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.

1010

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.

1020

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.

1030

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.

1040

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.

1050

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.

1100

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.

1110

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.

1120

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.

1130

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.

1140

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.

1150

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.

1200

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.

1211

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.

1340

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.

I expect the negotiations leading to a settlement of this land claim will be complex. For instance, it is essential that the government of Canada be fully involved because of its fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal peoples. To this point, Canada has agreed only to send an observer to the negotiations. Ontario has taken the position that where it has a clear responsibility and the authority, it will negotiate with aboriginal peoples with or without the federal government.

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.

1350

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.

1400

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 discussions that took place in the formulation of this legislation, if she would forward it to the critics as quickly as possible.

I made my voice known yesterday with regard to our concerns about Bill 30. I thank the member for York North for the compliments. I hope the minister will be taking this issue very seriously. We never need experience across this province what happened, I might say, some three years ago in Hamilton, Ontario. It did not happen in London, Ontario, but did happen again in Essex. I hope this bill will clarify for all parents and students and teachers in this province procedures that are so important to the quality of life and education.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Tilson: I would like to respond to the statement of the Minister of Labour. With the growing number of deaths and injuries with respect to the construction industry, I think this type of legislation is necessary and many of the safety aspects are necessary. However, there are certain items that I am sure the minister will have to spend a little bit more time on.

Specifically, I look at the subject of generalizing throughout the entire industry, comparing all construction sites as if they were the same. Surely there are differences with small sites and large sites, for example, with the necessary requirement of scaffolds and engineers in part of the statement. Surely there must be some clarification with respect to small job sites.

The same goes with respect to flush toilets and the necessity that workmen be allowed to wash their hands. There gets to be a certain predictability to requiring certain requirements like that, specifically again in small job sites. I would like to know how many consultations he has had with respect to workmen having the desire to wash their hands. I cannot believe it is that widespread.

I am also concerned with the cost of buildings. The costs of Bill 4 and Bill 121 have been put on the housing industry. This is going to be more cost to the housing industry and it is going to discourage more and more people from getting into the housing industry.

I would like the minister to take a second look at some of these things. Certainly the legislation is needed because of safety reasons, but we should not get too much bureaucracy, as has been indicated.

As far as the 1 August date depicted is concerned, I question how much consultation has gone into that. It may be too early, and I would hope he would have more consultation than he has indicated with the industry to question whether that date is too early.

CONDUCT OF CABINET MINISTERS

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege. On 4 March I sent a letter to the president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario expressing my concern regarding the college's decision to allow a doctor to continue practising medicine despite four convictions for child sexual assault. In that letter I said that although the decision to revoke the doctor's licence was pending an appeal of his convictions, it was my recommendation that the college suspend his licence in the interim, based on the fact that he had been convicted on four charges of sexual assault involving girls between the ages of 12 and 15 years.

I rise today to offer the House a profound apology for what I now understand was mistaken and inappropriate action, and I deeply regret any embarrassment I may have caused the Premier and my government.

As I said in my letter to the college: "Sexual abuse involving a doctor and a patient is of particular concern as it involves a breach of trust and abuse of power. The impact on the victim, therefore, is not dissimilar to that of incestuous abuse."

I wrote that letter out of a sense of responsibility as Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues and because I shared the outrage and the distress of the women from the doctor's community, the women who raised the issue with me.

I still have those feelings, but I know my actions were wrong. No matter how strong my feelings, I believe it was inappropriate for me, as a minister of the crown, to attempt to influence a tribunal. Therefore, I have offered my resignation to the Premier.

Hon Miss Martel: Following on the statement made by my colleague the minister responsible for women's issues, I want to inform the members of the House, and through them the people of Ontario, that I also wrote a letter concerning this matter. My letter, written on constituency office letterhead as the MPP for Sudbury East and dated 11 April 1991, reads as follows. It is addressed to Ed Singleton, Registrar, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

"Dear Mr Singleton:

"Recently you would have received correspondence from Jan Steven, consumer representative on the maternal, newborn and paediatric subcommittee of the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council. I attach a letter for your easy perusal and wish to make this comment.

"The conviction of Dr Mohan of North Bay is a terribly serious matter and one that needs to be given much more weight and consideration by the college. It seems to me that Jan Steven has raised a very legitimate concern regarding why the college continues to allow Dr Mohan to practise, given sentencing on sexual assault charges.

"A change in the position of the college is in order in this matter. I would appreciate receiving a copy of any response you forward to Jan Steven."

While in opposition, I wrote two letters on behalf of constituents to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. However, while my letter was written regarding a constituency matter, I am a member of the government and the cabinet. Upon reflection, I realize that it is difficult for the public to discern between the role of a representative of the constituency and the role of a representative of the government and indeed cabinet. It is not appropriate to write such a letter and I profoundly apologize for doing so.

I deeply regret my error in judgement and any embarrassment this has caused the Premier, my colleagues, my staff and the staff at my ministry. It is clear that the writing of such a letter could be perceived as having exercised undue political influence on the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Therefore, in order to accept responsibility for this possibility, I have offered my resignation to the Premier. I leave the matter in his hands. Again, I apologize to all the House, to my colleagues and to the public for the error which I have committed.

1410

Mr Nixon: I have a word on the statements by the two honourable members. I need hardly say there is no political joy in these statements, and I can assure the two honourable members on behalf of my colleagues that their reputation and integrity have in no way suffered by these statements. From my own point of judgement in these matters, I would congratulate both of them on the actions they have taken in the House at this time and leave the responsibility where it properly belongs.

Mr Eves: I too would like to make a very brief comment with respect to the statements made by the two honourable members.

The member for Scarborough West knows very well what I feel about her integrity as a minister for women's issues. I have expressed that to her on at least two occasions that I can recall. The minister who is the member for Sudbury East will know that I have had a profound admiration for her abilities and integrity in this House for several years now.

I would like to echo the comments made by the leader of the official opposition that there is indeed no joy in statements such as these made in the Legislature here this afternoon. However, I might add that I think it demonstrates to everybody that there is indeed integrity in the system we all try to serve regardless of which side of the House we are on. I think in that respect, at least, I have more confidence than ever in the system we have here in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONDUCT OF CABINET MINISTERS

Mr Nixon: I am questioning myself the appropriateness of the question, but I believe the Premier deserves to say something about this matter to the House. I think he understands that the feeling expressed by the two spokespersons over here is sincerely felt. Without getting beyond that feeling, the responsibility rests very largely on the head of the government, not only to respond to the offers made by the two ministers but to accept a certain special responsibility for the fact that, in spite of their strong feelings in this regard in this sickening incident, they did not know better. What has he got to say about that?

Hon Mr Rae: That is a very fair question and I will try to respond as fairly as I can.

Let me first of all say to members that, from a human perspective, they will perhaps appreciate that I was totally unaware of either of these letters when I was working this morning with the Premier's Council on Health, Wellbeing and Social Justice.

I know that all of us are supposed to have an instant response to the situation, and I suppose there are those who would say that politically one should have an instant response.

Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition this: I have had a chance this morning, upon hearing of this news and leaving the meeting and speaking with the minister for women's issues, to discuss the matter with her for about half an hour or 45 minutes. We both immediately agreed that what she did was wrong, that it was completely inappropriate and that however strongly she felt and all of us feel about the circumstances surrounding this case, such a letter should not have been written.

I was not aware of the letter written by the member for Sudbury East until about 45 minutes ago. I did not see the letter until I came into question period and I have not had an opportunity to have any discussion at all with the member for Sudbury East.

I would say this to the Leader of the Opposition: The letters should not have been written. Particularly the letter from the minister, given that it was written as minister for women's issues, should not have been written. It should not have gone to the tribunal. The judge has made his judgement in that instance. I have decided to accept the resignation of the minister for women's issues on the basis of the conversation I had with her this morning.

I hope the Leader of the Opposition will understand when I say I would like a chance to reflect on the circumstances surrounding the letter that was written by the member for Sudbury East. It was written as a constituency member. I do not know whether there are other constituency members who have ever written letters to tribunals, but I suspect there are. I would like a chance to explore that with her and a chance to share that with people and to exercise some judgement in that regard.

If he has any advice, I would be interested in hearing the advice. It is something which concerns me, because the circumstances surrounding this case are particularly difficult in light of the fact that there was a substantial degree and body of public opinion, particularly in the communities involved in northern Ontario, which could not understand why it was that nothing more was being done. I think it is important for members to try to put that in context.

I am not undercutting or underestimating at all the fact that I think in the circumstances ministers of the crown should not be corresponding with tribunals. The rules on that are very clear. It is not a matter of my guidelines or any other guidelines; it is just a matter of the basic rules of the game. But without attempting to avoid the question at all, I would say, in summary, that I have decided, and with enormous regret, to accept the resignation of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues. But I am still determining, because I think I ought to have a chance at least to speak to the Minister for Northern Development and the House leader to discuss the circumstances under which the letter was written and to respond to the House accordingly.

Mr Nixon: Perhaps there is a special sensitivity, not so much about the ghastly situation that elicited the letters, but the fact that similar matters have been before the House in the recent past. I personally believe that the actions taken by these ministers is exemplary and the decision is where it should be.

In his answer, the Premier indicated that he would like some advice. I suppose if I can give advice in an interrogative way, would he consider reconsidering his acceptance of the resignation of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues? I think there is a clear understanding of what has happened here. While the Premier has indicated that he perceives a substantial difference in the situations, I think there would be some understanding in the House and probably in the community if he gave further, more general consideration to the matter. So in response to his answer to my question, I simply say that to him. I will not pursue it further, other than to say, what else is he going to do to help his colleagues in these matters?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, with respect to the first question by the Leader of the Opposition, I would perhaps appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with him after he has had a chance to reflect with his colleagues, as well as to discuss it with the leader of the third party. I think we all understand the sensitivity of the circumstances we are dealing with in terms of the particular circumstances involving the college. I am, if I may say so, deeply grateful to the leader for the very classy way in which he has responded. I think it is extremely helpful to all of us who are wrestling with these questions.

He asks what else we are doing. I can only tell the Leader of the Opposition that the mistakes this government makes and mistakes ministers make, errors in judgement they commit, are very much made in public. It is a learning experience for a party that has been, I would argue, too long in opposition and he would probably argue too long in power.

I have asked for the advice of the standing committee on administration of justice and I would appreciate further advice from the justice committee with respect to dealing with the question of how one deals with these problems. The fact is, mistakes were made. I think we all recognize the emotion that led to the mistakes, but as Judge Chadwick said, the letter should not have been written, and I think one has to listen carefully to the judge in those circumstances. But we are continuing to try. We had a meeting today to go over it again and to try to get people to understand the seriousness of these situations and I will continue to make efforts. If there have to be other changes made in terms of making it even clearer, I will do so.

Mr Nixon: I said I was not going to pursue it, but if it is any help, I can remember a somewhat similar occasion back in history where one of the Premier's predecessors said to his then colleagues, "Will you stop doing this, because I can't help you."

Hon Mr Rae: Who said that?

Mr Nixon: I forget who. Somebody said that.

1420

TAXATION

Mr Nixon: To go from classy to business as usual, may I direct a question to the Premier on another matter that was raised by myself yesterday with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and I intended to raise with the Treasurer today. It is the policy of the government of Ontario with regard to the provincial sales tax and the goods and services tax.

We are aware that the leader of the New Democratic Party said clearly before the election that he would have nothing to do with that, and we take him at face value. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, however, said that when it comes to co-operation with the GST and maybe putting the taxes together, everything was on the table. I do not have his direct quote and I am not going to take time for it. When he answered yesterday, he said that was not one of the alternatives.

Could the Premier make clear what the policy is? He has stated clearly the two taxes will not be put together. Is he thinking of assisting in the collection? Is he thinking of broadening the base of the provincial sales tax to coincide partly or totally with the GST? Perhaps in the absence of the Treasurer and the other minister he could make this matter clear.

Hon Mr Rae: I can only tell the Leader of the Opposition what I know, and that is that we have a provincial sales tax and we regard the GST as a most unfortunate intrusion into an area of taxation that up until very recently has been exclusively the area of preserve of the provincial governments across the country.

There are no discussions going on within the government with respect to the question of harmonization of the two taxes. But he will also know -- he was once Treasurer -- that the Treasurer reserves very jealously the right to consider tax matters as he prepares for the next budget. That is really all I can tell him. There is no dramatic announcement coming this week with respect to the question of harmonization between our tax system and the GST. We regard the GST as a most unfortunate and counterproductive intrusion into our area as well as an unfair tax on people.

We are having to wrestle with it all the time, as well as with the fact that, with the cross-border shopping issue, we do face now the prospect of revenue losses as high as $200 million or $300 million a year, which is very, very substantial. We have to look as that as a government. The Treasurer feels an obligation to look upon that as Treasurer. Beyond that, I really cannot enlighten the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Nixon: If I may quote from the Financial Post of 12 June: "Ontario Treasurer Floyd Laughren said yesterday the province is considering harmonizing the items to which the provincial sales tax and the federal GST apply...." That is not putting the taxes together, but that is a huge broadening of the provincial sales tax base. If the Premier does not want to or cannot tell me more about it, is there anything he is thinking of telling the Treasurer about this matter?

Hon Mr Rae: There are many things that I think of telling the Treasurer that I might not share with the Leader of the Opposition. We may be chummy, but we are not that chummy. The Leader of the Opposition was on this side as Treasurer and he knows full well that the GST is a massive intrusion into our area of taxation, that it poses an enormous problem for smaller businesses across the province as well as an enormous problem for consumers. He will also know the economic challenges that are facing the province of Ontario.

My short answer to the leader is I cannot enlighten him any further than I have. If we have any further things to tell him, we will let him know.

Mr Nixon: Finally, I quote from a campaign news release of the member for York South, 22 August 1990 -- that seems so many years ago: "We're committed to making taxes fairer by saying from the beginning that we will have nothing to do with the Mulroney tax." That was the most pejorative adjective he could think of at the time and it is pretty good even now. Yet his Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology says that nothing is off the table; he is considering the whole thing. And the Treasurer is saying that we may expand our base to coincide with the GST base, which would be one of the biggest tax grabs imaginable.

How does the Premier square his firm commitment made less than a year ago to the electorate with the statements made by his colleagues?

Hon Mr Rae: Before he gets too agitated, I will simply say to the Leader of the Opposition that he knows full well the circumstances in which the economy of Ontario now finds itself: We are in a serious recession, which is a reality that we face; we have a deficit that is larger than any of us would like to see in terms of its impact on the Treasury generally; we have a need to introduce tax changes that will be fair and effective.

We also have a GST that is now law, the appeals to the Supreme Court notwithstanding. It is the law of the land and it will be the law of the land for the foreseeable future. That is a reality that small businesses and consumers are having to contend with across this province.

There are no plans to harmonize the two tax systems. Beyond that, the matter is in the hands of the Treasurer and will continue to be as we proceed through the budgeting process.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Harnick: My question is to the Premier. On 7 September 1990, the day after being elected, the Premier-designate reiterated his previous commitment to establishing an inquiry into the relationship among developers, politicians and government officials.

Yesterday, the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced a commission to study land use planning. Since this commission does not include the relationship among developers, politicians and government officials, would the Premier tell us when we can expect an announcement on the inquiry he originally promised?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I will let that question be answered by the Minister of Housing.

Hon Mr Cooke: I think I indicated to the House yesterday, and certainly as well in the press conference after, that the inquiry we have announced focuses on improving the planning process and the planning system in our province, bringing back the confidence that I think the people in this province need and want in the planning process and the approvals process. I think it will help restore that sense of confidence in the system.

The member will also know that the police are involved in a couple of investigations in this province. It is absolutely impossible and it would be improper to have an inquiry where the police are involved and investigating specific instances in this province.

Mr Harnick: On 10 August, the Premier issued a release saying --

Mr Sorbara: Go ahead, Charles. You will get answers to that.

Mr Harnick: The member for York Centre will be interested in this:

"When it comes to the links between David Peterson's government and the developers, the Liberals have a lot to hide. That's why the Liberals have refused to call the broad inquiry we need into the links between Liberals, campaign donations and developers, and that's why the Premier's office killed an inquiry into land development here in York region. The Liberals don't want the details to be exposed in public light. They don't want to reveal just how the developers are pulling the strings of this Liberal government. The Liberals don't want to reveal how they sold out to some of the most powerful private interests in the province."

This is written on NDP letterhead during the election, 10 August. Is the reason we are not having the inquiry we were promised because the allegations the Premier was making then, when he was in opposition, were without substance?

Hon Mr Cooke: The reason we are not having the inquiry the member is referring to is because we sought advice from the Attorney General, and the Attorney General made it very clear that there are police investigations going on in this province and it would be inappropriate for us to have a public inquiry in the same area that the police is investigating.

Mr Harnick: My leader spoke with the Premier-designate on election night and met with him shortly after, and the Premier reiterated his commitment to a broad inquiry. In fact, he discussed opening up the inquiry to include even non-profit housing. Yesterday's announcement is not what was discussed. It is not what was promised. What has changed? Are the original allegations that he made without substance?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think I have answered the member's question, but I would like to encourage him and other members of the House and certainly developers in the province and municipalities and interest groups to participate in this public inquiry into the planning process. We need to work together in this province to find a planning process the public will have confidence in and one where, when there are good developments proposed, they get through the approvals process in an efficient way.

That is something the private sector, municipal politicians and community groups have been saying to us is absolutely essentially and that is why the public inquiry was set up. That is why there are strict time lines of two years, because we believe together we can find a good planning process that works and enjoys the confidence of the people of this province.

1430

HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr Sterling: My question is to the Premier. He is no doubt aware that the Ontario Municipal Board is conducting hearings regarding the proposed site for the Ottawa Senators' Palladium in the city of Kanata. At issue is the use of 98 acres of perhaps class 2 agricultural land. The proposed site lies in the shadows of the city of Kanata. Immediately across from the site is the city hall for Kanata. Adjacent to the site is a new regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton garage, and the site lies right besides the Queensway.

I believe in the wise use of the province's farm land, but I also believe in the wise use of taxpayers' money and the encouragement of economic growth. Land use issues are rarely black and white. I have asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food previously, when the Premier was not here, for an accounting of the costs of his opposition to the zoning that was passed by the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton 26 to 0.

I say to the Premier that his government has spent taxpayers' money. How does he justify the refusal to divulge the information as to these costs? How much is the Premier spending to oppose the Ottawa Senators at this time?

Hon Mr Rae: A change in the classification of land, which is what is being considered by the OMB, would take place regardless, if I may say so, of the position of the government of Ontario or of any ministry of the government. There were objectors to the proposed change and I think that point should be registered with the member for Carleton.

I do not have the figures he is asking for in front of me today, and I am certainly not going to comment on what is happening in front of the tribunal, except to say that the tribunal has a job to do under the law. It has a job to do with respect to planning and considering the use of agricultural land and the shift in its designation, and that responsibility is one that the OMB is quite properly exercising.

I think it would be a little strange if the Ministry of Agriculture and Food were not there to put forward information with respect to the use of the land. That is their job. That is what one would expect the ministry to be doing.

Mr Sterling: No one is denying what the Minister of Agriculture and Food should or should not do in opposing a zoning change. What one is questioning is how much of the government's resources are put behind this specific application to oppose the Ottawa Senators in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Meanwhile, I want to point out to the Premier that in other parts of the province at the present time there are plans to develop, east of the city of Markham, 800 acres of class 1 and class 2 agricultural land. The Premier may be aware that of these 800 acres of prime agricultural land, 625 acres are owned by the province. The town of Markham has been working with a consultant paid by his government to develop residential subdivisions, which this government requires to be made up of a minimum of 35% affordable housing. Affordable housing is a worthy objective, but it is of interest to note that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, which has been so interested in the Senator's Palladium site, has been consulted and has approved of a proposed development of 800 acres of prime agricultural land in central Ontario.

Perhaps the Premier could tell this House why he is willing to spend somewhere between $1 million and $2 million, I believe, to block a site that will take up only 98 acres of land with questionable agricultural potential in eastern Ontario, but is quite willing to allow 800 acres of prime agricultural land here is southern Ontario to go ahead for development.

Hon Mr Rae: I look forward to looking into the circumstances described by the member for Carleton.

Mr Sterling: If I had even a quarter of the money the Minister of Agriculture and Food is spending in Ottawa, I probably could turn up about a dozen of those in a couple of days.

No one would deny the benefits of housing, affordable and otherwise, but this government seems prepared once again to deny the benefits of economic growth to eastern Ontario. The Premier cannot have it both ways. If his government is truly committed to preserving agricultural land, then why is it spending millions opposing a development of a small parcel of perhaps class 2 land while allowing this 800-acre site to go ahead in southwestern Ontario? I add that he could preserve the land in southwestern Ontario with the stroke of a pen.

The people of Ottawa-Carleton are beginning to wonder what the agenda of this government is regarding the Ottawa Senators in eastern Ontario.

Hon Mr Rae: The member says I cannot have it both ways. There are some days when I feel I cannot have it any way at all. I hope he will understand me when I say that.

The member says, "What is the agenda of the government with respect to the Ottawa Senators and with respect to the future of the franchise in Ottawa?" Let me make it very clear to the member for Carleton that when I was asked some time ago by both applicants, from Hamilton and Ottawa, to write to the chairman of the NHL, I made it very clear that as far as the government of Ontario was concerned, we thought Ontario deserved not one but two franchises because this is a place where hockey and the NHL have a great market. I supported both applications.

The member for Carleton knows full well that the difficulty we have faced in the Ottawa application to the OMB was the fact that the 500-acre site being proposed is on land zoned as agricultural. It is fair to say that some people said, "We'll just abandon the whole regulatory framework, throw it out the window and get on with it." I said it would be inappropriate for us to do. We ought to let the regulatory process work and operate fairly on behalf of all the citizens so that people could see it was fair, that nothing untoward was being done and that it was clearly being done all out in the public and in the open. That is what has taken place. But if the member says to me, "Do we still support having a franchise for the NHL in Ottawa?" I would say yes, and I support one for Hamilton as well and always have done.

1440

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mr Beer: My question is to the Minister of Education and concerns the evaluation of Ontario's educational system. Earlier this year the minister withdrew Ontario from the national student achievement indicators program, and more recently she has disbanded the provincial advisory committee on evaluation policy and practices. All this has happened at a time when virtually every other jurisdiction in North America has been working to set up and to create better ways of evaluating, assessing and measuring our school systems. In that climate, the actions she has taken seem to be moving Ontario into a completely different direction.

Would the minister set out clearly today the position of her government with respect to the evaluation and assessment of the Ontario educational system, and how is she planning to implement that policy?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am very grateful for the question from the member of the opposition because it concerns a great many people about the educational system. I have stated before in the House and will state again our firm contention that it is the absolute right of citizens, parents and students to expect that the Ministry of Education has evaluation measures in place that are going to help to monitor continually and improve the educational system. We withdrew to observer status on the national indicators program because it did not do that.

We are participating in a number of other projects. The major one is an undertaking of the ministry in conjunction with the curriculum review called the Benchmarks project, geared to the actual curriculum as devised by the curriculum review, which will go along with those things and measure the success of our teaching of the agreed curriculum within the province. We believe that is the best way to do it.

We transferred the responsibility for the evaluation process from the committee that did exist and that had asked what its role was, given the creation of the Learning Programs Advisory Committee, to the Learning Programs Advisory Committee. We believe those two things need to be conjoined.

Mr Beer: Frankly, the response of the minister is totally inadequate, because the body to which she has transferred responsibilities for evaluation is a body of some 50 people with a mandate that does not adequately or properly cover the specific function that not only we in the opposition are asking to be carried out, but the greater public is asking to be carried out. People are saying we need clearer signs of evaluation. I think the minister would agree the public and parents in particular have not only a need but a right to know how their schools measure not only locally but provincially and nationally.

When we look at what the Ontario Public School Boards' Association said about the minister's decision a few weeks ago at its annual meeting, a number of sections of that body said: "Look, you should be backing that program. We need to be accountable."

How is this body of some 50 people going to be able to carry out a proper evaluation, and how can we interpret in any other way that the actions the minister has taken seem to be building a wall that stretches from Cornwall to Kenora and from Windsor to Moosonee and saying: "We don't want any outside evaluation. All we want is to do it internally, from within the ministry"? The people of this province want to see a proper system in place that brings in light from outside and that is able to tell us we have a system of excellence and a system that is accountable.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I disagree with the contention that all light necessarily comes from outside. I think sometimes it comes from those who are working within the system. But I agree with the member that it is necessary to measure against other people. I will give him an example of a program in which we have participated in the past and are going to be participating again, the international math and science testing program.

Nine provinces in Canada and a number of countries around the world are participating in that. It is a curriculum-based testing program that has a large enough sample that we believe it would be valuable to us in Ontario to help to do exactly what the member feels we should do and with which I agree.

In addition, the Learning Programs Advisory Committee is not going to be on its own to do the Benchmarks project. We have hired an excellent person to lead the project, Burle Summers, who is well known in the educational system in Ontario. We are also going on with our report cards on literacy and numeracy at the various levels, of course, as well as our examination of the OAC examinations.

There are a number of initiatives going on that are quite concentrated and we are quite concerted in our efforts to ensure that there is accountability that has relevance to our education system.

CAT SCANNERS

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Could the minister please justify a health care system in the province that allows Ontario's hospitals to arrange computerized axial tomography scans within 24 hours for dogs while thousands of people wait up to four months for the same treatment in Ontario?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think it is a very valid question and it is not a practice I am going to justify at all. I was shocked to read the report in the newspaper and I have asked for an investigation to take place and for a report to be brought back to me on that.

Mr Eves: The minister agrees, she says, with the comment that is being made. I want to point out that the member for St Catharines has raised in this House on several occasions the dire need for another CAT scanner in the Niagara region, at a cost of, I believe, anywhere from $700,000 to $1.7 million depending on whose estimate you take.

Earlier this week I raised in the House the fact that her ministry is authorizing through OHIP the expenditure of $6.5 million for electrolysis in this province, yet we have thousands of people on the waiting list for up to four months for CAT scans. These are people who do not know if they have brain tumours or not, and yet pets can get CAT scans within 24 hours, upon notice, by their owners paying $300 or $400.

What is wrong with her priorities over there? She has $6.5 million a year set aside for hair removal. She makes people wait on a waiting list for four months to find out if they have a brain tumour or not, but their dogs can get in tonight at midnight if they want them to. What kind of a system is that?

Hon Ms Lankin: Yet again, let me say I absolutely agree with the member in terms of how he counterposes those two issues. There is a very serious problem with the system and the expenditure of money, and it is something I am certainly very concerned with and on moving on to try to address.

Let me say with respect to the issue he raises about CAT scanners that when CAT scanners were introduced in this province, the guidelines that were put in place were put in place because there was concern about rapid expansion of a new technology that people did not understand. That is no longer suitable and the ministry is working on developing new guidelines.

At my request, I have been assured that those guidelines will be coming forward to me to review for approval, I hope by the end of July. I hope we will be able to address the kind of priorities in the province that not just the member for St Catharines but all the members of the Niagara region have raised with me, and in other parts of the province as well.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Duignan: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. The headline and story in today's Toronto Star was, I am sure, very disturbing to most people of this province, particularly those involved in our cultural industries. The headline and story indicate that the United States has the impression our cultural industries are on the bargaining table at the North American free trade talks which opened here yesterday in Toronto. How is it that the United States has this so-called impression?

Hon Mr Marchese: I asked myself the same question this morning when I read the headline. I immediately sent a letter to Perrin Beatty and Michael Wilson requesting assurances from them that the cultural industries would not be placed on the table, or indeed under the table, in these discussions. By under the table I am referring to federal actions such as the cancellation of the non-theatrical fund, the erosion of funding to the Canada Council, the impact of the GST as it has contributed to the enfeebling of our publishing industry and cultural sector in general, and of course the CBC cutbacks and the impact of those on Ontario and Canada in general.

The United States dominates many of our cultural industries already. What we need to do at all levels is to defend and protect as fiercely as we can those cultural industries that are within our control.

Mr Duignan: What is the minister doing to guarantee to this House and to the people of this province that Ontario's cultural industries and the workers and consumers who rely on them are protected?

Hon Mr Marchese: I want to assure the member that this is not a new or recent preoccupation of mine or of this ministry. Protecting our unique culture and the right of Ontarians to work in Canadian-owned cultural industries has been a priority of mine since I took office. The clear and strong support in this budget for film, community radio, publishing and the Ontario Arts Council reflects the absolute urgency we feel around this and the commitment we have given to this issue.

I want to say, furthermore, that we have been doing several things. We have consulted with a number of people in the cultural sector, including the common-agenda activists, and we have talked about what strategies we need to put in place to protect our cultural industry. I will be meeting with Perrin Beatty in two or three weeks' time, when I will put this on the table for discussion. We are going to have federal-provincial meetings with other ministers where I will try to convince the other ministers that we do not need to put cultural industries into these negotiations.

1450

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs McLeod: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Yesterday I asked the minister a very specific question regarding her intended time frame for the introduction of levels-of-care funding for homes for the aged and nursing homes. The question went unanswered.

We are going to continue to press the issue of long-term care reform because we are extremely concerned that we have lost eight months waiting to know this government's intentions. The announcement that was made was short on detail, there is no discussion paper ready yet and the consultation that is proposed is not to be concluded until next spring.

What will be done now in terms of immediate investment in the community? What will be invested in seniors' programs this year? Can she tell us anything specific at all?

Hon Ms Akande: In my response to the member yesterday, I had said that in terms of levels-of-care funding, first of all, in terms of this long-term care consultation paper, we are expecting it to go out this summer and through the fall, and we are not going to wait to address the problem until this whole situation and the consultation is completed.

In terms of our response at present, we are looking at the situation, making our decisions relative to each municipality and certainly in relation to the needs that are presented to us by each of the seniors' facilities, and we are hoping and intending -- more than that -- to maintain a system while we bring in the kinds of changes that we have already announced in long-term care.

Mr Phillips: I am following with a supplementary to the minister, and that has to do with the Ontario Nursing Home Association. I will repeat what my colleague said earlier, and that is that we have wasted eight months. Believe me, eight months have gone by with no action. I was shocked by the announcement on long-term care which was essentially what we announced a year ago, but with no funding announcement for this fiscal year.

The nursing homes of this province are in desperate straits. We had announced specifically what we were going to do. The funding was coming on 1 January 1992. There is no announcement on funding for the nursing homes in the minister's proposal. As I say, the nursing home association is in desperate straits awaiting her announcement. I am no longer going to accept, "We are looking at it; we are considering it," because I expected when she brought her long-term announcement out that we would have the details. We do not have them.

What will the minister be providing to the nursing homes to relieve them of the pressure they face right now? What is the date she will be making the announcement? What sort of funding has she provided in her budget to relieve the pressure that is on those nursing homes?

Hon Ms Akande: The member mentions that there was nothing in the announcement concerning long-term care that related to the nursing homes. I must correct him in that we did say that $200 million will be spent on the nursing homes and the homes for the aged.

I must also say to the member that my response to his colleague is that we are currently addressing those situations individually and by municipality. Individually and with my colleague from the other ministry we are facing this problem. It pertains to the response to this question too. I recognize that he is anxious for an immediate response and that he has requested such. My response to him is that I am also anxious to have an immediate response, but I am more anxious to see that what we do is effective and responds to the needs of the community more than to his need for detail.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing with respect to the subject of neglect that is mentioned in his new bill. Under the new rent review legislation, when landlords apply for rent increases due to significant repairs, they must demonstrate that the repairs are not the result of neglect. In this new legislation I am unable to find a specific definition for the term "neglect." Can the minister provide this House with a definition of "neglect" that will apply to landlords under his new rent review legislation?

Hon Mr Cooke: This is one aspect of the legislation that I think landlords and tenants very much agree on, that landlords who have not taken care of their buildings over the years do nothing to help the profession of landlord, that they are an embarrassment to all landlords when they deliberately and continually neglect their buildings.

This subject was covered even by the legislation of the previous government, but we felt it should be covered more precisely and that there should be an ongoing responsibility. In other words, if you sell a building and the building has been neglected, the person who purchases that building purchases that liability as well. So there is more ability to enforce under our legislation, and tenants will be better protected. I believe it will result in apartment buildings in this province being more properly maintained than they ever have been in the history of this province.

Mr Tilson: I listened very carefully to the minister's words, and nowhere do I find a definition of "neglect." Before he starts getting into this legislation, somewhere along the line he is going to have to come to grips with that and define the word "neglect." Under the justice system of Ontario, all Ontarians are considered innocent until proven guilty. The new Cooke maxim as to the definition of "neglect" seems to be that landlords are now guilty until proven innocent.

Because of the draconian measures under Bill 4, virtually all capital repairs are suspended. That is what has happened with respect to Bill 4. This means that landlords have been forced by the Ministry of Housing to ignore necessary repairs. The hesitancy to repair resulting from Bill 4 may be defined as "neglect" by the Ministry of Housing when applications are submitted for rent increases due to capital repairs under the new legislation.

This neglect, I submit, originated with the Ministry of Housing. Will the minister recognize this and will he make the provisions in his new definition of "neglect," when he gets around to defining it?

Hon Mr Cooke: The critic for the third party always allows landlords in this province to completely get off the hook. He says that when Bill 4 was brought in we suspended all repairs and maintenance of buildings. That is absolute nonsense. Some $8 billion worth of rent has been collected on an annual basis, and it has always been our expectation -- and I think if the critic was a responsible critic for Housing, it would be his expectation -- that landlords in this province should properly maintain their buildings.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Cooper: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. On Tuesday 11 June the minister announced a retraining agreement for laid-off steelworkers in Sault Ste Marie. Last week it was announced in Kitchener that Uniroyal Goodrich intends to close down one and possibly two manufacturing plants. This could result in 2,000 employees being laid off with little hope of finding immediate employment in the community. Is there a way for laid-off workers at Uniroyal Goodrich to develop a program similar to that at Sault Ste Marie?

Hon Mr Allen: I appreciate the question from the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, and I know the concern that he and all members of that community have with the problems that have overtaken Uniroyal Goodrich and that community.

Mr Sorbara: You knew the question was coming. Why do you not just write him back?

Hon Mr Allen: I will tell you now. Do you want to listen too? Maybe you would learn something if you would sit there and listen.

The Speaker: If you would address your remarks to the Chair.

Hon Mr Allen: Mr Speaker, I am quite happy to address you and, in the course, instruct the member in a number of matters he might profit from.

The program for laid-off workers I announced the other day in Algoma is an example of the kind of partnerships we are trying to build as a government. That was a program that was worked out in connection with the education institutions of the city, the labour movement of the city, the business concerns and, of course, ourselves as government.

I want to encourage the workers and the management of Uniroyal Goodrich to undertake to put together that kind of partnership in order to address the employment adjustment programs and problems they confront in their community.

Doing that, they will be able to address agencies like ourselves for our participation in that overall adjustment program. I would add that a key component in this will be to secure the participation of the federal government to live up to its responsibilities under its labour adjustment legislation.

Retraining obviously is not just the responsibility of our government, but it is a partnership undertaking, more particularly in these kinds of circumstances of plant closure or heavy layoffs.

1500

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Health, if I might have her attention. I am going to become somewhat more aggressive on this demand for some action. The minister will know that right across the province and in literally dozens of hospitals, staff are going through right now a lot of agony because layoffs are occurring and beds are closing.

It was completely predictable. The nurses' settlement represented about a 15% increase. The grants to the hospitals were 6%. They were not 9.5%. The grant to the average hospital was 6%. That is directly from the deputy minister. Therefore, what we see across the province are hospitals closing beds, laying staff off, no question of that, agony in dozens of hospitals. Many of the members across the House will realize it.

The point is this. I guarantee the Ministry of Health will step in in many of those circumstances in the next few weeks to provide funding. The minister could see the problem coming. She could see it coming in February. Why put the staff through that? Why has she not acted and said to the hospitals she is going to fund, "Here is the money," and to the ones she is not, "Sorry, you won't be getting it"? Why put the people through this agony? Here we are now in the middle of June, and believe me, we will find those circumstances.

What is the date by which the minister will have reviewed the hospital budgets, notified the hospitals she is going to fund that they will be receiving the funding so they do not have to do this, and notified the ones who will not so they can proceed with their plans?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member truly was uncharacteristically aggressive with his question, given his record in the House. I suggest that my answer to him today is no different than it was last week, in that I cannot respond to his question when in fact we have not received all of the budgets from the hospitals.

He may know, and I think I have indicated to him -- if not, I will indicate now -- that we have asked for those budgets to be submitted by the hospitals by mid-June. We have not, at this point, received them or reviewed them. May I also say that what we are hearing right now from hospitals across the province -- I would agree with the member on this -- is in fact quite predictable in terms of saying there will be bed closures and layoffs. Until we sit down and review with them those plans and those budget decisions they are recommending and take a look at them and work through them, I am not in a position to confirm that that will be the situation.

May I say, in terms of my own recent experience, as I start to go out across the province and meet with people in communities -- just yesterday, I was out of the House, as members may be aware, and I was in another part of the province, and I was informed that, in addition to the temporary bed closures that are taking place over the course of the summer, there were up to 200 beds in that community that were empty on a voluntary basis because there were no acute care patients who needed those requirements.

We are in a time of shifting from institutional care and longer bed stays to shorter bed stays and ambulatory care. We need to work through that and plan with local communities to achieve that. I will conclude my remarks and say that my answer is consistent. Until we review those plans, I cannot confirm for the member that those bed closures are going to take place or they are problematic.

Mr Phillips: The reason I am angry is because I said three or four months back that this is exactly what was going to happen. This is the year she should have put into place some unusual procedures and gotten at this an awful lot earlier.

I have reports from right across the province of people being told they are going to be laid off, some perhaps for good reason. Perhaps those beds should not be open. Others, I guarantee she could step in and fix the problem. She could see this coming. Why we would not have dealt with it earlier is completely beyond me.

My question is this: Will the minister at least assure the House she will honour the Premier's former commitment that he would fund the necessary nursing positions and not jeopardize the necessary health services in the hospitals?

I would close by saying that the situation we heard earlier about dogs going through CAT scanners is an attempt by one hospital to try to deal with its deficit. Crazy. Therefore could the minister give me assurances on the point I raised earlier, that she will honour the Premier's commitment that he would fund the nurses' settlement for the necessary nursing positions and not see the necessary health services cut?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member may choose to give a long preamble in response to my previous answer and then a short question. I am not going to be sucked into just answering the question. I am going to respond to that preamble because he is suggesting we should have acted earlier when the hospitals have not even yet submitted the budgets to us for review.

I wonder why we are seeing the headlines, why we are seeing press announcements, why we are seeing a lot of concern in the communities when those hospitals have not even yet submitted their budgets or finalized the process.

Quite frankly, there is a process that needs to be followed. I am going to follow that, and I will report to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. A county registry office has been a very important and, in most cases, long-standing entity in our part of rural Ontario. Fourteen communities are scheduled to be losing their registry offices, according to her announcement, come November. Who has the minister consulted and who has given her the advice to close or attempt to close these 14 registry offices?

Hon Ms Churley: I certainly have some sympathy with the registry offices that have closed down. I recognize that it is always difficult for people to adjust to change.

This decision, however, was based not only on fiscal responsibility. You cannot have it both ways. The government of Ontario saves $1 million a year plus capital costs of about $8 million. The reality is, the users of the system have been consulted regularly by the ministry officials. The reality also is, these 14 land registry offices are in the only counties in Ontario where there is more than one land registry office per county. The reality of the situation is that not only is it fiscally responsible, but it also is rationalizing the system and making it more equitable across the province.

Mr Villeneuve: I am sorry, but the minister is misinformed. There is only one registry office in Glengarry, there is only one registry office in Dundas, and there is only one registry office in Grenville county, and those are areas that I represent. Three of those registry offices will be merged with Cornwall, which is already overburdened. There is very little room to even stand, let alone sit and do the work that has to be done.

I have letters here from the Canadian Bar Association. I have all of the affected municipalities and counties. Many lawyers in S-D-G & East Grenville, land surveyors, real estate agents, historical societies, business people, private citizens, registrars and even employees in those registry offices are not happy with the closures.

Is the minister ready to listen to the concerns that will be brought forth in the very near future, concerns that everyone wants to maintain these registry offices open? I do not know where she got advice that people wanted to close these offices. The closure means $100 per transaction more to the people who want to renew mortgages, get new mortgages, transfer titles -- $100 minimum, and that has been proven. Will she please listen and take another look at what is a very bad decision?

Hon Ms Churley: I have been listening very carefully to the concerns that have been expressed to me after this announcement was made. What I want to say today is that there will still be one local land registry office in every county or regional municipality or group of united counties -- in every single one.

I would also like to say to the member that in most of Ontario there is only one land registry office per county or regional municipality and those are well used and the costs in those particular counties or regional municipalities have not risen as a result of only having one per county. I would be very happy to provide the member with further information so he understands the realities of this situation.

1510

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Silipo: Earlier today in this House there was a question raised concerning the conversion of prime agricultural land into housing development. That is, of course, an issue that is also of some interest within the greater Toronto area. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food to comment on the preservation of agricultural land in the GTA.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I guess it was about a week ago that Metro council passed a resolution asking the government to look into a freeze of agricultural land in the GTA to preserve agricultural land. The member earlier today mentioned there is some land in Markham that is going out of production. I want to assure the member that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food feels very strongly that we need to protect and preserve prime agricultural land, including that within the confines of the GTA, and that my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs yesterday, when he announced a commission to look into the land use planning, talked about investigating a system that is going to support the provincial priorities in terms of the environment and in terms of food land preservation within the GTA and across the province. We certainly hope we can come up with a planning process that will do that across the province in a consistent way.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

Mrs Boyd moved first reading of Bill 125, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts relating to Education.

Mme Boyd propose la première lecture du projet de loi 125, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur l'éducation et de certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'éducation.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The Education Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991 amends the provisions in the Education Act, the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Act, 1988, the Assessment Act and the Municipal Act. The purpose of the act is to provide legislative support for new and ongoing ministry initiatives, to make changes in tax assessment provisions and to alter provisions concerning religious education.

The items in this bill were sent to all major stakeholders for consultation, including school boards, teacher federations, school trustee organizations and supervisory officers' associations. Other government ministries were also consulted. Copies of the bill will be sent to the same groups for their information and content, if they wish to review them.

There are a number of different items in the act that will change. One defines the education authority provision with respect to native education. There is another measure to alter school boundaries, another to include participation in provincial reviews, another to set board policies on employment equity, ethnoculturalism, anti-racism and drug education.

The major issue that is new and is consistent with a policy direction announced by the government in the fall is the issue regarding religious education, which would revise sections 3 and 7 of the Education Act. The amendments will reflect current ministry policy about religion in schools operated by public boards, as well as the recent law handed down by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Education which indoctrinates pupils in a particular religion is not permissible in public schools. Education about various world religions is acceptable. In addition, opening and closing exercises in public schools can no longer be giving primacy to one particular faith.

The other issues of real concern that are not housekeeping issues involve some changes in tax assessment. The amendments will result in more equitable distribution of school taxes paid by corporations without share capital, making these taxes available to both public and Roman Catholic school boards. This removes the legislative ambiguity as to the rights of such corporations to support either school system.

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION ACT (MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS STATUTES), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ENREGISTREMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE DANS LE CADRE DE LOIS RELEVANT DU MINISTÈRE DE LA CONSOMMATION ET DU COMMERCE

Ms Churley moved first reading of Bill 126, An Act authorizing the Filing of Information in an Electronic Format under Statutes administered by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mme Churley propose la première lecture du projet de loi 126, Loi autorisant le dépôt de renseignements au moyen d'un support électronique dans le cadre de lois dont l'application est confiée au ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Ms Churley: This bill is designed to improve customer service by allowing ministry clients to file information electronically. Currently clients provide information on paper to ministry staff, who then enter it into a computer base. Under this legislation clients will be able to use computers in their own offices to submit information directly to the ministry using electronic communication lines.

1520

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

MORTGAGES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Consideration of Bill 40, An Act to amend the Mortgages Act.

The Chair: Are there any questions, comments or amendments, and if so, to which sections of the bill?

Mr Harnick: I have tabled a series of amendments. The first one is --

The Chair: Order. Would you just list them.

Mr Harnick: I am sorry. The first one is an amendment to subsection 43(1), which is section 2 of the bill. The next amendment is to subsection 43(2), which is section 2 of the bill. The next amendment is to move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding a section. My next and final amendment is an an amendment to section 8 of the bill. That is the list of the sections I propose to seek amendment of.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2:

The Chair: Mr Harnick moves that subsection 43(1) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, as printed, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(1) For purposes of this part, a single family home is a residential premises that consists of a single dwelling unit or a primary dwelling unit and not more than three subsidiary units."

Mr Harnick: The purpose of this amendment is to exclude single-family homes from inclusion in the bill. A single-family home is defined as a single dwelling with not more than three subsidiary units.

I am not going to belabour what I said yesterday, but I do believe that the exclusion of single-family homes from this bill will enhance the supply of affordable rental accommodation and will enhance the ability of people who aspire to own a home to be able to do so. I think that to impose the provisions of this act on single-family homes would go to making it more difficult for people to obtain mortgage financing for the purpose of purchasing a home if the mortgagee knew that there was going to be a tenant in that home. As well, it will make it more difficult for the owner of the home, the mortgagor, to obtain mortgage financing to maintain that home and to maintain the subsidiary units that home may have for rental purposes. That is the reason this amendment has been proposed.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I want to make a comment on the amendments moved, or perhaps the member for Willowdale has not moved them all yet.

The Chair: He has moved the first.

Mr Sorbara: He has moved the first amendment. They are a series of amendments to avoid having Bill 40 apply to single-family dwellings. I would like to give a little bit of history to this bill and this initiative.

It was an initiative developed by the previous Attorney General, the predecessor of the incumbent Attorney General. The member for St George-St David developed this project, and indeed I think a bill was introduced in the previous Parliament to this effect. It was a bill exactly like the one that my friend the Attorney General has introduced, or in almost every point the same, except for the fact that the incumbent Attorney General has chosen to have this bill apply to single-family dwellings. I think that is very unfortunate indeed. He has taken a project that the previous administration developed and, I think rightly, has brought that project forward again in the form of a bill.

Let's remind ourselves what this bill is all about. It is simple and straightforward. It says that if mortgagees foreclose or if they come into possession of residential premises in the form of apartment buildings, they ought not to be able to throw the tenants out, but the tenants should have the same rights that they would have under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Residential Tenancies Act.

I think that is good public policy and I am glad the Attorney General has brought it back, but it was wrong -- I say to him, although it is very difficult to get his attention -- to put those provisions on to single-family dwellings; not that somehow we should protect the mortgagees of single-family dwellings, but he should think about the results of the initiative that he is bringing forward here. He is saying in effect that a mortgagee, that is, the lender of money to a home owner, would not be able to use remedies traditionally available to him or her or it, as the lender, when a building is rented by a tenant.

I want to tell the Attorney General what is going to happen if he passes this part of the act. What is going to happen is that in the case of mortgages on single-family homes, the mortgagee, the lender of the money, is going to put into the mortgage document a provision prohibiting the home owner from renting out the house without the permission of the lender. Does the Attorney General not realize that the response from the lending community, the banks and the trust companies and the other mortgagees in this province, is simply going to be to put a new provision into their loan document saying, "You can't rent out your house without my permission"? That would be sensible of them, because if the home owner rented out the house and then went into default on the mortgage, the lender would not be able to get possession of the house and deal with it in the way that lenders have traditionally dealt with it.

To put the provision in does not really lend much help or assistance for tenants living in single-family dwellings. It is rare indeed that a tenant is badly done by as a result of the rights of a mortgagee in those situations. The Attorney General is right when it comes to large-scale apartment buildings or traditional buildings in which people rent apartments. That is right. It is appropriate that a mortgagee, a lender of money, cannot just move in and evict people. We want the tenants to have the same rights as they have as far as the owner of the building is concerned, but with a single-family home, he is not going to protect any tenants, but he is going to make it more expensive for the home owner to borrow money to buy the home, and he is going to make it more difficult for tenants to lease homes or to rent homes, because, as I said, in virtually every mortgage document after this is passed, we are going to see lenders write into the mortgage document a prohibition against renting out their homes to tenants.

1530

I ask the Attorney General if he would not just consider the problems he is creating, the expense he is putting on the shoulders of home owners and the profit he is putting in the hands of mortgagees.

I know his staff is going to convince him that this is not going to happen, and that for the purposes of symmetry and being politically correct to the tenant community, this provision in Bill 40 ought to apply to the single-family home, to the individual household. All I would tell him in that regard is to set aside for a moment the activities of the lobbyists and consider in his own mind -- after all, he is the Attorney General, and he could do some independent thinking on this issue and other issues once in a while -- set aside those lobbies, set aside the interests of those interest groups and just think for a moment about what is practical and appropriate. If he did that, I am convinced he would bring forward revisions to this bill that provide an exception in the case of single-family homes and did not put the single-family home owner in the position of having to spend even more money to get a mortgage, and paying even higher rates on that mortgage.

In sum, I agree with my friend the member for Willowdale. His amendments are not motivated by anything except good public policy. I know they are well-thought-out. I know, as a lawyer, he understands the real implications of the sections he attempts to amend. Once again, I express my hope that the Attorney General will be reasonable in this regard, accept the amendments and let us get on with consideration of this bill as expediently as we can.

Hon Mr Hampton: The member for Willowdale has introduced an amendment I feel I should try to deal with. The member for York Centre was not here yesterday, so he would not know I already responded yesterday to all the concerns he has raised. So I will leave his comments aside for a while since that has already been dealt with.

In response to the member for Willowdale, we have canvassed the amendments we proposed to this legislation very carefully with the banking community, the lending community. We canvassed it with the tenant community as well. In a general way, the reason we feel we have to deal with single-family homes is because that is where a lot of tenants live, in single-family homes with two, three, four attached units, a basement, an attic, etc.

We have had situations in the past where, because of the loophole in the law here with respect to mortgagees and single-family homes, mortgagees have evicted tenants rather unfairly, summarily, one might say. We have had some situations where landlords have tried to evict tenants for the purpose of raising the rent. It is an illegal rent increase, but very difficult to deal with, given you are dealing with a number of single-family units with perhaps two or three basement or attic apartments. So there has been a problem there.

Or you have the situation -- and this is even more unfortunate -- where some landlords evicted tenants because they may not -- and frankly, I am sad this happens, but we know it has happened because we have had community legal services and tenant services bring it to our attention -- some people will be evicted because they are the wrong kind of tenants.

Mr Sorbara: Landlords don't have the right to do that now. That is a violation.

Hon Mr Hampton: The member for York Centre says landlords do not have the right to do that now. Correct, landlords do not have the right to do that, but because of the loophole being a mortgagee in possession, a mortgagee could do something a landlord could not do.

Mr Harnick: But a landlord isn't going to default on a mortgage to get rid of the tenant.

Hon Mr Hampton: I am not suggesting that. I am not suggesting a landlord --

Mr Harnick: But that is what this bill is doing.

The Chair: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Hampton: I am not suggesting a landlord would do that, in any case. I am merely suggesting there are loopholes open to a mortgagee in possession that would not be available to a landlord.

Since those loopholes are not available to a landlord, the argument the member is suggesting to me is that it would be very difficult for a landlord who owns a single-family home with, let us say, two or three basement or attic apartments, to sell that, but we have no evidence of that whatsoever. In fact, the evidence we have, and we have canvassed this very carefully, is that in many cases lenders are only too happy to lend where it is a single-family home situation with a basement apartment or a couple of attic apartments, because they know there is a good income stream there.

They are even happier to lend when there is already somebody in the building, because they realize there is not immediately an interruption of the income stream. In other words, there is more security for the lender because there is an income stream as well as a single-family home there, which in many cases is easier to sell than an apartment.

From our perspective, having canvassed this at some length with lenders and the tenant community, we do not believe in the final analysis that the concerns the member has -- and I recognize they are legitimate concerns, because we talked about them for some time -- present a difficult or grave problem.

There may be some problems. We are informed there will be a problem in a minority of cases, and there are avenues open to lenders to deal with those, in any case. While I appreciate the member's concern, we have a level of comfort that this will not disrupt the availability of single-family homes and single-family homes that have subsidiary apartments in them, and we do not believe it will upset the mortgage market either. That is, after all, a fairly aggressive lending market. While there are some lenders who may be timid, there are others who are only too happy to lend, particularly in an economy such as ours --

Mr Harnick: At the right rate anybody will lend, but you don't want people to have to pay a premium.

Hon Mr Hampton: The member raises the issue that someone might have to pay a premium. Again, we canvassed that with the lenders.

Mr Sorbara: And what did they say?

Hon Mr Hampton: We were told you might in some cases have a premium adjustment, but there was no assurance of that. They could give us no statistical evidence, and there was also an indication that there need not be some type of adjustment in the mortgage markets for this kind of situation.

Our level of comfort here is quite good and we do not think we are going to be doing anything which will upset the supply of available housing in these situations or upset the flow of mortgage funds to individuals who want to buy these kinds of units.

1540

Mr Harnick: I am somewhat surprised at the Attorney General's discussion about canvassing the lenders of mortgage money. I know he is in receipt of the same letter I received a copy of from the Canadian Bankers' Association. That association represents the biggest institutions that provide most of the mortgage funding for single residential families in this province.

Their opinion is quite to the contrary of the Attorney General's and they even go so far as to make reference to the fact that this bill does not even provide them with adequate information and the obligation to provide adequate information about tenancies at the time a mortgage is obtained. I put it to the Attorney General, that fact alone indicates there is something being hidden here. There is some reason they want to hide this information from mortgagees. The fact that they want to hide this information from mortgagees leads me to believe there is great truth to what the Canadian Bankers' Association alleges, that by imposing the provisions of Bill 40, mortgage money for people who want to obtain homes will be more difficult to obtain.

The Attorney General could go a long way to satisfying me that is not the case if he put a provision in this bill that said all information about tenancies had to be provided to the mortgagee at the time the mortgagee requested it, which would be either at the time the mortgage was applied for or when the mortgage was renewed, but not at a time when there was a default occurring in the mortgage, which is the situation in this act.

If the Attorney General honestly believes there will not be a problem in terms of obtaining financing to purchase homes and for a landlord to obtain financing to maintain a home for residential purposes, he would certainly ensure that the provisions of this act allowed a mortgagee to obtain the necessary information at the time the mortgage was applied for and not have to wait until the time of default. Unless the Attorney General does that, it lends the distinct impression that he knows mortgage money will become harder to obtain.

As I noted yesterday, in Scarborough alone there are 14,000 basement apartments. If one takes a look across Metropolitan Toronto, there are probably five or six times that many basement apartments. People who buy those homes buy them and they need that income from a rental to be able to pay the mortgage. Those people will not be able to obtain that financing, and I fear the risk a mortgagee will have now is being heightened by this bill. I would again urge the Attorney General to consider my amendments and to change his bill to reflect what my amendments state and also, if he is not prepared to do that, then as an indication of his very good faith that mortgage money will continue to be available, at least provide in this bill an obligation to provide information to the mortgagee about the existence of tenancies at a time when the mortgage is applied for, not to have to wait until there is a default in the mortgage.

Mr Sorbara: The Attorney General says he answered all the issues I raised in his speech yesterday. I raised the same issues I think my friend the member for Willowdale has raised, and from my perspective over here, I do not think I have heard the Attorney General answer them today and I doubt he answered them yesterday.

I wonder why he could not consider the kinds of amendments being proposed. Does he not realize that the commercial venture involved in building an apartment building and renting it out to tenants and securing a mortgage is a commercial venture, and the intervention he is making, restricting the rights of mortgagees, is a good idea. But the business of buying your own home, securing a mortgage on that home and owning that home and doing what you will with that home is a very different thing. I say to the Attorney General that it is a very different experience. He said he received information from the lending community. I cannot think of a better authority in this case than the letter the member for Willowdale got from the Canadian Bankers' Association. They say there will be perhaps some premium on the cost of a mortgage.

The member for Willowdale is wrong. It is not going to be more difficult to get a mortgage; it is just going to cost a little bit more. I want to say to the Attorney General that I would be willing to abandon this argument if he could assure the House that after he passes this bill we will not start to see clauses in mortgages that say the owner of the home is prohibited from renting out his house without the permission of the lender, of the mortgagee. There is no doubt in my mind that this is what we are going to start to see.

If you are a lender and you are not going to be able to get vacant possession of the home, it is obvious that when you lend the money you are going to say in legal terms to the home owner, "You can't rent out your house without my permission." What will the lender do when the owner goes to get permission to rent out the house? He is going to want to investigate the tenant, he is going to want security and he may even want a little bit of a premium or a renegotiation of the mortgage to reflect the additional risk.

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: I am sorry, I did not hear the member for Ottawa Centre.

Ms Gigantes: I wasn't speaking to you.

The Chair: Order, please. The member for York Centre, conversation is to be directed to the table.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, the member for Ottawa Centre says she was not speaking to me. It sounds like she is speaking to herself, then.

The Chair: Make sure you keep your remarks and your questions to the table.

Mr Sorbara: I say to you, sir, that the Attorney General simply is ignoring the reality of the way in which the mortgage market works. That is not to say that lenders are cruel and evil people, but it is simply to say that when confronted with a larger risk or different circumstances, they move to protect themselves. We see these clauses all the time. Mortgage documents get lengthier and lengthier because the laws within which they have to be negotiated get more and more complex.

The complexity that he is putting on the commercial operation is an entirely appropriate one. But he said in his remarks earlier on that somehow the lender is going to be happy with the fact that there are tenants there. I am talking about the situation where a home owner negotiates a mortgage, when he or she buys his or her house or when he or she refinances his or her house, and then, two or three years down the road, proposes to rent it. Does the Attorney General not simply see that the lender is not going to let that happen in the future?

Once again, I say to him, if he would table documents in this House at this time or send over to me and the member for Willowdale documents, written confirmation that this will in no way impact on the price that we pay to borrow money -- that is, the interest rate for a mortgage -- and it will not result in any changes to a mortgage document restricting the right of a home owner to lease his or her house, then we concede that we will just fold up our tent and go away on this issue. But he has so far refused to table those documents. I invite him now, sir, to table them at your table and to present them to us, but if he does not have those documents, if he does not have that confirmation, then I say that he is trying to fool us in this House and fool the people on this bill and he certainly ought not to do that. He should accept the amendments.

The Chair: Order, please. I do not like the choice of your words. Perhaps you could use another word.

Mr Sorbara: I take it, sir, that you are objecting to the use of the word "fool" when I said that he was fooling the public on this.

The Chair: Yes, I do.

Mr Sorbara: I will withdraw that. I will say that he is --

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: No, I do not think I will try that one, I say to my friend the member for St Catharines.

He is not putting the full picture before us. He is not submitting all the evidence to Parliament. He knows some things that he is not telling us. There are some realities in this circumstance that are not coming out in this debate. There is a part of the picture that has not been fully coloured in. We do not have all the facts. There is something wrong with his submissions. He could do the right thing by simply accepting the amendments that my friend the member for Willowdale has put forward to this committee. We will exempt the single-family home and then we can get on with passing good legislation that will improve the commercial market and represent enhanced protection for the tenants of this province.

1550

Mr Tilson: I would like to ask a question to the Attorney General specifically on this area that has been raised by the member for York Centre and the member for Willowdale, because I think the point they raise is the very crux of why this series of amendments is being asked.

In other words, most mortgages now range, as we all know, from one to five years, depending on the way the interest rate is going. A lot can happen in that period of time. An individual may buy a house, may live in it, may decide for various reasons that he cannot reside in those premises and he may decide, for economic reasons or other reasons -- maybe he has to leave the province or leave the country for temporary periods of time -- to rent the premises. This, of course, would not be known by the mortgagee.

I think that any solicitor advising people who are lending money to people who wish to purchase premises or people who wish to renovate premises would insist on the type of clause that has been suggested by the member for York Centre; in other words, that you cannot rent out the premises or something similar to that type of provision.

There does not seem to be anything in the legislation that precludes that type of clause from going in there. Even if there were, even if the Attorney General decided to put an amendment in there that precluded that type of clause, and I do not know why he would, there would be a premium charged in those sorts of situations to allow for the dilemma that the mortgagee, whether it is a bank or an institution, may be put into. Aside from the argument I raised yesterday about people being reluctant to get into the lending business, whether it be a bank, an institution or an individual, aside from their being reluctant to do that, I do believe there would be a premium charged.

I guess my question to the Attorney General is along the line of some of the discussions we have been having on other bills, specifically the housing bill, the whole subject of affordable housing, the availability of housing, that whole subject. I cannot believe he will not admit that this type of clause dealing with a single-family dwelling will result in the whole issue of affordable housing going higher or the availability becoming more and more difficult.

My question to the Attorney General, if this amendment is not approved by this House, is whether that will affect the government's whole philosophy of affordable housing and availability of housing.

Hon Mr Hampton: I will try to deal with all of the questions raised by the member for Willowdale and his colleague.

First, let me deal with the general case. In our consultations we had, for example, a manager of a trust company, a rather large trust company here in Toronto, who indicated that 90% of his borrowers in the single-family home market had basement apartments. Obviously, under the current situation they have no problem lending to single-family-home borrowers where there is an ancillary apartment. I want to point out that where you have simply one ancillary apartment, that is not affected by this legislation, nor is the situation where you have two. In other words, you could have a basement apartment and an attic apartment, and those are not affected. It is only when you have more than two.

We already have all kinds of situations where lenders are lending to individuals who have a single-family home and they have basement apartments or they have upstairs apartments. It is not affecting the market now. That is the first point I want to make. I want to point out again that we are dealing here with when you have a single-family home with more than two subsidiary apartments.

The Canadian Bankers' Association letter is the strongest case. They put forward the strongest institutional case. I have that letter in front of me and I just want to point out to members that it does not say this is definitely going to be a problem and it does not say this is the evidence. In fact, we asked the Canadian Bankers' Association and some of the other larger institutional lenders on several occasions for statistics, for numbers, and they simply did not have any. What that letter expresses are fears.

The member opposite would like to see some amendments as a result of those fears. Let me put it to him this way. We have looked at what they are requesting and if we find that there are problems with this legislation, I have no opposition, in principle, to bringing in those amendments at a later date if there prove to be problems. But again, having canvassed everybody on this issue -- small, medium, large, on both sides, landlord and tenant -- the indications we have are that the possible dislocations are unlikely and would be of such a small scale that it would not result in large adjustments in the mortgage market and would not have an impact on affordable housing.

I do not oppose what the member is saying in principle. I am simply saying that having gone through this for months, conferred back and forth with both groups, saying to tenants, "This is what the bankers say to us, this is what the lenders say to us, that there might be a small adjustment in terms of the mortgage market. Do you have a concern about that," they replied, "No, we don't think it's going to affect the supply of housing." Going back and forth, the conclusion we came up with was that there is not a significant concern here.

Again, I put it to the member that if we find, after having passed this legislation, that there are problems, I have no opposition in principle, no opposition whatsoever, to considering some of the options that the Canadian Bankers' Association is proposing, but we do not see a need for them at this time because the current of opinion, and it is a heavy current of opinion, is that it is not necessary.

Mr Harnick: Just very briefly to conclude my remarks about this, I appreciate the offer of the Attorney General to bring this back if a problem arises, and I think it would be his duty to do that in any event, but I merely want to point out that I have the same letter from the Canadian Bankers' Association. I did not get the impression that what was reflected in that letter were fears. I got the impression that it was a well-reasoned letter based on the experience of the association for the institutions that provide the bulk of mortgage money for the purchase of single-family homes. I certainly did not appreciate their remarks as being fears. I appreciated their remarks as being well-reasoned arguments based on experience. I think the Attorney General is categorizing what they have said in a somewhat wrong vein, but that is neither here nor there.

1600

Mr Tilson: Just as a response to two of the comments that were made by the Attorney General a few moments ago, he can say that he has surveyed and that he has a few letters. I can tell him that I have spoken to a great number of real estate people, legal people and financial people. My statistics are probably as loosey-goosey as his, quite frankly.

With all due respect, he referred probably to several letters. I do not know how deep his survey is, but many people simply are not aware of this. They are simply not aware of this in the business community. It sounds as if, with due respect, he is referring to several letters, none of which is conclusive. I hope he would clarify that. If my assumption is incorrect, I hope that he would correct that.

With respect to illegal apartments, that is a problem all over the province. It is a major problem that municipalities have, and this government, all governments have as to how to deal with these situations.

I can tell the Attorney General that in my experience, and I would assume in his experience, if he has certified any titles to institutions, the banking institutions would insist that the zoning requirements of that particular single-family home have been maintained. If the solicitor knows about it or if a financial institution knows about it, they do not get the money. They just do not get it.

So that comment with respect to illegal basement apartments simply does not apply. In fact, it is almost as if this could stir up the pot, because a lot of municipalities, as I understand it, simply are living with the problem. They know it is out there, but if there are no major complaints, they let it lie, and the province is doing the same thing. Otherwise, the whole issue of affordable housing and availability of housing --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: They are, but I can assure the member that most solicitors, if it is drawn to their attention, are not going to go on the hook. Why should they, particularly if you get into mortgage foreclosure proceedings and you end up with an illegal tenant. The solicitor would be sued.

I think there are a number of legal and complicated issues that are surfacing as we talk about it more. The member for Willowdale has referred to some. I encourage the government to either support the amendment or withdraw this portion of the bill. I think our party has agreed that the proposal that was put forth in January 1990, I think it was, does resolve the problem, but with all due respect, I believe the government is creating more problems in trying to solve another problem.

The First Deputy Chair: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Harnick moves that subsection 43(2) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, as printed, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(2) A residential premises that is a duplex, a triplex or a fourplex is a single-family home."

Mr Harnick: The purpose of this amendment is to further define the term "single-family home" so that the term includes duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. I am not going to repeat everything I have stated so far, but of course the intention would be to exclude those premises from the onerous and what I believe to be detrimental effects of Bill 40 in terms of the ability to maintain those premises and the ability of families to purchase them and live in one half of them and rent the other half out.

My comments remain the same. I am concerned about the availability of money by way of a mortgage to maintain the properties and the premises and the ability to obtain mortgage financing so that a family can purchase affordable housing.

Hon Mr Hampton: Just so I can be clear that the member for Willowdale and I are not engaging in a unnecessary argument, duplexes and triplexes are included within the policy of the legislation, but they are not included within the definition of "single-family home." In that sense, they would not come under the restriction the member is concerned about. In the way the bill is printed now, there was no concern expressed by any lending agency, large or small, with that part of it. While a duplex or a triplex comes under the general policy of the act, it does not come within that definition of "single-family home." I hope that responds to the member's concern there.

The First Deputy Chair: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3:

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Harnick moves that section 3 of the bill, as printed, be amended by adding the following section:

"46.1 Sections 45 and 46 do not apply if the mortgaged residential premises is a single-family home."

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 4:

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions or comments on section 4?

Mr Harnick: Yes. I believe that sections 51 to 53 should be struck out. The removal of sections 51 to 53 would exclude single-family dwellings from the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act when the mortgagee is obtaining or has obtained possession of the premises.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any other questions or comments on section 4? Seeing none, shall section 4 carry?

Interjection.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Willowdale made a comment on section 4. That is all. It is not an amendment. I am asking, shall section 4, as stated, carry?

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

1610

Sections 6 and 7:

Mr Harnick: It would be my submission that section 6 and section 7 both be struck out. These are the retroactivity sections of the bill. I believe they will place potentially a great many people in some jeopardy who have acted according to the law of the day and now, with the retroactive change, may find themselves in a precarious position. They have complied with the law as it was. Now the law is retroactively being changed, and I think that is in principle something that is wrong and it could have a detrimental effect in this case for someone who has complied with the law.

The First Deputy Chair: I would like to make a comment. I have no amendments to either section 6 or section 7, as I understand it, so I will look at section 6 and section 7 now, if there are any questions and comments on both of those sections. Shall sections 6 and 7 carry?

Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.

Section 8:

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Harnick moves that section 8 of the bill, as printed, be struck out and the following substituted:

"This act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent."

Mr Harnick: I believe that is probably academic in that the retroactivity sections have been passed, so I suppose I am best to withdraw that amendment because it has no meaning at this point.

Hon Mr Cooke: I think it is only fair that I respond to the issue that has been raised by the member for Willowdale with respect to retroactivity. It is a valid concern and it is one that has been anticipated.

When the initial version of this bill was introduced in January 1990 for multiple-unit dwellings, mortgagees and the community in general were put on notice of the retroactivity aspect of it. When the present form of the bill was introduced on 20 December 1990 with its provisions dealing with single-family homes, again there was significant attention paid to putting lenders and mortgagees on notice of the fact that the law might change. All sheriffs have been advised and have been advising both mortgagees and tenants of the proposed changes whenever the sheriff has been asked to enforce a writ of possession.

Mortgagees have been able to protect themselves from any liability simply by complying with the Landlord and Tenant Act or Bill 40. In other words, by complying with this bill or complying with the Landlord and Tenant Act, they would be protecting themselves.

An hon member: If they know.

Hon Mr Hampton: I would suggest they probably know about the Landlord and Tenant Act, since all this bill does is put tenants who are the tenants of a mortgagee in possession in the same situation as tenants who are the tenants of an ordinary landlord.

The effect of the retroactivity is probably to give an evicted tenant a right to sue for wrongful termination, but let's look at that right in reality. Very few tenants, I would argue, are likely to sue for being evicted since January 1990, since the damages would be very small. They might get moving expenses and they might get increase in rent in new premises, but I suggest it probably would not make it worth while, if they were to get anything at all. The irritation of trying to sue on something like that in itself is something the member might want to consider.

But I want him to consider this: If we do not have the retroactivity provisions there, then we are allowing the exact situation this bill is attempting to deal with. In other words --

Mr Harnick: Every bill is like that. There has to be a start and there has to be a finish.

Hon Mr Hampton: The start was well announced, that the day this legislation is introduced in this House is the day it takes effect. Members should take notice. As I said, sheriffs have taken notice and I even note, from some of the decisions in Ontario Reports the other day, that masters and members of the judiciary have taken notice.

We do not believe the retroactivity aspects of it will cause a major problem or result in any grave injustice. As I said, whenever sheriffs have been called upon to deal with this kind of default and potential mortgagee in possession situation, they have advised both parties of Bill 40, of the retroactivity and that they should comply with the Landlord and Tenant Act in order not to run afoul of Bill 40. We think the number of situations that might arise would be very small indeed.

The First Deputy Chair: We are voting on Mr Harnick's motion.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 8 agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

On motion by Mr Hampton, the committee of the whole reported one bill without amendment.

Hon Mrs Coppen: Madam Speaker, I rise to ask unanimous consent that Bill 40 be read for the third time.

Agreed to.

1620

MORTGAGES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Hampton moved third reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend the Mortgages Act.

Hon Mr Hampton: First of all, let me say to all members of the House that I have appreciated their assistance and thoughtfulness in dealing with this legislation today. I want to say particularly to the member for Willowdale that I understand his concerns and where they come from and I appreciate the eloquence with which he has stated them.

I give him the undertaking that if some of the problems he identified and that I have looked at for some time arise, we can sit down and look at the appropriate kinds of amendments that will hopefully deal with those problems, because I do not think any of us in this House want that to happen and no one here intends that it will happen. I think we have a difference of degree of opinion as to the likelihood of those things happening. If they occur, I think everyone in this House will want to look at those potential problems and sit down and try to deal with them.

The importance of this legislation is quite simply this: The act will protect tenants from eviction without notice when their landlords have defaulted on their mortgages, and that is an important change. It was thought at one time that this kind of amendment to the law would not be necessary. It was thought that the existing legislation dealt with it. However, an interpretation was given by the judiciary on a set of facts and unfortunately the opinion that was given, the judgement that was rendered, made these amendments necessary.

I want to point out that given the current economic climate, the legislation is especially important. Tenants who themselves have paid their rent on time and met all of the obligations of their leases may still find themselves thrown out of their homes because of the financial problems of their landlords, and that is particularly so in a recession.

The Landlord and Tenant Act is intended to cover all relations between tenants and those who control the buildings they live in. However, as I said, court decisions over the years have made an exception to this rule for mortgagees enforcing mortgage remedies and this act will now, I hope once and for all, specify that mortgagees going into possession are in the same position as landlords and not in a better position. The tenants most at risk from such evictions are those in basement or attic apartments in single-family homes. This government wants to protect the most vulnerable tenants as well as their more secure counterparts.

In our view, extending this protection will, because of the safeguards we have built into the bill, not cause undue harm to lenders. It will have little or no effect on the availability of housing and tenants' groups have been very firm in that view. It will ensure that the housing available can be securely occupied by the tenants who meet their obligations under the law, and I would say the strong indications are that it will not cause dislocations in the mortgage market or with respect to financial lending for single-family homes.

I ask the House to join us in filling this gap in the law and in protecting those individuals in society in the category of tenants most in need of protection. The information we have received in the press over the last few days is that there are a fair number of tenants who would be protected by this legislation and they await this type of remedy with some concern.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (MISCELLANEOUS), 1990

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): Is there any member who wishes to participate in the debate?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have a desire to introduce some amendments from the government side.

The Acting Speaker: Would you hold just for a minute please, minister. We have found a member who wishes to participate in the debate so we will recognize the member for York North.

Mr Beer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was not sure whether the amendments had to be presented first of all.

We began this debate almost three months ago, I think, so I have been going back and trying to refresh myself on a number of the questions I raised at that time and simply want to put them on the record again. I believe the minister may well have some responses to those, but if I can briefly just note several of the areas we had those questions on.

In terms of the basic bill, we were supportive of the intent of the different sections. But initially with respect to the copyright licence agreement, we had three questions in particular and I will just briefly read those out again. Perhaps the minister can report if there is anything that has happened since we debated this on 20 March with respect to the federal government's initiatives or lack of initiatives with respect to this question.

I believe the minister at the time had answered the question with respect to payment. There had been an issue between the boards and the ministry and that had been resolved, but there was also the question around how school boards or the ministry would deal with authors and publishers who are not members of a collective, which was the way we were going to settle this.

The other question was in relation to the taping of radio and television programs, really the whole question of those kinds of materials now used in schools that are not covered by licences with collectives and how that kind of material -- audio-visual material, print music and computer software -- and those particular areas would be covered.

I think those were basically the questions.

The Acting Speaker: Our records indicate you have already taken part in this debate.

Mr Beer: It was an interesting attempt.

The Acting Speaker: It was an interesting attempt. However, you are out of order and I will ask you to take your seat now. Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Willowdale, and we will check our records.

1630

Mr Harnick: I can assure you, Madam Speaker, I have not spoken on this bill.

The provincial government should not make living in Metropolitan Toronto any more onerous than living anywhere else in Ontario. The people of Metro should have access to the same facilities and programs as those living in other parts of the province.

The government's Bill 30 clearly encourages the kind of discrimination I am referring to. The northern boundary of the riding of Willowdale is Steeles Avenue. Because the York Region Board of Education is building new schools, whereas the Metropolitan Toronto School Board is renovating and reconstructing schools, a person who lives north of Steeles Avenue has available to his or her board of education funds for the construction of day care centres. The schools of Metropolitan Toronto do not have access to these same funds.

I do not feel it should be a penalty to live in Metropolitan Toronto. New schools are provided with the necessary funds for day care centres. Old schools which are being rebuilt are not provided with the same funding. With Bill 30, the construction of a new child care facility which does not happen to be in a new school has to be funded through local tax dollars. This downloading on the municipalities will result in higher property taxes.

It is important to clarify the government's intent with regard to child care funding. The government has created a demand for child care facilities in schools throughout the province by having an explicit policy supporting child care centres in all new schools. The government is implying that child care facilities will be available to everyone, yet the reality is that child care facilities are available only to those people living in new subdivisions. People who live in established communities will not receive the same benefits.

During the election, the Premier stated, in response to a questionnaire from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, that the NDP would ensure 100% of capital day care costs to Metro's schools. I find it repulsive that the NDP government makes these blanket promises, only to turn around and exclude Toronto, North York and the rest of Metropolitan Toronto and other established communities from the funds that are to be allocated.

The government downloads its promises on to the municipalities and then forces the municipalities to live up to the NDP promises. McKee Public School, in the heart of Willowdale, is being rebuilt. The school already has a day care centre with over 70 children, yet no funds have been allocated for a day care centre in the new school and none are forthcoming. What is going to happen to these 70 children when the school is rebuilt?

I urge the government to treat all areas of Ontario equally and guarantee that McKee Public School, and every public school in my riding that has the opportunity and obtains capital funding for reconstruction, will receive the much needed funds for their day care centres.

Mr Tilson: I wish to limit my comments specifically to the issue of the day care that has been referred to in this bill. Under this bill, all new schools must be built with a child care facility, unless the board requests an exemption. As I understand it, and I would hope the minister would clarify this, there have been to date several requests for exemptions and none of these requests have been granted, which raised the whole subject. We are all in favour of day care -- all of us. I am sure that everyone on all sides of the House is in favour of day care and the need for day care.

The question is, who is going to pay for it? Should the overall taxpayer pay for it or should the property owner pay for it, because I can assure members that once these institutions are put forward in the schools, there is the subject of salaries, there is the subject of providing proper schoolground facilities. There are other areas: There is the equalization of salaries between the day care people and the teachers. All of these subjects are subsequently passed on to the property owner, the taxpayer, the property owner who is paying municipal taxes. It is another example of downloading, which both this government and our party opposed the previous government for doing, passing an obligation that the overall taxpayer must provide on to the property taxpayer. The property taxpayers simply cannot afford any more of this downloading that has been going on, and this is another example.

When I rise to speak, I am not against the subject of day care; I am in favour of day care. What I am opposed to is the minister's philosophy, or the government's philosophy, of passing this responsibility on to the school boards around this province.

It was my understanding that the changes that Bill 30 allows would create needed day care centres in existing schools as well, either by additions or refitting, and that they would receive provincial funding in the usual way for approved projects.

Again, the philosophy of it is commendable. What I am opposed to, and what our party is opposed to, is the downloading principle of passing on a provincial responsibility to the municipalities.

I would hope the Minister of Education would comment on those thoughts as to why she is passing a provincial responsibility on to the taxpayer.

There is no question that, whether one is talking a planned school, a new school project -- and I know of two in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, one under the separate school system and one under the public school system, where new schools are being planned -- or whether one is talking about school sites that are going to be expanded or added on to to provide day care, these school sites will have to be expanded to accommodate such things as playgrounds. As I have indicated, this will add extra costs to the school board and, in turn, to the property taxpayer.

I cannot speak any further with respect to that subject. It is a basic objection. When this government was campaigning in the last election, it was opposed to the downloading on to the property taxpayer. I am sure we are all opposed to it now. I cannot believe that members of the government are not opposed to it, because it has been discussed around this province in tax revolts, in the coming municipal elections, and this is a subject that I can assure you will be debated.

There is still time for the minister to change her mind, because I can assure her that her government will be blamed for the increasing municipal taxes that are being put on the property taxpayer, and one of the examples as to why this is going to occur is this philosophy of having day care being funded by the property taxpayer.

The government has created a demand for child care facilities in schools throughout the province, certainly by having an explicit policy of putting child care in all new schools. Parents, as well as people in this House, want day care. I think that where they will find the general members of the public are opposed to this type of philosophy is that they do not want it paid for by the property taxpayer.

If the government does what it is going to do, if it is going to pass this specific section of the bill dealing with day care, what it will mean is the local taxpayer once again will have to foot the bill.

1640

Mr J. Wilson: I am concerned that the legislation we have before us this afternoon is intended as a housekeeping bill but is much more than that and will create more problems than it will solve.

It is my understanding that the bill authorizes capital grants to school boards for child care facilities in new and replacement schools, and the flip side of this coin is that it permits school boards to raise funds locally to create and upgrade child care facilities at existing schools.

This section of the bill that deals directly with child care facilities is indeed ill conceived. Chief among its faults is the notion of downloading, as my colleague for Dufferin-Peel has mentioned, the continuation of downloading programs on to the shoulders of local school boards without an accompanying cheque from Queen's Park to pay for them.

It is my belief that the child care provisions of Bill 30 continue a negative trend that has wreaked havoc upon local school boards and their ratepayers. By establishing child care facilities in new schools, the NDP government will undoubtedly raise expectations in local communities without child care facilities in their existing schools. The result is that local school boards will once again be caught in the middle. They will be forced to provide child care services or incur the wrath of angry taxpayers, yet to provide these facilities within existing schools means that local boards will be inundated with criticism from taxpayer coalition groups which are monitoring every dollar they spend.

It is time for the powers that be in Ontario to adopt a new commonsense approach to educational governance, one that insists and is premised on the belief that he or she who speaks pays. It is time to deal head-on with problems instead of passing them off. This government has chosen not to meet this challenge but to carry out the policy of downloading that was initiated and seen so very often in actions taken by the previous Liberal government.

With Bill 30 the NDP government is using a subtle tactic to eventually force local boards to increase mill rates in order to provide child care facilities. I recently met with a group of public school trustees from my riding in Simcoe county. Here is a sample of what I heard during this meeting: "The province continues to enact new legislation without any regard as to how it will impact local school boards. The taxpayers want us to reduce the mill rate, but we can't cut back on programs and services which the province mandates."

There is nothing new or profound in these remarks, but what they indicate is that the change in government has done nothing to mitigate the growing burdens faced by taxpayers and local school boards. Today it is clear to me that this government has not staked out a path to remedy this problem, but merely to exacerbate it.

Junior kindergarten is a marvellous program in theory, but its glamour is tarnished considerably because of the province's failure to forward the money to the school boards to pay for the program. Junior kindergarten is an example of the province's neglect of the notion that he who speaks pays.

Fewer students in each classroom would be a wonderful improvement to our education system, but where is the virtue of imposing such a policy when its costs are hoisted on to the backs of local school boards? What this means is that local taxpayers are once again forced to squeeze their wallets even tighter. Yet another Queen's Park brainstorm results in an increase in the burden on local taxpayers without any regard for the notion, once again, that he or she who speaks should pay.

This is only the beginning. What should be the guiding principle of "he who speaks pays" was neglected with regard to pay equity, the employer's health tax levy, health and safety legislation and all-day senior kindergarten. I do not see the fairness or the sense of partnership in a relationship structured upon the government as the idea man, while local boards are left to take all the flak as the implementers of the ideas thrust upon them by Queen's Park. I believe that no one in this Legislature would question the need for special education, but is it not odd just how willing the government is to have local boards deal with a disproportionate amount of the problem?

Once again, here is an example of what I am hearing from public school trustees in my riding. I quote from a letter that was sent to me by one of those trustees:

"One case I studied, I followed, and it shows that the student required personalized equipment in the amount of $9,300 to meet his program needs alone in the years 1986 to 1989. This student is serviced by a classroom teacher who is also responsible for eight other special students, a full-time aide, a speech teacher, a vision resource teacher, a resource and withdrawal specialist, as well as a family resource worker.

"As you can imagine, the expenditure for specialized equipment as well as human resources becomes quite costly, and unfortunately this case is not always the exception, but becoming very common within our system. No one is denying the real needs that these students have and that they must be serviced, but the province has to fund their needs more appropriately since we are required to be the vehicle that meets their needs."

That is the end of the quote, but it is certainly not the end of the negative trend that we have been seeing over the past few years. Not only have local school boards been forced to shoulder more programs, but they have been forced to do so with substantially diminished support from the province.

During the course of decreasing provincial support for education, assessment pooling came along and further handicapped public school boards. Pooling has cost the Simcoe county public school board almost $300,000 in 1990, with the projected loss to be about $1.5 million by 1995. How are local boards in Simcoe county, both public and separate, supposed to realize the endless aspirations of the provincial government with less and less funds?

One more example is the land use policy implemented by the Ministry of the Environment last year. The Simcoe county public school board, which has a large rural component, has been attempting to replace an outdated school in the village of Nottawa. They had an offer to purchase a 10-acre site, but this was nullified by the Ministry of the Environment, which said the site was too small and that a 48-acre site was necessary for environmental reasons. After negotiations, the size was reduced to 28 acres. This clearly indicates the difficulties that plague local boards. After wrangling, the Simcoe board was able to escape by paying three times as much for the land it needed to construct a replacement school. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that local boards have not had a threefold increase in funds from Queen's Park.

Once again, the province spoke and the local boards and taxpayers paid the price. Now the province is creating a prisoner's dilemma of sorts with Bill 30. Child care facilities are not being forced on local boards, but they are now being created in new schools. If existing schools desire the same child care facilities, they will be forced to raise funds locally to create them.

Let's not be naïve. When parents see child care facilities in some schools, they will want the same for their own children. They may even write the province to request such a facility, and the provincial government, as it did so capably during the five years of Liberal mismanagement, will indicate to them that the decision is up to the local school board. All the flak, all the heat and all the expense is to be borne by local boards after the government here at Queen's Park raises a myriad of expectations with Bill 30.

The legislation does not clarify funding for new and existing child care facilities. However, the indication is clear, and the Ontario Public School Boards' Association has stated this to be the case in a letter sent to the Minister of Education in February. The Ontario Public School Boards' Association is correct to assume that the child care provision of Bill 30 creates real problems for assessment-poor boards which lack the ability to raise funds locally.

Is our goal as legislators to institute a system of inequality of opportunity? I say it is not, and it should not be, but I fear this will occur if this legislation is passed as it currently reads.

An additional problem is the bureaucratic headache created with child care facilities funded and located on education sites. The requirements to gain access to these child care facilities are controlled by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Space and design requirements as set out in the Day Nurseries Act are different from those in the Education Act for children in the same age group. I suggest that what the system does not need is more confusion.

I would suggest the government heed the advice of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association in its 20 February letter to the minister. I will just quote from that letter. It says:

"OPSBA suggests that because there are different realities across the province, when considering the need for child care, the Ministry of Education, in consultation with local boards, develop a definitive long-term plan for the implementation of child care in Ontario."

The government must send out a more positive message to school boards, one that indicates clearly that local boards are not alone. The section on child care does not send out this message, and therefore my caucus colleagues and I cannot support the sections in this bill dealing with child care. If the minister were to withdraw these child care provisions, perhaps we would reconsider our position.

1650

Hon Mrs Boyd: Since the last three speakers have alluded primarily to the child care aspects of the proposed act, I think it is time to answer some of the questions that have been raised. They were raised previously in the debate as well.

I make no pretence and my party makes no pretence that this particular bill, Bill 30, answers the multitude of questions all of us have about the comprehensive delivery of child care services in Ontario It was not intended to do so. That matter is a very serious matter and one which concerns many people in our community for many different reasons. For that reason, our government has determined to embark upon a very extensive child care consultation looking at all these issues and looking at interministerial responsibility, as the member suggests and as OPSBA suggested. We need to look at those crossings of responsibility.

What this is meant to do is legitimate the process that has gone on under the previous government and under our own government of making funds available to new schools for the provision of child care. At the request of the Metro Toronto School Board, in answer to the member for Willowdale, this has also given authority to school boards to raise those funds where they so choose. This is in no way intended to be a definitive answer to child care problems, which I would certainly agree are urgent and which our government intends to address in the very near future.

Mr J. Wilson: Madam Speaker, do I get to respond to that?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): No, you do not. I am still in questions and comments. I would like to be sure that there are no other questions and comments on your participation and then you will be allowed two minutes to wind up your debate.

Mr Ruprecht: The member for Simcoe West read a quote that states unequivocally that there are different realities across this province, and that is so true. What I like to do is ask whether he could in his remarks or whether the minister could in her remarks expand on the idea of creating a greater justice among school boards.

For instance, in the downtown area where the need is great for child care services, the school boards will not be able to access funds from the province. To that degree, there is certainly an injustice within the funding mechanism of Bill 30. It is important that this bill address the inequities across the province. While we would agree that the development of new schools and the consequent funding is a good idea, we cannot leave out the school boards which have added expenditures already in the downtown areas and may not be able to fulfil their role in funding the child care services that are so necessary.

Whether I am talking about the Parkdale riding or other downtown ridings, I think we may be all in the same boat, except that I do know of some instances in the Parkdale riding where these child care services are essential and the school board may not be ready or even able to come up with the funding to supply them. I would therefore submit, either to the member who was talking about different realities across the province or certainly to the minister, that this very fact should be looked into.

Mrs Marland: I would like to respond to the comments that have been made and, in so doing, I would like to raise the concerns of the member for Markham, who tells me -- and I am saying this on his behalf -- that Bill 30 brings the Education Act in line with the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which came into effect on 1 January 1991. Clause 32(e) of that act indicates that information cannot be released except for the purposes of complying with an act. Subsection 237(3) of the Education Act gives parents the right to access the Ontario student record, report card, etc. Legal counsel at the Ministry of Education have indicated that the municipal freedom of information act does not take away parents' rights under subsection 237(3). However, anything that is outside the Ontario student record would require student consent for the release of the information.

The ministry gave the member for Markham two examples of potential problems in this regard. First is attendance records -- the school would not be able to call home to inform parents -- and second is notification of suspension. Legal counsel at the ministry have indicated that they will attempt to address these areas in a future omnibus bill.

I simply say to the minister that maybe she has a response to this issue today and, if not, could we have it in writing tomorrow, or is she proposing a future amendment to address these concerns which I raise on behalf of the member for Markham?

Hon Mr Wildman: While I always very much like to hear from my friend the member for Mississauga South -- she puts her positions very well, even in the House when she is speaking on behalf of someone else -- I really cannot quite figure out how that last comment was a comment on the remarks of my friend the member for Simcoe West, because he spoke most of the time, as I recall, about day care and the funding for day care for school boards, while the member was talking about freedom of information. It would seem to me that it is most unfair of my friend the member for Mississauga South to use the time we have to comment on the cogent remarks of my friend the member for Simcoe West to speak about another member's concern, which has absolutely nothing to do with the member for Simcoe West.

I was most interested in the concerns of the member for Simcoe West and I was most disappointed to hear him say he would only vote for this bill if we took out all reference to child care. If we should be doing anything with regard to the education field in this province, we should be doing something about child care.

Mr J. Wilson: I do not know what to make of the comments from the Minister of Natural Resources. I think perhaps he is buttering me up for some future negotiations we will get into between tourism and Algonquin Park. None the less, I thank him for the kind comments. This, of course, is an omnibus bill, and my colleague the member for Mississauga South had every right to say what she said and was very much correct in what she relayed from other colleagues.

This bill contains a lot more than child care, but I say to the minister that she is well aware what the problems will be -- I think so, because we have raised them; a number of interest groups have raised them -- concerning funding of child care and the expectations of communities that will qualify for child care facilities in their schools and those that will not. She is going to have a patchwork across the province.

The minister says the reason that provision is in the bill is she is legitimizing the process of child care that was begun by the previous Liberal government and that she is going to be taking a comprehensive study. I have been a political assistant for some seven years, and I have read absolute reams and piles and piles of studies on child care. I suggest she send her staff to the library and reread some of those studies, without spending any new money on new studies. There are a lot of good recommendations there. She certainly would get a feel for the problems she is creating with the provision in this bill. I would ask that she consider withdrawing the provision so that we can take another look at the bill and perhaps be able to agree with other provisions in it.

1700

Mrs Marland: I would not pass this opportunity because the honourable Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Algoma, who shared this side of the House with me for many years, is here this afternoon saying he enjoys very much what I have to say, so I would not want to disappoint him.

To the very serious matter before us, however, I have here a letter from the largest separate school board in this province, the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board. The letter is over the signature of the chairperson of that board, Patrick Meany. I would like to read this letter into the record in order that, at some time, the Minister of Education might address the concerns of this board. The letter is as follows:

"Dear Margaret:

"Re Bill 30, Amendment to the Education Act

"Thank you for forwarding a copy of the bill to us for comment. We do not have a formal comment from the board, but in discussion the following points have arisen.

"Child care facilities: Once again, the permission given here will cost boards money. We are already funding local costs associated with child care facilities in new schools. The proposals in this bill would tend to increase local costs. We would suggest that your child care facilities be funded completely by the ministries of Education and Community and Social Services."

"Copyright licence agreements: If these agreements are to be negotiated by the ministry, they should also be paid by the ministry. There would be great economy in this mode of operation.

"The other proposals in the bill are acceptable as they stand.

"Yours sincerely."

I also have a report here from the Peel Board of Education, the largest public school board in Canada. It has some pertinent comments on Bill 30 that also need to be brought to the attention of the minister. The first issue is where each school board would be required to develop and implement drug education policies by September 1991. I read for the edification of the minister: "The current drug education policy and administrative procedures of the Peel board fit the criteria outlined in the ministry policy framework. In fact, Peel was one of the first boards in Ontario to undertake a comprehensive review of its drug and alcohol education curriculum and policies." I think you would agree this is very commendable.

The next subject I want to bring to the attention of the minister is the authority for school boards to require a deposit for textbooks provided to pupils enrolled in a continuing education course or class in which a credit towards a secondary school diploma may be earned. The Peel board response on this is as follows:

"Should regulation 262 be amended to require boards to provide without charge textbooks for continuing education pupils enrolled in credit courses, then the board would support the recommendations.

"The greater issue, however, is that additional costs to the board will be sizeable. The Peel board annually serves some 5,000 continuing education clients in this area. The cost for textbooks would be in the range of $200,000. Further, these textbooks would have to be stored in board facilities, facilities which we presently do not have."

The next issue is to establish a maximum fixed period for the suspension of a pupil from school, and that is amendment 22(1) as follows, "A principal may suspend a pupil for a fixed period not in excess of 20 days."

The board response is as follows: "The board supports fixing the maximum period for which a principal may suspend a student at 20 days. It would, however, consider any school suspension beyond 10 days as extreme, and would establish administrative guidelines for principals that would govern the circumstances under which a suspension of greater than 10 days could be levied. The Peel board would support this recommendation provided that any revision to section 22(2) does not remove the right of the board to confirm or modify the suspension, thus providing the board with a disciplinary measure intermediate between a school suspension and expulsion."

One other issue is whether sick leave credits should be transferable between boards despite intervening employment that interrupts the continuity of employment under which credits are accumulated. Apparently, the ministry is amending section 158(6) to permit the transfer of sick leave credits where there has been a break in employment.

The board response is: "The Peel Board of Education would not support this recommendation. In our view, the proposed amendment should not be enshrined in the Education Act, but should be at the discretion of the individual boards."

The final comment of the Peel Board of Education is on the issue of exemption from payment of fees for visitors who, while in Canada, apply for permanent residence and landed immigrant status. The ministry is recommending that visitors who, while in Canada, apply for permanent residence and landed immigrant status be permitted to attend school without payment of fees.

The Peel board response is: "This requires clarification of the term 'permanent residence.' Application to immigration would not be sufficient and the Peel board would recommend that immigration provide an approval granted in principle on the basis of appropriate documentation. Given this approval, Peel could then admit a student without payment of fees."

I hope the minister will consult with her staff on these responses of the Peel Board of Education, and I say in closing that the last point is one that is particularly pertinent for Peel, since the largest number of those students who are awaiting landed immigrant status or permanent resident status are within the jurisdiction of the Peel Board of Education.

The Peel board is not saying, of course, that it does not welcome these students. They do welcome them, but they cannot accept the financial burden for them without some assurance in principle from the authorities that they will be eligible for the landed immigrant status they are hoping to achieve. If they are approved, then of course the board will assume the cost of their education, as it does for anyone else.

I think it is really relevant to also tell members at this point that the region of Peel has over $1.7 million outstanding for the direct costs of the payment of provision of services for those people who are in that vacuum awaiting landed immigrant status in Peel. The taxpayers in Peel are saying that they are already supporting these families and that it is fair they not be exempted from fees unless there is an approval in principle for their status. We ask the minister to respond to the board with its concerns about Bill 30 as soon as possible.

1710

Hon Mrs Boyd: The whole latter part of what the member for Mississauga South was talking about was parts of the bill that I in fact introduced today for first reading. It has nothing to do with Bill 30, although I was interested and wanted to hear her comments, because of course that is part of the feedback that we want on new bills that we introduce. I certainly take very seriously the comments of Peel.

I am not going to spend a lot of time speaking to the letter from the Peel board, because it refers to the bill we did today. We will have lots of time for that during the consultation period. The child care concerns that were raised by the member, however, are of deep concern, as I said before, and in my summing up remarks I will be answering those concerns directly.

Mrs Marland: I assume that the child care concerns the minister is referring to are those that are raised by the separate school board. I think it is quite fair for those concerns to be tabled on behalf of any of the boards in this province, because it is like so many things to do with education -- people down here in the ivory towers of Queen's Park come up with ways to spend money, but not always in terms of very real priorities.

I support the programs that are initiated by ministries, and in this case the Ministry of Education, but what I do not support is where ministries -- another example I can give for the Ministry of Education is the reduction of class size, which was not done by this government. It was done by the previous Liberal government. What happens is these mandates come down from on high, no discussion takes place with the school boards as to whether they can afford them or whether they even have the space, and very often the space is the biggest hurdle. It is simply impossible for them to overcome it.

If we are talking about priorities in terms of where the money comes from, if the province is going to announce provincially mandated programs in education, then the province must pay for them, because the taxpayers cannot assume any more additional burden on their property taxes. If the minister does not have the money, she should not announce them, or if she wants them badly enough, she should take them from another program area in her government.

Hon Mrs Boyd: As I indicated before, I have two amendments to the bill and wonder if we could move into committee of the whole to consider those amendments.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable minister has moved second reading of the bill prior to going to committee of the whole.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (MISCELLANEOUS), 1990

Consideration of Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.

The First Deputy Chair: Would the minister care to list her amendments, just to the sections.

Mr Beer: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I just want to be clear about the procedure here. The minister is going to present her amendments, but we will be discussing or be able to raise questions on each section.

The First Deputy Chair: Yes.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The sections are section 4 and subsection 8(3).

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any other amendments? Are there any comments or questions on sections 1 through 3?

Mr Beer: I had set out, in my confusion earlier, in my discussion of second reading, and meant to do it in committee of the whole, just a number of questions that I had posed during second reading. I do not need to go back and list all those, but I simply want to indicate that to the minister. I believe she has some answers to the questions that I and the member for London North raised. There were several, and I reiterated those earlier this afternoon.

You said to the first three, I believe, Madam Chair.

The First Deputy Chair: Section 1, section 2 and section 3, because the first amendment we have is for section 4.

Mr Beer: Those would be my questions then with respect to the copyright licence agreement, and I would appreciate hearing the minister on those questions that I raised earlier.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Yes, I am happy to answer those questions.

The question regarding the relationship with the federal government in terms of the copyright agreement is that as far as we are aware, there has been no move by the federal government to implement phase 2. This means that the protections that teachers and school boards have been asking for in terms of exemptions are not yet available. The minister then responsible in the federal government did not respond to the request from the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. He was scheduled to meet with us in February but in fact did not attend that meeting, so at the present time we do not know when the federal government is going to move along with phase 2. That does concern us and concerns our partners in this endeavour.

1720

There was a question raised about the financing of the copy agreement. In the original consultation that went out on this, the proposal was that boards of education would share in the cost of CanCopy. That was withdrawn by our government. We will be using some of the education programs' other money that is in the budget of the ministry to cover the costs of this program.

The member inquired as to whether audio-visual materials, print music, computer software and so on were included in the licence agreement that is being proposed. Unfortunately, they are not. Boards will be required to approach copyright holders for consent to copy until such time as collectives are set up for these groups.

At the present time, unlike CanCopy, there are no collectives set up to cover this kind of material. When those collectives are set up -- and we believe that if we manage to negotiate a CanCopy agreement, that will be an incentive for those kinds of collectives to be set up -- then our strategy would be to negotiate on that level with the appropriate groups. We certainly agree with the member that this is a matter of deep concern to those who are using these kinds of materials in the school.

In answer to the question of the member regarding what would happen when authors or publishers are not part of CanCopy, part of the agreement would indicate that those who specifically do not wish to have their materials copied could get excluded from the agreement. When there is a specific prohibition, their material would not be copied. That was felt to be a protection for those creative endeavours, but also to lessen the kind of red tape that is required in terms of this kind of material.

I think that covers the issues raised in sections 1, 2 and 3 by that member, although in his original speech, when he was asking about this bill, he did raise a number of questions that have been raised by other members about the child care provisions. I am not clear whether he wishes me to answer those at this point in time or not.

Mr J. Wilson: I would like the minister to expand a bit on the provision of child care, particularly in terms of who is going to pay. She is now allowing child care facilities to be built in new schools. What if in, say, Alliston, my home town, where we have a new school being built, the existing schools in town decide they want or need or the parents want child care facilities in those schools? Who pays for those facilities and the construction or implementation of those facilities?

My views are, as the minister has heard me say, that she is putting tremendous new pressure on the property tax base, on the school board tax levy. Would she not agree that by doing that she is hurting those for whom her government most often advocates in terms of some glorious speeches that are given in this House from time to time regarding the poor and seniors on fixed income? Property tax, the school board tax, I think you would agree, is a very regressive tax and we should not be putting more pressure on that and raising mill rates. I would like to hear her comments on that.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I think the concerns the member raises are very legitimate. He has heard me before in this House echo the concern about the burden on the property taxpayer in terms of a lot of the services we offer in the educational field. He knows of my commitment and my government's commitment to look at ways to review the funding of education to try and relieve that tax burden, to move the cost burden for education more and more on to ability-to-pay taxes. That is certainly a commitment we have.

I think what the member needs to understand is that the amendments we have put in, and specifically the permissive amendment which actually is farther along in section 5 of this act, to permit school boards to raise the money to build day care centres in schools, were made at the specific request of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, which does not have, in the usual course of things, as the member for Willowdale pointed out, the grant position that would allow the province to be allocating funds for new schools, but it certainly felt that it wanted the ability to raise those taxes if in fact it wanted to add child care spaces.

This act does give us the right, which has already been exercised by the previous government and of course by ours, to make allocations in respect of construction of child care facilities. That is the capital allocation. There seems to be some confusion on the part of the members of the third party about the difference between those capital allocations and the ongoing operating costs of the child care centres, which are not borne by the education sector, but would be borne, as are other child care centres, through the subsidies and that sort of thing. The capital expenditures are somewhat removed and somewhat different and most of the child care that is provided in schools is provided through non-profit, community-based groups.

The other comment made by the member for Parkdale in terms of the child care issue was with respect to the downtown core and the fact of our asking for legislative permission to make allocations with respect to the construction of child care facilities and how that does not apply to schools in the downtown core in many cases. He, of course, is right. That is an issue of equity, as he points out. However, the issue of equity is much broader than he suggests. The assessment base for Metropolitan Toronto is very broad. In fact, Metropolitan Toronto, through the equalized mill rate process that has been followed under the operating grant structure of the province for some time, raises sufficient money to support education in a much greater degree than in other areas that have less assessment.

When we look at the funding of education, we will be looking at those inequities and I am very pleased to hear that members are as aware of the issues of equity in terms of funding as they appear to be, because that will be an important issue in that consultation.

I think the member for Parkdale ought to know, however, that because of the shift of population in the downtown core, there are many empty classrooms which the Metropolitan Toronto school boards have turned into child care centres to meet the needs of their community and to make effective use of the public resources that they have at hand.

Our concern, as a ministry, is that as there is a turnaround again in population, as there is more intensification of housing and so on, our schools are often filling up more and more and we are finding that schools that have committed space to child care centres are now needing that space back for classroom space. We agree that is a problem. It is a problem we are going to have to come to grips with in terms of an interministerial action on child care, as I mentioned earlier, which is a priority for us as a government.

We are not in any way pretending that this act answers all the issues around child care. It cannot and it is not intended to do so. What it is intended to do, first of all, is to make sure that we have the legislative authority to provide the grants we have been providing for some time. Members would probably be interested to know that a large number of centres have been funded under this program; 249 child care centres have been funded under this program and 105 of those are already in service. So we are wanting to have the legislative authority to grant that money and to allow school boards to raise money where they choose.

That is the issue. It is a choice. They are able to make that decision based on the requirements and requests of their constituents. If their constituents are asking for things the board is not prepared to grant, then that is part of the whole business of being responsible representatives.

I think that answers most of the questions that have been raised in those areas by the previous speakers.

1730

Mrs Cunningham: I will take the opportunity to talk right now with regard to child care facilities, although I understand we also have section 5 where we can deal with it, but I think my comments will be on the topic. There are two issues I would like to raise right now.

First of all, of course I spoke against the child care component of this particular piece of legislation, because I thought we were probably getting into a very complicated area and we had not discussed the whole policy of child care; who would eventually be responsible for the construction of facilities across the province and who would be responsible ultimately for the operating cost. Right now the minister has clearly said that in her view it is the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and I certainly agree with that.

She has also promised that in those discussions we in opposition would have an opportunity to speak with her about our concerns, and we very much appreciate that, but at this point in time there are a couple of concerns in the communities. I will raise them one at a time. Perhaps it would be allowable for the minister to respond, because I think it is a great opportunity to clarify some things.

First of all, around the boards right now, some school boards are constructing two and three new schools. Lucky them. Others are not getting the grants from the ministry, as the minister has already described. But where boards are getting grants for new schools in new areas but they find it is not necessary for them to put in the child care facilities immediately, it has been discussed either with the minister or ministry officials that in fact they could transfer those funds to another school where the need is greater in any one community. I would like the minister, when she gets an opportunity to respond, to respond to that one. Let's get that one on the record so that I can send out Hansards as opposed to answering the telephone.

The second area of concern is this: Beyond that issue, there has also been some discussion on a consultation process to allow boards to apply for funding for child care centres in existing schools. I think this has probably been raised with the minister as she has been travelling about the province. I am not aware of that possibility, so in the interest of some clarification here today, I would appreciate responses from the minister on those two issues.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The legislative authority we are seeking does not cover, of course, the regulations and the policy of the capital allocations. That is where the rigidity came in that the member commented on in her original speech on Bill 30 and which has been of great concern to many communities.

First of all, the flexibility to allow the school boards to shift the allocation as it is given from one school to another if that is in the best interests of their constituents under their decision-making process we think is a very reasonable request. We have already informed boards that have been asking that we see that as a reasonable request. The request to transfer allocations would be approved only after the board had passed a resolution to that effect. We need to make sure that there is an accountability there. It certainly would be at the discretion of the minister, but certainly I cannot see any reason why we would not agree to that where boards are coming forward with that kind of request.

The issue on this provision of child care centres in new schools is one where we want to ensure that there is some equity around the needs of parents. Sometimes boards of education make decisions that do not really accord with the wishes of people in the community. They may decide that there is child care available through some other means, but in fact not in the publicly owned space. We want to be sure we are making those decisions based on the best wishes and the best needs of the communities involved over the long term, because these are facilities that are there as fixed assets for the community and that would be needed.

In terms of the second part of the question, I am afraid I was not clear on exactly what the member was trying to get at, but my assumption is that she was wondering whether we would be coming forward with a full policy in terms of how to deal with these capital allocations for child care centres where they do not come under this particular program. I would repeat what I said before, that it would need to be part of a comprehensive child care plan, which certainly we need to be sure we are working at in an interministerial way, and also in terms of the child care commitments that have been made by the federal government, to ensure that we are providing a comprehensive system of care for children.

It has not been determined at this point in time, of course, whether that comprehensive system would continue to be under the leadership of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, whether it would be a joint ministry proposal; that is all under consultation. We certainly intend to discuss very thoroughly with our colleagues on the other side of the House and with all the stakeholders in this area the best way to provide a comprehensive system.

Mr Ruprecht: I am delighted to hear of the minister's flexibility in terms of being sensitive to downtown schools, especially those which seem to be growing and which need the space again that was previously allocated for different purposes.

My only remark or question would be, how would she be able to accomplish that goal? Would she be able to entertain an amendment at this time, or would she simply need extra time to establish some kind of a policy or a different funding mechanism later on? If possible, I would like to have some kind of response to that kind of approach she was hinting at. As I said earlier, I am really delighted for the minister to show that sensitivity.

Hon Mrs Boyd: In response to the member of the opposition's question, I would not be prepared to entertain an amendment at this time, partly because one would not be necessary. This is permissive legislation to give us the legislative authority to grant allocations for child care centres.

The policy that he talks about and that I would dearly hope to see us being able to bring forward in the very near future over the whole issue of how allocations are made to child care and how we actually reach this goal of a comprehensive system is certainly the issue for interministerial discussion.

I am not the lead minister in terms of child care. It would be inappropriate for me to make a commitment to the member at this point in time either about the timing of such a policy statement or indeed the direction it would take, but I can assure the member that we on this side of the House are extremely sensitive to the kinds of issues he has raised. We have a deep concern about the very great complications we are facing in terms of maintaining existing child care, as well as creating new child care spaces, and that will be a very important part of our policy discussions in the future.

1740

Mr Beer: I forgot one question as I looked over my comments from 20 March, and I wonder if the minister would just respond. I may know the answer, given things that have happened since. But with respect to the letter from the Metropolitan Toronto Association for Community Living and its request, I understand that would be covered by the other amendments the minister brought forward at the end of last month. Perhaps she could just comment on that so we have it on the record.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is referring to concerns that were raised by the association for community living about special education, and those special education issues are extremely important and urgent. The amendments we introduced in this House -- I guess it was two weeks ago -- will deal with some of those concerns. The remaining concerns, which really talk about the way we design programs, the guarantees given to parents for input into the appropriate education of their children, the streamlining of the individual program, plan process, are the subject of a major consultation and new legislation will come forward on that.

Mr Beer: Just to clarify that last point, because a question has come up with the minister and with others of us around the relationship between the consultation process and the other amendments that were brought in, in dealing with that, that consultation period goes until the end of December, after which the minister would be considering bringing forward legislation on the results of that consultation. Is that correct?

Hon Mrs Boyd: That is correct.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further questions and/or comments on sections 1, 2 and 3 of Bill 30.

Mrs Marland: Are these comments on the amendments?

The Second Deputy Chair: On sections 1, 2 and 3, and we will be getting to amendments very shortly.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 4:

The Second Deputy Chair: Mrs Boyd moves that section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"4(1) Section 136-l of the act, as enacted by the Statues of Ontario, 1986, chapter 21, section 2 and amended by 1990, chapter 24, section 6, is further amended by adding the following subsection:

"(20fa) Despite subsection (20f), the boards concerned may agree to share the amount of the payment under subsection (20d) or (20e) in any manner, including the payment of the entire amount by one of the boards.

"(2) Subsection 136-l(20g) of the act, as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter 24, section 6, is amended by striking out 'subsections (20d) to (20f)' in the first line and substituting 'subsections (20d) to (20fa)'

"(3) Boards to which former subsection 136-l(20) of the act applied before the 20th day of December, 1990 shall, despite that subsection, be deemed to have had the authority to agree to share the amount of a payment under former subsection 136-l(18) or (19) of the act in any manner, including the payment of the entire amount by one of the boards."

Mr Beer: I know I talked with the minister earlier, but just for the record with respect to these amendments, I do feel there was a problem with their arriving at the offices of the two critics. I would just like to underline that maybe we can have a look at our procedures so that in fact we have them.

I think the difficulty, as she will understand, is that when an amendment arrives, everybody gets very concerned and worried and wonders what it is all about. While I recognize, having chatted with the minister earlier, that this is an attempt to clarify the arrangements, I just want to note that we would appreciate receiving these earlier so that we and our research people have a chance to look at them.

I would like to ask the minister two things, because the nature of this is fairly complex in the reading of it. First, specifically and perhaps more in layperson's terms, what does this mean? Second, has she consulted or have her officials consulted with the relevant school board associations with respect to this?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I certainly regret that the critics were not in possession of these amendments and we have amended our procedures to ensure this does not occur again.

This section refers to the gratuities that, upon the extension of separate school funding, were often to be shared by boards. Essentially, the amendment I am proposing is simply to bring this act into accord with Bill 12 and Bill 13, which were passed on 20 December 1990. The first reading of this bill was on 17 December 1990. We made amendments in committee to the previous act that necessitated these amendments. Although most of this bill is housekeeping, this is pure housekeeping in terms of bringing this newest act into accord with the act that was passed on 20 December 1990.

Mr Beer: I may have missed it, but were these changes discussed with the school board associations?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Yes, they were. In fact, we have a number of school boards that have set aside gratuity money and are just waiting for permission to share it under this section.

Mrs Cunningham: The minister will not be surprised at some of my comments this afternoon. There is always a lot of concern out there in the community when we hear that the minister is going to bring in a couple of amendments, even after consultation, so we would encourage her to get to us much sooner.

The Ontario Public School Boards' Association, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation are all very concerned about the process that is used this afternoon. Certainly the Liberal opposition critic has already raised his concerns. So I think that when we are bringing forth amendments, the process is to get them as soon as possible so that we can be aware of them.

We would have preferred, of course, for our own research staff to have a look at the wording. I am certain that the federations would have liked their legal persons to take a look at these amendments. But given the good faith in which we are trying to operate here this afternoon, we are prepared to support them.

I also heard the minister talk a little earlier about these being basic housekeeping amendments, which is true, and also that they dealt with our particular concerns. We were not aware of the problem, so I think it is more basically the teachers' concerns. The amendments we were concerned about were with regard to the child care facilities in existing schools, which I think have been discussed at least with regard to the minister's answers today and as far as possible.

I am not certain I understood the second part and the freedom-of-information one, which my colleague the member for Mississauga South raised as being a concern. That was with regard to permission of parents and students, which we hope the minister will take a look at and help us in the future with some kind of amendment if we all feel that is necessary. We will speak in favour of the amendments because I think teachers have a very valid point at this time.

1750

Hon Mrs Boyd: There was a briefing held for representatives of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, which includes the representatives of all the major federations before this bill was introduced. At that time the representatives of the teachers' federation were told these amendments I am proposing were going to have to be made to bring the bill into line with the bill that was passed on 20 December.

I am distressed at their distress, but we certainly had understood they understood that the renumbering of these sections followed upon the government amendments made to the act -- I guess it was Bill 12 and Bill 13 -- and that this would not cause any real concern. That is the nature of these amendments and that is all that is intended by these amendments.

Mrs Cunningham: I hope I have made myself very clear that we are not particularly concerned about the intent of the amendments. We applaud the minister for her consultation process, but when we hear the amendments are coming down and we have not seen them, that is what we are complaining about.

The Liberal critic and I have already discussed with the minister a process we would like to see in place, but I think the federations themselves did not receive these amendments either. All of us are very concerned about having that opportunity to view things in advance. It is our responsibility to do that. I am certain we have legal staff who can reassure us that what we are voting for on behalf of the public we represent is exactly what we expect it to be, and appropriate. That is all I am talking about, not the intent of the amendments.

Mr J. Wilson: I want to pick up on what the minister just said, that the amendment she introduced today is building upon the bill that was introduced and passed in December. If I recall, that was the bill my caucus colleagues and I voted against. I certainly voted against it because it was the God-awful bill that introduced a French-language school board into Simcoe county where numbers clearly did not warrant it. I want to put that on the record.

There is consensus in my riding of Simcoe West and in most of Simcoe county that they did not want another school board mainly because they felt numbers did not warrant it. Some 4% of students in Simcoe county have French as their first language. We agree they should have rights. We believe those rights were well covered under the existing structure of both the separate and public school boards in terms of French-language governance. I just want to state clearly that I would not go around saying, at least in my part of the province, that the minister is building upon the bill that was introduced on 20 December because that indeed was a terrible bill. At least many of the provisions in there were terrible and should never have been passed by this Legislature, in my opinion.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5:

The Second Deputy Chair: Are there comments or discussion on sections 5, 6 and 7, to which there do not appear to be any amendments?

Mr J. Wilson: As in the case of the introduction of a French-language school board in the county of Simcoe, my objection was based on the fact that there was no indication from the minister, either in this House or in committee, of who would pay for the third school board. Having gone through an election where the second issue in my riding was school board taxes, school board levies which show up in property tax, the people were very much fed up with rising property and school board taxes.

I again ask the minister, under section 5 of today's bill, who is paying for child care facilities in existing schools should parents and the local communities demand them? The minister, through this bill, has held out the expectation because she is going to put child care facilities in new schools.

In my riding, if you build a new school and put child care facilities in it, other parents are going to want similar facilities in existing schools. If they demand that, I want to know whether Queen's Park is going to send the cheque; or is Queen's Park just raising the expectation and going to get all the heat for rising school board taxes that could result from having to place child care facilities in existing schools? Who is paying for this?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have indicated to the member before that this is to permit school boards to raise taxes to construct and renovate child care facilities if they so choose. If that is the demand of the constituents, then that is a decision they make. By demanding them, those constituents of course are going to indicate their willingness to pay for them.

I am not suggesting to the member that we think this is the appropriate or best way to do this. We have indicated we will be looking at the whole issue of child care and the funding of capital and operating costs for child care in the province. What we are doing is providing this as a permissive measure for those boards that have requested it, so they can go ahead with the plans they regard as being necessary to the wellbeing of their constituents.

Mr J. Wilson: On that point, the minister has indicated to the House today that it is the Metropolitan Toronto School Board that would like to go ahead and put in the child care facilities. Would she not consider exempting all other boards until she has consulted with the public and with those boards in Simcoe county, for example?

Hon Mrs Boyd: "Permissive" means that the board will have the legislative authority to do this but does not have to do this. They are not required to do it. Boards are able to accede or not to demands of their constituents in many other issues, as they would have to in this.

Given the hour, I move that the committee rise and report progress.

On motion by Mrs Boyd, the committee reported progress.

1800

PLANNING STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon Mrs Coppen: I request unanimous consent to move a motion with respect to rescinding third reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983 and the Land Titles Act.

Agreed to.

Mrs Coppen moved that third reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983 and the Land Titles Act be rescinded.

Motion agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

Hon Mr Alexander: Pray be seated.

The Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present meetings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders;

Projet de loi 17, Loi portant modification des lois relatives à l'exécution d'ordonnances alimentaires et de garde d'enfants;

Bill 40, An Act to amend the Mortgages Act;

Bill Pr3, An Act to revive Lauramar Holdings Limited;

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Town of Oakville;

Bill Pr37, An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College;

Bill Pr54, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur sanctionne ces projets de loi.

The Speaker: May it please Your Honour, we Her Majesty's most dutiful and faithful subjects of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government, and humbly beg to present for Your Honour's acceptance, a bill entitled An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending 31 March 1991.

Clerk of the House: His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor, doth thank Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill in Her Majesty's name.

Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur remercie les bons et loyaux sujets de Sa Majesté, accepte leur bienveillance et sanctionne ce projet de loi au nom de Sa Majesté.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mrs Coppen: I would like to advise the House of the business for the week of 17 June 1991.

Monday 17 June: Motion to extend sittings; second reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act.

Tuesday 18 June: Liberal motion of non-confidence.

Wednesday 19 June: Second reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program; second reading of Bill 36, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Assessment; second reading of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act; second reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act.

Thursday 20 June: Government business: Second reading of Bill 108, the Substitute Decisions Act, 1991; second reading of Bill 109, Consent to Treatment Act, 1991; second reading of Bill 110, Consent and Capacity Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991; second reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act;

Private members' public business: Ballot item 27, a resolution respecting government expenditures, standing in the name of Mr Stockwell; ballot item 28, second reading of Bill 116, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act with respect to Notice of Termination, standing in the name of Mr Dadamo.

The House adjourned at 1810.