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

November 30, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2000-Nov-30 (PDF)

L111 - Thu 30 Nov 2000 / Jeu 30 nov 2000

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCOUNTING PRACTICES

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

ACCOUNTING PRACTICES

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

ACCOUNTING PRACTICES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TENANT PROTECTION

ALISON CLARK

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

NORTH YORK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

CALEDON EAST HISTORICAL SOCIETY

CHILD POVERTY

CANCER TREATMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BALANCED BUDGETS

FOR BRIGHTER FUTURES ACT, 2000 /

LOI DE 2000

SUR DES BUDGETS ÉQUILIBRÉS

POUR UN AVENIR MEILLEUR

ARCHIVES AWARENESS WEEK ACT, 2000 /

LOI DE 2000 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION AUX ARCHIVES

IDLEWYLD MANOR ACT, 2000

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING STAFF

NURSING PROGRAMS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

TENANT PROTECTION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

STALKING

NURSING PROGRAMS

WATER TREATMENT FACILITY INSPECTIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

PROPERTY TAXATION

HOMELESSNESS

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

AIMING FOR THE TOP SCHOLARSHIPS

VISITORS

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

DRIVER LICENCES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

DIABETES TREATMENT

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PROTECTION OF MINORS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 /

LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

CONTINUED PROTECTION FOR

PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ACT, 2000 /

LOI DE 2000 POURSUIVANT

LES MESURES DE PROTECTION

DES CONTRIBUABLES FONCIERS

CONTINUED PROTECTION FOR

PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ACT, 2000 /

LOI DE 2000 POURSUIVANT

LES MESURES DE PROTECTION

DES CONTRIBUABLES FONCIERS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCOUNTING PRACTICES

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I move that, in the opinion of this House, there should be a fund to relieve or mitigate loss sustained by any person as a consequence of dishonesty on the part of any public accountant in the practice of the profession of public accountancy, and therefore the Public Accountancy Act should be accordingly amended.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to standing order 96, the member has 10 minutes to make a presentation.

Mr Curling: Let me first say that I want to express my appreciation to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario’s Dave Wilson, who got back to me promptly when I spoke to him with regard to this resolution. I want also to mention that this in no way reflects that the chartered accountants’ institute or the profession itself is in disarray but that it is a leader in this regard.

I understand too that I will take my 10 minutes and that later on in the rotation I will take some additional time.

I think I should put this resolution in perspective first. Maybe I should read the resolution in its entirety. It reads like this:

“Whereas in the profession of law in Ontario, clients are protected from a lawyer’s incompetence by lawyers’ professional errors and omissions insurance, and from a lawyer’s dishonesty in the practice of law by the lawyers’ fund for client compensation administered by the Law Society of Upper Canada; and

“Whereas in the profession of public accountancy, while members of the profession are required to maintain insurance against claims arising out of negligence and incompetence, there is no form of compensation for victims of an accountant’s fraud in the course of the practice of the profession:

“Be it resolved that, in the opinion of this House, there should be a fund to relieve or mitigate loss sustained by any person as a consequence of dishonesty,” as I read earlier on, “on the part of any public accountant in the practice of the profession of public accountancy.” Therefore I’m asking “that the House call upon the government to amend the Public Accountancy Act.”

I’ve stipulated in detail sections which could be so amended to allow them to do so. One of the parts is by adding to the functions set out in

section 7 of the Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario a paragraph reading “the protection of the public from loss arising out of dishonesty by an accountant in the practice of the profession, and the mitigation of such loss.”

At this time, I’d like to explain how these things are set out in the act. There is insurance that covers negligence or incompetence on the part of professionals. Lawyers have insurance like that, and accountants also. Most professions have that kind of insurance protecting against negligence or incompetence on the part of that profession. There is another aspect: to protect where there is fraud or criminal behaviour on the part of professionals. Basically, the lawyers have had a fund to do that.

This is specifically excluded from the coverage under the liability insurance that lawyers and accountants must purchase. The legal profession has put in place a mechanism for addressing this gap, but the accountancy profession has not done so. The lawyers have done so since 1953, have put this trust fund in place for any professional misconduct in regard to fraud or criminal behaviour so there is a fund to which victims have access. I’m asking that the accountants do the same, that they set up such a fund for victims of fraudulent acts by the profession to access.

This is an opportunity for the chartered accountants’ institute to be leaders in this field. Lately, we have found a tremendous number of individuals whose accounts and finances have been fraudulently used, and they have no recourse unless they individually sue that professional. Many seniors have been gouged for their money in that respect, and I think we have to put it in place.

Of course, I understand the concern that the chartered accountants’ institute and professions like that are self-regulating bodies and that governments should not be dictating to these organizations because they’re self-regulating. But we have a responsibility as lawmakers and legislators to see that the interests of those who invested are protected. If we have given organizations and institutions the authority to self-regulate, we must also allow them the laws with which to do so.

In my resolution, I have taken the painstaking approach, of course with the great help of the researchers in this place, to point out to Parliament what areas could be amended to address those concerns. We should amend certain sections of the Public Accountancy Act, as I stipulate in here, add to

section 7, “the protection of the public from loss arising out of dishonesty by an accountant in the practice of the profession and the mitigation of such loss.”

I’ve also included that we should add a provision empowering the Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario to establish a fund to mitigate such losses. I’ve also mentioned we should add to

section 17 a provision empowering the council to collect fees earmarked for the compensation fund. Of course, the individuals in the profession would have to contribute to this fund, and giving them this amendment would allow them to do so.

Also, we should add to

section 31 a subsection (2.1) empowering the Lieutenant Governor in Council to ask, to request, the Public Accountants Council to make regulations under subsection (1.1) and empowering the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make such regulations in the event that the Public Accountants Council fails to do so. We’re giving the public accountants the opportunity to do so, and if they fail to do so, we have an obligation to protect those outside and the Lieutenant Governor in Council would of course make such regulations in that event.

Also, we should add a provision directing the council to make a regulation requiring members of the profession to alert their clients to any part of the accountant’s work for the client that may come outside the scope of practice of public accountancy for the purposes of the member’s professional liability insurance and the council’s compensation fund.

Let me explain a bit about this. When you approach a doctor, for instance, you know that the person is certified and qualified and legally sanctioned to practise that profession, so you approach that individual with confidence. If I have a concern, if I have a complaint, if I have an ailment, this professional will look after me, and if anything goes wrong, we know this individual is accountable not only to myself, the patient, but also to the government and to their association.

An individual who approaches an accountant, from all the times of seeing a chartered accountant, would say, “I’m in good hands. This institution is sanctioned by the government, it’s a credible institution, so therefore I can lay my financial concerns at their feet and they can then end it accordingly.” Sometimes it’s outside of the chartered accountancy role, but because people see them as that individual, they come to them with that confidence to do so.

I am saying in here that the chartered accountant then, in advising the individual, is to explain to the individual that this is outside the scope of the practice of public accountancy for the purposes of the member’s professional liability insurance and the council’s compensation fund. In other words, “It’s outside of that, but I will still advise you because you have this confidence in me.”

But when we do set up the fund, if this person in any way defrauds that individual, although it’s outside of the chartered accountancy regulations’ jurisdiction, this person would have access to that fund accordingly. I am concerned that this has not been done in the past. When I get the opportunity to speak a little later, I will tell you about many cases.

This is the direction I am saying: to have chartered accountancy itself be a leader in this field in saying, “We are prepared to protect all clients who come before us with character and integrity laid out by the chartered accountants’ institute or the Public Accountancy Act.”

I look forward to hearing my colleagues discuss this in detail.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I would like to make a few remarks with respect to the presentation made by the member from Scarborough-Rouge River. He has expressed why he is doing it, although I had hoped he would go further.

He has based many of his reasons for doing this in terms of a fund that’s available when lawyers have held monies in trust and where there has been perhaps fraud. Of course, you can’t practice law unless you have liability insurance; you’re just not allowed to. If a lawyer is deemed to be negligent by a court or if there is some sort of settlement, they are covered through insurance and the public is protected in that regard. If there is fraud, I don’t think that insurance is available, which is one of the reasons there is a fund.

Lawyers hold monies in trust for a number of reasons. It could be the proceeds of a real estate transaction for a vendor, that he is holding the monies for a period of time on the direction of his or her client. It could be the proceeds of a mortgage transaction where monies are being held for a period of time either in the lawyer’s trust account or in an interest-bearing account in which those monies are being held in trust. It could be the proceeds of an estate, in which lawyers hold monies for long periods of time, generally in an interest-bearing account.

Certainly, under the rules of the Law Society of Upper Canada, they are accountable. Those lists of accounts must be reported to the law society each year and they are reviewed very carefully. They are under the very strict scrutiny of the Law Society of Upper Canada. There are occasions each year, unfortunately, where fraud takes place, where lawyers have monies available and that fund is made available.

My friend Mr Curling, the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, has said that similar situations exist with respect to accountants. He very kindly sent me and, I assume, other members of this House a package of information, one of which is a copy of the Public Accountancy Act. I did take the time to read some of the sections of that act defining what a public accountant is supposed to do. I don’t see anywhere where they are holding monies in trust. I am looking specifically at

section 1. There is the performance of services for auditing, making financial statements, and those sorts of things. So if there are examples of fraud, and Mr Curling may be able to give this House examples of such, they are not normally in the course of an accountant. Any more, they’re in the course of my friend, the friend of my friend, my uncle, who may take money from me and say, “I have an investment for you.” Unfortunately that happens, and unfortunately sometimes there are big losses because my friend or my uncle or the friend of my friend has taken that money. That could happen in any situation. So if it’s done by accountants, it’s normally done outside the profession.

You know, I must confess that our government has given examples of where there’s too much red tape as to what we do in this province, and it may be very laudable, but how far do you go in protecting the public? The public makes investments. How far do you go? There is a province, the province of Quebec I believe, and Mr Curling may refer to that, which is the only other province that requires the accounting profession to maintain a compensation fund, so it’s not unusual.

The Public Accountants Council has not identified the issue of fraud as a significant problem that may warrant the creation of such a fund as a way to mitigate losses. The public accountants themselves haven’t expressed a need for it. So although he may have some personal examples that he has yet to give that relate specifically to the profession of the accountant, the accountancy field, I don’t think I can support this, because it’s creating a form of red tape which the province of Ontario would be involved in, as I understand it.

I’ll look forward to hearing Mr Curling’s response, but from what he has said to date and from the material that he has sent to me, I can’t support it because of the need.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I rise today to speak in sympathy with my colleague the member for Scarborough-Rouge River and in support of the intent of his bill to mitigate against losses that perhaps result from not negligence, but fraud and dishonesty.

It may be the case that accountants are not -- as I’ve heard my good friend Mr Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, suggest -- in the normal course of their professional duties taking funds in trust accounts, that they are not required to do so or that they shouldn’t be doing so under the act that governs their body, their professional association. Perhaps that is the case.

However, I would suggest to him that there are very real examples where fraud has taken place, and yes, that might be outside of the profession, but we have to remember that chartered accountants do have a very high status in our society. They are a professional organization; people look to them for guidance. They are in a trustworthy position. Consequently, there may be situations where people entrust accountants with funds.

I want to point out one of those cases. In fact, the member for Scarborough-Rouge River is a victim of such fraud and dishonesty. The member had placed with his accountant funds to pay his taxes that were owing to Revenue Canada. I believe this is a matter before the courts -- it’s now settled, it’s no longer before the courts, so I think I can comment on it freely, but this is a matter that did go to court, was litigated, and a criminal charge resulted. There was defrauding of funds; there was dishonesty. I think that’s a legitimate situation in which a citizen placed his trust in a professional.

There is no provision under the Public Accountancy Act for the accountant to hold these funds in trust, but I suggest that perhaps there should be. I suggest that perhaps not only should there be that provision, but there should be a fund designed to mitigate against fraud and dishonesty as a result of that kind of trust being placed in that professional. I think it’s time for the self-regulating body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, to look at such an idea.

Perhaps the approach that my colleague is taking is not the correct one, and I have some difficulties directing a professional body that’s self-regulating in the way that has been construed by my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River; that is, to direct by way of order in council that such a fund be created. But I do believe there is a place for this initiative, and I think the institute ought to examine the possibility of creating this kind of protection fund, recognizing that the members of their professional organization do in fact take in funds from time to time, that it has happened.

It may be an isolated situation. There are other examples here. But no profession is immune to these acts of dishonesty, no profession in any of the walks of life that I know of. Lawyers have such a fund. Of course, they’re put in a position of trust. There are other professions that people look to for guidance. I won’t even begin to talk about the brokerage industry; that’s another matter entirely. But certainly we have to examine some of these white-collar crimes that are being committed that no one seems to have any power to deal with.

Yes, the courts do look at these cases and it is within anyone’s right to bring such a case to court, but at the end of the day what we’re talking about is, if we’re dealing with a self-regulating professional body, as is the Institute of Chartered Accountants, then I would suggest to them that they examine this and perhaps look at creating such a fund.

I think that is the intent of this resolution. I would suggest that how that’s accomplished -- it may not be that this is the right approach, but certainly the intent is a good one, it’s a laudable one, and I applaud my colleague the member for Scarborough-Rouge River.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Thank you for giving me a few moments to make some comments on this resolution. I would like to start by thanking the member from Scarborough-Rouge River for bringing this resolution up for debate. I would also like to thank him for all the effort and hard work he’s put into putting this resolution together. As well, I would like to thank the members from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey and from York South-Weston for their comments.

It’s my understanding that this resolution would apply primarily to chartered accountants, since they are generally the accountants who are likely to practice public accountancy, and this would not apply to certified management accountants and 99% of certified general accountants.

I would like to see the member for Scarborough-Rouge River give more specific examples of fraud that he’s come across. I haven’t really seen a lot of those yet.

I feel that this resolution is excellent in principle because it would protect the people from dishonesty on the part of an accountant. The problem is that there doesn’t appear to be a lot of activity going on, and again I’d like to see more examples if he has some. The Public Accountants Council has not identified the issue of fraud as a significant problem that might warrant the creation of such a fund as a way to mitigate losses suffered by members of the public.

If the Public Accountants Council and other organizations such as the CGAs and CAs do not feel there is a need for this type of fund, then I’m assuming there is not a need for the fund. For myself, I would need to consult with other accounting organizations to see if there is a need for a fund like this to be set up. For example, I have a number of constituents who operate chartered accounting firms in my riding. As far as I’m concerned, they have impeccable records. I would actually like to discuss the intent of this resolution with some of those people as well.

I’m aware there is a fund for lawyers’ clients, but it does not necessarily mean that a similar fund ought to be set up for the clients of public accountants. There are noteworthy differences between the practice of law, which involves the handling of trust funds, and the practice of public accountancy. Existing liability mechanisms appear to adequately take care of claims arising from fraudulent activities and professional negligence or misrepresentation.

I’d like to take a little bit of time from this debate to point out some excellent accounting practitioners in my riding of Simcoe North. Near the beginning of this year, I was pleased to host tax preparation clinics in both the town of Midland and the city of Orillia for people on fixed incomes and low-income seniors. I was really pleased with the response I received from the accounting firms in the area. I’d like to thank the company called the Bean Counters and Charlene Anderson, who ran the clinics in Midland, and the Huronia

chapter of the certified general accountants, in particular Anita Zeigler, who looked after the clinic in Orillia, for all their technical expertise. We never had a lot of seniors come out to the events, but it showed a great deal of interest on the part of the accounting firms, and I was pleased to be part of that. I’d also like to take this opportunity to thank the Royal Canadian Legion in Midland and the Tie Club in Orillia for graciously donating their buildings for this clinic.

I understand that in terms of this resolution, the only other jurisdiction that has something similar is the province of Quebec. I’d be curious to know why other provinces haven’t joined in as well or whether, in this case, Quebec is showing some type of leadership and has a good reason beyond the reasons we’ve been shown today.

In conclusion, I will say that I support the idea of the resolution and the principle behind it. But right now I cannot support the resolution itself without further input from the people and organizations that will be affected the most. I certainly look forward to further debate on this resolution. I know my colleague from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford has some comments to make. I appreciate this opportunity.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I’m very pleased to join in the debate. I, like the member from Simcoe North, have had the opportunity to work with certified general accountants with respect to providing tax preparation days for seniors within the community. Certainly there is a different level in the accountancy profession. Unlike lawyers, there is only one kind of lawyer, although there may be different specialties within the legal profession. But for accountants, you have chartered accountants, certified management accountants and certified general accountants.

The interesting thing about the member’s resolution, which seems good in principle -- I have a lot of respect for the member from Scarborough-Rouge River -- is that it would appear to apply primarily to chartered accountants, as they are generally the accountants who are licensed to practice public accountancy, for example doing audits of corporations. This would not apply to certified management accountants and 99% of the certified general accountants, as I understand it.

What was trying to be dealt with here is setting up a compensation fund. What appears to be lacking -- and we may be able to deal with this -- is a demonstrated need for that particular fund. The Public Accountants Council, from what I understand, has not identified the issue of fraud as a significant problem that might warrant the creation of such a fund as a way to mitigate losses suffered by members of the public.

I don’t have any information as to what exactly the province of Quebec does. It requires the accounting profession to maintain a compensation fund. That’s a much broader term, “accounting profession,” than what my friend is coming forth with, which is in essence a Public Accountancy Act that deals with a specific type of accountant.

The intent of the bill that has been put forth is to compensate clients who have been defrauded, focusing on fraudulent activity, not necessarily negligence or incompetence but fraud or criminal behaviour. As he said in his letter, since 1953 the law society has maintained a lawyers’ fund for client compensation funded from a portion of the membership fees lawyers pay to compensate victims of fraud committed by lawyers in the course of the practice of law. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario does not maintain a similar fund.

In essence, looking at the bill, the question is whether it is broad enough to cover all of the accounting profession in this province, because it’s a big profession. People rely not just on the chartered accountants; they’ll go to certified general accountants or they’ll go to certified management accountants. Quite frankly, I don’t know whether the public particularly knows the difference. The accountants know the difference in terms of what they can and can’t do.

The coverage is the first issue. The second issue is whether there’s a demonstrated need. Obviously, as the member for Simcoe North commented, dealing with the stakeholders in terms of what their ideas would be is what we take from this, because as the member for Lawrence indicated, there are situations out there that everybody can see is a bad situation, where people have lost a lot of money. You want to make sure you can protect the public. That is what this bill is about: the public interest. That’s why it’s good in principle, but we have to make sure it works. Those are my comments. I know the member from Scarborough-Rouge River will say more.

Mr Curling: I again want to emphasize very much that I have great respect for the Institute of Chartered Accountants. They have dealt with me very honourably and they have been very professional in any sort of situation or events where I’ve had the opportunity to deal with them.

What I’m doing here is because of that great respect I have for that institution. That’s why I’m saying to them, “Why don’t you, as that institute, lead the charge in addressing some concerns that are out there?” It is not picking on chartered accountants in the least. I’m identifying a respected institution to say there are situations out there where people have professional interests. They hold them in trust for their funds and for their advice. If they lead that charge, I think they will lift their standard much higher.

There is some concern. I have listened to my colleagues from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Simcoe North and Barrie-Simcoe, and of course my dear friend from York South-Weston. These professionals do acquire money interests from their clients. Many people have asked their accountants to hold money in trust in many ways. Sometimes people go to them asking them to invest this money, or as in my case and many others, they’ve asked them to pay their taxes, so the money is held in trust for further advances to the respective institutions, in my case to Revenue Canada.

There is a responsibility when someone holds your money. The fact is it’s in trust to do the things they are held in trust for. If that goes awry, especially in this direction, there’s no redress for that. As a matter of fact, if the individual handles it in a fraudulent manner, there is no fund. Of course, the individuals are saying that you can go to the courts and get that redress. In other words, you have to then find maybe another $10,000 or $15,000, or whatever the costs would be, for a lawyer to approach this individual who has used the money accordingly. There is no way in which to get that money, unless you have money to put forward to do that.

I think the concern that one has is, “I didn’t know that accountants hold money of other individuals in trust.” Yes, people do hold money in trust.

As a matter of fact, I would have liked to have gone even further on this matter, to say that any individual who holds money in trust -- that the bank itself should be held responsible if that money is deposited in the bank and say, “This money is held in trust for clients A, B and C,” and when that money moves out of that account the clients should be so advised that the money is being moved, and not that the individual, the professional, goes to the bank and takes your money out and does whatever they want with it, and then, if it’s fraudulently done, you have to sue that individual.

I think there is something wrong with that.

Let me address again a concern about the deregulation, about self-regulated bodies. We are concerned and we want to send direction to self-regulated bodies. There is really no such thing as self-regulated bodies. Let us be completely honest about this. They are in place because of regulation through the Lieutenant Governor or through the House of Parliament here. They are monitored daily, regularly, to see that they adhere to those regulations or to the jurisdiction in which they are given that sort of order. If there are needs to be addressed, it is our concern as lawmakers here to make sure that the clients are protected, the citizens of our country are protected.

Of course, some institutions would say, “We see no problem with this, so we don’t have to really address that.” That concerns me a bit, because sometimes an organization is going along nicely but maybe not realizing that other incidents are not being addressed. It is within our power, it is within our jurisdiction, to then say to those groups, “You should address this, and if failing to do so after a certain time, we would then have legislation in order to advise you accordingly. By the same legislation that we give you to operate, we’ll give you further powers with which to do further things.”

In this instance, I don’t see anything wrong with giving the Public Accountants Council the power to create a trust fund which they can collect from their members in case of fraud or dishonesty because of the profession, so that clients can approach that account to get compensated.

As a matter of fact, I think it enhances the comfort of those who are investing to know -- I know we say that Big Brother is watching, but let us be the ultimate individuals, the people in the Parliament here, so that people realize that they are being carefully watched, carefully adhered to, and that we have the full confidence in the institutions that are doing it. So the fact is to give them more power, so to speak, to carry out that kind of jurisdiction and those orders.

I’m emphasizing again that it is because of the respect that I have for the chartered accountants that I feel they are the ones who could lead the charge in this regard, and I think others would follow.

We heard a member here say something about “some more of that red tape.” It’s not red tape at all; it’s just a matter of making sure that people’s money is handled properly.

There’s another concern here. Why is it that the police are not following up on some of these cases? The police will tell you that when it comes to cases like these, fraud in this instance, this way, they don’t have the resources. They lack the resources to do that. Maybe here is where the government would come in. Failing to do this, maybe the intent of the resolution is to start the debate, and maybe that’s where we may start addressing it: give the police the power, the resources in order to do this.

Billions of dollars are being taken down in situations like these and people have not yet been able to address that. Police are crying out, “Give us the kind of resources to address those concerns,” and they’re not there.

It’s funny that if my house is invaded and someone steals my money in a break-in, I call the police and they are there in a flash. But if someone takes my money, which we call white collar crime --

Interjection: Your life’s savings.

Mr Curling: If you take away someone’s complete life’s savings, as my colleague mentioned, completely destroyed -- not a radio or a TV or a video in the home, but someone’s complete life’s savings -- $150,000, $250,000 -- someone at 65, 85, a senior, there’s no redress for this because the police have said, “We don’t have the resources. We do have the resources to come when someone breaks into your House, of course.”

I feel that here is an opportunity for a respectable organization, for the chartered accountants, to say, “We can do our

part in self-respect.” This resolution came about to say, “Let the debate begin.” Let the debate begin where there is a shortage of resources, especially in the enforcement or following up of investigation of fraud and giving the police the necessary resources to do the job. Let them do that. Give them that. Maybe we cannot address all the fraud situations or fraudulent acts by a professional through this direction,, but we must also have the follow-up in the sense of the police having the resources to follow up on these fraudulent cases that are happening. They can do so much with limited resources.

We talk about taxes. There is where we have been deprived of billions of dollars of taxes that are due to this province and this country, and I would like them to address that.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I’m pleased to speak to the resolution put forward before us today by Mr Alvin Curling. Let me say from the outset that I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr Curling’s plight and all of the others who were defrauded by this particular individual. Reading the press clippings about the case, it’s very disturbing indeed. I can only imagine what Mr Curling and others who have lost thousands of dollars to this individual must be feeling.

I find it difficult to imagine, particularly for people who perhaps don’t have a lot of money and put their trust in this man to find that he abused that trust and defrauded them. I know in the clippings I read that a particular person said that he had lost over $30,000 that he and his wife were putting aside to send their kids to university. I’m sure there are many others who perhaps lost their life savings to this particular individual.

I guess the closest experience I ever had to anything like this was simply having a suitcase stolen on a train on my way to New York City. Of course when you go to New York you bring all kinds of your best things because you think that you’re probably going to have an opportunity to wear your favourite clothes and best jewellery when you’re going to a city like that. I remember I didn’t sleep for nights after just losing a suitcase and some of my favourite things in it. This is my opportunity to vent publicly about losing that suitcase.

It was in fact a hockey bag, the hockey bag that’s used by the Toronto Maple Leafs, and it was signed by Wendel Clark. I was actually using that bag. So I lost a bag with Wendel Clark’s signature on it and a lot of favourite things.

I, however, despite the fact that I was upset about losing the bag and the contents of that bag, was covered by my insurance company for the loss of those goods. That’s the closest I’ve come, except for a house break-in at one point; again, my insurance covered the loss. Even though it’s distressing and you really do feel quite violated when it happens, in both situations I was at least covered by my insurance company. That is why I have a great deal of sympathy for the people who have been defrauded by this individual, and for the resolution before us today. I believe this is an issue that is worth debating and one that merits further examination.

I support such a resolution, but only to send it to a committee to examine further. I can’t support -- I guess in speaking as an individual, but I’m also speaking to some of my caucus members -- a resolution that sets up a fund by a committee that doesn’t want it. As you know, Mr Curling, that’s the situation we’re in right now. I believe Mr Curling also understands that his resolution fails to describe the depth and breadth of the problem overall. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Having said that, we know that fraud does exist and clients need to be protected. As the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in charge of consumer protection in this province, I know full well, perhaps more than others, how much fraud there is, unfortunately, across the board throughout our society. I saw horrible cases, when I was the minister responsible for consumer protection, of people being defrauded in all kinds of situations. So I have a lot of sympathy when we find a situation where there is fraud and there is no obvious way for those clients to be protected.

This resolution, as I understand it, calls for accountants to pay into their own fund in order to help victims when they have been defrauded by their acting accountant. It seems like a responsible thing to do. However, the resolution calls on the Public Accountants Council to set up this fund and administer it, and this is an idea the council opposed. As I understand it, again, the council would prefer that this resolution be used to spur debate, to educate the public, but it feels it can manage its affairs quite well as they stand now.

I have serious reservations about forcing this council to create and administer a fund to compensate victims when they oppose it. I just don’t think it could work. Victims may not be adequately served by a fund administered by a council that doesn’t want to do it.

I suppose, and this is one of the things that could be looked at, an alternative would be to appoint a neutral body to create and administer the fund, but this clearly requires deeper examination of the issue and the alternative.

Again, my understanding from listening to Mr Curling is that he wants to use his resolution today as an opportunity to bring this issue into public debate. I think that’s a really good idea. I think we should send it to committee and have that debate.

As I understand the details of the fund, it would be set up by the Public Accountants Council, it would involve no public or taxpayer dollars and it would be there for people who get ripped off by their accountants, which I understand is also not that common. It’s a professional body that has a very good reputation, but in every field at some time or another there are a few bad apples, and that’s the case in this situation.

The fund and the parameters around it would be modelled after a similar fund that the law society has maintained since 1953. Members would pay into the fund, which would compensate victims of fraud. To make the fund a reality, you would have to amend the Public Accountancy Act.

Again I would say, with a great deal of respect for the member and what he’s trying to do here, there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered, and I think he’s aware of that. He doesn’t describe whether accountancy fraud is widespread enough to merit such a fund. I’m sure in his particular circumstances and those others who were defrauded in this case, just those few are too many, but we need to have further information.

Having said that, we know that fraud does exist; we just don’t know how much it is happening out there. We can probably agree with the law society’s rationale for such a compensation fund. Since the law society set up its compensation fund, it has paid out more than $45 million in grants to defrauded clients. The problem of accountancy fraud may or may not be as widespread, but for victims of such fraud I’m sure a compensation fund like this would be a godsend. There are no two ways about it: anybody who has been defrauded under this particular act would be very happy to have such a fund.

As I understand it, looking at what kinds of losses would be covered, while public accountants are required to maintain insurance against claims arising out of negligence and incompetence, there is no form of compensation for victims of an accountant’s fraud in the course of the practice of this profession. So this fund that Mr Curling is suggesting today would cover losses arising out of dishonesty by an accountant in the practice of the profession, and mitigation of such loss.

Under the law society’s compensation fund, victims can be reimbursed for up to $100,000 in losses caused by the dishonest conduct of lawyers admitted to the bar in Ontario. Typical losses covered include the theft of money from estates, trust funds being held for real estate closings, settlements in personal injury actions and money embezzled from clients in investment transactions. To qualify for this fund, the claimants must be able to show that the money or property came into the lawyer’s hands.

The lawyers’ fund doesn’t cover losses resulting from malpractice or negligence of lawyers. Most of these should be, and generally are, reimbursed through insurance claims.

The resolution that’s before us today leaves some questions. Some of the things we need to know about this resolution would be: what is the scope of the problem? How many Ontarians are defrauded by their accountants in a given year? What is their current ability to get compensated for their loss? Should there be such a fund, who would be in the best position to set up such a fund? What would be the annual fees for accountants to set up and maintain the fund? Who decides whether to grant compensation to a victim, and what is the basis for that decision? Is there an appeals process? What kinds of losses should be covered? Obviously, we require many more specifics.

I would say to Mr Curling, in closing, that I support the sentiment around the bill but I can’t support the resolution as it is put forward today. As I said at the beginning, I can support the general thrust of this resolution but we need a lot of questions answered. Also, we need to have the people who would have to set up this fund on side and participating in the discussion around how it would be done. As I understand it, from the wording of this resolution, they are not supportive and it just wouldn’t work under those circumstances.

I want to make it clear that I think it’s very important to have this public discussion and figure out a way to help victims who are defrauded by their accountants. There is no doubt about it, we need to have some kind of accountability, not just through the court system. There needs to be some way that people can be compensated if they are defrauded in this manner.

I fully support it going to committee. I fully support having some kind of process put in place so there can be a public discussion and also one where the accountants are involved in that discussion. We need all kinds of information to figure out what would be the best solution to this problem.

I want to thank the member and congratulate him on bringing this forward. I think it’s important. We’re talking about consumer protection here. I’m always concerned and deeply angered when I hear about individuals who take advantage of their clients in this way. It is unacceptable. Of course I know there was a trial of the individual who was the cause of this resolution before us today. He was asked, I believe, to pay back a certain amount of money after he gets out of jail. I think I’m correct about that. But is that money there? Is there going to be compensation from this individual?

I would say that in many cases that money is not going to be there even if they have been ordered to pay it.

I’m all for looking at this issue further, but I cannot support the resolution that’s before us today in the form in which it is written. Perhaps the member, when he’s giving his closing statement, has some answers to those questions. I would also like to understand from him today if his position is that he understands we have a lot of questions. There are concerns about where he’s heading and about these holes in the resolution before us. It’s my understanding that Mr Curling is taking the same position, that this resolution may not be the answer in its form today, but that it’s an issue we need to take a look at and find some solutions to.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Rouge River has two minutes to reply.

Mr Curling: Let me express very wholeheartedly my thanks for the contributions by my colleagues from Toronto-Danforth, Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Simcoe North, Barrie, York South -- all the members who have spoken so eloquently and so directly. I appreciate their honesty in that approach.

I think you have grasped exactly the intent of this resolution. Many times in this House we want some discussion, some debate and some more open questioning. You’re perfectly right: all questions cannot be answered by a short debate, but many questions can be raised while we’re here in this short time.

Those questions that are raised are of concern to many people who have become victims of fraudulent acts. We cannot stand around and wait until we have some rather great statistics and say, “There’s a tremendous amount of people. When it reaches this level, we will then start to put something in place.” One person’s life savings destroyed is enough for us to stand up and say what’s happening here, because it has a chain effect. If someone in a family loses $150,000, it can destroy an entire family and have a chain effect.

Maybe we should look at that. As I said again, what better institution than the chartered accountants to be leaders in all of this to say, “Let’s go forward.” I fully agree. If this resolution could go forward to a committee where we can discuss it, where it’s much wider, I could use the chartered accountants to champion the cause and say, “We are prepared to do this. We are not in any way at all near to some of the dishonesty that goes on elsewhere, but we are prepared to move forward like the lawyers did in 1953 and set up a fund.” Even if the fund is not set up, they could say, “Here’s a strategy. We think it has to be addressed.”

I think you’re right that we should move this forward to a committee where the answers could be given to many of the questions that are raised.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr R.

Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I move that this House acknowledges the necessity for an industry-driven truck driver training criterion; encourages the establishment of a self-regulatory, self-administered body enacted to support the direction of truck driver training in the province; supports this body at arms length in order that it maintains the best practices of ensuring the values of public safety in the province; endorses the nature of self-regulation in this industry as a necessary step in ensuring that only the best prepared, most effective licence applicants approach the class A examination; and supports the truck driver training sector in seeking to further such province-wide safety considerations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr Stewart, you have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Stewart: Before I make the presentation, I’d like to acknowledge some folks in the east gallery from the Truck Training Schools Association of Ontario: Scott Brownell, Colin Matthews, the real Brian Adams, Karen Mitchell, Wayne Campbell. From Markel, Bob Pratt, from Adanac, Ed Shaw, from Zurich Insurance, Charmayne Lund-Peterson, and from Truck News, John Curran. Welcome and thank you for coming.

I’d also like to say thank you to the legislative security service for allowing us to bring the transport truck down today to emphasize the importance of this resolution.

The trucking industry is changing these days. The just-in-time service has meant a drastic increase in the number of trucks on our highways. The public feels there are increased accidents happening involving large trucks. Whether that be factual or not, the perception is there.

The bottom line of my resolution is increased safety on our highways. It’s about increasing the ability and qualifications of future professional truck drivers. It’s reported that over 5,000 new truck drivers will be needed each year over the next 10 years in Canada. The Canadian trucking industry is at a strategic crossroads in its human resources management.

The industry faces a number of major challenges as it moves into the new millennium. One of the main problems is making sure new truck drivers are qualified and well trained to enable them to pass the MTO’s class A licence requirements, and I believe the key word is “qualified.”

Many transport companies know there are many available drivers who hold a class A licence, but a good professional truck driver requires more than the driving skills represented in that type of licence. This is not about passing just a licence test. It’s about knowing the basic operation of driving a transport. It’s about interaction between trainees and the vehicle, things like knowing about air brakes, shifting, control manoeuvres, safe operating practices, vehicle inspection, backing up, coupling and uncoupling. There has to be interaction between the trainers, the vehicle and the very busy highway traffic environment. This resolution is about defensive driving techniques.

The new drivers of the future must know about speed management, they must know about night driving and they indeed need to know about extreme driving conditions. In Ontario, due to diverse weather conditions, emergency manoeuvres such as vehicle shifts and controlled recovery must be familiar to a professional driver.

These qualifications cannot be taught to new drivers without a set curriculum that is standardized throughout the province, a curriculum that includes a minimum number of hours of theory, a minimum number of hours behind the wheel and a minimum number of hours of observation.

The object of this resolution is to supply the industry with safe, knowledgeable, employable drivers, as well as a standard for qualified instructors who can certify the new drivers as they graduate.

We have qualifications for those instructing people in driving cars. We have the graduated licensing system that was set up a few years ago to make sure the new young drivers who will be driving cars on our busy highways have the qualifications. Yet we don’t have those kinds of qualifications for those who are going to take these trucks out on the roads and on busy highways.

There are those who are setting up in business for instruction in truck driving. They then suggest they are tutoring applicants or training drivers, rather than calling themselves schools. When observing their operations, they are indeed not schools. If this is done, no regulations apply. When this happens, there is no curriculum approval required. Any similarity to a good curriculum is irrelevant.

This resolution is about allowing those in the business of truck driver schools to look at setting industry training standards and to encourage the establishment of a self-regulatory and self-administered body to direct, set the curriculum, and set the specified standards of best practices.

The Truck Training Schools Association of Ontario, which, as I mentioned, are well represented here this morning, would take the lead role in this initiative. This resolution is supported by many in the industry.

The Ministry of Transportation says, “We applaud the efforts of the Truck Training Schools Association of Ontario to bring the standards for the curricula of truck driving training up to date.”

The Ontario Trucking Association, which helped support us to bring the transport out front today, supports this resolution, a resolution that will lead to evaluating standards for commercial driver training.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada supports this resolution and supports the establishment of training standards for new drivers: “Our industry encourages you and your colleagues to develop minimum standards for training schools.” Also included as part of the Insurance Bureau of Canada are Zurich and Old Republic, from which we have letters of support on file. They want to make sure that the instructors also are well trained and that there is “a plan to monitor and enforce the standards put in place.”

The trucking industry adds their support: companies like OK Transport, Manitoulin Transport, Erb, RIM Transportation, Morrison Trucking and Point Pelee Transportation, just to name a few.

All those that make up our truck transportation industry are calling for stricter training program guidelines. Many of these transportation companies know there are licensing mills that are producing substandard drivers. I have been told stories by young would-be drivers about things that border, I believe, on fraud. Many have spent a great deal of money for so-called training with little hope of ever getting employment as a transport driver.

I personally believe that those who operate within the transportation business, or indeed any business, know what they need, know how it should operate, and know how it should be controlled, in co-operation with all those who are affected. This is why I am a great believer in self-regulation. It has worked well for organizations like Real Estate Board of Ontario and for the travel industry, very supportive of self-regulation.

I would like to ask all members of the House to support this resolution. As I said at the start, the bottom line is qualified drivers and safety on our highways. It is about safety on the highways and I believe it is indeed about the lives of all Ontarians who frequent those highways on a day-to-day basis.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I am happy to have an opportunity to speak to this resolution. I think the thrust of this resolution is important in the sense that establishing a higher standard for truck driver training services is a laudable goal. However, the track record of this government when it comes to matters of road safety, when it comes to dealing with the problems associated with trucks on our roads, is abysmal, an abysmal record that this government can hold itself up to.

That fact is that Bill 137, which allowed the Minister of Transportation to privatize driver testing services, which we believe is a mistake, also allows the minister to privatize any services relating to road safety. For example, truck inspections, including spot checks and weigh stations, could ultimately be privatized. Highway inspection and monitoring, including inspection of new highway construction, could also ultimately be privatized.

In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that the privatization of such services would lead to any additional cost savings or that these services would be provided in a more efficacious way and result in a better system. The evidence is quite to the contrary. The auditor in 1999 pointed out, with regard to highway maintenance, that no savings had resulted from the privatization of these services, that in fact there were significant increases in the costs of highway maintenance -- significant increases. No savings resulted from any of these privatizations.

So we have great concern about the privatization that has been undertaken by this government. Ultimately, with respect to enhancing the training of truck drivers -- well, it’s like sticking a Band-Aid on a serious gash on a body. There is a concern that what’s being discussed this morning is certainly not going to address the ongoing problems we see on our roads and highways with respect to trucks and the safety of those trucks. We have real concerns about highway maintenance and road safety spot checks that need to be conducted, and those continue to be our concerns.

When you move to privatize these services, the evidence suggests that there is no significant improvement and that in fact these services being privatized lead to additional costs.

The case being made in this resolution -- again I say it’s a worthy direction the member intends to go in. Who wouldn’t want higher standards? But is that what we’re getting on our roads? Are we getting safer roads as a result? The evidence today suggests that is not the case, that if the government took this seriously, it would not move to privatize these services in any way; that driver testing needs to be maintained at a high level; that the government should continue to have some involvement in this and, as a result, safety would be enhanced. The evidence suggests this time and again. Why the government wants to move to privatize these additional services is questionable at best.

I would say to the member, your resolution speaks to truck driver training, enhancing it, creating a higher standard. These are all worthy goals. But the real record of your government suggests quite the contrary, that highway maintenance is not something that should be privatized, that driver testing should not have been privatized, and that furthermore our roads are questionable with respect to safety.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): It’s a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak on the resolution from my colleague Gary Stewart from Peterborough regarding truck driver training.

I fail to understand why the member from York South-Weston is talking about cost saving and privatization and road maintenance. I drive the 401-402 series every week and it has never been in better shape. To be honest with you, I don’t know whether it’s the private sector or the public sector that’s looking after it, but it’s in good shape.

The real subject matter this morning is road safety, protecting people. I want to relate some stories about driving the 401. I’ll be leaving for home this afternoon and it’ll be a pleasant -- sometimes unpleasant -- drive, probably three to three and a half hours. If you’re driving in the middle lane of the 401, sometimes you have a truck on the right side, one on the left side and you’re right in the middle. Then you look in your back mirror and you see a big grille.

Let me tell you, a pleasant ride becomes very unpleasant quickly, but the problem is many times you’ve got traffic ahead of you and you can’t go anywhere, so you’re stuck with a truck on each side of you and one in your back seat. I don’t think that’s very safe. I would call that aggressive driving.

I want to talk about the economic and social impacts when you have an accident. I think we all know the economic impact: insurance rates go up, there’s car repair, but that’s not too bad; we can deal with the economic impact. The social impact is the issue that I want to dwell on.

Can anyone out there tell me whether it’s the public sector or the private sector that provides it? Does it make any difference? As long as the end results are there, as long as the parameters, the standards are met, who cares who provides it? As the member from York South-Weston mentioned -- he was talking about cost saving -- of course there would be some cost savings, but to me the cost savings would be from a social point of view. If we can save one or two persons from being involved in an accident, there’s a major cost saving.

Once you experience somebody close to you who has been involved in an accident -- it’s not a pleasant experience. Why do I say that? Because for almost 11 years, my brother, my sister, my mother -- we have lived with that. Why is that? Because my father was hit by an irresponsible driver almost 11 years ago. It’s quite difficult when you go and visit your father every week and your father doesn’t even know you, doesn’t even recognize you. You cannot have a conversation with that person. You cannot connect with him. Can anyone tell me, is there enough money under

section B of the policy or

section A of the policy to compensate anyone for that? I don’t think so.

That’s why I’m in favour; that’s why I will support the motion of the member for Peterborough, because the resolution is about safe driving, it’s about having responsible drivers on the road. Once we achieve that goal, I think we’ll all be better for it.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I am here to rise in support of the resolution. I think it’s obvious there has to be standardization in truck driver training. It’s obvious that in an industry where the reliable truck driving training schools put in a lot of capital investment and expertise, they need some kind of self-governing body in this case that will help reinforce the good schools and the good practices, as opposed to these fly-by-night operators who put little capital investment, little resource, little expertise into driver training and give everybody in the industry a bad name.

Obviously they have come here to the member for Peterborough asking for that support, and I commend him for proceeding.

As we know, the government side always says we don’t need government; government is bad. We do need the government to intervene when it comes to the whole realm of safety. This is about safety, it’s about safeguards. We need this type of regulation in order to ensure that the schools that are not real schools, the truck driving training centres that are not real centres, that are basically in it for the quick buck, cannot take advantage of the good people in the industry and the people who want to be truck drivers. That’s why I think it’s a good resolution. I’m more than happy to support it.

The other thing I should mention is that I think this in some ways goes contrary to where the government is going. As you know, the government is going to privatize the traditional driver testing centres we’ve had in Ontario for decades. I think that’s very dangerous. I don’t feel the government should allow the testing of drivers to the marketplace. There’s a role for government in testing drivers of all ages, especially young drivers, and this resolution is in a more positive direction, as opposed to the government’s attempt to now leave driver testing, which over the years has been very good in Ontario, to the marketplace.

I would also mention that in the trucking industry the other serious concern is that the price of doing business in this province as a trucker is getting out of the hands of ordinary, small, independent truck drivers. As you know, the price of diesel has gone up over 100%. We on this side of the House have put forward four bills to try and protect the motorists and truck drivers in Ontario from the gouging that’s occurring at the pumps. The government has blocked those four bills.

I have my own bill, the gas price watchdog bill, where we’ve asked for an ombudsman appointed by the government to keep the oil companies accountable. The oil companies still cannot explain why the price of diesel is now almost equal to the price of gas.

This government is on the side of the big oil companies. They refuse to appoint an ombudsman to take these big oil companies to account. The price of diesel is a rip-off. There is no explanation, and I know this government has not asked for an explanation, of how the price of diesel could all of a sudden now be the same as the price of regular gas. It is shameful that this government has blocked the four or five bills we’ve put forward asking for an accounting, because it’s not only, as I say, people who are recreational drivers.

People who are driving for a living cannot make a living because the price of doing business at the pump is astronomical. It’s not fair. It fluctuates. There is weekend gouging. That is one of the most serious things facing everybody in the trucking industry.

This government proposed a so-called deal three weeks ago. They have basically failed the trucking industry. There is no deal. The price of diesel is still gouging truckers as we speak. One gentleman said he was getting paid $750 to haul a load from Florida and he had to pay $700 for diesel fuel. So you can’t make a living in Ontario now.

This government is not listening to ordinary small business people who are driving trucks for a living. I ask them again to pass our bills, which ask for protection for truck drivers and motorists, and not to just support big oil companies that don’t need your help. It’s the trucking industry that needs your help. That’s why I’m more than happy to support this bill, because it does help the industry.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I’m happy this morning to have an opportunity to speak on this issue, because it gives me an opportunity to expand on a theme that we in this caucus have been talking about for some time now, which is this government’s constant and continual effort to try and duck its responsibility to actually give some leadership and be tough and put some resources into things that fall under the rubric of the common good out there. Certainly this does. When you talk about road safety, it covers a whole lot of territory, including safety of trucks on the highway and the behaviour of truck drivers.

But to suggest for a second that the magic wand that this government uses so often around here to solve almost every problem they confront, which is to turn it over to the private sector, I think is to be simplistic and not realizing of the complexity of some of these issues and the need for government to take strong and determined action, to take leadership, to live up to their responsibility that it was handed on election day, to actually govern in this province and to protect the life and health of the citizens who call Ontario home.

We again see the members of the government come in here, as the government does on every occasion, with a piece of legislation that’s about none other than turning more things over to the private sector, turning it over to the marketplace for regulation and leadership and determination and pretending that it’s something else.

In this instance they make a very good case for road safety, and I don’t think there’s anybody in Ontario today who doesn’t understand or support efforts by anybody where road safety is concerned. We all need to be doing our best, our utmost to make sure the highways we drive on are safe, not only for ourselves but for our families and for our friends and neighbours.

But to paint the difficulties we’re facing and the number of accidents that are happening out there and the overloading of highways with various sorts of vehicles in various states of repair or disrepair and determine that simply by turning it over to the private sector we will solve that is, I think, not understanding the tremendous challenge we all have in trying to deal with that. We’ve had example after example of this government painting a picture and then, because they have painted a picture, coming up with an answer to some of the shortcomings that perhaps are in that picture.

I just came this morning from a press conference downstairs where we had a number of people talking about the circumstance that people who are in receipt of social assistance find themselves in these days in this province, after six years of living below subsistence levels of income because this government determined that it would be good for them if they lost 21.6% of their income; it would somehow force them to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do on their own. Well, we’re beginning to reap some of the seeds sown in that initiative.

Now you have children who are undernourished; you have single mothers who cannot for a second consider getting out of the circumstance they’re in because they can’t afford to go back to school because of changes that were made in regulation there; we find more people sleeping in hostels, sleeping on the street and not qualifying for the assistance they need, not only for themselves but for their children, because of some technicality or other.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): I don’t get this.

Mr Martin: I’m just going to tell you in a second, if you pay attention, Minister responsible for children. Children are the victims of your initiative where welfare is concerned, and the drivers of Ontario will be the victims of your government if we move forward in the spirit of the resolution that’s placed here before us today.

You do this over and over again. You define a problem we can all identify with and recognize and admit that we need to do something about, and then you bring in this very simplistic, short-sighted, unthoughtful and unintelligent response which is simply, “Just turn everything over to the private sector. Let industry take care of it.”

We know, and I’m not casting any aspersions here, that the private sector and industry are about making profit. I have no difficulty with profit, I think profit’s a good thing. but we have to understand the place of profit when it comes to the common good of all of us who call Ontario home.

There are some things in this province that should not be about profit, should not be about industry and the private sector making money on the backs of or at the cost of some of those things that we know and have determined over a number of years are actually things that government should be taking responsibility for.

This government, however, doesn’t see itself as government. It has on many occasions in this place puffed up its chest to say, “We are not the government; we are here to change the government.” They’re not here to change the government; they’re here to get rid of government because they don’t see the role that government can play where the safety of roads is concerned, among a whole lot of other very difficult challenges that we face in our world today.

This government is ready to get tough with everybody except for their friends, those who support them in their election bids and those who I guess make sure they get those things they need to make their life somewhat more comfortable, but always at the expense of the larger majority of people in the province who are actually working for a living and trying to take advantage of some of the things that together we can, through government, provide for each other that don’t individually and privately cost us a whole lot of money.

If this government wanted to really do something about road safety, it would give some teeth to the already existing regulations that are out there under the aegis of the Ministry of Transportation and the Ontario Provincial Police to actually do the job they’re mandated to do. We know that since this government has come to power, a lot of the ministries and agencies of government that have responsibility in these areas have been diminished significantly, to the point where they cannot do their job any more. So we end up with circumstances that present as catastrophic, challenging and dangerous to all of us.

What does this government suggest we should do? What do members of this government suggest we should do by way of answers? Simply turn it over to the private sector, when we know if the private sector actually doesn’t do the job -- and it hasn’t shown us, in almost every instance where we’ve deregulated industry over the last 10 or 20 years, that it is interested in anything more than making sure that its bottom line stays healthy -- this government is not willing to take tough action, not willing to challenge or stand up to them.

Let’s just take a look, for example, at the difficulty we have right now for truckers where gasoline and fuel prices are concerned. What have they done? Absolutely nothing. They claim to be in negotiations with the industry around making sure that truckers have enough money after they’ve delivered their load to make it profitable for them to continue to be in that business. But talk to the truckers. That in fact isn’t happening. They’re still under stress. They’re still finding it very difficult to do what they do and to feel good about the profession they’re in.

Where five or 10 or 20 years ago they could make a living and feed their families driving a truck, that’s becoming increasingly more difficult. Some of them have parked their rigs.

I want to talk about road safety and the safety of rigs and the regulation that guides drivers who drive trucks. The truckers I talked to up in Sault Ste Marie and northern Ontario said there’s nothing they’d like more than to have money in their pockets to fix the rigs they drive, but the industry isn’t coming up with the dollars they need in order to do that.

After they take the money out of what they make for the very difficult work they do to pay for their licences and their fuel tax and to make sure their families are OK, there’s very little left for preventive maintenance for the trucks they own, rent, lease or drive on behalf of the industry.

If the government really wants to do something about truck safety, what they should do is get serious about the negotiations they’re having with the industry around how much money truckers are making to look after themselves and deliver those loads so they can, at the end of the day, take care of their vehicles and make sure they are safe.

The other thing I want to speak of very briefly here this morning is, are some of the regulations there to let truckers know what the safety window is in terms of the length of time they should be driving without taking a break?

Again, because of the very strained circumstances they find themselves in, trying to cover the cost of doing the business they do and to make a little profit at the end of the day to feed their families and live the quality life that we in this province take for granted should be there for anybody who’s willing to get out there and work hard is very difficult unless they’re willing to break the rules and go beyond the hours that are indicated so that they can deliver more product and make a few more dollars in order to cover the cost of doing the business that they do.

To suggest for a second here this morning that we should simply turn over the issue of trucking and road safety and the training of drivers in this industry is, I think, simplistic at best but in keeping with the agenda of this government which we see rolling out here, which is to privatize the maintenance of highways out there, which any of us who live long distances from Toronto will tell you has not been up to the standard that we’ve come to expect in our parts of the province, where transportation is such a big issue where our economy is concerned, where people travelling back and forth for health reasons is concerned, where people just visiting each other is concerned.

So, if we’re holding up the privatization of the maintenance of highways as an example of how the private sector is going to look after that which falls within the rubric of common safety or public safety in this province, I’m afraid it doesn’t bode well. It is not a good example and is not very comforting. It doesn’t give us much confidence that, if we turn even more of this business of making sure roads are safe over to the private sector, it will happen and we will all be better served.

You’ve heard mentioned here this morning as well that this government is going to turn over the testing of drivers to the private sector. I suggest that we’ll all reap the reward of that little piece of business in the not-too-distant future as again some of these bigger entities come in and take over some of these driving centres that are working quite efficiently right now, that are providing some families in small communities like Sault Ste Marie and Sudbury an opportunity to make a few dollars in an area of business that they’ve become quite proficient at.

Once you turn the driver testing over to those centres, it becomes a lot more lucrative, it becomes more attractive to the bigger corporations out there that are looking around for more and more ways to suck money out of the communities of this province by way of opportunity turned over to them directly by this government.

You’ll see that the standards that have been set over a long period of time -- which, yes, in some instances provide some difficulty in that no system is perfect.

But I suggest to you that we’re not going to move closer to a better system in any way in the near future, or the distant future, if we simply take the tack which this government has shown it is wont to take -- I guess it’s bereft of any other ideas -- which is to turn everything over to the private sector, because in this government’s view, private is good, public is bad; the private sector can deliver more quickly and more efficiently, the public sector can’t -- leaving out of that equation the question of public safety, the needs of people and the very difficult and complicated relationship that exists between the various partners within that industry, each one of them trying to make a living, trying to do the right thing and trying to make sure that our roads are safe places to work, do business and recreate.

I suggest that you could take out of that that we on this side, I personally for sure and I speak for my caucus, will not be supporting this resolution this morning because we think it’s just more of the same simplistic, privatize-everything approach that this government takes to some of the challenges that we face as a community of people. We should be spending more time bringing people to the table to come up with more complicated and more effective answers.

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): I’m pretty surprised to hear my colleagues across the way from the NDP indicating they’re not going to support this resolution before us this morning. I think this is an excellent resolution and I’m very pleased to stand in support of my colleague Gary Stewart from Peterborough in supporting this.

In the original letter that Gary sent us he said, “The intent of my resolution is to promote public safety on our highways through the establishment of a self-regulatory body that will ensure truck drivers are prepared for highway driving and have the ability to handle large trucks.”

My constituents in Guelph-Wellington write me a number of letters about highway safety, and a great number of them have to do with speed. Particularly people who don’t drive on the 401 a lot are alarmed sometimes when they get on, if they haven’t been on for a while, at how quickly everything is moving. Certainly with the tremendous economy here in Ontario, thanks to the economic climate set by the Harris government and our almost 800,000 jobs now, the highways are really busy. When I commute here to Queen’s Park through the week, I have to be on the highway by about 6 o’clock in the morning to have any hope of being here in decent time, and for the most

part it’s strictly volume.

The one thing I hear from constituents on a fairly regular basis is concern about highway safety from the point of view of truck traffic. With all due respect to the truckers who are on the road, the one thing that constituents in cars worry about is the distance between trucks and their vehicles. People are really concerned, as my colleague Marcel spoke of earlier, when they look in the rear-view mirror and see a big truck coming up behind them. If that truck is fully loaded, they are greatly concerned about the stopping distance.

It’s not uncommon for me to be zipping along the highway and have a truck right beside me zipping along at the same speed. I can stop a lot faster -- and I keep my distance to be very cautious about that -- than the truck that’s fully loaded beside me.

It is a serious concern. Quite honestly, what it does speak to and make us wonder about, as regular driving citizens and as legislators, is the training that has happened, that has been the experience of that driver behind the wheel of that big rig. So I applaud my colleague here from Peterborough who has brought this forward.

The gentleman across the way in the third party spoke about how somehow this is about privatizing. I’m not sure where he got on that line. What this is really about is encouraging the industry to increase its self-regulatory practices, to have greater responsibility for its industry, and all for the reason of protecting the citizens, the people of Ontario.

Truckers have come to speak to me from time to time about their concerns, and I want to mention one person in particular. Bill MacKinnon of MacKinnon Transport is a remarkable fellow who comes to regularly inform me about issues in his industry. We have spoken about a number of topics. We’ve spoken most recently about the concern he has about getting qualified drivers. The trucking industry is a big industry in this province. With just-in-time deliveries required by so many industries, trucking is the way things move: this truck parked out in front, and it has a picture of this adorable baby on the front.

I think it says something to the effect that “This is the only thing we don’t deliver here in Ontario.” That’s pretty true.

I compliment the trucking business for the wonderful work that they do, but there is an issue in the public’s mind about safety and it does speak to, in the end, the caution that drivers of big rigs show and demonstrate on our highways. Anything that we can do here, particularly if the industry can be the leader, I think is to be applauded. The better our drivers are in those big rigs, the safer we feel and indeed are on our highways, the more productive that is for the industry as a whole, and the better off the entire province is.

I think this is a marvellous resolution. I know there’s still more work to be done. We’ve had a number of letters of support from the insurance bureau, from the trucking association and others indicating that they want to be partners in this. My experience here in government has been that when we have all the partners in place and working together who have a common goal and who will directly benefit, we have a much better solution coming at the end of the day than from my colleagues in the NDP or the Liberal Party quite often, who want the government to be the leader and carry the weight for everybody. That’s just not the way, in my view, that things work best.

So I compliment Mr Stewart from Peterborough and all of those in the various associations who are working together. If drivers are better trained, it’s my view, and certainly I think my constituents will agree, that it will be to the benefit of all the people who use our highways in the province of Ontario. They will be safer places. That’s certainly one of the key goals of the Harris government.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I’m delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this resolution presented by the member for Peterborough, a resolution that calls for public safety on our public highways. I know the member for Peterborough has always been in support of public safety on our highways.

I was just talking this morning to Dwayne Moseley, general manager of the Greater Ottawa Trucking Association. Mr Moseley represents not only greater Ottawa; he also represents drivers in Toronto, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, Timmins and Cornwall. He tells me that he represents hundreds and hundreds of truckers in Ontario. But he was a little bit disappointed at the fact that he has not received any phone calls and he was not aware that this resolution was going to be debated this morning. He said it happens quite often that the government does not consult those people who are concerned about public safety on our public highways.

He was telling me that he’s 100% in support of this resolution, after I spoke to him at about 10:30 this morning. He tells me that very often this government tends to come up with some pilot project. I told him that this time this was not a pilot project. He also referred to me that in the auditor’s report -- and I really support his comment on this -- too often the government is coming up with some pilot project without going to the sources -- when I say the sources, to question or to have discussions with the people involved -- and sometimes it’s too late.

He was telling me that not only should we be looking at the public safety of the drivers’ licences; we should also be looking at the truck inspections. He was telling me there’s a shortage of diesel mechanics, and if I’m looking at the major accidents that happen on the 401, quite often it’s because of mechanical problems. Also I refer to the member for York South-Weston. He tells me that the maintenance of our public highways should also be looked at.

I want to refer in this instance to Highways 417 and 401 in eastern Ontario coming in from Quebec. They were in such bad shape that the truckers didn’t want to take those routes any more because it was causing mechanical problems to their trucks. Very often we tend to blame the driver for accidents that happen. I remember this serious accident that happened near Oshawa where there were two fatalities. I just happened to be talking to the driver two days before that accident happened. He had his truck checked, verified and inspected, by some mechanic in Oshawa.

In this instance they didn’t find any problems with it, but he was telling me right after the accident that the fact that he has been driving on this very dangerous or badly maintained highway caused some problems.

Yes, we should put some emphasis on proper training for our truckers. Yes, we should have proper inspections on the highways. But I wonder in this case -- we are saying that they should be qualified drivers -- how do we qualify them? Not only by sending the people to school, but we should have technical training also for the drivers. When I say technical training, we should have on-the-job training also, besides having just school training. We know that we are doing some training in the big-size yard, that the people are backing up, driving up front and everything.

But at the present time, I really feel the training and the inspection should be done by government or public employees for the safety of people on our highways.

There is judgment to be used also when it comes time to certify a driver. For instance, this inspector was doing testing of a driver --

The Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): I think the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was going to say he was supporting this resolution. At least I hope that would have been his concluding remark.

I want to thank the member from Peterborough, who I know to be a person you can count on, summer or winter, whatever kind of weather or conditions. I call him a friend, and some would criticize me for that but I know from where he comes.

I also think the comments made by my good friend from Guelph-Wellington, how she related this to someone in her riding and their interest in driver safety, are something people can get a copy of from the Hansard or the transcript on the Web site. I also think that the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex told a very personal story of how important driver or operator training and safety is on our highways.

That is background. We’re all here to compliment the member from Peterborough on his resolution, but more importantly, Wayne Campbell, who’s in the gallery as mentioned earlier, as well as Brian Adams and Karen Mitchell. Scott Brownell and Colin Matthews are also in the gallery, I believe, and they’ve worked very hard. In fact, I have a letter here in front of me from the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Mr David Turnbull, to Wayne Campbell, president of the Truck Training Schools Association of Ontario.

For the record, I want to read what he said: “I would like to express my appreciation for the assistance, expertise, and support from the Truck Training Schools Association of Ontario during the stakeholder consultations for the Target ‘97 class A road test improvement.” Very clearly their expertise has been recognized by the Minister of Transportation. I thank them for their input. That joint task force on Target ‘97 essentially was about safety on our roads. Being recognized by the minister is not something that should be ignored in this debate this morning.

In the few remaining moments -- I should generally have half an hour to get my full points across, but to spare you that I’ve been limited to two minutes.

Some 90% of all the commercial freight in Canada travels by truck and 80% of all the trade with the United States is carried by truck. You know just how strong our economy is, so that translates into over 100,000 registered trucks in Ontario alone. With trucks from other jurisdictions, it’s probably in the order of 150,000 trucks moving in our jurisdiction at any one time. Of course, they share their workplace, the roadways, with the other drivers and civilians in the province and that constitutes a very difficult circumstance for them because our roads are crowded.

Truckers and drivers themselves constitute 4.5% of the workforce; 200,000 people are employed in that industry. It’s important to recognize that the census in 1996 showed that occupation was the most frequently cited occupation by males in 1996: truck operator. Also, about 50% of those operators are approaching the age of 50 or are over the age of 50.

when you look at the facts -- the intent of this legislation is to enshrine some industry-driven truck driver criteria for safety and safety training -- I compliment Mr Stewart and also the association that we’re working with this morning. I encourage members to support it for the right reasons. This isn’t a time for politics. We know that private members’ business is a time when we’re supposed to talk about important opportunities for doing the right thing to protect the safety of people on our roads.

I want to make a couple of comments. I have worked with Bill Wellman from the National Truckers Association, as well as Bill Ives, who I believe is in some managerial position for the NTA, and also Dave Bradley from the OTA. I can tell you that Wayne Campbell has had letters of support from the Ontario Trucking Association as well as support from the Private Motor Truck Council of Canada. There’s also been support from the Ontario Safety League to Mr Campbell. It’s clearly on the record that this is the right thing to do --

The Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired. The mover of the motion has two minutes to reply.

Mr Stewart: I want to thank the members for Guelph-Wellington, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex and Durham for speaking on this resolution and supporting me on it.

I want to clarify a couple of comments that were made by the member for Sault Ste Marie. Unfortunately, sometimes the NDP does get things wrong. He may not know it, but most of the schools and those who are holding themselves out as training operations are in the private sector now. This is not about changing testing. What it is about is making sure we have qualified drivers who know the theory, who know the operations and who know how to drive, and that they are prepared when they go to be tested to get their licences.

It’s interesting that he also made the comment about the cost savings. Is cost savings about safety? I’m sorry, in my world it is not. I suggest that for him to possibly suggest all his caucus is not going to support this bill is interpreted by me that the NDP in this House does not support road safety, does not support qualified drivers. I would highly suggest that in future, if they speak to some of these bills, they know what the bills are all about before they make too many comments about them.

This type of resolution is demanded and is needed and is wanted by the industry. I also believe the industry should be able to manage their industry because they know how it should be done.

The Acting Speaker: The time for private members’ business has ended.

ACCOUNTING PRACTICES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We’ll deal first with private member’s ballot item number 51 standing in the name of Mr Curling.

Mr Curling has moved private member’s resolution number 31.

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

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell. It will be deferred until we deal with the next private member’s resolution.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with private member’s ballot item number 52 standing in the name of Mr Stewart.

Mr Stewart has moved private member’s resolution number 29.

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

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the resolution carried.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1158 to 1203.

ACCOUNTING PRACTICES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Curling has moved private member’s resolution number 31, ballot item number 51.

All those in favour will please rise.

Ayes

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Curling, Alvin

Gerretsen, John

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Martin, Tony

Ruprecht, Tony

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Bryant, Michael

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Peters, Steve

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 9; the nays are 46.

The Acting Speaker: I just wanted to apologize to the staff on your behalf for keeping them late for their lunch.

I declare the resolution lost.

The business of this House ended for this morning, it stands adjourned until 1:30 o’clock.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul’s): This government’s tenant destruction act is driving seniors and disabled people and everyone on fixed incomes into conditions of near poverty. Many tenants in my riding tell me that they sometimes have to choose between food versus rent. Many others say that these rent increases are nothing less than criminal. It’s time for this government to recognize that there is no level playing field for tenants when there is a vacancy rate of less than 1% in Toronto and an average rent increase of 9% in Toronto.

The Harris government’s tenant destruction act actually creates incentives for landlords to foster intolerable conditions for tenants, since once a tenant vacates the landlord can hike the rent by 100% if he chooses.

The tenants at 20 Shallmar Boulevard and many other buildings in my riding are quite literally under siege. At 20 Shallmar they were warned of a 14% rent increase by their landlord. Some tenants bolted, only to find no affordable housing elsewhere. Others were left to fight that punitive increase at their own expense before the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, which actually ordered the tenants and their lawyer to pay the legal costs of the landlord.

This decision is still before the courts, but the resulting nightmare for these people and so many other tenants in my riding is all thanks to a provincial government bent on punishing renters. Tenants must unite in their fight against the Harris housing disaster.

The people of St Paul’s can rest assured that their elected tenant triumvirate -- Bryant, Walker and Mihevic -- will not rest in our respective legislative chambers until we restore real, unqualified rent control with no ifs, ands or buts, until the Ontario Liberals legislate back the just tenant protections that mark a decent civil society that levels the playing field for the tenants of St Paul’s and across Ontario.

ALISON CLARK

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Today I rise to recognize a constituent in my riding of York North, Alison Clark. Alison Clark and her colleagues were the winners of a Gemini Award for the best sound in a documentary for their work on Legacy of Terror: The Bombing of Air India, which aired on CBC’s The Nature of Things series. It was Clark’s second Gemini, having won in 1993 for her work on The Millennium documentary series.

Legacy of Terror documents the fatal crash on June 23, 1985, that killed 329 people. It takes a personal look at some of the families who lost loved ones on that flight. Clark said, “It’s a very special film because it gives testimony to those children on the fatal flight.”

Clark was the sound supervisor for the documentary, which presented unique challenges. Very stylized and containing more than just interviews, it had a lot of footage where sound had to be cleaned up or recreated to make it more realistic.

Clark has been in the film business for 20 years and has been doing sound for 16. She studied filmmaking for three years at Fanshawe College in London and is president of her own company, One Dark Knight Sound Design, based in Toronto. The small sound editing company works mainly on documentaries, TV, movies and feature films, but it is documentaries Clark finds most satisfying.

Congratulations to Newmarket resident Alison Clark.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I rise to once again call the government’s attention to the crisis facing agriculture. Obviously, over the last few months, the government hasn’t been listening to the pleas from both opposition members and the farmers themselves. There is a crisis in agriculture whether this government wants to admit it or not.

Farmers are suffering from oilseed prices that are at a historic low. They are also dealing with the fallout of an unseasonably cold and wet spring. The crops produced are of poor quality and farmers cannot afford that. Just when farmers thought it couldn’t get any worse, they are being confronted with astronomical fuel prices.

High fuel prices, poor crops and low prices will take their toll on farmers if this government doesn’t step forward and do something now -- not next week, not next month, but now. The fact is that if action isn’t taken, many Ontario farmers will not be able to survive. They may lose their business and their livelihood. I for one am not willing to see that happen.

Agriculture is an incredibly important part of Ontario’s economy, the second-largest employer. It produces some $25-billion-plus in revenue. How can the government sit back and watch as some of these farmers who contribute so much to our society have to struggle to maintain their livelihood? It’s amazing that the government can spend $190 million on government advertising but can’t try to help farmers out in a crisis.

NORTH YORK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

Mr David Young (Willowdale): I would like to extend my most sincere congratulations to all the winners of the North York Chamber of Commerce 2000 Business Excellence Awards. Each individual and group honoured by the North York Chamber of Commerce has demonstrated the kind of leadership and innovation needed to be the best -- by achieving excellence in entrepreneurship, creativity and quality.

They have also demonstrated a continued commitment to our community by creating jobs and enhancing the community’s high quality of life.

The award-winning entrepreneurs, associations and companies were as follows: the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College; the Moving Store; YMCA of greater Toronto; North Employment and Community Services; John Wetmore, CEO of IBM Canada; Sobie’s Barbecues and Accessories; Julia Henderson and Kevin Smith from the Helicopter Company; and Michelle Hutchinson from Hutchinson Communications.

It is because of entrepreneurs like these that Ontario has enjoyed the success it has over the last 5 years.

Former American President Ronald Reagan said of entrepreneurs: “We in government should learn to look at our country through the eyes of the entrepreneur, seeing possibilities where others see only problems.”

Much like an entrepreneur, our government has seen the possibilities that Ontario has. As a result, we cut taxes, we introduced work for welfare and reduced the size of government so that our best and brightest, many of whom were at the awards ceremony with me, would be free to do what they do best: innovate and create. Those award winners did just that. On behalf of my colleagues on this side of the floor, I wish to congratulate each and every one of them.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): The cultural sector in this province is dejected and discouraged by the ongoing cuts to the arts community. The Harris Tories and the Minister of Culture, Helen Johns, do not value culture, but worse, they do not understand and are ignorant of the significance of the cultural sector in this province.

A strong case has been made over and over to the Harris Tories of the huge economic benefits of culture, but more important is the intangible societal benefit that arts, music, theatre, heritage, literature and film have on our communities. None of these arguments has moved this neo-conservative-driven government to restore hope and assist to rebuild the cultural sector of Ontario.

Donna Scott, the executive director of the Ontario Arts Council, has resigned. Under her professional and caring leadership, Ms Scott dramatically reduced the negative impact of the deep cuts to the Ontario Arts Council’s programs. That was not enough to stop the bleeding and her resignation sends a signal to the Harris government that enough is enough.

The Ministry of the Environment has had similar deep cuts and we know the consequences.

Minister Johns should be seen as the protector and champion of the cultural community. Instead, she is the dismantler. The arts and cultural heritage is endangered by the policies of this government. When will Ontario’s economic boom translate into the well-being of the cultural sector?

I will leave you with this thought: we need to properly manage our money in order to live, but we need culture and the arts to give us a reason to live.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Members’ statements?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): This statement is dedicated to Helen Johns, the minister:

Sung to the tune of Yesterday.

Minister,

Your approach to arts is sinister;

The arts council you administer

Is hurting artists, Minister.

Donna Scott

resigned because she says you’re not

providing funding that is near enough;

In fact she’s blaming your deep cuts.

Why she had to go

I don’t know; it’s a sad day

You did something wrong

And you’ve chased the best away-ay-ay-ay,

Minister,

You’ve soured to the arts like vinegar;

A 40% cut is sinister;

Why did you do this, Minister?

How low can you go?

I don’t know, but it’s a shame;

Eight hundred groups, they know the truth:

that you’re to bla-a-a-ame,

Minister,

Should they take it on the chin-ister?

Will our artists sink or swim-ister?

It’s your decision, Minister.

The Speaker: I don’t know if there are any rules about members singing or not, but there should be one that if you do sing, you should at least have to have a good voice to do it.

CALEDON EAST HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I’m pleased to stand in the House today to extend congratulations to a group of dedicated constituents from Caledon East. Two years ago, the executive of the Caledon East Historical Society ventured to offer a book that would celebrate and preserve the history of this community. The book, entitled Settling the Hills: Historical Reflections on Caledon East and District, is a remarkable example of how an idea can become a reality with the application of hard work and passion for what you are doing.

The 14 contributing authors take readers on a journey back in time to the formation of the land itself, the native population, and the original settlers whose struggles and victories are reflected upon. The vintage photographs included throughout the book help to illustrate the journey and add to the richness of this historical recollection of a community that still thrives today.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. We’ve had our little fun, but the member has 20 seconds left. Sorry to the member.

Mr Tilson: With financial assistance from the Trillium Foundation and the tireless efforts of those involved in the project, what was originally planned to be a 150-page book almost grew twice in size. The original estimate of 1,000 published copies has also expanded twofold. I stand in this House today to extend my congratulations and express my appreciation of this work, which will no doubt allow the history of this community to be preserved for generations to come.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): It’s truly disheartening that the Mike Harris government continues to ignore the tragedy of increased poverty in Ontario, particularly among children.

Two recently released reports have once again shown the stark reality of how this government’s brutal policies have sent more people deeper and deeper into despair. Yesterday the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres released a report on urban aboriginal poverty which showed that over 52% of aboriginal children in cities, including my hometown of Thunder Bay, are living in poverty. Earlier today the Ontario Social Safety Network released a chilling report called Five Years Later which clearly pointed out that cuts in social assistance, coupled with increased costs for food and shelter, have had a devastating impact on the lives of our poorest citizens.

The questions that Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals have for this government are: how many more studies and reports will it take for you to realize that your punitive policies are hurting families, and why will you not, at a minimum, attach a cost-of-living adjustment to social assistance benefits?

At a media conference earlier today, we heard from a young woman named Berthe Thomas, a single mother from Peterborough who told us in heart-rending fashion how difficult her life has been for these past five years. On her behalf, I want to send copies of today’s report to Premier Harris and to social services minister Baird and ask that they respond with compassion. As we approach the Christmas season, I want to ask you, Premier, to open up your heart and respond to this cry. It’s the least you can do.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I rise today to speak to my upcoming resolution about prostate and breast cancer. Breast and prostate cancer claim too many lives.

I’m pleased that the Minister of Health has just made an additional $34.8 million available to help patients fight their cancer. New drugs, more cancer professionals and improved screening detection programs are just a few of the benefits cancer patients will see. Better early detection and increased awareness of prostate and breast cancer will help save lives.

Currently, PSA testing for prostate cancer is not covered for asymptomatic men. I’m asking that the ministry review this situation to determine whether PSA testing for asymptomatic men would increase early detection of prostate cancer and help save more lives. Many men aren’t even aware of the dangers posed by prostate cancer and die because it wasn’t detected soon enough. My resolution asks the ministry to consider initiating and funding a comprehensive prostate cancer awareness program to encourage men to be checked.

Breast cancer affects one in nine women, and early detection is essential. The Minister of Health also announced that the Ontario breast screening program will be expanded to test five times more women than today. However, more research money is needed. That’s why I’m asking Canada Post to issue a commemorative stamp to provide additional research funds to fight breast cancer. This works in the United States, and I believe it will work here.

It’s imperative that we raise awareness and increase resources to fight prostate and breast cancer to help save more lives.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BALANCED BUDGETS

FOR BRIGHTER FUTURES ACT, 2000 /

LOI DE 2000

SUR DES BUDGETS ÉQUILIBRÉS

POUR UN AVENIR MEILLEUR

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 152,

An Act to implement the 2000 Budget to establish a made-in-Ontario tax system and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 152, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre le budget de 2000 en vue de créer un régime fiscal propre à l’Ontario et à modifier diverses lois.

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

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): We firmly believe that all provinces should have the ability to develop taxation policies that meet the specific needs of their economies and their taxpayers. A made-for-Ontario personal income tax system will allow us the flexibility we require to meet the needs of Ontarians.

In addition to a new system of tax administration, this bill would also give effect to several taxation policies announced in this year’s budget. The

short title of the bill is Balanced Budgets for Brighter Futures, and that is what Ontarians can expect.

ARCHIVES AWARENESS WEEK ACT, 2000 /

LOI DE 2000 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION AUX ARCHIVES

Mr Johnson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 153,

An Act to proclaim Archives Awareness Week / Projet de loi 153, Loi proclamant la Semaine de sensibilisation aux archives.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): Ontario has a rich and colourful history, most of which is recorded, and archives play an essential role in the preservation and use of history, including perhaps Hansard and the staff who will have to be drawn in for those musical notes that we heard earlier in the day.

This is to recognize the hard work and dedication of the entrepreneurs who work in the industry of archives.

IDLEWYLD MANOR ACT, 2000

Mr Christopherson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting Idlewyld Manor.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): December 1 is a historic day. I am very pleased to rise in the House today to bring your attention to the proclamation of Bill 68, Brian’s Law, which amends the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act. I believe that Bill 68 is one of our government’s most significant legislative initiatives, because it will ensure that people with serious mental illness who pose a threat to themselves or others receive the treatment and care they need and deserve.

The bill is dedicated to the memory of Brian Smith, an Ottawa sportscaster killed by a person suffering from serious mental illness. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge Ms Alana Kainz, Brian Smith’s widow and a strong advocate for the much-needed changes to the Mental Health Act. She is here with us today. I would also like to thank Lori and Tony Antidormi. It is because of the ongoing support and dedication that we have received from Alana and Lori and Tony that we have been able to move forward with the development of this bill. They have been a tremendous inspiration to all of us.

I would also like to thank again Mr Richard Patten for his hard work in helping to bring about effective community-based mental health treatment.

The proclamation of Brian’s Law, 2000, is the result of years of extensive research and consultation with stakeholders. Our government listened to the concerns voiced by families, consumers, inquest juries, health care providers and police, and this legislation is our response, a response that will best serve all Ontarians.

This legislation is a significant part of our government’s commitment to create a comprehensive, balanced and effective system of mental health services that provides a continuum of community-based, outpatient and inpatient care.

The amendments to Ontario’s mental health legislation were developed in consultation with key service providers such as physicians, hospitals, community services, justices of the peace, police and rights advisers. They will continue to play an essential role in the implementation of these amendments.

As the House knows, the jury for the inquest into Brian Smith’s death recommended that the Ontario mental health reform initiative should incorporate a community-based treatment program with third-party review and appeal mechanisms. It also called for a comprehensive review of the Mental Health Act and clauses in related legislation regarding mental health. This is what we have done.

Brian’s Law introduces community treatment orders, CTOs, which will provide a comprehensive plan of community-based treatment or care and supervision that is less restrictive than being detained in a psychiatric health facility. It also provides rights protections for mentally ill individuals, especially at the community level, and includes the addition of new grounds to the civil commitment criteria. The amendments also improve access to treatment by streamlining the hearing and appeal rules in the Health Care Consent Act.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the many, many hundreds of people who have worked so hard to bring about these much-needed changes. Again, I thank Alana Kainz and the Antidormi family. I also want to thank my former parliamentary assistant, Dan Newman, and my current parliamentary assistant, Brad Clark, for their unflagging commitment to this important legislation. I also want to thank the very hard-working staff of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, who have diligently done everything possible to bring this legislation forward in response to the needs of people in this province.

Our government’s Blueprint and the most recent speech from the throne promised that we would change the law to ensure that people who pose a danger to themselves or others will get the care they need, both for their own well-being and to ensure public safety, and I’m pleased to say that we’ve done that. These amendments provide a balance between the rights of the individual and the safety of the community.

I’m also pleased to say that since 1995 our government has invested nearly $350 million in mental health care programs, infrastructure and community-based services to support our reform strategy. These reforms will enable us to move forward and provide a full continuum of institutional and community-based services for people with mental illness.

Our government has taken responsible action and has demonstrated a commitment to implement legislative changes that will enhance the quality and delivery of mental health services. We have worked closely with our stakeholders, who represent health care providers, community agencies, hospitals, consumers, and community organizations. We’ve developed a comprehensive implementation plan, and the ministry will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that the new legislation and regulations are implemented smoothly.

Our government is strongly committed to restructuring the mental health system to achieve an accessible, accountable and effective system of treatment, care and support with an appropriate mix of institution-based and community-based services. The proclamation of Brian’s Law will help us meet that commitment. Most important of all, it will help save lives and it will help prevent tragedies in the future.

In closing, I want to thank the members of this House from all parties for their support of this very important bill.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): The members of our caucus supported Brian’s Law. We did so because we supported the intent which the minister has described, which was to ensure that the law could be changed, ensuring that people who pose a danger to themselves or others will get the care they need both for their own well-being and to ensure public safety. We supported it in respect of the families of schizophrenics, we supported it in respect of the work our own colleague Richard Patten had done and we supported it in respect of six inquest reports into deaths.

Our support was conditional on a continued effort to ensure that real support services for those with mental illness would be put in place. This bill does two things that the minister has noted: it allows more ready admission to hospital without there being evidence of imminent harm to self or others, and it also makes discharge contingent upon agreement to abide by community treatment orders. We had concerns about the implementation of both aspects of that law.

We heard testimony during the hearings about the inability now to provide admission to patients who needed hospitalization because there are simply not enough beds. We had emergency room physicians coming to talk to us about the pressures that would be placed on our already overburdened emergency rooms because of the numbers of people who would be brought in seeking admission, and the acute care hospitals would not have beds for even temporary admission.

Earlier this week, I brought into this Legislature a case of Scott McLennan, a 35-year-old man suffering from schizophrenia for the last 16 years who had become violent while in the throes of delusion. Scott’s history, since this bill was passed, has been one of being repeatedly put into jail because there has been no place for him in the mental health system. He was at one point in a psychiatric hospital. They sent him back to jail because they could not cope with him because of his tendency to violence when he was delusional. The mental health system is continuing to fail Scott McLennan.

The mental health system is continuing to fail others like Scott McLennan. I said to the minister earlier this week that Scott McLennan was one example.

I had another case almost exactly like it in my own constituency office the previous week. I had three other cases of people who were potentially going to become violent and who could not get community support to deal with their mental illness. My colleague from St Catharines told me about a tragedy involving someone with mental illness in his community just recently. And yet the government, regardless of the evidence that there are now not enough beds, is proceeding with its closure of six of our nine psychiatric hospitals, with a loss to come of more than 1,000 mental health beds.

The minister has given a personal commitment that no mental health bed will be lost, will be closed, until the community supports are in place, and yet in the estimates we see that $50 million is already slated to go into the divestment of our psychiatric hospitals.

The problem is, there are no benchmarks t