you've got an inconsistent policy. You've admitted that today in this House. You've allowed a double standard in the province of Ontario with respect to waste.

Hon Mr Wildman: No, the feds have.

Mr Tilson: I'm sorry; you have, Mr Minister. Hundreds of tonnes of garbage, as you know, are being shipped privately to the United States every year. You refuse to allow municipalities to operate under the same rules as private enterprise. Why won't you throw Bill 143 out, as you obviously can't enforce it, and allow the greater Toronto area to explore all the alternatives that are available to it, the technology that's available, with respect to waste disposal in this province?

1450

Hon Mr Wildman: I think the member is ill informed in that he should know there are differences in the management of municipal domestic waste and industrial-commercial waste throughout the province. That's not a new situation. What is new is that we are now facing a proposal, a commercial proposal, to transport waste on a commercial basis on an ongoing basis to a site south of the border because the federal government has ignored the fact that many, many transportation companies have been transferring waste south --

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Are you in favour or aren't you?

Hon Mr Wildman: I'm not, and I've told the federal government it should close the border. How simple is that?

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question today is to the Minister of Health. I've had this little document come into my hands, Madam Minister, and it's from the member for St George-St David. It says that he's fighting for everybody; he's fighting for seniors. As a senior, I perked up when I read that. I said, "Holy smokes, here we've got a member who's fighting for seniors." Then he goes on to say,

"Some of the measures taken by the current government:

"...introduction of user fees to the Ontario drug benefit plan" for seniors.

Madam Minister, have I been asleep at the switch somewhere? Like, don't I know? Is this true?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me assure the member that he has not been asleep at the switch. In fact I know of no member in this House who looks after the interests of seniors better than the member who's raised the question with me today, and I'm sorry the member for St George-St David isn't here so I can set the record straight, because I think the kinds of statements that have just been quoted are exactly the kinds of statements that sow fear and concern in the minds of seniors across this province.

Let me assure the members of this House that there are no user fees for the Ontario drug benefit plan. In fact the Ontario drug benefit program pays the full cost of about 2,300 prescription drugs for our 1.2 million people who are eligible for that plan. Our government is very proud of that and continues that plan.

Mr Mills: I'd like to thank the minister for that answer. It sets all the seniors straight. I think it's absolutely diabolical that someone should send this out, and I think there should be a retraction. There should be someone send this out and say, "What I said is a complete" -- I'm not going to say it's a lie because I'll get slung out. But they should retract this terrible statement. I thank you, Madam Minister, and I think the seniors deserve better than that from those people.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say to the member very clearly that I do agree that the newsletter to which he has alluded is fiction, it is not fact, and everybody in this province over the age of 65 gets and will continue to get their drugs paid for without any user fee.

NATIVE HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Health. I rise today on behalf of the residents of Red Lake, Ear Falls, Golden and remote communities to the north of these.

Minister, these folks are totally frustrated with your 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 now, the physicians in Red Lake have been in discussions with your officials and political staff regarding the issue of fee-for-service compensation for doctors covering emergency services in this hospital. Minister, you will recall that doctors staffing the hospital feel they are being financially penalized because of the current system. As a result of this government's inaction, the five doctors who work at the Red Lake hospital's emergency department informed the minister, the hospital board and the communities months ago that they will not provide emergency coverage past March 31, 1994.

Please inform my constituents what arrangements you have made to ensure that emergency medical coverage continues past this deadline.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm really glad to have an opportunity to respond to the member's question, and I'm aware of his statement to this House yesterday about an issue that is of real concern to me, to the ministry, and I know to the constituents and the residents of Red Lake.

But let me say to the member that the facts are this. There are five doctors serving the population of around 6,000 in Red Lake. Those doctors want more money for the services they provide. This government negotiated with the Ontario Medical Association, which is the bargaining agent for all of the physicians in the province, to pay the province's 20,000 doctors $3.8 billion on fee-for-service in this fiscal year. That means that within that amount of money, the Ontario Medical Association, through its schedule of benefits, determines how services are paid for.

The doctors in Red Lake want more than that. I believe that within that $3.8 billion there is sufficient to compensate those physicians for their services. The doctors are threatening to withdraw their services and the hospital is threatening it could close. That cannot be allowed to happen; I would completely agree with the member.

My ministry has been working with the hospital, with the doctors and with the Ontario Medical Association to make sure the doctors maintain their obligation in exchange for the privileges which they receive, which is to function out of that hospital. That's their responsibility, and we will do whatever we can to make sure they live up to it.

Mr Miclash: As I stated, the residents of these communities are facing the closure of their emergency department and possibly the closure of the hospital if the remaining two days of negotiations between the OMA, the Ministry of Health and the local physicians are not successful.

I will be attending a public meeting that you too have been invited to tomorrow evening in Red Lake. Again, what information will you provide me with that I will have to alleviate the concerns of my constituents?

Hon Mrs Grier: I would be very glad to have officials of the ministry meet with the member and provide him with background and briefing, and the ministry will be represented at the meeting in Red Lake on March 24. I want to assure him of that.

But let me also say to him that that hospital has a responsibility to ensure patient care, just as the physicians have a responsibility to make sure that if one or another of them chooses to withdraw their services, they maintain coverage and provide coverage in emergencies. I would remind the member that just yesterday we saw from the Ontario Medical Association advertisements in our papers saying that emergency services will be maintained at all times.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Ontario Medical Association have a responsibility to make sure they live up to that part of their contract, and we certainly believe that is what they ought to do.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES POLICIES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, in every land use policy that you have put forward, there has been a total lack of consultation with those affected.

Your wetlands policy renders private property worthless without any consultation with the owners. With the Madawaska highlands, you set aside protected areas that local residents do not want. The wilderness zone in Algonquin Park killed 340 badly needed jobs in Braeside. None of these policies has been implemented with the advice or consent of the public. Do you have any real plan to consult the people affected by your land use policies?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to answer the member's question, but first I think I should set him straight on a little history.

The current wetlands policy was in fact developed over 10 years by three separate governments, and the party which he speaks for was at the starting end of the wetlands policy. So I think he might want to check the history to determine that in fact there was a 10-year development policy.

1500

Secondly, the member mentions the Madawaska highlands. The reality is, there is an advisory committee right now made up of a number of citizens of the Madawaska highlands area who are participating in developing some recommendations regarding land use in this most important and I would say very beautiful part of eastern Ontario.

Thirdly, a wilderness zone in Algonquin Park was first proposed over 20 years ago, a wilderness zone for the eastern side of Algonquin Park. In fact, the prospect of a wilderness zone on the east side of Algonquin Park went through something like a four-year review policy by the Ontario provincial parks review committee.

Mr Jordan: The policies that you refer to going back a number of years are not the extended policies and the extended areas that we're looking at today. You've made a completely different picture --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): They were the result of consultation where the public showed that they wanted it extended.

Mr Jordan: No, they're not, I'm sorry.

I have a letter from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters which clearly demonstrates the value of this minister's public word and the absence of real consultation. On January 20, 1994, on the television program The Angler and Hunter, the minister stated: "It's not in our mind to create a new series of parks which prohibit hunting, which prohibit the use of outboard motors. We see a continuum of new ways to protect those areas."

Again, on February 25, at the OFAH conference the minister reaffirmed this commitment in front of 300 people. Then on March 9, the minister proposed 17 areas under his Keep it Wild program, which will ban hunting and small outboard motors on more than 90% of the 160,000 acres of new parkland. He's going to ban the hunting and fishing; he's going to ban the outboard motors.

I find it very difficult --

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

Mr Jordan: -- to assign any value to the minister's so-called consultations when the minister does the exact opposite to what he says.

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Jordan: Let me quote from this letter. "It is clear that you intend" --

The Speaker: Order. Could the member please place a question.

Mr Jordan: Can the minister please explain why he said one thing to the federation of anglers and hunters and then turned around and did the exact opposite?

Hon Mr Hampton: Again, to correct the member, in fact the Ministry of Natural Resources over the last few years has had a number of successful consultations and cooperative efforts with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. In fact, one of the first, and I believe it will be a historic agreement, dealing with aboriginal fishing, was worked out with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and I'm speaking of the Anishinabek fishing agreement, something that I think the whole province can be proud of.

This year as well, in a process that took over a year and a half, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters worked with the Ministry of Natural Resources on some very important fisheries improvement and fisheries conservation issues in northwestern Ontario.

To say somehow that we are not working with, not consulting with, these organizations I think is just not correct.

Finally, the member is incorrect again. Under the Keep it Wild program which was announced, we have created a new type of conservation and protection category, that being a conservation reserve which will allow, among other things, hunting to continue. So I would hope that the member would in fact read the information before he stands up to make these speeches.

Mr Jordan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In fairness to my constituency, it is clear that you intentionally misled the Ontario federation members.

The Speaker: The member knows that he does not have a point of order. There's nothing out of order.

Mr Jordan: My constituency is being given the wrong information.

The Speaker: There's a point of difference, I appreciate. Would the member please take his seat. There is nothing out of order.

ST MARYS PAPER

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. In Sault Ste Marie, St Marys Paper is a major piece of our industrial infrastructure. There's some anxiety at the moment that the negotiations there are dragging on. Could you give us a status report today?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I can provide some general information at this time. First of all, let me say that we completely recognize the importance of this company to the community of Sault Ste Marie, and that's why we have been actively involved all along in both monitoring and in participating in discussions. Various stakeholders have been at the table; that includes the Stern group, the unions and the banks. There are many issues that have been involved in the negotiations and, as I'm sure you would recognize, the situation is quite fluid and it keeps changing as negotiations unfold.

Some of the good news, I would say, is that recently and publicly the Stern group and the union have both been saying that they expect a successful conclusion to the overall discussions around keeping this as a viable entity through the restructuring. In fact, many of the restructuring issues have already been agreed to -- 40% ownership by the employees. These things have been talked about publicly.

We remain actively involved and are, I think, at this point in time very optimistic that there will soon be successful negotiations. But I can't actually give you a time frame today in the House.

Mr Martin: There have been reports that the government is going to contribute some dollars to that restructuring plan. Are these reports true, and are there any efforts being made to get something for either the government or the workers in return for any investment we might make in that particular company?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think from the beginning it's been fairly obvious to everybody that if St Marys is to be retained as a viable entity, all of the stakeholders that are there are going to have to participate in some way, including the province. These negotiations are ongoing and they are at, I'd say, a delicate point. There has been no decision concluded at this point about provincial participation, so I can't report to you on that.

I think that the final decision and the negotiations should be concluded soon, and I'm hopeful that I'll be able to give you a full report at that time.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Treasurer, and it concerns the social contract and matters which members are concerned about. In my part of the province, at the Niagara Detention Centre, the government claims that it wishes to save some money through the provisions of the social contract; that is, by applying the social contract to the Niagara regional detention centre, somehow they are saving money. Yet I have the overtime sheets from the Niagara Detention Centre, which in fact show that the way they are allowing people to take their so-called Rae days off is by paying overtime to other people to replace the people who are taking Rae days. Of course, if they are paying overtime, in many cases they are paying more money than a person would normally get.

Could the Treasurer tell me if he is aware of this problem and, if he is, what specific action the government has taken to overcome this problem?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I have heard of these kinds of situations developing. I thought that negotiations had gone on that were resolving this and removing this as a solution to the days off without pay that are mandated under the social contract, so I'm somewhat surprised to hear this information. I'm not suggesting the member's wrong; I'm just saying that I'm surprised to hear it and I would very much like to have the opportunity to pursue it and just see what is going on there.

1510

Mr Bradley: I would say to the Treasurer that his colleague from Hamilton Mountain, the minister responsible for Management Board, says it's an old issue, and that is why I thought that perhaps we would have found a solution to it by now. The fact that it's a so-called old issue is no reason why it cannot be raised again.

People are coming to us to say, "We appreciate the fact that the government may be trying to save money," and I'm not being critical of a government looking at every possible way it can to save money. What I'm saying is that in this specific case, where you have detention centres which have to be guarded 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it is impractical to apply the social contract to a detention centre. What is happening in fact is that by paying the overtime, and these are recent dates in this overtime; it goes into the month of March, it is costing you more money to save money.

Have you terminated this practice -- you're consulting with the minister beside you -- and if not, are you going to terminate the practice of paying overtime to replace people who are taking Rae days?

Hon Mr Laughren: I certainly was aware that this was going on in some institutions. Having said that, I believe most of us would understand that when there are essential services to be delivered, this kind of glitch would happen in the system from time to time. I don't believe that means the social contract should not have applied to these institutions. I believe there are more efficient and affordable ways of delivering even these kinds of essential services. So I don't think for a minute that we should back off and say that the social contract doesn't apply to these services.

Also, there is provision under the Social Contract Act for certain services to be declared emergency services, and ways of dealing with that which I won't get into here now. But it's my understanding that while that was indeed a problem, it virtually has been resolved now through negotiations with the union that represents those workers.

PETITIONS

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition here today which I'd like to read. It's a matter that's of real concern to the members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and it's been signed by constituents of the Quinte area. It reads:

"To Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

INFERTILITY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I've been asked to table a petition by constituents from all over the province of Ontario and my riding, which reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas infertility is a disease which affects approximately one in six couples, or 500,000 Canadians; and

"Whereas treatment of infertility is already a two-tiered system; and

"Whereas delisting of this valuable service will escalate this situation; and

"Whereas patients already pay cyclical fees for services not covered by OHIP; and

"Whereas drug coverage is often very limited; and

"Whereas infertile people are entitled to the same level of health care as the general population;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to continue to list infertility as an insured service under OHIP."

I would like to table that today.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition signed by many parents, mostly from Scarborough. This was coordinated by Cardinal Leger school in my riding:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 102,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas the students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,822 less on each of its elementary students and $2,542 less on each of its secondary school students than public school counterparts;

"The undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I'll sign this.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, residing in the review area of the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board known as area I East Credit, are greatly disturbed by the inadequacy of school facilities in this area. The plans show that there are at least four Catholic separate schools needed in this area because of released development, three of which are needed immediately; two of those are overdue by at least two years. The present figures show 1,817 students presently exist in this area and that by 1998 the enrolment will be up to 2,346. At the present time, the children from this area are going to seven different schools, some as far away as 13 kilometres from their home. This includes the four-year-old JK students your government is encouraging to educate. To transport four-year-old children this distance is not only unfair but is also causing mental anguish to parents that have committed themselves to buying a home to live in Ontario, a province where you are advocating fairness to all that live there."

This petition is signed by hundreds of very concerned parents.

HAEMODIALYSIS

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

"Whereas several patients from the Collingwood 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 there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in the Collingwood area;

"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 Collingwood."

I've affixed my name to this petition.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition signed by many individuals in my riding opposing Bill 56 for the reasons set out in the petition.

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition from the township of Wolf Island concerning proposed ferry fares.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, are shocked at the provincial government's intention of charging fares on the only link between Wolf Island and the mainland, upon which Wolf Island is dependent. We believe that social and economic costs will be devastative and that the charging of fees on the part of the provincial highway system, to which we all contribute through taxes and licence fees, is discriminatory."

I have signed the petition.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas Columbia Forest Products Ltd bought G.W. Martin Lumber Ltd with the assurance that the Ministry of Natural Resources incorporate the right of first refusal clause in selected supply licences from traditional sources that had supplied G.W. Martin;

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is revoking these rights effective March 31, 1994;

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

"That the Ministry of Natural Resources reaffirm Columbia Forest Products Ltd right of first refusal clause in selected supply licences from traditional sources that had supplied G.W. Martin."

This petition is signed by some 742 constituents, primarily in the Mattawa and Nipissing area of the riding of Parry Sound, and I agree, and I have affixed my signature thereto as member.

1520

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition here that's signed by 1,600 residents in my riding from the town of Blenheim, the villages of Erieau and Erie Beach, the townships of Harwich and Raleigh, as well as adjacent communities in the county of Kent. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, residents of the province of Ontario, respectfully petition the Parliament of Ontario to provide assistance in the securing of the necessary number of family practitioners to supply adequate medical services in our community."

I agree with the petition and also attach my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have two petitions which I'd like to present today. Both of these petitions are signed by hundreds of my constituents in Renfrew North. These petitions are identical and they read 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 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 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 that all such references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code.

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

I've indicated to these petitioners that I do not, as their local member, intend to support that private member's bill.

HAEMODIALYSIS

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

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto;

"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 there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem even though they've 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 New Tecumseth and Collingwood;

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

I've signed that petition and it joins really thousands of constituents in the riding of Simcoe West and the surrounding areas who have submitted similar petitions to this Legislature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition opposing the Liberal member's Bill 45. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas traditionally it has been accepted that covenanting together for life of a woman and a man who, together in love and faithfulness, raise children is essential to the long-term health and viability of any society;

"Whereas the right to express convictions regarding issues open to dispute on moral grounds, such as sexual behaviour, should not be prohibited by the Human Rights Code,

"We oppose Bill 45 that deletes the words 'of the opposite sex' from the definition of 'marital status' in subsection 10(1) of the Human Rights Code and Bill 56 that may allow legal actions to be launched against any person or organization that differs with any other people's sexual preferences."

There are 25 names on this petition from people in my area.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by many residents of my riding which reads:

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

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, 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 all references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code and Bill 45.

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

I support this petition and have affixed my name to it.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the Ontario Film Review Board, at its May 6, 1993, policy committee meeting, decided to loosen the guidelines for films and videos for Ontario; and

"Whereas the loosening will result in permitting some very gross and indecent acts in films and videos; and

"Whereas these acts include bondage, ejaculation on the face and insertion of foreign objects; and

"Whereas the aforementioned acts are not in any way part of true human sexual activity but rather belong in textbooks for case studies of deviants; and

"Whereas these activities not only violate community standards but parts of the Canadian Criminal Code;

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Ontario Legislature to cancel the new policy resolution of the Ontario Film Review Board and dismiss the chairperson, Dorothy Christian, from her position for her lack of sensitivity towards Ontarians and for being more dedicated to represent special-interest groups than the taxpayers of Ontario."

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition to the Premier, Bob Rae, and Health Minister Ruth Grier.

"We, the undersigned residents of a long-term care facility in Ontario, spouses and other family members, friends and interested parties, need your help.

"Many couples whose combined income is needed for the spouse in a long-term care facility and the spouse still residing independently in the community will be unable to continue paying the new rates which were recently increased up to 41%, or $376.18 per month. Single and widowed residents are also affected by increases.

"Also, we believe the cutbacks in nursing staff positions and part-time nursing hours this year may have and may continue to jeopardize the health and wellbeing of residents in long-term care facilities, and as a result, more health care dollars may have been needed or may continue to be needed to cover any repercussions from these cutbacks.

"We are proud Canadians and desperately need your help regarding these two serious matters."

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by many residents in my community --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Is it about the courthouse?

Mr Callahan: No. I have no comment on that. I'm quite proud that it's named after him and his father. They were great Canadians, great Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And the petition?

Mr Callahan: I'm sorry, Your Honour.

Interjection.

Mr Callahan: No, thank you.

It's addressed 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 55" -- that's Mr Cousens's bill, isn't it, Mr Speaker; that's Mr Cousens's bill; that's amazing -- "would make it illegal, with fines up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, still undefined. This is a grave threat to the free speech in a democratic society.

"Mr Cousens's Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of those religions which do not condone homosexuality -- Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Baha'i, Christian etc.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from the position where some homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but demand that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties." Mr Cousens's bill has that, I guess.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classrooms, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions." That's certainly not what he told Christopher Thomas on CBC. It's amazing.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Mr Cousens's Bill 55."

What an amazing thing. It's signed by many residents from my community.

STATUS OF BILL

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: On Monday, as we had reports of committees being returned to the House from the intersession, Bill 62 was reported and the question was asked whether or not it be referred to third reading. I had asked that in fact it go to committee of the whole until we had had our caucus meeting and had an update on the events of the committee hearings. It is the position of the Liberal caucus that Bill 62 should proceed to third reading. I want to make it very clear indeed that the Liberal caucus would like to move Bill 62 now into third reading if that is agreeable with the rest of the House. I'm not making the motion but just advising, for a point of information, the House that this is our position in that regard.

1530

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 17th report.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): No, Speaker, I do not have any statement.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT, 1994

On motion by Mrs Sullivan, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr83, An Act respecting the City of Burlington.

NORTH TORONTO CHRISTIAN SCHOOL (INTERDENOMINATIONAL) ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr93, An Act to revive North Toronto Christian School (Interdenominational).

EDEN COMMUNITY HOUSE OF TORONTO ACT, 1994

On motion by Ms Akande, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr99, An Act to revive Eden Community House of Toronto.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AIDE SOCIALE

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

Bill 144, An Act to amend the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act / Projet de loi 144, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les prestations familiales et la Loi sur l'aide sociale générale.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would the member for Oakville have any comments with regard to his bill?

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Very briefly, the bill amends the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act to provide investigators with adequate powers to obtain information relevant to determining the eligibility of persons for the assistance under those acts.

TUBERATE HEAT TRANSFER ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr86, An Act to revive Tuberate Heat Transfer Ltd.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of 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.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We are resuming the adjourned debate, and I believe there are further speakers in this debate.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It is with quite a bit of pleasure that I have the opportunity to participate in this debate. Most members of the House would know that Bill 134 deals with two specific sections, one dealing with caisse populaires and credit unions, and the other dealing with life insurance reform. Both of those changes, I would say, have been long-sought-after on the part of all those concerned within those industries.

I'll deal first of all with the credit union act and then I'd like to make some short comments on the life insurance act, based on conversations I've had with people in my riding as well as people within the province itself.

Without doubt most members would agree that credit unions and caisses populaires play a very important role in the province of Ontario, and have played a very important role in giving individuals the ability to develop a certain amount of security in dealing with their financial matters over the past years.

Vous allez savoir, par exemple, que les caisses populaires dans la province de Québec jouent un rôle très important. Ça se trouve une des plus grosses institutions, la plus grosse institution dans cette province, et ce n'est pas arrivé au Québec par accident. C'est arrivé parce qu'il y a eu certaines directions prises par le gouvernement du Québec des années passées qui ont dit, «Écoutez, c'est très important qu'on soit capable de mettre en place des règlements qui donnent un certain pouvoir aux caisses populaires pour qu'elles puissent faire une compétition égale aux banques.»

Ce qu'on essaie de faire ici dans la province de l'Ontario, c'est donner aux caisses populaires et aux «credit unions» les mêmes droits qu'on trouve présentement dans d'autres juridictions quand ça en vient aux banques elles-mêmes.

Vous allez savoir, Madame la Présidente, comme les autres députés de cette Assemblée, que présentement une caisse populaire ou bien une «credit union» n'a pas le droit, par exemple, de faire des emprunts importants ou des sommes assez importantes dans le secteur du commerce. Elles n'ont pas cette possibilité-là.

Par exemple, il y des limites au montant d'argent qu'on peut prêter aux individus. Il y a des limites faisant affaire avec les produits qu'on peut vendre dans une caisse populaire ou les produits qu'on peut vendre directement au public, comme des REERs, de l'assurance et beaucoup de produits qu'on peut acheter présentement dans d'autres institutions financières dans la province de l'Ontario.

Ce qu'on va faire avec les changements de cette loi et l'introduction de cette loi, c'est donner aux caisses populaires et donner aux «credit unions» la capacité de faire compétition directement avec les banques de la province de l'Ontario et la capacité de faire des services égaux à ceux qu'on peut trouver dans d'autres juridictions quand ça en vient aux caisses populaires elles-mêmes.

Spécifiquement, on va être capable de donner le pouvoir aux caisses populaires, par exemple, d'utiliser leurs fonds, qui sont assez importants -- on parle de 12 milliards de dollars dans la province de l'Ontario dans ces institutions-là -- vers le développement économique d'une communauté à travers des emprunts dans le secteur du commerce, quelque chose qui est très difficile présentement pour les caisses.

On va aussi donner le pouvoir à ces caisses d'établir ce qu'on appelle «community investment shares corporations», qui donnent la possibilité d'investir l'argent de nos caisses directement dans nos communautés dans certains projets ou dans certains commerces dans nos communautés.

1540

Vous savez, mon collègue le député de Cochrane-Nord, une couple d'années passées, a passé une grosse crise dans la communauté de Kapuskasing faisant affaire avec Kimberly-Clark, le moulin à papier. Une affaire qui aurait été bien plus facile dans ce temps-là de transition, c'est que si la caisse avait eu les pouvoirs nécessaires, elle aurait pu jouer un rôle bien plus important dans la communauté de Kapuskasing, pour établir les fonds nécessaires pour mettre en place certaines mesures pour la compagnie Kimberly-Clark, qui maintenant appartient aux individus de cette communauté.

A number of important changes will affect both the credit unions and the caisses populaires. I'll speak specifically about a couple of them because I think they're fairly important to note. There are two different things and people sometimes get them confused, so I'm going to try to explain.

First of all, we're going to allow caisses populaires and credit unions to set up community investment share corporations. As well, they'll be able to set up community loan funds. People say, "What's the difference between the two?" Fairly simply, it's this.

On community loan funds, basically you allow people within your community to lend money through a vehicle into a particular fund, and you can then take that money and direct it back to local businesses in your community that may otherwise not be able to access capital through regular institutions. The difference is that money invested in community loan funds by individuals will be guaranteed 100% by the provincial government.

This is a very important vehicle, very much in keeping with a number of initiatives this government is taking to develop the kind of system, the kind of network necessary for individuals and small businesses to be able to access capital so we can make our communities' economic base more diversified by giving those small businesses and individuals the ability to get to capital that sometimes is very difficult to happen.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): They're more responsive.

Mr Bisson: Much more responsive. The honourable member Mr Marchese -- I was going to mention the riding --

Mr Marchese: Fort York.

Mr Bisson: Thank you. It's one of those Metro ridings. It's a very big place when you live in northern Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: I'm getting relentlessly heckled by my own members.

The point is that this will allow people to invest money into that vehicle and put it right back into the community. Many times all of us on all sides of the House have had people come to us within our ridings and say, "I've been in business for a long time and I need to get access to capital," or "I've got an idea and I want to start up a business to employ myself and other people and help better the lot of our community, but I just can't access that capital." This is another vehicle to allow that capital to be out there so that individuals and businesses will be able to invest.

But what's more important is that we sometimes find caisses populaires and credit unions are much more responsive to individual needs than you'd find in a banking institution. I wouldn't say that banking institutions are not responsive whatsoever, but they clearly have a different mandate to deal more with larger commercial ventures at times, and they sometimes forget to service the needs of the individuals in our communities as well as you can through a credit union. One of the things it will do is allow the credit unions to play a much more important role when it comes to community loan funds.

With regard to the investment share corporation, that is a similar type of vehicle, except that it's higher-risk capital. People will be able to invest shares in a corporation that would be administered through either the caisses populaires or the credit union, and that money would be directed into higher-risk types of investments. There are a number of different examples, if you look around North America these days, of opportunities to do that. This will allow that kind of capital to go to higher- risk, the difference being that the money is invested in much the same way as the money is invested within stock of a company: It is not as guaranteed as what you would have under a community loan fund.

But clearly, it allows you to put money forward to move ahead certain ideas. For example, lately I had the opportunity to visit with the people of Red Lake and Ear Falls. You'd know that in Ear Falls for example, their particular bank decided it was going to pull up stakes and pull out of that community. In a community of 1,104 people, when a bank decides to close up shop and leave a community, it really leaves you in a very desperate situation.

I think a credit union in the long term is where that community would like to go. With the changes we're making to the act, if the people of Ear Falls are successful in pulling together all the pieces necessary to get a credit union going in that community, it will be able to offer services that could never have been offered through a credit union before, and better able to service the needs of the people of Ear Falls, I would say.

I think it would be a lot easier to deal through a credit union, for the local businesses of Ear Falls and individuals, than with a bank. One of the problems with banking institutions is that they're much larger corporations and they tend to deal in areas where the stakes, pardon the pun, might be a little bigger. Sometimes they forget some of the responsibilities within smaller communities. The people of Ear Falls will be well serviced in that community through a credit union, with the changes we'll allow under the act, and will be able to deal with that particular issue.

From discussions I've had with the people of Ear Falls, I certainly look forward to moving ahead on that, hopefully one of these days getting to the point of setting up an actual credit union there. I certainly will work on that with the local member there, from the opposite benches.

The other thing the changes to the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act will do is allow them to sell a broader range of products and services. That's very important. We're very busy people these days in our individual lives. Sometimes we don't have as much time to go out and do the business of banking etc. It's sometimes a little difficult for people to go and do their banking at a credit union, but they've also got to deal, let's say, with buying insurance at a different insurance company, or dealing with their RRSPs. Under this act, we'll give basically the same kind of powers banks have, when it comes to other services, which credit unions don't have at this point. That really will allow the credit unions and the caisses populaires to expand and play a much more important role in the development of the economic wellbeing of people in communities.

That's always been a real sore spot. From the Caisse Populaire Desjardins in Timmins and the credit unions in both Timmins and other communities in northern Ontario, certainly the message they've brought to me is that it's been very difficult to expand the base of their business when they're limited in the types of services and products they can sell. This is certainly very much welcomed by those particular institutions.

There's another thing we're going to be doing, and I think it's quite significant. People will know, for example, that when you leave money with a lawyer for a particular transaction, the lawyer currently must deposit that money within a bank. There's a sizeable amount of money floating around out there that is a captive market for banks only. One of the changes we're going to do within Bill 134 is to allow the credit unions and the caisses populaires to compete with the banks when it comes to that. If they're able to provide equal service, which I know they're going to be able to do, and probably increase service to a certain extent in terms of the personal touch we can sometimes give in a credit union, they'll be able to attract the business from various lawyers in communities to deposit the money they have in trust. This represents a sizeable amount of money when you look at it. I've been made aware in my time as a member here of a number of issues in regard to my community where people have dealt with lawyers and left quite sizeable amounts of money with lawyers to be left in trust. It expands that capital and the mass necessary for credit unions in the long term, to be able to have the capital to do the lending that needs to be done.

But the most important part of the bill is that it is a modernization of the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act to really bring it into what is happening in today's economy rather than leaving it where it was. When you compare the growth of the caisses populaires and credit unions in other jurisdictions, in western Canada and in Quebec, you find they have played a much more important role in those provinces because they've had the tools necessary to compete with banks, and in some cases have done quite an extraordinary job. Like I say, we're talking large sums of money. Presently, the caisses populaires and the credit unions have some $12 billion in assets and look forward to being able to increase those assets as time goes on because of the changes in this act.

The other thing this act is doing, maybe the quieter part of the act but equally as important and something that's long overdue, I know the members all across this House will agree, is that we're finally going to reform the portion of the act that deals with life insurance.

1550

People who sell life insurance in this province are professional people. They're people who want to provide quality services to their customers. They're people who have a financial background, financial experience, to be able to sit down with people like you and me to be able to make some decisions about how we invest our money and how we deal with those investments.

Unfortunately, what's happened over the years is that there have been some people in the industry who haven't had a very good perception on the part of the public. Part of the problem has been that there really has never been a good mechanism to deal with the issue of making sure there is a good code of ethics within the life insurance industry and a good system to be able to make sure that the people within the industry are competent and up to date with all of the changes that are going on within the industry.

I know companies in my community, such as Prudential and other companies that I deal with -- I'm going to stop naming companies because I'm going to miss one and I'm going to get a call from maybe somebody like Rick Chartrand who'll say, "Hey, you didn't mention my company," so I'll stop at that point. The point is that most of these companies have excellent training programs when it comes to making sure that their people who are out there selling their products have a good knowledge and a good understanding of the products out there.

But I think we need to go a little bit further. I had the opportunity recently to be invited to a life insurance underwriters' meeting, I guess some time back in February, where I had an opportunity to exchange with the agents in my community, the community of Timmins and surrounding areas, to be able to talk about what this act was all about.

We had a nice opportunity. We had somebody in from their Ontario association. We had a question-and-answer session that was set up where the life insurance people from my community were able to ask questions of both myself and the person from the association. I must say that they were extremely pleased at the end of that dialogue to find out just how comprehensive the changes are to this act.

It's going to do a couple of very significant things. Just to go through them very quickly, the first thing we're going to do is to deal with the question of licensing. I think licensing is a necessary step to have in order to be able to make sure that we have the highest possible standards when it comes to the ability of the people in the industry to do their job. We want to make sure there's no doubt that the people out there are the best possible people to provide the service, and one of the ways we do that is that we need to provide good licensing.

Now, there's going to be a change to the licensing process, where we're going to have a two-step licence. The first part of the licence is when a person first enters into the field and will only be able to sell products of the company that he or she is working for. So if I'm working for Mutual or for Prudential or for one of the other companies, I would only be able to sell those particular products.

But after a period of time, and after testing and after some training and some studies, I would move on to the second part of my licence, which would give me the ability as a life insurance salesperson to be able to sell products of another company once I get that second licence. What that second part of the licence will say is that I am fully knowledgeable about all of the products that are out there and that I can properly inform my client, I can show the range of choices when it comes to products, that I am very knowledgeable on those particular products that are out there, so that the client I am trying to represent and the client I'm dealing with can be assured that there is a standard of excellence when it comes to the person who's sitting before them, normally at the kitchen table, some Friday afternoon or Friday evening, the late hours that these people have to work -- much like the job of MPPs, I might add. We have that ongoing joke with my friends in the insurance industry.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Do you have friends in the insurance industry?

Mr Bisson: Yes, I have a lot of friends in the insurance industry, actually; very good friends.

So what will happen is that the high level of standard because of the licensing will really, I think, put the client at ease to be able to be more confident in the ability of the person who's sitting in front of him or her.

What we'll do is that as you're sitting down and as you're going through the dialogue of the person saying to the agent, "Well, this is how much money I have and this is how much I can invest," the agent will be able to offer products sometimes that he may never have been able to offer under the present regulations. Presently it is very difficult sometimes to be able to offer products of another company because of rules within the company itself and within the existing legislation.

What this will do is allow insurance sales people to be able to say, "Listen, there is a product out there. I don't have it with my company, company X, but there's another company out there that has a product that would really suit your needs to a T, and I would recommend that you purchase that particular insurance," rather than having to try to sell somebody another insurance that may not be as good because they have to sell the product from their own company.

I think this will give clients and investors out there a much, much better ability to have a much greater view of the products that are out there. That's one of the very important things, that the insurance sales people will have the ability to deal with selling products that are not just from their own company.

The other thing we're going to be doing with regard to the legislation is that when an insurance person will go in to sell, let's say, not a new product but a replacement product -- this is a little bit of a dicey issue to some because there are two sides to this one, but I think overall this has been a pretty good approach that we decided to take in consultation with the industry. Let's say, for an example, my good friend Mr Owen is my client. He bought a particular insurance product from, let's say, another company somewhere down the road a few years back but, for some reason, that particular agent never serviced the needs of Mr Owen as well as they should have done, and that sometimes happens.

I happen to come along because I know Mr Owen and I say, "Listen, maybe we should sit down and have a bit of a chat about the products that you have and what we're able to do to be able to service your needs." One of the things that'll happen under the changes to the act that we're making --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: I did say "Owen," didn't I? Owens -- oh, put the "s" at the end. I always call him Steve; it's not my fault.

Mr Owens: It's better than what other people call me.

Mr Bisson: It's better than what other people call him, I must say.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): A truly wonderful human being.

Mr Bisson: Yes, truly wonderful. We are allowed to have a bit of fun sometimes in debate.

One of the things that it's going to do -- it'll simply do this here: If I try to sell my friend Steve a policy, I have to compare that new policy to what his original policy was, so that clearly there's no question I'm selling an inferior product. We need to make sure that if people upgrade their products, they're clear in their minds and we know for darned sure that the product they're about to replace with a new one is going to be as good as or better than what you initially had.

I've been told stories by people I know in the industry who talk about particular cases at times, and this doesn't always happen, but where somebody sold the product to a client, let's say, five, six years ago, and the agent, for whatever reason -- maybe that agent is no longer with the original company who sold the product to the person -- has not really kept up with the person's changing financial situation. What has happened is that particular person has really not been getting the biggest bang for his or her buck in the investment portfolio that has been established. What this will do is it will allow other agents to sort of keep an eye on that and to make sure that indeed we're all out there making sure we protect the best interests of our clients and at the same time that we keep our clients satisfied with regard to making sure that their investment decisions are kept current.

One of the things I think this legislation will do is really put an onus on agents to make sure that happens. But in the event that the person decides they want to change agents, they would have to be given a comparator to the original policy they had, what it's worth and what its dividends would be in comparison to the new one that's being sold so that you can't fool anybody when it comes to how you replace. Then what would happen is that the new insurance agent would then send a notification to the old insurance company that originally sold the original product that that's been done in order to give the other company the opportunity to say, "Well, hang on a second; did we really do our jobs?" It really, I think, takes a lot of the bantering around that sometimes goes on now.

The other thing that's really important, and I've left this to the last part, is that one of the things we've done in this bill is we're establishing a process by which life insurance agents will not only become licensed and have a much better licence, but they will become a self-regulating body. What that will mean to say is that life insurance agents themselves will become responsible, somewhat like other professions such as lawyers and doctors and engineers who are in self-regulating bodies, to be able to administer a code of ethics, to administer the rules by which life insurance agents operate within the province of Ontario. I think that really raises the stature to a certain extent of life insurance people in this province.

I said at the beginning, when we started talking about this whole thing, that people in the life insurance business sometimes have a pretty tough row to hoe. Sometimes we view life insurance sales people in a negative way because there have been some people in the business who have not been as scrupulous as they should have been. Mind you, they're the minority, but they've really made it a bad thing for other people in the business. It's much the same as MPPs. We've got a lot of good people in this assembly and we've had very good people in the past, but a couple of bad apples sometimes can really tarnish the image of the rest of the people in that industry.

1600

I think by moving to a self-regulating body -- I know, because I know the people in my industry back home who work in the insurance industry are respectable people, they're professional people, they're people who believe in the products that they sell, they're people who have very strong moral fibre and want to do right by their clients and they want to do right by their communities -- it takes it away from the system where government's going to tell you how you should do it, the Big Brother type of thing, in-your-face kind of situation, to a much better approach, which is, "You're the insurance industry; you understand the needs."

After all, there's no insurance company out there that'll profit by having bad people out there selling products that they're not very conversant with, and I think what it'll do is it'll allow people in the industry to really deal with a lot of issues that have been very difficult to deal with from the outside. I think the people in the life insurance industry will really have an ability to go out there and do things that'll really raise the standard and really raise the profile, more importantly, of life insurance salespeople in the province of Ontario. Because, like I said at the beginning, it's sometimes been a profession or a job that has been somewhat maligned because of a few people out there who happened to have done some pretty nasty things out there.

So I think, in closing, I would want to say first of all that I want to congratulate my counterpart, my good friend and colleague Mr Stephen Owens, who piloted this bill through the consultative process with the communities in the province of Ontario, the caisses populaires, the credit unions and all of the life insurance people I know and companies that he dealt with. I think Steve did a magnificent job of making sure not only that people were listened to but making sure that those comments and suggestions that were made before were brought back to this assembly, into the act, in order to be able to reflect what it is that we heard out there.

More importantly, I've got to say, I think Stephen Owens deserves a great amount of praise here today because he is the one in the end who really made sure that we as fellow caucus members put this as a priority in this government's spring agenda. I think there might have been a temptation at one point to say there are other bills out there that need to be dealt with. Sometimes House leaders and sometimes cabinet have some of their ideas about bills but I think Steve showed a lot of leadership in coming into the caucus and making sure that this was really a priority for this government in this spring session, and I think Steve deserves a round of applause for the fine work that he did.

In closing, I'd say, l'ouvrage qui a été fait à travers la province de l'Ontario, d'une consultation avec M. Owens, a été très apprécié, je le sais. J'ai eu l'opportunité l'année passée avec mon assistante politique, M^me Anne Ladouceur, qui j'ai vue dans les parages en arrière quelque part. On a fait des consultations à travers la province de l'Ontario dans les communautés francophones et les groupes francophones, des caisses populaires et des assurances pour être sûrs qu'on comprend leurs besoins pour pouvoir répondre à leurs recommandations. On a fait des tournées dans le bout de Kapuskasing, dans le bout d'Iroquois Falls, Timmins, Ottawa, Prescott et Russell, dans différentes communautés à travers la province de l'Ontario. J'aimerais signaler que c'est a peu près temps qu'on passe cette législation-là à ce point-ci et ne plus prendre de temps sans la passer, finalement.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We now have time for questions or comments. The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Owens: I'd like to thank the member for Cochrane South for his very generous comments with respect to the consultation process that was undertaken with respect to credit unions and co-operatives in the province of Ontario. I think, however, he gives me just a little bit too much credit and I think that clearly the credit is due to the hard work of the credit union and the caisse populaire movement, which resolved some fairly significant and fairly long-standing issues that had been on the table for a very long period of time.

I think in terms of the role that the caisse populaire plays in the francophone community, there's absolutely no doubt that it's an important part of the culture, the family, the way the town functions. During my 13-centre co-op/credit union consultation, I had the pleasure of visiting many communities that had the caisse populaire in operation and it's quite fascinating to see the level of organization that goes in and how the caisse is involved in all kinds of aspects of family life within the community.

So I'm quite pleased that my colleague the member for Cochrane South -- Madam Speaker, you may not know Mr Bisson was involved with this consultation and with providing the input we needed to the francophone community so we're able to deal with issues within the francophone community in a culturally sensitive and appropriate way.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Pierre Lacasse and Michel Paulin, who worked with the member for Cochrane South as well in terms of the caisse populaire contribution to this piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Any further questions or comments to the member for Cochrane South? The member for Simcoe -- no, Durham-York.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Yes, Durham-York. In fact there are a few credit unions in the riding of Durham-York. There's a fine community credit union in Uxbridge and they're quite involved with this. Actually, I've met on a number of occasions with people from there and people from the Markham-Stouffville credit union hoping that this bill would be coming forward.

When my colleague talked about the consultation process, all these people have been involved, and myself, as a member of a credit union, the auto credit union. Of course, coming from Oshawa originally, I belonged to that credit union. They were actually one of the first credit unions around, I think, that had this card where you go in and you got the automatic teller. They call their card the Auto Cash. I guess it's kind of strange. It was developed by auto workers in Oshawa. So the auto workers' credit union -- I know I have had on occasion letters from their board saying that they want to see this go forward.

So when my colleague the member from Cochrane talks about these things and the consultation that has taken place, he's quite right. There are a lot of credit unions out there, and they're found in just about every community across the province, right across the north, and the caisses populaires. They're all quite supportive because they're involved in the community. They've got a board of directors that comes from the community. It's time that we actually include them a little bit more in all the different aspects and elements of the services they can provide. That's why I think it's important to support this, and I think that's exactly what the member from Cochrane has been saying. I appreciate the opportunity to thank him for the eloquent way in which he put it. Merci.

1610

The Acting Speaker: Any further questions or comments?

Mr David Winninger (London South): I too applaud the remarks made by the member for Cochrane South. Practically since I was elected, I've had regular visits, correspondence and phone calls from a credit union, St Willibrord Community Credit Union, in my riding, in fact within a stone's throw of my constituency office. We do all our banking arrangements with them and they offer us very courteous service. But they've been very desirous of being able to compete in this modern financial world and they've been very interested in what this bill does to augment their ability to compete in a very competitive world. I know they're extremely pleased that this legislation is now being introduced and I'm pleased to be able to go back to my riding and let them know the good news and explain anything they may have questions about. I certainly find that the member for Cochrane South has outlined in a very clear fashion many of the initiatives under the bill and many of the improvements that I know St Willibrord will actively welcome.

The Acting Speaker: Any further questions or comments?

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I recognize the important role that farm mutuals play in our communities across this province, and have for many, many years. Some farm mutual companies have expressed a concern that credit unions will be able to sell insurance within their branches. I would like to assure you that this is not the case. This bill will only provide the credit unions with a level playing field with their main competitors, the federal financial institutions. This will not give the credit unions any more power at all than the banks and the loan and trust companies have today.

I know that the Minister without Portfolio, Ministry of Finance, the Honourable Brad Ward, has met with Ontario mutual insurance associations and local farm mutual representatives and has had the associate deputy minister of Finance discuss their concerns. I and this government will continue to work with the farm mutuals to ensure that they continue to play an important role in this province.

The Acting Speaker: The time for questions or comments has expired and now the member for Cochrane South has two minutes to reply.

Mr Bisson: I would only say that I want to thank my colleagues and all members in the House for their kind comments, for the attention they paid to this debate. I just want to echo the sentiments of my colleague Mr Stephen Owens that it's really been a lot of work on the part of the credit unions out there, and the caisses populaires and the insurance industry, which have worked very hard to be able to bring this forward, and a credit to their ability to be able to organize a really effective lobby.

One thing I've found in government is that it's one thing to go out and lobby. There are two ways of doing it. You do it to go out and effect change by putting forward constructive suggestions, by finding ways of getting government to do your things in a way that's cooperative, and then there is another type of lobbying which is for political gain.

I've been on both sides of that, so I do understand. I think the credit unions, the caisses populaires and the insurance companies have really been a credit to their industry in the way they've approached this entire consultation. They've been very supportive. They've pointed out problem areas to this government, to myself and to other people who were involved, that they felt needed to be addressed. We didn't in the end deal effectively with every entire issue out there, but on a scale of 1 to 10 this is a 9 1/2. I'm very proud to be a member of a government that has been able to bring forward finally these changes that have been sought after for so many years. With that, I'd like to thank you for my time in this debate.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to rise and participate in today's debate. As you know, one of the things I try to do when I speak on bills before the House is to use the opportunity to let my constituents in the riding of Oriole know what the legislation is about and how I feel about it and how I intend to vote.

The title of Bill 134 is An Act to revise the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act and to amend certain other Acts relating to financial services. There are two very significant parts of this bill, and a third is housekeeping, in my view.

The first part of this bill deals with very important changes to credit unions and caisses populaires across the province. For the information of those people watching, Ontario's credit union sector has about 540 institutions with approximately two million members. This piece of legislation could have a very significant impact upon the membership, the future membership and those 540 institutions which serve communities right across this province.

I'd like to spend a minute on that section of the bill and then I'll move on to the other sections. The first section of the bill that deals primarily with credit unions is, as I say, long overdue. It's an important part of financial institution reform in this province and I was disappointed that it took the present government until it was into in fourth year in office, that length of time, to bring forward these amendments and reforms which the credit unions have been asking for and working on with governments, both past and present, for quite some time.

The credit union industry in Ontario has approximately $12 billion in assets in its care and it has three umbrella groups, sometimes called "leagues." They are the Credit Union Central of Ontario, la Fédération des caisses populaires and l'Alliance des caisses populaires. These three leagues or institutions, these umbrella groups, act as the central bank for their members, who are the 540 credit unions across the province.

Historically in the province of Ontario, credit unions have grown in areas which display a strong local geographic or industry focus. Usually, people buy a certain number of shares in the organization, which allows them to then vote on credit union policy and partake in the institution's services.

Bill 134 updates the existing set of rules governing credit unions and caisses populaires and these rules have not been updated, as I mentioned, for many years. The bulk of the changes in Bill 134 represent changes to how the credit unions will be governed and how it will impact on their membership.

I don't want to speak at length about this, but I would like to make a couple of points. For years, credit unions have been telling government that they were too restricted by government legislation to be able to be competitive in offering other financial services and with other financial service companies. We all know that competition is very good for the consumer. As a result, many of these local institutions, these credit unions and caisses populaires, were unable to expand a financial base that would allow them to provide new services required in the new economy for not only their members but for others in the community.

Bill 134 introduces a number of provisions that would give credit unions expanded powers and would also limit the government's role in monitoring these institutions. In other words, this is a time of maturity for credit unions. It also means more responsibility for the credit unions and for their members, and it's important that people understand this.

Under the provisions of the bill, the credit unions will be given what's considered neutral person power in deciding what type of investments to make and services to provide. Currently, the government lists the powers of credit unions in the act. The changes will allow institutions, credit unions and caisses populaires to provide services unless they are specifically outlawed by the legislation, so in a way this is permissive legislation. It will allow the credit union industry, it will allow the caisses populaires across the province, all 540 institutions, to grow and develop and mature. I think that is a good thing.

We also know that the bill will allow credit unions and caisses populaires to offer non-voting shares for sale to members of the institution or other interested outsiders, and that is a very new feature and I think we'll have to see how it works. Certainly, at this point in time I'm supportive of that but with the caution that says, "I think, in the name of accountability, we'll have to see how well that works."

I'm not going to go into the details of how a credit union works. Those people who use credit unions, belong to credit unions or caisses populaires, know that. My word of caution for anyone who uses a credit union or a caisse populaire is that they should know and understand the rules governing the institution they're doing business with, because every individual has an obligation to know what they should properly expect in the way of accountability, responsibility and decision-making. I very much believe that we are entering an era where people must take more responsibility and have greater understanding about the institutions they deal with.

As we look at this bill, this is not only a time of maturity for credit unions and caisses populaires; it is also an opportunity for those people who use credit unions and caisses populaires to get better acquainted with and to understand the important role the credit unions and caisses populaires play in our society.

1620

Bill 134 expands the power and the responsibility of the boards of directors of credit unions. Those people who will be serving as members of boards of directors will have greater accountability and responsibility because they will have greater powers that this legislation gives them in its permissive nature.

The bill provides for improved supervision of credit unions with the creation of the director of credit unions. This is an office with broad enforcement powers. While the office will exist, while the credit unions and their boards will be subject to scrutiny -- and that's why I said we have to watch and see how things are going to work -- I still think it is important for us to realize that we also must take responsibility, those who choose to receive services from any institution, to be familiar with how they operate, what their responsibilities are, what they can do, what they can't do and who the members of the board of directors are. I think it's very important for members of any organization to become more familiar with who is making decision on their behalf, who's responsible and who's accountable.

The reason I'm going to be supporting Bill 134 and the changes to the credit union act is that I believe this could well mean greater opportunities for small businesses in communities to get access to capital. We know how difficult it has been, particularly through these past few years of economic downturn and recession, for small businesses to access capital. Having a little more competition in the market, allowing credit unions and caisses populaires to offer loans to small business, I believe is one of the initiatives in this bill that makes it supportable.

To do that, the act actually changes the provisions which force institutions such as credit unions and caisses populaires to maintain a certain amount of the financial reserves on a risk-weighted basis. That's an important change so that the more money that credit unions invest in riskier investments, the larger will be the amount of money that the institution must keep in reserve in case of bad debt. While the institutions will be encouraged to make loans in the community, they will also be required to be responsible to their shareholders by having an appropriate size of reserve in case there is a bad debt. That's an important part of this legislation.

There's another provision that I want to make sure people are aware of. Bill 134 establishes provisions that prohibit what is called tied selling. These are complicated sales transactions that I'm not going to go into here in the House today. While the act will allow credit unions to sell products such as insurance, they require that those products be sold in subsidiaries. Credit unions will not be permitted to sell insurance-type products at the same location where the banking and other financial services are offered. But it's important for credit union members to know that those services will be available through subsidiary organizations, through the credit union and caisse populaire movement.

I believe that the changes, as I said, are long overdue. I think they will benefit not only the credit union maturity and establishment and development as a financial institution in this province; I think they will challenge other financial institutions, banks and so forth, by the new competition it allows in the market. Those provisions, as I said, I believe are overdue. We could have seen them a while ago. We know how badly the support and access to capital has been for small and medium-sized businesses. I am hopeful that this will be proclaimed and that the credit unions will get into the business of assisting small businesses in particular with access to capital.

The second part of this bill, which is also very significant and in my view totally unrelated in any way to caisse populaire or credit union organization, is the self-regulatory regime that is proposed for life insurance agents. I think that is worthy of a separate and independent piece of legislation. It is also long overdue.

As a former minister of the crown, I had frequently expressed my support for self-regulatory models where professions, whether they were health professions or others, could then be held responsible and accountable for the services they provide to the public. So I was a little concerned when I saw what I think is a very important legislative initiative, and that is the development of a self-regulatory regime for life insurance agents which established two levels of life insurance agents, which allows them to sell life insurance for more than one company, which requires examinations and so forth to move from level 1 to level 2. It also, in my view, should be a separate piece of legislation.

One of the things I have objected to on more than one occasion is the desire of this NDP government to put things together that don't belong together. When you do that, you don't allow for proper debate and discussion or, in my view, proper status to the issue that it deserves.

I believe the life insurance agents of the province deserve to have a separate statute that would do many of the things, and perhaps a few more, that are contained in Bill 134, but I think it should have been a separate piece of legislation. Rather than being called An Act to revise the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act and to amend certain other Acts relating to financial services, it seems to me that you should have had an act which was An Act respecting Life Insurance Agents -- or Life Agents, as you call them -- in the Province of Ontario.

That would have been an important piece of legislation not only for the life insurance industry in the province, and for agents in particular, but for the public. It's important for them to know how professionals are going to be held accountable. I don't think we've had sufficient discussion in this House about that aspect, because most of the discussion here has been about the credit unions and caisses populaires. I think the life insurance agents were deserving of separate legislation.

I also believe it is overdue. I think it is a profession which is perfectly able and mature enough to be able to accept self-regulation and a self-regulatory model. I'm pleased to see the regime that has been set up, and I believe it is appropriate that we move forward in this way, but I think to hide it and couple it together with a piece of legislation that is totally unrelated does not do justice to the issue.

The third piece of amendment in this legislation has to do with amendments to the Toronto Stock Exchange Act. Quite frankly, I have the feeling that most of them are housekeeping. I have no objection to those kinds of amendments, housekeeping amendments, being included in an omnibus bill.

Having said that, I can't remember a piece of legislation that I ever brought forward to the House, or frankly that our government ever brought forward, that had in it two substantive issues. Yes, there were omnibus bills that contained housekeeping along with a substantive issue, but I can't remember ever putting together two substantive issues in one piece of legislation. We've seen this government do it time and time again on the basis that if you support one, you should automatically support the other.

In this particular case, I happen to support both. In fact, I support all three sections of the act, while I may have some concerns about how it's going to be in the future and how we're going to see the evolution and development of the need for further amendments. It does seem to me that as a precedent and as a practice, it's a bad idea to couple together two unrelated issues in the same piece of legislation. So I wanted to make that point.

The last point I really wanted to make is that this is a time when my constituents in the riding of Oriole are still worried about whether they are going to have a job tomorrow. We have seen time and again pieces of priority legislation coming forward from this government that really do nothing to give them any sense of confidence or security. We know Ontario is lagging behind the rest of Canada in economic recovery and job creation, and I think that is because the government of Ontario has failed the people of the province by giving them a sense of confidence that the government has a job creation and an economic prosperity agenda.

1630

Frankly, as I said, the issues before us are important to life insurance agents and to credit unions and caisses populaires. I'm not sure they're going to lead Ontario back to prosperity. In fact, I don't think they're related to that at all. If as a result we see access for small business to loans, that is a good thing and I would state that, but by the time this legislation is in place and under way, we will have seen too many bankruptcies of too many small businesses that have been unable to have the access to capital that this kind of legislation, if it had come two years ago or even two and a half years ago, could have been of help to them in getting at that time.

As I conclude, I want to leave everyone with the last bit of insight I have on this legislation. It seems to me that while we are modernizing an important industry, one which is important to the communities they serve, we know that the credit unions and caisses populaires, and life insurance agents, for that matter, have all suffered through this recession. We know that life insurance agents in particular are suffering because of the additional taxes the government placed on their products in certain circumstances, and we know that has hurt the industry very badly.

We know the credit unions and caisses populaires have been suffering as businesses have been going bankrupt and as their membership has suffered through job loss and economic hard times. I don't think this bill is going to correct all of that.

What we need in Ontario is to see action that will create a climate where the private sector will be encouraged to create jobs, to invest in Ontario, to give us hope and prosperity and confidence, and then people will have the money to deposit with credit unions so that this sector will flourish.

I will be supporting Bill 134, but I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that when we see a piece of legislation with 184 pages that most people would find complex and confusing, I wish we could have the opportunity, when there are individual issues, that we could see it brought forth in individual legislation that would make it easier for people to understand. Democracy only works if people can participate, and it's hard for them to participate if the government puts together pieces of legislation that are really deserving of independent legislation. This should have been two pieces, not one. Notwithstanding that, I will be supporting it.

The Acting Speaker: We have time now for questions or comments.

Mr Bisson: I just want to comment very quickly. I'm not going to tease the bears today.

The only comment I would make to the member for Oriole is that the reason the act is contained under one omnibus bill, I think you would well understand, is the legislative time we have here in the assembly. To separate the act in the end might have effected the kind of change you would like, and I would concede that point to a certain extent, but you are aware as well as I and other members in this assembly that we have limited time in the assembly. There are only so many bills you can put before the House at any one time within any one particular sitting, and because the government found it very important to move on all three parts, we put this bill under one act to respond to the needs of the people of Ontario.

To say that it should have been two and a half years ago -- well, I guess there are a lot of things you should've done in your time in government. You can only deal with so many things, so quickly, according to the time we have in this assembly.

The Acting Speaker: Any further comments or questions? Seeing none, the member for Oriole has two minutes to reply.

Mrs Caplan: I've been trying, over the time I've been here, to be helpful in suggestions to the NDP government. When they've done something good, I've said I think this is a good thing to do. The only criticism I have of this bill is that it could have been brought in two and half years ago instead of Bill 40, for example. That bill took up so much time from the Legislative Assembly because it was ill-thought-through and created such enormous controversy.

This bill is going through in a matter of days. There is general consensus. When the parliamentary assistant stands and a member of the House stands and tells me, "We put it all together because we didn't have time," I would say to him that the regulated health professions legislation went through this Legislature with the support of all parties and with the kind of facilitation that made that a reality. I would say to him that the only pieces of legislation which take a lot of time are those which the NDP government has brought forward that are not supported, that are not good public policy and that shouldn't be dealt with.

There are so many things you could be doing that would help the economy, that would create jobs, that would give us a legislative agenda to respond to the real needs of Ontario, that when I hear you say to me that there's only so much legislative time, that is a weak and lame excuse of an incompetent government.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Now for a moderate and contemplated contribution.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): An absolutely moderate and productive contribution to the debate from Leeds and Grenville.

We are, in the Conservative Party, generally supportive of Bill 134. I am not the Finance critic for my party, but I felt a commitment to put a number of things on the record related to a few concerns that have been brought to my attention in my part of Ontario, eastern Ontario. Generally, we agree that the bill as structured will modernize some badly out-of-date legislation and bring it into line with current competitive realities in the financial markets and financial services.

One concern that I will be talking about in the few minutes I will take up, as will my colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, Mr Villeneuve, when he has an opportunity, perhaps not during second reading but in committee -- we hope this bill will be going to committee. I understand it will be and we support that, but Mr Villeneuve I know has concerns comparable to mine and will have an opportunity during third reading and perhaps in committee as well.

Some of the advocates for Bill 134 have been talking about things like credit unions playing an important role in small, underserviced areas where they are often the only financial institution available. If indeed that proves to be the case, that is a critical element of the legislation.

As one who represents a number of those kinds of areas which have seen financial institutions move out over the past 10 years -- the federally chartered banks have closed up shop in much of rural Ontario and financial services available to rural Ontarians are at a premium. There are very few options or opportunities available to many residents of rural eastern Ontario, and I assume that probably applies throughout the rest of the province as well.

I want to talk about the question of the mutual insurance operations and the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association. I have an operation that is not in my riding but serves residents of my riding, the Grenville Patron Mutual Fire Insurance Co. It's based in Spencerville, Ontario, and those of you who know eastern Ontario will know Spencerville lies between Prescott and Ottawa, off Highway 16 on the route to Ottawa. This company has been in operation since 1892, serving policyholders for over 102 years.

I met recently with Alton Whitehorne, who's the manager-treasurer of that company, which has served the area so well, so efficiently and so effectively for more than a century, as I indicated. Their concern is that they were given assurances by the government some time ago that in respect of the kinds of changes we see brought forward by the government in Bill 134, they would also apply to farm mutuals. They have very significant concerns in respect to the fact that now that the bill has come forward, there is no provision to recognize the concerns of farm mutuals in this province.

1640

The Grenville Patron, as I indicated, has had an excellent record in the community for over a century. They have excellent management and staff, outstanding people; I think over $11 million in reserves. These are financially sound, prudent operations, people who are very cognizant of the needs of consumers and the people they serve, and feel that the timing of changes in respect to what's occurring in Bill 134 is critical in respect to what's happening: the fact that this may, as they see it, afford one group in the financial institutions area a benefit which would create a disadvantage over another group in the financial institutions area. Of course, this is the major concern of farm mutuals.

I want to put a couple of their comments on the record during this time that I'm participating in the debate. The membership in the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association, which by coincidence is meeting in Toronto this week at its annual convention, has endorsed recommendations of a financial services committee which was established in 1990. They have endorsed their recommendations to pursue with the government the necessary changes that would permit farm mutuals to respond to new opportunities and challenges.

Their membership endorsed the recommendations, two resolutions: one related to 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; in other words, for the 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 which, in turn, would be owned by the farm mutuals. Both of those resolutions and recommendations of the financial services committee were overwhelmingly endorsed by the membership of the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association.

They have taken the time, clearly, to review Bill 134. They didn't want to pursue the recommendations of the committee until there were legislative provisions in place. Clearly, they didn't want to get into these detailed plans and processes unless, of course, there were legislative provisions in place to support any kind of new venture on the part of farm mutuals.

They've looked at the legislation. As I said, they were assured that these kinds of changes would be forthcoming, and they felt that Bill 134 would incorporate their concerns as well and not simply be restricted to credit unions and caisses populaires. So obviously there's significant disappointment within the farm mutual family in respect to the fact that their concerns, their recommendations up to this point have been overlooked. Of course, that's one of the major reasons why the Conservative Party is supportive of this legislation going to public hearings through a standing committee of the Legislature, so that the farm mutual organizations will have an opportunity to present their case to all three parties and members serving on that standing committee, and hopefully have a number of amendments accepted and endorsed by the standing committee.

They have spelled out those recommendations. I don't want to go into detail on all of them, but there's not a significant number of amendments. They're proposing a new section, a change to paragraph 121(1)31, and a change, an amendment to subsection 433(9).

I want to read that one into the record, their proposal in respect of 433(9), because I think it's important at this juncture. The amendment as proposed by the farm mutual organizations is:

"(a) Despite anything in subsection (1) or section 435, but subject to the approval of the commissioner and to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council," -- this is the important part -- "a mutual insurance corporation that participates in the farm mutuals guarantee fund may invest in the fully paid shares of any joint stock financial institution incorporated in Ontario or service corporation if, after the investment, all the shares of the financial institution or service corporation will be owned by one or more mutual insurance corporations that participate in the fund.

"(b) A financial institution or service corporation referred to in clause (a) for the purposes of this act will be deemed to be an affiliate of all of the farm mutuals guarantee fund members which own its shares."

The other section that I wanted to put on the record, and I won't get into detail, was the new section, which states:

"An insurer may act as an agent for any person in respect of the provisions of any service that is provided by a financial institution, enter into an arrangement with any person in respect of the provision of that service or refer any person to any such financial institution."

The farm mutuals believe that the amendments they are proposing will permit the farm mutual organizations to enter the fields that we've talked about, I've talked about, and they have set out in their resolutions, as well as to centralize functions over time that would be of mutual benefit to the membership of the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association.

The provisions relating to the deeming to be affiliated will address the problems they've outlined in subsections 393(12) and (13), which in the wording presently existing in the act restrict the ability of agents of property and casualty insurers to represent only their company and "affiliates."

The Ontario farm mutuals are and have been for many, many years part of Ontario's financial services industry. They're serving thousands of owning, and I stress "owning," policyholders. They believe quite sincerely that these legislative changes they're proposing, the amendments to Bill 134, are critical and absolutely necessary in terms of the ongoing survival of their industry.

I can't emphasize enough that in our party, we believe the changes recommended by the farm mutuals must proceed simultaneously with the credit union legislation. We do not and cannot support a timetable that will result in credit unions receiving broader powers in advance of farm mutuals. I would hope that members of the government who have farm mutuals operating in their areas, areas that they represent in rural Ontario, would also take the opportunity to speak perhaps briefly during second reading debate in respect to the concerns of farm mutuals, because we know they are good citizens in our communities and certainly active participants in our municipalities in a very positive sense.

I want to encourage government members to take a look at what they're saying, take a look at the proposals they are putting forth in terms of substantive amendments to Bill 134. I think they're positive recommendations, positive changes, which will put them on a level playing field in respect to the changes that are going to benefit credit unions and caisses populaires.

In essence, that sums up my contribution. I encourage especially the government members during the course of this debate, during public hearings and when the legislation comes back for third reading, to give very serious consideration to the concerns of farm mutuals.

1650

The Acting Speaker: Thank you to the member for Leeds-Grenville. Are there any questions or comments to the member? Further debate.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): It's a privilege to rise today to talk a little bit about Bill 134. In the county of Huron we have a number of credit unions -- no caisses populaires that I'm aware of -- in Goderich and Wingham, Clinton and Exeter, and in fact, a number of years ago, the Exeter branch amalgamated with the Clinton credit union which I am personally involved with in more ways than one: a few bills.

It was started back in 1952. The basic premise around the credit union system is what we've all heard, but I think it deserves to be said again, the principle where people really do invest in their communities and the money really does stay in their communities and it's an opportunity for growth.

Many of these institutions were actually started by church organizations. I believe that's how Clinton was started, by some people who had more than just a business point of view, but a bit of a social responsibility and something that as New Democrats is --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Social gospel.

Mr Klopp: Yes, social gospel we can say. It is a business but with a social responsibility, something that, as New Democrats, is pretty easy for many of us to understand, and many people.

The changes are definitely necessary. The last time there were some amendments was back in 1983, I understand, and I believe at that time they probably should have gone further, but at the time things were moved along.

This will allow the credit union system to really compete out there in the financial field. It will provide flexibility and financing arrangements, enhance the ability to attract more depositors, build member confidence and commitment and strengthen, of course, the credit unions' and the caisses populaires' financial contribution to the communities.

It ties in very well with our community economic development strategy. We said very early in our mandate, and many of us over the years, when they said, "Why are you taking the time to run for the NDP?" I said that one of the things was that we need to really talk about and act on community economic development and build on these kinds of structures and create out there in the financial institutions some fair and good competition and let the community decide how it will do things.

It ties in very well with our FarmPlus program at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. When we set the committee up, we heard many people say over the years -- myself, as a Huron county federation member -- with the real credit crunch in the early 1980s, "If I knew that the money would be going directly back into the community for the farmers and some of those businesses that have value added, I would put some of my money that I have into that." There was never really a course for that.

The credit union system was there, but under some of the regulations, for example, they could only really give 15% of their portfolio to small business. It really did inhibit them from being some real good competition out there. This act will change that.

We happen to have it that the credit union system is using the FarmPlus program and is the carrier. We were very happy when it made a motion to carry that program, but we see that these changes will enhance its ability out in the farm community.

As many of you are aware, FarmPlus is the opportunity for people of all walks of life, not just retired farmers, but your cousin in the city or your friends in town, whatever, to put some of their money into GICs which go directly back to the community for farm loans or value added loans. Value added loans, I think, are the way to go. Farmers need to stretch their positions in the marketplace, not just produce but also go on and further process those products that they produce, and this is another vehicle, another area for them to do that because there are some financial dollars there which they can come to.

It's been a fairly good success. We have been pleasantly surprised. In the last seven weeks, way over $10 million has been invested in these FarmPlus GICs and that says a lot about the community spirit that's out there in Ontario.

I want to say that a lot of people out there have worked very hard to build the credit union system in this country and, in fact, as one person said to me once, "In spite of government regulations, we've been succeeding." I think it says a lot.

We're now making some very positive changes, some more, to bring them up so that they can move forward. Earlier it was mentioned by a colleague across the floor about the farm mutuals and it's something that I know has been talked about. I very much understand the farm mutual system. I've been involved with it in our family tree; my great-grandfather sold wind insurance for one of the companies many, many years ago.

The issue I think is something that we're taking very seriously and I respect the comments. I support many of those motions that are coming forth with farm mutuals as well.

In closing, I take a moment of tribute to all the credit unions that have been out there over the years, especially the ones in Huron county, that have helped the communities, and this bill will further allow them to be partners out in the field and will only do us all well.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any questions or comments to the member for Huron?

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I'd like to commend Paul for talking here today about rural communities and about the part that credit unions play in our rural communities. I know in my community, we have the St Willibrord credit union and it's been very active in our community for over 25 years. As a matter of fact, I know that the manager is retiring this year after 25 years in the St Willibrord credit union and it's marvellous to see José Cozyn talk about how it was when it was starting and how she got involved in the community and how the community came together to form that credit union.

Today it's also very good to hear my colleague talk about FarmPlus, because I was just talking to José recently about the FarmPlus program and how important it is to rural communities that our farmers can now reinvest their money into the agricultural area and still maintain some of the investment security that they like to have in an RRSP.

I'd like to just add my comments to my colleague's and say that I'm very supportive of this legislation. I know that they are very excited about this going through. They want to see this as quickly as possible. I'm also pleased to hear the member talk about community action and community economic development because I think credit unions play a very strong role in the economic development of our communities and I'm pleased to see them tie into the community action programs that we have out there. I just wanted to put a few remarks on the record to say how much I appreciate credit unions in my own community and would like to see this legislation go through.

The Acting Speaker: Any further questions or comments? I'm wondering if the member for Huron would wish to reply.

Mr Klopp: No.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate. I'm hopeful that this bill, and I think it does, will reinforce some of the things that I view as important to getting our economy rolling. I don't think there's any doubt that as you talk to businesses across the province -- medium businesses, small businesses, even some of our larger businesses -- one of the primary concerns they have is the financing for their businesses.

Our caucus has just been around the province in I think 16 different communities on what we call a jobs task force and we were asking the community for advice on how we get the economy rolling, how we can see jobs created. I think it's fair to say that one of the top issues for the business community, for the job creating community, is the lack of appropriate financing for them.

It's easy to be critical of the banks, but I think even the banks themselves would acknowledge that they have not done a good job on adapting to the changing economy, to smaller businesses. As the banks have gotten larger, in some respects I think more bureaucratic, further removed from the community, I don't think they've adapted quickly enough to how small business can access the necessary and appropriate capital. I think they're playing catch-up on it. I applaud them and for my part I will do whatever I can to encourage them to put a lot more effort into it. Virtually all the banks are now putting, in different ways, a lot of effort into it. The Ontario lead investment fund, I think they call it, is something most of the banks are participating in. But it's going to be a while before they've really got in place the mechanisms to respond appropriately to small emerging businesses.

1700

I look forward to the committee, where the public can get involved and give us their comments on it, but from my reading of the bill and from my colleague's explanation of the bill, I think this is a useful and important step forward in helping to provide more access to capital for our small and medium-sized businesses, emerging businesses, for a variety of reasons.

One is that I do think there is an enormous advantage in community-based funding. People loan money to people. There's no doubt that the credit unions are very much community-based, and I dare say that most of the money they loan would be to people they know or that members of the credit union know. There's an enormous advantage to that, because not only is it all the numbers, but there are personalities and people involved in it. One of the challenges the banks face is that they are sometimes too far removed from the community. I hope they're moving to fix that, but in the meantime, strengthening our credit unions and giving them more access to funding small business is good.

Also, we all need the assurances -- the public needs the assurances, the credit unions need the assurances, the people who are depositing money in the credit unions and the people who are borrowing money -- that the credit unions are well established and have in place mechanisms that ensure the security of the depositors. This bill is helpful in that respect.

Another part of the bill I'm very supportive of is the whole area of the amendments to the Toronto Stock Exchange Act. I happen to think Ontario, more particularly sometimes the greater Metropolitan Toronto area, has, to use the cliché, a world-class financial community. We have financial institutions, we have insurance companies, we have the banks, and we have a stock exchange that works very well. But it's important that wherever we can, we move to strengthen the confidence people have in investing in public offerings.

We've been fortunate in Ontario that to a very large extent people have felt comfortable, when the stock exchange lists a security or a stock, that the information they're getting is accurate and that they can rely on it. But it only takes a few examples where people feel that the investments they've made have been made on the basis not of full disclosure and not the information that they should have had when they were making that investment.

I view as another important element in our economic wellbeing that not only do our small, emerging businesses have access to capital and to funding, but that as our businesses look to public offerings, where they raise perhaps more significant amounts of money, where they raise equity financing as opposed to debt financing, we have a securities operation that people feel absolutely, totally confident in. I'm pleased to see we are making some amendments to the stock exchange act that I hope will further strengthen that.

As I said, we face an enormous challenge in the province. Many of our future jobs are coming from industries that are more idea-based and more based on information and technology. They aren't those hard assets that we used to see. I've had an opportunity to talk with some of the people in the agricultural community who are very much involved in technology and biotechnology and the use of technology. Those are ideas that, for traditional lenders, sometimes are difficult to put a value on, so many of these businesses that want to grow have difficulty in accessing capital, difficulty in accessing funds, because the lenders don't see those hard assets.

Once again, as I read the bill and interpret its direction, this should be helpful in strengthening our credit unions and providing them with an opportunity to compete on a fairer basis with the other financial institutions, helpful in raising additional sources of funding. As I look at the bill, I start from the point of view of saying that what is important to our party, what is important, we think, to the province, is, how will we help get the economy going? There is no question that this access to funding, access to capital, is one of the keys. If I read the bill properly, I think this is a step forward.

So I'm supportive of it at this stage. I'm looking forward to the debate at committee, where other members of the public who are more intimately involved in aspects of this bill can come before us and make their suggestions on where we may improve the bill. In the meantime, as we proceed to what we call second reading agreement in principle here, I will be supportive of this bill and look forward to it being helpful to our economy.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Marchese: I'm pleased that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is supporting this bill. I want to respond to some of the comments he made, to somewhat strongly disagree with statements he made about the banks.

In the last year that I've been working on the issue of small business, we have discovered that the six chartered banks have not been very charitable with small business, so I don't have a charitable view of the banks over the last year that I have been working with small business. In fact, they have not been moving very fast to address the concerns at all. For three long years, from 1989 to 1993, the small business loans from the banks had decreased and the bigger companies were getting the larger share of banks' loans.

When you consider that 85% of all jobs are produced by small business, something is wrong with that. Quite clearly, the banks are not helping our economy, because they're not helping small business or producing those jobs. So the banks are moving extremely slowly and only through the pressures that we've been applying to them.

Two banks have created two different kinds of positions in the last month or so, one an ombudsman position and the other a dispute mechanism panel to deal with disagreements where there are disagreements. I think that's useful. They should be acknowledged and praised for that.

But I want to say to Mr Phillips that they are indeed playing catch-up, but there is a lot more that banks need to do to be able to help our economy with full employment. This particular bill on co-ops puts them at the same level with banks, because with the $10 billion they put into the economy, they will be able to help small business in a way that will be more effective and produce the kinds of jobs we're looking for.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Phillips: I'm not sure the member listened carefully to me, because I think I said exactly what he said, that in my opinion the small business community has not been well served by the banking community.

Mr Marchese: You were very charitable.

Mr Phillips: While no doubt they are without question playing catch-up now, I am supportive of this bill. The member was essentially repeating what I said.

I happen to think the banks have a long way to go. I know the government's very actively involved with them in the Ontario lead investment fund, and that's probably a pretty good idea. But this bill I think will be useful in helping the small business community in the province have better access to capital, have better access to funding for their startup businesses and better access to grow their businesses. The member may not have been listening carefully when I said I don't think the small business community has been well served by the banking community in the past few years and they need a lot more effort. Some of it's coming. Much more has to happen.

1710

The Speaker: Is there further debate?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'm delighted to rise to speak a little longer than the opportunity I had yesterday doing a two-minute rebuttal on Bill 134. I will speak primarily to the aspect of the credit union. I realize that this bill contains provisions governing other aspects. For example, there are apparently tougher standards proposed for life insurance agents, and my suspicion is that that's a good thing.

One thing I didn't realize is that there are apparently 19,000 life insurance agents in the province of Ontario, and this bill will introduce a two-tier licensing and examination process for those 19,000 life insurance agents and it will create a more stringent test to qualify for the level 1 licence. Then it goes on to address the level 2 licence as well.

Those are probably good provisions, but I really don't intend to get into that, nor do I intend to get into the issue of the powers of the Ontario Securities Commission. I understand that Bill 134 will enhance the powers that the OSC has to investigate and sanction breaches of security rules. Again, that's probably a good provision. In general, I must say that I think this bill does have a number of very positive aspects.

What I'll be talking about primarily over the next few minutes will be in relation to the credit unions: the credit unions that involve an amazing 1.8 million people in the province of Ontario. About 18% of our population, 1.8 million people in this province, have a relationship with a credit union.

I was pleased to see that there's some consensus with regard to Bill 134 through the credit unions, in particular the credit union central, which has some 460 members, 460 credit unions across the province of Ontario that are involved with the credit union central. As I understand it, those 460 members would come from all walks of the credit union life, the large credit unions, medium, right down to the very small credit unions, and there is some consensus. Although there is a little bit of a difference of opinion, the basic consensus is that Bill 134 is a positive step.

I hope, as has been expressed by some of the previous speakers, that Bill 134 will go to committee so we will have the opportunity to talk about a few of the areas where there are concerns. It is those concerns I would like to speak about for a little bit today. Most of those concerns, I might add, come from the small credit unions. The small credit unions apparently are basically in support of this bill, but they do have some concerns.

As I mentioned the other day, I've had some involvement with the East York credit union -- I must say, a very passive involvement. I was of course the mayor in East York even a year ago today, and I was delighted that in East York, through the municipal employees, about 550 municipal employees that we'd have in East York, there is a credit union that was formed actually in 1941. It was formed by the employees of the borough of East York and it was formed for the purpose of "People helping people." That's what the credit union movement is all about.

Over the years, the credit union has managed to maintain a very healthy financial status for its members.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): Like the banks?

Mr David Johnson: Is the member saying something about the banks?

Mr Jamison: No. Is that a quote from the banks?

Mr David Johnson: No, that quote is from the credit union, the East York credit union, "People helping people."

But the member talks about banks, and the banks have been criticized here today. I'm not going to be one to defend the banks, but I must say that it's very easy to sit here in this House and take potshots at the banks when we don't have to answer to the investors, to the depositors of the banks. The people that have their money with the banks, the people that have their money invested in the banks, are expecting that the banks will take a very cautious attitude towards the investments. They expect those investments to be stable, they expect those investments to be realized, that they will be paid back, and they don't expect the investments to be defaulted.

So the banks do have an obligation above and beyond what anybody in this House does. Our obligation, I suppose, is to criticize the banks for not making enough money available to small businesses. I don't think there's anybody who would deny that they've been overly conservative in terms of their approach to small business. Even the banks today are recognizing the fact that for the last two or three or four years they have perhaps been too cautious in that regard. However, for those people who have their money in the banks, they're very delighted to get the best possible return that they can get. So there's another sector of society out there; let's not forget about that.

At any rate, when we're talking about the small credit unions, I do think of the East York credit union. The East York credit union, by the way, has assets that last year amounted to just over $3 million. Loans reflected about 81% of the assets. I haven't worked that out, but I guess that's about $2.5 million in loans and over $3 million in assets. This is a credit union that is what I would call a community-based credit union, very close to its people, very aware of the people that it's serving. This is the kind of credit union that has a bond, if I can express it that way, with the people that it's serving. Indeed, the people that it's serving form the directorship, the executive members of the association, and essentially run the credit union, and they do it in an excellent fashion. It's the kind of credit union that we would certainly want to preserve, and it's the kind of credit union that we would not want any harm to come to.

The expenses: On assets of $3 million, the expenses are about $100,000 a year, which is a very small amount. So it's very frugally run. As indicated before, they can run it in that fashion because they do have the strong support of the members.

I'm pleased to say that this year they're indicating that the dividend on the shares will be 6%, which is an increase from the previous year, 1993, and that in turn was an increase over 1992. So this is a successful credit union. It's a small credit union but a successful one. Its deposits are growing and its loans are growing. It's the kind of credit union that I'm sure we would all wish to support.

The impression that I'm getting, however, is that what's taking place in society is that some of the smaller credit unions are not able to continue existing. The larger credit unions are surviving. The larger credit unions perhaps are amalgamating some of the smaller ones. If there's jeopardy associated in the credit union field, it may be with the smaller credit unions.

That's why I think it's important to look at some of the concerns that they have raised. I'm sure these concerns can be addressed during the committee hearings. There seems to be a lot of good will associated with this bill, so I'm sure they can be addressed.

1720

One concern they've expressed is that reserves will be required to be increased, that they will have to increase reserves. This is based on an assessment of risk. This is good and this is bad. If the risk is higher, then perhaps the reserve should be increased. There's greater protection for the depositor. It's very difficult to oppose that sort of situation.

But on the other hand, the smaller credit unions have that bond with their members. They understand the risk associated with their members and their defaults are very low. In the case of East York -- I'm not sure if I can find it here now; here it is, as a matter of fact -- they have a provision for doubtful loans of $212. I think that's a remarkable achievement. It shows that they are able to assess their own people, work with their own people, and in that climate of cooperation the defaults are extremely low. The problem is that if the reserve is raised too high for the risk, then this may have an impact on the smaller credit unions. It's something we should look at during the committee process.

A second point that was raised, and again there's good news and there's bad news, is that there is an additional range of products and services that the credit unions are being allowed to pursue, which is good because many of the credit unions have indicated that they've had a problem being competitive with some of the other lending institutions, the banks and the trust companies, I presume, and that to retain their membership they need various other services. That's good.

The difficulty is that with some of the smaller credit unions they may not have the resources to pursue these other services and consequently they may get forced out because they may become uncompetitive. I don't know what we do about that. That's a difficult situation. I understand that's not an easy one to solve.

Mr Elston: What, no answers from the Tories?

Mr David Johnson: Give us a moment and we'll have the answer.

That's something I think we should recognize. These additional services include, for example, selling public transit tokens and lottery tickets. I imagine just about any credit union could sell those kinds of things. Apparently, there's some discussion about selling --

Mr Elston: There isn't too much transit in Wingham.

Mr David Johnson: Not too much transit in Wingham? All right. I'll trust my good colleague from the Liberal ranks, the member for Bruce. He can certainly comment on Wingham with a great deal more authority than I can --

Mr Elston: It's in Huron.

Mr David Johnson: -- but I'm sure there may be lottery tickets that may be sold in Bruce, as well.

If the services proceeded into something a little more complex, such as mutual funds, then I think we would all agree that there would be many smaller credit unions that would find it difficult to keep that sort of expertise on their staff. In that sense, they would be uncompetitive.

I also note that this bill will permit the credit unions to be involved with the community loan funds which have just been set up through Bill 40. The loan funds were designed by this government essentially to make loans to small businesses which could not receive a loan from a bank or were turned down by a bank or another financial institution, presumably because they were a poorer risk. Then the community loan fund would be able to make a loan. The community loan fund would get its funding from within the community. Previously, the credit unions have been restricted and could not invest but now, under this bill, credit unions will be able to put money into that sort of venture.

I suppose, in a sense, that's a little bit positive, but I will say again, as I said during the debate for Bill 40 and the community loan funds, if you ask the business people of the province of Ontario, what they really need, more than more avenues to loan money, is to have less cost. That's what the businesses right across this province are saying: "If you really want to help us as a government, then reduce the cost, reduce the taxes, reduce the payments that we have to make, such as the workers' compensation. Look at all of those costs. Work with municipalities on the property tax." Those are the real problems that are facing business today, the payroll costs, the taxes etc.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): How much of a reduction, Dave, 1%, 10%, 50%?

Mr David Johnson: To my colleague, any reduction will be helpful, even freeze the budget.

Mr Perruzza: Put a proposal on the table on how to achieve it.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr David Johnson: I heard the Minister of Finance say this afternoon that we won't have a tax increase this year in Ontario, and I hope I can take him at his word.

Mr Elston: What does he do? He puts a tax on the student, right?

Mr David Johnson: He puts a tax on the students and increases by 20% the fees to the students. There's a tax increase right off the bat.

Mr Elston: Didn't take long for him to break that one.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Bruce is pointing out that the minister has a very narrow definition of what a tax increase is, but certainly that's how we get business going, not through community loan funds but through reducing the burden on our businesses.

Finally, one other point I've heard that may or may not be a problem, and again it involves the competitiveness of the smaller credit unions, is that they will now be eligible to sell shares to members outside of the credit union members. This is certainly a good thing, I'm sure, for many credit unions. They will be able to attract extra capital and be able to invest in larger projects than they would've previously.

I'm not sure of the mechanism for doing this. Perhaps this will be made more apparent during the committee hearings. If it involves full disclosure, for example, to the outside members, which we have some suspicion that it might, then that could be a very costly exercise, not so much for the large credit unions but for the smaller credit unions, thereby in a sense really prohibiting them from participating in this exercise, and consequently putting them at a competitive disadvantage. This perhaps will become clear during the committee hearings.

Those are the comments I would have with regard to Bill 134. I'm very pleased to see it go to committee and to continue the debate there.

The member for Downsview asked me how much we should put the taxes down this year, and maybe in final response to the member's question, I would say that the municipalities are still waiting today. They were promised two years ago that they would have a 1% increase in their transfer payments, followed by a 2% increase, followed by another 2% increase this year. What happened? They received, first of all, an 11% reduction, then a 20% reduction on their transfer payments for their unconditional grants.

I guess the member for Downsview is not listening to this. The conditional grants form 84% of the transfers from the province to the municipalities, so the announcement today on the grants transfer really reflects a very small proportion of the money that goes from the province to the municipalities.

Before we say hallelujah that the province isn't going to cut to the municipalities any more and is going to live up to its word in that regard -- and that's what we're really talking about, keeping its promise -- we should wait and see if it keeps its promise on the other aspect, on the conditional grants.

Then if we can do that, perhaps municipalities can put their property taxes down and I hope that this province will be able to do the same thing. If we can do that, we will get people back to work, we will have successful businesses in the province of Ontario, and that will be an even greater boost to our economy than Bill 134.

1730

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Don Mills for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Marchese: Just some comments to respond to the member's --

Mr Elston: What is going on here?

Mr Marchese: Just two minutes. Reference has been made again to the banks, and I want to make some comments about that.

The member says yes, it's easy to take potshots at the banks, and perhaps it's true. You commented about the fact that we have to worry about the investors and their investment into the banks. I just want to point out to the member and to others that 90% of what the banks control comes from us -- we are the investors -- and 10% of private bucks goes into the banks. So when we talk about private investment, I have a big concern about whose money they're spending and how.

Yes, they're looking for stable investment, yes, they're looking for their money to be paid back, and yes, they're looking for the best return. But I argue that the best return is for banks to invest their money into small business in this country, and I argue that they have an important responsibility as banks to make sure this country and the people of Ontario are back to work. That's my response to the aspect of banks, although I support many other concerns that the member has raised. I'm happy to see he's supporting this act as well.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The member for Fort York comments about the banking industry. I am probably the last guy in the world who's going to defend the banks. Frankly, I find it very difficult.

The problem the member for Fort York has is an ideological problem with the banking industry. The banking industry doesn't see it the same way he sees it.

Mr Marchese: Is that right?

Mr Stockwell: I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying that the dilemma that's facing this country today is that the banking industry doesn't see its role as job creation. They don't. They don't see that their role is anything else but to protect the investors of that bank. Now, 90% of the people in fact hold ownership of those banks. Those people choose to do business with that bank and that bank is doing its best to maintain and control the moneys safeguarded by them in the best possible fashion.

The difficulty is, maybe we should expand a broader review of the banking industry, period. Maybe there should be more schedule A banks. Maybe there should be a number of banks out there that can do more things, much like this piece of legislation. The point that needs to be made is that it's a fine line. The debate you can get into is the American model, the debacle of the S&Ls and how they were handled and how they dealt with their moneys and the moneys that were entrusted to them with respect to lending and loan criteria and investment in small business and so on and so forth.

Mr Marchese: It's been working.

Mr Stockwell: There are a lot of states in the United States that are going to tell you the S&Ls didn't work, and there are a lot of people in the federal government who are going to tell you, after bailing them out, that the S&Ls didn't work. Having said that, there's got to be a balance somewhere. I'm not sure this is the debate.

I don't disagree with you. I think the banking industry needs to get a smack in a lot of respects and straighten up. But the bottom line is that they don't see their role as job creators, they don't see their role as investing their money on behalf of government. They see it solely as protecting their investors. I'm not sure that's wrong, but maybe the industry should be widened, there should be more players involved, and maybe we'd have a better opportunity of recovering from this recession.

Mr Perruzza: I'm not going to stand up in defence of banks. I'm going to leave that to the Conservatives. They can defend their banking friends and defend the policies of the banking industry over the last little while, especially their policies throughout the recession, their stranglehold, quite frankly, and the manner in which they've been suffocating small businesses and killing jobs.

I want to speak to some of the comments that were made by the honourable member from East York when he said that what businesses are telling him they need is that we need to cut taxes and cut red tape, and he proceeded to lecture us about taxes and red tape and all the roadblocks that have been placed in the way of small business. Quite frankly, I'm so tired of sitting here and taking lectures from my Conservative friends here in this House about our record and about their record with respect to small business and the job losses and all the red tape and the taxes and the regulations that have been heaped on business that are making their life miserable.

They come here and they criticize and they lecture, but do they ever put out a plan? Do they ever put any numbers on the table?

Mr Stockwell: Our plan is: Resign.

Mr Perruzza: I say to him, suggest the cut, suggest by how much, suggest where we can get the money to make that cut, because I'd certainly be interested in looking at that. But when you look at the Conservative record of years gone by, you will see that they didn't cut anything. They increased, increased, increased, increased, and wreaked havoc on our small business sector.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Don Mills has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr David Johnson: I'm pleased that the member for Downsview has registered such concern. I guess our message is finally starting to get home. But his memory I think is a wee bit faded. My recollection is that when the Conservatives left office, the debt in the province of Ontario, for example, was about $30 billion -- I look to my colleague from Etobicoke West and I thank him for his comments -- and just 10 years later, we have a debt of almost $80 billion, about $78 billion as we sit here today, in the province. When you talk about spending and the fact that the Conservatives when they were in power didn't do cuts or spent unwisely or whatever, it just doesn't ring true.

I thank the member for Etobicoke West for his comments.

I would like to say before my time runs out, though, that I think this bill offers many positive aspects for the credit unions. I think that needs to be reiterated. I'm basically in support.

However, when we shift back to the banks, and I don't think this conversation should necessarily go there, it's not just that the banks don't look at job creation as being their primary goal. The question is that the investors don't look at it that way, and the investors are all of us. When we put our money in, if we don't like what the banks are doing, we can put it somewhere else. There all sorts of other institutions today: green lending institutions and job creation institutions. If people put their money in the bank, they expect the bank to give them a return for their money. That's why banks do what they do, in a sense.

The Speaker: Is there further debate on this bill?

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : J'aimerais prendre quelques minutes pour commenter et dire quelques mots, bien sûr, sur le projet de loi 134 intitulé la Loi révisant la Loi sur les caisses populaires et les credit unions et modifiant d'autres lois relatives aux services financiers.

Tout ce que je peux dire c'est que, finalement, un projet de loi nous est présenté qui va moderniser la loi actuelle, qui est quand même une entrave au développement des communautés franco-ontariennes et des caisses populaires et des «credit unions», mais qui est aussi une entrave au développement de la communauté comme telle, la communauté franco-ontarienne.

Si je veux m'adresser surtout au sujet des caisses populaires c'est que, bien sûr, à titre de Franco-Ontariens, l'expérience des caisses populaires est surtout celle que nous avons connue, bien que nous soyons très au courant qu'il y a exactement des «credit unions» dans les communautés anglophones autour de nous. C'est évident que le projet de loi touche à deux autres points, mais surtout je voudrais concentrer mes commentaires sur l'implication pour les caisses populaires.

Je me réjouis que ce projet de loi ait été présenté parce que, entre autres, c'est dans la circonscription de Prescott et Russell que vous allez retrouver le plus grand nombre de caisses populaires en Ontario. Je peux vous dire que lorsqu'on considère la situation des caisses populaires en Ontario, vous en avez 60, avec plus de 28 succursales, pour un total de 88. On parle de près de 900 emplois mais on parle aussi d'un actif d'environ deux milliards de dollars. Ces caisses populaires-là sont rassemblées dans deux réseaux distincts, soit celui de la Fédération des caisses populaires et celui aussi de l'Alliance des caisses populaires de l'Ontario. Ce qui est important dans ce projet de loi, c'est que ce réseau de caisses populaires va enfin être reconnu par le projet de loi. Les caisses ne seront plus vues une à une, mais plutôt comme faisant partie intégrale d'un réseau de caisses populaires à l'échelle de l'Ontario.

1740

Vous savez, la communauté franco-ontarienne a toujours été très active dans le mouvement de coopération, dans le mouvement coopératif. Chez nous et ailleurs dans les autres communautés francophones, vous avez plusieurs coopératifs agricoles. Comme je le mentionnais tantôt, vous avez également plusieurs caisses populaires, et en Ontario, nous avons même le Conseil de la coopération de l'Ontario.

Bien sûr, aujourd'hui la communauté franco-ontarienne reconnaît la mondialisation du commerce, le caractère changeant des finances, et elle veut se prendre de plus en plus en main, ce qui est tout à fait normal. Par exemple, nous avons vu récemment, au cours des dernières années, la création de la Chambre économique de l'Ontario, le regroupement des gens d'affaires, et tout récemment nous avons participé à un forum sur le développement économique communautaire, des preuves que la communauté franco-ontarienne croit vraiment au développement économique communautaire, mais aussi au mouvement coopératif.

Aujourd'hui, à cause de la situation financière peut-être également, il y a un grand esprit de coopération qui s'anime dans les communautés francophones. Les caisses populaires et leurs réseaux, soit la Fédération et l'Alliance, sont présents et veulent participer pleinement à l'essor économique des francophones de l'Ontario.

C'est pour ça que je crois que la nouvelle loi va leur permettre, entre autres, de mieux concurrencer les autres institutions financières. Elle va également faciliter le développement économique communautaire et aussi permettre aux caisses populaires de jouer un rôle encore plus accru, plus visible et plus utile dans la communauté. Mais également, la nouvelle loi va uniformiser les règles du jeu, et ça, je pense que c'est très important.

Vous savez, chez nous dans la communauté francophone, les caisses populaires ont une vision du besoin de la communauté franco-ontarienne. Elles veulent et elles peuvent maintenant, grâce à la nouvelle loi, encore mieux participer à l'essor du développement économique.

Les caisses populaires ont aidé à rédiger l'histoire des communautés franco-ontariennes depuis déjà plus de 80 ans. Ça fait partie intégrale de notre histoire. Les caisses populaires appartiennent à la communauté franco-ontarienne, ce qui en fait, si vous me permettez l'expression, une certaine société distincte. Chez nous, les caisses populaires font partie intégrale de tout ce qui se fait dans le monde des affaires. Plusieurs Franco-Ontariens sont membres, sont actionnaires des caisses populaires. J'en suis un moi-même, et fièrement, à ma Caisse populaire d'Alfred.

Je crois que ce projet de loi-là va aider à valoriser le mouvement des caisses populaires et va aussi leur faciliter la levée de fonds, toujours dans le cadre de favoriser le développement économique communautaire.

Vous savez, la frustration... Ça fait déjà presque 10 ans que je suis député et ça fait presque 10 ans qu'on joue avec le dossier de réformer les lois qui vont mieux encourager, faciliter le travail des caisses populaires, des «credit unions», et dans ce cas-ci aussi des agents d'assurances et de la Commission de valeurs mobilières ; 10 ans, trois gouvernements, mais il n'est pas trop tard. Mieux vaut tard que jamais, n'est-ce pas ?

Donc, c'est pour ça que je tiens à féliciter les caisses populaires et les «credit unions», mais aussi plus particulièrement la Fédération des caisses populaires de l'Ontario pour leur apport à la mise à jour de cette loi régissant justement les caisses populaires. Je sais que les caisses populaires de la Fédération et de l'Alliance ont travaillé très fort pour donner des renseignements, pour dire leurs besoins, pour faire des commentaires sur les propositions que les différents gouvernements ont faites au cours des années. Je leur remercie de leur coopération, à la Fédération avec M. Benoît Martin, le président, et Pierre Lacasse, le directeur général, qui ont toujours su communiquer à nous, les députés, leurs besoins, soit leurs désirs dans cette réforme de la loi actuelle.

Je voudrais aussi remercier les caisses populaires de ma circonscription qui m'ont contacté pour me dire leur appui et m'encourager à appuyer ce projet de loi-là : la Caisse populaire d'Alfred avec Denis Laframboise, la Caisse populaire de Hawkesbury, M. Fernand Gauthier, et la Caisse populaire d'Orléans, M. Michel Papineau. À vous trois, un grand merci de votre communication. Je suis certain que toutes les caisses de la circonscription de l'Ontario francophone se feront un plaisir de voir le passage de cette loi-là que j'espère très prochain.

I think the movement for the caisses populaires and the credit unions, the reforms for insurance and other reforms to be brought forward by this bill are very much needed. It's never too late. I wish it could have been done over 10 years ago -- a lot longer, according to some of my colleagues -- but at least it's up there, forward, and I think that globally a lot of us will be supporting this bill.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Prescott and Russell for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Je voudrais féliciter mon collègue de Prescott et Russell, qui vient de décrire le mouvement des caisses populaires et des «credit unions» en Ontario, et je suis tout à fait d'accord qu'avec ce projet de loi, les caisses populaires vont s'épanouir en Ontario.

Comme il a été mentionné, depuis une dizaine d'années la Fédération et l'Alliance des caisses populaires de l'Ontario ont travaillé avec au moins trois gouvernements pour améliorer leur situation et leur permettre de s'épanouir. De plus en plus, surtout durant les sept ou les huit dernières années, les francophones en Ontario veulent prendre en main leur économie. Je crois que le projet de loi devient un outil de développement non seulement pour les caisses populaires et les «credit unions» en Ontario, mais il va permettre l'épanouissement économique.

Je suis certain qu'avec la situation économique d'aujourd'hui, nous avons besoin de tous les outils nécessaires pour le développement non seulement de nos caisses, mais en plus de ça, pour démontrer à nos grandes banques, les six grandes banques, que nous voulons, même si nous faisons partie -- on fait partie intégrale de l'économie de l'Ontario mais, par contre, les grandes banques ne servent pas tellement bien la petite entreprise. Aujourd'hui, avec ce projet de loi, je crois que les caisses populaires vont peut-être connaître le même résultat -- je le souhaite -- que les caisses du Québec, parce qu'aujourd'hui, elles ont accumulé un fonds qui est respecté non seulement dans leur propre province mais qui est très bien reconnu à travers le Canada.

Alors, je dois féliciter le gouvernement d'avoir apporté ce projet de loi. Je crois que ce projet de loi est attendu depuis longtemps et nous allons certainement appuyer le projet de loi.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I also compliment the member from Prescott-Russell in his remarks. I think it really is overdue. It's been 10 years, and I'm very proud that I belong to a government that's able to bring this bill forward to help especially small business and farmers.

I don't want to be too tough on the poor banks, but one of the things I think we've witnessed in this province and in this country is how a lot of the banks have actually turned their backs on small business and farmers. There are a lot of people, and I know the member was relating to that, who have faithfully paid off their loans on a timely basis, their operating loans and things like this, and the banks just all of a sudden said, "We're not taking any more chances with you little people." I think it's very, very sad.

I'd also like to compliment Mr Owens for all the hard work that he has done, and I'm sure the people in the caisses populaires and the credit unions across this province are waiting very anxiously. I understand that all three parties are supporting this bill and I think that's really great. It'll certainly help, especially in the rural economic development in this province.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Bruce.

1750

Mr Elston: I was left with the task which I had undertaken to carry out on behalf of the member for St Catharines. He has in his area a very strong credit union movement and he had asked that I put on the record for him -- in fact, I really didn't have to, because he has been a very strong proponent of a position of moving steadily forward with their reforms.

I wanted to rise now because the member for Prescott and Russell had indicated that a large number of the members here were supportive. In fact, I think probably the vote which is about to be taken will show that there won't be an objection at all and we can get this bill out to committee.

Just a note to say that the member for St Catharines, as I indicated earlier, has been a very, very strong proponent of reform for the credit unions. He has seen what can be done in the locales in the Niagara Peninsula with the very strong movement of the Niagara Credit Union and the very strong economic role it has played in the peninsula in making sure that there has been a growing local involvement in financing the initiatives down in that area. As Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, has said, this will help for that role to continue in strength and manner.

I think it's fair to say that the sense in the credit union and caisse populaire movement probably is that if there are broader powers, perhaps that will help them to expand somewhat more, not just those that exist, but perhaps to move into areas that they know they do not occupy at the moment. In fact, there will be some vigour perhaps pumped into the movement that will allow them to serve some of those areas that are now underserved. For instance, the member for Cochrane South had mentioned the example of Ear Falls and the concerns there. Perhaps this really will give them a bit of a head start in moving in to help those underserviced areas.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Prescott and Russell has up to two minutes for his reply.

M. Poirier : Donc, c'est évident, ce que mes collègues ont dit. Ça confirme que même si on ne veut pas lancer de pierres aux banques, il y a un créneau, il y a une niche spéciale, surtout dans les petites communautés, qu'elles soient francophones ou anglophones, surtout dans les communautés agricoles et rurales, où les «credit unions», et les caisses populaires maintenant, grâce à la nouvelle loi, seront en mesure de venir combler des besoins qui présentement, ou peut-être dans un avenir rapproché, ne seront pas du tout ou moins comblés par le système des banques actuel.

Je pense que, comme mon collègue de Bruce justement nous l'a dit, la plupart, sinon la totalité, des députés vont appuyer ce projet de loi-là. Ça, je veux bien que les gens notent, qu'à l'occasion quand il y a un projet de loi qui est présenté de ce genre, il y a quasiment l'unanimité parmi les 130 députés, peu importe qui le présente et qui l'appuie. Si les journalistes à Queen's Park prenaient plus le temps de souligner le travail de coopération que font les 130 députés quand il y a un projet de loi de ce genre qui est présenté, peut-être que les gens verraient qu'il n'y a pas seulement de la confrontation, mais également de la coopération à Queen's Park.

Ce que je souhaite, c'est qu'une fois qu'on aura la deuxième lecture, ce projet de loi-là puisse passer rapidement en troisième lecture sans végéter, pourrir et attirer des fils d'araignée, de travail de moine, en comité, parce qu'on est tous d'accord. Ça fait déjà trop longtemps que nous attendons ce projet de loi-là. De grâce, que les trois partis ne fassent pas en sorte que ce projet de loi-là pourrisse en travail de comité et qu'on attende l'arrivée d'un prochain gouvernement parce que ce projet-là se remord aux feuilletons.

Donc, j'espère que ça ne se produira pas et j'apprécie immensément l'appui de tous les 130 députés pour voir à la réalisation du projet de loi 134.

The Speaker: Is there further debate on this bill? If not, the parliamentary assistant, the honourable member for Scarborough Centre, may conclude the debate on second reading.

Mr Owens: I'll keep my remarks quite short. As a matter of fact, the member for Prescott and Russell, whose remarks I quite appreciate, could serve as my wrapup in terms of the necessity to get this piece of legislation out to committee.

I'd like to thank the representatives of the three parties who have participated in the debate over the last two days. I think there is a general recognition that this is a non-partisan issue and that the reformation of the credit union act, the life agent reform and the Securities Act is much needed and will aid in the development of the economic position of the province.

A number of members, again over the last two days in session, on all sides of the House, have raised the issue with respect to farm mutuals. I want to tell those members and I want to assure the representatives in the farm mutual community that we are taking their concerns quite seriously and are working quite hard to develop amendments that we hope to introduce, either through this process or another process to follow shortly.

Again, while members on this side of the House have certainly thanked me for the work that has gone into this bill, I think the credit clearly goes to the credit union and caisse populaire movement. Perhaps I'm being repetitious, but this is a group that has worked extremely hard to resolve some of the issues that have plagued the credit union and caisse populaire movement for a very long time, and it's with that sense of cooperation, that sense of movement, that we find ourselves here today.

I wish I could name each and every credit union and caisse populaire person I had the pleasure of meeting over the last period of time. These are all people, again, as I indicated, with respect to the caisses populaires and the credit unions, who are from our communities. They're our friends, they're our family, and in terms of the kinds of community economic development that this province is looking to, it will be provided by the credit union and the caisse populaire movement. This is the kind of community economic development that will create the kinds of jobs that this province needs.

The member for Oriole mentioned that this is not particularly a job creation bill. I want to gently disagree with the member for Oriole, that in fact this is a job creation bill. By allowing credit unions and caisses populaires to free up the capital that's sitting there pent up waiting to get out into the community, that will create jobs.

The small business community, we all know, on all three sides of the House, creates 75% of the new jobs, and when that amount of money is unleashed into the community, we're going to be able to see some sound community economic development and a clear ability to create sustainable and recession-proof jobs.

With that, I want to again thank all members of this House for their cooperation and their foresight in helping to move this bill through. With that, I'll end my remarks.

The Speaker: Mr Owens has moved second reading of Bill 134, An Act to revise the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act and to amend certain other Acts relating to financial services.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The motion is carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Ms Gigantes: We refer it to the economics and finance standing committee.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. Orders of the day.

Mr Owens: Adjourn.

The Speaker: It being nearly 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning -- I'm sorry, till 1:30. I know everyone is eager to be here tomorrow morning. It will be 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1759.

23 mars 1994