role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 4, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LOAN BROKERS ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES COURTIERS EN PRÊTS

FIREARMS SAFETY

LOAN BROKERS ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES COURTIERS EN PRÊTS

FIREARMS SAFETY

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

GEORGIAN BAY '94 MARINE HERITAGE FESTIVAL

NATIONAL GARDEN MONTH

ENVIRONMENTAL POSTER CONTEST

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

CANCER TREATMENT

HEALTH CARDS

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

NEWSPAPER CARTOON

JOB CREATION

PUBLIC SAFETY

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

HEALTH CARE

PUBLIC HOUSING

RAIL SERVICE

GOVERNMENT SURVEY

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

TOBACCO PACKAGING

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

CASINO GAMBLING

SALE OF AMMUNITION

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

GAMBLING

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

EMERGENCY SERVICES

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

HAMILTON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1994

COURTS OF JUSTICE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LOAN BROKERS ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES COURTIERS EN PRÊTS

Mr Phillips moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 152,

An Act to prohibit certain types of payments to Loan Brokers / Projet de loi 152, Loi interdisant aux courtiers en prêts d'exiger certains types de paiements.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member has 10 minutes to open debate, after which every recognized party in the Legislature will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate, following which Mr Phillips will have two minutes in summation.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): At the outset, I would indicate that the member for Mississauga East has indicated he would like to speak on the bill. I'd like to move unanimous consent, if I might, that he have five minutes of our party's time to speak on the bill.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Phillips: Maybe I can just talk to the purpose of this bill; I think most members appreciate it. I became aware of what I now regard as a significant problem, and that is that there are a large number of people in Ontario who have been, in my opinion, quite literally tricked into providing a non-refundable deposit in expectation of getting a loan that essentially was promised to them by what I would regard as disreputable organizations, in many cases. They've given that deposit in anticipation and actually as a result of a promise of a loan forthcoming.

They give the deposit, only to find perhaps one or two or three days later that there is no chance they will get the loan and that they can't get back the money they've deposited.

My experience in this area now is that in many cases these people are perhaps often the most desperate. They have an enormous need for financial assistance. They've tried many sources. Finally, they've been promised by someone that they will be able to get a loan. They often use the last money they have available to make what they regard as an advance payment. They provide that money and then never get it back.

This first came to my attention by one of my constituents, someone called Jo-ann Fried. She doesn't mind me using her name because she's been quite public on the matter. I frankly was not aware of the breadth of this problem until she raised it with me, and then actually a columnist in one of the local newspapers, someone called Linda Leatherdale, if you've followed this carefully, has kind of spearheaded this exercise. As a result of that, I have a file of literally hundreds of people who have been ripped off -- the only term you can use -- by these organizations.

The reason perhaps we haven't acted on this before is that they are a series of individuals who have been ripped off. It's not a well-organized group. Many of them frankly have been embarrassed about it all, because they feel they have been tricked. They have used their last dollar and have felt they had nowhere to turn.

My bill is I think quite straightforward; that is, to prohibit these loan brokers, purported loan brokers, from requesting a non-refundable, upfront fee.

I suspect many of us have experienced this in our own constituency offices. If you've ever looked at the letters of the people who have been ripped off by this procedure, you can understand how it happens. They are promised, when they apply for the loan, that the loan has been secured. Sometimes they sign a contract. The contract sometimes says, "You will get back 80% of your processing fee." So they assume they can get back 80% of their deposit. You've got to get right down into the fine print to find out that the processing fee is only 10% of the total down payment, so even if they can get back this 80%, it is 80% of 10%, or 8% of their deposit.

Even if you are fairly cautious -- and oftentimes, frankly, if any of us has been in a position of being quite desperate for money, we tend not to be cautious -- if we hear that somebody's going to help us out, we think, "Thank goodness this is over; I've got my $5,000 or $6,000; all I've got to do is to go and put the little down payment down," only to find that you don't get it back, and if you get any of it back, it is 80% of 10%.

Why is this important? It is important as a consumer protection measure. As I say, I have literally hundreds of letters, and these are all individuals, not well organized, often, as I say, in very desperate financial straits. So it is a significant problem and there is no question in my mind that we are dealing with firms, organizations, that are being allowed, I believe, to literally rip people off.

I appreciate that we can't protect everybody from every possible situation. I think all of us have some responsibility to be, as they say, buyer beware.

But having said that, I think there are lots of instances where we as legislators can provide reasonable consumer protection. For example, if you buy something from a door-to-door salesperson there is a cooling-off period. It's been found that this is a reasonable consumer protection. If you get a fast-talking person coming to your door who sells you something, there is consumer protection that says, "Listen, you have a cooling-off period and if, on reflection, once the person's left, you look at the contract and you decide you don't want it, you have a period of time in which you can revoke that contract."

I view this legislation in the same way. I fully appreciate that all of us have a responsibility to watch what we do and to watch the arrangements we enter into. But in this case, if you read these letters -- and many of them are very sad. There are many single parents here who have been desperate to find some way out of their financial difficulties and have been sold an absolute bill of goods by these disreputable organizations. Some people who were very cautious as they entered this arrangement. They spent a lot of time talking to them, only to be tricked.

As I say, I looked at the contracts and I think almost any one of us in this Legislature could very easily, if we were desperate for finances, have made exactly the same mistake, particularly when it says you are going to get 80% of what you thought was your fee but it was only 10% of the fee. They carefully say, "Processing fee is 10% of the total fee."

I now have concluded that while in the total scheme of things in Ontario this may not be the world's most important issue, for literally hundreds of people out there it is an extremely important issue. For the ones who have been ripped off, it's going to be difficult for us now to go back and fix that for them, but it is clear that by passing this piece of legislation, we can protect literally thousands for the future.

I hope I'm not putting words in the Minister of Finance's mouth, but I think he has indicated to me that he doesn't believe he has a problem with this legislation. I think he's indicated it is difficult for the government to move on this because it would have to be part of a bigger package, and with all the other things going on it's somewhat difficult, but I think he's indicated to me that the government doesn't have difficulty with the wording of the legislation. I shared it with both himself and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations two weeks ago.

My hope today is that all of us can support this bill. My hope would be that we could fairly quickly refer it to our finance and economics committee for a quick look at it to make certain that we haven't missed any wording in the bill. I would hope that we could look somehow or other to having this passed with third reading before we break for our summer recess in the latter part of June.

Just to summarize, I think it's an important bill. I think we can protect thousands of people in the future. Any reasonable organization would not object to the bill; it is just the organizations that are ripping people off. As I say, I appreciate that we cannot protect everybody from everything, but in the scheme of things, I think this is reasonable consumer protection. I would hope that we could later today receive good support from the Legislature. I would hope that we could briefly send it to our finance and economics committee and that we could then see this pass for third reading and do something for the people of Ontario by summer.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise in my place this morning and participate in this debate on Bill 152,

An Act to prohibit certain types of payments to Loan Brokers. I commend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for bringing this bill forward, although I'm disappointed that he has to do this. The ministry could have stepped in and done something about it. The minister could easily have made an amendment to the Mortgage Brokers Act that is regulated by the financial institutions ministry to include loan brokers. That way, each would have to have a licence to operate and follow strict guidelines, such as supplying audited statements. That would mean that the legitimate brokers would stay in business and the others would no longer be in business.

I became aware of some of the things that are happening, as the member has indicated, and there are a lot of people who are not aware of the amount of people who are being ripped off in this province by loan brokers. There are the articles that Linda Leatherdale has had in the paper on many occasions with regard to this very issue. "Six accused of defrauding the public of $71,900; brokers were charged" is just an example of what's taking place.

The people who loan money to the ones who are in desperate need, who cannot borrow it somewhere else, indicate that they will get the funds for them with an upfront fee, and then they don't get the loan and they don't pay back the money that they had charged. The loan agency hits the helpless. The single mothers, the jobless, are often the targets of these people.

Some of the clippings: "Watch For Loan Brokers' No-Refund Fee." There are many items that have been in the papers with regard to this very issue and I'm pleased the member has brought this bill forward for debate in this House, because I hope it will make people out there more aware of what the problem is. Those people who are having a hard time to make ends meet, who want to borrow money, if you can't get it from an institution and you have to go to a loan broker, then beware, because we see what's going to happen. People such as Gerry Phillips and Linda Leatherdale have raised this issue on many occasions.

This is something I'm pleased to participate in in our private members' hour, because I do believe it will do some good. We have many discussions in this House, usually on Thursday mornings, but this week it's Wednesday, with regard to many items. I believe this is a priority item and that the minister -- I do not understand why they have not taken the lead in this. The ministry is out there charging $50 for many businesses just to have a fee to licence. Here she could be doing something that would be saving people money and really, I believe, doing some good.

The essence of this bill is:

"2(1) No loan broker shall accept a non-refundable payment, an advance payment or a deposit, or require or attempt to induce a person to make any such payment or deposit, for services to be rendered or expenses to be incurred by the loan broker or any other person.

"

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000."

I hope that the government members here today will give second reading to this bill, and as the member has indicated, he would like it to go to the finance committee for further discussion. I will be wholeheartedly supporting him, because if we can save some of those people out there from being ripped off, it makes sense to me.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'm pleased to rise to make some comments regarding Bill 152. I too have constituents who have been taken advantage of.

In that regard, I want to commend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for bringing this forward. Certainly, the government is aware of the problem and is concerned about unscrupulous loan brokers. Let me say, though, that the government does have some concerns about Bill 152 and how it's been presented and I'd like to outline some of those concerns.

First of all,

section 1 provides a very broad definition of "loan broker" that may make the bill unworkable. For example, the definition would in effect make illegal the upfront fees that are common practice in thousands of commercial transactions arranged by lawyers, security dealers and investment bankers. This definition would make this bill conflict with the practice in these industries, which it was not intended to do. This would make it very difficult, though, to put the bill into effect. To be workable, the bill would need to more precisely define what a loan broker is.

The bill would also not be effective because it does not describe how complaints would be dealt with and does not provide the authority to quickly investigate and deal with problems. If a consumer files a complaint, what would happen? How would the ministry investigate it? The bill does not provide for any investigation powers. Without these powers, the government would be limited to information given voluntarily by the consumer and the broker. If the broker doesn't cooperate, a search warrant may be needed. However, obtaining a search warrant under the Provincial Offences Act can be a cumbersome process.

To protect consumers, Bill 152 needs to provide some investigation powers to obtain access to documents. Other consumer protection laws provide this authority. Lacking this power would very clearly hamper the government's ability to gather evidence to successfully prosecute loan brokers.

To be effective, the bill also needs penalties that would deter loan brokers. The proposed $5,000 maximum fine is very low. Other consumer laws allow penalties as high as $25,000 for individuals and $50,000 for companies. In setting penalties, we have to consider that the actual fines imposed by the courts are usually a fraction of the maximum. Where the maximum is $25,000 for an individual, the courts often impose a penalty of $1,000 or $2,000. So with a maximum fine of $5,000, a loan broker may be fined as low $150 or $300. You could have cases of loan brokers who are charging fees of $500 or $600 only being fined $300.

Another deterrent lacking from the bill is providing for restitution to the consumer. Fines go to general revenue, so even after the broker is charged and fined, the consumer may still not have his or her money back.

As I said, the government is very concerned about the problem of loan brokers charging non-refundable advance fees. We support the intent of Bill 152 but we believe there are some significant weaknesses in the current draft that would not allow the strong consumer protection the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is trying to achieve. This bill, to be workable, would definitely require a great deal more work and some significant amendments.

But all of us as members, as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has indicated, have had constituents who have come in to us who do have some very serious concerns, who have been taken advantage of by these unscrupulous people who are, as the member said, really in effect ripping people off because they're not able to deliver on the service they're contracting, and of course the individuals do not get the refund back.

That is most unfortunate, and there's no doubt many people are losing out, many dedicated, hardworking people. As the member for Scarborough-Agincourt also indicated, these people are sometimes turned down by our regular financial institutions and become a bit desperate in terms of looking for funds and forms of financing. When you're in that situations, sometimes if people tell you they can achieve those funds for you, you forget about some of the fine print. That is extremely unfortunate.

I want to commend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for bringing the issue before the House and before the public. By having it debated here today, it should hopefully provide for some more awareness among the public to be very wary of these types of people who are offering these services, to read the contracts very clearly, to find out and ensure that if they're not going to be able to achieve what they said in terms of obtaining the loan, you can get a full refund.

It's good that we are debating this piece of legislation, but the government does have some concerns, particularly the Ministry of Finance, about some of the specifics, as I've highlighted in my presentation.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'm very pleased to rise in the debate in support of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's bill, Bill 152. I commend the member for bringing it forward. It's very important that when we as private members get indications of abuse, of the vulnerable being exploited, we rise to defend them.

The parliamentary assistant made some comments about support of the intention but having difficulty with some provisions of the bill itself, that it needs tightening up in

definitions and in penalties and other aspects. I would say that if we as members thought every bill that came before this Legislature and was introduced was perfect, we would have no need for three readings, we would have no need for committees, we would have no need for public hearings or any of that process.

There will be opportunities, if this bill is sent to committee, to strengthen it, to ensure that it does exactly what we want it to do. I hope government members will support this bill, because we are sure it can be amended in a way that will protect the vulnerable.

This issue first came to my attention, as I think it did for a number of other members, in the column by Linda Leatherdale, the business editor for the Toronto Sun, and I'd like to quote from a couple of her early columns. She's been writing about this since January of this year. I'd like to quote a couple of the things she says, because I think it highlights the problem.

She talks about the taking of non-refundable, upfront fees for the false promise of easy money for the destitute, those who are desperate, as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has described, people who are very desperate to get a loan, perhaps to put themselves into business, to do something with their lives, to accomplish something, yet the normal ways of financing are closed to them because of their circumstances.

Linda Leatherdale says:

"What do we have in Ontario, where these loan brokers have been feasting on the down-and-out since 1990 when our economy sank into the greatest contraction since the Great Depression?

"We've had warnings from the federal government's consumer and corporate affairs department saying Canadians should be warned about the following types of scams:

-- "'Easy loans.'

-- "'No credit? Unemployed? No problem.'

-- "'Money available regardless of past credit history.'

-- "'Bankrupt? No collateral? Call us today.'

"But we're left with toothless legislation that makes it impossible for the law to clamp down, though we've seen police raid some premises and lay fraud charges.

"It also burns me that six years ago David Peterson's Liberals wrote a draft 'fair marketplace code' that would clamp down on these loan brokers, but it still waits to be passed into law.

"Two years ago, I spoke to NDP consumer minister Marilyn Churley and begged for a speedup on the code. Yesterday I phoned her office and found out, though the code has approval of a cabinet subcommittee, still there's no date for implementation....

"Our question? How many more unsuspecting people have to bleed?"

That's the issue. Are we as legislators going to protect these people who are vulnerable? As the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has pointed out, it isn't only a case of buyer beware; you have to read right down in the fine print. You practically have to be a lawyer to understand it, and all these people don't have the resources to hire a lawyer. That's why they go to these loan brokers to begin with, and then in the very bottom print, the very finest of print, it says that 10% is a fee, but it doesn't say that's just the processing fee and the rest is lost to them.

We as government, as a Legislature, have to ask ourselves the question, what is our job as government? One of our major jobs has to be to create an economic climate where we can prosper, but surely one of our other jobs is to protect the vulnerable, to protect consumers, and that's something every person in Ontario believes in: the protection of consumers. Education is important so that the buyer-beware clause can have full meaning. But there are cases such as this when that's not enough.

I would be really proud of each one of us, members of all three parties, if we could stand in unanimous accord that this principle is one we support, that we support it as a Legislature. We'll work out the problems with it later. We will have strong, effective legislation, but let's give it its first chance. Let's pass this legislation and let's show the people of this province that we're standing up for them.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have some pleasure in standing to speak to this particular issue. First, let me say that I doubt very much you're going to find too many people in this Legislature today who would oppose the basic principle of this legislation. There is faint praise, I suppose, coming from the parliamentary assistant to the Finance minister, the member for Oxford, standing up today and outlining all his concerns with the bill. It proves that, really, parliamentary assistants have about as much power as the guy who's selling the newspaper on the corner of the street downtown.

He comes in here today and lists his concerns about this legislation, why this is not acceptable and that is not acceptable and so on and so forth.

I believe that if the government were truly intent on carrying forward this piece of legislation --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I can't hear the mutterings of the mayor of Chatham over there, but I'll listen a little closer. If this government were really intent on pursuing this kind of legislation -- he's muttering again, Mr Speaker; I can't hear him -- why did they not return to the member who introduced it weeks and weeks ago and give him the information they have brought forward today through the member for Oxford, who is the parliamentary assistant/newspaper salesman? Why could they not have brought this kind of information forward weeks ago and then drafted this up so it would be acceptable to them? Why could that not have been done?

The issue is accepted on all sides of the House. I don't think there's a member in here who will disagree with this. But now we've got problems with the legislation because the government stands up the morning of the debate and lists a series of concerns it has. I ask the member for Oxford, why couldn't you have brought these concerns to the table weeks ago -- as he busily reads the press clippings. Why could you not have done that? Why could you not have paid attention and offered up these kinds of --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Interjections are out of order. The honourable member for Etobicoke West, address the Chair, please.

Mr Stockwell: It is very difficult to come forward in private members' hour, to come forward with sincere concerns about the fact that people are being ripped off by less than honest business people out there, to bring forward a piece of legislation that calls for the kinds of changes that need to be made, to have all sides of the Legislature agree that these need to be made, and then the day the debate is taking place have the parliamentary assistant stand up and list five or six reasons why this thing can't fly.

It's frustrating to me. I don't know about the member who wrote the piece of legislation, but it's very frustrating to me. If this information was new to them, yesterday or the day before, I could understand it, but they've had this in their hands for weeks upon weeks. They could have easily brought forward some changes, and I'm sure the member from Scarborough would have been very accommodating in accepting those amendments so it could get to the floor here today, so we could all stand together and pass this kind of legislation and protect the kind of people the member for Oxford spoke about.

Is he really interested in protecting those people? Are we really interested, and are the government members very interested, in protecting people so they don't get ripped off for thousands of dollars from unscrupulous business people out there? Are we here just for bit of show and gamesmanship so we can stand before this Legislature at the very last moment and explain why this thing is drafted incorrectly and wouldn't accomplish what it was intended to accomplish, and the ministry officials have decided that this kind of thing can't fly? Who's running the show, the ministry officials or the elected officials, for heaven's sake?

All it would take, I'm sure, the member for Oxford being the powerful, going-for-it kind of politician he is in that government, is to simply attach a little letter to this that says, "Compliments of the powerful member for Oxford," and "Respond to this for me, please, Finance people." Who's taking direction? Are the bureaucrats directing him or is he directing the bureaucrats, for heaven's sake?

But no, we can't do it today because the member or the Finance minister just couldn't find enough time in the last three weeks to ask for input from the Finance people so we can be out there protecting investment and dollars of hardworking Ontario citizens from the people who are trying to rip them off.

Boy, that would have taken a lot of work, to get those kinds of comments on the record weeks ago so this kind of legislation could be shown here today, accepted by all parties and moved through the process, so we could get on with the business of governing this province rather than the business of listening to bureaucrats tell powerful newspaper salesmen from Oxford what we're supposed to do in this Legislature.

It's very frustrating. It turns this whole process into what I consider to be a bit of a sham. We sit here day after day, every Thursday morning, Wednesday morning today, and we hear good ideas coming forward from the opposition benches, good ideas that should be adopted, protecting people, and they get turned down for technicalities and lack of work on the government members' side.

If it isn't in the job description of a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance to be seeking out information on this kind of thing, to be assisting private members in drafting legislation that will be accepted by all sides of the House, if it isn't in his job description to ensure that Finance bureaucrats can come forward with their problems and concerns with respect to private members' bills maybe more than two minutes before the hour starts, then what is his job?

What are they supposed to be doing if they're not out there to protect the citizens of this province and to adopt legislation that is universally accepted by all sides of the House? I don't know what their jobs are. I don't know why they get paid the extra money, other than, possibly, getting coffee for the ministers. That's about the job description I can see.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Is that what you do, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: The mayor of Chatham is mouthing again, the statesman from Chatham, because it hits home to the mayor of Chatham there, the ex-mayor of Chatham in a short time. It hits home because he knows the job description he thought he was coming down here to fill is painfully less than what he is in fact doing. Coffee and newspapers: That appears to be their goal, that appears to be their game plan. We can't even get this kind of information before this Legislature in a timely manner that would save the citizens of this province tons of money.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Let me just finish with the member from Chatham. What is it you want to say?

Mr Hope: You don't even show up for your own private member's bill.

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order. Will the member address the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: There's an insight from the member from Chatham, with no knowledge.

Mr Hope: You talk and talk, with no solution.

Mr Stockwell: There is a solution, I say to the member from Chatham, who, as some other members put it, is an overnight guest babbling away. Go ahead and keep babbling, member from Chatham. Go talk to your favourite member for Oxford and ask him why these problems couldn't have been put on the table.

Why shouldn't we be able to adopt this today? Why couldn't this get second reading? We know it won't now, because people on that side of the House simply aren't capable of doing their jobs, aren't capable of dealing with the bureaucracy, aren't capable of governing this province.

I'm very disappointed. It turns this entire private member's bill into a sham, because one minute into the debate we have the member for Oxford standing up and telling us why this can't be passed. It's been in their hands for weeks. It leaves a bad taste not only in my mouth, I'm sure, but in the mouths of the citizens of this province when we can't even get an answer from the bureaucrats, weeks in advance, about why this thing should be changed or amended. I'm completely disappointed, and you as members of the government should be disappointed in yourselves.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm very pleased to stand today to speak to this particular bill. Both myself and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations appreciate the intent of Bill 152. I too have seen the hundreds of letters that have come in from people across Metro and across the province who have dealt with these loan brokers or loan sharks, whatever term you want to use. Even though I myself have not received any complaints from any of my constituents in Halton North, I know there is a problem out there.

I'm very pleased to see the member for Eglinton stand in her place and say she's going to stand up for the people of Ontario. I'll be very pleased to see her do that in the future, when she stands to defend the people of Ontario from the Tory economic policy, which I believe has the intent of foisting economic terrorism on the people of Ontario.

As members are well aware, businesses of this sort have sprung up across Canada and the United States over the last number of years. During this time, the ministry began receiving an enormous number of complaints from consumers about loan brokers and, like many areas of business activity, there is no specific legislation regarding loan brokers.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has implemented an information campaign warning consumers about the potential dangers of dealing with loan brokers. This consisted of a number of consumer advisory press releases over the last number of years, and the last one was in January of this year. MCCR also has a 24-hour, toll-free information telephone system which, among many other areas of consumer interest, outlines the problems associated with dealing with loan brokers.

Media attention to this attention has also been very helpful in alerting consumers and preventing problems. The articles by Linda Leatherdale on this issue have heightened people's awareness about the whole question about loan brokers. Most times I do not agree with what Linda Leatherdale writes in the paper but in this particular instance I do agree with her.

Basically, we're telling consumers that loan brokers are offering a service that they can basically do themselves, that they'll try to get you a loan. This is usually spelled out in the contract. When a loan broker fails to get them a loan, they are not breaching that contract.

For those who decide to use a loan broker, probably the best advice we can offer consumers is to read the contract carefully and make sure they understand every last detail before signing that contract. In fact, if people could afford it, the best advice of all is to bring it to a lawyer and get a lawyer to look at it. They should also insist on getting all details of the agreement in writing. The terms and the total cost of the loan, for example, should be spelled out in that contract.

If the loan broker won't answer all questions or refuses to say who the lender is, what lenders are being considered or whether the loan can be sold to a third party later on, consumers should not do business with them. Although it's agreed that there is a need to address the problems associated with loan brokers -- or what I prefer to call bloodsuckers, because that's what they are: living off the desperation of others in this province -- we are still not convinced that this bill is the most effective way of doing so.

My colleague and member for Oxford has outlined some of those problems with this particular bill: in the definition of the bill, it indeed is not workable, and how a consumer files a complaint, for example. There are a number of problems that need to be dealt with in this bill.

The bottom line for this ministry and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is we will not support the passing of a bill that does not contain the provisions needed to make it a useful piece of legislation and for that reason we recommend to all members that this bill be referred to the committee of the whole where changes or alterations to the draft bill can be considered.

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): I rise in support of the bill that has been put forward by my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt. I want to begin by thanking the member who has just spoken, who has indicated that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations would support this bill going forward for examination. I think what I would put to the member is that where we really want to send it, so that it can be dealt with seriously, is to the standing committee on finance and economics, where it can be dealt with more expeditiously.

I think the point to make here -- and there are two key things that I want to underline. One is to indicate that we are having from police forces around the province more information about this kind of activity. I was in Newmarket just last night for the civic awards presentations and at that the policeman of the year is awarded. This was a gentleman who has been very much involved in issues concerning fraud. I was chatting with him after on the numbers and kinds of things that are coming up and the difficulty sometimes of dealing with certain kinds of fraud because our legislation is really not up to date.

To a certain extent, some of these crimes have moved beyond our capacity to deal with them. Some of the Metro Toronto police officials who talked to Linda Leatherdale around some of her articles have also stressed this, that we need improved legislation to be able to deal with these specific kinds of issues.

So I think there is a need out there. Again, what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt was saying, what my colleague from Eglinton was saying, and what the member for Etobicoke was also saying is, "Look, in terms of this particular bill, precisely the reason one wants it to go to committee is that no one is saying it is perfect."

I think there's always a difficulty on this side of the House in developing private members' legislation, and one recognizes one doesn't necessarily have all of the information required. But I think that what is important to note here is, and again as the member for ScarboroughAgincourt said, "Look, this is not necessarily the number one issue, but it is a critical issue and it's a place where we can help honest, ordinary people out there who are seeking to get loans, who are seeking assistance."

If we can get into the finance and economic affairs committee, those kinds of changes can be made, and quite frankly I think that can be of help in a very direct way to the government, to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, because a lot of the work had been done. I think we would be very interested in seeing what sorts of comments government members of that committee would bring to improve the legislation and to make it good.

As has been noted, my colleague from ScarboroughAgincourt did write to the Finance minister early in the winter, early in February. There has been a long period of notice. He also passed on copies of the bill to the government side. Here is his letter. It's dated February 3, 1994, to the Honourable Floyd Laughren. It's a brief letter. I'll read it:

"Dear Floyd,

"As you probably know, a constituent of mine by the name of Jo-Ann Fried has been the victim of a 'ripoff' from what clearly appears to be a disreputable 'loan broker.'

"This person is not alone, as you can see from the attached letters which have been given to me by Ms Fried.

"My question is this: What are the government's plans to deal with this? If you are not planning to move quickly on this, please let me know so I can prepare a private member's bill to deal specifically with this issue.

"Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

"Best regards,

"Gerry Phillips, MPP

"Scarborough-Agincourt."

The response from the Treasurer didn't come until April 27. So there was a long period of time, and during that time the member for Scarborough-Agincourt assumed that nothing was happening and went forward and developed his bill.

I don't have time to read all of the minister's response. He indicates clearly that the government wants to do something, but again, why the wait? Surely there was time to act. Now we do have, because of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, an actual piece of draft legislation which can move forward.

The final point I want to make is that we talk constantly here about how we can make individual members' time more valuable. I think that what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has done is he has addressed a particular problem, an issue around consumer protection that needs some action. He has brought forward a draft bill. That could go into the committee and it could be dealt with during this session. It wouldn't necessarily take weeks and weeks. The problem is fairly clear. We know there are other models that can deal with it.

So I would urge all members of the House not only to support this bill in principle but to agree that it should be sent to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I will be in fact supporting that we proceed with this legislation, and I hope I'm not sensing any reluctance on the government's

part in doing this. I note from an

article some three years ago, I must say, that the minister, Marilyn Churley, is quoted as saying that she cautions consumers to read and understand the contents of any contract they sign so that they know the limits that are identified and the obligations they may face. But various people involved with the situation have indicated that the contracts we're talking about from the loan brokers are so vaguely worded that for the average person it's impossible. So it certainly is a problem that has to be addressed.

The stories are heart-rending, and obviously this is a case where all parties need to work together and come up with a solution. I guess the case from Oshawa has already been mentioned today of a single mother who paid $245, thought she was going to get a loan for $10,000 and ended up with nothing. This happened in December, just before Christmas. The money that she used to attempt to get this loan through the loan broker was to have been for the children's Christmas.

These stories come from all across Ontario. Another story from Windsor, a case where a person put down $350 and then was advised afterwards that one of the restrictions would be that he would have to have collateral equivalent to the amount of the loan, and this wasn't stipulated up front. Another person placed $350 down and was granted the loan but at 30% interest. And on and on these stories go. I see my time's running out, but Linda Leatherdale of the Toronto Sun has brought this to the attention as well and documented many cases. So we will be supporting that we proceed with this legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes the time allotment for the Ontario PC Party. Further debate?

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I'm pleased to rise this morning as we debate Bill 152. Let me say from the outset that I'll be supporting the bill. There's no question in my mind that the issue of consumer protection is a very important one in our society and in this particular area there's obviously a need.

I take with interest some of the comments from the member for Eglinton in terms of, as she defined I guess, the types of individuals who need this kind of protection. It would be surprising, I think, for a lot of people to understand that the people who find themselves using loan brokers may not necessarily be stereotyped as any individual category of people in society. I used to, before I was elected, run a small business.

Due to the inability of bank financing, government programs, in terms of trying to arrange operating capital, I think many people in society find themselves in a situation of desperation and have to go somewhere to either survive, put a roof over their head, or for whatever reason.

I think this is important legislation and it's the kind of legislation that should have been in place in this province for the last 50 years but isn't here. I think it's our responsibility to make sure that the legislation is put into place.

I do have a couple of concerns, though, one in particular around the maximum fine. I believe the maximum fine as set out in the bill is $5,000. My experience has been with other penalties for violations of the Consumer Protection Act, for example, by individuals or companies that the maximum fine is $25,000; the actual fine is $1,000 or $2,000, as the courts assign it. So in my view, the $5,000 fine is much too small. There should be a much heftier fine because the experience with fines under the court system is that with a $25,000 maximum, we're seeing routinely fines being assessed at $1,000. I don't think that's going to be enough of a deterrent at all.

The other problem I have is that I think the bill, through the definition of a loan broker, might be too broad. I think that issue has to be looked at because it really would cover, the way the bill is written, as I understand it, all loans made in the province, large or small, personal or commercial, secured or unsecured, unless arranged by a mortgage broker or financial institution. It might even include lawyers who obtain funds for clients on an incidental basis and transactions arranged by brokerage houses or investment dealers. So I think the definition of "loan broker" is an issue that has to be looked at. The fines have to be looked at; I think they should be much higher.

The other point I would make is that it really doesn't designate a ministry, as the bill is written, as responsible for administering this act. It provides no investigation powers and contains no enforcement provisions. My concern is that this is a major issue in today's society and without those areas being covered off, I wonder what we accomplish. To assign ministries, for example, or the government responsibility without any direct authority I think can get us into some problems as well in terms of trying to protect consumers.

But basically, there's no question in my mind, from my experience through life and talking to others, that many people get caught in this very vicious kind of a trap, if you will, and anything we can do to protect the consumer is something that certainly I take very seriously and I would assume the government bench as well as the opposition members take very seriously. It's long overdue and I'll certainly be supporting the bill.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I would like to congratulate the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for coming up with this bill and also to thank him for the opportunity to speak. At the same time, I would like to thank the members of this House for giving unanimous consent, for showing that generosity of spirit, to let me speak on this matter.

However, I am perturbed by what seems to be an abrasive attitude on the part of at least some of the government members in their remarks. However, I am encouraged by the fact that they are willing to let it go, at least, to committee of the whole, if not to the committee that the member from Scarborough-Agincourt asked for, because I think the principle is what is important and not the details of this bill.

I would like to relate a situation that occurred in my constituency office not that long ago, where a constituent came in and described a situation that had happened to him. He needed a van to start a business in a vein that was similar to a job that he had lost. Because of the economy, he had gone through several jobs in a short span of time, so he could not find any financial institution that would come up with a loan. He was able to come up with a van that a friend had but he needed a loan to be able to purchase that van.

He went through the want ads in the papers and he finally came upon one that seemed like a safe bet. He made the call and he made a deal. He signed an agreement to get a certain amount of money for a specific car that he had already found. When he went to pick up the car, he found that the loan was not forthcoming. He had been forced to pay an upfront fee but somewhere in the fine print was written, not in any specific language but in a debatable type of way, that the loan was available only if he purchased the car from a specific dealership.

Therefore, he would forfeit the upfront money that he had given; in other words, the deal was signed in order to extract a certain amount of money from him because he could not purchase a car that he had already made an agreement on.

He was perturbed by this for several reasons. This person was a former police officer. He knew what to look for, he knew what he was getting himself into, and yet he was still caught. He knew what to avoid, he knew the pitfalls, and yet he was still caught. When people say, "Read the fine print. Make sure you know what you're doing," here was a person who had been trained to search for these sorts of things and he was still caught.

When he came to me -- despite the hardship, he was still somehow able to get a different loan to get that van -- he was coming to me for the principle of the thing. He wanted to avoid somebody else falling prey to a similar situation and he wanted me to work on a bill similar to what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has come up with.

I want to say the following: Bill 152 sends a message. It sends a message that we as a society care, that we want to rectify the oversights of the past and that we are listening to the concerns of the most vulnerable in our society: those who have been most affected by this recession or depression, as you will. If we don't pass this bill, we will be sending the wrong message.

I congratulate the member and I would encourage everybody to support the bill.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for --

Interjection: We have 30 seconds on the clock.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Middlesex has a very short time.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Yes. I am accustomed to shortness and I thank you for this time. I realize that I have only a very few seconds, so I would like to reiterate that our government members do indeed support this enhanced need for consumer protection. We understand, all of us here, I think, the kind of desperation that some people feel out there in difficult financial times.

I must say that at no time did I hear any abrasiveness from this side. I think that members here are completely supportive of the intent of Mr Phillips's bill.

The Acting Speaker: This does complete the time allotted. The honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt has two minutes in summation.

Mr Phillips: Sometimes I despair of this place. This is a serious problem that I have attempted to solve. Back in early February I sent the Minister of Finance a letter saying: "Are you going to act on this? What's the government going to do? If you aren't going to do something about it, I'll prepare a private member's bill."

I never even got a response to that until last week. Then I said, "All right, I will try to prepare a private member's bill." People out there should appreciate that the opposition have limited resources. I prepared a private member's bill to the best of my ability. I sent it to the government, saying, "Listen, give me your recommendations and suggestions." I never heard a peep out of them until today in the Legislature. I think that's despicable, frankly. I am trying to solve a problem and I have gotten absolutely nothing out of the government.

Today what I've heard from the government, and check me if I'm wrong here, is that it doesn't plan to proceed with the bill. They are going to vote in favour of it at second reading and then put it into that's called committee of the whole. Just so everybody understands out there, when it goes to committee of the whole, they're killing it. It's just a way to stop it.

Here we are, trying to solve a significant problem for the people of Ontario. The government members mouth that it's a significant problem. They won't do anything about it. I'm sorry if I'm getting angry, but months ago I sent a letter to the government, saying: "If you're not going to act, we'll try to help. Help us along." I then sent them the bill and said, "If you can improve the wording, tell me about it." I hear nothing until we get into the Legislature today.

You can appreciate the anger that hundreds of people out there are going to feel when they find out that the government is all talk and no action. If the government stands today and refers this to committee of the whole, that essentially kills it. As we try to protect people out there, we're being thwarted and we're being stopped from doing that by the government members.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for second reading of Bill 152.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Hodgson moved private member's notice of motion number 39:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that all first-time hunters since 1960 have successfully completed the hunter education course, which includes safe firearm handling procedures, the government of Ontario should automatically grant a firearms acquisition certificate to people who have successfully completed that course and to those who have demonstrated a solid safety record through many years of shooting experience.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton will have 10 minutes to open debate, after which all recognized parties will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate, and then the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton will have two minutes in summation.

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I'd like to begin by thanking Mr Harris, our party leader, for allowing me his time for this private member's resolution on a very important issue.

Why I've put this resolution forward is that during the recent by-election this was a concern of many of the people of my riding, Victoria-Haliburton, people who hunt because of lifestyle or recreation, farmers who have to use firearms for predator control and rodent control, and target shooters. We have the distinction in our riding of having an Olympic athlete, Dr Sobrian, an Olympic pistol shooter from Victoria-Haliburton, and other people who are involved in this sport and recreation.

I'd also like to thank the member for Parry Sound, Mr Eves, for his ideas and input on this resolution. I'd like to thank the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, officials at the chief provincial firearms office and also the Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario for its input and ideas to make this a more rounded debate.

I'd just like to say that as all members of the House realize, under the Criminal Code,

section 3, it's federal jurisdiction, and they brought out Bill C-17, which asked for national testing for firearms acquisition certificates. It's provincial responsibility for the administration of how that's carried out. Bill C-17 allows for grandfathering, for what we're asking in this resolution.

I'd just like to say that the stated provincial objective at the firearms office is to reduce accidental and intentional misuse of firearms. I think everyone in this House shares that concern, that we would like to see the safe use of firearms, and that we'd like to see them not in the hands of criminals. What I object to is legitimate gun owners -- hunters, farmers, target shooters and Olympic athletes -- being somehow associated with the criminal use of firearms.

We have a proud history in Ontario of teaching gun owners hunter safety courses. We've had that since 1960. The results of those lessons speak for themselves. Our accident rate in misuse of firearms in hunting-related accidents has fallen dramatically since the mid-1960s even though the number of hunters has gone up slightly.

There are existing laws in place in the province of Ontario which can address our concern and everybody's abhorrence with the criminal use of firearms that should be enforced, that are already there. If people misuse firearms, then punish them. If they fail to meet transportation, storage or use regulations, then punish them. To a legitimate firearms owner, the threat of punishment demonstrated by the enforcement of the law will make them comply. Our laws must be enforced to discourage criminal use of firearms. We have no disagreement with that.

I'd also like to see in the administration at the provincial level more record sharing between ministries so that people cannot renew licences or purchase firearms if they've broken any firearms regulation. This information is not shared at present. For example, if a person is caught poaching and loses their firearm, there's nothing stopping them from using their FAC to purchase another weapon the very next day. Minor offences should mean mandatory enrolment in the course. Major offences should result in the licence or the FAC being revoked indefinitely. We have no problem with that.

But is it fair to make people who have used firearms safely for decades sit in a classroom and take a course and exam? They have demonstrated their proficiency by their actions, by their experience, and I think it is incumbent upon us to show respect to these older people.

I agree that the ministry and the administration of firearms control should work in cooperation with hunter safety and should bring all firearm users together to promote safety and educate the public. Under this present course, we're making it mandatory that the use of a restricted weapon such as handguns be taught and licensed. I feel that's an expense not only to the instructors' time, but it's a waste of time for legitimate hunters in this province, who can't use handguns. But it is a viable thing that should be an option for target shooters or people who have use of handguns.

The implication that the restrictions are too high could discourage people from buying more guns who legitimately use them for hunting or on their farms or in their recreation of target shooting. That has an impact on our economy in Victoria-Haliburton and in most places in rural Ontario, and even in Metro. By the number of petitions that have been presented in this House, you can see that this is an issue that's of great concern to many people in the province of Ontario.

A lot of our tourist business in the off seasons is dependent on attracting people who come up and hunt for recreational purposes, and this supports our local economy. At a time when business is hurting in that field generally across Ontario, I think it's important that we don't discourage that through excessive regulations and the heavy hand of government.

We've also got wildlife management. The Ministry of Natural Resources takes into account the role of hunters in its scheme of managing the wildlife in Ontario.

I would just like to point out that the hunters have already taken this course. They've proven their record of being safe. In Sudbury last year, there was a sort of test case for the FAC examination. People who have had the course or had past practice in hunting had a 99% success rate. If they had a quick review, it went up to 100%.

I don't feel this added burden of making older people go back and sit in a classroom, pay their fees and take a course has anything to do with the safety in our streets, and therefore they should be exempted from this regulation. If they've proven in their past history that they can handle guns, they should be exempt from the law that requires them to go and sit in a classroom, write exams and then purchase another firearm.

There are opponents of the grandfathering clause. They like to quote the Canada-wide test numbers. These numbers are remarkably lower than the ones in Ontario, the ones at Sudbury, because they don't take into account what other provinces have done. In Ontario, we have a fine history of implementing safety courses for young people entering to buy a gun for target shooting, for on the farm or for hunting. Unfortunately, we don't have records of everybody who's taken a hunting course and that's not the hunters' fault; that's just the records of the Ontario government. They haven't been coordinated with the FACs.

In conclusion, I would just ask that all members of this Legislature join together to show a bit of fairness and respect for people who have demonstrated that they're law-abiding and use firearms accurately and safely, and that we can go on from here and have a consensus to tighten up on the illegal use of firearms and on criminals. But let's not lump the two groups together, people who through their business, like farmers, or people who for recreation or target shooting, and Olympic athletes, have proven time and time again that they have safe records.

The number of fatalities in this province due to hunting-related accidents has dropped off dramatically. I would ask that everyone in this House support this resolution.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm very pleased to be involved in the debate today on the resolution raised by the member for Victoria-Haliburton on firearms acquisition certificates.

I think it's important at first to take a look at the historical perspective here and take a look at the Criminal Code of Canada. That legislation established standards for the responsible use of firearms in Canada. Prior to 1978, the code merely dealt with the hardware and criminal issues that pertained to the use of firearms. It was from that time onward that the federal government that administers the Criminal Code took a three-pronged approach to firearms regulations in Canada.

What the government did, the first prong, was that it addressed the screening out of individuals who had a criminal record or who had a history of violent behaviour, with the introduction of the firearms acquisition certificate back in 1979. The second prong was that the federal government imposed sanctions, which then prevented the illicit movement of firearms in our society. The third aspect was that it developed misuse laws to prevent the use of firearms in criminal acts and to avoid careless and negligent misuse by firearm owners.

Subsequent amendments to the Criminal Code strengthened these three facets of firearms legislation to ensure public safety. Also, this of course is an objective which we see as being beneficial not only to firearm owners but also to the public at large.

The most recent amendment comprised the enactment of Bill C-17 and its regulations back in December 1991. The amendments included an increase in penalties, new offence sections, new

definitions for prohibited and restricted weapons, changes to the firearms acquisition certificate system and new regulations for firearms dealers. The final component of the federal gun control program under Bill C-17, the mandatory firearms safety education and training, was implemented in Ontario and was effective January 1 of this year.

I'd like to also discuss the issue of grandparenting. Like every province, Ontario has decided not to grandparent any previous firearms training as being equal to and applicable to the content of the Canadian firearms safety course, for meeting the new knowledge requirements necessary to pass the compulsory federal testing.

The resolution that is being debated today is based on the argument that the new regulations basically reinvent the wheel, that forcing people who already have training, such as the hunter education course, to get additional training is actually unnecessary, and that in fact they may even be trained in firearms they don't want.

Let me address these concerns. Hunter safety training has an enviable safety record during the sporting season. According to the federal government, this new legislation is intended to improve the safety record for everyone all year round. The fact is that death and injury by firearms occur mostly away from sporting activities and involve non-sporting members of the public. For example, more deaths and serious injuries occur each year from acts of impulse or intentional misuse of firearms than from unintentional discharge. These types of incidents can be avoided if firearms and ammunition are more safely stored.

Therefore, the national course stresses both the secure storage of firearms and ammunition as well as their handling and use.

Another frequently heard argument in opposition to these new requirements is, "Why should I be trained in guns that I have no desire to use?" The reason is quite simple: A person possessing a valid FAC is entitled to possess any legal type of firearm with that FAC. For that reason the Canadian firearm safety test covers the safe handling and knowledge of a wide variety of firearms.

Public safety demands that those acquiring firearms demonstrate that they can handle and use firearms safely. Therefore, I am opposed to this resolution and support the government in its decision of not grandparenting these requirements but making the national test mandatory for both new and renewal FAC applicants. The issue here is a safety issue and one we cannot ignore.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I would first like to commend Mr Hodgson for bringing this motion before the House this morning. It has certainly been of great interest to my constituents and, I gather, to constituents across the province of Ontario.

I, as most members, have had the opportunity of reading petitions with literally thousands of signatures that have been presented to this Legislature over the last little while, and I'm told that aside from all the petitions we're getting from across the province, the Solicitor General, Mr Christopherson, has received in the neighbourhood of 25,000 postcards from across this province asking that this resolution be supported -- well, not actually asking that the resolution be supported, but asking that the province pay some attention to the needs of rural Ontario, to the economy of rural areas, to the recreational pursuits that have been followed by generations of Ontarians.

We think, and I think, that the hunters and anglers of Ontario are making a very significant point.

This may be one of those issues that divides rural and urban members to some extent, basically because there isn't really a comprehension of what goes on out there in rural Ontario by some urbanites. In my office, I've had people from various hunters' and anglers' clubs across my riding. They've been there from Whitefish Falls, from Espanola, from the North Shore, from the Elliot Lake club and they're saying: "Yes, we have Bill C-17. Yes, we understand that greater gun control is necessary, but we're not criminals. We have demonstrated that we know how to deal with firearms. We're not the problem.

We've taken the courses. We've done what it takes to be safe." They've proven that over and over again and the statistics bear that out.

I just want to point out for people that wildlife-related expenditures in this province mean people spend money to the tune of $2.2 million to fish and to hunt in this province. It is a significant part of our economy. It is not something we should be unduly restricting.

In my constituency on Manitoulin Island, I will tell you that there's a week in November that is known as a national holiday almost; it's called the deer hunt. The deer hunt is important. I think the principal of the high school has great difficulty during that time in keeping any of the people in class during that week. It is a tremendous boon not only to local people but to the people who are attracted to Manitoulin Island and spend money to pursue what has been a historic and important part of their everyday life.

I also would like to bring to the attention of the House the effect this has on other people, as the Solicitor General interprets Bill C-17 for us. We've got farmers, and farmers need to have some control over pests in their areas. We have, obviously, the hunters. But something that hasn't been mentioned and has been brought to my attention as the critic for Natural Resources for the official opposition is that trappers and prospectors are having great difficulty in obtaining FAC licences and being able to do things that are necessary for their own safety in the bush.

As you know, prospectors and trappers, by the very nature of what they do, are required to carry significant equipment with them. It is very difficult for them to then carry a rifle. They have historically been able to carry pistols because it was the only weapon they could really carry. We've had some great difficulties in that area, and I want to bring that to the attention of the House.

What we are talking about today is not, in my view, a gun control measure. Bill C-17 has decided that. The problem is that the Solicitor General of this province has refused to understand the needs of rural Ontario. He's refused to understand the petitions of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. They're asking for what I believe to be a most reasonable suggestion: that people who have completed a very good hunter safety course and know about guns be allowed to obtain weapons to do what they have always done. It makes good sense to me.

I have real difficulty understanding why the Solicitor General of this province can't work with the groups out there that do know about firearms and provide a very cohesive package that protects the public and yet does not put onerous and unnecessary requirements on people who have already proved they can do what they do quite safely.

It has been brought to my attention that the expense of what the government is proposing for a new hunter is quite unreasonable. It has been suggested to me that a person who wishes to become a hunter has to take the Ontario hunter safety course, as they have for some time now. They have to acquire an FAC. They then have to pass the two tests involved. There are fees for all that. It could be as much as $400 to an individual to get a hunting licence, and that does not include the Outdoors Card and it does not include the specific hunting licence you must get.

I think what the government is attempting to do is make a sport that has been in Ontario for centuries now one for only the wealthy, only the rich. If you want to get into this new club, you're going to have to pay $400-plus. That doesn't include buying any equipment.

I'm happy that the member has brought this resolution before the House. I will be supporting it, as will my colleagues. We think it is a valuable thing for the member to have brought this before the House, and we commend him on that.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): It's a real honour and a pleasure this morning to stand here and speak in support of our newest member and of his resolution.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton, as you know, is one of our newest members, and has recently taken over the critic's job for the Ministry of Natural Resources. I was more than pleased to hear, as I was given Energy, that he would be following up on that ministry, because I received excellent turnover material from my predecessor, the member for Simcoe East, and I know he will continue to assist, as I will, the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

This morning the member has come forward with a very important resolution, not only to the riding of Victoria-Haliburton but to the province of Ontario, and I am more than pleased to stand this morning and speak in support of his resolution.

Going back to March 17 of this year, I received a letter from the executive vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. He says:

"Enclosed are several petitions signed by residents of your riding," speaking of the riding of Lanark-Renfrew. "They and we would appreciate your presenting these in the Legislature as soon as possible. As Ontario's largest group of conservationists and firearms owners, we are strong proponents of firearms education and responsible ownership.

"In addition, we would like you to go to bat for these people. There is great anger and unrest all over this province due to the provincial decisions" -- not federal, provincial decisions -- "relative to grandfathering, expensive fees, and requiring both the FAC and the hunter education courses and examinations.

"This must be corrected, and your help and strong action will be appreciated."

I'm pleased this morning, even as a follow-up to yesterday's news of our revolution for this province, known as The Common Sense Revolution, to see our new member coming forward with what we would consider a commonsense approach to this legislation.

It just makes common sense that these people would be grandfathered and save all this cost and frustration for people who have earned their place in this province, not only as hunters and handlers of firearms but as taxpayers and citizens.

It's important that we apply this commonsense approach to other legislation and try and get the people who are paying the taxes out of the shackles that governments over the years have gradually put us in.

I can't accept the Solicitor General's response to my question. He is trying to tell me that he can't do anything, that this is a federal issue. I will read from Hansard. He says:

"Let me say with regard to the issue the member raises that the matter is one of public safety, and it's a question of whether or not we are going to allow exemptions that could indeed allow individuals who maybe should be taking the course and should be taking the test to perhaps not take it. The only way to deal with it properly was to ensure that everybody has to take the test, as the federal government has outlined.

"I would say, in conclusion, that the honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew should know that every province in this entire nation has taken the exact same position that Ontario has."

First of all, he's trying to get out from under his responsibility as the minister. He's shelving it over to the federal government again and saying it's not within his authority. It is within his authority to come through with the regulation that would allow grandfathering of this.

I just want to close, because there are other speakers here this morning, and say how pleased I am that our member for Victoria-Haliburton has brought this resolution forward.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I take great pleasure in standing here today to speak in complete disagreement with the member from Haliburton, Mr Hodgson, and Mr Brown and Mr Jordan. I agree with Mr Jordan that what we need here is a commonsense approach to the issue. That is why the comments by Mr Malkowski, and mine, reflect a commonsense approach to this issue that I believe his constituents and their constituents agree with, except perhaps some of the hunters, or many of the hunters. But I agree on a commonsense approach to the issue.

Some have argued, and Mr Hodgson says, "Is it fair to bring them back to the classroom?" I say yes, and I believe a lot of Ontarians, when we're talking about safety, believe as well that they should be going back to the classroom, in the same way I would argue that from time to time we should make doctors go back to the classroom, that from time to time we should even make teachers go back to the classroom, even though they are in one. There is a continual need for renewal of one's knowledge around any issue, whatever the issue, on a regular basis.

Mr Hodgson is saying: "These people are good people. They know how to shoot. They've been shooting animals for years. They're okay, so let's not put them back into the classroom, because they really don't need it."

I disagree with the statement. I'm not sure it's being disrespectful to them or to some of these other older hunters to require them to take a safety course. The issue of respect for these hunters or these older hunters I don't quite understand, nor do I accept it.

They argue as well that these people are not criminals. No one is making the case that they are. To say so would be a problem. No one has said that they are criminals or that we should be treating them like criminals. We're saying they should be taking the safety course. Even though they've taken a safety course 30 years ago, they should be taking it again. Why? We're talking about new national standards, not old standards but new ones. To require them to reacquire knowledge that I need to make me feel better about their knowledge of safety is not, in my view, a very restrictive or onerous obligation we're putting on those individuals.

Mr Brown speaks of it as if somehow -- at least, I understood him later not to understand the case -- we were restricting guns or gun control. That's certainly not the issue, as he knows full well, because later on towards the end of his speech he made it quite clear that we're talking about safety, about people's renewal of knowledge they need, as opposed to restricting guns or gun control. So he knows better.

He talks about this as if somehow we're creating a new club -- interesting thought. We are not creating a new club, I don't think. What we are creating is a club of people who should be learning how to handle the guns, who should be knowledgable about the new standards being proposed. I think that is a reasonable standard that most reasonable Ontarians, including the people who have spoken from their communities and others who are about to speak, will support.

Mr Brown talks about a fee of $400. I certainly haven't seen any figure that speaks about a $400 fee that would make it inaccessible to people to have to get into this new course or this testing. The figures I've seen is that it's anywhere from $50 to $100.

Is this an onerous obligation on these hunters? Does it really destroy the economy of the north or some other areas of agricultural country? I say no. On the basis of safety, on the basis of making me feel a little safer, I say they should be required to have no exemption from Bill C-17, from the knowledge requirements.

I say this is an issue of prevention. I say this is an issue where people need the comprehensive knowledge that is required to have safety understanding. It's an issue of safety, not shooting skills, that we are arguing here, and I believe reasonable Ontarians would not support the resolution Mr Hodgson has put forth today.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I would also like to congratulate the member for Victoria-Haliburton for bringing forth this resolution.

Just following up on what the previous speaker indicated, I consider myself a reasonable person from Ontario and I certainly support the resolution.

Mr Speaker, you've been around to see the great number of petitions that have indicated exactly what's in the member's resolution. Of course, those petitions are coming from a good number of my constituents as well.

I've always seen hunters in my area -- I have some very close friends who are hunters -- as being very safe and responsible owners in terms of the use of their firearms. As stated in the petitions, they are not the criminals we are worried about in terms of gun safety and the use of firearms. It's not their firearms that are involved in crimes; it's the smuggled, illegal firearms that find their way into the criminal acts and the crimes that are committed.

At this time, I would also like to indicate that I do have a little knowledge about the safety courses that are offered. I think of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, of the Ministry of Natural Resources, and many dedicated people such as Harold Nickel from my riding, who has given this course to many of our first-time hunters, our young people, those people who require the course, especially those who are under 20 years of age. We know these efforts began back in 1957, and they've been very, very successful in terms of bringing 700,000 people into the sport of hunting on a very safe basis.

I would like to indicate again my very strong support for this resolution, and also the support of many of my colleagues from rural Ontario.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to rise in support of this resolution brought to our attention today by the newly elected member for Victoria-Haliburton, Mr Hodgson. I want to speak on it just briefly.

The debate that's gone on in this Legislature this morning really shows me how naïve some of the Metro members are with regard to rural Ontario. I cannot believe it. The problem we have here is that a lot of legislation is Metro-driven, Metro-oriented, and the rest of the province follows what goes on here.

This resolution notes that because "all first-time hunters since 1960 have successfully completed the hunter education course, which includes safe firearm handling procedures, the government of Ontario should automatically grant a firearms acquisition certificate to people who have successfully completed that course and to those who have demonstrated a solid safety record through many years of...experience."

I support this resolution for the following reasons: Hunters are safe and responsible owners and users of firearms; the current mandatory policy of the new federal firearms safety course requires hunters to be trained in handguns, which are weapons not used in the field by hunters; training now received by over 700,000 Ontario residents through the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Ministry of Natural Resources ensures the safe use of firearms by hunters; and additional government-approved training of prospective owners in the legal use of handguns is required prior to any government permission to purchase or otherwise legally acquire a handgun or other restricted firearms.

I will be supporting this resolution on behalf of all the safe and responsible owners and users of firearms in the riding of Simcoe East, safe and responsible owners and users like James Gillespie of rural route 2, Orillia, who ran into the following difficulties when he tried to renew his firearm acquisition certificate. He wrote to me, and I just received it yesterday. He's a young individual who has been involved in the use of firearms since the age of six. He tried to renew his FAC, and he tells me it has been a real difficulty:

"The following is an account of how much time I have expended so far just to renew, starting from February 16 to date (May 1)," which is three days ago, "and I still do not have my FAC.

"On February 16, I went to the Orillia detachment to get my renewal in before it expired so it would only cost $25 instead of $50. I was then told I would have to be tested on my knowledge of firearms and their safety. Now the real adventure begins. First I had to contact the only approved firearms instructor in the Orillia area, Mr Ed Bagley. Mr Bagley told me he was trying to put together enough people so that he could cover the expense of the hall rental in order to give a test. He also indicated that he still didn't have the textbooks we needed to study for the exam.

Later in February, the textbooks became available at a cost of $12....Mr Bagley called and told me I would have an opportunity to take the test on March 12," which he finally ended up doing, and he passed the test, 100% written and 97% practical.

"By the way, the test cost $25," which is now $50. "I also forgot to mention, the cost of the passport photos I had to supply for my renewal was approximately $10.

"Everything was going good now and I thought I had bided my time and done everything I should. I made my renewal early so I only had to pay $25, photos were $10, textbook to study the new laws and safety procedures was $25. Good thing I passed the test or I would lose all the money I spent so far and then would have to pay an additional $50 for my new FAC. Also I would have to take a course that covers gun handling, safety, the new laws etc. I have heard these courses cost anywhere from $45 to $200, as well as resubmitted photos.

"Now it gets interesting. I took my test results to the Orillia detachment and thought in 28 days or less, the time specified for a renewal to be processed, I would have my new FAC. On Monday, March 14, the firearms officer, PC Langois of the Orillia detachment, called my home and told my wife that my signature on the application wasn't in the confines of space provided and probably wouldn't be accepted. I was asked to arrange to come in and sign again.

"Well, off I went the next day and signed another box and made sure I stayed within the boundaries. I waited until April 19. Seeing that I still didn't have my FAC, I called the Orillia detachment and asked to talk to PC Langois. Unfortunately, he also had other duties and it took a couple of days to see him. Mr Langois was very polite and as helpful as he could be. He said he checked the computer files and that my FAC had been approved and should be mailed in my hands soon. Well, just a little more patience was needed on my part.

"On Monday, April 25, I called my wife from work, who then told me PC Langois had called that day. He said I had to come to the OPP station and sign another time because my signature still did not meet the requirements.

"Well, folks, that's the last straw. I have called my MP and MPP and have decided enough is enough. I have spent enough time and money to renew my FAC. Can someone say when I may have my FAC, specifically...?"

This letter indicates the problem out there. Here is an individual who, with regard to hunting all his life, tries to renew his FAC. We want it grandfathered so he doesn't have to go through this mess, costing all this money. Federal legislation does permit provinces to implement grandfathering, and grandfathering was suggested to the chief provincial firearms officer for Ontario by the federation last year.

This is a true example of big government trying to tell the people in rural Ontario how they should operate.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Bang, bang, you're dead. That's what this is about.

There's only one purpose to guns. The last time I checked, a gun fires a projectile and it's intended to either shatter something or kill something. Whether you're killing a duck, a rabbit, a moose, a deer, a groundhog or a person, a gun has only one purpose and that purpose is to kill.

People are dying out there. We have a resolution in front of us here today brought in by a member who was elected only a few short weeks ago. What does he do as the first order of business? He negotiates with his Conservative leader to get a time slot to introduce a resolution into this place that says --

Mr Jordan: A point of order, Mr Speaker: This member is way off topic and being unnecessarily critical of a new member.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: He introduces a resolution that says, "Give all of these guys, automatically, through the mail -- send them a gun. Give them a gun, and while you're at it, why don't you load it as well? Well, you know, if you took a course 30 years ago, you're still the same person. So we're going to arm you, we're going to load you up, we're going to give you some bullets and you're okay: You get out there and you use that gun for what it was intended to do."

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Perruzza: There are 675,000 hunters in Ontario. Automatically, give them a gun. There are roughly 400,000 other people who have owned guns, so you would presume that you automatically give them a gun and give them some bullets as well. That is absolutely such an irrational and such an absurd thing to do given the number of guns that are out there on the street. I say to you again: There is only one purpose for guns and no other purpose, and that purpose is to kill. There's only one purpose to guns unless you sit there and you shoot at a tree, and that purpose is to kill.

That is so absolutely an irrational thing. Bang, bang, you're dead.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to rise to support this resolution, and I do so as a member representing a large part of rural eastern Ontario. Time does not permit me to take issue with some of the comments that the previous speaker made, but I do agree with whoever said earlier that a lot of this debate ignores the reality of life in rural communities.

I represent Renfrew county. Monday night I was at one of our outdoor's sportsmen's clubs. I was meeting with a group of farmers on the weekend. It must be said that if you live in communities like Pembroke or Eganville or Moose Creek or if you go, for example, to any of these rural high schools during hunting season, you will find -- and the member for Cochrane South will know this -- a goodly number of young boys and girls aged 16, 17 and 18 who are taking time off school to go hunting because that is part of the rhythm of rural life.

I have been standing and will continue to stand in my place and argue that we must, as a provincial government, join local and national governments to do more to deal with violence and crime in our streets, in our big and small towns. But we must, I think, understand that good public policy has to address the problem that's out there. We don't want to drop a net into the water and catch all of the wrong fish.

I support the member for Victoria-Haliburton in this resolution because I think the proposal is a sensible one in so far as the community that I represent. It has to be said that in fact all we are asking for in this resolution is simply this: People, many of them older people -- I have been approached in the last few weeks by 60-, 65-, 70-year-old constituents who have taken a government-approved hunter safety and gun safety course. They have hunted safely without incident for 30, 40, and 50 years in some cases. They have had a sterling record in terms of safety. They say to me, "Why now am I being asked to spend at least $200?" I say to the member for Fort York.

I met the other day with a couple of the instructors and they have told me that in Renfrew county, the minimal cost of this requirement is going to be at least $200, and probably more. My friend waves his hand in disbelief. This is what I'm being told by instructors who are offering the course, and I believe them.

The point I want to make is that we ask only this: that people who have had a good record, people, many of them senior citizens, who have hunted for decades very well and very safely, I say to my friend from Orono, not be singled out for a substantial new requirement, unwarranted on the basis of their proven track record and unwarranted on cost grounds.

Let me say again that the Liberal Party has said, my leader has said, I have repeated that we have to do more in so far as crime is concerned. I support a number of initiatives. I'd like to see tougher sentencing. We'd like to see changes to the Young Offenders Act. We'd like to see an end to plea bargaining. We would like to see a number of other initiatives in the area, for example, of tighter controls around the retail of ammunition.

Let me say, as well, that I have not always agreed with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, but on this request it is right.

On this request I support them, as I support the member who brought forward this resolution, because what we must all do as legislators is we must understand that as we move forward together to sensibly address the concern that's out there about safety and security in all our communities, we must focus our efforts on the problem and we must not alienate a lot of good, law-abiding citizens who feel that they are being unfairly targeted, a lot of good, law-abiding citizens who feel that however good the intentions, they, the good people, are being singled out by wrongheaded policy.

I want to say, on behalf of the thousands of rural constituents I am proud to represent, that they have a right to be considered as we move forward in this area. I join my colleagues from Northumberland and from Kenora and from Brant and from Manitoulin and from Bruce who have said in this debate that this is a sensible request to be made of government, that we want to get at the criminal element with a number of initiatives that I have articulated earlier.

But we do not want to unfairly and unreasonably single out all of those good hunters and good farmers who over the years and over the decades, having taken an Ontario government hunter safety and gun safety course, having passed that, having paid for that, having had a good record, those people have a reasonable right to be grandfathered as this resolution calls for.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I'm very pleased to have been granted the opportunity to speak in support of the commonsense resolution brought forward by our member for Victoria-Haliburton. The issue of grandfathering firearms acquisition certificates is of great concern to anglers and hunters across Ontario, including those who live in my riding of Grey-Owen Sound.

My offices are inundated with letters and petitions from constituents who object to the government's decision on the FAC course and examination and who support the idea of grandfathering those who have already taken safety courses or hunted responsibly for years -- people like the Grey-Bruce Travellers Council, the Artemesia Predator Controllers, the East Grey Hunters' Association, the Sydenham Sportsmen's Association, the South Grey Hunters' Association, the Bruce Peninsula Sportsmen's Association, the Grey-Bruce Rod and Gun Club, the Blue Ridge Sportsmen's Club and the Western Ontario Fox Hunters' Association.

These are organizations in my riding composed of responsible owners and users of firearms. These people are not unsafe and they are not criminals.

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters sent an interesting letter and corresponding fact sheet to my office on May 2. I would like to share some of these facts and statistics with the House.

Training for hunters began in 1957. In 1960, the hunter safety training education course became mandatory for all new hunters under the age of 20. Since 1960, over 700,000 people have successfully completed this course and passed the corresponding exam. On an annual basis, volunteer instructors educate and test between 20,000 and 35,000 prospective hunters. There were 154 accidents with 36 fatalities in 1960 but since then, with more safety training, fatalities and injuries caused by firearms have fallen more than 80%.

Today, firearms owners possess $2 million in public liability insurance as part of their membership in the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, an organization which prides itself on the promotion of safety and conservation.

The OFAH and its members take safety-related issues very seriously. These are not people we need to fear. The hunters in my riding have compelled me to support this resolution. Saskatchewan already has done this. In light of these facts and based on the requests from my constituents, I see no reason why Ontario should not follow suit. As a result, on behalf of the many sportsmen's associations and hunters and farmers in my area, I intend to support this resolution, and congratulate my colleague.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I want to make a couple of quick points. In terms of the view of the general public as well as people involved in public safety and public health who are in favour of tougher gun control in whatever form it comes, this resolution is not consistent with the opinion that is there. The decision not to grandfather is clearly consistent with the government's view that we need to have tough and national standards with regard to firearms purchase and storage.

In terms of our government, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, through the provincial firearms office, has been working quite closely with stakeholders in the communities to ensure that a regulation is drafted that is consistent with both our needs and theirs.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted to the government bench. The member for Wellington.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to rise and indicate that I intend to support the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who has been here for less than two months and has brought forward a very, very important resolution with respect to his riding in Victoria-Haliburton, with respect to all of rural Ontario. We see another case where a policy written in urban Ontario does not fit in rural Ontario. Without question, the individuals who have demonstrated safety -- I'm talking about farmers, I'm talking about hunters in Wellington county -- shouldn't have to go through another safety training course.

I hope that all members of the House will give favourable consideration to this commonsense resolution put forward today. I want to commend once again our new member for Victoria-Haliburton for bringing it forward.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted. The honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton has some time in which he may want to sum up.

Mr Hodgson: I'd like to thank all the members who participated in this debate this morning, in particular the member for Lanark-Renfrew, Mr Jordan, the member for Simcoe East, Mr McLean, the member for Grey-Owen Sound, Mr Murdoch, the member for Wellington, Mr Arnott, also the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, Mr Brown, the member from Kenora, Mr Miclash, and the member from Renfrew North, Mr Conway.

I would like to point out and just use an analogy. It's obvious to me that there are some members on the government side who reside in Metro ridings, and I think I made it very clear that we're not disagreeing with the safe use of firearms or the punishment of criminals or those who misuse firearms. What we are talking about is some common sense.

If I can be permitted to use an analogy, we have a problem with automobile safety in this province, and a number of years ago we recognized that we needed seatbelts and we made it so it's mandatory for seatbelts. We grandfathered that into the new driver safety tests for this province. We made it so that new drivers coming on stream had to have a course that taught them how to use the new rules and regulations. Older drivers who demonstrated a safe driving record weren't forced back into the classroom right across Ontario, and similarly with gun ownership.

We have farmers and hunters who have hunted for generations. It's part of the rural lifestyle that's been mentioned here, and it's unfair to force them back in on their time and their money to take a course, which we don't do in any other field of safety in this province. We grandfather it in. If the member from Downsview's residents had to go back and all take a driving course because there have been accidents with automobiles and improvements to technology to buy a new car, he'd be the first one to scream. It's the same in rural Ontario. We're talking about our lifestyle.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for ballot item number 54.

LOAN BROKERS ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES COURTIERS EN PRÊTS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now revert back to ballot item number 53, second reading of Bill 152,

An Act to prohibit certain types of payments to Loan Brokers.

If any members are opposed to a vote on this motion, please rise. Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Phillips's motion carry? Carried.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Refer this to the finance and economics committee.

The Acting Speaker: We will be looking for a majority or a consensus.

All those in favour of the finance committee, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

The majority is not in favour. Therefore, the motion will be referred to committee of the whole.

FIREARMS SAFETY

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with ballot item number 54, in the name of Mr Hodgson. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of Mr Hodgson's motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of Mr Hodgson's motion, please rise and remain standing until named by the clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Bisson, Brown, Callahan, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Duignan, Eddy, Elston, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Hansen, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Johnson (Prince-Edward, Lennox, South Hastings), Jordan, Klopp, Kormos, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Pilkey, Runciman, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Turnbull, Waters, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Simcoe West), Wiseman, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Hodgson's motion, please rise and remain standing until named by the clerk.

Nays

Akande, Boyd, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Fletcher, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Murdock (Sudbury), Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pouliot, Sutherland, Ward, Wessenger.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 45; the nays are 30. I declare the motion carried.

It now being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 pm.

The House recessed from 1211 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Last Friday, Ontario's municipalities were informed by the Ministry of Transportation that road subsidies were flat-lined for the year 1994. Rumours have been circulating since then that the minister is playing a shell game with road subsidies.

Yesterday I learned from the engineer of the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry that subsidies for upper-tier municipalities have in fact declined by 6%. In SD&G, for example, funding has been cut by 10.68% from last year. In Leeds-Grenville, municipal officials will grapple with an 8.5% reduction in subsidies, and in Frontenac county a 10.5% cutback.

The people of Ontario deserve well-maintained roads. Construction will create the needed jobs. I've heard complaints about the potholes and ridges on Highway 401 in the Long Sault area and on Highway 2 in my riding.

This year's funding is not the first time that the united counties have received reduced funding for roads. In SD&G they've lost more than $1.5 million of their budget over the past three years of the NDP's government mandate.

The township of Lancaster showed its dissatisfaction with funding levels by passing a resolution which reads, in part, "The council of the township of Lancaster hereby wishes to record its total disbelief and disgust with the manner in which the present government of Ontario has been treating local municipalities in the past few years."

This government not only is incapable of managing its own finances but is creating havoc at the municipal level as well.

GEORGIAN BAY '94 MARINE HERITAGE FESTIVAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): This summer the residents of Penetanguishene and Midland will showcase their communities and put Georgian Bay on the international map. The kickoff is on May 18 and 19.

Visitors to the Georgian Bay '94 Marine Heritage Festival can attend more than 40 events celebrating Georgian Bay's extremely rich marine heritage and be treated to our unique small-town hospitality.

On July 23 and 24, the Georgian Bay Powerboat Grand Prix will roar into Penetanguishene Bay to thrill spectators with the power and excitement of 130-mile-per-hour boats. More than 16 tall ships and a dozen other historic and modern boats will participate in a Parade of Sail into Midland Bay on July 29.

These ships will be open daily to the public from July 29 to August 2 at the Midland town dock, the Penetanguishene town dock and Discovery Harbour, formerly known as the Historic Naval and Military Establishments. More than 400 performers will take

part in military re-enactments and musical entertainment, to be capped by a magnificent fireworks display.

More than 250 young people from more than 10 countries will compete in Atlantic Challenge '94 from August 2 to 10. They will participate in a cultural exchange and compete in rowing, sailing and seamanship events.

Come and welcome our international guests from Russia, France, Denmark, the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, Ireland and Canada at the Discovery Harbour's international village. Come and be piped aboard as history is made at Georgian Bay '94 Marine Heritage Festival.

NATIONAL GARDEN MONTH

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): The month of May is designated as National Garden Month. It is a time when, after a long winter, we appreciate certainly the beauty of the natural world.

I want to invite everyone to the beautiful gardens of Niagara. Drive the Niagara Parkway from Niagara-on-the-Lake to Queenston and on to Queen Victoria Park. Don't forget to stop at my favourite spot, which is the horticultural school. Come and enjoy spring and also Mother's Day this weekend. I want to remind everyone that the blossoms of the fruit trees are opening now and the Blossom Festival Parade is in Niagara Falls on Saturday, May 14.

More and more Ontarians are discovering the joy of a beautiful garden. Ontario's nursery and turf industries contribute $174 million in farm-gate sales. Plants are certainly an economic benefit to Ontario and a flourishing business across the Niagara Peninsula, as my colleague from Lincoln will attest. Nursery plants also provide beauty, improve our air and water quality and probably help our state of mind. That's why I brought these into the Legislature.

During National Garden Month, I encourage all members and their constituents to support Ontario's nursery and landscape businesses by buying and growing Ontario nursery products.

ENVIRONMENTAL POSTER CONTEST

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): Last month, grade 3 students in the township of King at three schools prepared posters to set out why they were so opposed to the government's policy of building a huge megadump near King City and near Maple.

There were three winners selected in the poster contest. Those posters were then put on to T-shirts, one of which I'm wearing and two of which I'm going to hold up. I want to commend the young students in grade 3, and there was tremendous participation from all of the schools. The pink shirt that I'm wearing, which says "Be A Litter Quitter," was done by Margaret Misiak of Holy Name School. This green shirt, which was done by Alexandra Begg of Country Day School, says, "Save Our Earth/Save King." Finally, there is Mikki Hoteri from the Eva L. Dennis School, whose T-shirt says, "No Dump."

I think what was clear from all of the students who participated in this was that they wanted to send a very clear message to the Minister of Environment and Energy, to the Premier and to the former Minister of the Environment that going about our waste disposal by creating yet another megadump near Maple and near King City was not going to resolve the problem. I told them that I would help in taking their message directly to the government and directly to the Minister of Environment and Energy: Minister, eliminate the IWA. Let's get rid of that old, funny Bill 143.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the Minister of Education and Training.

Algonquin College is planning to move a job training school from Renfrew to Pembroke. I would like to inform the minister that withdrawing these facilities will seriously impair Renfrew's ability to create and sustain jobs. I quote the mayor of Renfrew, Howard Haramis, who wrote to me and said this move "will definitely place the identity of the skills centre in jeopardy. It will be a great loss for Renfrew."

Renfrew's corporate citizens have devoted a tremendous amount of time and energy, in cooperation with educators, to training people with the skills they need to be viable in the local economy. I cite as an example Times Fiber Canada Ltd of Renfrew, who are gearing up to expand their operation and workforce. I quote from a letter by Mr Hugh Edwards, general manager: "We wish to most emphatically voice our strong objections to their seemingly firmed-up" but unfounded "plans to move out.... How can they simply remove a facility that is top-notch and which has developed in conjunction with the town of Renfrew?"

Algonquin College is spending $600,000 on this move. I implore the minister to direct the college to use common sense. Save the expenditure on bricks and mortar and use it for teachers and classrooms in the existing facilities in Renfrew.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Last Saturday afternoon, I sat at a table in the Oshawa Mall along with volunteers who form the Cancer Centre for Oshawa team. We were speaking to people who came to the table to sign a card urging the Minister of Health to support full radiation therapy at Oshawa General Hospital.

We were joined there by one Philip McCorkell, a member of Rebounders of Canada. This organization's membership comprises children who have survived cancer against all odds. The presence of Philip at the table that Saturday gave all of us a lift in our efforts.

This year's drive for support follows on the heels of last year's drive when 15,000 people signed the petition that I presented to the Legislature. During April, Cancer Month, the table in the Oshawa Mall has been attended each Saturday from 9:30 am to 6 pm. Over 4,000 people have indicated their desire to see radiation therapy at the Oshawa General Hospital. They all said, and I echo their words, "We need it now."

I stand in my place today to salute the members of the Citizens for a Cancer Centre and to all those -- the CAW, local business, the Oshawa Shopping Centre owners, the press, radio, television stations and many unnamed volunteers -- who gave freely of their time, their talent, their money to bring to the front our community's need for radiation therapy now.

I hope the Minister of Health somewhere -- she's not in the House -- is watching and listening.

HEALTH CARDS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): The Tory Health critic sanctimoniously talks about Liberal health card fraud. Well, I have some factual information for him.

Twenty-six million, that's the number of OHIP cards that were floating around in Tory Ontario in 1985; 26 million at a time when the population of Ontario was 9.5 million. Yet today's Progressive Conservative Party seems to have a case of amnesia about those old Tory days. They accuse the Liberals of giving out too many cards. In 1990 the Liberal government had actually decreased the number of health cards by 14.5 million to clean up Tory mismanagement.

The Tories refer to fraud in the health card system under the Liberals but want us, the people of Ontario, to forget the runaway fraud during those 42 years under the Tories. There were no procedures, no accountability in place to track fraud, so they could not even have known about it or done anything about it.

Last year Tory leader Mike Harris stated that he had leaked a government document stating that the health fraud in Ontario amounted to $1.2 billion a year. When his research staff finally got around to checking their figures, they discovered that he'd made a half-billion-dollar, a $500-million, mistake.

The Tories have continued to claim that millions of dollars of health fraud exists; just don't ask them where their numbers come from.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Why are they changing those red-and-white cards?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Willowdale, please come to order.

Mrs Caplan: All they're doing is engaging in a alarming rhetoric: 26 million cards, no accountability. That's the Tory legacy, and no one in the province of Ontario will forget.

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Yesterday Conservative leader Mike Harris announced our party's Common Sense Revolution to address the economic challenges for our party and our province. Included are several announcements to protect quality living standards for Ontario seniors. However, since 1990 the NDP government has been imposing a series of revolutionary cuts to services for seniors.

On March 15 of this year, the Housing ministry announced it will encourage providers of seniors' housing to rent to non-seniors in cases where there are ongoing vacancies. This disturbing directive strongly suggests the NDP will no longer ensure that the current stock of non-profit seniors' housing will continue to be age-specific.

The Housing minister should be aware that age-specific housing provides an important social network for seniors. This affords the needed supportive and reassuring environment for seniors, the majority of whom prefer it over age-integrated housing. Studies also demonstrate that age-integrated housing has a negative impact on the general health and wellbeing of seniors.

The number of seniors and their housing needs continue to rise. Halton region has 394 seniors on a housing waiting list, with 170 seniors in Burlington alone, but in March a total of only five seniors found accommodation.

This is yet another NDP slight against seniors that decreases the current base of seniors' housing in the face of rising demand. It is also a blatant contradiction of the thrust of long-term care reform. The minister must review her policy to protect age-specific housing for Ontario's aging population which ensures the kind of care that seniors need and so richly deserve in Ontario.

NEWSPAPER CARTOON

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Today in a Toronto tabloid there was an editorial cartoon that in this month of sexual assault awareness is absolutely reprehensible and the lowest form of journalism.

If Mr Donato's intent was to spur conversation, then he's certainly succeeded. However, I am not giving him credit for having that much subtlety or foresight. As far as I am concerned, the type of cartoon that was shown today goes beyond anything in terms of good taste. Even the politically incorrect of this province would find it unacceptable.

I point out that when I was in law school and took a course called Women and the Law, one of the sections was on sexual assault, and I was astounded to learn that the youngest person ever to be sexually assaulted was two months old and the oldest was 93. So the implication of this cartoon, that sexual assault is due to appearances or dress or any other kind of thing, is totally reprehensible and it should be reported immediately to the press council. I am going to move in that direction.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question the day before our budget is to be presented is to the Minister of Finance.

Minister, tomorrow you and your government will be presenting your fourth budget. I remember that before your first budget, you said that your priority was jobs; I remember that before your second budget, you said that your priority was jobs; and before your third budget, you said your priority was jobs. And now this year again, you are saying your top priority is jobs.

So the day before the budget is presented, I ask the Finance minister to look at the record. There are 235,000 fewer jobs in Ontario than when you took office. Over the past year alone, we have seen 4,000 fewer jobs in the first quarter of this year than in the first quarter of 1993. With jobs as your supposed top priority year after year after year, there are still 580,000 Ontarians out of work. Clearly, in each of the past three budgets you have failed to meet your top priority of putting people back to work.

Minister, what will your target for jobs be in tomorrow's budget? Will we still be looking at unemployment levels of 9% and 10%, which is a completely unacceptable target?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I would say to the leader of the official opposition that last year, the province -- and I'm not standing up here, representing the government and saying we take credit for everything that's good that happens, any more than you would blame us for everything bad that happens, I'm sure -- but simply to say that in 1993, there were about 80,000 jobs created as we pulled out of the recession.

Now, there was a disturbing blip on the scope in January 1994, but since then there has been positive job creation. We believe that is going to continue this year, and independent, objective observers of the economic scene are saying the same thing. As a matter of fact, virtually everyone out there is now on the recovery bandwagon, so why don't you pull out of your depression tailspin and get on the bandwagon with everybody else?

Mrs McLeod: My answer to the minister's answer to my question is that we are very much concerned that tomorrow's budget will not take the necessary steps to really get this economy going again, to get people back to work, to build on that recovery that is beginning and that we all want to see strengthened. That's what we're looking for from the Treasurer and the government when they present their budget tomorrow.

We're concerned that tomorrow's budget will simply continue the legacy of financial mismanagement that this province has seen for three and a half years -- three and a half years that have completely destroyed confidence in this province's economy.

The evidence of that is the fact that this government's mismanagement has resulted in our credit rating being downgraded from AAA to AA-, which has cost the taxpayers of this province billions in higher interest. In tomorrow's budget we are likely to see that the interest we pay on our debt is now equal to the deficit.

Minister, can you assure the people of Ontario that tomorrow's budget will not further erode confidence in the economy of this province and in the financial management of this province and will not lead to another credit downrating?

Hon Mr Laughren: If I could pick up where the leader of the official opposition left off, yes, I can assure the leader of the official opposition that the budget tomorrow will, I believe, instil a great degree of confidence in the economy of this province as a place to invest, a place to work.

It seems to me that to receive a lecture from the Liberal Party of Ontario on managing the economy is completely beyond the pale. I would remind you of what your government, of which you were a cabinet minister, did in the best of possible times. In the best of possible times, you raised taxes and you increased the deficit by 33%, in a boom period. That's what you did. You left us a mess and we had to straighten it out. We had the courage to tackle that problem, which you never did. So you don't need to come on to me with your sanctimony about how to manage the economy, because you folks never learned how in the first place.

Mrs McLeod: I will confess very frankly that I rather liked being in a position where we had an AAA credit rating year after year. I rather liked the fact that the Provincial Auditor gave our books an unqualified approval rather than the qualified approval this government got for the first time in this province's history. No wonder we have become concerned about this government's legacy of financial mismanagement.

Mr Speaker, surely you can understand how concerned we all are when we hear the Premier of this province saying that tomorrow's budget will keep Ontario on track. I don't think anybody wants Ontario to stay on the kind of track we have been on for the last three and a half years, a track where we have 10% unemployment, a track where there are 580,000 people out of work. It's a track where our interest payments are now equal to the size of our deficit, which has skyrocketed in three and a half years. It's a track on which we are likely to see continuing erosion of confidence in this province's economy.

Minister, is this the kind of track you and your government and your Premier want to keep Ontario on?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would say that what the Premier is referring to, I suspect, when he talks about staying on track is that we continue to put the emphasis on supporting and c