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

June 2, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

RACE TRACKS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE PARI MUTUEL

CONSUMER PROTECTION

RACE TRACKS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE PARI MUTUEL

CONSUMER PROTECTION

KATIE-LYNN BROSSEAU

LANDFILL

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

TORY LEADER

SENIOR CITIZENS

RIDING OF PRINCE EDWARD-LENNOX-SOUTH HASTINGS

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TVONTARIO HEADQUARTERS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

YOUNG OFFENDERS

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY SPENDING

CHARITABLE GAMING

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

JOB CREATION

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST LEGISLATION

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

TOBACCO PACKAGING

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

TOBACCO PACKAGING

EDUCATION FINANCING

HAEMODIALYSIS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

WOLF POPULATION

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA LOCATION IMMOBILIÈRE

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DROITS À L'ÉGALITÉ

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RACE TRACKS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE PARI MUTUEL

Mr Eves moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 130,

An Act to amend the Race Tracks Tax Act / Projet de loi 130, Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur le pari mutuel.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The purpose of the legislation, as you can see, is rather short. The purpose of the legislation is to reduce the amount of tax charged to the horse racing industry on parimutuel wagering in the province of Ontario.

Shortly put, there are now established by the act two rates of taxation: one of 9% on triactor bets and one of 7% on other parimutuel betting in the province of Ontario. The amendment that I am proposing to the Race Tracks Tax Act, which I must admit is a mouthful, would reduce that rate of taxation to one half of 1%, which would be, I think, in line with other jurisdictions that have the same amount of gambling or gaming revenue that the province of Ontario now has.

I would like to start by explaining, I think, for a lot of people that when the horse racing industry first came into being in the province of Ontario, it had a virtual monopoly on gaming, or gambling, in the province. When the rates of taxation were established that are currently in the Race Tracks Tax Act, it was done on the assumption that the horse racing industry represented 100% of gaming, or gambling, in the province of Ontario.

As we all know, that has changed dramatically over the years. With the advent of lotteries, some of which a government that I was part of brought in, and successive governments brought in additional ones, with the advent of charitable gaming, with the advent of sports lotteries now, or Sport Select, or Pro Line, whichever you'd like to call it, and now ultimately casino gambling, the horse racing industry has found that its share of the gaming dollar in the province has been reduced to somewhat less than 24%. I am here to predict that it's about to go even lower with the advent of casino gambling in the province.

I think there are a lot of things also that some people don't understand. In 1993, at some 19 racetracks across the province of Ontario of various kinds and descriptions, the income from across the province amounted to about $1.025 billion, roundly put, which is a lot of money. The province of Ontario takes out of that, by way of taxation, approximately -- I'm rounding these figures off -- $75 million a year. The government ends up retaining about $50 million a year, because through various programs it puts back into the horse racing industry approximately $25 million.

I want to make it clear, because there seems to be some uncertainty or lack of clarity among some groups in the horse racing industry itself: That money is not refunded to the horse racing industry by the Race Tracks Tax Act. There is nothing in this bill or nothing in the original act, which I have in front of me, or the regulations to the act that provide for one cent going back to the horse racing industry. It is done by order in council every year by the provincial government. In other words, the cabinet of the day decides every year how much money it wants to put back into the horse racing industry through various forms and programs.

My proposal would allow the horse racing industry to keep approximately $70 million a year, as opposed to the $25 million that now goes back in. I'm proposing that the horse racing industry be permitted to keep $70 million a year to divide up among the various groups. If the various groups aren't able to come to some mutual agreement as to how that should be done, then the government can do it by order in council, it can do it by regulation, it can help the parties resolve their differences, if there are any, with respect to negotiation as to how that could be split up.

I would like to briefly go over comparisons to other jurisdictions of the amount of tax that the province of Ontario charges versus other provinces and other North American jurisdictions. In Ontario we are the highest-taxed in the horse racing industry. We are at some 5%. That is the net effect of the two taxes after the rebates are taken into account. Most provinces are somewhere in between. The province of Alberta is 0.76%, three quarters of 1%, and other provinces beyond that vary from 1% to 3.6%.

If you want to compare that with the North American average, the North American average is about half of what we are charged in the province of Ontario, ranging all the way from zero -- like no tax in the state of New Jersey -- to about 4.5%, depending on the type of bet, in the state of Michigan.

I also would like to outline for several members, because they may not be aware, that the horse racing industry is very important to the agricultural industry in Ontario as well. Directly, the horse racing industry accounts for some $350 million a year in absolute, direct moneys into the agricultural industry, but there are indirect benefits to the agricultural industry in the amount of $2.2 billion a year. Those are big numbers, and they're very significant to the agricultural industry in Ontario.

As a matter of fact, I had a meeting about two weeks ago with Roger George, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, who is fully supportive of my bill, who recognizes that the horse racing industry is in serious jeopardy and he would like to see this bill passed or, if not this bill, some bill that would dramatically reduce the amount of tax that is charged to the horse racing industry, because he feels that agriculture is also threatened. The horse racing industry accounts for about 6% of total agricultural expenditures every year in the province of Ontario.

It also is responsible for, depending on whose figures you want to use, anywhere from 28,000 to 50,000 employees across the province who are directly or indirectly affected by the horse racing industry.

I also would like to talk for a couple of minutes about the rate of taxation that the province of Ontario is charging on other competing forms of gaming. Of course, the province itself is into a lot of different forms of gambling, and I've mentioned some of them. It's estimated by the Ontario Jockey Club that the advent of Pro Line sports, when Greenwood Race Track was in operation, resulted in a decline of 7% of the handle or betting at Greenwood alone just because of Pro Line sports betting that the province introduced.

The province, when it taxes its new casino -- which recently just opened, as I am sure most members are aware, in Windsor -- says that it is taxing at a rate of 20%, but that is a misnomer. I will explain how that taxation system works. What they do is take a rate of 20% and multiply it times the win, or percentage amount that is the win, in a particular game.

So if it was blackjack -- I think it's generally established across North America that where we have casino gambling, blackjack gaming returns 1.2% to the operator -- therefore, you multiply 20% times 1.2% and the effective rate of taxation that the province has on blackjack at its own casino in Windsor is 0.24%, less than one quarter of 1%.

And yet they're saying to the horse racing industry: "We're going to tax you 9% and 7% and we're going to be nice guys; we're going to give you back 2%." But they're effectively taxing them at a rate of 5%, or about 20 times what they tax themselves on blackjack games in their new casino in Windsor. That is not fair.

The horse racing industry wants a fair shake. They want to be put on a level playing field. They want to have the same opportunities that the province is giving to its own casino and its own forms of gambling.

I would like to refer to a 1990 report for the Ontario Horse Racing and Breeding Association done by the firm of Ernst and Young. Back in 1990, long before casino gambling -- in fact, when Bob Rae was still saying that there will never be casino gambling in the province of Ontario -- the horse racing industry was asking that this tax be reduced from an effective rate of 5% to 2% and that the reduction be equally shared among the industry. That is the same thing that I am asking for today, except I am asking for a more realistic rate of one half of 1%.

I will be making other remarks further on when I have an opportunity to wrap up later and I'd appreciate hearing what other honourable members have to say about this bill.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'm pleased to rise to speak towards Bill 130, the bill introduced by the member for Parry Sound. Let me say I am glad to see that the member for Parry Sound is a little calmer today and has gotten over some of his acts of yesterday and is respecting the rules of this House today.

I understand where the member is coming from in terms of introducing this bill, in terms of a sense of what he feels he is doing in the best interests of the horse racing industry. Let me say that the horse racing industry does play an important

part in the economy of the province of Ontario, not only the economy in general, but particularly in the agricultural economy, in the rural economy. Most of us, as rural members, particularly in southern Ontario but I know in central Ontario and in some parts of the north as well, have people who raise horses to compete in races.

The member is trying to put forward what he feels is an effective solution to what is perceived as a problem of too much taxation in the industry. Let me say, though, that not everyone in the horse racing industry agrees with the legislation as it has been put forward.

I had an opportunity this morning to have a bit of a chit-chat with Steve Klugman, who is the general manager of the Horseman's Benevolent and Protective Association of Ontario. They're very actively involved in the horse racing industry and represent a lot of breeders and trainers. They had some concerns, particularly about what the impact of this amendment would mean on the racetrack industry currently.

I guess it's important to note that the impact of the bill Mr Eves has put forward implies that the rebate program would go by the wayside. So the approximately 2%, 2.5% rebate that's there for racetrack improvement and for increasing some of the prizes in the races would also go by the wayside as a result of this bill. This would take a great deal of money out of the industry, millions of dollars and in some cases tens of millions of dollars. They believe at this time that would have a very negative impact on the horse racing industry in terms of smaller pools.

Mr Eves: Maybe we should increase the tax. They could have a bigger rebate.

Mr Sutherland: The member for Parry Sound says, "Increase so you have a larger rebate."

We're often told about listening to the different groups out there. I'm just presenting what has been expressed I know in written form to the member for Parry Sound, to the leaders of all three parties, to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and also the Minister of Finance, and through the conversation I had this morning with Mr Klugman. I also understand that they're not the only organization that is concerned about this. I understand even a former colleague of the member for Parry Sound has some concerns about this piece of legislation.

Let me say, though, that the government is committed to supporting the horse racing industry, and that has been demonstrated through different means. I think of the tremendous effort by the industry, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the minister herself, who I know personally went to Kentucky to lobby with the jockey club to help bring the Breeder's Cup race to Ontario. As part of that is our commitment to upgrading some of the racetracks associated with that very significant event that will bring worldwide attention to racing in Ontario and the facilities that we offer. Those types of supports are in place.

We do know as well that the third party says, "Yes, if you just reduce all the taxes, everything's going to be fine and dandy." We know their economic model is a little flawed, or I should say substantially flawed, in terms of what impact that will have on the deficit.

The government certainly is committed to continuing to work with the horse racing industry. I did just want to point out, though, that there are a couple of organizations that do have some serious concerns about the way this legislation has been put forward.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): It's a very important matter and I rise in full support of the bill until such time as the present government comes in with some better solution or indeed a very firm and strong support for an industry that is in trouble and that is so important in this province.

I'm disappointed that the member for Oxford didn't come forward with some suggestions to replace the bill that's being presented and that we are presently debating, because I think it's very necessary to take some strong and firm action and to take it now.

It's very important because it doesn't just affect the horse racing industry, which is a very large industry, and I have some facts about that which I'd like to submit, but it affects so many jobs: at the racetrack, on horse breeding farms, horse training farms and indeed the family farms as well. Agriculture of course has a real market with the horse industry in all phases. It's a very important part of the whole thing because it does mean a market for hay and grain etc.

I have two important facts that I want to stress. One is that the citizens of Ontario, the taxpayers who pay us and the cost of operating this establishment and the provincial government, demand, in addition to law and order, responsive, responsible government, and I call on the government to be responsive in this case, to look at the matter and bring in some changes that will help. That's why I'm supporting this bill.

The horse race industry is in trouble, there's no doubt about it, so let's respond; let's do something before it goes down and we see a lot more problems. Now is the time to act. I'd go as far as to state that failure by the government to support this bill, or indeed some strong replacement for it, to amend the Race Tracks Tax Act, to reduce it substantially, will be seen as another attack on agriculture and the family farm, and I feel that, along with many others.

We've seen many attacks on agriculture and the family farm by this government such as unionization of farm workers, although the bill has not been passed but it is presently under debate; reduction of the annual budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs every year since the government has taken office; and cancellation of the very successful and important red meat program in this province. Those are some things.

There is an opportunity to do something at this present time that is so important for the horse racing industry. The figures I have that have been compiled advise that the industry contributes $2 billion to the economy of Ontario annually. The industry requires $350 million in feed, hay, straw and local services and provides a tremendous amount of jobs. It supports 50,000 jobs in Ontario, and that doesn't go on to include all of the jobs in the other industries that support that particular industry.

It's very important, it's crucial to support it, and I urge the government to either support this bill or replace it with something immediately that will substantially support the horse racing industry in this province. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the bill.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise today and have a chance to put a few comments on the record with regard to private member's Bill 130. It takes a commonsense approach to an industry that is staggering under the weight of a massive tax burden.

Private member's Bill 130,

An Act to amend the Race Tracks Tax Act, introduced by my colleague the member for Parry Sound on December 2, 1993, is aimed at reducing the tax on parimutuel betting to 0.5%. Currently the tax rate on triactor bets is 9% and is 7% on all other bets.

Ontario's racing industry is currently taxed at the second-highest rate in North America. That's completely unacceptable for an industry that has a $2-billion economic impact annually.

Coupled with this excessive tax burden is the NDP government's decision to roll the dice with the economic wellbeing of the racing industry when it established casino gambling in Ontario.

The government decided to roll the dice and totally ignore what the economic impact would be to the racing industry. It is estimated to be more than $2 billion, including $500 million worth of salaries and wages for more than 40,000 full- and part-time workers; $1.17 billion from suppliers, both direct and indirect; $240 million worth of capital expenditures annually; $240 million worth of spectator expenditures, and that does not include the $889 million in wagering; and a $50-million trade balance.

The tax burden on the racing industry includes $3.2 million in sales tax collected at tracks; $6.1 million in parimutuel tax collected at tracks; $7.1 million worth of federal tax; and, not calculated, property taxes and the business taxes. So there is a major, major amount of dollars at stake here.

The horse breeding and racing industry is viewed as a resource industry that is labour-intensive. The employment base is primarily composed of unskilled, low-paying positions working on farms and in backstretch facilities at the racetracks. It is a widely held belief that due to the lack of skills and low education levels of many of these employees, social assistance programs would be their only alternative.

When the breeding and racing industries encounter a decline in purses, regardless of the cause, there would no doubt be an immediate reduction in employment levels. Substantial reductions would put the purses at a level that would not be financially viable or competitive with surrounding jurisdictions, and large owners would either leave the business or cater to the other market.

Breeding and racing farms are widely spread across the province of Ontario and play a significant role in our agricultural community. Some horse farms purchase feed, hay, straw and services locally, while others grow their own and rely on local farmers for assistance. The dollar value of this activity alone is estimated to be over $350 million annually.

Funds generated in the racing program through purse winnings pay the costs of feed and stabling. Many local farmers depend on orders from breeding and racing operations to remain viable. Some feed mills rely almost entirely on a strong horse industry to stay in business.

Timber companies have a large volume of their businesses directed at the horse industry as a result of significant fencing requirements, and more recently many horse owners are utilizing large volumes of wood shavings from northern Ontario in their stalls.

I trust you will agree that by supporting private member's Bill 130, you will also be supporting employment and agriculture in Ontario.

In conclusion, I'd like to bring to your attention a letter I received just yesterday from Jane Hutchings, general manager of Barrie Raceway Holdings Ltd.

"I am writing on behalf of my board of directors and the horse racing community at Barrie Raceway to express our support for Mr Eves's Bill 130,

An Act to amend the Race Tracks Tax Act.

"Racing in Ontario is taxed at the second-highest rate in North America, and the industry is staggering under this burden.

"In order for racing to compete on a level playing field with other forms of gaming which are taxed at a much more favourable rate, an amendment of this sort is necessary.

"This adjustment would be an investment by the government in an industry which employs almost 40,000 people in the province and which has a $2-billion economic impact annually, a great deal of it in agriculture.

"Racing is most appreciative of the efforts of Mr Eves and yourself on our behalf, and we express our support of this initiative."

I urge my colleagues here today to join with the member for Parry Sound in investing in the future of an important industry by supporting Bill 130. I know many farmers in my area who sell hay, straw and grain to the Barrie Raceway. It keeps them in business. It is a viable industry going downhill because of the lack of enthusiasm of this government to take this tax off, and I would urge every member to vote for this bill.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Indeed I'm very pleased to speak on this bill here today which has been brought forward by the member for Parry Sound.

First let me take this opportunity to recognize the member's continued support of the horse racing industry in this province. Indeed, I had the pleasure of hearing him in this regard during the hearings on the casino bill, which was known as Bill 8 at that particular time.

However, there are major problems with this bill. As my colleague the member for Oxford pointed out, a former colleague of his has major problems with Bill 130, as well as a number of other organizations involved in the racing industry.

Let me, for example, read a letter from the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of Ontario. It states:

"The livelihood of racing is the purse moneys paid to owners. A great part of the purse moneys since the mid-1970s has been provided through the Ontario thoroughbred improvement program by virtue of the Ontario government's rebating 2% of the provincial tax on parimutuel wagering back to the horsemen in the form of purses."

"A petition to the ministry in the mid-1980s for further government assistance to the industry was heard and the government rebated a further 2% of triactor wagering tax moneys back to the horsemen. This net 2.4% rebate to purses has been a boon to our industry and a blessing for our membership.

"Bill 130, as it currently reads, will eliminate this rebate. This would immediately result in an $8-million loss to thoroughbred horses and a further loss of $3 million in breeders' initiatives. As such, the HBPA of Ontario cannot support this bill in its present language.

"While the HBPA has been supportive of an industry-wide petition to government to reduce the tax on parimutuel wagering, it has always been our belief the present industry initiative programs must be maintained. Mr Eves's Bill 130 does not allow for this."

In fact, also a letter from the Ontario Harness Horse Association states in part:

"The Ontario Harness Horse Association is of the understanding that Bill 130 is receiving second reading in the House on June 2, 1994. The OHHA wishes to point out that it cannot support this bill as it currently is worded."

Again, the organization would like to go on record as supporting a bill which would reduce the government's tax on the mutuel handling in Ontario. However, the bill would have to be worded in such a way as to ensure that sufficient taxes were retained so that the 2.4% government tax purse rebate to the horsemen throughout Ontario was indeed left intact. In fact, if this bill was ever to become law, most of the small horse racing tracks in this province would indeed be closed. The only people who would benefit from this particular bill would be the big boys such as the OJC and their tracks.

First of all, I would now like to talk a little bit about what our ministry has been doing to the horse racing industry in this province. As many of you know, the horse racing industry and the breeding industry in Ontario is a very important sector in this province's economy. Horse racing in Ontario employs thousands in a labour-intensive industry providing an estimated 30,000 jobs in this province. This government is committed to maintaining a viable horse breeding and racing industry that continues to create jobs and contribute to the financial security of Ontario's agricultural community.

In the current economic climate government programs across the board are facing serious cutbacks or reductions. As well, as the member for Parry Sound well knows, the government's rebate program -- again, the 2% racetracks tax-sharing agreement was one of the few major government programs that have been maintained untouched by this government. It is a clear demonstration of our continuing support for this industry.

Nevertheless, the horse racing industry continues to experience its fair share of tough economic times. In fact, there's been an appreciable impact on horse racing over the years with the introduction of lotteries as well as increased charitable gaming activities. Because of this increasingly competitive gaming environment, in November 1993 the Ontario government brought together groups representing various interests in the horse racing and breeding industry to help it develop an industry vision and short-term and long-term strategies to ensure that vision over the coming years.

By engaging in a sectoral strategy, all partners are committed to designing a strategy and work plan to ensure a viable and economically sound horse racing and breeding industry in the province, an industry that will be able to compete more effectively with other forms of entertainment. These groups within the industry have the knowledge and expertise about breeding and racing horses and the environment that is required to conduct this business very successfully. The government has the expertise to contribute to the partnership and we have a strong will to see the industry prosper and improve.

Over the past several months our ministry had the opportunity to meet and consult with a large number of stakeholders in this industry. Key players in the partnership include standardbred and thoroughbred breeders, owners, racetrack owners, managers and many other groups that have the long-term health of this industry at heart.

They have been assisted in their efforts by staff in the ministries of CCR, Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and Economic Development and Trade. Since February of this year, there have been three general workshops with the partners and a number of working group meetings. Tremendous gains have already been made and more are expected shortly.

As the ministry responsible for regulating the horse racing and breeding industry, we are proud, and proud of this government's record of supporting the industry in Ontario. We will continue to work to keep this industry viable and protect the jobs of tens of thousands of Ontario workers and we will do this through our continued participation with our partners in developing a very successful sector strategy.

As the member for Parry Sound pointed out, he indeed was correct when he talked about the 25% tax on the amount bet in the casino, but what he failed to mention was that we also tax revenues at the rate of 20%, so it's like comparing apples and oranges. We also assist the racetracks, which we don't do in the casino industry.

Again, in conclusion, in our continued efforts of cooperation and partnership in this very important sectoral partnership we look forward to the support from the member for Parry Sound.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I wish to rise in support of the bill put forward by the member for Parry Sound, because I think it's a bill that will assist an industry which is experiencing great difficulty at this time of June 1994.

Mr Eves and other speakers have mentioned on a number of occasions the importance of the horse racing industry to the province of Ontario. It's an existing industry, it has been there for a long time and it has some considerable history. I would like to review for members of the House some of the facts about its economic significance to this province.

I appreciate that Mr Eves provided some research on this by consulting various people in the industry and people associated with the industry, and I certainly support the bill, which proposes to reduce the effective tax rate on parimutuel betting to 0.5%.

The member, as have other members, has pointed out that at one time this was essentially the only game in town in Ontario. The only significant betting that could take place was betting at a racetrack. That has changed considerably today; we have all kinds of lotteries. I can't even keep up with the lotteries they have any more and don't understand half of the lotteries they have in existence in this province, but I know that they bring in millions upon millions of dollars to the coffers of the province of Ontario, and I guess some prize money to people who are fortunate enough to beat the almost impossible odds and win.

The fact, however, is that in June 1994 we're in a different circumstance. The horse racing industry does have a lot of competition. The new one, beyond the lotteries now, of course, is casino gambling, something that I have spoken out against on many occasions. The member for Parry Sound and I have a mutual viewpoint, I think, on casino gambling. I have directed some questions to the government in this regard.

I'm not convinced that all of his colleagues or all of my colleagues necessarily agree with everything we say about casino gambling, but I must say, from the questions he's asked and the views I've expressed, I think we're of one opinion on the effect of casino gambling. It is having, and is going to have, a pretty devastating effect on the horse racing industry, which is why it's going to require the kind of legislation which is proposed in this particular bill.

I should, on a parochial basis but certainly a justified parochial basis, talk about the future of Fort Erie Race Track. Fort Erie Race Track has been the subject of some considerable discussion, both in private and in public, as to its viability and its future.

Just as the member has mentioned, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has estimated that the industry contributes $350 million annually to the agriculture industry in Ontario, that is, horse racing and looking after the horses, and that this figure does not include the $2.2 billion of economic activity generated by veterinary services, farm equipment, transportation, rural-municipal taxes and salaries and wages. That's significant.

But if we can bring it down to the situation of Fort Erie, the estimation that I have -- and the members from the Niagara Peninsula met on this in June 1992, the time we sat around the table with municipal representatives and talked about the importance of Fort Erie and the vulnerability of Fort Erie at that particular time to a closing proposal -- is that upwards of 4,000 jobs depend on Fort Erie remaining open. Those were either directly or indirectly, and the member has appropriately pointed out how that exists.

The fact as well is that many of the people who work in this industry might have difficulty finding other employment. One of the options would be social assistance. But the opportunity to work in the horse racing industry, in jobs that aren't necessarily all that glamorous but are nevertheless important, the importance of having that dignity of work cannot be underestimated for those who are employed in the industry, because many might then have to seek social assistance. That is a cost to society but it's a cost as well to the dignity of the people who have an opportunity today to work in this industry.

Fort Erie is again under some cloud in that there have been stories in the news media that its viability is in question. I don't think that's necessarily the case and it doesn't have to be the case. I know the political representatives in the Niagara region speak as a unit in wanting to see Fort Erie continue to exist and to play the significant role it does.

Fort Erie Race Track provides an opportunity to have a job for, as I mentioned, many individuals who might not have another job. It attracts tourists from New York state, tourists who spend their money in Ontario, and it abates the problem with cross-border shopping which has existed in some of the border areas.

I notice that this government has moved on many occasions when the people or the business affected are high profile, well-paid and significant in numbers, and I think there would be support for that on many of those occasions. I think it is equally important that the government endeavour to assist the horse racing industry, which is under threat today.

The town of Fort Erie, as part of the Niagara region, has experienced significant unemployment. The Niagara region consistently in the last few years has been among the highest, in terms of a geographic area, with the rate of unemployment. It's called the St Catharines-Niagara Report -- that's the way it's listed by the federal government -- and on a number of occasions it has in fact been the highest in the land, certainly the highest in the province.

This is not a record we're happy about in the Niagara region and we would deplore the possibility of Fort Erie Race Track closing and another 4,000 jobs being affected by that potential closing. So its significance to the Niagara region cannot be diminished.

I won't get sidetracked, though I'm always tempted to get sidetracked into casino debates and the effect of casino gambling on a lot of things. Particularly with you in the chair, Madam Speaker, being from Niagara Falls, I'll resist that temptation I always have to get involved in casino gambling debates on virtually every occasion. I think this bill offers some hope to the horse racing industry. The bill is timely, timely because the horse racing industry is facing a great challenge out there, timely because it is no longer the only game in town.

I will divert a bit, within the context of this debate, to a viewpoint on offtrack betting, which is not necessarily held by even some of my friends who may wish to indulge. I've heard it said that offtrack betting is supposed to help the horse racing industry. Well, I don't know about that. Perhaps there are experts who say it does. I think it provides yet another opportunity for people to spend their money in a less productive way than they might otherwise spend it. I wish it were being spent on services being provided by people.

I wish it were being spent on manufactured goods, such as vehicles that we produce in St Catharines or other things that are required within the household that could produce what I call excellent jobs out there for people, well-paying jobs, and there's something tangible at the end which is useful to the person other than a ticket stomped on the floor afterwards.

I think this industry is going to be important. I wrote a letter at one time to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about an issue of this kind, and in the context of the competition that's out there, I think the proposal made within this bill to reduce the effective tax rate on parimutuel betting to 0.5% is a reasonable one.

If the government is concerned about the economic ramifications of this, I think it will find that in the long run it'll probably receive more revenue doing this than it would if we have racetrack after racetrack in this province closing, where we have essentially offtrack betting coming from New York state or from some other place where people can go into a restaurant or a bar and do their betting and not have to go to a racetrack, not have to be part of the horse racing industry in Ontario.

As private members, voting the way I know they are permitted to do in this debate this morning, that is, as independently as possible -- I know the cabinet has a collective view from time to time on matters of significance, and I understand that, but I hope members will indicate support for this bill this morning. It doesn't mean it's going to pass. I often see the material that's sent out to constituents after an issue in private members' hour, and it looks as though the bill has passed and away we go. That's not the case.

But the passing of this bill today would at least give a signal to the Minister of Finance of this province and to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that this industry and racetracks such as Fort Erie require assistance and that this is one way they can be assisted.

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): It's a pleasure to rise today to speak in support of my colleague the member for Parry Sound's private member's Bill 130,

An Act to amend the Race Tracks Tax Act.

As has been mentioned by previous speakers from St Catharines and Brant-Haldimand and my friend and colleague from Simcoe East, harness racing and thoroughbred racing, the horse industry in Ontario, has a long history and a great tradition in this province. As has been mentioned, the horse industry is suffering economic woes, and it seems to be exacerbated by the problems this government has inflicted upon it with the legalization of casinos in Windsor.

The present tax rate on triactor bets at 9%, and 7% on all other bets, is unrealistic given today's climate of taxes in the rest of North America and given the history of how that tax rate was set up. It arrived when horse racing at the tracks in Ontario was the only game in town. Today, there is a host of other ways people can wager.

As I mentioned before, the horse racing industry is a cultural thing for rural Ontario and for many Ontarians. They're not asking for cultural handout grants from the province. They're asking for a competitive level playing field so they can support their industry in a way that is marketplace-driven but also recognizes the history and the culture and the tradition of horse racing in Ontario. As far back as Dan Patch in the early 1900s, Ontario's been recognized for its excellence in the horse industry. That's the one side of it, the cultural side.

The other side of why the horse industry needs support from this present government is that it's a fact that it has a huge economic impact on all of Ontario and especially rural Ontario. It's responsible for up to 50,000 jobs in this province. That's a large industry. Direct and indirect spinoffs in agriculture are $350 million of hay and straw and local services provided, and it's almost $2 billion in total economic spinoff by the time you take the direct and indirect consequences of the 19 tracks in Ontario spread around most of rural Ontario.

What annoys me is that the government wouldn't recognize that this industry needs a level playing field. They would rather keep on with the rebate system where people have to go on bended knee year after year to get money from the Ontario government to support a legitimate industry in Ontario. Why not allow it to be in place like this bill calls for? It's common sense. It lowers the rate of taxation and allows more money to be in those people's hands so they can make the decisions about how it's to be spent.

I want to point out that the racetracks alone pay property tax in Ontario of $10 million. These are property taxes to rural communities to provide for local services. If you take this away and have all the money go through the casinos, it goes directly to the general revenue fund of the Ontario government and these communities have to come to the government and ask for grants to provide these local services. At a time when there's economic hardship and it's being said that we can't spend money everywhere, for the social agenda changes there seems to be lots of money.

I would also like to thank the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Agriculture and Horse Racing Coalition for making people of Ontario aware of how large an industry horse racing is and what an impact it has on rural Ontario and all of Ontario.

In summation, I don't want to repeat what the other members have said in support of this bill, so I'll keep my comments rather brief. I speak in support of the member for Parry Sound's private bill because it makes sense. It might not be the be-all and end-all, but it's a small step and an important step to helping a very important industry in Ontario, a cultural industry and an industry that has great economic benefits. If it goes against the philosophy that everyone should have to come to the Ontario government to ask for a handout, then so be it.

It's time that rural Ontario had some money left in rural Ontario. These rules were set up when it was the only game in town. The reality's changed now. There's all kinds of forms of betting where the money goes directly to the province and doesn't stay in these rural communities. This is one area where we can help this industry and help correct a situation that's long outlived its necessity.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm certainly pleased to see the member for Parry Sound back in the House after his unceremonious departure yesterday. He certainly went down in defence of his leader, and that was not unnoticed on the CBC Radio news I listened to this morning. Someone's got to defend the leader of the third party. The Common Sense Revolution booklet has certainly been a bit of a snooze.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We are here to discuss Bill 130.

Mr Winninger: Certainly. I was just moving towards my subject, Madam Speaker. The Common Sense Revolution booklet is certainly an important contextual backdrop for the bill the member for Parry Sound brings to the House today. While some of the economic bromides in the Common Sense Revolution booklet have put many people to sleep, perhaps never to wake up, those professional economists who have read through the document have been universal, as I read it, in disclaiming any validity in that particular document. I think it provides a good contextual backdrop to today's discussions.

The reduction of the tax under the Race Tracks Tax Act would I think be the coup de grâce for the racetrack industry in Ontario, because what it would do is effectively close down the majority of small racetracks and allow perhaps two or three of the larger racetracks to remain open, so I find it very counterproductive.

I don't disagree with many of the remarks of the member for Victoria-Haliburton. Certainly there are tremendous challenges the racetrack industry is facing. I've had extensive correspondence with Mr McRae, the general manager of the Western Fair Association in London -- we do have a racing operation there -- as well as Glen Brown, the chair of the Ontario Agriculture and Horse Racing Coalition. Through this correspondence, I've had an opportunity to do a little research into the industry.

I agree that it does in fact provide jobs to a great number of people. The last number I had was 28,000 people employed in racing, people who train and groom horses, people who work at the racetracks, people who work in the grain and feed industry who service that particular industry.

It would be of great concern to me if the tax were reduced, as the member for Parry Sound would have it, because that would totally wipe out the $30 million and upwards that's rebated back to the industry. I might add that the lion's share of that $30 million probably goes to the smaller racetracks, because they're in the most need. By essentially wiping out that tax and the rebate, I'd have very great concerns, particularly because Agriculture Canada, as I understand it, permits the racetracks to retain only 18 cents on every dollar.

I'm confident they're at the maximum now, so I see absolutely no value in this bill and I will be opposing it.

The Acting Speaker: Is there any further debate? If not, the member for Parry Sound has two minutes to respond.

Mr Eves: I believe I have four minutes and 20 seconds.

The Acting Speaker: Plus some other time. Thank you.

Mr Eves: Having heard a few other members partake in the debate -- and I thank members on all side of the House who have participated in the debate -- I am somewhat at a loss to understand the concern about not removing $70 million a year out of the horse racing industry.

Right now, the province takes $75 million a year in tax, in round figures, out of the industry. They return roughly $25 million. The province nets $50 million.

If I understand it correctly, you're saying you would rather have a $25-million handout than $75 million which you can distribute internally among various groups in the horse racing industry. You don't think they are capable of doing that? Is that what you're telling me, that Big Brother has to do everything for everybody in society?

If somebody comes to me when I am making $25,000 a year on social assistance and says, "We're going to give you a $75,000-a-year job," am I going to say, "No, I don't want it because I'd rather have the $25,000-a-year handout"? That's the message I'm getting from what the members of the government have said here today.

I would like to point out to the members who have spoken on this issue and again to the two associations they talk about -- which, I might add, they neglected to mention are only two out of nine. Seven out of nine in the Ontario Agriculture and Horse Racing Coalition group are in favour of this bill. Two out of nine, I believe somewhat misguidedly, are against it because they believe their rebate is in the act. It isn't in this act. Here's the entire act with every regulation attached. If the rebate program is in this act, I'll eat it. If it isn't, I want the members who speak in favour of it to eat the bill, because it isn't in here.

Mr Winninger: Yours wouldn't be either.

Mr Eves: No, mine wouldn't be either. That's the point: It is not in the act. The way the industry gets its money back is by order in council every year by the cabinet. That's how they get their money. It's not in the act and it's not in the regulations under the act. These two groups, with all due respect, don't seem to understand that. It isn't in my bill; it isn't in the original act that we're working under now.

It doesn't make any sense to me, the argument they're using. They're telling me they don't want $75 million a year; they want a $25-million handout instead. "Don't give us the $75 million. What would we do with the extra $50 million?" I don't see how that's benefiting the horse racing industry.

I might add that the overwhelming majority of the people in the coalition fully support this bill. And if not this bill, I say to the government in all honesty, and I said this when I introduced the bill, and I said this during Bill 8 hearings, and members who were present know I've been consistent on this -- I've said it to the minister several times; I've asked her questions in the House.

I introduced the bill in December, and here we are six months later and the government has taken no action to protect the horse racing industry with the advent of casino gambling and all the other forms of gambling that this government and other governments have introduced into Ontario society. I say, then bring forward your own bill with what you think is a fair and effective reduction of taxation rate, because I tell you, if you don't, you're going to put this industry out of business.

I say to the 27 rural New Democratic Party members who were elected in 1990 that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture fully supports this bill, so you'd better decide when you vote here today whether you're supporting Frank Drea, the newly converted socialist, as I now hear it in the Legislature this morning, or you're going to support the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, because that's your choice.

The other member groups --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Time is up.

Mr McLean: You've got two minutes.

Mr Eves: I believe I have two minutes left, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

The other member groups in the Ontario Agriculture and Horse Racing Coalition consist of the Canadian Standardbred Horse Society, the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society, the Canadian Trotting Association, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Racetracks Canada Inc, Standardbred Breeders and Owners Association, and Women in Harness Racing. Those groups are fully in favour of Bill 130.

The two that are not are the two that have been mentioned by a couple of government members, the Horseman's Benevolent and Protective Association and the Ontario Harness Horsemen's Association. I say, with all respect, to those two groups, I believe they're somewhat misguided in their conclusion because Mr Drea seems to have convinced them that it's better to receive a $25-million handout at the discretion of whoever's in power every year by order in council. Some government may decide not to give them a cent. There's no guarantee in the existing legislation. They'd rather rely on that handout year after year than getting the $75 million to start with. I don't understand that thinking.

I also would like to point out that Coopers and Lybrand, during the Bill 8 hearings, when I asked the question: Don't you think it's time we amended this tax and reduced it? The answer I got from Coopers and Lybrand in committee was: "In terms of the parimutuel tax, when the tax was conceived, horse racing really benefited from somewhat of a monopoly environment. You didn't have the same extent of lottery ticket purchases and casinos were out of everybody's mind. So maybe it is time to consider modifying the tax."

That's what I'm asking the government to do today. I've been asking the government to do it consistently for at least a year now, and I would like some action to be taken. The agricultural community in this province is 100% behind me.

The Acting Speaker: Time for discussion of second reading of Bill 130 has expired. A vote will take place at 12 noon.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Sola moved private member's notice of motion number 42:

That, in the opinion of this House, consumers in Ontario are in need of greater protection against sellers or lenders who make false, misleading or deceptive representations or innocent misrepresentations than is currently provided for in consumer protection legislation such as the Business Practices Act and the Consumer Protection Act; and that to the extent to which existing legislation does offer a degree of protection to the consumer, such provisions should be more vigorously enforced; therefore the government of Ontario should establish a select committee of this House to review existing consumer protection legislation so as to provide consumers with an improved comprehensive protection program.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr Sola has moved private member's resolution number 42. He now has 10 minutes for his discussion of this matter and then we will discuss it in rotation.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): First of all, I'd like to thank the office of the legislative counsel, particularly Howard Goldstein and Betsy Baldwin, for their research and help in drafting this resolution.

As you can see, my resolution is stated in pretty general terms. It is a broad statement intended to cover as wide an area as possible. I did this intentionally so that I would not run into the same problems as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt with his bill to protect consumers from fraudulent loan brokers. He was criticized that his bill misses the mark and needs to be rewritten.

My original intent was to formulate a bill to discontinue the so-called "buyer beware" attitude prevalent in society today. I wanted to set the tone for an ethical business practice plan and to concentrate on the concept of honesty in business, to which most of our businesses in the community adhere anyway.

In this day and age, the world is too complex for the buyer to be an expert on everything: on law, insurance, real estate, automobiles etc, even if he or she reads the fine print.

The wide scope also allows me sufficient space to home in on a horror story in my own riding of Mississauga East which has carbon copies in many other ridings. The case of the homes built on radioactive soil in Scarborough comes to mind, as do the farms which were used as disposal sites for asphalt, resulting in contaminated groundwater affecting milk production and livestock.

The case I'm speaking about is Clifford and Isoline Armstrong, whom I first met on February 15 of this year. I inspected their home at their request at 3145 Nawbrook Drive, because they did not believe that I would be able to understand their grievances unless I actually saw them first hand.

After inspecting their home, I wrote a letter to the Honourable Marilyn Churley, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and part of it I want to read into the record. This is my observation after having seen the home:

"His home is sinking, tilting, cracking and threatening to become a heap of rubble. Some cracks in his brick walls are one and a half inches wide." That was then. I visited the place last week and those cracks have now increased to two inches. "The basement has sunk up to a foot in spots, and a new one had to be laid below the furnace to prevent it from hanging six inches above the original floor." Prior to my coming there, it had been hanging by the natural gas pipe, nothing else supporting the furnace. As of last week, that six-inch addition had sunk enough so that you could put your hand under the furnace.

"Mr Armstrong's front door, bathroom door and garage door are almost impossible to open because of the lopsided tilt of the house."

This was the letter I wrote on February 15. Subsequent to that, on March 2, I followed it up after having received a letter from the Armstrongs, who happen to be in the gallery, which gave a complete and detailed outline of all the problems that they had encountered, complete with construction plans, surveys and technical reports.

Now I want to read some of the observations from those technical reports, because it is important for us to realize how bad the situation is. They hired consultants to analyse the situation, and here are some of the reports from those consultants:

"The 16 piles on lot 93," which the Armstrongs bought, "were installed...in April 1984. They appear to have been driven to a depth of approximately 20 feet. I note from the pile layout plan that one pile appears to be missing at the west side of the home, immediately behind the garage. This is the location where major structural damage to exterior walls has been observed." That's one report.

The second report says: "The basement plan shown does not represent the Armstrong home. For example, the as-built home is approximately 26 feet, four inches by 37 feet, eight inches, rather than 31 feet, six inches by 32 feet, 11 inches as shown. Further, the two piers in the centre of the basement are not in the location as shown."

A further observation: "The brickwork along the west side of the garage exhibits step cracking in excess of five millimetres (one quarter of an inch) in width." That was in 1993. When I visited there last week, some of those cracks were about two inches wide. "The powder room window frame has been dislodged from the masonry wall, exposing the interior of the wall to rain..." and that is at least a two-inch crack. "The garage door frame has also been twisted within the masonry opening. It appears that the northwest corner of the garage has moved downward by approximately 75 millimetres (three inches)...." That has sunk even further since then.

"The report confirms that the basement floor slab has been placed on poorly consolidated fills containing compressible organic materials. These types of soils are not considered suitable for supporting structural loads without the use of special design and construction procedures."

Some other findings: "As such it is clear that the developer of the land, home builder, and the city of Mississauga knew that this home was constructed on landfill. As such they had obligation under the requirements of the Ontario Building Code to ensure that the home was constructed so as to ensure that the observed structural settlement did not occur."

They summarized: "In

summary, the Ontario Building Code clearly describes the design method for correctly constructing a foundation and basement floor slab level of this home. It appears, however, that these procedures were not followed; otherwise the observed major structural damage would not have occurred."

I want to point out that in some reports this home is stated to have been built on a former landfill site; in other reports, on a former quarry. Whatever; it is built on fill, and that situation is covered by Ontario law.

The conclusion of the consultant's report stating the repairs that are necessary to make the Armstrongs' home livable is as follows. There are 11 different points made:

" -- Demolition and removal of the wall finishes within the basement.

" -- Removal of the furnace, hot water heater and related services. This will require moving the occupants to temporary accommodations.

" -- Removal of concrete floor slab.

" -- Drilling of special piles within the basement to support the future floor.

" -- Construction of new structural concrete slabs supported by the piles.

" -- Reconstruction of basement finishes following the installation of services.

" -- Removal of exterior brick veneer around the garage.

" -- Driving of new piles and construction of transfer beams below foundations of garage.

" -- Jacking of the garage foundations to the original grade.

" -- Replace brick masonry.

" -- Reinstate exterior landscaping."

The total cost of the construction of these 11 points would be approximately $82,000. Engineering design, inspection and testing fees would jack that up to approximately $100,000.

What I want to point out is that the Armstrongs bought this home in good faith. The site is covered by the Ontario Building Code, the builder belonged to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, and the city sent inspectors to the site. Yet still the Armstrongs and their home fell between the cracks. It is necessary to fill those cracks in order to prevent similar occurrences from happening in the future.

This resolution is non-partisan, deliberately, to facilitate agreement on the necessary changes. It is unfair that individual citizens like the Armstrongs should bear the complete cost of circumstances that are beyond their control and that are the result of either legal loopholes, human mistakes or some other happenstance.

I've got some other points to make, which I will do in the two-minute summation, but I encourage everybody to be non-partisan in this regard. I think people on all sides of this House, whatever party they belong to or whether they are independent, are here for the good of the community. This is an instance where if we correct the mistakes that are there, we can prevent further instances of such occurrences happening, despite the best efforts of every level of government.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I am pleased to take

part in this debate on the resolution put forward by the member for Mississauga East. When one reads the resolution, it is clear that the thrust, the intent and the hope of the member for Mississauga East is that consumer protection legislation and issues around that area are moved to a committee for discussion, and for hopeful action, so that the type of activity that took place in the situation the member brought forward would not happen in the future. Apparently, it is clear that there is the need for a greater sense of consumer protection legislation than now exists in the province.

I am well aware of the debate that took place, I guess about two or three weeks ago, on another piece of legislation, Bill 152. Madam Speaker, you will be aware that that particular piece of legislation dealt with the issue of loan brokers and the issue of deposits by people who make an application for a loan and the fact that those deposits are non-refundable. It was unfortunate that though there were many people who spoke in principle in support of the legislation that day, the government moved that bill to what is called committee of the whole.

That means the government will not be bringing forward that piece of legislation, and for all intents and purposes that bill is dead, no matter how important its thrust was. It was a piece of legislation that I supported and I will be directing some of my comments to that piece of legislation in the next few moments.

I think this resolution is one which I will support. I'm speaking in support of the resolution because I think there is the need to move some of these very important issues to a committee or somewhere for discussion, to uncover the issues and how best they can be addressed.

To date, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has not dealt with this area. It is clear that the record of the government in this area, in one word, is just basically inaction. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has been primarily if not wholly concerned with gambling and casinos in the Windsor area and other areas around the province and is only concerned with fomenting more gambling in this province while leaving to the side the issue of consumer protection.

I believe the people of the province require more effort by the government and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In essence, she's got to get out of the gambling casinos and into the communities and start to deal with legislation and protection for consumers in this province. To date, she and her government have not done so.

I am speaking as the member for Mississauga North. I believe this resolution should be supported, because I think there is the real need to deal with many issues around consumer protection. I get in my constituency office concerns and letters over issues such as the non-refundable deposits made by people who are applying for loans with loan brokers.

Basically, people are in desperate need of money very shortly for whatever reason, and the reasons are as vast and as broad as we wish to take the time to express, but it all boils down to people requiring a loan. They go to a broker, they fill out some papers, they put down a deposit and they expect and are given the impression that this loan is in fact going to be committed to. In other words, that paper they sign is in a few days going to be transferred and they're going to receive dollars.

They find out later on that the loan application has been declined, and then when they go back to get their dollars, their deposit, they find that they can't get that back either. It puts people who are in dire financial straits in a worse position.

It is clear that the issue is in every community in this province. It is not an issue that everyone is writing about or calling about, but it is a very real issue to real people. We had the opportunity to deal with that matter three weeks ago. We have another opportunity. The setup of this committee could look at that issue. We could revive that bill which the government so quickly killed three weeks ago.

People are being hurt by the fact that they are losing their deposits, that it is not being explained fully and properly what their rights are, what the risks are. People out there are preying on individuals who happen, many without any fault of their own, to be in some very deep and dire financial straits and need some capital, some loan, very quickly.

They go to these brokers. They sign the forms. They are led to believe that they have a commitment for a loan. They are led to believe that the loan dollars will be coming in the next few days. A few days later, they are told that the commitment has not been accepted, that no money is going to be coming. They come and they say: "I gave you a deposit when I signed that paper. May I have that back?" The answer to that is no. We know that this is all set up, that this whole situation is set up specifically to prey on people who make, in good conscience, in good faith, loan applications but need the funds very rapidly for an emergency purpose.

It is issues such as that, issues that I receive in my constituency office, telephone calls and letters, that we can deal with. We could have dealt with the specific issue three weeks ago, but the government nixed that. We have another opportunity to deal with this issue if we accept this resolution and set up a committee.

It will be interesting to see whether the government is committed to do that. They may be able to speak in support, but I want to see a real and firm commitment that the committee indicated in this resolution will in fact be set up, so that these very real issues will be dealt with and so that the people who are badly, badly hurt will have a remedy. It will be interesting to see what the government's commitment is and whether it will, for the very short period of time, get itself out of the gambling casinos and into the communities and help people who desperately need some legislative assistance.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity once again to put some comments on the record with regard to the resolution that's been brought forward by my colleague the member for Mississauga East. This resolution notes, "Consumers in Ontario are in need of greater protection against sellers or lenders who make false, misleading or deceptive representatives or innocent misrepresentations...."

As well as the existing legislation, like the Business Practices Act or the Consumer Protection Act, it does not offer appropriate protection to the consumer, and that's why he has brought this bill in, so that we could have a select committee of this House to review existing consumer protection legislation and to provide Ontario consumers with an improved, comprehensive protection program.

I commend the member for Mississauga East for bringing this resolution forward. The people of Ontario, those on fixed incomes and those who have worked long and hard to make a living, are really sick and tired of those people who prey on unsuspecting consumers by using false, misleading or deceptive practices.

I support this resolution in principle, but I would urge the member to overhaul his resolution to include some form of protection for the overburdened taxpayers of the province of Ontario, some of the ones that we have seen here. There's no end to the taxes, to what's gone on.

I want to relay a couple of incidences of why I think it's important that this consumer protection bill review committee should be put in place. On some occasions I've had the New Home Warranty Program and some people came to me who have indicated that they have bought their property, there has been a crack in the basement when they moved in and they have gone through an awful time to try to get it rectified.

I know of two cases that came to me. I have been in touch with the ministry. The New Home Warranty facilitators indicated, "Yes, we will look at it, we will make the contractor put in a new wall in the basement or fix it up, whatever the case may be," and it goes on and on.

These poor people who have bought this new residence, perhaps their first home, are sitting here with a cracked basement with the water coming in, and the protection that we have today does not appear to be strong enough to make those contractors repair the facilities. I'm speaking about one that was in the Brechin area in the township of Mara at that time. It was over a year and those poor individuals still had not been satisfied with regard to the purchase. So there really is a need for consumer protection to be looked at in a broader sense.

We look at some of the consumer protection laws that we have and we often wonder, really, how do those people become protected? Look, it wasn't long ago here we were dealing with a bill in this Legislature with regard to loan sharks who would take a fee of $300 or $800 in order to get somebody a loan. Linda Leatherdale had on many occasions full pages with regard to people who were being ripped off where these individuals claimed they were going to get them a loan. It never did happen. What protection do those people have?

Mr Speaker, I believe that you yourself had a bill here not too long ago which you wanted to put in place to stop cheque- cashing operations that you felt were ripping off the public. What protection do those types of people have, that you tried to bring your bill in?

I think there is a need for an overhaul. When we look at the real legacy of this administration, I would hope that they would consider some of the issues that have been brought before them here by the member for Mississauga East.

This consumer protection resolution, I think, would be a step in the right direction, but I would urge the member to give serious consideration to expanding it to include the protection of Ontario's overtaxed population. They deserve nothing less.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm very pleased to stand here today and offer some comments on the resolution put forward by the member for Mississauga East. But before I begin I would like to clear up a point that the member for Mississauga North brought up in relation to the private member's bill put forward by Mr Phillips.

The staff of our ministry has indeed met with the staff of the Ministry of Finance to review Mr Phillips's bill, basically around the whole question of loan brokers. We have found his bill to have some very serious technical problems, and that's why it was referred to the committee of the whole.

Let me begin by saying that the vast majority of Ontario businesses are indeed fair and honest and offer consumers good value for their money. If and when problems do arise, these businesses usually respond in a timely and very satisfactory manner. They know this makes good business sense.

I might also mention that any review of consumer protection legislation should include the need to use public sector resources efficiently and effectively, to work in cooperation with other marketplace participants and to look beyond legislation as the answer to all consumer problems. At the same time, we know there are indeed a few bad actors in every sector and, because of that, improvements are always possible.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has a variety of methods available to deal with these bad actors. Many of these methods are outside the confines of existing consumer legislation. For example, we seek out partnership with business and consumer representatives to look at the possibility of industry self-regulation and alternative policies that will help consumers in the marketplace.

There are indeed many consumer protection initiatives going on outside government or with government involvement that aren't based on legislation. Recent non-legislative initiatives have provided a steady stream of improvements for consumers.

One good example of this increased cooperation between government and business is the recent creation of a standard, plain package contract for car purchases. Making it easier for consumers to understand what they're signing can save a lot of potential grief and a lot of dollars down the road.

Another recent cooperative effort is the introduction this past spring of Camvap -- that's the Canadian motor vehicle arbitration program -- to help resolve consumer disputes over new car purchases. Camvap is an improved interprovincial version of the OMVAP that has existed here in Ontario for eight years.

Ontario's used car buyers are also better protected now as a result of the cooperation of three ministries. That's MCCR, Transportation and Finance. Together we've created UVIP -- that's the used vehicle information package -- to help buyers and sellers of used vehicles understand their rights and indeed their responsibilities.

For the past eight months anyone selling a used car, van, light truck, motor home or motorcycle in the province must buy this package and give it to the buyer. The package provides potential buyers with accurate and crucial information about a vehicle's registration and, most importantly, lien history before they make that final decision to purchase. It also discusses retail sales tax and other frequently asked questions regarding buying a used vehicle. As well, it makes a big dent in curbsiders' ability to do business. As you know, curbsiders are unregistered car dealers posing as private sellers.

On the enforcement front, recently our ministry has been aggressively attacking the problem of curbsiding. Since this was a serious problem in the past affecting many consumers, we are very determined indeed to address this problem. People who buy used cars from curbsiders usually don't benefit from the protection they would normally have. Had they gone to a registered dealer, they indeed would have this protection. As well, the characteristics and history of a vehicle can indeed be misrepresented, and buyers can track down the seller if they need to go after that fact.

In 1993 we undertook 219 investigations into curbsiding. The combined activities of the three ministries in addressing this issue on behalf of the consumer have significantly reduced the problem. We try to be proactive wherever possible to help prevent problems for consumers by issuing consumer alerts in potential problem areas, producing pamphlets on a variety of consumer topics, and through our 24-hour, province-wide, bilingual consumer information voice-processing system. More than 325,000 people a year take advantage of our 1-800 telephone service for information and assistance. Recently we announced that this service will be expanded with the addition of two more telephone lines.

Of course, the advice and protection MCCR offers is in addition to the consumer service policies and good practices of many manufacturers, retailers and service providers. MCCR is involved in many other partnerships that ultimately help protect consumers in the marketplace, including those that increase enforcement effectiveness and help deter scam artists and fraudulent businesses.

The ministry has also been working with the Canadian Franchise Association to encourage its efforts to improve cooperation between franchisers and franchisees and to develop a code of best practice that reflects both groups' needs. In yet another consumer area, the Ontario Provincial Police Project Phonebusters has been targeting telemarketing fraud for the past few years, with assistance from several sources including MCCR.

Perhaps most importantly, there are many ways consumers can help themselves, often with faster results. For example, the increased Small Claims Court limits provide consumers with greater access to this low-cost dispute settlement mechanism. Through Small Claims Court, people can take steps to resolve disputes with uncooperative businesses without having to rely on government intervention.

When consumers are unable to solve a problem directly with a given business, as a last resort they often turn to the consumer ministry for help. We review the claim and options with the parties and, if appropriate, offer to mediate. Should our staff discover during an investigation a perceived breach of any of the ministry's consumer protection statutes, prosecution may result.

To give you an idea of just how effective our enforcement area is at any given time, we have approximately 200 investigations under way. During the course of a year, we resolve close to 600 cases. Some of these investigations are indeed highly complex and may take up to two years to complete. As well, as much as $1 million in consumer moneys can be at stake.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations focuses on delivering consumer protection as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible in a time of fiscal restraint. Not surprisingly, we are most active in the most problematic areas, those involving some of the biggest purchases consumers can make. These include such big-ticket items as homes, cars and vacations.

In the area of vacations, for instance, we recently changed the Travel Industry Act regulations to make sure consumers know exactly what they're getting into when they pay for travel services. Travel agencies and wholesalers now have to provide more complete information in their advertising, such as the full price of a vacation package.

I feel our major consumer protection and regulatory legislation -- the Consumer Protection Act, the Business Practices Act, the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and the Travel Industry Act -- is indeed very effective and very well enforced.

Let me conclude by stating that the Ontario consumer protection programs are continually reviewed and indeed improved. In light of this, establishing a select committee of the House to review existing consumer protection legislation would not be an appropriate or necessary use of public dollars. Indeed, we will not be supporting the resolution put forward by the member for Mississauga East.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's a pleasure to rise and join in supporting this resolution. The member who last spoke said there's no need for a select committee. I would dispute that.

They can also take advantage of seniors. I'm not for one minute suggesting that seniors do not have the ability to make decisions, but I'm suggesting that very often seniors can be approached by a business practice that may appeal to their heartstrings, and we all know that seniors, at least the seniors I know, have very significant concerns about young people and about good projects that will help young people and people who are physically challenged.

I suggest to you that the Ontario landscape has changed, and a select committee is the best way to hear from groups as to the various devices and various tricks they've fallen prey to.

It's interesting that when one reads the Star Probe, they seem to have at least four or five cases, and I'm sure that's only a few of the many they've got in their reports, and they seem to be able to resolve them. What they do is expose these people, some of them, to the light of day and the publicity, and these people are decisive to make changes and to grant fairness to the individual. We see things like Goldhawk on CFTO; he has been very successful as well. It's amazing how letting light on a problem can have an instant effect in terms of solving that problem.

I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that my colleague's resolution today that we have a select committee of this Legislature look at the whole issue of consumerism, the whole issue of consumerism against a background, as I said, of a changing Ontario, against the background of the information highway we're in, and we're ever travelling further down the line, is absolutely essential.

I'll give you a couple of examples. I had a constituent who called me up and said she had been approached by a vacuum cleaner company. The vacuum cleaner company apparently was sponsored by Pollution Probe, and the reason it was sponsored by Pollution Probe was that when you used it, it didn't leave any dust behind. The people invited this person to their home. First of all, it was set for 9 o'clock; the person didn't show up until about midnight. He showed up and did the demonstration. They decided the price that was being asked was Cadillac and the Volkswagen was going to do quite nicely.

The lure to get into the house was that they would be able to take a trip to some exotic place for free. The hook to that was that you had to send $10 to this agency and it would then send you back the coupons to exchange for the trip. Guess what? The demonstration was held, the item was given, the $10 was sent. They never heard from the people the $10 was sent to. In fact, they don't even have an address on the coupon you retain to be able to find out who they are or where they are. I find that very interesting, and that's just an example of how people today can make a quick buck in the market by dazzling you with footwork.

Another recent one that was received by a constituent of mine promised trips to Fort Lauderdale, Hawaii and other places. If you read through the fine print with a magnifying glass, you'd find that if you started making payments and didn't make them all, all of the money you'd paid up to that point was forfeited. That, to me, is a sharp practice and that's something that should be reviewed.

In my view, there should be a mechanism for a swift review of every contract rather than this circuitous process you have to go through, forcing people to go into our courts to enforce these obligations and, by the time they get there, finding that the person they're trying to get their money back from has disappeared.

I suggest our courts are far too overloaded. There has to be a mechanism that keeps up with the approach of the 21st century. That's why I suggest that it is imperative, and it would probably be more useful than some of the debates we have in this House and some of the things we are currently involved in, to set up a select committee and deal with this in order to protect the citizens of this fine province along the lines of the changing face of Ontario and ensure they don't have to rely on Mr Goldhawk, even though he does a good job, and Star Probe; that in fact they can get equity from the government of the day, which they're paying big dollars to, to ensure they're protected.

I just came downstairs from public accounts on Houselink. We're looking at dollars just having flowed out of this province with a devil-may-care attitude and nobody with their finger on the clutch. I find it interesting that a New Democratic Party government that says it's democratic would not be interested in having a select committee look into this issue to ensure fairness to the people in this province.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I was really disappointed to hear the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations say that they would not support this resolution.

I have been, as you know, a member of this Legislature for some 17 years now. Over a long period of time you start to look at things in a longer time frame. I have been a little concerned over the last 10 or 11 years -- and I don't want to make this particular to any one party -- that there seems to be a lack of thrust in terms of looking to the consumer and protection of the consumer.

We have done precious little in this Legislature to deal with consumer legislation. I know you, Mr Speaker, have had a bill in front of this Legislature to protect the very poorest of our consumers in dealing with the cashing of cheques. A welfare recipient is getting ripped off to the tune of 3% or 4%, I believe -- it may be even higher than that -- to cash a government cheque. What a huge rate of interest for the very poorest people in our society to pay.

We have not done anything about that. We seem to sit back and not move on any of these consumer matters, where there's a clear indication that there is a role for government to set forward clear, unequivocal rules to help our citizens have a more meaningful and higher standard of living by delineating certain rules.

The proposer of the resolution has referred to someone in his riding, the Armstrongs, who have had trouble with the home warranty program. I have had a similar case in my constituency, in the city of Kanata. The Twolan-Grahams purchased a town home in Kanata, and approximately five to six years after they purchased this home -- I'm not certain whether they were the first purchasers or the second purchasers; I believe they were the first -- it was discovered that their sewer line was never connected to the main sewer. In other words, the builder had run the sewer line out, but there was never a connection made.

Five or six years later, there was this horrendous odour which permeated the neighbourhood. They start digging and they discover this problem, a $20,000 problem when you add all the various kinds of costs associated with doing this afterwards. The home warranty program said: "Five years is our time limit. It's up."

What the proponent of this resolution and myself are talking about is the problem with the home warranty program. We should look at the home warranty program and say that if there's a latent defect, a defect which is hidden for a long period of time, the time-span runs from the time when it's reasonable for people to discover that there has been a defect. I think we need a forum to discuss the revamping of that legislation and the role of the home warranty program to deal with these kinds of problems.

I'll tell you one thing I have been very concerned about with regard to the remarks of the parliamentary assistant. I think the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has been so tied up in creating casinos around this province that it forgot about the consumer, really has forgotten about the consumer. That's the bottom line. They have been so wrapped up in this casino gambit, which has taken more than two and a half years to get in place, that they've really forgotten about the other functions. I understand that in terms of the political context, because there are only so many hours, the minister has so much time to put on various policy issues, and they've forgotten about the other.

I want to identify three areas in addition to the area mentioned by the proponent, the home warranty program. I think a minor adjustment could take care of people like the Armstrongs and people like the Twolan-Grahams in my constituency.

I want to talk about mutual funds, I want to talk about real property transfers, and I want to talk about franchising law. In all those three cases, we are not talking about buying a car and losing $2,000 or $3,000 or $10,000 in a transaction. We are not talking about Small Claims Court and losing $2,000 or $3,000. We are talking about the lifetime investment of some citizens of Ontario, and because we have failed as a Legislature over a whole series of governments to sit down and talk about these major investments, the major investments that people make in our province, we are leaving a number of people naked when they are making these transactions.

I heard on television this morning about Altamira Investment Services, which has been very successful in the mutual fund area. It has been discovered that they pay a large amount of commission each year, I believe $48 million worth of commissions each year, in stock transactions. That's the business they're in. I don't argue with the fact that they spend $48 million, but they have paid themselves through their own trading company $8 million of that $48 million, and some people who invest in Altamira are saying there shouldn't be any kind of vertical integration and that they shouldn't be allowed to hire another arm of their own in order to make this money.

I don't know whether I agree with that, but I think the topic should be discussed and some rules should be put around what is being done with mutual funds, rules put around what mutual fund companies can or cannot do. Over the past year in particular, the past two years, thousands and thousands of people in this province have put their life's savings into mutual funds, and we have not even looked at the topic.

You would understand this, Mr Speaker, because I know you were involved, before your political life, in the financial industry. But the whole atmosphere of investing in Ontario has changed dramatically in the last two and three years, yet we sit back in the Legislature and talk about mundane things and we are leaving our citizens unprotected and we're not even considering talking about the kind of rules we should perhaps have for the mutual fund industry. Now, I don't know all the answers, because we haven't had that discussion.

The other area I want to talk about is that we've had some trouble in the recession about franchises and franchisees. There about 20 states in the United States that have franchise law, and there is federal franchise law in the United States.

I am not talking about an overregulated franchise law, but there should be some kind of basic protections for franchisees in dealing with their franchiser because of their very negative position in the negotiating part of buying a franchise.

Advertising funds, for instance, should be put in some kind of trust fund and there should be some accountability between the franchiser and the franchisee that in fact the franchiser is spending those advertising funds, which they've promised to do, on the sale of the product the franchisee is engaging in. I think we could involve ourselves in some very basic, fundamental law in that area.

The other area that I think is long overdue -- and a number of the states in the United States have this as well -- is proper disclosure on the sale of a piece of real estate. We still go by the ancient, ancient caveat emptor. In the biggest single transaction that any one of us in Ontario enters into, there is no protection for the purchaser save and except what is in the agreement of purchase and sale. There is no obligation on the vendor to tell you about a defect in property, unless you ask the question, and most purchasers don't have the sophistication to ask that question.

We seem to be more concerned about minor matters in terms of consumer and commercial protection than we are in the major transactions which the citizens of Ontario undertake. I urge the members to strike this committee, and let's sit down and talk about these major holes in our consumer protection law.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): It's a pleasure for me this morning to add my comments to those of my colleague the member for Halton North on this resolution regarding consumer protection in the province. I want to say at the outset, there is no other member I have come in contact with who has a more genuine and sincere interest in consumer issues, and they are issues he and I discuss on a regular basis throughout our time here.

I'd also like to say that for the opposition parties in this House to suggest that the government doesn't care about consumer protection or hasn't taken or doesn't take any action is just fundamentally not accurate. That's as polite a way as I can put it.

This government regularly reviews and improves its consumer protection programs to make sure they meet the needs of Ontario consumers and that they do indeed keep pace with the ever-changing marketplace, and we all know it is a changing marketplace. We do this, or attempt to do it, by working in partnership with the private sector to develop both non-legislative and legislative initiatives.

I'd like to elaborate, in my short time this morning, on an innovative program that my colleague the member for Halton North touched on, and that's the Canadian motor vehicle arbitration program. I think it's a great example of what can be achieved through cooperation between business, government and consumer groups.

Like the Ontario plan, the Canadian plan is there to help consumers with a common problem as efficiently and effectively as possible. The Canadian motor vehicle arbitration program was created in April to arbitrate disputes between consumers and vehicle manufacturers without having to use the courts. It's entirely industry-financed and voluntary, and by the end of this calendar year should be available to consumers in all provinces and territories with the exception of Quebec.

Based on what they hear at an arbitration hearing, arbitrators may award a buyback or replacement of the vehicle, repairs or reimbursement for repairs; they may also award financial compensation for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the consumer or, in some cases, find no liability on the part of the company.

Once it's fully implemented, that program should have 16 members, who will elect an 11-member board of directors, including four government representatives, four auto manufacturing representatives, one dealer and two consumer representatives. There will also be administrators across Canada to handle cases in each region and one general manager in the Toronto headquarters.

In its very short existence the program has already been well received, and we have great hopes for its success. If it follows in the Ontario program's footsteps, success is assured. In a survey done not very long ago, the customer satisfaction rate with the Ontario program, as it applied to auto arbitrations, was 86%.

As I said earlier, I really feel that this kind of program, with that kind of satisfaction rate, is a very good example of what can be accomplished when business, government and consumer groups work together. It's important for all of us in this House to remember that finding cost-effective, non-legislative solutions that help everyone makes a great deal of sense these days, and always has and always will.

I want to further state that to suggest that this government may be more consumed with the casino issue than with consumer protection is just a load of bunk. We've always been concerned about consumers. The ministry has been concerned and works very diligently with its partners and with consumer groups to look after, as best it can, the interests of all consumers. The suggestion that this government doesn't care or doesn't take any action to protect consumers is just not true.

I would commend the member for Mississauga East for bringing his resolution to the House, and the situation he refers to and the Armstrongs, who are with us today. Who wouldn't be sympathetic to that situation? But to suggest that everything can be solved and changed through legislative action in this House I think is not accurate either.

We share the concerns of the member for Mississauga East and everyone else in this House to ensure that consumers are treated fairly. We just don't think that legislation is the answer to every single situation. For that reason, I'll be joining my colleague the member for Halton North and will not be supporting the resolution.

Mr Sola: I can't believe my ears when I hear that the government members, the parliamentary assistant and the member for Sarnia, will not be supporting this resolution. This resolution was drafted in such general terms in order to avoid the criticism that was levelled at Mr Phillips's bill, which was too specific for the government. This is now too general.

The Armstrongs came to me because they said there are no places set up to go to and give their grievances. Now I bring their grievances to this House, and apparently this House is no place for their grievances as well. The Armstrongs made a legitimate purchase, a real estate deal, and now they cannot even get a mortgage on their home, the home is in such a state. It's sitting on a pit of quicksand and it is sinking into the ground.

Mr Armstrong has told me: "I cannot afford to leave the house and rent another one. I'm preparing to go down with this house." His house is like the Titanic. It's been hit by an iceberg, which is the system; the tip appears to provide protection, but the danger lurks below.

He's not blaming the builder, he's not blaming the community; he's blaming the system. He needs help now because of the additional costs he has incurred to pay his consulting engineers, to pay his property taxes and to pay his lawyers. He states, "If we, the taxpayers, have to pay lawyers because our elected officials don't want to look after us, something is wrong."

I think the attitude of this government is wrong in this instance. It really is surprising to me, because the member for Frontenac-Addington, the government whip, has been extremely supportive in this case. He's been very sympathetic and has been extremely supportive, so I don't understand the switch in the tactics of the government.

I'd like to thank all the members who spoke in support, the members for Mississauga North, Simcoe East, Brampton South and Carleton.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The time provided for private members' business has expired.

RACE TRACKS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE PARI MUTUEL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 60, standing in the name of Mr Eves. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Eves has moved second reading of Bill 130,

An Act to amend the Race Tracks Tax Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Cleary, Crozier, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Harnick, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kormos, Marland, Morrow, North, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), Perruzza, Poirier, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remaining standing until their names are called.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Boyd, Carter, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 29; the nays are 42. I declare the motion lost.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 59, standing in the name of Mr Sola. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Sola has moved private member's resolution number 42. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

The division bells rang from 1212 to 1217.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Cleary, Crozier, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Fletcher, Frankford, Harnick, Jackson, Kormos, Marchese, Morrow, North, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), Perruzza, Poirier, Rizzo, Sola, Sterling, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Arnott, Bisson, Boyd, Carter, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), Owens, Silipo, Stockwell, Sutherland, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 24; the nays are 40. I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1220 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KATIE-LYNN BROSSEAU

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): With great sadness, I ask the House to spend a few moments to reflect on the untimely death of one of my youngest constituents.

Katie-Lynn Brosseau was only two and a half when she went missing about 11 days ago. On Monday night, the darkest fears of her family and every person in Elliot Lake became reality when the body of a child was found floating beneath a dam in the Sudbury area.

Police believe Katie-Lynn died at her father's hands and that afterwards he took his own life.

For the people of Elliot Lake, this is a tragedy that has transcended all others and it is one that has traumatized a community beset by problems in recent years. From the moment Rick Brosseau's body was found and the search for Katie-Lynn was launched, residents went into action, joining search teams and raising money to bring Mrs Brosseau's family to the community. Community, church and business groups provided food for the searchers and fashioned purple ribbons to wear in the hope that this little girl would be found alive. Katie-Lynn dominated every conversation and every thought.

Throughout this ordeal, the Elliot Lake police, the OPP, Mayor George Farkouh and his council, the local news media and everyone directly involved carried out their duties with the utmost sensitivity.

As preparations for Katie-Lynn's funeral tomorrow are being made, the Elliot Lake Family Life Centre prepares to launch counselling programs for a heartsick community.

Please join with me in extending love and sympathy to Katie-Lynn's mother, Lynn Brosseau, her grandparents and other family members and friends and to the entire community of Elliot Lake as it tries to heal from this terrible tragedy.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Today I rise to remind the people of Ontario what Bob Rae and his NDP government have done for the residents of Caledon, King, Vaughan and Pickering. June 4 is the second anniversary of the day that the Interim Waste Authority was ordered by the NDP government to find and announce 57 sites to be considered for three superdumps in their region.

This anniversary is not one that the people are celebrating, but rather they are marking time until they have the opportunity to show the NDP how they feel about the process. Residents whose lives have been in chaos since June 4, 1992, are waiting for the day they can give the NDP government a message it can't ignore. Residents who have written the Premier and his Environment, ministers only to receive no reply, will finally be heard when they throw the NDP out of office and elect a government that listens to their concerns.

This NDP government is not allowing viable alternatives, such as rail-haul and incineration, to be explored as alternatives. A Mike Harris government will allow municipalities to decide for themselves what option is the most appropriate for their community.

This NDP government is willing to see valuable farm lands be destroyed by placing dumps on existing farms. A Mike Harris government would not let that happen.

This NDP government is willing and actively participating in a plan that will threaten the environment by placing dumps on aquifers and will destroy community life by forcing residents out of their homes and away from their communities. A Mike Harris government would not let that happen.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mr Tilson: The NDP government must be made accountable for its disastrous waste management decisions. Ontario voters will ensure that happens.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise today to take

part in the celebration of Italian National Day.

In a referendum on June 2, 1946, Italians chose to become a republic, ending the monarchy in Italy. In Italy, this is a national holiday and the official celebration is held in Rome. The parades and air shows are televised throughout this country. Here in Canada, celebrations are also held, usually on the first Sunday in June, and there are many events in which Canadian Italians participate.

There are more than 460,000 people of Italian heritage living in Ontario and they have made a significant contribution to the social, economic and cultural life of the province. The love of art, music, education and architecture which Italians brought with them from their native country has enriched each community in which they have chosen to live.

As you know, many early immigrants helped to build the homes and infrastructure that we all enjoy. Today the new generation is entering into all areas of community life, including political structures.

Remarks in Italian.

Today I join in celebrating Italian National Day with pride, in recognizing all who have made a contribution to our heritage.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): On June 6, Canada will be remembering D-Day, which marked the start of the Normandy invasion in France and the beginning of the end of the Second World War.

Special dedication services and activities will be held in Toronto, Sunday, June 5, to commemorate this momentous event. I would like to thank the members for Durham East and Markham for their participation in the all-party committee which assisted in the preparation of the June 6 commemoration.

Veterans will begin to assemble at 11:25 at the veterans' reception centre located at Nathan Phillips Square. At 12:15, all participating organizations will form up at Nathan Phillips Square. The parade will then begin in the direction of the cenotaph. At one o'clock, there will be a dedication and service of remembrance at the cenotaph.

This ceremony will be a tribute to the courage of our soldiers and the sacrifices they made on the battlefields 50 years ago. We will also honour the contributions of all Canadians in collective support of the war effort.

I strongly encourage Ontarians, wherever they may be, to stop on June 6 and remember: remember not just to more fully appreciate the kind of life we enjoy in Canada, but to learn the lessons of history so that indeed history need never repeat itself.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I am honoured to join with my colleagues the members from Carleton East and Durham East in commemorating the anniversary of D-Day.

Following the service at the cenotaph on Sunday, June 5, the parade will move off and march through the streets of Toronto. It will march along Queen Street to Yonge, down Yonge to Front Street, and along Front to Simcoe.

Of significant importance is Union Station, where many soldiers, sailors and air crew departed for and returned from overseas. As a symbolic gesture, the marching units will pass in review and salute as they pass the Lieutenant Governor, who will be situated in front of the entrance to Union Station. A fly-past will take place as the parade marches past Union Station.

The parade ends at Simcoe Street, at which point the marchers will board buses and be transported to Ontario Place for the ceremony at HMCS Haida.

We must remember the hundreds of thousands of veterans of the Canadian and Allied forces who fought to bring an end to the Second World War, not only on the beaches of Normandy but in Italy as well and on both the Russian and German fronts.

May everyone, young and old, honour and remember the wartime sacrifices made both overseas and at home by so many. It is because of their sacrifice that we now have a free and democratic society.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I appreciate the remarks made by my colleagues the member for Carleton East and the member for Markham, and I'd also like to make mention of the special contribution made by my colleague the member for Halton North.

All these people served on the all-party committee to facilitate this special occasion which will take place on this coming Sunday, marked with a special parade and ceremony here in Toronto.

HMCS Haida at Ontario Place plays a very significant role in this ceremony. Early in 1944, Haida joined the 10th Destroyer Flotilla operating out of Plymouth, England. The object of this mixed force of warships was to clear enemy shipping off the coast of France in anticipation of the D-Day landings. During this period Haida destroyed more enemy ships than any other ship in the Royal Canadian Navy. It was during this period that her sister ship, HMCS Athabaskan, was sunk with the loss of 128 lives. Haida is now an internationally recognized naval museum and a memorial to all Canadians who served at sea in the Second World War and in the Korean war.

I urge everyone here, everyone watching on television, to join with the Lieutenant Governor, the Premier of Ontario and thousands of veterans and their families on Sunday, June 5, at HMCS Haida, after the other parade, as we pay tribute in a special way to those who served Canada.

On behalf of my all-party colleagues and all the other members of the Legislature, I would like to take a moment to welcome Commander Bob Willson, in the members' gallery, and Lieutenant-Colonel Jeffrey Dorfman to the Legislature today. These two gentlemen are the key players in commemorating the 50th anniversary of D-Day in Toronto on June 5. I thank you for your indulgence; a little over my time.

TORY LEADER

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): There was an important person sighted several times around this Legislature these past few days. This man was none other than the new leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. We've read in the papers that the Tories are trying to keep this man away from the spotlight at Queen's Park, but we finally found him wandering the halls, looking a bit out of place, almost like he didn't belong.

This man represents a marked departure from what the Tories have had before in leadership positions. He is not Leslie Frost, he is not John Robarts and he's certainly not Bill Davis. He is also certainly not John Tory. He's no friend of Sally Barnes. He's never been a buddy of Hugh Segal, Susan Fish or Keith Norton.

He is the man who wrote the Tory election platform, commonly known as the American revolution, and he is the one who dropped it on the members of the Tory caucus' desk only 24 hours before unveiling it to the public. He is the man who told that caucus to like it or lump it.

He is the man who dropped the Tory logo, changed the party's name, jettisoned 100 years of history, all in the search for power and glory. He is the man who has encouraged them to embrace the extreme right. He is the man who we know the member for London North and the members for Markham and Willowdale are extremely comfortable taking their marching orders from.

You know him. You love him. The new leader of the Ontario Tories: Mike "I left my heart in New York City" Murphy.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The month of June is a time to recognize the many contributions to our society by Ontario seniors. I am disappointed to learn that the government of Ontario has chosen not to make a statement in the House on this important occasion on behalf of the 1.2 million Ontario seniors over the age of 65.

For that reason, I think it's fair on their behalf to remind the government of many of their needs which it has not met as a government representing seniors.

The NDP has delisted 134 slow-release drugs, many of which are required by seniors who suffer from ailments like angina and high blood pressure. It is this government that last June brought in Bill 101, which imposed and drew an additional $150 million of increased user fees for use of nursing homes and homes for the aged beds when the government quite oppositely offered and promised them in the last election. We know they are now restricting departures from nursing homes for up to 14 days or there is a new surcharge being imposed on senior citizens.

In my community of Halton, we have the lowest number of long-term care beds in all of Ontario, and many of our families are shipped out of the region because for four years there's been absolutely no increase in the total complement of chronic care beds, homes for the aged and nursing home beds.

Seniors' Month is June, and I believe Bob Rae should be reminded --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mr Jackson: -- that what is owed to the Ontario seniors is because they have worked a lifetime and have earned it.

RIDING OF PRINCE EDWARD-LENNOX-SOUTH HASTINGS

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): It's that time of the year again when summer is just around the corner, and I want to tell all the people in Ontario, because I know we have a huge viewing audience on the parliamentary channel, that they might want to come to parts of eastern Ontario, in particular Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

When you're travelling down the 401 and you come to the Wooler road, just hang a right, go south and eventually you'll get to the Loyalist Parkway, which will bring you to Prince Edward county, a very beautiful part of eastern Ontario.

If you continue along the 401, you may come to a place called Belleville -- in Mr O'Neil's riding of Quinte -- where you may observe signs that say you can take Highway 62 north, which will take you to the town of Foxboro, or you might want to take Highway 37 and go through Plainfield, stop at the cheese factory and pick up some cheese.

Or you may want to continue along, and you can continue along to Marysville, where you can turn south again, or north, but if you go south, you'll go to Prince Edward county. You'll hit a small town called Deseronto. It has a nice harbour. You can continue along to Napanee, which also has a harbour. You can also go along to Odessa, where you might want to go north to the Wilton cheese factory and pick up some fresh cheese, or you might want to go south down to meet up again with the Loyalist Parkway.

All of these towns and villages throughout my riding have access by road, most certainly, and some of them have access by water, including the town of Picton and the town of Napanee and certainly the small town of Bath. And you can't forget, the best

part is some of the parks and farms we have within my constituency that will provide some of the best service to anybody who would like to visit Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With regard to the statement made by the member for Burlington South, I should just inform him that the three House leaders have reached agreement on a unanimous consent on Seniors' Day next week.

The Speaker: I appreciate the information. Statements by ministers?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock, please. The Minister of Education and Training.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Today it is my pleasure to present the Ministry of Education and Training's violence-free schools policy.

The policy addresses how school boards report incidents of violence to the police and to the ministry, how these incidents should be recorded in students' records and what elements school board violence prevention policies should contain.

Last November, I presented a series of initiatives designed to make our schools safer places to work and learn. Our government has moved quickly to meet the responsibilities to deal with violence in schools. We have taken concrete action to deal with a very difficult area. In forming our zero tolerance policy, we have consulted widely and developed a clear and consistent approach. We have laid out our expectations of how school boards and their local communities should proceed.

We have covered a lot of ground since our initial announcement. On March 5, I released draft policy documents and asked for public input. In drawing up these documents, we worked with other ministries, student groups, educational representatives and the Safe School Task Force. In one of the widest-ranging consultations my ministry has ever undertaken, these policies were discussed by the people of Ontario at 18 local summits across the province. More than 3,000 people attended these summits and we received a great deal of feedback. The summit participants gave us many good ideas; we have looked at all of them in developing our final policy.

For example, many people felt that the policy needed to place greater emphasis on the problem of racism and its relationship to violence. This has been reflected in the final policy, which now lists hate-motivated violence as one of the types of incidents to be reported to the police. We have shown that we will not tolerate racism or homophobia in the schools of this province.

Feedback from the summits has also told us that our policy should emphasize prevention, so we have underlined its importance by asking that violence prevention be incorporated into all aspects of the curriculum for students from junior kindergarten to the end of secondary school. Many people felt that school board violence prevention policies should apply equally to students and staff. We have made it clear that this is the case.

While many of the views and recommendations expressed at the summits have been incorporated into the final policy document, a few others require more research before they are included. The reporting of violent incidents to the ministry will allow us to compile meaningful data on which future changes to the policy can be based.

The consultation phase of our violence prevention initiative has been most successful. Now we're going to put our policy to work. School boards must develop and revise their violence prevention policies during the 1994-95 school year and must submit them to the Ministry of Education and Training for approval by June 1995. Schools must implement the policies no later than September 1995. I expect, though, that many of Ontario's school boards will have policies up and running in their schools during the coming school year.

Policy development will be a process that should involve students, staff, parents and community partners. Schools and school boards must work to build partnerships in their communities with social agencies, with the police, with neighbours and especially with parents, who can play a very important role in creating violence-free schools.

Everyone in our communities has a respons