SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

CONTENTS

Thursday 25 September 1997

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)

Clerk / Greffière Ms Rosemarie Singh

Staff / Personnel Alison Drummond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1004 in committee room 2.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

The Vice-Chair (Mr Wayne Wettlaufer): We'll call the meeting of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to order. We're here to consider the report of the subcommittee on committee business which you have in front of you:

"Your subcommittee met on Wednesday 24 September 1997 for the purpose of organization on Bill 140, An Act to establish the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and to make complementary amendments to other statutes, and has agreed to recommend:

"That one day be allotted to the consideration of Bill 140, and that public hearings be held for a maximum total of two hours to be followed by clause-by-clause consideration of the bill."

Any comments or suggestions?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want this part of the public record, that the subcommittee met yesterday and we were told by the government representative, to use his language, that we were going to deal with clause-by-clause today, there would be no opportunity for public input into it, and that's just the way it was.

The reason I raise this is that the government has a majority and the government can impose its will on us. I got elected to represent the public and I deeply resent what took place yesterday at the subcommittee. If you want to operate that way, which seems to be a pattern, I can understand that, but we've tried to be reasonable on this committee.

I found it offensive to be told yesterday that the public were not going to have a chance to participate in this. We were told at the conclusion of yesterday's meeting that the government would be defeating this and moving its own motion and we would deal clause by clause with this bill this morning. Subsequently, I heard from the government representative that I gather they're prepared to support this motion now.

I just found the tone yesterday unacceptable. If it's the way the government wants to operate, and I think it's a pattern, I'm just saying that is not what the public expect from their duly elected representatives. I wanted that on the public record. As I say, I found yesterday a particularly troubling matter.

I gather we are going to proceed and there will be two hours for the public to have some input. This is what we're here for. We're not here to impose the will of one party; we're here to represent the people.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Following what my friend and colleague Mr Phillips has mentioned, I thought about what took place yesterday, and Mr Phillips rightly mentions the tone. What we're attempting to do is make sure that the consultative process is alive and well, that democracy must never become or be treated as Democracy Inc. I don't see it listed on any exchange this morning, sir. It's the essence of the system.

I certainly readily acquiesce to the consideration of the government, "That one day be allotted to the consideration of Bill 140, and that public hearings be held for a maximum total of two hours to be followed by clause-by-clause consideration of the bill." Suffice it to say in terms of our party, we're pleased with that. That's all that was asked for, and if this had been conveyed at the very beginning, there would have been no need to retreat and to fortify our positions.

This government, this regime, has a tradition, and it's very vivid -- you see it almost every day, Mr Chair; in fact you are part of that brigade, part of that team -- where when it comes to democracy, they know best, they shall dictate. It's okay if you're afraid, but when you refuse to fold and you stand up, that kind of attitude leaves a legacy and it vexes, it hurts people.

I couldn't agree more with Mr Phillips. As a matter of record, I would like to commend him, because he stood up and consequently we are getting everybody's way, which is best, by way of consultation.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I think this is absolutely critical. I spoke to this bill in the House and I got the impression that the thrust of the government is to make it easier for these various institutions that are going to be covered by the Financial Services Commission to operate more efficiently, to cut the red tape and to try to do things for them.

The point I was making, as a former Minister of Financial Institutions, is that all the particular commissions that are being merged into the Financial Services Commission are consumer protection commissions. That's the reason for them, to protect consumers so their moneys don't get dissipated in loan and trust companies or in credit unions or any of these things.

All this legislation and all the various commissions that superseded this new one are consumer protection commissions, and it's imperative that consumers at least -- I say consumers; that doesn't necessarily mean just the public, but the corporations, whoever -- have some say. It can't just be done in isolation. You can't do it and say: "This is what it's going to be. We think this is the way to go."

Surely, to have a couple of hours so those people who will be impacted by this legislation have a chance to comment on it and make some suggestions that may be very valid is critical. It's unfortunate that it's just two hours, but if that's the wish, so be it. But to do it without any input I think is a mistake.

The Vice-Chair: Any other suggestions or comments? If not, I will put the question. All in favour of the report of the subcommittee? It's carried unanimously.

We have before us a list of those delegations who wish to appear. Two hours would allow each of the delegations 30 minutes. Any suggestions on that?

Mr Phillips: I think that would be fine. We agreed we would take two hours, and if there were four groups, we would divide it in four. I gather we would meet next Thursday at 10 to deal with them, and then meet in the afternoon to deal with clause-by-clause.

The Vice-Chair: Agreed? Agreed.

The deadline for amendments would also be next Thursday at 1 o'clock, October 2. We will adjourn the meeting until next Thursday.

The committee adjourned at 1012.