CONTENTS
Thursday 9 October 1997
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, Bill 140, Mr Eves /
Loi de 1997 sur la Commission des services financiers
de l'Ontario, projet de loi 140, M. Eves
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
Chair / Président
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington PC)
Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick PC)
Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)
Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights L)
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt L)
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay /
Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mr ted Chudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Ms Marilyn Stanley, Ministry of Finance
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Rosemarie Singh
Staff / Personnel
Mr Michael Wood, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1003 in room 151.
FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION OF ONTARIO ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES FINANCIERS DE L'ONTARIO
Consideration of Bill 140, An Act to establish the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and to make complementary amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 140, Loi créant la Commission des services financiers de l'Ontario et apportant des modifications complémentaires à d'autres lois.
The Chair (Mr Terence H. Young): This committee is now in session. We're meeting to consider Bill 140 clause by clause. I was going to say, "Ladies and gentlemen," but it's just gentlemen at this point. You should have a small package of amendments stapled together, the one on top saying, "Government Motion." If anybody doesn't have that, please tell me now. There are eight pages in it, representing eight amendments. Does anybody not have that?
If you'll bear with me for a minute, I would like to number them because it will help us to get through this. The one on the top is obviously number 1. The second one says, "Liberal Motion" to section 12.1; we'll number that 2. The third one is a Liberal motion to section 15; we'll number that 3. The fourth one is a Liberal motion to subsection 25(1); we'll number that 4. The next one is a Liberal motion to subsection 25(4); we'll number that 5. The next one is a government motion to subsection 75(2) of the bill, section 15 of the Insurance Act; we'll number that 6. The next one is a government motion to section 123 of the bill, subsection 393(9) of the Insurance Act; we'll number that 7. The last one is a government motion to subsection 123(2) of the bill, subsection 393(10.2) of the Insurance Act, and we'll number that 8. I think that will facilitate us in going through.
I would like to ask for any questions, comments or additional amendments to the bill and, if so, to what sections? We'll start with the official opposition.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I think what I had expected was that we would begin to move through the bill. The purpose of today's meeting is to approve the clause-by-clause and also to deal with the amendments. I had expected that we would move on to the clause-by-clause on the bill now, and I'll hold my comments until we get to the amendments that we've proposed.
The Chair: Any comments at this point, Mr Pouliot?
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Although we have no amendments, I, with my colleague Mr Phillips, have a team, if nothing else, of professed expertise that can guide us through at least the government amendments. I'd like to hear the rationales and I'll certainly be tapping their knowledge as we go through.
The Chair: I have no proposed amendments to sections 1 to 4. Shall sections 1 to 4 carry? Carried.
Subsection 5(1) has a government amendment. Would you like to speak to the amendment, Mr Grimmett?
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I move that subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "who shall be the chief executive officer of the commission."
Would you like a brief explanation?
Mr Phillips: That would be nice.
Mr Grimmett: The amendment states that the superintendent will be the chief executive officer of the Financial Services Commission, clarifying the powers of the superintendent in the commission. This will eliminate any possible confusion over who is the commission's chief executive. From experience, I'm told that at times there could possibly be confusion between the chair and the superintendent, so we wanted to make it clear that it is in fact the superintendent.
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 5, as amended, carry? Carried.
I have no proposed amendments to sections 6 to 12. Shall sections 6 to 12 carry? Carried.
Section 12.1: I have a proposed amendment from the Liberal Party. Mr Phillips, do you want to comment on that?
Mr Phillips: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Regulated Sectors Advisory Committee
"12.1 (1) There is hereby established a committee to be known in English as the Regulated Sectors Advisory Committee and in French as Comité consultatif des secteurs réglementés.
"Members
"(2) The committee shall consist of a representative appointed by each of the regulated sectors.
"Salary and expenses
"(3) The members of the committee shall not receive any remuneration or reimbursement of expenses from the crown in right of Ontario with respect to serving as members of the committee.
"Purpose
"(4) The purpose of the committee is to provide advice to the commission on the operations of the commission.
"Powers
"(5) The committee may review the revenues, expenses and expenditures received, incurred and made by the commission and the annual business plan of the commission.
"Meetings
"(6) The committee shall meet at the request of the chair of the commission or the members of the committee.
"Chair and vice-chair
"(7) The members of the committee shall elect a chair and vice-chair of the committee who shall hold office for the length of time not exceeding one year that the members specify."
1010
A brief explanation: You may remember that it was Credit Union Central that suggested this and that all of the funders of the Financial Services Commission -- this is a self-funding operation, they'll all be levied fees to cover the cost. There is a feeling at least by the credit union group that, because they are funding this and because it essentially is a commission that will be using their money to run, they should have some advisory group that on a regular basis has input into the committee. Obviously, the committee still makes its decisions by all of its mandate here in the bill, but it just institutionalizes an advisory group.
I think the government has indicated that the expectation was there would be an advisory group anyway. I think organizations know governments come and go, but the law remains. If it is the intent of the government as an integral part of the bill that there be an advisory group, I think the funders would feel more comfortable in putting in the bill the advisory group, so that if there's a change in government or what not, it's not at that whim; it's institutionalized.
Mr Pouliot: In this instance, by way of reiterating, we agree with your motion, the first Liberal proposed amendment. Simply put, and we haven't arrived at the exact figure yet for it has not been provided or published or given to us, this is a shifting of money. This is pretty well the essence. It's not bad, but you have quite a bit of window dressing here. There's a saving to the government of some $25 million. Now you have the users pay, and the users are saying positively, "Since we are carrying the freight on this, we are paying the bill, it's a new fee for us yet to be determined by way of regulation and we don't know how much it will cost us, but we would like to be part of an advisory committee."
The government has said, "We're not opposed to an advisory committee but we do not wish to have it in the legislation." As I look through the bill, there is little which is compelling or threatening or in any way jeopardizes the integrity, the intent, the spirit of what is being proposed here. I see it as a gesture of goodwill and so commonsensical that certainly our party will support the Liberal motion. It makes a lot of sense. I don't wish to speculate, but I'm sure the government will indicate in relatively short order that they too are in agreement with the straightforwardness proposed by the Liberals in this instance. So I do favour the Liberal motion.
Mr Grimmett: I'd just like to address some of the points that have been made. I think they have been made in a very fair fashion and it's difficult to disagree with most of the points that have been made by my colleagues, but the government's position is that the committee that is suggested is too inflexible. It suggests having one member per sector, and these seven sectors have very significant differences in size and composition. We have made a commitment not only to the credit unions but to all of the industries that are being regulated here that we will have an advisory committee, and we are even looking very seriously at the issue of having a memorandum of understanding between the minister and the commission to set up such a committee.
I've had discussions with some of the people who presented to us last week on that particular issue, but we feel it's not advisable to have it in the bill itself, because it creates too inflexible a structure. Given that some of the people who provide advice and are affected by the legislation come from other parts of the industry, such as lawyers, actuaries, accountants etc, perhaps they should be part of an advisory committee. We feel it's not necessary to have the entire committee concept set out in the bill, but we are committed to having an advisory committee and we will continue to work with all of the industries in making sure that this new regulatory scheme works.
The Chair: Further comments or questions? Shall the motion, the new section 12.1 as recommended in the Liberal amendment, carry?
Mr Phillips: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Phillips, Pouliot.
Nays
Arnott, Grimmett, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
The Chair: The motion is defeated. I have no amendments for sections 13 and 14. Shall sections 13 and 14 carry? Carried.
Section 15: I have a proposed amendment from the Liberal Party for a new section, subsections 15(4), (5) and (6).
Mr Phillips: I move that section 15 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Reports to regulated entities
"(4) Within a reasonable time after the close of each quarter in each fiscal year, the commission shall send to all entities assessed under section 25 a written report on all revenues, expenses and expenditures that the ministry, the commission and the tribunal have received, incurred and made in respect of each regulated sector under this act.
"Audit
"(5) The commission shall have a qualified person prepare a value-for-money audit of the accounts and financial transactions of the commission with respect to each fiscal year.
"Reports done annually
"(6) Within a reasonable time after the close of each fiscal year, the commission shall send to all entities that form part of a regulated sector,
"(a) a written report on all revenues, expenses and expenditures that the ministry, the commission and the tribunal have received, incurred and made in respect of each regulated sector under this act; and
"(b) a copy of the audit mentioned in subsection (5)."
The purpose of this amendment is, I think we all know, the form that annual reports of groups like this take, and while they're useful for the public record, if you are an organization that is directly and dramatically affected by this, and where you are incurring a significant amount of expense, it's normal in businesses that when that's happening there's some regular reporting done, so that the members of the sector can be aware of their financial obligations.
I must say there will be some instances, I think, in the future where sectors are going to have substantial costs incurred. These are sensitive regulated sectors that from time to time will run into -- I hope not, but history says -- some challenges: the pension area down the road, the deposit area down the road and the insurance area. I think it's only prudent business practice that they have access to the financial data they need to run their organizations. As I say, they're the funders and certainly a government would not operate this way. It would not just simply on an annual basis prepare its reports. It prepares quarterly reports and reports in some detail. Similarly, I think this organization should report to their financial backers on a regular basis.
1020
Mr Pouliot: We just briefly looked at this. I'll be candid with you. I consistently look for ways to do anything within our limited powers to defeat what I consider, in a political context, to be the closest thing to evil that in 13 years I have ever encountered. But most unfortunately in this case, this Liberal motion I cannot support. I'll tell you why.
The term "audit": I see nothing wrong with a financial audit, because when you pay the freight, when you pay the bill, you need a financial audit. But the value for money is something that in this case I don't think applies at all. You go beyond the relationship between the fee that is charged to that user; you instil a philosophy, which is ill suited, especially from the official opposition. We cannot talk about the official opposition and talk about a philosophy in the same breath. They have a philosophy, we have a philosophy. You cannot go beyond that in your relationship.
Value for money means that as a citizen are you getting a fair shake for your tax dollar? This is a business, a contractual arrangement, services and a user. A financial audit would suffice. Value for money becomes the closest thing to a witchhunt and is open to criticism and is non-businesslike in this case, so we will not be supporting the Liberal motion.
Mr Grimmett: We won't be supporting the motion, and I think we have good reasons for this. The suggested amendment would require the commission to report quarterly and annually on revenue and expenditures for each regulated sector to all entities in each of the sectors. There would have to be reporting to insurance companies, pension plans, credit unions, mortgage brokers etc.
We haven't been asked by any other sector to have this kind of quarterly reporting regime. The regime that is going to be established if this commission is set up would be modelled on the current practice of the insurance commission, which is one of the agencies that's being rolled into this entity. That insurance commission currently operates on a system, since about 1990, where they fully disclose the projected cost for each sector for the fiscal year. Then they adjust at the end of the fiscal year to account for the difference between projected and actual costs.
We feel that having a requirement of quarterly reporting would be extremely costly. What we're trying to achieve with this commission is not only something that protects the public, but also we have a commitment to the industries that we're going to try to accomplish this regulation as efficiently as possible and in a cost-effective way, because they're, after all, the ones who pay for the cost of regulation under the scheme.
Currently in Bill 140 the commission has to submit an annual report to the minister. The Provincial Auditor is required to audit the commission's financial statements annually and report to the Board of Internal Economy, the minister and the Secretary of Management Board. The Provincial Auditor has the power to conduct value-for-money audits on any part of the commission's operations. We feel those are good measures and we certainly are committed to continuing to work with the industry to make sure that they are satisfied with the accountability of the commission back to them.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I would like to echo what Mr Grimmett said. I've had considerable experience with the insurance commission. I'm surprised that it was only 1990; I thought it went back further than that under the present regime. But I have to say that it works extremely well. It serves the public and it serves the insurance industry. If this model is being adapted for all of the industries that are going to be incorporated into the new commission, then I think it will work extremely well.
The Chair: Further comments or questions? Shall the Liberal motion carry?
Mr Phillips: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Phillips.
Nays
Jim Brown, Chudleigh, Grimmett, Pouliot, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Shall section 15 carry? Carried.
I have no proposed amendments to sections 16 to 24. Shall sections 16 to 24 carry? Carried.
I have two proposed Liberal amendments to section 25.
Mr Phillips: I move that subsection 25(1) of the bill be amended by inserting "except for cooperative corporations to which the Co-operative Corporations Act applies that do not carry on a financial enterprise" after "sector" in the third line.
By way of explanation, we discussed this last week at the committee. I find it really unusual, and I actually think it's probably a mistake, to put in this Financial Services Commission responsibility for all of these other cooperative organizations. I'm really puzzled by it.
This is the mandate of the Financial Services Commission: "The regulated sectors consist of the insurance, pension and deposit institution sectors in Ontario." But what's being moved in here is responsibility for organizations like Gay Lea Foods, the North American Students Co-op, the Ontario Natural Food Co-op, the Ontario Worker Co-op Federation, the Organization for Parent Participation in Child Care, the Co-operative Housing Federation of Ontario.
We're putting these in this organization that has an absolutely key role in Ontario. It's making sure that our pensions are properly regulated, our insurance industries are properly regulated and our trust companies and credit unions are properly regulated. I said last week that I think these organizations will be orphans there.
What the amendment is trying to do is at least recognize that the parts of the cooperative movement that are not financial enterprises need some special consideration if they're going to be in the Financial Services Commission. For me at least, it makes zero sense for them to be there, but if the government has decided they're going to be there, at least it gives them some special status within the organization and separates them so that at least there's a recognition that when organizations are trying to deal with insurance and pensions and deposits, it now will assume responsibility for Gay Lea Foods and the Food Co-op and the Worker Co-op and the Co-operative Housing. This is trying to make the best of what I personally think is a strange decision.
Mr Pouliot: I couldn't agree more. Constitutional monarchies have many qualities. Some will say that they're legion and their faults aren't many. One of the major faults is that no matter what you're faced with, unless you're the one who thought of it in the first place, you're not about to bring in amendments. But the bill is not intended to incorporate, in the context of fees, non-profit people who shouldn't be there in the first place. It is unfortunate, given that they've had the presence of mind to bring it to the attention of everyone -- it's positive; the Liberals did it -- unfortunate because that had it been a motion presented by the government du jour, the government of the day, it would be adopted. They would just readily acquiesce and move on to the next amendment.
1030
Sure, do it, and you'll find a way by regulation not to do it if you wish, but what is being said here is right on. This is not the intent of the bill. The incorporation was to have them, but is it to exclude them from the fee? Some of them are non-profit. They shouldn't be there when it comes time. I hope, regardless of what happens, with respect to Mr Phillips, to this amendment, when it comes time to regulate, certainly some consideration will be given that way, then, to the amendment because that's not the intent here. They're a non-player when it comes to participant in terms of fee and they shouldn't be exposed. It was caused by the Liberals who were happy to support the amendment to 140.
Mr Grimmett: We don't feel that the bill should be amended in this way because the commission's cost recovery system has not yet been designed. We listened quite carefully to the presentation made last week by the cooperatives, and I thought they were very reasonable in their presentation. Frankly there was some disagreement, I think, between the presenters as to whether they wanted to be regulated within this commission, but I think Judy Goldie stated that they were satisfied that this was where they were going to be.
They were satisfied that the regulatory expertise that exists in government will be within this commission. They recognized that they needed to be regulated. We have emphasized throughout this process that we have to make sure there is adequate consumer protection within the commission and we feel that the expertise we have in government to regulate this sector should be here within this commission, notwithstanding that they are a slightly different animal from the other entities.
The issue about the non-profits: I think if you look at the existing subsection 25(3) of the bill, you'll see that the commission has the power to set assessments differently for each sector or entities within a sector. You may recall from the presentations last week that the sector representatives admitted they would form a very small part of the cost of regulation for the commission, and that being the case, they would pay a very small portion of the assessments or fees or both required to cover them.
The ministry has agreed to work with the cooperative associations on a comprehensive review of cooperative regulation, because we want to reduce their costs and increase the efficiency of that sector if possible. But we have to also keep in mind the consumer protection. If the fees that are levied on the cooperatives are sufficient to cover the regulatory costs, then there would be no need for the commission to resort to assessments. We are committed to working with that sector in the industry to design a fee structure that's satisfactory and accomplishes the goal of making sure that we have the necessary regulatory powers, but also that we are doing it as efficiently and as effectively as possible.
Mr Pouliot: Yes, in response, with respect to my friend and colleague Mr Grimmett, it's like pulling teeth here. I listened intently and hang on every word you've said, sir, and now you begin to unveil the regulations. You say they will do this, they will do that, and yet you're tentative in your tone. The thing is, where are the regulations? Where do we have the assurance? Mr Phillips, with respect, would not have come in with some amendments, perhaps, had he been in possession of regulations which we will have no access to debate and to present on behalf of. Mr Grimmett, with respect, where are the regulations?
What is it you're saying when you say they have the power to do this and they might be exonerated or they might be assessed a smaller fee? Every case is different within the sector and so on. That's right but it's verbiage, because you don't know what the regulations are. Or do you know? I don't know. You suspect and you think that the good people here will take copious notes and then come up and say, "Okay, yes, we missed that but we never intended to" -- it wasn't you, Madame, but it was you -- I mean, aside from food for thought, what kind of solid guarantee is that, and the support for the amendment?
You can't chance things, you can't always guess. These are contractual arrangements of importance of the highest order for those who are about to be assessed, and we want to know and now you flirt. You're intelligent enough to be cute perhaps, but you say, "This is this and this is that," and you leave people dangling. What are the regulations? How much will it cost? The people that appeared right there last week, will it cost them nothing? Will it cost them something? Will it cost them big time? Those are all legitimate questions, and you have no right, sir, to flirt with the possibilities and so on, because when we go back in the real world outside these premises, the precinct, people are going to be asking, "How much am I going to pay?" What are we to tell them as representatives?
Mr Grimmett: The intention we've made clear all along is that if we're able to get the legislation passed and in place there will then be significant and, I'm sure, lengthy meetings with all sectors that are being regulated here and they will have every opportunity to influence the method of setting up fees and assessments. That commitment has been made consistently.
Mr Phillips: Help me out a little bit here, because I had thought we were setting up this Financial Services Commission to deal with pensions, deposit organizations, credit unions and trust companies, and the insurance businesses. I can see there's the possibility of some synergy.
But as I read what you're doing now, they also will have the responsibility -- the purpose is to provide regulatory services that protect the public interest and enhance public confidence in the regulated sectors. Am I to as-sume that part of the responsibility will be the Co-operative Housing, an organization like Gay Lea Foods, the Ontario Worker Co-op, the Ontario Natural Food Co-op, the child care cooperatives and that the public should hold this commission, in the future, responsible for protecting the public interest and enhancing the public confidence in the Co-operative Housing, Gay Lea Foods, all of those things? I just want to be sure in approving this bill that we now have turned over that responsibility to this group. Have I got that right?
Mr Grimmett: As has been explained, all of the sectors currently regulated by the financial institutions section of the ministry are being rolled into this commission, and the best explanation for that I think is that the expertise to regulate them is in that sector and we are just rolling that in. As we heard from the cooperatives themselves, they recognize that the expertise is there. They recognize that they need to be regulated, and they have indicated, I think, that they are quite willing to work with this new entity. They have indicated that they have some concern about the assessment section, but they recognize that the expertise to regulate that sector is going to be within the commission.
Mr Phillips: We should now, the public should now say once we pass this bill that if we've got a problem with the Co-operative Housing or Gay Lea Foods, or whatever, that it's the commission we turn to now?
Mr Grimmett: The commission's responsibility, Mr Phillips, as I understand it with respect to co-ops, will be with regard to the financial aspects of their operation, and that principally would be the issue of raising capital. That's why under the act that they are created by, that falls under the purview of this commission. So it will be their capital-raising operations that will be regulated by this commission.
1040
Mr Phillips: What about the rest of their operations?
Mr Grimmett: I would assume that the housing aspect of it would be regulated by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In terms of Gay Lea Foods or that type of entity, there would be some regulation from the agricultural sector, and probably from the health sector. It would be subject to regulation by more than one entity and more than one ministry because of the type of operation they have.
Mr Phillips: This is really odd. We've vacuumed an orphan into this organization and it makes no sense to me. I look at your explanatory notes and they say the regulated sector shall consist of the insurance, pension and deposit institutions. Then we actually get into the bill, and it changes it and includes the cooperative corporations. I think the commission will be quite surprised when they realize they also are going to held accountable for regulating this industry, but I've learned from experience that when the hands go up, the bill passes, so there we are.
The Chair: Further comments? Shall the Liberal motion, number 4, carry?
Mr Phillips: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Phillips, Pouliot.
Nays
Chudleigh, Grimmett, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
In your package the next proposed motion is a Liberal motion, number 5.
Mr Phillips: I'll move it, Mr Chair, although it probably was mildly dependent on approval of the previous motion.
I move that subsection 25(4) of the bill be amended by inserting "and the amounts of assessments under that subsection" after "fees" in the fourth line.
The Chair: Did you want to comment on it?
Mr Phillips: I think it's the same debate we just had.
Mr Grimmett: If I could just make a comment, Mr Chair, we haven't really been able to understand the amendment. We think there's no need to say this because it's already covered in the bill. If you're setting assessments, the bill requires you take account of the fees raised from this sector, and requiring the commission to take account of the amount of assessments in setting assessments is repetitive. I don't know whether it's going to be helpful for Mr Phillips in providing an explanation for that or not.
Mr Phillips: It follows from the debate we just had, I think.
The Chair: Shall the motion carry?
Mr Phillips: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Phillips, Pouliot.
Nays
Chudleigh, Grimmett, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Shall section 25 carry? Carried.
I have no proposed amendments to sections 26 to 74. Shall sections 26 to 74 carry? Carried.
Subsection 75(2): I have a government motion.
Mr Grimmett: I move that subsection 75(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) Section 15 of the act is amended by striking out "commissioner" wherever it occurs and substituting in each case "superintendent."
This is a technical amendment that is required to make the titles of positions named in the act consistent.
The Chair: Comments? Shall the motion carry? Carried.
Shall section 75, as amended, carry? Carried.
I have no proposed amendments for sections 76 to 122. Shall sections 76 to 122 carry? Carried.
Section 123: there is a government motion.
Mr Grimmett: I move that section 123 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(1.1) Subsection 393(9) of the act is amended by inserting "or suspension" after "revocation" in the third line.
The explanation for that is that it is making the act consistent with subsection 393(8) of the Insurance Act. It has to be amended to provide for revocation or suspension of a licence. It's a technical amendment that's needed to make the provisions consistent.
The Chair: Comments? Shall the government motion carry? Carried.
I have a government motion on subsection 123(2).
Mr Grimmett: Did we confirm that section 123 would carry?
The Chair: I'm going to pass 123 after I consider this other motion as well.
Mr Grimmett: I'm sorry. It's part of the same section.
The Chair: Your second motion; it's number 8 in your package, Mr Grimmett.
Mr Grimmett: I move that subsection 393(10.2) of the Insurance Act, as set out in subsection 123(2) of the bill, be amended by inserting "or suspend" after "revoke" in the fourth line.
This amendment ensures consistency with subsection 383(8). It's a technical amendment needed to make the provisions consistent.
Mr Pouliot: I'm curious. My apologies, but there's a link here. Suspension after revocation: What's the difference between suspension and revocation?
Ms Marilyn Stanley: My name is Marilyn Stanley. I'm a lawyer with the Ministry of Finance. If your licence is suspended, it can be just for a short time. If a company's licence is suspended, it would be for a time period, whereas if it's revoked, it would be taken away for good and has to be reapplied for.
Mr Pouliot: You see, I have to work at these things harder than most. Mike Tyson, the pugilist, the boxer, there was a question whether his licence to exercise his vulgar trade was to be either revoked or suspended. It's quite heavy. If this licence is revoked, then you have to serve some time. There is some time you have to abide before you get reinstated, right?
Mr Wettlaufer: That's a suspension.
Mr Pouliot: Yes, but if your licence is revoked, you have to reapply to get the licence back, or to get that new licence, whatever. But if you are suspended you are not allowed to practise until that suspension is lifted, which is guided by a timetable.
Ms Stanley: That's right.
Mr Pouliot: Why did you add it? It's an addition, right? That's what amendment number 7 says.
Ms Stanley: We just wanted to correct it because the other provisions in that section talk about the suspension or revocation. Somehow in the drafting we missed this terminology. It's just a technical correction. It's nothing new being added.
Mr Pouliot: It is nothing new. When you say it's nothing new, is it there as is? Under the present statute, is it there as is, both?
Ms Stanley: That's my understanding, that this is just a correction.
Mr Pouliot: It's an addition, madame. I'm not trying to be difficult, but please bear with me. It's an addition. It changes --
The Chair: Would it be helpful, Mr Pouliot, to have Mr Grimmett answer that question?
Mr Grimmett: My understanding, Mr Pouliot, is that in drafting the legislation there was a need to change the Insurance Act and it was overlooked in the original draft, but the powers of revocation and the powers of suspension have always been there in the Insurance Act. We're just amending it so that is part of the commission's responsibilities. It's not a new power.
The Chair: Further comments? Shall the government motion carry? Carried.
Shall section 123, as amended, carry? Carried.
Sections 124 to 231: I have no proposed amendments. Shall sections 124 to 231 carry? Carried.
Shall the title of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Carried.
I'd like to ask for a 15-minute recess of the committee. I'm waiting for the report of the subcommittee -- we met this morning at 9:15 -- to come back so the full committee can consider the subcommittee report. They're putting it in writing right now and I think we can get that accomplished in a few minutes if we come back in 15. Agreed? Thank you.
The committee recessed from 1051 to 1116.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: We're back in session to consider the subcommittee report. I believe everybody has a copy in front of them. It appears to me that what is written here is exactly what the subcommittee agreed on and I want to ask for comments or questions from the caucuses. I have one open issue myself.
Mr Grimmett: Could I just ask, Mr Chair, if it's agreed there will be one day for clause-by-clause?
The Chair: It's agreed, yes.
Mr Grimmett: Is that agreed?
The Chair: That was in the time allocation motion.
Mr Pouliot: I just have it and I'm not splitting hairs; please bear with me. "That the ministry be allotted one hour for the technical briefing," and then, "That each of the opposition caucuses be allotted 30 minutes for questions and/or comments." That's a total of one hour. We're seeking information and assistance, help, clarification in some cases -- the three of us, is it not?
The Chair: Sorry, what's your concern?
Mr Pouliot: My concern is to me it doesn't matter, whoever has questions, it need not be that each of the opposition caucuses be allotted 30 minutes for questions and/or comments. We're talking about the ministry briefing here. What if Ted or Wayne and others have questions? Why don't we just submit that and leave an hour.
The Chair: Would you like to make a motion to that effect?
Mr Pouliot: Sure, that an hour be allotted for questions and/or comments.
The Chair: Okay, would you care to move the subcommittee report and then move your amendment to number 2?
Mr Pouliot: Yes, Chair, and you will word it accordingly?
The Chair: Yes. So we're voting on Mr Pouliot's amendment to section 2, that all the caucuses be given 20 minutes for questions and comments when the ministry people are here for their technical briefing, between 11 and 12 on Monday, October 20.
Mr Phillips: Just a comment on it. It actually is quite an important motion. I think I actually did say 20 minutes this morning because I don't view this as opposition-government on these committees. In theory we're here as an all-party legislative committee, not as the government and opposition.
The reason I raise that is I think increasingly we are kind of running a risk that we're getting into, "This is the time for the committee to defend the government and for the opposition to attack the government," and that may be what most often happens. I wanted to mention it's maybe important for us to internalize that a little bit and say, as Mr Pouliot said, "Listen, we're here to see if we can't improve the bill." Oftentimes it's the government members' chance to raise questions with the ministry as well. Anyway, I'm very much in favour of the 20 minutes. It's the way I think we should operate and that each of the caucuses be allocated.
The Chair: Shall the motion carry? Carried.
I have a question as Chair --
Mr Wettlaufer: I have a question.
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Wettlaufer.
Mr Wettlaufer: Is there any reason the week of October 20 was picked over another week, say the following week?
The Chair: It was people's agendas.
Mr Wettlaufer: I'm going to have trouble with that.
The Chair: If we start backtracking now, I think we'll just run into maybe even a worse situation, Mr Wettlaufer.
Mr Phillips: Actually our caucus has its retreat on October 29, 30 and 31.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): And we're the week before.
The Chair: My question is regarding number 9, "The caucuses would submit their final list of witnesses to be scheduled on 22 and 23 October 1997 to the clerk of the committee by 12 noon on Monday, 20 October 1997." I want to ask the committee to comment on how they should be prioritized. I'll ask Rosemarie to tell you what she usually does when she gets those lists from the three caucuses.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Rosemarie Singh): In the past the lists would be prioritized with each caucus as to the witnesses they want scheduled and then we can do a rotation from the Liberal list, NDP list, PC list, whatever order you choose.
The Chair: They take the three lists in order and they just start at the top of each one and go, "One, two, three; one, two, three." That's the normal way they choose the delegations. Is that the way you want it handled or do you want to give some latitude to the Chair?
Mr Wettlaufer: I think we should give latitude to the Chair.
Mr Pouliot: It might surprise you, Mr Chair, with respect, but we're a small group and some of us are difficult to reach. Usually you have a good cross-section. That's what we look for, that mostly by accident the hearings are not loaded with one point of view, and I think we all agree with that. It makes a lot more sense to get different points of view, and seeking equilibrium, balance, we find it by the presenters because they're a cross-section. It pretty well always happens this way. We don't want to slow things down because of process because one or two might be difficult to reach. so you don't get, "Oh, we've still got to get Gilles because he hasn't responded to us, because we'll be in transit, travelling." I'll agree with anything, or anyone, with respect, who is a presenter because I know you will also try to reach me in Manitouwadge -- not Manitoulin, Manitouwadge. I don't see any difficulties.
The Chair: Is that process acceptable to the committee?
Mr Chudleigh: To Mr Phillips's point, yes, we are three parties in this place, but we're also advertising and there will be people who come in who are not part of the three lists. I might suggest that we create four lists and select off those four lists one from the Liberals, one from the NDP, one from the government and one from the independent list that came in.
I would suggest also that the Chair have the flexibility that in selecting the names, if it turns out it looks like five presentations in a row are going to be of a similar nature, the Chair has the ability to create some flexibility in that so there are opposing points of view. We've done that in the past and I think it's worked out fairly well. The Chair in its independent capacity in this committee has a responsibility to the committee to ensure that committee list is fair and equitable.
The Chair: On your first point, Mr Chudleigh, it was agreed in the subcommittee that the parties would choose from people who had already applied to the clerk to appear. The party choices will be limited to people who have already applied. There won't be a need for a fourth list because they will be choosing from people who applied through the normal process, who are aware through the parliamentary channel, Ont.Parl, or through the newspaper ads that they want to make a presentation. That's where the three parties will choose from, so there won't be a need for a fourth list.
On your second point, are there any further comments?
Mr Grimmett: This is a suggestion that was given to me by my colleague Isabel. Apparently there wasn't any discussion about whether the Legislative Assembly would pay for witnesses' travel to Toronto. I wasn't even aware that witnesses ever were paid to travel.
The Chair: It's happened in the past when there were people, perhaps individuals or delegations from small groups, who wanted to make presentations and couldn't afford to make the trip. There was a brief discussion with Isabel that most of the groups who want to present on this bill, if not all, will not be impoverished. In other words, they work for municipalities or for businesses and the expense of the trip is not onerous on them.
Mr Grimmett: To be honest with you, I didn't know we ever paid for any groups to come.
The Chair: Historically, it's happened. I don't know if it's happened in our government.
Mr Wettlaufer: Am I to understand then that the recommendation is that we not pay any of the delegations' travelling expenses?
The Chair: I don't have a motion on that.
Mr Wettlaufer: I'll make that motion.
The Chair: Anybody else want to comment on Mr Wettlaufer's motion? Shall the motion carry? Carried.
I wanted to get some direction on the priority lists. We're getting three priority lists from the parties of people who have applied through the clerk's office to appear. The clerk will take one from each list until they basically run out of time. Do you want to give the Chair some latitude working with the clerk to make sure the lists are relatively balanced?
Mr Chudleigh: So moved.
The Chair: Shall the motion carry? Carried.
Any further comments? This committee stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1126.