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

June 13, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr Johnson moved resolution 16:

That in the opinion of this House, owners of property utilizing a septic system or holding tank must, prior to offering for sale or changing ownership, provide at their own expense certification indicating that all existing sewage waste systems are operating properly and are non-polluting at the time of sale or change of ownership and that this certificate form part of any listing agreement or legal document.

Mr Johnson: This is a very important resolution, I believe. It is, one might say, a rural resolution because it would certainly be of great concern to people living in rural Ontario far more than those people living in urban Ontario.

The origin of this resolution is the result of a conversation I had with Lawrie Ackerman, who was representing the Prince Edward County Chamber of Commerce, back in either late December or early January. She came to my office and she has been an advocate to improve the environment, concerned about the deteriorating water quality, both drinking water and the quality of the water at many of the beaches in the surrounding area.

She came to my office with a resolution very similar to the one I have presented, and she asked me if there was any chance that I, as her representative at Queen's Park, could at some point deal with this. So I am honoured and certainly pleased I have this opportunity to bring forward an idea of one of my constituents.

I recently met with Lawrie Ackerman and Randy Ellis, both from the Prince Edward County Chamber of Commerce, and had a discussion with them concerning this resolution. It was modified somewhat and drafted to be presented here today.

This resolution actually comes from New Hampshire. It is very similar to a bylaw in New Hampshire that met a slight resistance in its original form and at its conception. After it has been in effect for a considerable period of time, since 1988, the people of New Hampshire are pleased with the bylaw that is very similar to this resolution and find it is getting some success and certainly has gained acceptance, and hopefully it will improve their environment somewhat. We hope if this resolution is supported here that it will at least improve the environment of our drinking water and our beaches around the province.

The intent of the resolution is not for home owners to incur a great expense, by any means. In fact, it is just to ensure that at the time of sale or the changing of ownership of real property the system in place, whether a septic system or a holding tank, will be functioning properly. At present there is no law that would suggest this is necessary and usually it is just written into an agreement of sale or a purchase and sale agreement.

It is clear that there might be some concern because of the cost, and I understand from information that was given to me by the chamber of commerce that the departments of health believe the actual certificate and investigation of a septic tank system or holding tank system would be nominal. In fact, the figure of approximately $100 was raised. We do not know that for sure, but we know it would not be any great expense. Certainly what would be reassuring to the buyer would be knowing the systems in place in these rural properties would be operating properly and non-polluting at the time of sale.

We know that after a change of ownership certain things can happen in rural households. Having lived in rural Ontario for many years, I am familiar with the changes in our sewage systems over a period of time. I was raised in a household that had an outhouse or a private privy. In fact, the school I went to had what we call a two-hole private privy, which was not very romantic or -- let us put it this way, it was very interesting and it certainly was functional. It was probably not particularly polluting, either.

With the advent of septic systems and pressurized water systems in rural households, what we have seen are septic systems the intent of which was to contain the byproducts of households and to ensure that whatever was released from these septic systems was not going to pollute the wells of the householders where they lived. So the intent is certainly clear. We want to ensure they are operating properly and are non-polluting.

As I indicated earlier, what may happen is that new owners may utilize more water and the function of the system may be changed somewhat. People who live rurally use water sparingly because they know wells are not always certain sources of water, and so when septic systems were in place and rural people used these systems, they were quite sure they would not run out of water or overuse the system. With the advent of many modern conveniences such as washing machines and dishwashers, of course, this has changed somewhat. The intent of the systems, and maybe even the efficiency of the systems, is not the same as it was at one time.

The necessity for this is to reduce pollution and we think that, although this is not going to reduce pollution immediately, as real property in rural Ontario changes there will be a need for inspection and certification to ensure that these systems are non-polluting and are functioning properly. Over a period of time many systems will have an opportunity to be inspected. Presently, they are only inspected if they are thought to be not operating properly or creating some pollution, so it is certainly a step towards improving the environment, and that is something everyone is concerned about.

In rural Ontario, many cottages ring our lakes because it is very important for cottages to be close to water. Many of the septic systems are close to bodies of water and we are finding today that these septic systems are slowly leaching pollutants into bodies of water, and the cottagers certainly would agree they do not want their water to be polluted. They want to be able to swim safely in it, and I think they would be favourable to this resolution.

The resolution was brought before the Prince Edward Chamber of Commerce and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, and it was agreed it was a good resolution and that its intent and implementation would be a step towards improving the environment.

The Ontario Real Estate Association, too, said it was necessary to do some things to improve the environment. It thought this resolution would be a minor step, albeit an important step, in the direction of ensuring that when real estate changes hands the septic systems or the holding tanks, if that is what they happen to have, would be operating properly and would be non-polluting. That would be a guarantee to a purchaser from the vendor, that these systems were in fact adequate and operating properly.

As I indicated earlier, we know that as ownership changes peoples' lifestyles are different, and a system that may be operating properly today may not be at some time in the near future. Having said that, it is important to realize that nevertheless all we are trying to do is a monitoring and a certification of systems that we know are not perfect that cause pollution and that contribute in some way to the deterioration of our drinking water and the water quality of our beaches. We want to see this reversed.

If this resolution is adopted and supported, and I hope I get the support I need, it will be a step towards improving the environment in rural Ontario, a step taken by rural Ontario. As I indicated earlier, this is a system urban areas would not be affected by, but in rural Ontario and in cottage country, in areas where people are serviced by wells, monitoring would in time make some improvements.

It is not going to improve the quality of our water or reduce pollution dramatically. It is not costly. But it is certainly a means by which we can monitor and ensure that septic systems are upgraded. It may be necessary, when problems are identified, to correct these problems, to ensure the systems are operating properly and effectively.

Mr Offer: Let me say what a pleasure it is for me to join in the debate on what I believe to be a very important resolution. When we speak to a matter of this nature, we are weighing a number of areas. The first is of course the impact on the environment. Is this resolution a good resolution in terms of its impact on the environment? If it is, then we go on to consider other aspects, and one aspect, of course, is how it is operational and meets its particular goal.

I have read this resolution and I believe, as the member has clearly indicated, that this is an important resolution in terms of its impact on the environment. I believe that in the member's opening comments he stated that this is a matter which has received support from other organizations, from other areas, and that they recognize what the resolution is all about and certainly what its impact would be. I agree with that. I believe one could not argue against such a resolution. I am prepared to support this particular wording because it will provide an enhancement, an addition, a more secure form of environment, especially in rural communities.

I think, however, that when we take a look at the resolution, we want to ask a couple of questions. The first question one has to ask concerns the issue of certification and the expense involved. We want to make certain, in any examination for certification, that the expense is not too unwieldly and that the examination is conducted by a person or persons, a business or corporation qualified to conduct such a certification. I believe there are those individuals who are able to do this -- they do it as a matter of course, as a matter of carrying on business -- and that the expense in doing so would be not too onerous.

We now have two aspects in terms of this resolution, the first being that it is one which will enhance the environment. The second is that the certification process is available, is able to be carried out and is able to be done in an economical way.

The third aspect I want to talk about is that this be a matter of condition prior to offering for sale or change of ownership. It would seem to me that there is an opportunity right now through real estate agreements for such a provision to be placed in an agreement of purchase and sale. It could be a condition for the successful transaction, in regard to a premise, by a vendor to a purchaser that there be such an inspection, that a certification be obtained, and that the transaction be conditional upon that inspection and certification being carried out.

In the event that such inspection and certification does not take place or that the inspection provides that there is a difficulty with the septic system or holding tank, the transaction need not be carried out and the deposit moneys provided on the signing of the agreement of purchase and sale will be returned. That is an option right now for a real estate company or agent acting for either a vendor or purchaser.

It would be interesting to take a look at some of the educational materials provided by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to real estate agents in terms of educational tools regarding this type of clause being found in an agreement of purchase and sale. Much could be accomplished if real estate agents were specifically informed of the need for this type of clause, as a condition precedent to the successful completion of a transaction, being inserted in such an agreement. I believe this would be another course to take.

I believe the result of that type of action would still meet the goals put forward by the honourable member, the protection of the environment, but it could be done with a more specific, brought-home type of endeavour.

This type of resolution is important in another capacity. Maybe this is a little to the side, but I think it is important. When there is a transaction in regard to a premise, there are certain aspects which must be brought to the minds of both the vendor and the purchaser by the agreement of purchase and sale and certainly by the agent acting, so that the person who is purchasing the property will be aware of the system now in place for the septic tank, its operation, when it was installed, how it was installed and by whom, and how it was kept up. These are certainly important areas when people purchase property.

First, I believe this type of resolution is one which is supportable in terms of its protection of the environment. Second, I believe it is supportable because the certification is one which is achievable. Third, I believe the certification process is one which can be obtained at a minimal cost. Fourth, I believe the impact is a greater awareness one to another, vendor to purchaser, as to the premise being purchased and all of those things that go with the premise.

On those four areas, this resolution is surely supportable. I would certainly ask by way of question -- I know that is not permissible in this time period, but I think it is an area which has to be discussed -- about the number of individuals who would be able to provide such a certification. I do not think we want in any way to encumber or provide an unnecessary obstacle for houses or cottages when being transferred or for the closing date to be unnecessarily delayed. I do not believe it to be a major issue, but I believe it is one that certainly should be addressed.

With this in mind, I can quite easily support this resolution. In terms of its impact on the environment, in terms of the process of certification and the cost to make certain that the certification is accomplished, and in the underlying increased awareness that purchasers will have with vendors and vice versa, all will be enhanced by a resolution of this nature and by its passage.

I commend the member for the resolution. I believe it is one which will be looked at by many organizations. I believe the member spoke about the chambers of commerce and the real estate associations, certainly in the rural areas. I think that such a matter is one this Legislature can and should wholeheartedly support. I believe it is one which will forward protection of the consumer in this province, maybe not in a major way, but certainly in a very direct way. I believe all members of this Legislature, as one, support consumer protection, consumer information. This type of resolution is one which certainly embraces and forwards that principle.

In conclusion, I commend the member for this resolution. For the reasons I have stated, I am prepared to support it.

Mr Tilson: When we look at the resolution, I think all of us in the House can realize the problems in rural and cottage communities, where you have septic systems and wells, with respect to our environment. I must, in general principle, congratulate the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings -- a tongue-twister -- for putting this resolution forward. However, I say that with many reservations. If he intends to pursue this, I will look forward to hearing comments with respect to some of the reservations that I propose to put forward.

This is a problem real estate lawyers around this province in the rural and cottage communities continually look at, the issue of whether a well is potable, whether a septic system is in good working condition. Any experienced real estate solicitor, if he or she is acting for a purchaser, will insist that a clause be put in the agreement of purchase and sale that the vendor at the time of closing warrants that the well is potable and the water is of sufficient quantity for residential use; and further, that the septic system on the premises is in good working order.

The vendor in some cases is unable to provide that warranty. It may well be, for example, that the vendor has only been living on the premises for a short period of time or may only be living on the premises for intermittent periods of time, such as with a cottage.

The question that gives me a great deal of concern with respect to this resolution is the whole subject of certification. Who is going to do the certification? Do you hire someone? Is the vendor going to hire someone? Is the vendor going to hire the health officials from the municipality? Is there going to be a whole new bureaucracy created in the provincial government to provide the certification?

There are only a few people who can provide this certification. When solicitors are instructed by their clients to communicate with health authorities in order to have them inspect a septic system, those individuals will attend on the premises and will look at the septic system as it appears. The septic system may be a month old, it may be 20 years old, and it becomes physically impossible for these individuals to completely certify that a septic system is in good working order, particularly in the winter months. How are you possibly going to certify a septic system that consists of maybe a concrete tank?

It may be some other form of tank. It may be weeping tiles that go over the entire backyard. There may be a filter bed under the weeper. There may be a header that is on the system. The only way that the municipal authorities can do it -- and they are the only ones doing it now that have any authority -- is to dig up the entire system.

What happens now, in all practicality, is that those municipalities that do it -- because some municipalities will not even touch this, for liability reasons; they will not even do it, they will not even look at it because of the physical impossibility of certifying that a septic system is in good working order. What they will do is look at their records as to when the system was installed. They will look at the physical aspect of the property, as to whether there is any ponding; and in the wintertime, let's be practical, that is physically impossible.

Then they will write a letter to the solicitor or the purchaser who is trying to obtain certification that a septic system is in good working order, and they will qualify that as to what they did: They looked at the premises, they looked at the septic bed and there did not appear to be ponding. That is all the health people will do, because they cannot do anything else.

So that is my first question to the member. How is this certification going to take place when common sense tells us the only way it can be properly done is to dig it up? You may have some leaching in some far corner of the property where the septic system goes. The only way that you can find that is to dig up the entire backyard. If you have real estate transactions that may take place, it is possible that you could have a number of transactions for the same property in one year. Are you going to dig up the same property twice or three times in one year? That would be absolutely silly.

The other question of course is, who is going to do the certification? I can assure members that the municipalities will not do the certification, because they do not have the staff for it and they are not prepared to provide that type of certification, and I am not too sure what the member means by "certification." If the government people are not going to do it, then I assume there would be a whole new group of people from private enterprise who would presumably be trained and certified. Again, they would have to dig it up to properly do it. Who is going to certify them?

Is there going to be a whole new bureaucracy created by the provincial government to determine who is going to certify these individuals?

The whole issue that has been raised by my friend is certainly an admirable one and I think all of us in the House can look at it and say, "Yes, we need to do things to resolve our environmental problems," but this is not the way to do it. I submit that the practice going on now is perhaps the only way that can be done, and that is that if the vendor is able to, he provides such a warranty in the agreement of purchase and sale. Even that may cause problems.

I have heard of transactions being completed where the vendor warrants, at the time of the closing a transaction, that the septic system is in good working order, and it is. However, the purchaser, not knowing where the septic system is, drives over it with his big trucks moving his furniture in and wrecks the entire system. I have known of law cases where that has occurred. The whole debate is, was the septic system working at the time the transaction closed or was it working after the transaction closed? These are very difficult problems. How long is the certification good for?

You sign an agreement of purchase and sale in the wintertime. It may be set to close in the spring. The ground may not be frozen. How long is a certification going to last? Is it going to last from December to June?

I think there needs to be considerably more time to look into this because of the whole issue of certification, the whole issue of cost -- what is it going to cost to dig up someone's backyard -- and the whole time of year, when it is physically impossible to determine whether a septic system is working. In the wintertime things do freeze. These systems do freeze. Practically speaking, it becomes impossible.

I took the liberty of communicating with a number of individuals in my riding who deal with this sort of thing all the time. I contacted one of the local health authorities and I contacted a real estate agent and I contacted a lawyer. These are people who deal in these types of transactions all the time. They all echoed my thoughts, and that is that although the resolution is admirable, it physically cannot be done. It just cannot be done.

The real estate agent, for example, pointed out that it would be very difficult to assess if a septic system was functioning properly or was non-polluting unless there were obvious signs such as ponding. That may be the best you can do. That of course will not apply in the wintertime, because there is no ponding in the wintertime. Things are frozen.

While there is certainly an onus on the vendor for disclosure of all things; in other words, there is a contractual issue -- the law is evolving on that. I am sure we are all aware of the expression "caveat emptor" or "buyer beware." Normally the requirement on the vendor is not necessary because of the expression "caveat emptor," but even that is evolving and if a vendor knows that a septic system is in default or is faulty, he or she may still be liable to the purchaser, knowing full well that he or she was selling the purchaser a system that is defective.

The resolution, I would submit, would be useless because of the inability to prove that the septic tank is malfunctioning. No certification in the world is going to be able to do that. The resolution, I submit, is simply going to add to the bureaucracy. It is another example of how this government is simply going to regulate us out of the province.

Those are the comments of the real estate agent, and very valid comments, I think, for my friends in the government to consider. The solicitor talked about there being some advantages for a purchaser because this resolution would therefore absolve the purchaser from any responsibility to have the tank checked out. However, the biggest question is, again, how do you certify it? I would like the member to tell us how that certification would take place, having heard some of the comments I have presented to him, because I submit there is no objective way to deal with this situation.

It is very difficult to tell if there are any structural problems unless, as I have indicated, there is ponding.

The vendor would have to hire an inspector -- and if the municipalities and the government are not going to do it, I do not know who these inspectors are, who is going to do the inspecting and what qualifies those people to be in inspecting -- who would have to use very extensive techniques to test the septic area, the septic tank and all the various parts of the septic system -- these septic systems are very complicated things, if they are done properly -- for leaching, and the whole system would have to be dug up to see if there is any sign of operation.

You may not even be able to determine that simply by looking at ponding. As I say, you would have to dig the system up.

The issue is certainly an interesting solution. I did listen to the member's comments as to its working in other jurisdictions and I would like to hear more of that. I can only say that the resolution has good intention but is not practical. There is no way of knowing about these problems unless you dig up the system. The health inspectors could look at the septic system and say, "There's no ponding," so a transaction closes and then you find there are problems. It depends on the time of year.

I submit the cost to the vendor would be horrendous, and I have heard no estimates as to what this would cost, because a vendor would have to hire an inspector to dig the premises up to properly inspect the entire septic area. Would the inspector or the agency or the government then be responsible legally if a septic tank was certified and it was later found to be inoperable? I think it would totally irresponsible for the individuals who are making these inspections -- and I doubt very much whether they will be the provincial government or the municipalities -- to provide that type of certification.

That means the private individual would be totally responsible to provide such a certification, and I can assure members that if they are going to do that, to avoid potential litigation in the future they would probably have to take out insurance to cover potential liability or their fees would be astounding to ensure they have taken sufficient steps to determine that the system is in operating order.

I ask that the member consider all of these areas in making his resolution, because although it is admirable and it does look at the whole issue of the environment, I think even he would have to admit it is not a practical solution to the problem.

Mr Drainville: It gives me great pleasure today to rise and support the motion put forward by my honourable colleague in this chamber.

I would like to speak about the declining quality of water in Ontario. I come at this from a particular perspective, as a member of a rural riding, Victoria-Haliburton. There is a great deal of concern presently throughout our riding and throughout the region about the declining quality of water.

There are three issues that impact upon this. The first is acid rain, the second is the effect of motorboats on our water systems and the third is the leaching from septic systems.

In terms of this last one, obviously the member has put forth a resolution that calls for certification and inspection at the cost of the person who owns the property before he can sell that property.

I too have done some homework and spoken to builders of septic systems in the riding as well as to the local district health council and to the municipality. There is no question that inspection will take a little bit of work and cost money. I want to respond quite directly to the member for Dufferin-Peel when he says this cost might be prohibitive.

I have to say that the issue at hand here in Ontario at this point in time is an issue of individual responsibility for the environment. One of the problems we have in our society today is that people are not willing to take the kind of responsibility they must to ensure that we have a better future.

When we speak specifically about those who own property and their responsibility to ensure that when they pass that property to other people, we have to say it is absolutely true that it is their responsibility to ensure that the property they hand on and sell to other people is property which is not going to have major problems with the environment. It has to be taken on as their responsibility, for if they do not take on the responsibility, then, indeed, no one takes on that responsibility.

I have to say that in terms of my own life and my own property, I would see it as -- I hate to use this word but I suppose as a clergyman it comes naturally to my lips -- a sin for me to hand on the property that I own to someone else, knowing or even suspecting there may be problems. One can say, "Well, if you're ignorant of the problems it's not your responsibility." As the honourable member knows, ignorance is no acceptable response in terms of the law, nor should it be in a situation like this. We live in a time when we need to take the responsibility for that which we own and that which we have control over.

It is important that this resolution be passed because it puts the onus and the responsibility on the individual who owns the property.

I also have to say to my honourable friend across the floor that he has indicated that this resolution does not encompass the many factors that need to be looked at for this kind of system to be set up. Indeed, he is right. He has said in this House, and I have heard him, and I have said in this House, that these resolutions we put forward cannot possibly encompass all of those things.

First of all, this is not a bill; it is a resolution. As a resolution it is, by its very nature, a principle that we are putting forward so that people understand the direction we want to go in terms of better legislation, a better system, if you will, so that people can see there is hope in the future that we will have a more environmentally friendly community, that we will each of us be taking our own responsibility.

In terms of certification and inspection, there is no question that there needs to be work done on the system by which that is done. All I can say to the honourable member is that in this resolution this is a principle we are setting forth and it will be up to the government, if it is accepted, to move on this to ensure something is done and a system is put in place. I leave it to the good graces of the government to do precisely that, because it is an important issue.

I am very glad to support the resolution as put forward today and I look forward to its being implemented by the government as soon as possible.

Mr Offer: Mr Speaker, we have made an agreement. If it is okay, we are more than pleased to allow the government side our final four minutes and, I believe, 20 seconds for their members to proceed with this very important debate.

Mr Fletcher: It is a pleasure to rise and support my colleague's resolution as far as the septic tank systems are concerned in this province.

One of the reasons I am supporting my colleague is primarily the environmental issue. It is my belief that many of the septic systems we have in this province were built such a long time ago and they were not used to the capacity we now have. The overcapacity is what is really disturbing when we see leachate going down country roads or seeping into rivers and into lakes. We have always had a problem of beaches being closed, rivers and lakes not being able to be fished or to be waded in by children.

If we are not willing to spend the money now, then the future costs are going to be so much greater than what we are looking at. The future cost is not only the cost in dollars and cents, it is the cost that our environment is going to suffer so much. I agree with my colleague when he says it is up to this government to ensure the inspection and the maintenance of septic systems is done and done properly.

I have to say to my colleague the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings that I am very happy he introduced this resolution, because it is not only a problem within his riding, it is a problem in many ridings and many rural ridings. Something this government has taken to heart is the environment and what we can do to protect it.

As far as a person buying a new home or buying a home from someone is concerned, it would be terrible to have that person going in and finding that he has to pay hundreds of dollars, thousands of dollars for a new system, through no fault of his own, only because it had not been maintained and had not been serviced.

Again, just in closing, I am very happy to be supporting this resolution from the member and I hope that everyone else will support it.

Mrs Mathyssen: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the resolution of the honourable member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, both as someone working at the Ministry of the Environment and as a rural dweller who understands the importance of a proper, non-polluting sewage waste system.

The proposal of the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, that owners of property utilizing a septic system or holding tank provide certification that the system is functioning properly and is not polluting the environment, makes sense for all of us in the province for a number of very practical reasons.

Certainly we want to be assured that our drinking water is free of contamination; that purchasers of rural homes who might not be familiar with private septic systems are protected from the expense and inconvenience of purchasing a home with an improper waste disposal system; and that the beaches in our communities, beaches that were once the envy of visitors to Ontario, are again clean, safe places for our recreational enjoyment and the tourist attraction they once were in the past.

Let me return to my first point regarding safe drinking water. As many in this House certainly will understand, rural people like me and the constituents I serve depend upon private wells for our drinking water. Improperly functioning septic systems threaten that supply of water. This is an obvious concern to rural Ontarians, since this is generally the only source of water for our homes. Loss of something as precious as clean, reliable drinking water would be catastrophic to rural dwellers.

Second, it is no secret that the attractions of lifestyle in rural communities draw many ex-urbanites to farms, smaller acreages and rural towns and villages. It makes a great deal of sense to provide people who may not be familiar with the mysteries of rural living with some assurance that they are purchasing with confidence a home they can enjoy without fear of discovering improper facilities and, even more important, an assurance that because of their inexperience they are not polluting the environment around their new place of residence.

According to the resource material kindly provided by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, the cost to vendors of rural properties to secure this certification of septic systems would be quite modest and it would be money wisely spent, in light of the reality of today's market prices for houses and property.

I would also like to mention that certification that a home is free from urea formaldehyde foam insulation is now quite a common practice since the discovery of problems with some houses that are insulated with UFFI. So certification of a septic system is not at all unreasonable.

Last, I would like to remind members that in the last few years, we in Ontario have often been deprived of the use of our beaches because of high levels of faecal coliforms from human and animal wastes that have entered rivers and lakes from sewers and septic tank overflows during rainstorms. Instead of enjoying what is a remarkable resource, we are faced with a health hazard.

I realize that old, malfunctioning septic systems are not the only culprits in the pollution of our wells and waterways, but they do account for about 30% of that pollution. That is a significant level. We cannot hide from the effects of this kind of pollution, and we cannot pretend that refusing to address the problem because it is inconvenient, creates extra work, involves some cost and requires people to take responsibility for this kind of pollution makes any sense at all.

I feel the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings has made a very important recommendation to this House, one that could have significant impact on addressing septic system pollution, and I am most pleased to be able to stand and support this resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: There are four minutes available, and if there is unanimous consent, some of you may wish to use that four minutes. Is there unanimous consent that it should be used?

Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do believe that our side not only would like some of that time, but as well, I believe there were a few seconds left with respect to my remarks.

The Deputy Speaker: You have 25 seconds.

Mr Tilson: No, it won't be me.

The Deputy Speaker: Okay, is there unanimous consent that the four minutes should be used?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: I will recognize anyone. The member for Lanark-Renfrew.

Mr Jordan: I too would congratulate the member for bringing the concerns of rural Ontario forward regarding the septic tank and weeping bed, but really, for anyone who is aware of the installation of a septic tank and weeping bed, the first sign of trouble in a system is not in polluting a well or polluting a neighbour's property; the first sign is internal to the system in that the system starts to show signs internally of not functioning properly.

I think we are overemphasizing the danger of a weeping bed not functioning properly relative to the environment. With a weeping bed, properly installed, the moisture is dispensed into the air. It evaporates. That is how the system is designed. Very little of the waste that goes into a weeping bed actually is filtered through the ground. It is evaporated into the air.

To me, in purchasing a property, it would be of much more value to the purchaser to know that the weeping tile had been installed around the base of the foundation to carry off drainage at that level to the proper location, because many times, in cutting costs, if the building has not been properly inspected, builders will leave out the installation of weeping tile around the foundation, and it creates a real hazard and a real problem and a large expense later on. In this case, it will pollute into the basement area of the home and can also cause a problem with the weeping bed and the tile.

I find the subject is receiving far too much emphasis relative to the environment. Even if I were to buy a house tomorrow and I found a week later that I was having trouble with the weeping bed, the cost to replace it is very little more than the cost would be to have it inspected in such a way that somebody could give me a certificate that this system was properly installed and was indeed properly functioning. So I think, although the concern is real and should be there, the fact of trying to police such a procedure is not feasible and certainly not financially justifiable to the purchaser or the vendor.

Mr Mills: I would just like to take a few moments this morning to speak in favour of my colleague's resolution. I think it is a very valid resolution. I think it is needed and I think, like some other previous speakers here this morning, the environment and the protection of that environment is uppermost in all of our minds, and if it is not, it should be.

I live in an area that does not have the benefit of sewers. In my house I have a septic system, as do all the other people in the hamlet where I live. At different times you see a For Sale sign go up on a particular property and someone moves in, and it seems to be almost automatic that in a few weeks you see some bulldozer activity there, that they are trying to correct a sewer system the poor unsuspecting buyer was not made aware of when he purchased the property. In view of that type of traumatic experience to a buyer, I am going to be supporting this resolution wholeheartedly.

I take exception to my colleague and friend over there who suggested, and I cannot quite come to grips with this, that the cost of having a system inspected is on a par with having a septic bed replaced, because you see bulldozers coming in, there is a great deal of activity to replace it. I suppose I cannot really argue; it just strikes me that an inspection as opposed to replacement would not be comparable.

Anyway, I am pleased to take

part in this debate and I shall support my colleague's resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: There is still one minute and 30 seconds left for the third party.

Mr J. Wilson: I just have, really, a couple of comments. Although the resolution before the House today is well intentioned, I wonder what the cost analysis would be on the effect of affordable housing. It seems to me that forcing home owners and cottage owners to go through this process, however noble it may be, will drive up the cost of housing by a few dollars.

It seems ironic to me that a government that talks about social assistance and social housing so much would introduce any measures whatsoever to once again fit another tax or another requirement on a well-intentioned home owner. I would certainly ask the government to take that into account before it proceeds too far with this. I also question the government how many more bureaucrats it is going to need to administer this new process.

It seems to me that in government in Canada and in many jurisdictions in the world we are overgoverned, and this is another situation of yet another law being put on the books and another requirement that the good citizens of this province are going to have to follow. I wish the government would consider that and bring some common sense back to this Legislature.

Mr Ferguson: I will be very brief. I think we have all witnessed, particularly in the past, what happens when we enter into a period of deregulation, a period of no government intervention. I think the truck drivers' protest that has taken place as a result of what has happened at the federal level, the federal initiatives prompted by my colleague the member for Simcoe West's federal counterparts, is really indicative of the difficulties we run up against.

What this resolution is saying is very clear and very simple. It is saying that prior to the sale of a home, you should be ensuring that the sewage system is working properly, particularly for septic tanks. Of course, this is of prime importance in rural Ontario, where it is the major way effluent is treated, and it could be handled very simply, as is the case now, by medical officers of health in those particular communities.

There are parts of Ontario -- and we are going to hear the doctors' spin later on this -- where we should be doing more, where the communities are literally floating septic tanks because they do not have a sewage treatment facility. There are many parts of Ontario where the only expansion that is occurring is expansion on private services, and it is unregulated. So I think the private member's bill makes sense and I fully support it.

Mr Johnson: I would just like to comment on some of the comments that have been made. To the members from the Progressive Conservative Party, the third party, I would like to say it was deliberate that this was not as comprehensive as it might be. If it had been as comprehensive as I probably could have made it, then certainly it would have required more debate and there would have been more specifics that would have been necessary to satisfy all members, I have no doubt.

I think we should leave to the experts exactly what is necessary in order to inspect these septic systems or these holding tanks. I think it is the experts who can make these decisions on how they can make a determination of whether it is operating properly or certainly whether it is polluting or not. I am not an expert; I do not expect that any of the members opposite are experts. I think the experts are the ones who would make this decision.

Who can do the inspections? Members of the Prince Edward Chamber of Commerce who brought this to me said the local health department said it would not be a problem. They said they could do it and the cost would be nominal. I consider the health department must have the experts. I am not an expert.

The certification would be valid only for a specific amount of time, what amount of time I am not sure. Again, I would leave it up to the experts to make that determination. I heard a member opposite say it cannot be easily inspected in the wintertime. There are many inspections that can be done. You can check the flue gases; you can check the internal plumbing to see if it is operating properly; you can lift the cap on the septic tank to see if it has been pumped recently, if it appears to be operating properly; you can check the leaching bed to see if it is operating properly.

I think if all these things are done, then certainly a certificate could be offered. The intent of this resolution is to help, just a little bit, to improve the environment. If the members opposite do not want that, so be it.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Offer moved resolution 15:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that there currently exists a chronic underfunding of social services for children, youth and families in the region of Peel, which has caused a report to be prepared by the Fair Share for Peel Task Force consisting of volunteer presidents and senior staff from the Children's Aid Society for Peel Region and the United Way of Peel Region, which report has clearly shown the need for a consistent method for allocating provincial grants for social services, the Minister of Community and Social Services should take concrete steps to increase the service base to a satisfactory level over a five-year period and develop an equitable funding formula that recognizes population growth dynamics and social indicators.

Mr Offer: To begin, I hope that all members of this House will support this resolution, which is as a result of some very good and very important work done by the Fair Share for Peel Task Force. We might want to ask ourselves the question, what is the Fair Share for Peel Task Force? Following an initiative begun in March 1989 under the auspices of the Social Planning Council of Peel and the United Way of Peel as the waiting list task force, the following agencies joined together in early summer of 1990 in order to draw attention to the chronic underfunding of social services for children, youth and their families in Peel and to the serious consequences of such limited resources.

Those particular agencies were the Children's Aid Society for Peel Region, the Family Services of Peel, Peel Children's Centre, the Social Planning Council of Peel and the United Way of Peel Region. The leadership for this initiative was provided by the volunteer presidents and senior staff. It is the resolution and the recommendations by this task force that indeed form the basis of my particular resolution.

Many members in this Legislature are well aware of the incredible growth in the region of Peel in terms of people, houses and the retail and commercial sector, all growing at a phenomenal rate. I know the region of Peel is not the only region in this province undergoing such substantial growth, but indeed it is one such region. We believe it is necessary that there be a funding formula for these agencies that reflects the growth so that they can continue to do the important work they have done in the past.

I have spoken about the Fair Share for Peel Task Force report, and the question that begs to be answered is, what is the essence of the report? The essence of the report recognizes and continues to advocate a fair system of funding for child and family services.

They have made a request to the Minister of Community and Social Services asking the minister to redress the chronic underfunding of Peel social services for children, youth and their families through concrete steps to increase the service base to a satisfactory level over a five-year period; second, to develop an equitable funding formula that recognizes population growth dynamics and social indicators in Peel. I take the time to state that, because all members of the Legislature will quickly recognize that my resolution is indeed word for word the recommendations of this very important task force.

What has been the result of the funding formula now in place? What has been the result of a funding formula that does not take into consideration population growth dynamics?

I would like to share just a few of the repercussions of this type of funding formula. The Peel Children's Centre, which provides both residential and non-residential treatment services, reports a waiting list of 160 children and a wait of approximately 14 months. Rapport Youth and Family Counselling services reports a current waiting list of 20 client families with an average wait of three months. According to Community Living Mississauga, more than 209 families are on the waiting list for respite services.

The Peel infant stimulation program currently has 80 babies on its request-for-service list, and parents are having to wait seven to eight months for services that truly should be available in four to six weeks. Last November, Family Services of Peel closed its intake for children and youth experiencing emotional and behavioural problems and their families. Finally, the Children's Aid Society of Peel has had a 35% increase of families since 1988 and the number of child abuse allegations, as reported to CAS, has risen by 33% since 1987.

These are just a few but not all of the manifestations, the repercussions of a funding formula that is not tied to the dramatic growth increase that the region of Peel has experienced. The issue is clear. The historical basis for funding is clearly inappropriate where it cannot meet with certainty the demands of a growing population.

The dilemma for any government, and I recognize this, is to balance the extent to which a legitimate demand for social services can be met against the limited funding that is available. We would all like to say there is unlimited funding, but I believe all members in this Legislature recognize that there is a limit to the funding.

But a balance must be drawn. I believe these particular proposals are clearly appropriate. They are appropriate because they do draw a balance between funding adequacy and funding universality. Quite simply, what they call for is an equitable funding formula that recognizes population growth and social indicators, a funding equalization that would re-establish a satisfactory funding base and appropriate funding for mandated services.

A universally understood and applied funding formula would equalize the support given to all community agencies. Changes in population or service demand, if verified by statistics, would be the legitimate basis on which funding increases would be assigned, and communities would be supported on a level consistent with the needs of their residents. Mandated programs would be covered without energy being spent annually on negotiations with the ministry. These are matters that this task force report has clearly come to grips with. It has clearly provided an appropriate balance.

I ask all members of this Legislature to support this resolution. It does not call for change today or tomorrow; it talks about a workable time period. But it does have as its fundamental belief and principle the requirement that funding criteria must be based in instances on population growth and a social indicator type of analysis.

I believe it is only in this way that these organizations which provide such a valuable and necessary service to children and families, not only in our region of Peel but indeed throughout this province, will be able to efficiently and effectively carry out and deliver the service which we hope, indeed ask them to do. We cannot expect these agencies to provide this type of service in such a critical area, in such a complex, sophisticated and growing need, without the level of funding they need.

It is our responsibility to make certain that the funding formula these agencies need to carry out the work so drastically required is one that comes to grips with their need. A funding formula that does in fact reflect population growth will go a long way to making certain these agencies remain viable and the services that they deliver will continue to be delivered in the effective, sensitive way they have been in the past.

I ask all members of this Legislature to support this resolution.

Mrs Marland: In rising to support this resolution dealing with the subject of chronic underfunding of social services for children, youth and families in the region of Peel, I have to say at the outset I am happy to see the member for Chatham-Kent, who is the parliamentary assistant to the minister, in the House this morning, because right off the top I would like him to convey a message to the minister from myself personally.

I wrote a letter to the minister four months ago. I have yet to receive a reply. Also, four months ago our caucus presented the Fair Share for Peel Task Force report personally to the minister, at which time she assured us that she would consider the request and concerns of that task force. Here we are, four months later, with no solutions to this chronic underfunding. I want to quote directly from the report to put on the record what these people are saying, not I as a politician, but the people who are dealing with this crisis of underfunding in Peel today.

These people, by the way, represent the Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel, Family Services of Peel, Peel Children's Centre, Social Planning Council of Peel and the United Way of Peel Region. Who else can know better what the needs of these young families and children in Peel are but those agencies trying to deal with the problems on a daily basis? I quote from the report: "The region of Peel does not receive its fair share of funding for social services for children, youth and families from the provincial government.

As a result, the resources available to meet the growing demands of Peel's population are totally inadequate, leading to services that are increasingly unavailable and inaccessible.

"A detailed analysis...reveals that the level of funding is not commensurate with the proportion of Ontario's population represented by Peel. Moreover, the level of funding does not begin to reflect the higher-than-average rate of overall population growth in Peel, nor the higher-than-average rate of growth in its child population."

We simply say to this government that we are not asking it to spend more money. We are asking them to set priorities in terms of human need. Is that such a big difficulty? In realistic terms, is it fair that with the distribution of government money -- and government is going to spend money anyway, somewhere -- in Peel, the average spent on children's services is $46,

whereas the provincial average is $105?

The comparison is particularly grave when you compare it to the money spent in Metro on children's services. There is nothing different in Metro from what there is in Peel. They are the same children and families with the same emergency needs, yet in Metro it is $150 per child per family in children's services, three times as much as in Peel. When you look at child care, the figures are even more appalling. In child care in Peel, we are talking about $68 against Metro's $421. I do not think anybody could stand in this House and defend that differential. The provincial average in child care is $172, and I emphasize again that in Peel it is $68.

I ask this government, is this fair? If it is going to be spending money for these needs and services for these people, how is it that the government cannot do it equitably? We are not saying they should increase the funding overall if they do not have it. We are simply saying that what the government spends in this province has to be the same for every child, mother and father and adult in need. That is not happening and that is what is so wrong today in Ontario.

Unless the government thinks that perhaps these cases are not real, and in case it questions what is really going on in the lives of these people on whose behalf I am standing in this House pleading today, I want to give it some insight into one or two cases. These are not fictitious. These are not just figures we are looking at. These are lives of people who are trying to exist and cope today in Peel.

One case, which I find very difficult to read, is about a family. It talks about a little eight-year-old girl and the difficulties of her family. Her father drinks and beats the mother and the children. This is one of the circumstances in the life of this family, and I quote from the story except that it is not a story; it is an account: "Just before Brandy's fifth birthday, her mother got up one night to go to the bathroom. She could hear some peculiar sounds coming from the bedroom that her daughters shared. She entered to find her husband sexually assaulting Brandy."

It goes on to say that the mother then left that family home with her children and has been "shuffled between shelters and basement apartments." This account also goes on about the fact that because of the circumstances of that family, there were other problems with this little girl that were not observed: speech and developmental.

Again I read from the report, "The reality is that Brandy and her family are still waiting on Peel Children's Centre priority waiting list," even though she was identified last summer as being in need of emergency services. "The centre cannot even begin to keep up with the cries for help from Brandy and others whose situations are equally as desperate under the present funding inadequacies."

I want to give one other example: "Len has a severe intellectual handicap and cerebral palsy. He requires assistance with personal hygiene and grooming.... Len cannot speak.... In June 1990 Len graduated from school, but has not taken

part in any additional program to help him. He is on the waiting list for vocational services at Community Living Mississauga, but no potential exists for several years. This is because Community Living Mississauga has not received any additional funds to allow for expansion in these times of fiscal restraint. Len is also on the waiting list for adult residential services at Community Living Mississauga. However, once again there will be a wait of at least 15 years before a placement is available, if ever." We are not talking about six months or six years. We are talking about 15 years.

"Len's mother had a heart attack in 1989 and finds it increasingly difficult to provide Len with the care he requires. Because Len is at home all day without any day program, he has become extremely frustrated. He has started to become aggressive with his mother. The stress level on the family is mounting daily. If his mother becomes ill again, there will be no one to take care of Len, nor will Community Living Mississauga be able to provide a home for him.... There is no doubt that Len and his mother are facing a crisis and there are no resources to deal with that crisis."

Here is another case which talks about the problems faced by the Catholic Family Services of Peel-Dufferin. Just one short quotation: "The school social worker felt that the children were experiencing many problems because they had witnessed the murder of their father two years earlier. Six months after the original call, they are still awaiting service."

In view of the limitation of time this morning I cannot continue to give the members more cases, but what does it mean when in 1991, in an affluent province like Ontario, we have to stand here and plead and beg for the human survival of these people in Peel? We know there is not a money tree at Queen's Park and we know we are in a recession, but we also know this government is spending money every day.

We ask the government simply to set priorities, to spend money on human survival needs and eliminate the suffering first, and then do the sending out of cheques and running around the province like fairy godmothers dropping money here and there for other causes. The government should prioritize on behalf of these people who are suffering today.

Mr Winninger: First of all, I would like to thank the group of Peel agencies that did such fine work in preparing this report. I would like to thank as well the member for Mississauga North for bringing forward what appears to be a persuasive resolution, and certainly the member for Mississauga South has presented some very compelling and poignant examples of where there is a scarcity of services to meet the needs of children.

This is a problem, though, that is shared by many municipalities across the province. In my own riding of London South, and in the London area in general, children's services are having great difficulty struggling to keep pace with the demand that a lot of our social and economic conditions have engendered.

Certainly there are activities under way to assess the current inequities in funding and find a more equitable approach to funding these programs, as the member for Mississauga North has indicated is required, and various funding formulas and options for distribution of resources are being examined. Certainly there has been phenomenal growth in the greater Toronto area that I believe the ministry is well aware of and is examining very closely.

The case has been made quite convincingly, I think, that there is a long waiting list in Peel and that there may be some underfunding and inadequate community resources that have resulted in these long waiting lists. However, the same problem occurs in Durham, York, Halton and many other areas across the province. I hear Perth is encountering that problem as well. This is not a problem that just arose today or last month or on 6 September. This is a problem that has been growing for many years now and is not an easy one to solve.

I am sure the member for Mississauga North does not purport to have all the answers to this problem, since his government did not appear to have all the answers nine months ago. The agencies involved in the Fair Share for Peel Task Force report have certainly documented that funding for social services needs to be re-examined, and certainly in the Peel area there seems to be a shortage of funds that exceeds the provincial average, if you will.

The long waiting lists are common to many municipalities -- the lack of crisis intervention services, the need for more subsidized child care spaces and so on.

Children First, the report of the Advisory Committee on Children's Services prepared in November 1990, well illustrates the problem across the province and calls upon government to forge new relationships to care for children in the light of changing social and economic realities, and goes on to say that the provincial government is now spending $1.4 billion a year overall within the Ministry of Community and Social Services on children's services, including child care.

Given the great expenditure we now see, as the member for Mississauga South has indicated, we have to look at ways to deliver services perhaps in a more efficient and effective manner. With some impetus for change, the systems of care and support for children and their families may become adequate to meet the challenges facing them.

However, we may not be able to do this within the five-year time frame that the member for Mississauga North requires in his resolution. For that reason, I have grave reservations that such a complex problem, which is common to communities all across the province, can be met within an arbitrary and rigid five-year time frame. Maybe it can, maybe it cannot, but it is rather unworkable for the member to propose a five-year plan as though that would solve all the problems.

I am certainly committed to promoting children's wellbeing, to looking at ways in which we can change the system of funding and delivery of services. However, for the reasons I have mentioned, I cannot support the resolution.

Mr Callahan: First of all, I am chairing the standing committee on public accounts at the moment and my colleagues have very kindly allowed me to say my piece briefly on this very important issue.

The fact is that we all recognize there is limited money available, but I think at the same time we have to recognize, as did the former government, that there are high-growth areas in this province. If the funding that was made available to the public and separate school boards in the last capital allocation announcement is any indication, I have grave concerns that this issue is really understood by the present government, and it had best be understood, because growth unabated and underfunded will result in a significant increase in problems in that community.

Peel region is a young community in a sense. It is a very innovative community. It is a fast-growing community. We wish to have proper bases for funding so that budgets can be considered, other approaches to funding what is not funded by the government can be dealt with, but when you have no definitive way of defining what kind of money you are going to get and you have no way of knowing what impact growth is going to have on you, then of course it makes it impossible to do that.

When one looks at the significant features in the Peel region, we have an international airport in that community. We have people moving in there constantly because it is a new area. It is an area where young people are moving in with children who perhaps require services and perhaps are not able to get those services because of the difficulties in terms of funding and providing those services.

We are seeing a change in the environment in terms of the availability of foster care in cases of children's aid societies. We are seeing that the children's aid society legislation requires mandated services; there is nothing the children's aid society can say about whether it provides them or not. We are seeing as well that salaries in some respects are eating up, or accounting for, a great deal of the expenditures of all of these good providers in our community.

I am going to say finally, since I am sure my colleague the member for Mississauga South and others will be speaking at greater length on this, that we did in fact sign -- and you might say this was a non-partisan letter signed by every member of the region of Peel to the minister in February -- a letter outlining this difficulty and asking that she give consideration to it. But with the greatest of respect to the minister, we have not heard one word in terms of whether this is being addressed, whether she understands or appreciates the problem.

I suggest to the House that we are fast coming upon another year when these good organizations in our community are going to have to make their decisions and are going to have to have an answer. When I look at the amount of money the deficit was increased by, I have to say to myself that we don't have an unlimited amount of money, but surely having provided this deficit, there must be extra dollars there for some purpose. I suggest that this is a very worthy purpose.

I think the entire province would like to know that there is some specific formula for how we arrive at funding services, because although a member's community may not be a growing community at the moment, as Ontario goes down the road through history, that community may very well become a growing community and people are going to require these rules to be in place to ensure that the fast-growing community is adequately served.

So I urge members to support this very necessary motion that is brought by my friend the member for Mississauga North. I would urge members to support it and demonstrate to the government that this is a very important issue, that there has to be a fixed formula. We cannot go on not knowing from budget to budget what will be available for these services.

I urge members, on behalf of the children of our riding, of Peel region, and the children of other growing areas, so that they will in fact have some certainty in life, which today seems to be very difficult for young people, to give them the certainty that at least those services, mental health and so on, will be provided for them. I would hope in the overall scheme of things that we will have unanimous support for this motion.

Mr Tilson: I too rise to speak in favour of the resolution. I too was one of the individuals who signed the letter that was indicated by the member for Brampton South and the member for Mississauga South.

It is regrettable that the minister has chosen to ignore that letter and would appear to have ignored the problem. There is no question the general subject, as the member for London South has indicated, applies throughout the province, but I think it has accelerated in the region of Peel for all the reasons given by the previous speaker. I think the government is going to have to consider that fact in itself, the very fact of the population explosion that has occurred in the region of Peel because of the current economic situation and the number of refugees who have come to the area, for obvious reasons.

I have spoken to some of these agencies that have been listed by the member for Mississauga South, specifically the Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel, Family Services of Peel, Peel Children's Centre, the Social Planning Council of Peel and the United Way of Peel Region. To be quite frank, I question how they will be able to operate adequately under the circumstances that have been described in this House today.

I think we all agree that by ignoring these early stages of problems, if we do not deal with them, there is no question -- I see a pile of notes here beside me from the member for Mississauga South where she could tell very upsetting story after story, and she could go on. Time does not permit that.

But looking at it from another point of view, the whole issue of the economics of it, the Attorney General stands up periodically and talks about the explosion in the court system. If we do not deal with this problem now, the problems the Attorney General has are minute. I would hope the government would consider that and not just simply say this is a problem that is common throughout the province. It is, but it has accelerated to unbelievable proportions in the region of Peel and must be looked at immediately.

Mr White: I rise to speak on this issue. First, I want to commend the Fair Share for Peel Task Force on its excellent work. It has dealt with a very significant issue in a very responsible way. It has addressed the concerns in Peel region I think quite adequately. However, this is a provincial House, not a regional municipality council.

As a professional social worker, I have worked with abused children in children's aid societies. I have worked in children's mental health centres and, for some 11 years, in a family service agency. I know many of the people who are working in those front-line agencies. I have worked in many of those front-line agencies and some of those people are close friends of mine.

The Family Services of Peel, for example, has a very credible record in dealing with serious family problems. Its certified social workers offer substantive family violence programs. It deals with battered women and children. The children's aid society of course helps vulnerable children who are in serious risk of physical or emotional abuse. These are not issues to be taken lightly.

The underfunding issues which the members opposite address are prevalent throughout the GTA. Exponential growth affects York, Durham, Halton and Peel. Where were the members last year? The member for Dufferin-Peel speaks about how these are emerging issues. Where was the member for Mississauga North last year? Has he suddenly discovered these problems? This Peel task force did not initiate itself on 6 September. These problems have been with us for more than a decade.

Last year and last decade I was dealing with those issues. I was dealing with victims of childhood sexual abuse. I was helping heal wounded families under the very circumstances that are described here, with these kinds of waiting lists. When I phoned people who had been on a waiting list for eight months or nine months or 10 months about their marital problems and they told me, "Gee willikers, my husband left" --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr White: -- I know what that means. It means they needed those services then, when they applied, not nine or 10 or 12 months later.

In Durham region, an area significantly affected by the same kind of exponential growth and the same problems in terms of funding, the family counselling department, which has been with the region since its creation as a region, is provincially funded in part. In the early 1980s, the previous Conservative government wanted to close the department that offered those valuable services to families.

Last year when pay equity adjustments came in, the Liberal government, which introduced pay equity under our pushing, refused to pay those pay equity adjustments. The regional municipality had to assume those costs. The regional municipality in Durham does an excellent job in offering services throughout the region on a decentralized basis.

The staffing problems that children's aid societies are faced with throughout this area are not problems in Peel alone. I know we have had serious problems in Durham region. We have had shortages of some 10 or 11 people from already too heavy workloads. Why? Because they are living in an area which is so expensive to live in and because their salaries are so low, they cannot afford to work for nothing.

We have a social planning council which, unlike the one in Peel, was sabotaged by a lovely Liberal who thought the best way to offer social planning was to get rid of the social planning council. We have different means and different areas of dealing with these things, but it is a greater Toronto area issue. It is a problem not for Peel, not for Halton, not for York, not for Durham alone, but for all of us.

I want to deal also with the issue of whose problem this is -- the provincial government, yes. The provincial government should develop and is in fact developing methods to deal with these exponential growth issues. I have spoken in my area with the regional office of the Ministry of Community and Social Services about serious issues around underfunding on the same basis for services for the developmentally challenged in my area. Yes, the provincial government has an overall responsibility, but I want to look at some of the agencies that are looked at here.

The Peel FSA is dealt with extensively in this report. The Peel FSA received no money from the provincial government. It is funded through the United Way; it is funded through the regional municipality.

Is the member suggesting that the province should walk in and take over a voluntary agency? Should the province walk in and take over the United Way as well? The regional municipality has not offered any increases, has not taken any responsibility for these services, has not increased its fee for services. Is the member suggesting that the province should dictate to the regional municipality what it funds to Family Services of Peel? I think not.

In this report it clearly states that the regional municipality has put a freeze on increases in day care. We know from our minister her and our commitment to day care in this province. Is the member suggesting that we dictate to the municipality how many day care spaces should be available in Peel?

Mrs Marland: You know what we are suggesting.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga South, please.

Mr White: The Peel Children's Centre has a long waiting list. We all have long waiting lists. Every children's mental health centre in this province does. We had a legislative committee hearing on this whole problem. The ministry is responding to that. Craig Shields is preparing a report on the waiting list problem. I did not see any of the members opposite who were signatories to this in front of that legislative committee. I did not see any of them dealing with that issue then.

I would commend the members for the representation of their constituencies. I would gladly vote for this resolution too if it included the whole greater Toronto area.

Mrs Marland: Where do you think Peel is? It is in the greater Toronto area. Do you not know what the GTA is? It is time you learned.

Mr White: As it is put, however, the member is suggesting that Peel region be valued above other areas.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga South, please.

Mr Sola: This is supposed to be a non-partisan issue, yet I am concerned, from the remarks of the members on the government side, that it is becoming a partisan issue.

Let me just read a list of the names of people and organizations in support of this resolution and of this study: Boys and Girls Club of Peel, Brampton Neighbourhood Resource Centre, Brampton-Caledon Association for the Mentally Retarded, Caledon Parent-Child Centre, Caledon Information Centre, Canadian Mental Health Association -- Peel, Catholic Family Services of Peel-Dufferin, Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel, Community Living Mississauga, Distress Line of Peel, Dixie-Bloor Neighbourhood Drop-In Centre, Elizabeth Fry Society of Peel, Erinoak, Family Services of Peel, Fieldgate Nursery and Child Care Centre, Hospice of Peel, John Howard Society of Peel, a letter from all the local MPPs, Mississauga Community Legal Services, Nexus Youth Services, Our Place Peel, Peel Children's Centre, Peel Board of Education, Peel Regional Police, Rapport Youth and Family Counselling, Regional Municipality of Peel, Salvation Army Family Life Resource Centre, Social Planning Council of Peel, and the United Way of Peel Region.

From this list, it must be obvious to everyone that this is a non-partisan issue.

Let me read you a list of the MPPs who signed that letter: There is the member for Brampton North, the member for Brampton South, the member for Dufferin-Peel, my office for Mississauga East, the member for Mississauga North, the member for Mississauga South, and the member for Mississauga West.

I am afraid, when you take a look at who is representing Peel and the remarks of the members opposite, that it comes down to the people whom the people in the region of Peel elected to serve them. From that list that I just read, there are five Liberals, two Progressive Conservatives and zero New Democrats. I hope this list of members is not clouding the decision-making process of the government.

I must state as well that from other sources the government has funded or not funded in other regions, be it health or be it education, we are getting a definite perception that it is the political makeup of the representation of Peel that is uppermost in the mind of this government.

The Mississauga News of Wednesday 5 June says, "Embittered over meagre provincial funding, members of Peel's public and separate school boards contend Ontario's NDP government is allocating funds on the basis of political affiliation instead of need." I hope this perception does not linger.

Mr Ferguson: You do not believe that.

Mr Sola: That is the perception. Those are not my words.

I want to point something else out that the member opposite stated about the member for Mississauga North asking for special consideration for Peel.

In a Toronto Star

article of Wednesday 23 January, entitled "Peel Health Services Face A Funding Crisis," there is a little item that says: "In 1989, according to the latest statistics, Peel had 8%, or 187,000 of Ontario's children under age 17, but received only 3.3% of Ontario children's services dollars. Metropolitan Toronto, on the other hand, had 16%, or 374,000 children, and received 25.2% of provincial funding." In other words, Metro Toronto had double the number of children but almost eight times the funding that Peel got. I think that should be in the mind of the government when it is allocating funds.

In order to leave time for my colleague the member for Brampton North, I just want to leave the government with these words: Public perception becomes public reality.

Mrs Cunningham: It is with some degree of concern that I stand this morning and speak once again of the need of a complete overhaul of the delivery system for social services in Ontario, and I will say that this is not new.

Many of us have been involved in the report of the Provincial-Municipal Social Services Review Committee. There were recommendations made with regard to responsibility for the provincial government and the municipalities in the area of social services, and the report proposes a new framework for provincial-municipal management of the social service system that clarifies and realigns the responsibilities of the two levels of government.

It is a complicated report. It is a report that a lot of social service workers, a lot of families, a lot of municipalities, gave a lot of their time to over a long period of time. The committee was first established in 1987 and absolutely nothing was done about it by the former Liberal government. Now we are facing another government that feels quite free to come forth with recommendations outside of a very broad framework, and I am talking about the Back on Track report.

When the municipality of Peel and other municipalities spoke, the Fair Share for Peel Task Force spoke very much in favour of an overview of social services, and gave specific examples in its report of how things are not working.

Mr Hope: First of all, there was a comment made about the Minister of Community and Social Services ignoring this issue. I must assure the member that this government has not ignored the issue dealing with children's services in this province. As to the letter that the minister had sent, yes, I will follow up and see if correspondence was sent.

Rest assured that the accusation saying this minister has ignored the situation that occurs in Peel is a false statement. I think it is very important, as I listen to some of the concerns that are raised by the members of the opposition, to look at the impacts of what has been taking place with the budget. They seem to float on their buses through the province and talk about the budget and about increasing spending. This problem exists throughout this province. This is a provincial government that deals with provincial issues dealing with children's services. There are a number of them.

There are 22 children's aid societies reporting deficits of $3.7 million in this province, and 23 of them reporting a $1.9 million surpluse.

I understand the resolution very clearly. Being the parliamentary assistant to the minister, I know we are caring about the people of this province. Dealing with the economic climate that is upon us today, we are trying to make positive movement in helping out. But dealing with the resolution in the time frame it puts forth is such a complex issue. It is important that we deal with it as soon as possible.

The Deputy Speaker: I would just like to remind the member for Chatham-Kent that sometimes you have to be very careful in the choice of words that you use. It is just on the eve of being not acceptable in this House.

Mr McClelland: There is limited time to address an issue of very significant concern. My friend the member for London South had some comments that she wanted to get on the record. The fact remains that this has been touted as a non-partisan issue, but it flies in the face of some of the comments that we heard from the opposite side of the House, particularly from the member for Durham Centre.

I want to call him to task on it directly and forthrightly, and say that if he can stand in his place and try to slough this off by suggesting he is not supportive of it because it is Peel only, then clearly, after standing in his self-righteous manner saying that he was a deliverer of service and understands it, to stand up in the same breath and say he is not supporting it because it does not address a broader concern means he either does not understand it or he has chosen to pay a little bit of political game with this.

I do not know which one it is, but it is one or the other. The member for Durham Centre had better look very carefully at his comments in Hansard. If that is representative of what he is saying and of his government, I think he will have an accounting in five years.

This resolution calls for a revamping of the system over a five-year period. It is not Peel only. This by its very nature is using Peel as a focus, but the resolution is the leading edge in terms of a review of the system across the province. If the member's government cannot do it in five years, five years from now he will certainly not be around to respond and he will not be in government.

It is very interesting that his own minister has paid lipservice to the very fundamental changes that are required. His Premier said, as they were sworn into power, that the overwhelming responsibility of this government was to deal adequately and responsibly with overhauling the delivery of social services in a method that is understandable, that builds on planning, that builds into the year 2000 and beyond.

Now the member says he cannot support it for a number of reasons that, quite frankly, do not make any sense at all. His response has been to the Back on Track report. My friend the member for London South wanted to get this on the record. I think it is important and it is indicative of where his mind is. His response to the recognized need for an overhaul and a comprehensive review of the social service delivery system is the Back on Track report. It is a piecemeal response that has virtually every municipality and every regional government in this province upset.

He responds by saying he is going to extend benefits to 16- and 17-year-olds living at home and he is eliminating home visits. That is his response to this issue. Furthermore, his Premier is not even prepared to meet with leadership with respect to that issue either.

I am really concerned when we stand on a issue of this grave significance to men, women and children in the region of Peel and indeed across the province and get the kind of response we have had today. I would hope many of the members opposite would consider this in the light of their own conscience and the issue at hand, and not to be swayed by some irrelevant argument about whether it is parochial in nature. Certainly it is worded in that sense, but the underlying principles are with respect to delivering a system that builds on planning and, as my friend the member for Mississauga South said, is based on an issue of fairness and equity.

My friend the member for Durham Centre stands there with self-righteousness and says, "What wonderful people we are and we know how to deliver," and then plays little word games and says, "But we're not going to support this because it doesn't represent the entire province." That is absolute nonsense. I say to the member that he should read his comments and rethink them and be very careful when he is called to task back home with what he has to say about that.

This resolution brought by my friend the member for Mississauga North is, if we give it careful consideration, indicative. It is a local focus of a major problem that has to be addressed that affects real people every day. The issues underlying it are fairness, equity and justice for children, and if members find they can stand and vote against that, I challenge them to do that.

I conclude my comments by saying I am proud of the work that has been done by the Fair Share for Peel Task Force, many of whom are here in the gallery, and the work done by my friend the member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: First I would like to thank all those members in my party and certainly in the third party who have spoken in support of this resolution. With respect to the comments made by the members on the government side, I can only think of three words: shocked, appalled and disappointed.

I would have truly hoped they would have taken the time to read the resolution. Those comments that were made by every one of those members who said that this is a matter which applies only to the region of Peel means they have not read the resolution.

I think it behooves me, in the very short period of time left, to re-read that it states there are problems in the region of Peel because it is a region of a growing nature, that there is "the need for a consistent method of allocating provincial grants for social services," and it asks the Minister of Community and Social Services to take "concrete steps to increase the service base to a satisfactory level over a five-year period" and to "develop an equitable funding formula that recognizes population growth dynamics and social indicators."

The words "in the region of Peel" do not appear at the end of that resolution. This is a resolution which is asking that there be a consistent method for equitable allocation of provincial funding for all areas in this province. The region of Peel is one such area that has exhibited such growth, but it is not the only area. I cannot believe that the members of the government side would stand in their places and say, "This is but a region of Peel issue." It is an issue which affects everyone in this province.

It is an issue of children, of families, and the government members have turned their backs on them and have said no to consistent provincial allocation of dollars, and for that they should be ashamed.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Johnson has moved resolution 16.

Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SERVICES

The House divided on Mr Offer's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 27

Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Cordiano, Cousens, Elston, Harnick, Haslam, Jordan, Mancini, Marland, McClelland, Miclash, Murdoch, B., Offer, Perruzza, Poole, Silipo, Sola, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, J.

Nays -- 23

Abel, Christopherson, Cooper, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Frankford, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mathyssen, Mills, O'Connor, Stockwell, Sutherland, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wiseman.

The House recessed at 1214.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BURGOYNE FAMILY

Mr Bradley: On the evening of Monday 10 June, I had the privilege of attending the fifth annual Leonard B. Herzog Memorial Foundation dinner, which this year was organized in the form of an appreciation night for the Burgoyne family of St Catharines.

For over a century, members of the Burgoyne family have played a significant role in our city as publishers of the St Catharines Standard, an independent and community-oriented daily newspaper, and through their benevolence and generosity in supporting charitable and community endeavours.

When athletes skate, play hockey or lacrosse or enjoy recreational events in the north end arena, they are in a structure, the Bill Burgoyne Memorial Arena, which received a generous donation from the family before the sod was broken. When families gather in the south end to enjoy the outdoors in the 122-acre forested area in the heart of the city, they are in Burgoyne Woods, a beautiful tract of land purchased by the estate of W. B. Burgoyne. When students at Brock University interested in business utilize a new entrepreneurial centre, it will be the Burgoyne Centre for Entrepreneurship, funded by the family.

Virtually every aspect of life in St Catharines has been touched by the contribution of these outstanding Canadian citizens, and it was fitting that Dorothy Doolittle, her son, Standard publisher Henry Burgoyne, and her daughters, Janet and Harriet, were publicly thanked by the people of St Catharines for their service to our community.

The net proceeds of the event, as usual, go to the Leonard B. Herzog Memorial Foundation in aid of St Catharines hospitals. Appropriately, its chairman is Henry Burgoyne.

CHILD CARE

Mr Turnbull: On Monday 17 June, parents in my riding and in five other ridings across Metropolitan Toronto are holding a public forum on the question of equality of provincial funding for school-based child care centres in Metro Toronto.

Outside Metro, every new school funded by the Ministry of Education gets a new 100%-funded child care facility. In Metro, all costs for child care facilities must be paid for by property tax dollars. Presently there are over 200 child care programs in Metro schools. However, the space is not guaranteed for child care. If the school requires the space for other uses or the school is rebuilt, child care may be forced out. When existing schools in Metro are replaced, the existing school-based child care spaces are not being rebuilt.

Existing child care spaces and the associated jobs are lost, not because there is a lack of need but because the provincial government discriminates in its funding policies against the citizens within Metro.

When the Premier and the NDP ran for election, they promised provincial funding for 100% of the costs of child care facilities in Metro schools. The citizens of Metro Toronto ask to be treated the same as all the other citizens in Ontario. They ask the Minister of Education to provide funding for child care on the same basis to Metro schools as to all other schools in the province.

NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE

Ms Haeck: This Saturday, 15 June, people visiting Niagara-on-the-Lake will have the chance to peek behind the scenes and look into some of the quiet, private places in that lovely little town.

How is that possible? On Saturday, the Niagara Conservancy will be holding its annual garden tour. For $10 participants can visit 10 private gardens, large and small, around the town. The tours will begin at 10 am and run until 4 pm. The money raised by this event will allow the conservancy, long known for its efforts to protect the environment of Niagara, to purchase a piece of land along the Niagara River and turn it into a new park.

Those of you who live a considerable distance away from Niagara can make the garden tour just part of a relaxing weekend in Niagara-on-the-Lake, attend a play or two at the Shaw Festival, visit historic Fort George, walk the charming streets of the old town, visit one of the wineries in the area, attend this weekend's strawberry festival at St Andrew's Presbyterian Church and stay over in a charming bed-and-breakfast residence.

Can you think of a better way to spend your weekend? I cannot, and I hope you will all come.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr McClelland: I am happy to say that today a resolution standing in the name of the member for Mississauga North received the approval of this House. That resolution advanced the tremendous work done by the Fair Share for Peel Task Force and called for, among other things, a five-year initiative to develop an equitable funding formula for the delivery of social services, with particular reference to children's services in high-growth areas.

In February, though, a letter was sent to the Minister of Community and Social Services signed by seven members of this House, requesting a meeting with the minister and representatives of the task force. To date, none of us has received a reply.

In mid-April, one of the minister's staff met with representatives of the task force, responded favourably to its submissions, acknowledged the existing inequities in funding and committed to following them up. That follow-up meeting is now tentatively scheduled for September.

We are perplexed that a minister and a Premier who have acknowledged this serious problem are unable not only to deal with this important issue expeditiously but are unable or perhaps unwilling to meet with agencies that are representing 8% of the child population of this province. Even more surprisingly, indeed shockingly, a significant number of members of the government caucus voted against this very important resolution. Many of us are wondering, how could those government members today vote against addressing an unfair and inequitable situation, as acknowledged by the Premier and a senior cabinet minister?

When it came time to vote today, many government members apparently forgot what their party and their leader have said in the past. Once again, that was then, but I guess this is now.

DENNIS THOMPSON

Mr Carr: Police officers serve to protect us. They put their lives on the line every day. We do not do nearly enough to thank them, and it seems only in times of tragedy do we stand up and publicly tell them how much we appreciate them. Today, unfortunately, is no exception, but I would very much like to pay tribute to Sergeant Dennis Thompson of the Peterborough detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police.

Sergeant Thompson was hit by a shotgun blast on 17 May as he approached a stolen taxicab. He was operated on to remove shotgun pellets from his eyes. Doctors were hoping he would regain his sight; however, Sergeant Thompson has been told he will never see again.

Dennis Thompson is recovering at home and is very optimistic about the future. He is looking forward to rejoining his detachment and to continuing his community activities, especially as cub scout leader with his five- and eight-year-old sons.

Dennis Thompson is a dedicated police officer and an inspiration to us all, and I believe I speak for the entire Legislature when I say we wish him well.

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

Mrs MacKinnon: I am very pleased, as a senior, to speak to the House today and inform everyone that June is Seniors Month. Some three million Canadians are 65 years old or more. This means that more than one in every 10 persons in Canada is a member of the senior population. Many activities will be celebrated across the province during the month of June, recognizing the invaluable contribution seniors make to our communities. Millions of dollars are saved each year through the dedication of seniors volunteering in their communities.

Without seniors' dedication, no government could ever pay for or provide the amount of time and dollars seniors contribute through committees, special events, recreation and the sharing of their knowledge. Seniors are more active today than ever before. Some of us even start new careers at age 65.

I am very proud to be part of the seniors being recognized during the month of June and encourage all members to take the time to say thank you to the seniors who have helped strengthen their communities and continue to work for a province we can all be proud of. I take this opportunity to thank the seniors of my riding in Lambton county for all their generous contributions that they have given throughout the years and continue to give.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Miclash: Last week the Liberal budget task force travelled across northern Ontario. The two words which best sum up the feelings of northerners towards the NDP government are fear and anger; fear of what the socialist government is doing to the already fragile northern economy and anger at the cynical NDP "that is then, this is now" mentality.

This is the party which promised a $400-million northern fund. This is the party which promised four-lane highways from Keewatin to Kirkland Lake. As well, this is the party which promised to buy 100% of its uranium from Elliot Lake. This is also the party which deceived northerners with promises of one-price gasoline across the north but raised gas prices by 30% in its first budget. This is the party whose task force on northern health care made promises to northerners, only to be shelved by the Premier's Toronto cabinet.

For the last eight months the people of northern Ontario have come to expect one of these five NDP responses: (1) "Sure I can promise that, but I can't deliver"; (2) "It's under review"; (3) "It's not our fault. Talk to Brian"; (4) "Sorry, the Premier won't let us," and (5) "It wasn't the Agenda for People, it was the agenda for power."

Northerners have their own answer for the NDP -- they want them to stand up and deliver.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr B. Murdoch: Yesterday the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced that he was setting up a commission of inquiry to look into land use planning in Ontario. He said that it would operate in an open and informal way, "consulting and seeking consensus." It appears already that this is a farce.

Apart from the fact that planning decisions should be the responsibility of his ministry rather than that of yet another publicly funded, bureaucratic body, this commission clearly is not impartial. How can they claim to be openly consulting when the chairman of the commission said at a press conference yesterday that one reason for the inquiry was to prevent what was happening in Grey from happening elsewhere?

Exactly what did happen in Grey? Any alleged or perceived planning wrongdoings in my riding are in the eyes of the minister, not the people of Grey. How can we have a commissioner who, before he even begins his work, has a strong bias against the actions of any county council? How can he even pretend to examine the issue fairly when he has already formed his opinions? These are not the words of an open-minded person. If the minister is honestly seeking fairness for the public for this province, he must remove Mr Sewell immediately and appoint someone else who can look fairly into the issue without perceived prejudice.

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr Mammoliti: Today I would like to take the opportunity to speak a bit about what makes not only Ontario but Canada so unique. We are a multicultural society. Every one of us should never forget his roots. We are Canadians, but we are encouraged to celebrate our ethnicity and that is what makes us so special.

I am an Italian Canadian and I am proud to say that my ties to my culture are very strong. I am very pleased to have with us today in the west gallery a respected representative of the Italian government's ministry of natural resources, located in San Giorgio Moggezzo of Reggio, Calabria, Signore Michele Carrerri and his wife Concetta.

I have had the pleasure to meet with Senor Carrerri and exchange information regarding both our homelands. Not only was I given the chance to learn more about my origins, I was able to share with him my pride in Canada.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NATIVE ISSUES

Hon Mr Wildman: Members will recall that on 28 March I told this House that the government of Ontario intends to resolve the 200-year-old land claim of the Algonquins of Golden Lake first nation.

At that time I announced that a statement of intent was signed with the first nation to begin land claim negotiations by 15 June. We also committed ourselves to negotiating interim arrangements with the Algonquins of Golden Lake regarding their aboriginal right to hunt and fish for food in the area they claim as their traditional territory. Today I am pleased to announce that negotiators representing the province of Ontario will meet with negotiators from the Golden Lake first nation on Saturday 15 June in Golden Lake to begin the process of resolving the land claim.

At this time I also want to inform the House that the province has appointed the law firm of Sack, Goldblatt and Mitchell as Ontario's negotiators for the land claim. The negotiators will be supported by the staff of the Ontario native affairs secretariat and line ministries such as the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

A primary responsibility of the negotiators will be the development of a process that will allow Ontario to consult with the public and interest groups and the first nation to consult with its members.

Progress is continuing on the interim arrangements on hunting and fishing as well. It is our intention that we will have agreements with the first nation which incorporate its community rules that spell out such matters as hunting and fishing seasons, harvest levels, enforcement provisions and public safety measures.

There has been a lot of attention focused on these issues. One reason, of course, is the size of the claim -- 14,000 square miles of the Ottawa River watershed. The second reason, however, is that Algonquin Provincial Park is included in the land claim area and the future of the park is an important issue to Ontarians.

Last week, I responded to the recommendations of the Provincial Parks Council on the Algonquin Provincial Park management plan. I made it clear at that time that this government is committed to the protection of Algonquin Park's natural and cultural features, while ensuring that it provides a variety of recreational experiences for all Ontarians.

The statement of political relationship that we concluded last week with the chiefs of first nations in Ontario clearly recognizes the limits of Ontario's constitutional authority. Still, there are matters such as crown land and natural resources that are the responsibility of Ontario. We will be prepared to address issues such as these.

In addition, Ontario and the Golden Lake first nation must address an overlapping claim by the Algonquin nation of Quebec, and non-status Indian people of the Algonquin nation in Ontario have indicated their interest in the Golden Lake land claim. We must address both of these issues.

Ontario will also keep its commitments to consult with third parties during the course of the negotiations. We will consult with those with interests in areas such as tourism, recreation, the environment, industry and business as well as municipalities.

I believe we can reach a settlement that is satisfactory to all, a settlement that recognizes the rights of the Algonquins of Golden Lake first nation and improves the circumstances of their lives. At the same time, a settlement will respect the interests of a wide variety of non-aboriginal people in Ontario.

Through land claim settlements such as these, we believe our respective communities can find an honourable way of settling historic grievances and living together in harmony. It is my sincere wish that everyone with an interest in this issue will show the patience and understanding necessary to permit such a settlement to be negotiated.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am pleased to announce today key amendments to the construction projects regulation that will contribute greatly to safer and healthier construction projects. These changes demonstrate the government's strong commitment to improving health and safety in the workplace.

The construction industry, like all others, is adapting to rapidly changing technologies which have resulted in new work practices. In its continuing effort to keep pace with changes in the workplace, the Ministry of Labour initiated an extensive review of existing regulations.

Recommendations made during this review by labour, management, health and safety groups, coroners' juries and others were carefully considered when the amendments I am announcing today were drafted. These amendments will come into effect on 1 August.

A number of the new requirements involve protecting workers from falls from heights. This type of accident has been a major cause of construction workplace fatalities and critical injuries.

Under the amended regulation, there are no longer any exceptions to the provision and use of fall-protection equipment such as safety harnesses. Employers will now be required to ensure that workers involved in erecting the skeletal framework of a building, for example, are provided with complete fall protection.

Sections of the regulation have also been strengthened concerning the design and construction of scaffolds and, in certain cases, the services of a professional engineer will now be required.

In the construction of high-rise buildings, there will now be more stringent requirements for the design, testing and inspection of temporary formwork. Here too the services of a professional engineer may be required to ensure structural integrity.

Another source of potentially serious accidents is the improper installation, use and maintenance of tower cranes. An unsafe tower crane can result in death or serious injury to its operator, other construction workers and even the general public.

The new regulation sets down more stringent requirements for the design, installation and testing of these cranes. In addition, crane owners will now be required to keep permanent logs and records of all maintenance, repair and testing of their cranes.

The provision of adequate hygiene facilities, such as toilets and running water, for workers on construction projects has been a problem. The availability of adequate toilet and cleanup facilities is taken for granted in most other workplaces. We believe construction workers deserve the same consideration. Increased hygiene concerns dictate that the quality and quantity of hygiene facilities must be improved on construction projects.

The new regulation will require that flush toilets and running water be provided at most construction sites. At least one flush toilet will be required for every group of 15 or fewer workers. The only exceptions to the regulation will be for sites in extremely remote areas, on projects of a very short duration or where there are logistical supply problems. In these cases, however, the contractor will be required to consult with the project's joint health and safety committee or representative about acceptable alternative facilities.

Serious injuries and fatalities due to electrical shocks and burns are another major concern of my ministry. As a result, we have greatly expanded the sections governing electrical work to provide for specific safety procedures for working with live electrical systems and for rescuing injured workers. Sections of the regulation dealing with high-voltage electrical systems will incorporate the rules set out in the rule books of the Electrical Utilities Safety Association of Ontario and Ontario Hydro.

Excavations and trench cave-ins have also been a cause of serious injury and death. Key amendments in this area will involve more stringent sloping and shoring requirements to prevent cave-ins.

These revised regulations reflect the government's determination that everything that can be done will be done to ensure safe and healthy workplaces in Ontario. They also reflect the Ministry of Labour's continuing effort to make certain its legislation keeps pace with the changing technologies of today.

EDUCATION POLICY

Hon Mrs Boyd: I wish to advise members today that I am introducing a bill to amend the Education Act. Many of the amendments in this bill are housekeeping matters; however, some reflect recent ministry policy initiatives.

These amendments are based on proposals which were sent to a broad range of stakeholders, although the time for response was necessarily short. I intend to send a copy of this bill to those same stakeholders to provide an opportunity to them for further comment.

I will not take the time now to go through all of the amendments. However, I do want to bring some of them to the members' attention.

When a teacher is convicted of a criminal offence which would place students at risk, the minister has the authority to suspend or cancel a teacher's certificate after a careful and serious review of the circumstances.

Currently boards are not required to notify the minister, although many do. We propose to make it mandatory for school boards to inform the minister in such cases to ensure that the minister and ministry officials have the opportunity to review the situation. I believe this particular amendment will close a loophole in a matter that has been of concern to parents and many others in our community.

Among other proposed amendments to the act are measures to ensure that all school boards have drug education policies and anti-racism and ethnocultural policies in place. We are also clarifying measures for the transfer of schools from one board to another.

These are some of the changes. As I said, there are a number of other amendments to the act in this bill and I will speak to those when I introduce the bill.

RESPONSES NATIVE ISSUES

Mr Offer: I would like to respond first to the statement by the honourable minister responsible for native affairs.

Certainly, we commend the commencement of the negotiations with the Algonquins of the Golden Lake first nation on a claim which has long been seen to have legitimacy.

We know the discussions will be complex and lengthy but we also indicate that there are still some questions outstanding. The first question is the real role of the federal government in these negotiations. Second, we would like to know a little bit more about the overlapping claim of the Algonquins of Quebec. These are two matters outstanding which we do indeed believe require responses.

We recognize that land claims are sensitive issues and there is a need to maintain good communications with the non-native interests as these proceed, given of course the multiplicity of uses on crown land.

In general, on this particular announcement, we certainly do commend the commencement of such negotiations.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Offer: In regard to the announcement by the Minister of Labour, certainly our party is supportive of the measures which increase safety for workers on the job. That is why Bill 208 was brought forward, introduced and passed by the previous Liberal government under the tutelage of the previous Minister of Labour, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. That, of course, is a bill which reinforces the partnership of business and labour and achieves the important goal of enhancement of safety in the workplace.

Though I note that the current Minister of Labour was in opposition to Bill 208 when it was brought forward by the previous Liberal government, it is nice to see a letter which appeared in the Financial Post of 19 March, signed by the Minister of Labour, which states, referring to Bill 208:

"This legislation represents some of the most progressive health and safety regulations in North America. We believe its provisions for training and education under the umbrella of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency will prove an effective tool in achieving safer, healthier and more productive workplaces."

The Minister of Labour knows that is a letter which he himself signed. We certainly relish that type of letter and that change of direction by the Minister of Labour, finally recognizing that Bill 208, brought forward by the Liberal government, by our Minister of Labour, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, is one of the most progressive bills to provide safety in the workplace.

Though we still want to take a look at the very extensive regulations brought forward, we certainly believe this is a step in the right direction. We do reserve the right to take a hard look at those regulations, but indeed with some of those aspects, as brought forward, we are in support of the direction as one which builds upon the Bill 208 legislation brought forward by the previous Liberal government.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mr Beer: I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister of Education. We look forward to a number of the specific amendments that she has mentioned and will need, I think, to take some care with respect to the kind of authority that the minister would have in dealing with teachers convicted of a criminal offence, in seeing exactly how that would be exercised. But the direction is one that certainly makes sense at this time.

We also note that the various actions being taken with respect to drug education and anti-racism and ethnocultural policies are ones that a number of boards are taking and are important.

I want to focus on that measure which talks about clarifying measures for the transfer of schools from one board to another. I want to echo the comments of my colleague the member for London North yesterday, that we must ensure that never again does a community like Essex in this province have to go through what it has gone through over the past weeks and months. I quote one of the parents, who said in the Windsor Star:

"It was unfortunate the dispute had been allowed to drag on for so long. It makes for deeper wounds that take longer to heal. In one sense it has drawn different communities together to fight for community schools, but internally it has done damage within a community because of what's been said between friends and neighbours."

Very simply, this whole issue in Essex need not have happened. It was the government's incompetence -- and I stress it was the government's incompetence -- that allowed that to happen. A settlement had been worked out by the previous government, which was set aside, and in the end that is what we returned to. That must never, ever happen again.

NATIVE ISSUES

Mr Harnick: I would like to respond to the minister responsible for native affairs. It is interesting, in passing, that the law firm of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell has been retained as Ontario's negotiators for the land claim, the firm the Premier did his articles with. It is a labour firm that acts on behalf of unions. I find it passing strange that they are going to be negotiating a complicated land claim.

Hon Mr Wildman: Are you suggesting they are incompetent?

Mr Harnick: No, not at all. They are terrific labour lawyers.

At any rate, I hope the minister remains true to his obligations, not just to the native communities but to those who are also affected, so that at the end of the day the people who are also affected by the satisfying of the land claim, which we hope will happen, can walk away and realize that justice has been done for everyone, so that there is not a lingering animosity and so that the development and management of Algonquin Park remain sacred.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Education. The minister previously has called bills housekeeping matters in this House. We appreciate the fact that she has expanded that to say we are now looking at ministry policy initiatives.

This is quite an extensive bill and we are looking forward to seeing it this afternoon, hoping that the minister will indeed give the stakeholders a fair amount of time to respond as they see the bill in print. We are looking at such serious matters as governance, accommodation, finance, religious education, continuing education and student suspension, and the list goes on to include what the minister herself talked about today, criminal offences by teachers, drug education policies and, more important, the transfer of schools. So we are very serious about taking a look at this.

The minister should know that it took us a very long time to get from her ministry the package that was prepared some time in March, and we would appreciate it very much, if she has any support materials on the discussion