CONTENTS
Thursday 22 August 1996
Alcohol, Gaming and Charity Funding Public Interest Act, 1996, Bill 75, Mr Sterling /
Loi de 1996 régissant les alcools, les jeux et le financement des organismes de bienfaisance
dans l'intérêt public, projet de loi 75, M. Sterling
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford PC)
Mrs MarionBoyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North / -Nord L)
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr HowardHampton (Rainy River ND)
*Mr TimHudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
*Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC)
Mr FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
*Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
*Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr TonyClement (Brampton South / -Sud PC) for Mr Doyle
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L) for Mr Chiarelli
Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC) for Mr Tilson
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC) for Mr Leadston
Mr GerardKennedy (York South / -Sud L) for Mr Conway
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND) for Mr Hampton
Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC) for Mr Klees
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr AlvinCurling (Scarborough North / -Nord L)
Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr Christopher Wernham, legislative counsel
J-1405
The committee met at 1000 in room 228.
ALCOHOL, GAMING AND CHARITY FUNDING PUBLIC INTEREST ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉGISSANT LES ALCOOLS, LES JEUX ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE DANS L'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC
Consideration of Bill 75, An Act to regulate alcohol and gaming in the public interest, to fund charities through the responsible management of video lotteries and to amend certain statutes related to liquor and gaming / Projet de loi 75, Loi réglementant les alcools et les jeux dans l'intérêt public, prévoyant le financement des organismes de bienfaisance grâce à la gestion responsable des loteries vidéo et modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait aux alcools et aux jeux.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is the clause-by-clause hearings of the administration of justice committee, consideration of Bill 75.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Chair.
The Chair: Yes, Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: A preliminary matter, please. I do propose to make a motion in this regard. I note that --
The Chair: I'm sorry. We have a motion on the floor.
Mr Kormos: I said a preliminary matter. This is a procedural matter. This is the appropriate time to raise these matters.
The Chair: You have a procedural matter? It certainly is. Thank you, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I note that today is the beginning of the Progressive Conservative federal convention. As you will undoubtedly know, Chair, it is the convention, over the course of many decades in this Legislature, that other parties accommodate caucus members whose party is holding a convention. The Conservatives accommodated the New Democrats in their recent provincial convention and no doubt they will be accommodating the Liberal caucus in what might well be a November 30 convention. It's very important for political parties to have their elected members attend; I understand that.
I move therefore that in tune or in accord with this convention, this practice, and so as to accommodate my colleagues in the Conservative caucus, we suspend clause-by-clause consideration this morning so as to permit my colleagues from the Conservative caucus to attend their convention. I'm sure that they're eager to be there. Their party needs them. Their party has only two people sitting in the federal house. It is a great morale boost for the federal party to see elected members there when there are only two members elected federally. Therefore, I move that we suspend clause-by-clause consideration --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. You are out of order. We have a motion on the floor. Your motion for adjournment will have to be made after we deal with Mr Kennedy's motion. I believe that is a correct ruling.
We presently have Mr Kennedy's motion on the floor. It is a motion to amend subsection 2(2) of the schedule to read, "The commission shall have a board of directors consisting of the members appointed under subsection (3), one of whom shall have expertise in the field of public health or charitable organizations."
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I'd like to speak in favour of this motion. I know Mr Kennedy made some comments when he introduced the motion. We heard from a number of organizations; I haven't counted how many, but during the debate yesterday a few of them were named, the likes of the law enforcement people, non-profit organizations, charitable organizations, business, youth. This motion I think was introduced -- I know was introduced -- by Mr Kennedy in the vein that, having heard from all those organizations and, with the exception of Mr Skarica, having thought the government would have an open mind when we went into these hearings -- of course, we heard Mr Skarica say yesterday that it was a fait accompli. I was shocked to hear a government member say that. I don't know whether he was speaking just for himself or whether this was some hidden agenda, but I'd like to believe, having gone through this for three weeks with my colleagues across the table, that they were open to suggestion from any of the groups that came before them.
Of course, as we go through these amendments, we're going to see; the proof will be in the pudding. But in this case, this was meant to be a moderate resolution in that the government could show its goodwill and its openness and express how it's been listening so that it could direct the Lieutenant Governor in Council, I believe it would be, that the commission should have a board of directors that, to whatever degree it can, represents the general public, that pluralistic public that we've heard from. It was Mr Kennedy's suggestion that in this case that could be expressed by specifying that someone who is familiar with public health should be on the board, or someone from a charitable organization.
The reason we would want someone to be considered in the area of public health is because this is in fact a health issue. The government has recognized that by specifying that at some point in time, although this isn't cast in stone, it would earmark 2% of the estimated revenue of $180 million, or a net of $9 million. I think that's a gross underestimate, but I think that figure was put there so that -- once the $9-million figure is reached, I think the idea of 2% will kind of be out the window. It'll probably in the long run end up being more like 0.5% or 0.25%, that the addiction research community will really receive.
So it is a health problem and the government has recognized that by saying, "Look, when we introduce these slot machines, we know we're going to create a whole new community of addicts." Notwithstanding the fact that they haven't had studies of their own and the fact that they have tried to discredit studies that we've put forward, we know they have acknowledged that this is going to create a significant health and social problem in the province of Ontario. So it's a feeling that someone who understands that problem should be a member of the commission.
It's interesting to note that the government has taken such a cavalier attitude with respect to its generosity, because we know that tobacco is a health hazard and yet I have yet to hear the government say it's willing to contribute 2% of the income from the tax on tobacco to the addiction research community. I would encourage the government to do that because they have also recognized, or the government before them, that tobacco, in its ability to addict people and the ability to seduce young people -- they don't even sell tobacco products out of machines any more because it was against the law to purchase under the age of 19, I believe it is, but they knew this couldn't be controlled adequately and they removed the machines from public places.
Now what we see is they're making the move to put video slot machines in public places and they're saying on the one hand, notwithstanding the fact that tobacco is so seductive to young people and couldn't be controlled, on the other hand, even though video slots are going to be seductive to young people, we'll go ahead and put them in public places anyway.
1010
I encourage the government to support this amendment. It isn't one that's going to stop for one moment the thrust to put these money-makers, these magic little machines, into all the nooks and crannies of Ontario. It won't stop that for one moment. It won't stop the move ahead that the government has promised to the gambling interests in this province. But it will give an indication that the government has an open ear and that they understand to some degree the problem this is going to cause and that they want the ear of the public health interests on this commission.
If they don't see fit for that, this resolution also includes an "or" for charitable organizations. I certainly didn't count the number of presentations over the three weeks, but I suggest that there were a significant number of charitable organizations. Fortunately and unfortunately, it was on a first-come, first-served basis, and we don't always hear from a good mix of interested parties, but that's much the way these committee meetings work. That's the democratic way.
That reminds me that yesterday we had kind of an assault on the democratic system by Mr Skarica when he suggested that this was such a waste of money, these hearings, the opportunity to speak to a resolution as I'm speaking to this one now. But democracy comes at a price. When you compare it to some of the other systems that exist in the world today, it may be a bit cumbersome, it may be a bit frustrating, it may be a bit expensive, but I still think it's the best system we have.
We had an example of when you don't have a democratic right when you go back to the introduction of the economic statement last fall, when some of us, I being one of them, were locked up in a room and weren't allowed to leave that room to vote, our democratic right for which I was elected to this Legislature. It led to a demonstrative situation where we had to show in a very significant way that our democratic rights should not be stomped on. Notwithstanding the fact that it's expensive, slow moving, frustrating on occasion, certainly when we represent what the people want, why, it can move along at an even greater pace.
I think this is a case where what the people want is to be heard on these commissions. They want input. They don't want to have input like we've apparently had over the last three weeks, where it was a fait accompli anyway. They want real input. We've been promised by the parliamentary assistant and others that there will be further public input when it comes to the establishment of regulations under Bill 75, and we look forward to those public meetings and the opportunity to again sit here and comment on them.
The reason I'm speaking to this resolution as I am is that we have listened over the last few weeks. We've often questioned in a biased way, but that's the opportunity we have. Now this committee meeting is our opportunity for each of us around this table to interpret what we've heard and to speak on behalf of some of those who have appeared before us.
On behalf of the health organizations, charitable organizations that have spoken to us over the past three weeks, I would strongly urge that the government accept this recommendation. It in no way harms the procedure of the bill and it would be seen to be a gesture by the government that they have been listening over the last three weeks of these hearings.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, you have a motion that you'd like to read into the record?
Mr Kormos: No, Chair. I want to speak to the motion currently on the floor.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos, are you not moving a motion?
Mr Kormos: I'll move a motion when I move a motion. I am concurrently obviously speaking to the motion by Mr Kennedy. Mr Kennedy knows I was a little disappointed that he didn't see fit to support my earlier amendment to his amendment. Notwithstanding that, it's not in my nature to be retaliatory. One has to turn the other cheek from time to time and one has to understand that Mr Kennedy may have had motives in not supporting my amendment that he didn't articulate. So be it. Enough said.
I'm sure that there are some who remain perhaps bewildered, at least concerned, that there has been so much focus or debate on section 2 of this bill. This is why, when I speak to this, let's understand that section 2 is very much the viscera of this bill. I may well end up saying that about subsequent sections in the weeks to come, but it's the viscera of this bill.
Because we're talking about the board of directors of this non-profit corporation -- I suppose that's not entirely accurate and there are other people here who would be inclined to correct me because the legislation says "corporation without share capital." Quite frankly, I don't know what the proper nomenclature is, and it matters not. I rely entirely on legislative counsel and ministerial counsel in terms of that type of structure for this body.
But it remains clear that this is the heart of the supervision of alcohol sale and distribution and regulation, and overseeing the distribution and regulation of gambling, hard-core gambling -- not only slots but a regime that began in 1993 with the introduction of casinos to the province in Windsor, of course, and subsequently in Orillia and then this government's announcement of a casino in Niagara Falls, which I'm sure will tower such as to shadow the casinos in Windsor and even Orillia, Niagara Falls having incredible tourist traffic.
Here we are being called upon -- and I understand Mr Flaherty's urgency in this matter -- to the point of some degree of haste in wanting to see this under way. We're addressing Mr Kennedy's amendment to subsection 2(2), a process which Mr Flaherty implies by his conduct and what he says here has to be pursued quickly. Again, I have no quarrel with his response. It was disappointing. When questioned about whether or not there is an agenda or a model for selecting members of this board, and I have no quarrel with the straightforwardness of his response, either he doesn't know of one or there isn't one. He didn't suggest that there is absolutely not one; it's that there could be one that he's not aware of. He implies that somebody else is handling that agenda, because clearly for this process to be pursued as it has been yesterday and today, with that sense of urgency, one can only assume, recognizing the danger of assumptions, that there's something in mind here, that there's something on the drawing board, that there's some sort of short list, that there's been some solicitation of individuals who, in the government's mind, would be prepared to sit on this board.
1020
The minute this legislation passes, as the government is insistent that it will, and receives royal assent, then the gears have to get turning. One can't help but infer that the grease has been applied, that the engine has been stoked up, that the fuel's in the gas tank; ethanol, I suppose, could be a suitable replacement for mere gasoline. You can't go around saying to a committee, "Get this legislation passed in committee so that we can get it into the House." The House is coming back September 18, I think. Just one minute; let me check the date on that. No, it can't be the 18th; it's going to be the 23rd. It must be the 23rd. I got the dates mixed up. My apologies, Chair; I didn't do that on purpose. I am the first one to correct myself if I've erred, and I erred. It appears that it will be September 23, unless it's September 16.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Is it the 24th? See, nobody knows. Everybody's mumbling different dates around here. Somebody better tell us all so we'll all be in our seats at the return of the Legislature.
Clearly this government wants this legislation ready to go. As you know, because you were there down in Fort Erie at the city complex, which was made possible in no small part by the participation of the last government and its investment in the people of Port Colborne, Mr Flaherty said, "This government is committed to the introduction of VLTs in permanent charity casinos, and the first place they will go is the racetracks." Then he went on to say that the only question is how quickly it's done. That seems like a strong commitment. So he needs -- not he. Surely he doesn't have any personal interest in that. I suspect that in his heart he may even find himself less than enthusiastic about this, but he's being paid to do a job, and a job he's doing.
I suppose if lawyering is the world's second-oldest profession, politicking has got to be the world's third-oldest profession, because by and large, each of those three oldest professions does what they're paid to do with as little balking and struggle, and trying to avoid showing the distaste in their face, the repugnance at what they're being called upon to do, because most of the time, as it is with any of those three professions, one's called upon to do repugnant things. I have great sympathy for practitioners of all three of those professions and I also am well aware of the great similarities between all three of those professions.
So here we are being called upon by the government, Mr Flaherty, to pass this. Where does that put us? We had Mr Kennedy come forward with his motion amending this section. So here we are now. In contrast to the original subsection 2(2), which reads, "The commission shall have a board of directors consisting of the members appointed under subsection (3)," Mr Kennedy moves to amend that so that subsection 2(2) of schedule 1 of the bill will read, "The commission shall have a board of directors consisting of the members appointed under subsection (3), one of whom shall have expertise in the field of public health or charitable organizations."
As it was, I talked to a real lawyer last night, one who knew about these sorts of things -- because I don't; I have no personal background in this type of thing -- and I was cautioned and told of a wealth of case law about the words "or" and "and," and about the concept of the "exegetical or" or the "conjunctive or." I was told that there's again a wealth of case law. In the course of statutory interpretation courts have ruled that sometimes "or" means "and," in which case it's referred to as the "conjunctive or," and in other cases "or" means "in the alternative," so that the two are mutually exclusive, in which case it's referred to, I'm told, as the "exegetical or." Similarly, and this is where it gets peculiar, the word "and" has been held from time to time to be exegetical such that it's mutually exclusive.
Courts at various levels across this province, indeed across the country -- including, I was told, if I was inclined or if the Chair was inclined, that there's obviously a far greater supply of American case law in these matters because they have a history of being somewhat more litigious than Canadians. I was advised that among the tools used in the process of interpreting and determining the impact of the "or," these are standard sorts of things. I didn't want to bring any of the volumes of text on statutory interpretation here because it would have consumed a lot of time to have made reference to those. I don't want to do that to the committee.
But among other things, obviously, the rules are apparently well known to the people who practise that type of law. You look at the context of the legislation, the intent, the goal that's to be achieved; those are some of the very basic fundamental standards or guidelines or tests or the scale that you might use, the scale in terms of linear measurement, not necessarily in terms of weight, like a tape measure or a folding rule or a sliding rule.
Before that conversation last night I was eager to support Mr Kennedy's motion; I was. Now I've got concern. Not that the motion in itself -- because I think I know what Mr Kennedy has in mind here. I think he has embraced public health and charitable organizations in as reasonable a way as one can utilizing the English language, at least in so far as -- I struggle with it from time to time; well, frequently. This is one of the difficulties legislative counsel encounters, as do other draftspeople here at Queen's Park or at the federal Parliament, or people who are involved with this from time to time because they're private firms, private counsel retained to do this sort of stuff. There have been volumes -- well, the Canadian literature on statutory draftsmanship is not as extensive as it is, I'm told, in some other jurisdictions, but there are some texts that have been time-honoured.
One of the problems with these amendments, because we struggled, as you know, yesterday at length with the -- because we have to look at this bill both in the context of its English-language form as well as in the context of its French-language form. One of the difficulties in dealing with amendments like this -- because there are certain subtleties in the language that can result. I'm not sure, but I know these things cause a lot of problems in courts during the course of litigation. I think in the context of criminal law the version more favourable to the interests of the accused shall prevail. Whether in other types of litigation it's the same rule, I really quite frankly don't know. But it can cause great grief at the end of the day, grief and expense, which nobody wants to incur, the lack of precision fuelled by an ambiguity between one language and the other.
1030
I know Mr Kennedy is reasonably fluent in French and one wonders whether he would have resolved the difficulty about this, as I'm told, exegetical versus conjunctive, in his French-language version had we had it.
So on a point of order, Chair, I put to you that we are entitled to move amendments but that just as we are entitled to read in clause-by-clause consideration the Bill in both languages, French and English, and one notes it's not something that's merely in passing, one notes that yesterday concern that -- nobody suggested that Mr Kennedy's concern about the translation was frivolous. Staff here dealt with it promptly and properly and as well as they could with a great deal of seriousness. They understood his concern and we went through that. We went through when I questioned, and I lived with the answer, what I perceived as a distinction or a difference between subsection (4) in the French-language version versus the English-language version.
I'm familiar with the guidelines that have become universal in standardized translations so that there's some uniformity, not that I haven't had people, well-spoken francophones, from time to time point out a French-language translation, even in the one that the government circulates, for various titles within ministries and so on, saying, "That's ridiculous; that's not the word for that in its most proper sense." But once again, it's perhaps accepted by convention.
Firstly, I'm concerned that we're not dealing with the English- and the French-language versions. Because what happens then? Here we have a right to raise concerns and questions about either the English-language version or the French-language version. That is a right, I tell you, because of Bill 8, passed unanimously by all three parties in this Legislature. I'm proud of Bill 8 and I know the Conservatives are proud of their support of it, their predecessors' support of it; some of those same people are still in the Conservative caucus. I know the Liberals are proud of their support of Bill 8. Bill 8 is what says we have the right to do that -- the French Language Services Act.
I am concerned that we are being compelled to consider amendments without the Chair, before an amendment can be dealt with, requiring that it be translated. Those services are available. This assembly has very competent translation people, people who are bilingual, whose job it is and who will readily and gleefully with great joy do that task. So I'm concerned about that.
For that reason, I move that we recess until a French-language version of Mr Kennedy's bill can be prepared -- and that's as a point of order, Chair -- so we can debate this and discuss this in its proper and whole context. As a point of order, I make that motion, Chair. That is a procedural matter. It reflects a concern about the lack of French-language translation available to us here and now and I so move.
The Chair: Mr Kormos has made a motion to recess in order to obtain a French translation.
Mr Kormos: Recess prior to the vote, sir.
The Chair: Since there is a reason for the request for a recess, debate would be permitted. Is there any debate? Any comments, amendments to this motion for recess?
Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I have a question: If this motion passes, do we then go on to another amendment and then come back to the amendment?
The Chair: That is not the intent of Mr Kormos's motion. It is a recess. Period. That means we are recessed until we obtain a French translation.
Mr Clement: Why don't we just go on? I guess I'd speak against it so we can go on to the next motion. If we're waiting for the French translation, let's go on to the next amendment until it's translated.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the motion before I put the question?
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Just a point of order, Mr Chair: What is our schedule with regard to completing the work of this committee?
The Chair: The schedule, depending on the desire of this committee, is up to 12 o'clock midnight tomorrow, Friday, the 22nd, I believe.
Mr Guzzo: No, today's the 22nd.
The Chair: No, 23rd, sorry.
Mr Guzzo: Unfortunately, I wasn't booked for the 23rd. Are you telling me this committee is scheduled to meet tomorrow?
The Chair: Not at this point. This committee is scheduled to meet today, starting at 1:30 this afternoon, with no time limit. However, if this committee chooses at any time during today to move that we meet tomorrow, that motion would be in order. Whether it passes or not is another matter.
Mr Guzzo: Correct but if there is no --
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): You may have to move that motion yourself.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Guzzo, you're not talking to the motion before us. The motion before us is to recess to obtain a French translation of Mr Kennedy's motion.
Mr Guzzo: What are we talking about in terms of time? How long is it going to take to provide it?
The Chair: Each time, it could take hours, because if you set a precedent this time, of course, you will do it each time. Have you completed your discussions, Mr Guzzo? I don't want to cut you off, I just don't --
Mr Guzzo: You've answered the question. I thank you.
Mr Crozier: Just to comment, I don't know, I think the precedent is that we are accustomed to having before us in the bill, it's obvious, the French translation concurrently with our discussion. As was evidenced yesterday, there was considerable discussion and, I suspect, still some disagreement on the use of a particular word and its intent and its definition in the French version. In fact, the government brought its own amendment forward to correct the French version since it was inadvertently improperly drafted in the beginning.
I really can't see, with the government's commitment, as Mr Kormos said, originally Bill 8 and our need to have the French translation before us, that we really shouldn't have -- we may have the choice but our obligation is, I think, to receive these translations before we proceed.
Mr Kormos: I just want to indicate that, upon you calling the question, I'm requesting a 20-minute recess as per the rules, prior to the vote.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Is there any further discussion in regard to the motion to recess? If there's no further question, I will call for the question. All those --
Mr Kormos: Recess, sir, as per the rules.
The Chair: I'm sorry, you're quite right. Do you want a recorded vote, too?
Mr Kormos: I shall when we return be requesting a recorded vote, sir.
The Chair: We will have a 20-minute recess, requested by Mr Kormos.
The committee recessed from 1040 to 1101.
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. The question is a recess at the request of Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
NAYS
Clement, Flaherty, Ford, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Rollins.
The Chair: The motion is defeated. Mr Kormos, we're dealing with Mr Kennedy's amendment.
Mr Kormos: Yes, sir, I sure am. That's democracy, I suppose. Clearly, the majority didn't want to see French-language versions of the --
The Chair: Mr Kormos, we're dealing with Mr Kennedy's motion.
Mr Kormos: I'm complimenting the process.
The Chair: If you could stick to the point for once.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your concern and your assistance in that regard, because we have to be careful not to get testy.
Having the concern that I do about the very specific choice of language by Mr Kennedy in his amendment, the fact that it's very specific makes it non-specific, the fact that he chose there to put "or" without explaining or giving us a context. Again, I don't fault him. Mr Kennedy has been very articulate in his explanation for his amendment of subsection 2(2). In view of the fact that the Rotary district number 5360 development society in Alberta said, "To combat the addictive nature of VLTs, perhaps availability of them should be restricted, not allowing them in bars and lounges" -- that's what the Rotary Club in Alberta said and that's consistent with a whole lot of other things -- I'm moving an amendment to Mr Kennedy's motion.
I move that the amendment moved by G. Kennedy amending subsection 2(2) of the schedule to the bill be amended by deleting "under subsection (3)" and inserting there, the words, "by a tripartite committee of the Legislature, struck for the purpose of appointing members to the board of directors of the commission."
I wish to speak to that amendment.
The Chair: Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Chair.
There has been throughout the course of this clause-by-clause consideration, and I'm confident that there will continue to be throughout the course -- as in the past, there will be in the future -- concern about the nature of this corpus, the board of directors, concern about how it is going to be capacitated to fulfil its responsibilities, and frequent reference has been made, under subsection 3(3). I'm not sure, it seems to be an relatively novel insertion of language. It may be present in other similar enabling pieces of legislation, and I suppose when we get down to section 3 -- we'll get there in due course -- I will be seeking from counsel for the ministry the source, the origin of that particular language and whether it has parallels.
It may well have and I've simply been unaware of their presence. Obviously, as you know, Mr Crozier has already raised a question, although it's premature, about the raison d'être for that language being there, and that is to say that it should be statutorily required that a board utilize the principles of honesty and integrity. I suppose with the types of appointments this government has been making, it's better to spell it out rather than rely upon the good faith of the Tory appointments.
Having said that, I moved that Mr Kennedy's amendment be amended by deleting, under subsection (3) -- which is the subsection, of course, which gives fiat power to the cabinet, which means to the Premier and his office. that's what it amounts to. Bingo. You fill out the cheque, you bomb, you lose an election as a Tory -- I mean, that speaks volumes. To have lost as a Tory in the last election, in view of the incredible sweep the Tories had, you really had to be something. Let's face it, it was tough to lose as a Tory in the last election. Well, you see, subsection (3) gives the Premier unfettered discretion to appoint people to the board.
To be fair to Mr Kennedy, he's tried to temper that by virtue of his amendment, but I don't buy it because it requires -- since there is no cap on the number of members of the board, this could become an old boys club of 20 or 30 people who've got to be taken care of, and I'll be addressing that in due course because I have similarly tabled with the clerk an amendment to deal with that, but that will be dealt with at the appropriate time, once we're finished with this motion of Mr Kennedy and my amendment to it.
As I say, this could become -- gosh, so be it. So you appoint one person who has expertise in the field of public health. That one person is surrounded by a gazillion people who have marching orders, either implicitly or overtly, to, say, disregard anything that our member with public health experience has to say. Then it becomes less than academic; it becomes moot.
Say you have one person with expertise in charitable organizations. That could be any number of people; again, the lack of specificity on the part of Mr Kennedy. I don't fault him personally, because one of the problems here is that this amendment arose during the course of the actual debate on clause-by-clause. They are, I acknowledge, put together with some haste because nobody wants to see these proceedings delayed unduly. But somebody with expertise in the field of charitable organizations -- heck, I suspect there are some who would argue that Marshall Pollock has expertise in charitable organizations because here he is, he's the granddaddy of Ontario Lottery Corp.
Now, mind you -- and I'm sure he was paid well -- notwithstanding his enthusiasm for OLC, government-sponsored gaming, considered by many to be relatively benign in itself at the time, but at the same time approached, as you know, with the overriding qualification that this was going to be restrained and controlled and implemented slowly, some of the very same language that this government is using about its slot machine regime, its slot machine scam.
1110
Clearly, OLC became overwhelming in its size. Now Marshall Pollock could say, "I have expertise in the field of charitable organizations because from time to time I have been responsible, as the top dog at Ontario Lottery Corp, for cutting a cheque to a sports organization," or to a municipality for building an arena, perhaps; to any number of charitable organizations.
Also, you see, that's my concern, and it's been expressed by so many, even the utilization -- and I understand that in the course of some of my amendments that I've tabled on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I too use the phrase "charitable organizations," because there was more than a little bit of suggestion, and I know the legal scholars have reflected on this, that the mere use of the word "charitable" may well restrict any board or body's capacity to broaden it to include non-profit. You know that was the concern that was raised.
While some organizations that are, again, no quarrel, legitimately, bona fide, certified by the federal government ministry of national revenue to be charitable were the ones that were saying, "Yes, use that as the guideline, whether the federal government" -- I suppose the test is one that's supplied in the course of giving these people a charitable number so that you can get an income tax receipt.
As has also been raised, though, both by parties making submissions and by members of the committee, certainly from the Liberal caucus and by myself, there are a whole lot of non-profit organizations and groups that do good work. I cite some of them from time to time: the Rose City Snow Seekers, the Welland Snowmobile Club, the Thorold Community Activities Group, and we're just starting this week, on Saturday, down at Club Rheingold, the beginning of our heritage festival. Club Rheingold kicks it off traditionally. As a matter of fact, it's down in Mr Hudak's riding, down in Niagara South, in sort of north Port Colborne, if you will, Yager Road. The folks at Club Rheingold, I suspect, and I know Mr Hudak will help me with this, are not a charitable organization for the purpose of an income tax receipt, but none the less they're a non-profit organization, no two ways about it, and they're just a healthy component of the Niagara region, of the community. I speak about the community in the broadest sense.
These people use various fund-raising activities as a means of raising money to sustain their physical plant, their building, which is a beautiful building on Yager Road, to engage and support cultural activities by their members and, I suppose, friends of their organization. It's a German-based club; interestingly, a lot of Hungarians. Just because of the old boundaries of Europe, a lot of Hungarians are there too, the Magyars at Club Rheingold, and a lot of Germans who speak Hungarian and Hungarians who speak German.
But you're familiar, Chair. I don't want to get into the whole history of Europe before the First World War and the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand down in Sarajevo by a somewhat crazed anarchist. But Club Rheingold would be an illustration of a group that could well find itself squeezed out, even though they raise substantial money through various fund-raising, some, if not most, of which will be cannibalized by the phenomenon of Bill 75.
My God, I think of the Hungarian Hall in Welland and the Kovacs. I think of what they've done for the community and their support for the Hungarian-Canadian community. I think of the Casa Dante hall, the Italian community, Casa Dante Lodge.
I reflect, as I have already on, as I say, the Rose City Snow Seekers and the Welland Snowmobile Club, both organizations, which provide an important cultural social activity for the community, which advance the sport of snowmobiling, and it is one -- trust me, Chair, it certainly is one, and it's a healthy social activity which supports economies obviously, if only by the purchase of snowmobiles, but also these people do good work.
You remember the blizzard of -- what was that? -- 1977. The snowmobile clubs down there performed yeoman service, they really did, at great risk to themselves. CBers and snowmobilers really prevailed in response to that great natural disaster, the snowfall, the blizzard of 1977, and we're blessed because we are unique probably in the world in that unlike, I suppose, most of the other parts of the world, we to the greatest extent remain unravaged by war, unravaged by violence, other than the economic violence of this government and the violence of their police at the steps of Queen's Park on working people, but by and large we have remained isolated from natural disaster. Although we've recently been visited in Quebec by flooding, indeed in Ottawa -- you wouldn't believe, Chair, brand-new subdivisions up in Ottawa.
I spoke with one of the homeowners. As a matter of fact, he's the gentlemen -- he and his wife run the Polonus Restaurant in the market, great Polish food, perogies to die for, a rabbit pâté that's out of this world, and flaczky they serve. There are only a few places around that make good flaczky -- one of them is down at the Bridge Restaurant in Allanburg. It's made from flaky, but once it's turned into the soup, it's called flaczky. But he was a victim of that flood. That was a problem fairly with sewers; it wasn't a natural disaster, but it flowed from a one-in-50-year or whatever rainfall. We're immune to these.
But the Welland Snowmobile Club and the Rose City Snow Seekers, neither of which is a charitable organization in the federal government's census -- and that's what we have here, expertise in charitable organizations, both of them non-profit, I'm fearful that they'll be squeezed out. Once again, that's why I'm amending Mr Kennedy's motion amending the section. We can go on and on. The Ukrainian Cultural Centre down on McCabe Street, I've mentioned them already, the Croatian hall on Broadway Avenue. What an important role they have in the community, and indeed Louis Pelino has for years now run the Croatian hall's fund-raiser, their annual fund-raiser, along with a whole lot of others, where you buy a $50 ticket and you've got all the food you can eat. The food, again, unbelievable, kapusta, great sausages, roasted potatoes, chicken, as much as you want to eat, and often as not perogies as well -- 50 bucks, all you can eat. And then they raffle -- it's maximum 500 people. What's the name of those events where you go and your names are drawn one at a time and the last five people --
1120
Mr Crozier: Elimination draws.
Mr Kormos: Elimination draws. So Louis Pelino down at the Croatian hall -- the Croatian National Home, more properly -- runs for the Croatian National Home, and no doubt that activity is going to be cannibalized by the presence of slots down in Welland if this bill passes. So I have fears for the Croatian National Home. It's just inconceivable that these people should be squeezed out. Their good works as non-profit bodies but not as charitable -- they are as charitable as they come. Their aid to new Canadians, for instance, from the former Yugoslavia, their generosity is unrivalled -- their fund-raising ability is seriously going to be hindered -- yet they run a substantial risk of not falling within the framework of charitable organizations.
Then I suppose you say, what does my amendment have to do with that? Well, Club Roma -- it's not in my riding, I understand that. The Club Castropignano in Allanburg West, again, performing a great service. The Club Calabrese, which is trying. It bought property and is trying to raise funds to build a hall so that it can act as a cultural centre. Again, better people you couldn't ask for; better people you couldn't find. Non-profit for sure. Charitable -- from a layperson's perspective, as charitable as they come. But will they be perceived as charitable organizations at the end of the day in terms of the use "charitable organizations"? And will but one representative, or one person with expertise in charitable organizations be sufficient or be in a capacity to advance their interests? I have serious doubts about that, I really do. It's a genuine concern for these organizations and for the manner in which they're going to be cannibalized.
I listened carefully to Mr Kennedy. I'm getting the transcript of his comments so I can refer to them during the course of this. Having listened carefully to Mr Kennedy -- and it's unfortunate that government members were disinclined to. They were writing notes and picking their noses and scratching their butts and carrying on in ways that are outright embarrassing. I've seen monkeys at the zoo play less with themselves than these guys sitting over here across the benches. There they are, not listening, but I listened carefully to Mr Kennedy and I understand that his motive here was to try to get some leverage, some foot in the door for some modest protection for organizations that I'm speaking of. But again, I guess he obfuscated his intent by joining charitable organizations and spokespeople for those groups with some expertise in public health -- two very distinct and separate issues.
My question is, can we trust this government? Can we trust them to do the right thing when they have an unfettered power to appoint people to the board, and when the dogs that have been appointed to boards, agencies and commissions by this government to date have barked all the way up the hallway into their luxury suites with their expensive salaries? I'm talking dogs with a capital D. Incredible. Tory losers, people who have been defeated as Tory candidates, Tory bag people, Tory hacks, an incredible array of Tory pork-barrelling that generates a sense of nostalgia for the comparatively modest pork-barrelling of the great days of patronage of Robarts and Davis, and before that even Frost.
What I've attempted to do with my modest amendment is give effect to what I know were Mr Kennedy's concerns. I've moved that the words under subsection (3) be deleted and that they be replaced by the words "by a tripartite committee of the Legislature, struck for the purpose of appointing members to the board of directors of the commission."
Some may ask, "Well, how does that address the issue?" Some may ask that. I say to you it does it this way: We know -- and I of course was here in the Legislature during the course of the last government. I was in the Legislature during the course of the government prior to that. I understand patronage. I understand it. In my view, the last government wasn't very skilful at it. In fact, I think the record bears that out from day one.
A friend, a colleague, Andy Brandt, a white, male Tory appointed head of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, and I'm going: "What is going on? Doesn't Bob Rae's government understand patronage?" I appreciate Andy, and Andy has been a very competent and skilful administrator of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. But that was a major oversight in terms of the New Democrats in the last government not understanding patronage, being caught up in a peculiar way in an effort to be evenhanded. At the end of the day, nobody is happy.
So I understand patronage. I understand that if you've been a long-time supporter of a political party, an activist in that party, you're going to be lined up there, saying, "When that political party acquires power, there's got to be some payoff, there's got to be a return on my investment." It's one of the ways that things are done.
Mind you, with the Conservative Party, and especially with the isolation of these provincial Conservatives from their party, which makes me question -- as you know, Chair, the federal convention for the Progressive Conservative Party starts today in Winnipeg, and we have yet to reach the point where I can make the appropriate motion to relieve these Tories of the need to be here so that they can participate as good Conservatives in a major and historic party function.
But back to my amendment. As I say, the intent of Mr Kennedy is clear. The effectiveness of his amendment is, with due respect, dubious because at the end of the day you've still got the Premier's office or whoever else; I don't know, maybe it's Tom Long's office, maybe it's some wacko governor from New Jersey at the end of the day who makes decisions about appointments. Who knows? It certainly isn't Dalton Camp, a long-time Conservative who has a real sense of what being a Conservative means. It certainly isn't Hugh Segal, another Conservative who is a long-time Tory who has been betrayed by these people at Queen's Park. Who knows where they go to for their expertise. Some day, I'm sure, when the books are written and the bios are written and the historical reviews are undertaken, we will all find out.
We're left with a government that probably doesn't understand patronage either, having said all that I've said, because patronage, as distinct from, let's say, pork-barrelling -- and the type of pork-barrelling these people have been engaging in has really been scraping the bottom of the barrel; it's rancid pork, pork that's turned; it's pork you wouldn't feed to your dog -- pork-barrelling is far different from patronage. Patronage is where you accompany a political appointment with competence, with expertise.
That's not to say that all of the appointments haven't been without skill or competence. I recall sitting in the appropriate committee applauding some of the Conservatives appointed. I remember Paul Godfrey appearing here, and me questioning: "Why are we even doing this? Of course Paul Godfrey is an appropriate appointment; of course he is. Why he's being paraded before the committee, why we're wasting his time, is beyond me."
But one is fearful because of the inevitable involvement of organized crime in this gambling regime the Tories are proposing. Because the regulatory body, this board of directors of the commission, is so ill defined, one has to express great fear, because if you're going to go for the medal, you might as well go for the gold. Why settle for bronze or silver? If the mob sees an entrée, an entry point, they're going to go for the gold. Why content themselves with operating under a fake company selling the machines? "Let's get some of our people on the board of directors of the commission."
1130
The mob's going to go all out on this one. Organized crime is going to go for the heart. Why settle for a little bit when you can have control of the whole regime? The way that the appointments process is so uncontrolled, ill defined, unfettered, don't think for a minute that the mob -- they may not be so brazen, except this door is so big you could get hordes through it. They may well go beyond having front people appointed to this board and actually saying: "What the heck? We might as well be there ourselves, rather than have to rely upon mere messengers." Their interest, of course, is and will be, as I'm convinced this government's interest is, one that has nothing to do with protecting the interests of charitable organizations.
Here we have a bill with a title -- take a look at this long title. Boy, it's long: An Act to regulate alcohol and gaming in the public interest, to fund charities through the responsible management of video lotteries and to amend certain statutes related to liquor and gaming. I suppose responsible management of video lotteries is something of the ever-present oxymoron, because how do you responsibly manage a regime which is going to put 20,000 slot machines out in the community, the most addictive form of gambling? Oh, I hear people howling in protest. I've dared use that word "addictive" again. Well, why don't you read the letter from Staff Sergeant Paquin of the Winnipeg Police Service, June 25, 1996, where he writes to Mr Thom Mowry, the city clerk in Sudbury, that there are literally thousands of gambling addicts in Winnipeg, with the vast majority addicted to VLTs. Wow.
Please, Chair -- I see the look on your face -- don't shoot the messenger. I'm simply telling you what Staff Sergeant Paquin said from Winnipeg, a regime which has been infected by slots. You don't like what the Winnipeg police said? Take a look at what the St John Police Force, David Sherwood, the chief of police, says in response, writing to Thom Mowry, city clerk of Sudbury. He's informed, from substance abuse treatment centres in his city, that they have treated individuals who have expended literally tens of thousands of dollars in these machines, slots, VLTs, resulting in loss of employment, marriage breakup, mortgage foreclosure, alcoholism etc. These people have no self-interest in saying that. People are trying to warn this government that the insidiousness of these slots is such that they perhaps should be avoided in their entirety.
We read from Corporal Kelly of the Fredericton Police Force the nature of their concern about the involvement of organized crime. Corporal Kelly in Fredericton, police intelligence there, indicates that even with the assurances -- one can almost envision him rolling his eyes as he dictated that part of it, because it's wink, wink, nudge, nudge -- of the Atlantic gambling commission authority, Corporal Kelly remains very concerned and sceptical about the allegation by the Atlantic gaming commission that somehow they've filtered out, screened out -- perhaps they were using Brian Tobin fishnet -- the organized crime element. They're there; they're going to be there; they're going to be here. No two ways about it.
Why would one want to move the motion that I've used? Well, because this government says it wants to do things differently. They talk a big gain, but they don't deliver. They talk a big gain. A revolution? Give me a break. Common sense? Give me a second break. What they're doing is neither revolutionary, nor is it commonsensical. They've got a chance here to meaningfully change the way governments do business, in essence what could be and should be a non-partisan issue. The level of partisanship and blind enthusiasm for the support of this scheme makes me suspect that some people have been bought off already, it really does. I can't imagine people doing this for free.
Being suspicious of that, I'm also suspicious and concerned about the capacity of the Premier's office to make appointments, about the capacity of the Premier's office to abuse appointments. It is wild. It is wild and inconceivable that Mr Tsubouchi wouldn't want to come here to address this. We've just had three weeks of public hearings. Some concerns that I'm trying to address with this bill and with this board of directors of the commission have been substantiated by legitimate concerns raised by witnesses participating in the hearings.
In fact, the parliamentary assistant hasn't even spoken with Mr Tsubouchi about this bill -- not a phone call, not a whisper over the pillow, under the sheets, not a word from Mr Flaherty, the parliamentary assistant to Mr Tsubouchi. We all know about the mushroom treatment, and I understand why the parliamentary assistant is subjected to it, but by God, don't do it to the minister. They're purposely keeping him in the dark. Mr Flaherty said that. It's reported in the Hamilton Spectator, August 22, 1996. "I have not spoken to him" -- Tsubouchi -- "about this bill since he was appointed minister last week." Where have they got Tsubouchi? We should be concerned. What are they doing with that man? He hasn't appeared in public since his appointment. There's something frightening about this. There's something insidious about this, that Tsubouchi has been stashed away. I can see him now trying to smuggle out notes, saying: "I'm being held against my will. Rescue me." If only we could get to him.
I've got a feeling, though -- Tsubouchi reads the papers -- that Tsubouchi ain't very gung-ho about Bill 75. I've got a feeling that Tsubouchi has some serious concerns about the morality of Bill 75, about the danger to our communities posed by Bill 75, about the prospect of organized crime, and that's why he's being locked up somewhere, being held incommunicado. It's like those little Where's Waldo? Where's David? Where's Dave Tsubouchi? If we could only have the benefit of his insight into this.
One problem is that the government members went into this with a fixed mindset. They didn't give a crap about the public hearings. Rod Seiling, overpaid lobbyist for the hotel-motel association, scripted his hotel-motel people with the same script town after town after town. Boy, they should be angry with him. What sloppy lobbying for him not to have devised new scripts. I would have expected that from a person making as much money as Mr Seiling.
1140
To the government members it's sort of, "That's my story and I'm sticking to it." They went into these committee hearings insisting that slot machines are the panacea for our province's economic ills. Never mind the 725,000 jobs that Mike Harris promised. What you're going to get, friends, is 20,000 slots.
I could be wrong, but I don't think so. He hasn't been cited. There's paparazzi all over the place. If they saw Tsubouchi somewhere, you can bet your boots the photo would be appearing in at least the Sun, but no, he's being held incommunicado. I'm concerned even more now than I was before about the failure of this ministry to utilize the Solicitor General in its exercise.
Listen, it is imperative that Mr Tsubouchi appear before this legislative committee. I don't want to usurp my colleagues in the Liberal Party but I suspect that they would be on side in agreeing that we can suspend these clause-by-clause considerations until Mr Tsubouchi is brought up to speed.
Mr Flaherty made an interesting comment to the Hamilton Spectator reporter yesterday and they reported it today. Mr Flaherty said that this committee is going to pass this bill whether the committee's work is completed or not. Mr Flaherty, get a new scriptwriter. Mr Flaherty, read the rules. Mr Flaherty, I don't think that this bill is going to be passed by this committee before Friday at midnight. I don't think so.
What that means is that this bill is going to remain in legislative limbo, that the House is going to return -- I'll be safer this time -- somewhere around the third week of September, that the bill still will not be ready for presentation on third reading, that it will have to come back to this committee, which will sit -- is it one day a week this committee sits? -- for a couple of hours each week. Mr Tsubouchi, come out, come out, wherever you are because you can either talk to us now or talk to us during question period in the Legislature after the third week of September before this committee has finished its process.
We don't want to be unfair about this, but I can't understand why Mr Flaherty would create the false impression, the misimpression that regardless of the fact that Friday midnight we're finished, somehow the bill is going to be ready for third reading. Uh-uh. No way, Jose; ain't going to happen that way because we've got some very important issues to discuss.
I can tell you; I've asked. I very specifically asked Mr Flaherty, as the parliamentary assistant, to resolve this impasse that we're approaching -- I don't think we're at an impasse yet; far from it -- by getting David or whoever you have to call to find out where he's stashed away, call those people, tell them to unshackle him, clean him up a little bit, get some food into him and get him down here to the committee so that we can talk to Mr Tsubouchi.
We're not going to become preoccupied with attacks on him. We simply want to know where he is in this issue, and especially where he is in view of the significant evidence that's been received, especially in view of the significant concerns that we have about this commission, about the appointment of the board of directors, an unfettered power on the part of the Premier's office, whoever the henchmen are there, or henchwomen, calling the shots. Please, I know it isn't Mike Harris who sifts down through the list. Oh, from time to time it could be because there could be personal debts -- not personal debts. I don't mean like I borrowed $5, but personal political debts that have to be paid. Look, I understand. Some of us have been here long enough that we've got a handle on that; we know how that works. But for Mr Tsubouchi to be kept under wraps, held incommunicado --
Mr Crozier: Chair, excuse me. Excuse me, Mr Kormos. I'm sitting here listening to Mr Kormos because he has some interesting and important things to say, and the level of conversation has been rising in the room and even I am having difficulty hearing. So I need your assistance if I could.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Crozier has made a good point. Continue, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that and I appreciate the observation of Mr Crozier that the Tory members really don't seem to be taking this seriously. Are these members of the Legislative Assembly sitting there or are they merely a gang of dupa sitting there?
Mr Guzzo: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We're making notes. If you'd speak a little more slowly we could maybe get everything down.
Mr Kormos: I just called them dupa, Chair, just a gaggle of dupa sitting there.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, please continue.
Mr Kormos: There we are. What happens when these interruptions happen --
Mr Guzzo: It was Mr Crozier that interrupted, not us.
Mr Kormos: -- and I'm not faulting Mr Crozier, because of course he makes a legitimate concern -- is that, as you know, I have a guideline here but I don't use verbatim notes. I prepare a guideline, as I did last night, for the issues I want to highlight so that I don't meander. But when we have interruptions I get distracted. I'm so readily distracted.
The Chair: I think you were talking about your relationship with Mr Rae at the last point, if I recall.
Mr Guzzo: You were singing the praises of Buffalo's Man of the Year, 1993.
Mr Kormos: A great guitarist, Ray -- performed with Ian and Sylvia. I had occasion to meet him several times, a great blues performer, worked with Koerner, Ray and Glover, who you'll recall during the 1960s -- you brought it up, Chair -- produced a number of albums on Vanguard and Elektra on a jazz-blues series. But Koerner, Ray and Glover were some of the best bluesmen you ever heard. As I say, Ray subsequently worked with Ian and Sylvia, Sylvia Fricker and Ian Tyson, when they were still working together here in Toronto, performing often at the Riverboat, oftentimes -- what's the name of the club? It's in Ottawa. What was the name of the folk club in Ottawa where the pedestrian mall is now? Anyway, did a lot there, and of course were very popular. So I appreciate your mention of Mr Ray. One hasn't heard from him in a long time.
Mr Guzzo: Even Trudeau liked that club.
Mr Kormos: Lord knows what happened to old blues singers. He wasn't that old. He was a young blues singer, performer, in the 1960s. Some of them have survived.
Mr Guzzo: Mr Crozier could tell you, but he didn't want to interrupt.
Mr Kormos: I want to tell you -- because I think I was discussing, until the Chair distracted me again there and got me nostalgic about my youth and about the great music phenomenon that was happening and some of the great performers and personalities -- we were coming back on the plane from Kenora and I was devastated to read the obituary of Herbert Huncke in Newsweek magazine, because I had the opportunity to spend some time with Herbert Huncke in New York City around a year and a half ago. He lived up in room 828 at the Chelsea Hotel down on 23rd Street. I saw him just by happenstance. I had just read his last book, a collection of memoirs. An old guy, 81 years old, Herbert Huncke. He was holding a can of tinned pineapple and I went up to him and I said, "You're Mr Huncke, aren't you?" And he said, "What's it to you?" I said, "Mr Huncke, I'm a real fan of yours," because Herbert Huncke was involved in the whole beat -- as a matter of fact, he coined the phrase "the beat generation." He was something of a mentor to Ginsberg and Kerouac and that gang. He started his career as a runner for Al Capone in Chicago as a very young person.
1150
As I say, I regret because we had made a tentative date. I said, "I was going to take you out to dinner, Mr Huncke." He said: "That's fine, kid, but can't do it tonight. Next time you're in New York City come take me out to dinner. I'm up in 828. Come any time." I guess it's too late because Herbert's on to the big beat generation in the sky. He and Jack Kerouac are probably doing whatever, as they did back in the 1950s, up there right now.
So that was devastating and it just reminds us that some of the great artists and personalities and characters from the 1960s, 1950s and 1940s are moving on. Herbert Huncke. Read some of his stuff. He published four books. His last memoirs were published around three or four years ago. It's probably out of print but you might be able to pick it up at a used bookstore or, God forbid, on a remainder table. Lord knows, Herbert Huncke didn't make a whole lot of money from it but, man, you want some insights into that whole era, into the whole culture that spawned that beat movement -- which of course preceded the 1960s hippie movement, which is of course how this all started, because you talked about Mr Ray, the blues guitarist.
But I'm concerned about the failure of Mr Tsubouchi to respond to our request, both opposition caucuses, and a legitimate, serious request. Something's going on here that is making more and more people increasingly suspicious.
With respect to Norm Sterling, the standing committee studying Bill 76, the environmental bill -- I suppose an anti-environmental bill at the end of the day -- has suspended its considerations so that Norm Sterling can get up to speed on that bill. Again, I put on record right now that this opposition party, the New Democrats, are more than prepared to accommodate Mr Tsubouchi to the same end. Heck, House leaders can get together. If we can come back in a week's time, two weeks' time, three weeks' time, so be it. God bless. Looking forward to the chance to have Mr Tsubouchi, as I say, brought up to speed, a little bit of vernacular thrown in there, but briefed as he should be.
Heck, take him to the Hull casino if that's what it takes, although I suspect Mr Tsubouchi is somewhat immune to the glitter and glamour, if there is any glitter and glamour there. The fact is that it's imperative, in view of the fact that we've heard what we've heard -- a number of things. Again, I understand arguments on both sides. What's difficult for us is that we're prepared to concede that there are arguments from across the spectrum. I understand that. I understand the fervour of the so-called hospitality industry, the Ontario Restaurant Association, the hotel-motel association, led by their leader, Rod Seiling. I understand their interest in these machines.
You know that I disagree with their conclusions. I made reference yesterday, as have other people for some considerable period of time, about studies available which indicate that these types of regimes don't create the economic -- it's not the B12 shot for the economy that some of these people would think it is. In fact, they are, as at least one submission reflected, a non-sustainable economy, because it's self-consuming. It consumes itself to a point where there's nothing left: zero, nothing, nada.
But I understand the argument. I've listened to it. Lord knows I've heard it. I say, well, let there be some reference to the historical studies and some studies prepared to assess other jurisdictions, to assess the economic shot in the arm: Are slots a valid economic development tool?
First of all, I think logic tells you no, but then there are studies which go on to suggest no, and we referred to the Ford Foundation study. We referred yesterday in my discussions with the committee while we were addressing one section or another to a study which -- he's the author of a book. Which one was that? By God, I'll find it in short order. But I suggest that, no, these do not constitute effective economic development tools.
You know, what's really interesting is that the Alberta Lotteries Review Committee found as a fact -- not speculation; as a fact -- that at face value a player has a 92% chance of winning on each play on a VLT. The maximum jackpot is $1,000. The actual payout on VLTs is 69%, because players don't cash in their credits each time they play but keep adding up credits and losses. Again, I didn't say that. Don't look at me that way, Chair. Don't shoot the messenger. I know you're angry, but don't shoot the messenger. I know you don't want to hear that sort of stuff, but I'm not concocting it, I'm not fabricating it. It isn't whimsy or a wing and a prayer; I'm quoting from page 23 of the Alberta Lotteries Review Committee study, New Directions for Lotteries and Gaming, Report and Recommendation of the Lotteries Review Committee, dated August 31, 1995. This is a jurisdiction that has embraced lotteries and slots. I know that. If there is a bias here, it's a bias in favour of, not in opposition to.
I appreciate why you're upset about that, and I know you try very hard to become non-partisan as the Chair. From time to time you've jumped into the fray. It's human nature, I guess. To avoid doing that requires some substantial constraint and discipline, and why should you be any different from anybody else in terms of us not being able to overcome that lack of discipline? It's perfectly human from time to time to jump into the fray.
But you see, we need a process for the determination of the members of this body, this board of directors of this commission, that is going to ensure --
The Chair: I'm loath, as you know, to interrupt your most interesting presentation, Mr Kormos, but it is lunch-hour. We will be recessing until 1:30, and at that time Mr Kormos has the floor and will continue with his soliloquy. Thank you.
The committee recessed from 1158 to 1329.
The Chair: I call this meeting to order.
Mr Kormos: Quorum, Chair.
The Chair: Recess for 10 minutes. We seem to have some difficulty getting a quorum today.
Mr Crozier: And yesterday.
The Chair: We now have a quorum, gentlemen. We can proceed. Mr Kormos has the floor.
Mr Kormos: I was of course speaking to my amendment of Mr Kennedy's motion and had, as the members of this committee know, expressed my great concern, acknowledging that it was addressed, in intent at least, by Mr Kennedy, but perhaps far less than adequately, at least from my point of view. I had spoken in some detail about the nature of the role of this board and about how imperative it was that by virtue of the construct the participants in the exercise would be adequately equipped.
I had canvassed what I perceived as the history of this particular government in its patronage appointments. I'm not sure that those, even speaking in contemporary terms of what we expect governments to do and what not to do, have become incredibly passé or dated. This government, which wants to pretend that it's embarked on a revolution of some sort of commonsense nature, has the opportunity now to indeed illustrate that it wants to do things differently. We heard one government committee member seriously criticize in no uncertain terms the process within committee. He expressed criticism that I have shared and expressed myself over the course of, as it is now, the last three governments.
Having laid some groundwork here, let me speak to my amendment. I think the groundwork was important. I acknowledge it makes subsection (3) moot, other than the section of it -- but again I'll deal with that in due course -- indicating that there shall be at least five members of the board appointed. It has the effect of overriding the provision that the appointment shall be by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I am proposing a most modest proposal that the appointment be by a tripartite committee of the Legislature struck for the purpose of appointing members to the board of directors of the commission. What a novel proposition. What a remarkably democratic proposition. What a wonderful, revolutionary proposition, and at the end of the day just plain, downright commonsensical.
I don't think there's anybody in this Legislative Assembly who wants to see the important role of regulatory and supervisory bodies -- boards, agencies, commissions -- in any way hindered. I think all of us, as members of the Legislative Assembly, be that for the short term or the long term, have a strong interest in seeing that these institutions, these bodies, effectively perform their role. Remarkably, one of the responses, of course, by the government and its members to accusations of inappropriate patronage is the referral to appointments that the last government made.
While I am prepared to dispute, indeed debate whether the last government was anywhere near as proficient at patronage as the preceding or successive governments, I have no choice but to acknowledge that New Democrats were appointed to positions. The irresistible conclusion by cynical people is that, at least in some small part, they acquired those positions by virtue of their connections, their contacts. I can't dispute that either. I find it remarkable, though, that people could be satisfied.
I recall yesterday -- and, Gerry, you'll recall -- some of the criticism that was levied by a government member for whom I have had regard of our -- that is to say, quite frankly, both opposition parties' -- strong suggestion that David Tsubouchi belongs here at this committee, at least for a brief period of time. The response and the criticism of that position by a government member for whom I have regard, Mr Skarica, was that when the NDP was in government its ministers weren't overly responsive to those types of requests. You know, Mr Skarica is right; of course, he's right. When the Liberals were in power before that, from 1987, and even between 1985 and 1987, ministers didn't like doing that, especially on contentious matters.
In view of the fact that the Conservative Party, in its role as third party during the course of the last government, criticized the government of the day, in view of the fact that the Conservative caucus as third party and the New Democrats as the party of the official opposition from 1987 to 1990 criticized the Liberal government for doing it that way, here is this government, with the opportunity to fundamentally change things, to set a new precedent, to say, "No, we didn't approve of it then, and we're going to show people that it can be done." It doesn't mean the end of the world. It doesn't mean the sky is going to fall in. It doesn't mean ministers are going to be subjected to unfair or inappropriate interrogations. It means that we have the refreshing prospect of a government that's prepared to be open and candid in how it deals with things.
I don't know what the great fear is here, what the phobia is, because it's reached almost the pathological proportions of a phobia. I appreciate that the Conservative Party members, prior to this election, were highly critical of slot machine regimes. Heck, they were critical of a casino in Windsor, as I was. I understand that Ernie Eves and Mike Harris had made some strong statements regarding how inappropriate slots are -- VLTs, vulgar little thieves. I understand that they said that and are quoted and reported in Hansard and the press as saying that, not only in 1993 -- and that was during the course, as you know, of the casino debate, the bill of the last government -- but as recently as early spring of this year.
If I promise -- I tell you, promises I keep; I can't speak, of course, for Mr Crozier -- not to confront Minister Tsubouchi with the fact that Mike Harris and Ernie Eves have been all over the map on this, promise not to mention it at all -- because, after all, it isn't Dave Tsubouchi's work -- right now I'll go on record that if Mr Tsubouchi can be here before midnight tomorrow, I will not confront Mr Tsubouchi and call upon him to explain why Ernie Eves could be so adamantly opposed to slots one day and then be justifying them the next.
Mind you, what's of interest here, and it was raised with me by several observers during the course of yesterday and again this morning -- and it could just be an accident, because accidents happen -- is that all of the members on this committee, short of one appearance, and that was just a fly-in or a drop-in in Sudbury -- and, again, I don't know why the government was so anxious to fill all of its seats because, heck, there are so few of us on the opposition side. Mr Skarica yesterday was critical of the high cost of flying him up to Sudbury. He was, and I'm convinced he presented that in a very non-partisan way. I think the bill was $700 and change, wasn't it, Mr Flaherty, for Mr Skarica to fly up there? Trust me, I'm not suggesting Mr Skarica had a good time. If you've been in one airplane, you've been in them all. It's not as if he was travelling Air France or something and had the china laid out and that silverware that occasionally, I'm told, people from time to time pocket before they leave the plane. It's not as if he got that kind of treatment. He got the same stale bagel and cream cheese that was a little off that the rest of us got wrapped in the cellophane.
1340
There you are, bused in. We were at the Ambassador Hotel, which is a nice enough hotel, no two ways about it. I don't know whether Mr Skarica came up the day before. The rooms are adequate, but you're not talking about the sort of places Mr Skarica is accustomed to, at least when he was a crown attorney earning substantial amounts of money and probably with an expense account which far exceeded that permitted to him now. In no way was it a pleasant trip for Mr Skarica. Boom, you fly in. If you happen to get in the night before, you go to bed. You wake up, you shower and shave, and you're off to the meeting hall, you do your thing and then the mini-bus is waiting for you at the front doors. It's not as if you're out touring the Big Nickel or going down the Sudbury mine shaft -- not that people didn't get shafted in Sudbury -- as part of a tour. You're not out there fishing or enjoying the good things you can up around Sudbury way.
Mr Skarica was quite critical yesterday. As I say, other than Ms Marland, his colleague -- and I know I'll be corrected if I'm in error; I can't recall -- and she was flown up into Sudbury too as a fill-in. Mr Flaherty, you didn't need those people. Count the numbers. No way was your team going to lose a vote -- no way. You could have gotten by with a fraction of them. Ms Marland was the only member of the government panel during the course of these hearings who was an incumbent in 1995, and that was pointed out to me today. I hadn't really reflected or remarked on it. I went: "Hey, what gives here? How come none of the oldtimers, the pre-1995 people, want to be involved in this sordid little affair? How come they're sending these fresh new recruits out into no man's land?"
Interjection: We're not so fresh-looking today.
Mr Kormos: Well, the year's taken its toll. But how come that is? I don't diminish the capacity of any of them. If there's any diminished capacity, they've done it to themselves. Here we are, fresh young troops, new recruits, if you will, right off of basic training, and they're sent out into no man's land. I mean, they had a corporal with them -- Mr Flaherty. They didn't even have an NCO. How come no brass wanted to come out there and join them? How come no officers?
Mr Guzzo: They sent a deputy minister up north.
Mr Kormos: How come no officers? How come none of the high-priced help was prepared to go up? I've got a feeling that these members have been taken for a ride, and far beyond the ride to Sudbury. They're being set up. They should be reflecting on the fact that their seniors in caucus somehow are steering clear of this one. Normie Sterling's in and out like a greased pig. Then he's out in the most literal way.
Then Dave Tsubouchi -- once again, I reflect on what Mr Flaherty told the press. Here he is, Mr Tsubouchi's parliamentary assistant. What else is going on in Mr Flaherty's life right now? This has been the focus of all of his energies, of all of his attention. It has preoccupied his life. His family life has suffered. His social life has suffered. His personal life has suffered. He has sacrificed all those things for the pursuit of slot machines. Yet here he is, Mr Tsubouchi's corporal out here, snipers and all, and he indicates to the press yesterday, and this is what he said, "I have not spoken to him" -- David Tsubouchi -- "about this bill since he was appointed minister last week." I question, once again with grave concern, where is Dave Tsubouchi? Since his appointment nobody has seen him.
I see that Mr Tsubouchi is reported to have said, and this is the day after his swearing in as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, "Does this look like the face of an unhappy person?" He's described as having a huge grin while he said it. What did they give him? What did they put in his food to leave him in that state and then to have him disappear for days and weeks afterwards? He said, "I guess if your name is in the elevators, you're going up in the world." He didn't mention slot machines. Nobody told him about the slots. Nobody told him. He didn't say, "I'm enthusiastic about getting to work on Bill 75 and seeing it become the law of the land so we can get those slots out there, 20,000 of them, in every corner of every neighbourhood in every small town and city in this province." No.
They sold him a bill of goods. They told him he was going to be minister of elevators. They never told him nothing about slot machines and they still haven't, because Mr Flaherty himself acknowledges, and he implies that he has talked to him because Mr Flaherty very specifically said, "I have not spoken to him about this bill since he was appointed minister last week," so one can only infer that he has spoken to him or else he would have simply said, "I haven't spoken to him" -- one can infer that Mr Flaherty has spoken with David Tsubouchi.
But here's David Tsubouchi: A week later he doesn't even know Bill 75 is out there in committee. Jim Flaherty hasn't told him. Where's David Tsubouchi? I'll tell you where he belongs. He belongs here. I'm confident that if he were here, he would find acceptable, more than acceptable, my modest proposal for subsection 2(2) of the bill, which is by way of an amendment to Mr Kennedy's amendment, "by a tripartite committee of the Legislature, struck for the purpose of appointing members to the board of directors of the commission."
Chair, I'm concerned about the lack of interest. I move that we adjourn till tomorrow morning, 10 am, please.
The Chair: Mr Kormos has for the second time today moved that we adjourn this meeting. There is no debate required in regard to this.
Mr Kormos: Recess as per the rules.
The Chair: On what basis, Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: Recess as per the rules. I'm entitled to a 20-minute recess.
Mr Crozier: Where's the clerk? She'll tell you if that's okay.
The Chair: We'll wait till the clerk comes back. Can you point to the section in the standing orders, Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: The standing orders provide that a caucus is entitled to an as-of-right recess for up to 20 minutes upon any vote being called, upon a question being called on any vote on any matter.
Mr Flaherty: There has to be a motion, Chair, standing order 128. I don't have a motion.
Mr Kormos: I moved adjournment.
Mr Flaherty: I don't have a motion.
Mr Kormos: I moved adjournment.
The Chair: You moved adjournment?
Mr Kormos: Yes, I moved adjournment.
The Chair: He now has a motion. You were out of order on your first request. We now have a motion on the floor. All those in favour of adjournment?
Mr Kormos: A 20-minute recess, please, prior to the vote.
The Chair: Let me put the question first, Mr Kormos. Oh, I'm sorry, you're asking for a 20-minute recess for --
Mr Kormos: Prior to the vote.
The Chair: Prior to the vote.
Mr Flaherty: Mr Kormos suggests he's entitled to a recess for 20 minutes. The standing order says nothing about a recess. It says, "Immediately after the Chair of a standing or select committee has put the question on any motion, there shall be, if requested by a member of the committee, a wait of up to 20 minutes before the vote is recorded." I take that to mean that we remain in session. We can wait for 20 minutes, and the quorum will have to be maintained.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): I'm sorry, I was out of the room. What exactly are you asking, Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: I'm asking for a 20-minute recess. I'm entitled to --
Clerk of the Committee: So I take it the Chair has put the question on Mr Kennedy's amendment?
The Chair: No, we have put the question in regard to the motion for adjournment.
Mr Kormos: I understand what the Chair's concern might be. There is a motion on the floor.
The Chair: We are presently dealing, Mr Kormos, with your motion which you have put on the floor to amend Mr Kennedy's amendment and therefore your motion for adjournment is out of order. There's already a motion on the floor.
Mr Kormos: No, Chair, a motion for an adjournment can be made at any time, according to the standard rules of procedure.
The Chair: We will have a five-minute recess to consider that.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair, I appreciate it.
The committee recessed from 1351 to 1404.
The Chair: Mr Kormos has moved an adjournment, and then requested under section 128(a) of the standing orders a recess of 20 minutes before the vote is recorded. I find that request in order and we are therefore recessed for 20 minutes.
The committee recessed from 1405 to 1426.
The Chair: I'll call this meeting to order. We have the question. All those in favour of the motion of adjournment?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Flaherty, Ford, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Parker, Rollins.
The Chair: The motion fails.
Mr Kormos: Further to my amendment to Mr Kennedy's amendment to subsection 2(2) of the bill -- I believe again that the background has been laid out and I won't repeat myself -- I'm convinced that the new minister would find this amendment in accordance with his sense of fairness and openness. But having said that -- and I base that not as a result of -- because the problem is, nobody's seen him since August 16. It's like "Where's Waldo?" like I said before. Nobody's seen him.
I am concerned about the fact that he's increasingly -- all the evidence is suggesting that he's almost being held incommunicado. We asked yesterday for him to be here. Mr Flaherty, his parliamentary assistant, declines. Mr Tsubouchi, on August 16, when he was sworn in as minister of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, says he looks forward to the privatization process, which he refers to as modernization, but expressed no awareness that Bill 75 was even in existence or that it was within the ambit of his ministry, and then shockingly, Mr Flaherty yesterday --
The Chair: Mr Kormos, dealing I think with your suggestion that we vary the board to nine and not more than 19?
Mr Kormos: No, we're dealing with my amendment on the floor now.
The Chair: Yes. Isn't that your amendment?
Mr Kormos: I haven't moved it yet.
The Chair: What are you speaking to?
Mr Kormos: I'm speaking to the amendment to Mr Kennedy's amendment.
The Chair: I thought that was -- I'm sorry, continue, Mr Kormos. We're dealing with a tripartite committee of the Legislature.
Mr Kormos: Yes.
The Chair: And I hope it would move quicker than our committee is moving here today, but in any event you have the floor. Please proceed.
Mr Kormos: Chair, you never can tell. That's a Shaw play, I think, You Never Can Tell, and an entertaining one at that.
Please, this happens when I -- okay, you know I have to back up just a little bit to collect my thoughts.
The Chair: I'm sorry I disturbed your train of thought. I know how fragile that must be.
Mr Kormos: My apologies to you, Chair. This happens every time, though. But here we are.
In any event, my concern was for Mr Tsubouchi and the fact that he's being kept incommunicado, because on the date of his swearing in he expressed no familiarity, no knowledge of this Bill 75 or of this slot machine regime. In fact, Mr Flaherty tells the press yesterday, as reported in the Hamilton Spectator, "I have not spoken to him" -- David Tsubouchi -- "about this bill since he was appointed last week."
This is very frightening, because who's at the helm? Who's in charge? With all due respect to Mr Flaherty, I trust that he's in a line of command where he takes instructions from somebody. I don't begrudge him the role of cabinet minister, but Mike Harris has; I know the feeling. He's the parliamentary assistant. He clearly has to take direction from the minister, and it seems that the minister is not even aware that this bill is before the Legislature.
The other thing that concerns me, sir, and I'm hopeful that it was merely one of those erroneous press reports, because similarly in the Hamilton Spectator it suggests -- and the inference is that this suggestion is as a result of the conversation with Mr Flaherty. First of all, they say there's a filibuster being staged. Well, there's nothing more ridiculous. What a ridiculous proposition, but the press is like that. They're prone to dramatize things when drama is unwarranted. But it suggests that, whatever -- they call it a filibuster -- "will have no effect since the government-controlled committee will pass the video gambling bill whether the committee's work is complete or not, he said," referring to Mr Flaherty.
Now, if Mr Flaherty said that, and I'm always concerned about there being an absence of direct quote -- I appreciate there's not a direct quote there; it could be something of a paraphrase -- the problem is that this committee is entitled to sit for three weeks, which means tomorrow at midnight this committee becomes functus. There was no deeming motion. There is no time allocation. If this committee doesn't complete its approval of Bill 75 by midnight tomorrow, Bill 75 then is not ready to be presented for third reading in the Legislature.
What will happen is that then Bill 75 will come before this committee as this committee sits in its regular time spot while the Legislature is sitting.
The Chair: I thank you for that dissertation of the standing orders. However, we are dealing with your amendment regarding a tripartite committee, and I'd ask you to speak to your amendment.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that direction. I appreciate your assistance and I'm grateful to you, sir. You've been generous with that assistance over the course of the last three weeks, and I'm grateful to you. I admire you a great deal. I have a great deal of respect for you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: In fact, if I'm ever a Chair, you will be my model. I respect the Chair's interest in this particular amendment, the creation of a tripartite committee of the Legislature which will have the responsibility of appointing members to this Alcohol and Gaming Commission.
You see, I can't think of a fairer thing. Once again, in my gut, I can't help but think that if they were to let Dave Tsubouchi know about this amendment, if they were only to tell him about it, he'd be directing the parliamentary assistant to whip the government caucus into accepting it because it's so eminently fair. This is a downright revolutionary proposition. It's also very commonsensical, and here we have the vanguard, the soldiers -- albeit absent their berets and their bandoleros -- of the Common Sense Revolution, the vanguard of this new revolution, a revolution, we're told, of common sense, here with a most revolutionary and commonsensical proposition.
It's interesting, because in the three terms that I've served here at the Legislature -- I'm serving the third term now rather -- it's been under three governments in such short order. We're shy of one election to go full circle.
Interjection: Which one was the best?
Mr Kormos: There are people out there who would condemn each and every one of them for their own good reasons, no two ways about it. People are disinclined to like government, for a plethora of good reasons.
I understand why governments would want to retain -- you see, this would resolve the problem. Mr Skarica yesterday talked about the problem. This addresses it. Committees are fine and slick, as long as you're in the government, if you have a committee wherein the majority sits with the government. Then, all of a sudden, people start crying the blues and crying foul and unfair when they're in the opposition. Again, I understand that.
The Conservatives as third party and the New Democrats as official opposition did it when the Liberals were in power between 1987 and 1990, when they had an incredible majority, not unlike yours. There were so many Liberals, they were sitting in the rump. The Conservatives and the Liberals said it about the New Democrats between 1990 and 1995. Now, here we go, full circle, Liberals and New Democrats are saying it about the Tories, or Reformers or whatever it is you want to call yourselves.
I saw Elsie Wayne on CBC Newsworld. She appeared to be calling out for elected Tory members to please come to Winnipeg, lend some moral support to the cause. I didn't see any indication of any presence of Ontario's caucus members there. I understand why these people can't go, because they're here serving this committee, but I trust that the balance of the caucus --
Mr Guzzo: We missed the train. Now the train's left.
Mr Kormos: Maybe Mr Tsubouchi is there. All that Mr Flaherty needs to do is say so. All he has to do is say so and I'll stop being so concerned for Mr Tsubouchi's wellbeing, because I genuinely am, sir. He's being kept out of the loop. He's not being told what's going on. He's not being given an opportunity. You clearly haven't taken any direction from him, because you tell us that you haven't spoken with him about Bill 75 since his appointment. Once again, who's calling the shots here? This is ominous.
You know that we've expressed a great deal of concern about organized crime and its involvement in the sale and distribution and supply of slot machines. We've relied, among other things, on the report of Corporal Kelly. We relied in part on a news article by one Richard Brennan. You'll recall that, when Brennan spoke of the 80-page secret police report on organized crime. We've called out for the production of that. Somehow, somewhere, some why, for some reason, there's been a strong, rigid reluctance on the part of the government.
There is a concern about organized crime in this particular industry, and I submit that, among other things, a tripartite committee will be far more able to protect itself against the tentacle-like infiltration of organized crime into, indeed, even this Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. Don't think that they're not going to try. If they think they can grab the brass ring instead of just being in the shadows, they're going to try to grab the brass ring. The evidence that's been available, some of which is available to you and certainly not to the opposition, confirms and illustrates that in ways that never can --
I know that some of the government's committee members are concerned. They've spoken about organized crime during the course of the hearings, about the mob out of Buffalo or organized crime out of Quebec. They've spoken about it. I know they've expressed concern about the level of involvement of organized crime in the grey market gaming industry as it exists. Where do you think the machines come from? They come from the very same people. You won't listen.
You try to trivialize the evidence that's before you. You try to trivialize the evidence and you try to dismiss it, instead of pursuing a far more responsible course, which would be to take heed, which would be to call upon the Solicitor General to obtain for us the 80-page report that's been prepared that Richard Brennan had access to and as a result of which he was able to write the news article that I made reference to in the early part of these hearings.
You not only ignore the red flags, the caveats, but you also then let yourself be led by the nose by what has become the norm. Do I dispute that the current mode, as proposed in subsection (3), is the norm? Of course it's the norm. It's the way it's always been done. But it's the way that it's always been done that you have been critical of when you and your colleagues were in opposition, during the Peterson government and subsequently, from 1990 to 1995, during the Rae government. You promised people it wasn't going to be the same, that it was going to be done differently. What a tremendous opportunity you have as individual members with responsibilities to your own constituencies and to the province to show that you've got the courage and the gonads to stand up for what you think is right. This is your chance to do it.
1440
I'm talking about the novel proposition of a tripartite committee of the Legislature. What that means, of course, is that each caucus would be represented in a committee whose responsibility it would be to select people for appointment to the commission, to the board of directors of the commission. A tripartite committee obviously at least implies that there be equal representation. Some might refer to this as a tripartite committee, but it might as well be a non-committee. Mr Skarica as much as said that yesterday, because the fact is the government members vote not with their hearts or with their souls or with their minds, but they vote as they're whipped.
We've tabled a number -- and I appreciate these are motions, as was Mr Kennedy's and my amendment here, that arise out of the course of debate, because this is a dynamic process, or at least should be, and I apologize if these weren't tabled as others were. Mind you, I have tabled three more just now with the clerk dealing with yet more proposed amendments to section 2 of the bill. These are matters that arise out of the dynamic that takes place in a committee.
Again, the observation that it doesn't have to be the way it was. It doesn't have to be appointments by Lieutenant Governor in Council to what can and should be a non-partisan committee. Now, if there is a tripartite committee with equal representation -- because that's what that implies, isn't it, Chair? Equal representation. Once again, if there isn't equal representation, then it's all for naught. You might as well pack your bags and go home. A tripartite committee might result in a complete absence of political patronage, because there really would be then the pursuit of non-partisan people.
This government may well be deluded -- not diluted but deluded -- by history. That is to say that I suspect -- and again, who am I to say? I'm no political scientist, but then again, political scientists aren't very scientific or accurate in most of their predictions -- the days of 40-year reigns are long over. The history of governments and political parties over the course of the last 10 years would tell us that as much as anything will. I think this government and its members are treading on very thin ice if they think that somehow they're going to be around as government for the next 10 or even 15 years so that they can avail themselves of the fiat power contained in subsection (3).
The Liberals were convinced after 1987 that they had it made in the shade, one of the largest majority governments this province had ever seen. So many Liberals that they had to occupy opposition benches. They were so confident that they called a premature election. I remember it. They were so confident that in 1995 they thought they were going to be returned to power. I remember New Democrats, however fecklessly, chanting, "Five more years, five more years," at a Hamilton convention in the last year of the last government's mandate. Again, it was no more realistic than the Liberal anticipation of automatically reassuming power or of my Tory colleagues' anticipation of even being returned to power.
Ask Lyn McLeod about high poll ratings. She can tell you stories about standing high in the polls. I tell you, it was awfully difficult to persuade some of my colleagues in my caucus last time around when they wanted to change the rules to prevent filibustering, for instance, in the House. They did; they used their majority to change the rules. It was awful difficult to persuade them, because the vast majority of them were first-time members, full of the proverbial pee and vinegar, and boy, they didn't like the way the opposition was being obstructionist, neither the Liberals nor the Tories, and might even have had fear of some of their own members using the right to stand in place in the Legislature. So they changed the rules.
Friends, I spoke with them in caucus, I spoke with them in privacy, and said: "You know, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. You're going to impaled on this lance at some point in your career." All I could say was, "Trust me," and I suppose coming from a politician "Trust me" rings a little hollow. But those same people, in short order, learned exactly what I'm speaking of.
This government has a chance now to build for its future. Want to talk about the future? Fine, let's talk about the future. Let's talk about a process, because you're building this multi-faceted, regulatory body for alcohol and gaming. It has the great potential, and I believe this, to eventually be privatized. I think there's every suggestion that this is part of the privatization process. It fits in and is in sync with that route, that course this government races down. You've got the chance to make sure the system is fair for everybody involved and just for all of Ontario, whether you're in government or not, because you can set the standard now. You can say a tripartite committee rather than the fiat power of the government to appoint whom it wants when it wants and to risk exposing this commission to influence by forces that some of you deny even exist. Some of you suggest, à la J. Edgar Hoover, that organized crime is somehow a figment of my imagination, of Corporal Kelly's in Fredericton, of the Ontario Provincial Police anti-racket squad in its 80-page report. Please, get with the program. Every indication is that slot machine regimes are to organized crime what a cowflop is to flies.
This modest amendment is an opportunity to build in some protection, some defences, and really to build for the future. Want to talk about building? Let's build a tripartite committee, because you have all three parties represented. It would effectively be pairing up, as it is a three-party system, which puts it in a far different scenario than a two-party system, because with a three-party system you avoid the prospect of a stalemate, as any even number would be in a two- or four-party system. I suppose if that changed, I suppose if yet another party were to be introduced into the Legislature -- for instance, if the Reform Party were to run provincially in 1999 and result in, I suppose, either an NDP or a Liberal government, because the right-wing vote would be split all over hell's half acre, just as it could well be. I understand why you don't want to support the federal Conservative Party and why you want to disassociate yourselves from it, because the prospect of a strong federal Conservative Party could spell Liberal and, my God, indeed NDP victories, especially in western Canada come the federal election, perhaps next year.
You people have been very defensive about your own appointments and very critical of previous governments' appointments. At the same time, some of you have had occasion to be in and around the standing committee that reviews and investigates and interrogates and considers and votes on proposed appointments. Once again, one of the criticisms of the last government, which created that committee, was, "So what?" because the government members form the majority on the committee and applicants who come before the committee get themselves appointed notwithstanding the objections raised by the opposition. Was there an element of smoke and mirrors involved? Of course, there was. At the same time, having said that, it's the first time that sort of committee ever sat in review of potential appointees. Is the fix in? I suppose it is. But you now are in a position, for instance, to have an impact, to change the nature of the thrust of that process.
1450
This amendment is one which is in no way partisan. It is one which I believe reflects the views and wishes of a whole lot of Ontarians as to how they'd like to see not just this government but government in general work. I believe that. Again, if David Tsubouchi weren't being kept incommunicado from what this process is -- I have grave concerns about that -- I'm confident that Mr Tsubouchi would be looking at this and be prepared to tell his parliamentary assistant -- maybe the PA is on the phone with David Tsubouchi now, but somehow, somewhere, I don't think so.
At the same time, the PA's got to know that if this bill doesn't pass committee by tomorrow at midnight, then this bill cannot be presented for third reading. Mr Tsubouchi will be in the House, where he's going to be obliged to answer questions, while this bill is still coming back to the committee two and three hours a week at a time. I predict, boy, as each day passes, that the number of amendments that can be proposed to this bill increases to the point where it's going to be -- boy, oh boy, it won't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever seeing daylight until at least 1997.
Why don't we do this now? Here's an amendment, and I would dearly love to have the endorsement of the minister. I'd clearly love to have a minister who was apprised of the situation, but for some reason the government and its henchmen don't. Poor Mr Tsubouchi. Where's David? He's being kept out of the loop.
I don't know if Mr Crozier's indicated to you, Chair; he's certainly indicated to me -- and I must say I'm not sure whether he's going to support this amendment. I understand. There's been some, I suppose, philosophical distinction, although we've been on side in terms of our opposition to slots, but some of the subtleties. You saw it yesterday with Mr Kennedy and myself, where I was prepared to support Mr Kennedy. But Jeez, there he was; he wasn't prepared to support me. But that's okay; I understand that.
I have yet to speak to his amendment. The clerk is distributing now a number of further amendments to section 2 which I shall be moving in due course. I have yet to speak to Mr Kennedy's amendment. I hope that I'll have the chance to speak to it as amended by mine, because I believe mine fleshes it out. I believe my amendment gives Mr Kennedy's amendment flesh and substance.
I'm urging people, I'm exhorting you to support this amendment. You will have served your communities well, you will have served your revolution well, you will have served the captain of your revolution well, you will have become true players in the cause of the revolution if you go so far as to say that pork-barrelling has no place in Ontario, if you continue to reject pork-barrelling, as you can by supporting this amendment, as you purported to reject it during the course of the last government and during the course of the Peterson government before that, unless you too have changed your minds about pork-barrelling, unless you too have changed your minds about crass political patronage, unless you too have changed your minds about the responsibility of opposition members to speak out loudly and clearly, as Bob Runciman did.
I remember Bob Runciman when the Liberals had their Bill 68. Bob Runciman was standing up there firm and hard, fighting in partnership with the other opposition party, which happened to be the New Democrats at the time, hard and fast against Bill 68. Bob Runciman was a person who stood up in opposition and took on government, and he did it when the New Democrats were there too. Just as I consider you very much a model for me, should I ever have the privilege of being a Chair, Bob Runciman is very much my hero. Much of what I do now is based on what I learned from Bob Runciman, and I'm grateful to Bob for that; I truly am. I was just a young guy elected here in 1988 and there was Bob Runciman standing firm, a member of a small party, the third party. It appeared that the cause was lost, but Runciman stood up and took on one of the biggest governments this province has ever seen. I was proud to stand beside Bob Runciman who in those days was a real Progressive Conservative.
I'm looking forward to hearing what the government has to say about this amendment because its constituents have a right to know where it stands too. Their constituents should know whether or not they support pork-barrelling or whether they support open appointments. The members of their ridings, the citizens in their communities have to know whether they're really revolutionaries or whether they're just renegade reactionaries trying to take us back into the last century instead of into the next. I count on them.
I'm proud that Mr Flaherty may well be on the phone now with Tsubouchi, but somehow I suspect he's far more likely to be on the phone to, oh, Tom Long than he is David Tsubouchi, or to the governor of New Jersey, because she's back from San Diego by now, I'm sure of that.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Ernie Eves.
Mr Kormos: Somebody's suggesting he'd be on the phone to Ernie. We know where Ernie stands on the issue. Ernie doesn't like slots. Ernie's fundamentally opposed to them. Ernie Eves thinks that slot machines bring crime, bring prostitution, bring social costs that may well outweigh whatever -- please, friends, that's what he believes, that's what he said. So I know Mr Flaherty isn't calling Ernie Eves.
I know he's not calling Mike Harris because, my God, Mike Harris fought the casinos of the last government -- well, the one casino; there was only one. He fought the casino at Windsor. He stood up and spoke out against them. Mike Harris had some very clear things to say about slot machines too -- that they were devious, insidious things. Mike Harris had strong things to say about the types of gambling regimes that are being introduced by this committee, notwithstanding the earnest and subtle efforts, because really they are subtle efforts, of the opposition.
I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't think he's on the phone to Ernie. He can't be on the phone to Mike.
Mr Sergio: It could be Vegas.
Mr Kormos: Ultimately that's where the real bosses are going to be -- Vegas; Atlantic City; Baton Rouge, Louisiana. That's the heartland of the type of organizations that manufacture, distribute and control these machines. It's the heartland of the places in North America that want to peddle these to people under the guise of entertainment.
So you're right, sir. Maybe Mr Flaherty's on the phone to Vegas. To which mob boss I don't know. He won't come clean. He won't answer questions. He shrugs and says, "I don't know." If you ask Mr Flaherty questions, he says, "I don't know." We ask him to bring Mr Tsubouchi here; he says: "I can't. I won't." He won't even talk to Mr Tsubouchi about what's going on here. Mr Tsubouchi's being kept in the dark. As it is today, gentlemen, please support this amendment.
Mr Crozier, I defer to you. There may well be issues raised by Mr Crozier or by the Conservative members that I'll feel compelled to respond to. I hope they don't raise matters that I feel compelled to respond to because, Lord knows, we want this to move along. But I know that Mr Crozier wanted to speak to it. Thank you kindly, Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Kormos. The committee welcomes Mr Sergio to our activities here. Mr Crozier has the floor.
1500
Mr Crozier: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this amendment. Mr Kormos's amendment has raised some very interesting points, notwithstanding the fact that I spoke earlier in favour of Mr Kennedy's amendment to section 2, that we appoint someone in the field of public health or charitable organizations. I spoke in favour of that, yet Mr Kormos's amendment brings a whole new dimension to the discussion. Mr Kormos, by the end of my comments I hope I will be able to decide whether it's better to support your amendment or the other amendment, but I'll try and decide as I go along.
Mr Kormos: I'm going to listen carefully, sir. Please don't go quickly because I want to make notes.
Mr Crozier: What has been raised is that -- I refer back to comments that Mr Kormos has made as well -- I think that Minister Tsubouchi would be interested to be here and hear this debate because the appointment of the commission sets the whole tone for the bill.
It's interesting how we've been on the road for three weeks now and have been guided very well by the Chair, and comments by the parliamentary assistant have been helpful. But little note has been made of some of the small parts of this bill. One would normally look at the big picture, look at issues like slot machines that are disturbing to all of us, and might overlook a couple of little paragraphs, as we have here in subsection 2(2), "The commission shall have a board of directors consisting of the members appointed under subsection (3)," and it goes on to say, "All of the members of the board, of whom there shall be at least five, shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."
That seems pretty innocent, so we don't pay a lot of attention to that. I suppose a lot of other bills that we deal with have very much the same wording in them. Yet Mr Kormos has brought an interesting, innovative and democratic idea to us, that we should consider inserting the words "by a tripartite committee of the Legislature." That, when you reflect on it, is probably one of the better ways to handle this situation. Let me suggest why that might be the case.
During the committee hearings we had the opportunity to hear what I entered in the record on several occasions: some excerpts from a paper called "Hardly a Quick Fix: Casino Gambling in Canada," by L.E. Henriksson of Vancouver. In that paper Mr Henriksson refers to the selection of regulatory officials, because that's really what we're looking at here: the process under which we're going to select the officials who are going to set the tone of how this new commission operates. This paper says:
"Policymakers must decide who should regulate the operation of," in this case, "casinos," but I think that can be taken in a broader sense of the liquor and gaming commission. "Other jurisdictions have found that professional capacity and technical expertise are needed to confront the complex policy issues.... However, the use of experts as regulators is not without problems. Although detailed firsthand expertise on gambling will tend to reside among those who are financially supported by the industry to one extent or another" -- that was in a study by Simurda in 1994 and I emphasize that; in other words, vested interests, and he's cautioning about that -- "the overuse of those individuals will make it difficult to prevent current or future conflicts of interest...."
That brings me back to Mr Kormos's amendment, because I think in part -- he may want to comment on this -- he's saying that with a tripartite committee, with a committee of dedicated, elected, responsible officials, that committee might better be able to avoid someone who is "financially supported by the industry to one extent or another." That's partly what we're afraid of here.
Many of you will know, and some may not so I'd just like to review it very briefly for you, that we have at the present time A Guide to Agencies, Boards and Commissions. This one was published in 1995 and was sent out by the Premier's office in August last year. The Premier's office was pleased to provide us with a copy of this publication. I want to point out here that there is a system in place now by which appointees to agencies, boards and commissions are made. When I say "system," it's a process that has its flaws. It outlines here how you apply, whether you're applying for a schedule 1 agency, a schedule 2 agency or what type of agency you're applying for, so the process is all laid out.
Like these little words here that say, "The commission shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council," it all seems very innocent, but I sit on the government agencies committee and I think Mr Kormos has struck on something here that can even be fairer than that committee is. If you're not familiar with the process, the orders in council come from the Premier's office, hundreds of appointments, political appointments I think for the most part, partisan appointments, patronage appointments.
When we're talking about these kinds of appointments, I'm reminded of when Brian Mulroney was elected. Do you remember Brian Mulroney? He's still in the paper fighting battles with the people of Canada. He wants -- what? -- $50 million of our money now, I think. When Brian Mulroney was elected Prime Minister, a person I know very well was appointed to a board of one of the major transportation companies in Canada, so I called him and congratulated him on the appointment. He was quick to say, "This is no patronage appointment." He was qualified, not in transportation but certainly as far as a director of a company. He said, "This is no patronage appointment." I said: "Look, don't worry. I understand. I understand how the system works. All I want to do is, when the government changes, I want you to teach me well so I can then take your place."
1510
We all know how the system works and we try and put in place things like the appointments secretariat and we --
Mr Flaherty: At least he didn't make his nephew ambassador to Washington.
Mr Guzzo: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Do you really want to talk about the Prime Minister making his nephew ambassador to Washington?
The Chair: I think you've wandered a little off topic, Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: No, not at all. I'm talking about what the best method is to appoint people to positions of power and I was only using an example. I'm sure there are many others and I acknowledged that I understood the system. It's the sham that sometimes is put forward to let people believe there is another system, and I think that's what Mr Kormos's motion is getting to. It can be truly a tripartite committee. What we have now with the government agencies committee is seven members of the government, three members of the official opposition and two members of the third party. It doesn't matter what appointments come before the board; save two -- I'll give the government credit on two of those -- they pass. In fact, the whip of that committee, Mr Wood -- it's in Hansard -- acknowledged during one of the committee meetings that yes, they're political appointments and more or less said, "What are you going to do about it?" This gets to that. I think this is an opportunity, as Mr Kormos has proposed, to do something a little different.
What happens on the government agencies committee, and what would happen with appointments to the liquor and gaming commission, is that a couple of the political people in the Premier's office would review some names, these would pass through the government office, they would be brought before the cabinet, they would be issued in orders of council and the government agencies committee would have an opportunity to interview those appointments and concur on the appointments. But the interesting thing is that it doesn't matter a hoot what the government agencies committee does. If the whole committee decided to vote against the appointment the Premier could still have it continue through.
It's a process that has no teeth, much as one of the government members mentioned yesterday, who felt this whole process over the last three weeks has had no teeth. I choose to hope differently from that.
I said I would give two examples of where that process for whatever reason worked. There was an appointment to a particular board that raised the eyebrows of even the government committee, but rather than vote against it the name was withdrawn, and I think in this case appropriately so.
When we say we have a system in place now that's transparent, that's not really the case and I think this amendment would go to assisting that in some way. Not only is it important whom we appoint to these boards and the qualifications, the integrity and the honesty -- we're going to get a chance to speak to that in section 3, where these appointees have to act in accordance with the principles of honesty, integrity and social responsibility -- not only do we have to be careful that we appoint those kinds of individuals, but we have to consider other ramifications of the appointments we're making.
For example, and I don't know whether this will change, because the Ontario Gaming Control Commission and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario will change, but it would perhaps interest you to know that at the present time the gaming control commission administers the act and its regulations "in the public interest and in accordance with the principles" -- here it is again -- "of honesty and integrity."
So when the appointments are made to this liquor and gaming commission, for what I suggest will probably be the same remuneration as they're presently being paid, $200 per day -- gee, that's pretty good. I was quite willing to give up the $76 per diem that we used to get for sitting on committees in intersession because I figure I'm adequately paid for what I do throughout the rest of the year, but look at this. It's $200 a day. They're paid almost three times what committee members used to be paid in the intersession.
Then on the Liquor Control Board of Ontario at the present time -- and again, we're going to amalgamate these -- with their added responsibility, they may even be paid more per day, because certainly their responsibility is going to be almost doubled when they have not only liquor or alcohol or ethyl alcohol to be concerned about but they're going to have gaming. They're going to have to attempt the control and the distribution of these insidious little slot machines, so I think their responsibility is going to be increased considerably, and therefore the work that they're going to have to do.
But the liquor control board at the present time pays its appointees, other than the full-time chair, Andy Brandt, a nice fellow whom I've never known in the Legislature but who, I understand from those who worked with him, was an honourable person -- but the regular members of that board are paid $100 a day. So here we've got the gaming control commission presently being paid $200 a day and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario appointees being paid $100 a day.
By the way, the function of the liquor control board, I suggest, will probably remain somewhat the same. It regulates the sale and transportation of liquor for home consumption and liquor sales to licensed establishments through board stores and Brewers Retail and winery outlets of Ontario. They're paid $100 a day for that. We've got the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, and I think it's a good part of Bill 75 where it's trying to consolidate some of the regulatory functions of these boards and commissions and separate that from the sales side.
But my point is, back to the amendment, that it's important that we have in place a method of appointing members of these boards and commissions who have principles of honesty and integrity. I think a good way to do that is with a tripartite committee of the Legislature, because who could be fairer than that? Even though, to some extent, that doesn't satisfy the original amendment that we're talking to, I think it could be a result of it, because probably this tripartite committee would have the knowledge and the will to take into consideration all those different members of society that we need appointed to these boards.
In fact, I think it was one of these that even said that one of these boards and commissions -- and you just have to give me a second, because they had a good way of expressing how it should involve various members of the community. I won't hold us up, because I can't lay my finger on that right now, but they often say under membership just what fine people it is they want to have and what --
Mr Guzzo: Take your time to find it.
Mr Crozier: If you wouldn't mind, sure.
Mr Guzzo: It's the most intelligent thing I've heard you say since I've been here.
Mr Crozier: I'll take a little while. You know, sir, you haven't been very complimentary to me at any time in these meetings. Frankly, I've gotten to the point where what Mr Guzzo says can't hurt me. I don't always share his opinion. In fact, at one point, he even suggested I didn't share his intelligence. But, you know, that doesn't matter much to me. The people in Essex South are happy, and they're really the only ones that I have to keep happy, so what Mr Guzzo says to me doesn't matter much any more.
I like to listen to what other members of this committee have to say, though, although we've only had one member of the government speak up on this bill. The rest of the time it's been the kind of comments that Mr Guzzo has made that are rather uncomplimentary. But what the heck, I consider where they're coming from.
1520
Mr Clement: Let's get to the substance of this.
Mr Crozier: That's what I'm trying to do, but had you or Mr Guzzo not interjected --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: -- I probably could do that, because I'm talking about the quality of people who are appointed to these boards and commissions. That's all I'm getting at.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Crozier. Did you --
Mr Crozier: I'm back to it now.
The Chair: Oh, you're back to it? Okay.
Mr Crozier: It was the interjections that kind of took me off guard.
What we're trying to do is to set up a method of appointing members to the commission who will be above reproach, who will not be, as it says here, officials who might be influenced by those who have a vested interest. I think Mr Kormos may have hit on something here, because again, the way the government agencies committee works now -- and I think one or two of the members of the government who are here today have sat in on the committee at one time or another -- all it really does is give us an opportunity to bring someone before the committee and it has little effect on whether they're going to be eventually approved and put on this commission. I think it's important that we have the quality of people appointed to these boards who will work with principles of honesty and integrity and social responsibility.
As I pointed out to Mr Kormos when I started this, I think that because he's come up with such a novel idea and one that seems eminently fair to me, I would be prepared to support this amendment. I'm not sure how the committee is going to treat the amendment to section 2 that's been put forward by Mr Kennedy, and I think in the context of this that we can be satisfied as well. So I would support this amendment, and if, as you have stated, save one, you're open-minded, you're open for suggestions, I would encourage the government to support this amendment as well.
The Chair: The committee welcomes Mr Curling, but unfortunately, Mr Curling, Mr Johnson and Mr Kormos have requested the opportunity to speak and unless they defer to you, you're third.
Mr Kormos: I defer to Mr Curling, of course.
The Chair: Mr Johnson?
Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): I don't.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): That's all right. I'll wait.
Mr Ron Johnson: I'm only going to be a second, Mr Chair, and I ask for some latitude. Given the latitude that other members have had, I expect that I could have about a minute just to clarify this. There was a request made by Mr Ramsay earlier with respect to Bill Davis and Marshall Pollock and the connection there.
The Chair: You're not speaking to the amendment.
Mr Ron Johnson: I can speak to the amendment if you wish, and I'll just work this in.
The Chair: That material has been distributed. I was going to do that at some pause. But you must speak to the amendment. I've tried to guide other members in speaking to the amendment. We have the amendment before us and that is what you shall speak to.
Mr Clement: A point of order, Mr Chairman: As the member for Brampton South, am I to take it that your ruling is that my colleague from Brantford cannot enter into the record that there is no connection that was deemed to be found between Marshall Pollock and William Davis?
The Chair: No, he can enter that in at the appropriate moment. This isn't the appropriate moment. Mr Johnson.
Mr Kormos: What about slots and the mob? Is there no connection between slots and the mob? That's what we really want to know.
Mr Ron Johnson: Mr Chair, I will defer to Mr Curling and I will make my point that there has been no connection between the two later on.
Mr Kormos: Show us your research.
The Chair: Mr Curling.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Curling has the floor; some courtesy.
Mr Curling: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I'm happy to speak on this amendment, which I think is extremely important in the democratic process. As we know, the common sense this government brings forward likes to see that it is fair and very democratic. I know that in the past I have sat on committees that are trying to appoint people to boards and commissions and we've always had the problem and the concerns, especially of the members of the Conservative Party who felt that most of these appointments are not being done in a proper way. When we say "appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council," we find that some minister or so would like to have a friend in their constituency appointed and he should come before us and it's a done deal. We hope that this kind of done deal stuff is all over and done with and that we can start now to appoint proper people to boards, especially on this very important board dealing with alcohol and gambling and gaming, as a matter of fact, that we have people with honesty, we have people, of course, with principles and integrity and social responsibility.
Now who should judge those? Is it one party that should do this or should it be a group of people selected from all three parties who would make a presentation and make that kind of selection? I would go very much so that that's the way it should go, more than have it being done by the Lieutenant Governor.
The record of this government is to push things through and do it their way or no way, and you know the consequence of that, Mr Chairman. You were, as a matter of fact, concerned when all that was happening in Bill 26, that the people should participate, even those who are elected should participate. What an opportunity you have now in which to do that. The amendments to this are quite important. It sends a very clear signal that not only when we're dealing with things like alcohol and gaming do we have people with all those principles, who have those qualities. That is why I think it's so important that we cannot rush this thing at all. We shouldn't really rush and we should make sure that these things are done in the proper way.
If you folks are convinced that this is the way it should be done -- you know, they use the term quite often, Mr Chairman, the "status quo." "The status quo is not working, so we must change the status quo." Okay, here's an opportunity now. The status quo of appointments to boards and commissions in the normal way of whether someone is from your riding association or someone had contributed very heavily to the party -- "Well, here is what we can do to pay off one of the brothers or the sisters." No, I don't think that's the way because this is too much of an important issue, too much of an important agency and board to serve on to do it in that manner.
Here is an opportunity now that I want to support very strongly, that a new system be set up that in a way, as the amendment -- and you know the amendment has been read, which was moved by Mr Kennedy and was amended, subsection 2(2) of the schedule, deleting under subsection (3) and inserting the words "by a tripartite committee of the Legislature for the purpose of appointing members of the board of directors of the commission."
If any one of the members over there would argue or would want to contribute later on to that amendment, I will gladly support them, because I know they will see the common sense in it. Since they throw the word around, it's a democratic way of doing things. Let us move the status quo in a different direction, as you say.
I'm coming out of another meeting in which they're throwing around the same thing, dealing with the rent control situation, and they want to make sure that everyone participates and everyone contributes, because laws are made for the people and by the people. This is a matter of confidence of the people that you'll be earning by making sure a tripartite committee does these sort of appointments to the commission. We have gone through some very, very difficult times where we have seen boards and commissions which are extremely ineffective.
The reason for that: We found that people were not qualified to carry out the duties. We found that some of the people lacked integrity and honesty. We want to make sure this does not happen.
1530
Let me tell you why it is important, especially for this one. Let's look at gaming, which is really gambling. We know it's quite addictive, and I'll deal with alcohol a little later on. Many people who are at the casinos or wherever they are find that they're just going for a little fun, just one little fun, to have some recreation.
Later on, from that point of view, they found that the grocery money went. They found later on that not only the mortgage money went, but that they'd gambled the house away. They gamble the lives of their children and their wives and the whole purpose of survival is all down the drain, and no one is there who's looking after the welfare of those individuals. Committees like these have to have individuals who are quite sensitive, who have the kind of integrity and honesty and the principles to carry that out.
It is important, and right now we are so hungry and so eager to get some bucks to pay off some debts that we'll do anything. We're going to legalize everything. We're going to legalize gambling so we can get some quick bucks because it's a good amount of money. I recall when we had the first nations people who were doing some of their gambling up there and how people were so upset about it, and all of a sudden it's legal now so it's okay for everyone to gamble. If that is okay, we have to have proper policies, proper regulations, proper monitoring of that issue. If we're going to appoint people to those boards, we must be extremely careful about this.
Let me just mention a bit why it's important, because that's on the gaming side. I can go on for days about the addiction aspect of that. Many people are hooked. I was down in Windsor the other day and I peeped into the casino. I didn't see any big wheelers or rich people. I saw ordinary people who are, when I spoke to them, day to day trying their best to make ends meet, hoping the big day will come true. We've got to make sure this legislation is properly monitored.
Alcohol, one of the biggest destroyers of some social fabric in our society -- I'll tell you, if you think that cigarette smoking is bad, check alcohol. It broke up families. The health bills --
Mr Ron Johnson: Is that to the amendment, Mr Chairman, alcohol? Is that to the amendment?
The Chair: Technically, we're talking about the composition of a board, and that board will deal with both gambling and alcohol, and it is on the peripheral edge of the subject.
Mr Curling: I don't think it's such a peripheral at all. As a matter of fact, I'm glad I woke up the honourable member. If you were listening before, you would realize it wouldn't be on the peripheral. It's really a part of it, you see.
Mr Ron Johnson: Where have you been for three weeks? You haven't even been here.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Curling has the floor and please proceed, sir.
Mr Curling: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I'm glad that --
Mr Ron Johnson: Self-righteous crap.
Mr Crozier: I think we've all made substitutions.
Mr Curling: Yes. In regard to alcohol, as I was saying, if we're going to have a board to look after those legislations, look after the monitoring and the management of this extremely important issue, we must keep in mind that alcohol, as I said, is one of the greatest destroyers of our society, one of the greatest costs to our health system, and how we distribute it, how we handle it and what level of alcohol, what percentage within any sort of drinks is very important. The fact is that we have to be extremely careful. We cannot make this a political issue. We cannot make this a partisan issue. It's an issue that comes to the core and the heart of all society. If we decide that we should appoint members of this board, we must make sure that the character, the quality of that individual is one we can rest assured understands the issues.
One of the things we should be doing, before we even do this appointing, is we should go and talk to Alcoholics Anonymous and Gamblers Anonymous, visit them, ask them some of the implications and some of the challenges they face, then ask them what type of individuals should be on these kinds of boards. They could sit you down, because of their years of experience in dealing with and seeing these issues from all angles, and be able to tell you, those who will be monitoring this board and those who will be looking at the situation, to make sure this happens and to make sure that happens, because in the past this is what has been happening to our society.
They will tell you how families have been destroyed because of alcohol. Also, of course, they can tell you some of the benefits of alcohol. I'm not yet quite sure of the great benefits of alcohol. I presume there are some benefits of alcohol. I'm not a drinker, so I really can't expound on many of the great facts of alcohol. But I know, of course, there's great use for it.
They will be able to tell you, Alcoholics Anonymous, over the years and years what has happened. They will tell you that they have seen families that were secure and doing very well; then one individual not only destroyed the family because they spent all the money buying alcohol, but there was the psychological pressure that was placed, the assault that was placed on the family. Young ones have left home because they can't deal with a parent who is an alcoholic. They've also seen young ones who at the age of 12 or 13 have turned to alcohol and destroyed their lives and their health.
We must make sure then that those on that board understand that kind of issue. We must make sure that when we speak of the high costs of health care, if we can look within health care and find out how much money's been paid out because someone's liver has been destroyed because of alcohol. The high cost of health care which we are talking about today, closing down hospitals and all that because of the cost: You'd be surprised at the cost of what alcohol has done to our society. As I said, I'm not only speaking of the health costs, I'm talking about the psychological destruction of families.
I want very much, before you move ahead on this issue, that you say to yourself, "I have checked with Alcoholics Anonymous, I have checked with those individuals who have dealt with this issue for so long." They will say to you, "Since you insist on proceeding, there must be reputable people on this board."
In regard to gaming, I just want to mention one more time about -- go back to gaming. It's a new thing now in this province, gaming. It's new that they're going to legalize it, and they're expanding it.
Mr Flaherty: You brought it in in the 1980s. The Liberals brought it in. Monte Carlo nights. What do you mean now?
Mr Ron Johnson: Self-righteous crap.
Mr Curling: Rattling the cages over there, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: I'm sure Mr Curling acknowledges he was part of the government that brought gaming to the province, but --
Mr Curling: And I'm sure that I must have touched -- I hope you're not visiting the gaming house and destroying everybody's family there.
We may talk about who introduced it. It reminds me of rent control. Everybody over there is saying: "Oh, I didn't introduce it. I was forced by the NDP." That's what the Tories are saying, and the Liberals have carried it on. Then the Tories say, "Well, we'll kill it."
1540
Now, listen, we're not talking about that. We're talking about people's lives. We're talking about people's lives, about alcohol and about gaming. This is what Mr Chairman wanted me to come back to and I'm right back at it. Forget about putting the blame, because that's all you do, put the blame and not do the right thing. I want you to do the right thing. Do the right thing here. I want you to do the right thing.
As a matter of fact, I have a little bit of disappointment too. I'm disappointed the minister is not here because I want this to be heard, not read. I want this --
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Curling has the floor.
Mr Curling: They seem to be restless here.
Mr Kormos: You struck a nerve, Alvin.
Mr Curling: Yes. I would have liked the minister to be here because I feel passionate about this. I'm trying to get through to these gentlemen over there, the members of the caucus. I know you say "please" about gentlemen. It's rather difficult, but I'm using the word rather loosely.
I wanted to get through to the minister because when I was a minister I sat and listened to the concerns closely, because I didn't want any bureaucrat telling me what to do. The bureaucrats are paid, of course, and do a hell of a good job. They are paid to carry out some of the direction and leadership of ministers or a government. The lack of leadership we're seeing here makes the job of the bureaucrat more difficult. I say too that if you don't appoint proper people to these agencies, it makes the job more difficult. It makes it much more difficult. If you appoint people, as I said, because they live in your riding or because they have knocked at so many doors for you in the campaign, it's wrong. You're dealing with people's lives, and I had hoped the minister would be here for me to tell him directly.
Mr Crozier: Tsubouchi's in hiding.
Mr Kormos: Which minister?
Mr Curling: Who is the minister today? I don't know, they're changing them. Tsubouchi. He's on the briefing, I presume. I could caution them that I hope that if the bureaucrats are right and they're lying for Tsubouchi --
The Chair: I think you're getting a little off topic.
Mr Curling: I've said I would like the minister to be here to listen to --
The Chair: Yes, but that is not what we're dealing with. We're dealing with an amendment put forth by --
Interjections.
The Chair: Gentlemen. Mr Flaherty and Mr Kormos, could I have your attention? Mr Curling, we're dealing with the amendment. Please proceed.
Mr Curling: The reason I raised the minister was because I thought he would have been interested in this amendment.
The Chair: Yes, but it has nothing to do with this particular amendment.
Mr Curling: Nothing to do with him?
The Chair: If you'd confine yourself to the amendment, I'd appreciate it.
Mr Curling: It is the amendment. Let's put it this way: I hope that he reads the amendment and that he can see the emotion and the passion, in reading the Hansard, about how I feel about this and how it should be done, about how he should support this, because I know -- you and I know, Mr Chairman, that no matter what I say here, they have closed their ears to this and they will vote, one, two, three, four, five. They say: "We can outnumber them. We don't have to listen."
This amendment is important, and I'm appealing -- this is difficult now -- to the hearts of the Conservatives. This is more difficult. I'm appealing to the minds of the Conservatives. This is more difficult. I hope that if I can even get to the minds of them -- I'd better leave it to the hearts. It's difficult, but I'll try to get to the hearts of the Conservatives because in the way things are being done these days, the amendment here, which is the heart of society, who serves on the board, they will then say it doesn't matter if we have five or six over there and over here only have three to vote on it, that he said: "You know what? We have to have the right people on this board. We've got to make sure they're honest. We've got to make sure that they have integrity, to make sure that they understand the issue, that they make sure about all of this, because if we are not, the problem --
Mr Clement: You're going to appoint Patti Starr again?
Interjections.
Mr Curling: You want me to bring up --
Mr Ron Johnson: Come on, bring her out, mention her name into that mike.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Curling has the floor.
Mr Ron Johnson: You're a coward. That's what you are.
Mr Curling: I'm a coward.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Curling has the floor.
Mr Curling: I'm saying to you, where is the integrity? I want to search for the hearts and the integrity of those people over there.
I want to say to you, if you are leaders and if you are concerned about this issue as deeply as I am and my colleagues over here are, what you would do, you'd search and, if you find yourself a heart then say: "I think he's right. I'll go beyond all of that and I will make sure the people who serve on these boards are individuals who have those qualities."
I appeal to the members. Although they are heckling over there, I'm appealing to them that we both be leaders, be sensitive, have a heart, have a conscience, have some common sense as you search for it. Have some of that and say to yourselves, "I will appoint a tripartite group of the three parties' selection of one, maybe three individuals who will make these appointments."
That I sat on committees like that, these appointments. I sat and people have come in here and I asked them what is it they're being appointed to. Do you know, Mr Chairman, they did not know? They didn't even know the board they're being appointed to, much less to understand the issue. I'm saying that at times even no matter how we speak to those individuals, the government of the day, because it had been arranged, will say, "That's one you vote for." They'll be given their marching orders who to appoint on that board. The minister will not consult with you. The only time the minister will consult with them is when he said, "Do you have anybody who'd like to serve on a board?" He said, "So-and-so will be happy to serve on a board. Just give me your name because we need some on that board." That's not the way to run a country; that's not the way to run a province; that's not the way to run a government. So I want to appeal to you all, do the right thing.
Interjection.
Mr Curling: Am I boring you?
Mr Ron Johnson: Oh, you betcha.
Mr Curling: It seems to me --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Curling, you're not here to ask questions. Please proceed with your presentation.
Mr Ron Johnson: No question about it.
Mr Kormos: It's a rhetorical question.
Mr Curling: Yes. I wasn't asking a question, it was rhetorical, sir.
Interjections.
Mr Curling: Am I boring the Conservative members there? It seems so because what has happened to them is that they're not focused on the issue. They're not focused. They came here just to carry through the orders of the minister and just to carry through the orders of the day.
Mr Ron Johnson: Where have you been for three weeks?
Mr Curling: While the member asks me where have I been for three weeks --
Mr Crozier: He's an elected member. He can sit in any time he wants.
Mr Ron Johnson: Sure he can. Absolutely.
Mr Curling: I was doing --
Mr Ron Johnson: He can't pretend that he heard all the submissions --
Mr Curling: -- reading most of these presentations and reading the legislation and following in detail what is happening here, being concerned about the people of Ontario, being concerned about how this gaming thing will be managed, how this alcohol thing will be managed. I was concerned.
So what I was doing for three weeks -- I don't ask the other members what they were doing. I am sure every single one of them was reading this legislation in detail. I am sure they were listening and they were visiting many people who have been impacted by this legislation and I'm sure, as they are sure that I am doing the same thing, doing the work of the people of Ontario, making sure that we have proper legislation, making sure of course that we get the best law for the people, and this amendment will do that. So I'm going to ask you for your support and I know you will. I know you will. You have a heart; find one. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Curling, and I hope you can stay with us for the remainder of our sittings today because this is a very difficult working committee.
Mr Curling: I serve the people.
1550
Mr Kormos: I appreciate the comments that Mr Curling and Mr Crozier had to make to this amendment. I know we can count on Mr Curling to be here later tonight, be it 11 pm or 1 am. By God, he's done it before and I'm confident he'll do it again.
I found it particularly noteworthy, and I feel compelled -- you know I don't like to needlessly argue the point -- as a result of issues raised by Mr Crozier and Mr Curling -- and I should say this: I'm pleased to see Mr Curling here. He's not obliged to be here. I know his whip didn't send him here. He of course has no vote on the committee but, notwithstanding that, he comes to this committee out of interest in the issue, recognizing that his party, in association with the other opposition party, is resisting a very powerful trend, a very powerful movement, a very powerful lobby, and powerful in a multitude of ways -- not just economically powerful, but powerful in terms of brute force I suggest too.
I admire Mr Curling and I welcome --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos. I don't personally see -- no doubt you can try to explain to me the relationship between what you're talking about now and your amendment.
Mr Kormos: You know, sometimes one has to lay a little groundwork. I admire --
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Kormos: I have to respond to what Mr Curling had to say.
The Chair: Please respond to what he said rather than dealing with the personality.
Mr Kormos: Mr Curling raises issues about the history of appointments and that sort of thing here in the province of Ontario and not -- quorum, please, Chair. We need a quorum.
The Chair: Could I have a quorum count?
Mr Kormos: Now we've got one. We didn't have a quorum there and now we've got one. I don't know why the government, with all the participation --
Mr Flaherty: You're going to start talking about that? We're going to start talking about how many of your members sat in on the hearings.
Mr Kormos: -- all the members they've got on this side, can't maintain a quorum. My God, Chair.
Mr Flaherty: Don't get into that. Where are the members of the New Democratic Party?
Mr Kormos: I was there. Did you want any more than me?
The Chair: Gentlemen, Mr Kormos has the floor.
Mr Kormos: How many did you want there, Mr Flaherty?
Mr Flaherty: I'd like to have the one who made the agreement to finish the hearings today, Marion Boyd.
Mr Kormos: Oh, that's not true. You're full of it.
The Chair: Gentlemen.
Mr Kormos: You're full of it.
Mr Flaherty: The agreement that you're breaching.
Mr Kormos: No, I'm not breaching anything. You're breaching your trust with the people of this province by your partnership with the mob to put slot machines in every corner of every neighbourhood in this province.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Don't give me lectures on integrity. You guys have already been corrupted. You're in the back pockets of organized crime. You're interested only in the profits that --
The Chair: Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: -- and your minister doesn't give a tinker's dam. Your minister doesn't even know what's going on. Your minister has no idea what's going on.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Flaherty, Mr Kormos has the floor. And again you have used unparliamentary innuendo, Mr Kormos. I point that out to you. That's about the eighth time. I've made my views clear and you know. If you would proceed, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I've got no respect for organized crime. I've got no respect for the proposition of 20,000 slot machines --
The Chair: Mr Kormos, you are dealing with your amendment. Please proceed.
Mr Kormos: I've got a lot of regard for the comments that Mr Curling made about this amendment. Mr Curling notes, and he emphasizes, that we're talking not just about the regulation of what has the potential to be the most corruptible gaming scheme, gambling scheme, these 20,000 slots, we're not talking any more about just the bingo parlours, we're not talking any more about Ontario Lottery Corp, although that's become mammoth in its own right; we're talking now about the most corruptible and historically corrupted form of gambling that can ever be introduced to a jurisdiction, and that is slot machines.
The report from Corporal Brian Kelly of the Fredericton police indicates that historically the supply of slot machines and video lottery terminals is from organized crime. His unit with the Fredericton police department -- and he's in the criminal intelligence unit -- indicates that machines are manufactured in the United States by businesses owned by organized crime families and then shipped to Canada and sold to crime figures here. That's what we're dealing with.
Mr Curling accompanied that observation with his observation -- this has been noted before -- that this isn't just the regulation and control of gambling and gaming, it's also the new regime for the regulation and control of alcohol. Mr Curling makes reference again to the insidiousness of alcohol as a drug which carries with it incredible social cost. We've already seen this government, without consultation -- other than tavern owners, I have no doubt about that -- expand last call through to 2 am, without consultation.
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): What's that got to do with this motion here?
Mr Kormos: It's got plenty to do, because I'm talking about the quality of people that are going to be called upon to serve as a part of this regulatory body, the commission.
As I say, I've got more amendments to section 2 to come. But I want to make reference -- because Mr Crozier, by referring to the Guide to Agencies, Boards and Commissions, the most recent one, 1995, speaks -- and this is what I asked Mr Flaherty earlier today, about what was in mind. Because surely the government's so hasty about this that it's got to have somebody in mind for this commission. Clearly they're resisting the proposition of a tripartite committee so rigidly, so rigorously, that they've got to have something in mind, because they want this to be up and running.
I take a look at the agencies, boards and commissions directory and take a look at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, for example. I just picked that at random. It describes the function of OISE. Mr Flaherty knows that. Then it speaks to membership. Here it's interesting:
"The Lieutenant Governor in Council appoints the director of OISE and 34 members as follows: three representatives of Ontario teacher-training institutions, two representatives of the University of Toronto, two representatives of provincially assisted Ontario universities, four representatives of the Ministry of Education and Training" --
The Chair: Mr Kormos, you are speaking to a motion that has already been defeated, where you listed a number of qualifications. What you're dealing with right now is your motion to --
Mr Kormos: No, Chair, I'm talking about --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos, just let me complete -- dealing with a tripartite committee. I'd ask you to speak to that motion.
Mr Kormos: Is the Chair getting a little cranky? Because if it is, I beg the Chair's indulgence.
The Chair: No, I'm not getting cranky at all. I'm just trying to get you to speak to the motion.
Mr Kormos: I don't want the Chair to get cranky, because then it's going to be much more difficult.
In view of the fact that the government defeated my earlier amendment, this speaks exactly to why, because the government doesn't have a schema or guideline -- it doesn't. That's exactly why we need this tripartite representation on the board. That's why we need it, because I'm trying to illustrate what is the norm.
Clearly the government has an agenda which is hidden and secretive, as hidden away as David Tsubouchi is. Did you see that movie with Terence Stamp, The Collector? That's probably the type of location where David Tsubouchi's in right now, being held without contact with the rest of the world. I read that book, it was a little scary, like so many Rod Serling films. I've seen those too.
You see, you've got OISE, and I'm just trying to illustrate what the need here is. We've got OISE with "four representatives of the Ministry of Education and Training, six representatives of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, four representatives of the Ontario School Trustees' Council, three representatives of provincial associations of directors of education, school superintendents and inspectors, six Ontario residents and four members of the administrative and instructional staff of OISE."
Okay, enough said. That's what's lacking in this legislation. The government had the opportunity to approve or at least to begin to work -- because I was waiting for amendments to my amendment from the government on my last motion. They chose neither to deliver amendments, to deliver a scheme or schema that's similar to what we have for OISE.
1600
Again, OISE isn't alone. I'm just flipping at random here. Oh, let's see. Ah, district health councils. Let me illustrate the gap in this legislation, and that is that with district health councils -- once again, we've been through this in the government agencies committee; Mr Crozier has suffered more of it than I have, because I've been relieved of sitting on it. Not really, but I'm being subbed for by whomever while I'm here.
"The Lieutenant Governor in Council appoints the members and a chair selected from a list of nominees submitted by the district health council. The maximum number of members is shown in the section on membership under each council."
Once again, there is a regime there. In this case they have a section of requirements for the sorts of people who are nominated.
"Consumers and health care providers make up approximately 40% of the membership. Twenty per cent of the membership is nominees of the local government. Consumers are interested citizens or may or may not be involved in consumer groups, community action groups, labour, business or industry. Health care providers are either health professionals, health care professionals who receive all or part of their income directly from health care delivery, or employees or board members of health agencies or institutions involved in policy development. Nominees of local governments may or may not be elected officials, and are liaisons for communicating the local government's concerns about health planning."
That's district health councils, an illustration why the absence of those sorts of criteria, guidelines, standards is very relevant to this amendment, which, in lieu of or in the absence of there being any clear guidelines, clearly calls for multipartisanship, which in effect makes it a non-partisan proposition.
I don't want government members to think that I'm being selective here in the sorts of examples or scenarios I select. Let's see. Oh look, the Grievance Settlement Board. Once again, this illustrates how important it is that there be a tripartite committee in the absence of any guidelines for membership. The defeat of my last amendment cried out for this motion, this amendment. Here we have the Grievance Settlement Board. They describe their function. I think it's important to consider that in the context of things.
"The board adjudicates rights disputes between the employee organization and the employer. Disputes involve matters such as dismissals, suspensions and other forms of discipline, working conditions and classifications. Policy grievances between the employee organization and the employer may require the board to interpret the provisions contained in collective agreements. The board provides mediation services to assist the parties in reaching a settlement without resorting to adjudication."
Membership is what's important. This is what government members have to consider, please, in considering this amendment, because I don't want these government members to be in any way caught off guard. I don't want them to feel that they've been bushwhacked by any lack of background or information.
"Membership: The composition and administration of the board is jointly determined by the crown in right of Ontario and the unions representing crown employees or, if the two parties cannot reach an agreement, by the chair of the Grievance Settlement Board. It is composed of a chair, one or more vice-chairs and an equal number of members representing the crown employees that are represented by a trade union and members representing the crown in right of Ontario. The Lieutenant Governor in Council appoints the chair, the vice-chairs and members. Members" -- this is the important part -- "are selected in the following manner" -- that's why this amendment is crucial -- "The chair is selected by the crown and the trade unions, or if agreement cannot be reached, by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; vice-chairs are selected by the crown and the trade unions or by the chair of the Grievance Settlement Board if agreement cannot be reached; members representing employees are selected by the trade unions or by the chair of the Grievance Settlement Board if agreement is not reached and members representing the crown are selected by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or his/her delegate. If the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the delegate does not select the members representing the crown, the chair of the Grievance Settlement Board will select them. A panel of the board consists of the chair or a vice-chair, one member representing the employees and one member representing the crown. However, the chair or a vice-chair may be authorized to sit alone, where appropriate, on the agreement of the parties."
Once again, you have a board with a very specific schema. The government chooses to reject that proposition in the instance of the commission and the members of the board of directors of this commission they propose here.
Look at the Windigo Interim Planning Board. This is why it's crucial that the government doesn't have fiat power to pick the members of the board of directors unilaterally.
"The board is established under the terms of the agreement signed on February 13, 1992, between Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province of Ontario and the Kingfisher Lake First Nation, the Weagamow Lake First Nation, the Wunnumin Lake First Nation, the Cat Lake First Nation, the Windigo Tribal Council and the Shibogama Tribal Council. The agreement is referred to as schedule 1. The board will advise the ministers by: developing a plan for land use and resource development in the planning area; reviewing and commenting on applications and matters including those set out in the schedule; identifying potential opportunities for resource-based economic development and the practice of traditional economic activities; developing community participation models suitable for use in remote northern Ontario; and performing any additional functions set out in the schedule."
It's a very precise identification of function, but more important, and why this amendment is so important, especially in light of the government's rejection of my previous amendment, is the section on membership.
"The Lieutenant Governor in Council appoints seven members. The chair will be acceptable to the Minister of Natural Resources, the minister responsible for native affairs and the Cat Lake First Nation, the Weagamow Lake First Nation and the Windigo Tribal Council. Three members are recommended by the Minister of Natural Resources and the minister responsible for native affairs and three members are recommended by the Cat Lake First Nation, the Weagamow Lake First Nation and the Windigo Tribal Council."
That's an illustration of how governments have -- you can't have it both ways. You can't have an unfettered discretion for appointments without any structure as to who is going to be represented on that board or commission or agency. I cite this as an example of how, when there is an unfettered discretion, it isn't as unfettered as it appears to be, because there's a structure, there's a framework. If you're not going to have that structure or framework, then I submit to each and every one of you that it's necessary to have a tripartite approach to this particular commission, to the board of directors of this commission.
I suppose one could find numerous illustrations, such as the Council of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.
"The college regulates the profession of dentistry in the public interest by ensuring that individuals have access to services provided by competent health professionals, and that individuals are treated with sensitivity and respect in their dealings with health professionals. Members of the college are governed in accordance with the Dentistry Act, the Health Professions Procedural Code, the Regulated Health Professions Act, and the regulations and bylaws of the college. The college develops and maintains standards of practice, entry to practice requirements, standards of professional ethics, and promotes and develops standards for continuing competence among the members. Various committees of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario function in a quasi-judicial role with respect to the suspension and revocations of certificates of registration to practice in Ontario."
Not only is there an identification of the responsibilities, but most importantly, there's an identification of the need, notwithstanding that the Lieutenant Governor in Council appoints these people, to have some balance and form and a model for membership, because here there's a description for membership.
"Between 10 and 12 members who are elected in a prescribed manner by the members of the college. Between nine and 11 members are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council who are neither members of the college nor members of a college or a council as defined in the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. Two members who are members of a faculty of dentistry of a university in Ontario are selected in a prescribed manner. The council elects every two years a president and a vice-president from among the members."
This is an illustration of the scenarios that are available to this government. The government rejects a membership model. I then urge them to accept this novel and radical, indeed revolutionary, proposition for, finally, non-partisanship and the rejection of pork-barrelling.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion before I put the question?
Mr Kormos: A 20-minute recess, please, Chair, upon you putting the question.
The Chair: You have already heard the argument presented by Mr Kormos, so I will not bother to read it. Shall the amendment carry? He has requested --
Mr Kormos: Chair, a 20-minute recess prior to --
The Chair: I heard you the first time, Mr Kormos. We are recessed, therefore, until 25 to 5.
The committee recessed from 1612 to 1632.
The Chair: The meeting is reconvened.
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
NAYS
Clement, Ford, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Parker, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment fails.
On the floor is the amendment of Mr Kennedy's made some days ago, it feels like.
Mr Kormos: I'm hard-pressed to conceal my --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos. I didn't want to interrupt you, but for the consideration of the committee: At Mr Ramsay's request a report has been made by Andrew McNaught, research officer, dated August 22, 1996. On the second page he summarizes and concludes: "Therefore, based on publicly available resources, it appears that there is no connection between Bill Davis and Marshall Pollock or the Ontario Video Gaming Corp." That report has been --
Mr Ron Johnson: Who's been trying --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Johnson. That report has been distributed between all --
Mr Ron Johnson: The Liberals keep trying to misinform, don't they?
The Chair: That report has been distributed to all members and you should all have a copy. Mr Kormos, you have the floor.
Mr Kormos: I wish Mr Ramsay had asked me. I didn't for a moment suspect there would be a corporate connection between Bill Davis and Mr Pollock. Are you talking about Bill Davis from the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association or Bill Davis, the former Premier? Both are former MPPs for the Tory caucus. But I guess it matters not if one can only infer that it's neither Bill Davis.
I can't conceal my disappointment at having lost yet another amendment to Mr Kennedy's motion. The connection -- you don't have to go too far because Mr Pollock was only the assistant Deputy Attorney General under both Premiers John Robarts and Bill Davis -- there may not be a corporate connection, but none the less I'm disappointed. Part of me is crushed to the point where I say: "Well, this is all for naught. I might as well get into my Chevy truck and go home to Welland." But I'm not going to do that, because my disappointment is overcome by my optimism that's nurtured, buoyed and enhanced certainly in an exhilarating way by the fact that notwithstanding the failure of my amendment, we still have the motion of Mr Kennedy. There's some hope yet. I should indicate that I filed with the clerk three further amendments to section 2, which I will be addressing in due course.
Mr Kennedy's motion is a proposal which offers the most modest variance to the scheme, or the absence of scheme, proposed by the Tories in their legislation. I know that the government members are going to listen carefully to the arguments on behalf of that. I'm sure they'll listen more carefully to me than they did to Larry Moodie, a detective with the provincial police anti-rackets division, who said legalizing video gambling is not going to eliminate the illegal machines and pointed out that only four officers are assigned to investigate illegal gambling in the province.
Maybe the government won't listen more readily to me. I'm just a small-town MPP from Welland-Thorold trying to represent my constituents and here I am in the third party, a really small caucus; our resources are spread thin; we've exhausted our research staff, who has been working on this along with other projects. Maybe we've been had because we took to heart what Larry Moodie, detective with the provincial police anti-rackets division, said when he said that legalizing video gambling is not going to eliminate illegal machines.
Here I am with a small caucus, little resources and our research staff person, Angie Ceccarelli. She located the report by Dr Schaffer, Harvard University Medical School, which says the same thing that Larry Moodie from the Ontario Provincial Police says, that legalizing slots ain't going to get rid of the so-called grey or illegal or whatever you want to call the machines. He says all it will do is generate more gambling -- the same Ms Ceccarelli who tried to track down the secret 80-page document from the Ontario Provincial Police, the one the government's sitting on, one they don't want released, the one that Rick Brennan wrote about and was able to excerpt a few lines because he was given an opportunity to look at it, although not to take it with him.
I believe that Mr Kennedy is on to something here. Mr Kennedy understands the corruptibility of a board that's unilaterally chosen by a majority government with no guidelines, no format, no structure. Mr Kennedy in his motion -- this is where his amendment should be relatively inoffensive to any government members -- concedes, makes the concession, recognizes the power of a government with this many members where it's guided by an ultraright ideology rather than morality, where it's guided by its promises to the richest and most powerful in this province rather than by any sense of fairness, where it's guided by an eagerness to serve masters who are oh, so far removed from the working people of this province. Who's going to speak up to the Marshall Pollocks of Ontario if the government doesn't have some direction as to whom it has to appoint to this board? Who's going to speak up to him?
1640
I know what Mr McNaught's report said: corporate searches of the Ontario Video Gaming Corp and the company's branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, which will soon be privatized. Bill Davis's name didn't appear among the officers and directors of Ontario Video Gaming Corp. Bill Davis, former Tory Premier, works for Tory Tory DesLauriers -- I don't think he works for Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington; I suspect he's a partner. After all, the firm is called Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington. Marshall Pollock isn't a lawyer there. Well, so what? Why do the Tories cackle and carry on when --
Mr Clement: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Could the honourable member please speak up? I'm having difficulty hearing him.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: So you hear the Tories cackle and carry on. If I were to call them a bunch of dimwits I'm sure they'd hear that. They'd rise up protesting, carrying on.
Interjection: You got the protesting right.
Mr Kormos: See? They heard that. It's remarkable, and I'm at my sotto voce point. "Dimwit" they understand. The important stuff like what Larry Moodie from the Ontario Provincial Police says, that they can't hear. The obvious long-time relationship, what does it matter? Marshall Pollock was ADM in -- what? -- the Ministry of Attorney General under both John Robarts and Bill Davis. So the guy's a Tory. What's new? He's a Tory who has finally come into his own; that's what's new. He was in the wilderness for so long and he's finally come home, like being the prodigal, because finally he has a government here in Ontario that's going to lend comfort to him. Here's Marshall Pollock, Mr Ontario Lottery Corp, who I'm sure extolled the virtues of government-run lottery schemes like the old -- I don't even remember what they called them. You used to buy five tickets at a pop in a wrapped package -- Wintario? I don't know what they were called. I bought them from time to time. Most people did.
Interjection: For birthdays and Christmas.
Mr Kormos: Yes, they were novelties, a quick gift to throw into a Christmas card or when you're on your way to a dinner with somebody who's having a birthday. I'm sure Marshall Pollock thought that was the greatest thing since buttered popcorn. I'm sure he at the time said, "This is exactly what the governments that I serve as" -- I can't remember; was his title president of the Ontario Lottery Corp? I'm not sure. I think it was president of the Ontario Lottery Corp. But now Marshall Pollock is not with Ontario Lottery Corp any more. He's the spokesperson and a director from Ontario Video Gaming Corp.
I note a press report dated Thursday, September 15, 1994, by Martin Mittelstaedt from the Globe and Mail. Marshall Pollock and Ontario Video Gaming Corp were leaning on the last government too. But Marilyn Churley, who was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, whose ministry, as this one is overseeing slot machines, brought in the Windsor casino legislation, said, "We've made a decision not to allow VLTs outside of permanent casinos and we've been pretty clear about that." Mr Pollock said that his company would continue trying to persuade the government to change its position. Mr Pollock said that his company and its proposal would create 16,000 jobs in the hospitality industry with slot machines. To what length will Mr Pollock go to sell his dirty little product? Because we've heard those types of claims before. We've heard about the thousands of jobs that slots are going to create.
We've also heard from Ivan Sack of Canadian Casino News who, if anything, is a pro-gaming person, not a temperance person by any stretch of the imagination. He says: "Get real. Understand what's going on here." The very sorts of industries that are lined up and crying out now for the slots, to wit -- we heard from them -- the racetracks and taverns, already have cashiers. They've already got people employed giving out cash. Ivan Sack says if you assume a max of four slots per location in a beverage room, the only employment they're going to create is the need for service operators and technicians. I didn't hear anybody dispute that when Mr Sack, editor of Canadian Casino News, was making his submission. Okay, fair enough, service technicians and servicing people. Quite frankly, nobody asked Mr Sack how many he estimated that would mean. We learned from the Quebec lottery corporation that with 14,700 machines in the province of Quebec a mere 300 jobs were created. I was there during the questioning. People prevailed on the bureaucrats as to how many other jobs in addition and they said, "We don't have any data on that." Bet you they don't.
It's no secret why people want slots instead of the right to put in a blackjack table or a roulette wheel or a poker table, because those are labour-intensive. These locations want slots because they stand to make a whole lot of money without having to expend any labour cost, because it only takes, on the Quebec experience, 300 people to service, repair and deliver etc 14,700 machines. If you're talking about 20,000, my calculation is perhaps as many as 400 people in the province of Ontario, as compared to 300 for 14,700, in the whole province, in itself a big province covering a lot of square miles, a lot of hectares.
1650
Why would Marshall Pollock and Ontario Video Gaming say that their proposal's going to create 16,000 jobs? I suppose the same question could be asked of Mike Harris. Why would he promise 725,000 jobs during the election campaign of 1995?
It reminds me of David Peterson. Remember 1987 -- I think it was September 6 -- when he said, "We have a very specific plan to reduce auto insurance premiums"? He said that in a scrum around six, seven days before the election. It wasn't true. His handlers went bananas. Cell phones went abuzzing; they were jamming each other. Scriptwriters went berserk. David said something like, "Oh, phooey," in the privacy of the back of the campaign bus. It was one of those things that people say. David Peterson was under a lot of pressure in that campaign. Mel Swart very much led the public auto insurance battle. He was under a great deal of pressure. I recall Monte Kwinter had been working on auto. They had just left the accord. It was a strange time.
Mr Crozier: Monte will be here tomorrow.
Mr Kormos: Looking forward to Monte. Monte's been around long enough. He didn't bother unfolding his cell phone. He said, "Yes, leaders do that and leaders come and go, but I'll be here forever," and he has been.
David Peterson said that in the heat of a scrum, under a great deal of pressure, as he was clearly winning an election, as he was in 1987, hands down. In hindsight there was no reason to have said it, because he was winning, he was doing fine, but he said that in the heat of a scrum. But the Mike Harris announcement of 725,000 jobs wasn't said in the heat of a scrum. That was deliberate and planned and calculated.
You know some of this, Chair. It's like the various levels of culpability. There's mere negligence, but then there's an overt, outright -- because if you're going to do it, go big or go home. Why does Mike Harris say, "I'm going to create 725,000 jobs"? To get elected. To get power. Does he say it because he really has a scheme to create 725,000 jobs? Of course not.
Why does Marshall Pollock in 1994 say that if the province lets him -- he doesn't say any scheme. Ontario Video Gaming says its proposal is going to create 16,000 jobs. Marshall Pollock, old buddy of Bill Davis and John P. Robarts: "If you adopt my scheme, if you crawl into my bed, I'll create 16,000 jobs." Was he able to substantiate it? Not in the least. Did Marilyn Churley -- God bless her soul -- fall for it? No. We've got Marshall, old friend, old comrade -- can I say that about Tories? At the Legion hall I can -- of Bill Davis and John Robarts. He comes before this committee and he once again spins a mighty fine web.
I should mention the only time I ever met Patti Starr, just by the way, was at the opening of the play with Brent Carver here in Toronto, Kiss of the Spider Woman. It was the only time I ever met her, and of all the places it had to be at a play called Kiss of the Spider Woman. There was something more than a little ironic about that. But I said: "Hello. I hope your book does well." I was glad she didn't have to do hard time, because nobody wants to have to do hard time, but she did her time.
But I'd never met Howard Moog, the friend of Bill Davis's. I never got to meet him.
Mr Crozier: What did he do?
Mr Kormos: Howard Moog. There was a scandal over here, the Hydro building.
Mr Guzzo: On a point of order: How much time did he spend in jail?
Mr Kormos: In those days you didn't.
Mr Guzzo: How much time did he spend in jail?
The Chair: That's not a proper point of order.
Mr Guzzo: Don't be linking his name to Patti Starr. She was a Liberal jailbird.
Mr Kormos: You see, the problem is that Patti Starr got popped; Howard Moog didn't.
The Chair: I think we're getting a little off topic, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I'm sorry; I was distracted.
The Chair: It was interesting. I appreciated hearing the history, but I think we're a little off topic.
Mr Crozier: I even enjoyed it.
Mr Kormos: Where the heck was I? Chair, where was I on this?
The Chair: You lost me.
Mr Kormos: I'm going to have to back up on my notes.
Mr Guzzo: Let's give credit to those who stayed out of jail.
Mr Kormos: We were talking about Marshall Pollock. Like O.J. Simpson; we'll give O.J. Simpson credit for staying out of jail. Let's talk about Marshall Pollock. Here he is. He's no longer an advocate of government-run schemes. He used to be, but now he comes in saying, "Give me your firstborn and I'll create 16,000 jobs." He's got the consortium to put it together; I bet you he does. Marshall Pollock says he's got private investors who'll cover the $400-million cost of 9,000 machines. That comes to almost $1 billion for 20,000. You bet your boots he's got a private consortium gathered that is prepared to put up a billion bucks cash, because the people you buy slot machines from are not inclined to give credit, and when you do get credit there's no problem in paying. At least, there's no problem in collecting. There could be a whole lot of problems with paying, but the collection process is -- I was going to say painless. It isn't necessarily painless, but you pay and you pay.
Marshall Pollock came here and he had charts. It was like Arlo Guthrie. You remember that old song Alice's Restaurant -- "You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant." You know, the 8-by-10 glossy prints with arrows and circles and charts on the back of each and every one? Remember that old song? You have to. You're older than I am, Chair; you surely remember that.
Interjection: He just looks older than you.
Mr Ron Johnson: His hair's not as grey, Peter.
Mr Kormos: Arlo Guthrie ended up on the group W bench. You remember that, the group W bench? I can identify with the group W bench. I've been on it. Arlo Guthrie is Woody Guthrie's son. Woody Guthrie had died just before. Woody Guthrie died in October 1967 and Arlo did the song shortly thereafter. But he talked about the photographs, the 8-by-10 photographs with arrows and circles and the whole nine yards, all this high-class forensic evidence. I think Stockton, Massachusetts, was where it happened. I'm not ringing bells with very many people here. That's the problem. Tories never listened to music like that.
Mr Clement: I listen to the Smashing Pumpkins myself.
Mr Kormos: They never listened to music like that. They weren't Guthrie fans, and for good reason.
James Lee Burke, the writer, is a big Guthrie fan, though. You can't read one of his novels without at least one reference to Woody Guthrie.
Here we are, Marshall Pollock in front of the committee with his charts and his ascending lines and descending graphs and intersections. He had them done up as slick as any chart could be. When you're talking $1 billion worth of machinery, man, you'll put together a presentation. That was show; that was the fluff, the bunting and the bows. That was for the public consumption, the same way this hearing. This hearing has nothing to do with decision-making; the deal's done. The deal's done by Mr Flaherty, who hasn't talked to his new boss. I don't think he has a new boss. Clearly, Mr Tsubouchi isn't a new boss, even though he was appointed last week, I believe on August 16 -- yes. The parliamentary assistant, if he really worked for the minister, would be on the phone the next day at the very latest apprising his new boss of what's been going on in this committee and looking for some direction. But Mr Flaherty says, "Nope, haven't talked to him about slot machines yet."
1700
Clearly David Tsubouchi is not the capo di tutti i capi. Clearly somebody else is and it remains for us to find out -- and I'm convinced that in due course we will -- who really is calling the shots here. It ain't David Tsubouchi. I'm hard-pressed to believe that it's really Ernie Eves, because Ernie Eves, after all, has a lengthy history of condemning slot machines. So does Mike Harris. The people up in Parry Sound don't want much to do with slot machines, the way I hear it. I'm sure there may be one or two, but it strikes me that the folks up in Parry Sound, which Mr Eves represents and which is his home town, don't want anything of the likes of slots.
There's Marshall Pollock there at the committee. Glossy report, big numbers. Oh, the cannibalization issue. Remember that? Marshall Pollock knows that there's concern by organizations that raise money with Nevada tickets, break-opens. But he's got a chart that says nope, the reduction in break-open sales has got nothing to do with video lotteries. Well, this is Marshall Pollock. Old buddy of John P. Robarts and Bill Davis -- William G. Davis; William Grenville Davis. Good old Tories, quite frankly; a far different breed than what we have at Queen's Park here now.
Mr Guzzo: They stayed out of jail. But not Patti Starr.
Mr Kormos: Mr Guzzo's commenting that Robarts and Davis stayed out of jail. I don't know whether Mr Guzzo attributes it to good luck or good counsel.
I note that Marshall Pollock -- how else would he have become assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of the Attorney General if he wasn't friends with John Robarts and Bill Davis? How else would he have become the ADM?
Marshall Pollock comes to this committee and he declares -- it's as if he had the tablets with him instead of just some flow charts and graphs -- that slots in Alberta aren't responsible for the decline in break-open ticket sales. Don't blame them. Well, the Tories perk up, some of whom had been nodding off, chins down on their chests, a little bit of spittle rolling out of the corner of their mouths, as sometimes happens when you fall asleep during the day. Boy, they came to when Marshall Pollock came out with that revelation. Back of the hand across the face, wipe her dry, and wipe the sleep out of your eyes.
I was there. With a start they say, "By God, look, finally we've been -- " as I say, it's been a long time coming -- "Marshall, where have you been all our lives?" Well, Marshall's there and he's got so-called data saying that break-open tickets didn't suffer as a result of the introduction of slots.
Well, that offended one's sense of logic because the racetrack -- you see, this is one of the problems with this game the government's got itself caught up in. They are trying to be all things to all people, except for the working people of the province, and the seniors and the sick and the students and the poor, because on the one hand the government is saying to the racetracks, "Oh, you're right, slot machines are going to cannibalize your business," and then it's saying to the break-open ticket people, "No, you're wrong, slot machines won't cannibalize your business." What gives? It defies logic. It contradicts common sense.
Slot machines will cannibalize racetracks so we've got to give the racetracks slots, but they won't cannibalize Nevadas. Marshall Pollock said so, so it's true. Marshall Pollock, who says he can create 16,000 jobs if the government buys into his private sector scheme to introduce slots. We know it ain't so.
A presenter up in Sudbury, young Mr Burke -- was it Mr Burke? I think it was young Mr Burke who appeared before the committee and said, "I've been hearing what people have been saying in front of the committee about this not cannibalizing Nevada tickets, and they're full of it." As a matter of fact, he had, all by himself, gone to the length of calling the gaming control branch, department of the Attorney General in Alberta to get the early breakdowns. Lo and behold, if there ain't a dramatic drop in the sale of Nevada tickets after the introduction of slots.
There had been a blip, because numbers varied from year to year, even historically. What's one of the reasons given? People have got to start covering their butts once you tell little fibs like this. Among other things, the Legionnaires have been dying off so fast that there's nobody left in their clubs. Please, please. This gentleman, Mr Burke I think his name was, called one of the Legion branches. Good folks. They said: "Give me a break. We've got the daughters and sons and the grandchildren of vets in our Legions now," just like they do in Welland and in Thorold and across Canada. "It was the slots that put us under, and we're hard-pressed as Legionnaires, as veterans" -- there are still veterans left, probably not any more of the First World War. I think there's one or two left in Canada. But certainly there are still a lot of folks from the Second World War, a lot of folks from Korea, a lot of folks from Viet Nam.
Mr Guzzo: Doug Burke and Bingo Pro.
Mr Kormos: That was Doug Burke, quite right. Here's Marshall Pollock, the Goliath, and there is Doug Burke with his little home-made slingshot, one personal phone call to the Alberta gaming and lottery commission, the Ministry of the Attorney General, gaming control branch, who produces statistics to say, yep, in Alberta, slots sure cleaned up on the break-open business. They put the boots to Royal Canadian Legion branches. It's just what common sense tells you. It's just what logic tells you. It's just what the government tells you when it says, "Oh, we've got to put slots in the racetrack because slots outside the racetrack cannibalize the racetrack buck."
Not only do slots cannibalize; slots entice. There's an allure about them and an addictiveness that the government members simply want to deny. They're ostriching, ostriching, ostriching. The problem is that if you assume the ostrich stance, your head is in the sand and your butt is up in the air and you've got a big target there. The fact is that the head-in-the-sand syndrome, the ostriching, makes the government extremely vulnerable for the downside of what's coming; it really does. We're going to see an incredible impact, an assault, an onslaught on charitable organizations and other non-profit organizations, associations, societies, groups.
Government leaves the impression, certainly tries to create it -- whether they believe it or not, I suppose they did -- about values. Oh, my God, the language was oh so Christian and oh so pristine, oh so godly: values, morality, stronger families, stronger communities, a stronger province. Yes. We've got a government here that's prepared to turn a closed eye to concocted evidence and that is beyond disinclined, absolutely adamantly, without hesitation, unequivocally refuses to acknowledge the work done in a whole lot of arenas, both by highly qualified professionals and by just plain people who know better.
1710
The government here doesn't care. At some point maybe they're going to say, "Yes, we care about the Legion branches." It's easy to say, but you don't care enough about them such that you don't attack them by placing slots in the bar down the road so that their modest break-open ticket sales fall through the floor. These Tory members are going to say, "Oh, we care about small business," but they don't care enough if small entrepreneurs, who supplement their mom-and-pop variety store income with $30 or $40 for a box of break-open tickets etc, lose that modest income. They don't care about the addictiveness of slot machines.
You'd have thought, with all its resources and the high-priced help and the gaggle of bureaucrats and civil servants and policy analysts and communications people, the spin doctors and focus group operators and pollsters and Tory hangers-on and backroom people and the gang over in the Whitney Block with the Premier and the Secretary of Cabinet, that the government itself would have come up with -- look at this press clipping from the Edmonton Journal, February 6, 1996, "A number of problem gamblers seeking help for their addiction, mostly to VLTs, will increase by more than 75% this fiscal year, a gambling counsellor predicts."
Just as so many of the experts say, the greater the accessibility to gambling, the more people who are going to gamble; the greater the accessibility to slots, the more people who are going to become addicts. One would have thought that we'd have been provided with that in the first day of the hearings. Now I'm not sure. One would have thought that the Canadian Press article appearing in a Calgary newspaper which says employees are stealing from employers to pay for their gambling addictions and the practice has worsened with the advent of video lottery terminals --
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: One would have thought the government would have provided that reference in the course of -- well, I'm not sure they didn't have it; I'm not sure they didn't have that information. I'm not sure they didn't simply sit on it, conceal it, keep it stashed away, hoping against hope that the opposition members were never going to run across it, hoping that the razzle-dazzle of the Marshall Pollocks of the world was going to prevail.
One would have thought that they might have provided us with the article from the Edmonton Journal back in 1995. It talks about Ted Tsenekos, a small-town northern Alberta hotel owner. He said the experience with slots taught him to hate video lotteries. The 42-year-old moved to Canada from Greece 19 years ago; he said it was sickening to watch his customers pumping money into the slots day after day.
Ian Pickles, co-owner of a club called Bikinis Beach Club -- imagine that, Bikinis Beach Club -- in the resort town of Sylvan Lake, got rid of his three machines, even though he made $900 to $1,500 on them each month. "I got to hate watching people throw their money away. It was really tough watching older people especially sitting there all day with nothing better to do."
Heather van Pelt, manager of the Grinder -- I'm not sure what kind of club that is; if it was called the Bumper, but it's called the Grinder -- a west central pub, she refuses to operate slots because she too grew to despise the machines in her two previous bar jobs.
They're no longer entertainment. They've become detrimental to a healthy, productive society.
It was Clerk Thom Mowry of the city of Sudbury who amassed these press clippings. One would have thought that if the government were being candid about its proposition -- quorum, Chair.
The Chair: Yes, you're quite right. Some of us have difficulty in counting when they leave. We have a 10-minute recess for a quorum.
The committee recessed from 1718 to 1725.
The Chair: We have a quorum. We'll reconvene.
Mr Kormos: Chair, on a point of order: It's been 11 minutes since you called the quorum call, and there was only 10 minutes in which --
The Chair: I'm sorry. No, you are incorrect. The quorum call was called at 5:18 and it is not --
Mr Kormos: It's 5:29.
The Chair: Not by my calculation. I may be looking at it slightly off to the side. I thought it was within the time frame. Mr Kormos, you have the floor.
Mr Kormos: So there we are. I would have thought the government would have had interest in this matter, its anticipation of the issues to be raised. They are unique, issues like this, issues like the opposition issues have been raised across the board in every jurisdiction that gaming takes place in with this kind of slot machines, the vulgar little thieves.
Back in November 1995 -- why didn't the government tell us that in November 1995 the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association voted --
The Chair: Mr Kormos, the broadcast recorder is not picking you up, because you're not facing the microphone.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. Why didn't the government tell us that on November 9, 1995, the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association voted to recommend dumping VLTs? Why didn't they tell us that in the course of making that decision, it was indicated that they ruined lives by creating gambling addictions? Why didn't they tell us there was a conclusion that the cost to rehabilitate lives lost to gambling is extremely high? Why didn't they tell us that Claresholm mayor, Ernie Patterson, called down delegates to the Edmonton Convention Centre to tell the government the gambling buck should stop there? Why didn't they tell us that? I would have thought that would have been an important part of the government's own research into the phenomenon.
Quorum, Chair. Unbelievable.
The Chair: There's a quorum call. We don't have enough members here.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. Why didn't they tell us that? You know it's anecdotal. Why wouldn't the government have told us that in the Edmonton Sun, on August 15, 1995, a small report, probably in itself oh, so, similar to so many similar types of reports, a staff writer called Bart Johnson wrote that Linda Turner had never been in trouble with the law before she was introduced to video lottery terminals, but her devotion to the slot machines turned her into a criminal who stole from her employer and lied to her friends? This 47-year-old woman pleaded guilty to defrauding $20,000 from the insurance company she worked for over a period of five months in 1993-94.
Defence lawyer Robert Agard told the court that the single woman, who had no prior criminal record, did it to finance her addiction to VLTs. He said she was acting out of character when she did it. She had held a trusted position as a senior claims adjuster with Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. She was responsible for settling insurance claims and paying claims of up to $4,000. She made out 22 bogus company cheques to two former roommates and had them mailed to her own address. At the same time, she gained access to the roommates' bank accounts by lying to them about her intentions, cashed the cheques, forged the signatures. Sentencing was adjourned for two months to allow for a psychological assessment.
Why didn't the government provide us with the article from the Edmonton Sun, September 11, 1995? "`Employee Thefts Cost Billions -- Worker Thieves." A multibillion-dollar problem in Canada's businesses is mushrooming out of control, says a loss prevention expert. Rick Green says gambling is at the root of at least half of the employee thefts committed every day in stores and shops across the land, businesses bilked out of $3.6 million in cash and merchandise by their employees. Why didn't the government have that press report for us?
Why didn't they have the report from the Edmonton Journal about a mom who got 30 months for fraud? She stole to play video lotteries. Why didn't they tell us about that? She tricked her teenage daughter into helping her. The sentencing judge said he believed that this lady had a serious gambling addiction. She used her 14-year-old daughter to help her commit these frauds.
Why didn't the government give us the Edmonton Journal article of November 16, 1994, by Journal staff writer Paul Marck about Rick, who blew 50 grand on video lottery terminals in the past year? "They're the most insidious form of gambling addiction there is," said the 38-year-old dairy worker and father of four.
What about February 18, 1995? Why didn't the government give us the newspaper report from February 18, 1995, again the Edmonton Journal: "Video Lotteries Bankrupting Seniors"?
"`I've had a run of seniors who have lost everything on video lottery terminals,' Waring said Friday. "Just before Christmas one of the seniors called me in tears. He'd liquidated all his assets and was down to his chesterfield," a 68-year-old man. Got money from loan companies to support his addiction to the lottery machines. Had to go to the food bank. "`I think the government should consider who's really losing the money,' Mr Waring said." He's a bankruptcy trustee. "`It's a horrible addiction. People liquidate everything. Most tell me there are machines everywhere and they can't avoid them. One fellow told me he can't go anywhere without seeing the machines. He hears the music from them and he can't stop himself.' The addiction generally hits seniors hardest, however, because many live on fixed incomes, close to the poverty line." Why didn't we learn about that?
Why didn't we learn about the concern among charitable and volunteer organizations like the Lions Club in Alberta, in a newspaper article from the Edmonton Journal, February 24, 1995? Why wouldn't the government be prepared to be candid and to talk about that? "Harry Anderson of the Lions Club says it's increasingly evident that VLTs are addictive and destructive to the...family.... Rudy Wiebe of the Writers Guild of Alberta said, `VLTs are destroying the traditional convivial atmosphere of Alberta bars by placing gambling and alcohol side by side, two possible addictions that can feed each other.'"
Why didn't they tell us that Glynis Thomas, the executive director of the community information and volunteer centre, told the review committee -- and you know I've referred to that report several times already -- that the social costs of VLTs outweigh the benefits? Clive Bright, Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues, says that the push-button bandits are causing significant social problems.
What about the Edmonton Journal, June 13, 1995? Tom Arnold, provincial affairs writer, says that more than half the gambling addicts enrolled in a new government-sponsored counselling program have opted for therapy because of their costly obsession with video slot machines. Just as many women as men are hooked in Alberta's billion-dollar video lottery industry.
They are more likely to be unemployed, with limited education, say client-profile statistics from the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission. An AADAC consultant says that any form of gambling can become an addiction, but then goes on to point out that the slots outdo all the others. That's why they call it the crack cocaine of gambling.
An article by seniors' columnist Edith Kirby: "Gambling Takes Toll on Seniors" from the Edmonton Journal, June 2, 1995. Or an article headlined "The Devil and the VLT."
We already talked about Ian Pickles. He and co-owner Becky Kasparsons gave the heave-ho to three VLTs in their pub; that was Bikinis Beach Pub in Sylvan Lake, Alberta: "From a personal standpoint I've never agreed with them or how the government is making hundreds of millions of dollars on them."
A remarkable story appeared in a Moncton newspaper showing that experts are indicating that VLTs are the most addictive form of gambling. Other provinces have a warning as Ontario gets set to plunge into video lottery terminals. "Be careful," they say. Be careful.
What was it that precluded this government from presenting even the beginning of a full picture about the phenomenon we're confronted with now? What was it? What was it that precluded this government from utilizing research that had been conducted that indicates that VLTs are and have been a dangerous exercise? Why is it that this government wouldn't want to pay heed to the report and recommendations of the Alberta Lotteries Review Committee? Why is it that this government wants to talk a big game but fails to deliver? It talks about how, oh, the interests of charities are going to be protected; oh, the public health interests are going to be addressed. If they meant what they said, if they weren't lying, if they weren't outright, bold-faced lying, les menteurs à triple étage, they would support this amendment by Mr Kennedy. They would vote for it, they would applaud it, they would address it enthusiastically.
1740
If it weren't for the undercurrent of dishonesty accompanying this whole campaign, government members would join opposition, because they'd want to hear what Mr Tsubouchi has to say about it. They'd want to hear. They'd wonder where David is too. Where's David? Why have they got him hidden away? Why are we rudderless and without anybody at the helm? Where is our great helmsman? These people in the government have bought lock, stock and barrel into the arguments of the Marshall Pollocks of the world. The Rod Seilings of the world are ready to bite at any lure that passes their way.
Why is it that the government wouldn't have been aware of the report by Robert Goodman, who authored the US gambling study of 1994? How wouldn't they have been aware of it? Maybe they were but didn't want even their members to see what Goodman concluded, and that is that huge portions of discretionary consumer dollars are being diverted into gambling, resulting in losses to restaurant and entertainment industries, movie theatres, sports events, clothing and furniture stores and other businesses. Further, cities and towns entering the gambling market now face a fiercely competitive field and will be hard-pressed to draw patrons from outside their region. As a result, most of the people pouring money into their slots will be local residents. Instead of bringing new dollars into the local economy, gambling will siphon away consumer dollars from other local businesses. Why wouldn't the government have distributed that report by Goodman, 1994, to the members of this committee? Why not? It makes you wonder, doesn't it, Chair? It makes you really wonder.
Goodman says further, "Some of the biggest costs of gambling expansion are those which are the hardest to quantify, what economists refer to as missed opportunity costs." Catch this, Chair: "By focusing so much of their energy on the use of gambling as an economic development strategy, government and business leaders are shifting their attention away from supporting and developing other existing and new business enterprises. These other ventures may be more difficult to establish, but they are potentially much more productive over the long term."
I'm not suggesting that Goodman's dead on. I'm not suggesting that there isn't material to contradict Goodman, but in addressing any issue, balance is the only honest way to do it, it's the only credible way to do it, it's the only way to do it with any integrity. It's the only way to do it without leaving the impression that there's something going on here that we're not quite aware of yet. It's the only way to do it clean. I've got a feeling this proposition is dirty. It stinks of being dirty.
The government, one has to conclude, had access to this information, not just the Goodman report, but by God, piles and piles of reports all of which raise warning flags about their endeavour. Really, their endeavour isn't the Marshall Pollock endeavour -- and who is Marshall Pollock speaking for when he wants to buy 20,000 slot machines for the province of Ontario? Who is Marshall Pollock speaking for? It stinks of being dirty because we've had a purposeful effort to suppress information.
Then when it surfaces, as it inevitably does, these government members will go to any lengths to try to trivialize it and distort it. Mr Flaherty even declared, in a rather pathetic exercise at misdirection, "Madam, did you know that more people died of alcoholism during Prohibition than at any other time?"
Mr Flaherty: Did you know that, Peter?
Mr Kormos: By God, the Chair's ears perked up. He went: "Oh, Jeez, what did Flaherty do now? Lord love a duck, why doesn't he control himself?" Jim Flaherty himself, when he realized what he said, gulped audibly and visibly.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos, I really don't think it's fair to attribute some type of understanding or action on my part. I'm supposed to be independent. It's very difficult for me therefore to argue the point with you.
Mr Kormos: Fair enough.
The Chair: I don't know whether I reacted to Mr Flaherty's comment or not.
Mr Kormos: Chair, you're right. All I can say is that I saw the Chair roll his eyes, and I don't know with respect to what, after Mr Flaherty made that comment. But I did hear the audible gulp as Mr Flaherty's Adam's apple reverberated vertically in his throat.
What happened is that Mr Crozier, not one to miss a beat, immediately said: "Well, Chair, I want to know what Mr Flaherty's authority is for that. Where does Mr Flaherty get off telling people, `Madam, did you know that more people died of alcoholism during Prohibition than at any other time?'" And Mr Flaherty hummed and hawed.
Not to be outdone by Mr Crozier, I jumped on his bandwagon and I said, "Chair, Mr Flaherty is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations who is responsible for overseeing the regulation of alcohol" -- beer, wine and spirits inter alia, I suppose -- "in this province." Surely people like John Bates from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other leaders in the campaign for all governments to show some restraint in providing access to liquor and wine and spirits would be interested in Mr Flaherty's pronouncement, so I, in a very official way, as officially as I could, prevailed upon Mr Flaherty -- I put this as a formal question, as Mr Crozier had, as we are entitled to question: "If you don't give us the minister, if you're keeping David under wraps, if you've got him in an underground cell, you're it, Mr Flaherty. The target's there. If Mr Tsubouchi's going to be kept under wraps, you're it."
1750
Just as Mr Crozier did, as we are entitled to, I said to Mr Flaherty: "Here you are representing the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. You've just declared that more people died of alcoholism during Prohibition than at any other time. Please provide us a source, an authority for that, other than your imagination or your willingness to distort the truth to appear to win an argument. You certainly haven't provided us with any source or authority."
If I'm wrong in the options I listed -- I suppose you could have mixed up your words. That happens. Sometimes one mixes up the words in a sentence or uses one word that's similar to another because the day is hectic. It's something that happens. It's a function or misfunction of the brain. I think all of us have done it. But you have the opportunity to say, "Oh, I didn't mean to say `died of alcoholism during Prohibition,'" or "I didn't mean to say `more,' I meant to say `fewer.'" But you didn't say that. You had the chance and you still haven't come up with an authority, with the source, with the reference, with any information that you have that would permit you to say that in honesty.
I acknowledge you could have misused words, but those are an awful lot of words to have misused in a pretty peculiar way, in a very unique context. You're guilty of most unparliamentary conduct. Were you that desperate to win an argument with a layperson who was trying to make a point with you about addictions that you'd misstate the truth? Were you that desperate? Did you not think there were enough people around there who'd recognize the absurdity of it? Or was it that if you're going to do it, do it big because why waste your credibility on a little one? Do it big; the old "Go big or go home."
Mr Flaherty, it was most interesting. If you're unprepared to come up with something to substantiate -- look at the other stuff that's going on, Chair: Dr Room from the Addiction Research Foundation. What's interesting is that on each and every occasion when I've felt compelled to address the issue, I've indicated that while Dr Room doesn't want to admit or acknowledge any more that slot machines are the crack cocaine of gambling, the Addiction Research Foundation in Thunder Bay and Lake of the Woods Addiction Services both identify crack cocaine as being the proper analogy for slots. Slot machines are the crack cocaine of gambling.
But oh, no, Mr Flaherty finds comfort in the sins of omission. We're left then with, how trustworthy is the government's position? How reliable is it? What can we believe any more? What can we believe when the government would conceal so much that was so important to this debate? Why is it that you, Mr Flaherty, use the language, "Oh, 2% of Ontarians have a gambling addiction." I'm more than comfortable with acknowledging that the data say 2% to 5%. It's the Addiction Research Foundation's study in Ontario, conducted through York University, of 1995 which indicates that 2% to 5% of Ontarians have a gambling addiction. It predates your 20,000 slot machines and begs the question, how many more? What greater percentage, once your 20,000 slots get put in every corner of every neighbourhood of every city, town and village in this province? How many more?
Why wouldn't the government have conducted economic impact studies? Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't the government have called upon other jurisdictions and emulated some of the work that Goodman did in 1994? Why wouldn't they?
I remember the first couple of days of the hearings, and Mr Crozier and I were there. We had started to gather around, pick up some of the various studies and research, and your government members are making like this stuff is somehow just some sort of stuff that fell like manna from heaven. You've got to do a little bit of research, a little bit of preparation.
Look, I'm grateful to the folks who have made submissions and to our research staff and just the general public who have phoned and people watching this stuff on C-PaC. It's incredible. One researcher, I think he contacted Mr Crozier as well, from British Columbia, Vancouver, the Canadian policy paper on gaming, telephoned us and said, "Look, here's one that you haven't mentioned yet." But that's how this happened. It's Henriksson, I think. Is that right, Mr Crozier?
Mr Crozier: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Again, these people are eager to participate. Mr Henriksson called us and said, "Look, here's my paper." He faxed it to us and rather than using the faxed copy, we were able to get a copy. I'll be honest, I hadn't known about his paper. It wasn't in one of the traditional gaming or gambling research journals or in one of the medical journals, this Canadian policy program. But he's eager to help. Again, he's a scientist. He's an academic, extremely cautious.
Why did you embark on the mythology of the illegal machines when Larry Moodie said what he said from the Ontario Provincial Police anti-rackets, when police in Alberta say that the introduction of slots did not eliminate the presence of grey machines and that the coordinated law enforcement unit policy analysis division, video lottery terminal gaming report of April 13, 1995, said that merely introducing government machines without having a strong enforcement policy apparently does not eliminate the grey machines? Exactly how powerful are these gaming interests that it would cause people whose careers, I would think, are based on integrity to surrender that integrity? Just how powerful?
1800
It begs the -- I'd better leave that one alone because I've got a feeling that if I didn't, some of these Tories might wake up, all hell would break loose and they'd be calling on me to withdraw my statements and I'd have to say, "No, I'm not going to withdraw because it's true."
Why has the government turned its head and not wanted to hear what Professor Alan Young of Osgoode Hall Law School has had to say in his analysis of this scheme and the application of section 207 of the Criminal Code of Canada, where in his written report he writes, and I submit to this committee:
"In our opinion, the province of Ontario has not established a legislative regime which complies with the need for strict legislative control as required under subsections 207(1) and 207(4) of the code.
"Bill 75 may speak at great length about the constitution of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, but it provides little or no detail about the conduct and management of video lottery. It is surprising that public hearings would be held on the acceptability of introducing video lottery when the public has been left in the dark about the proposed operations of this enterprise.
"Who will be managing the enterprise? Who will purchase the machines? Who will service the machines? What will be the criteria for choosing locations? What will be the role and function of registered gaming suppliers? Who will approve the choice of games and machines? How will the profits be divided between site holders and the government?
"The list of unanswered questions can easily be expanded upon, but suffice it to say that the legislation only outlines the bare bones of the enterprise when the Criminal Code demands extends legislative control.
"Bare and simple, the entire video lottery enterprise stands on a very precarious legal foundation if this government thinks it can fill in the missing details by administrative decision made by officials at a crown corporation."
Chair, if I may, nobody seems to be paying a whole lot of attention. I move for adjournment, please, till tomorrow morning at 10 am.
The Chair: Mr Kormos has moved an adjournment to 10 am tomorrow --
Mr Kormos: A 20-minute recess, sir.
The Chair: Because of the time limit, rather than just a motion for adjournment, there is a debate permitted in regard to the motion. Are there any comments or amendments in regard to the motion for adjournment to 10 am?
Mr Flaherty: This motion presents an opportunity to discuss the regrettable situation that has developed. I hope that my colleagues Mr Crozier and Mr Kormos, when we deal with this issue of adjourning, will address the --
The Chair: Mr Crozier, point of order?
Mr Crozier: Is it only debatable as to time?
The Chair: I think it becomes debatable, period, if I'm not mistaken.
Clerk of the Committee: It has a condition on it.
Mr Crozier: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the motion was only debatable as to time, not to the merits of the motion. I just wanted to clarify that.
Mr Flaherty: I hope that our colleagues in the Legislature, Mr Crozier and Mr Kormos, would consider carefully what I'm about to say particularly since neither of them was his party's representative on the subcommittee of this committee that determined the scheduling. The House leaders of our respective three parties determined that this Bill 75 would go to committee for three weeks during the recess. The subcommittee then met months ago now, namely, Marion Boyd of the NDP, David Ramsay of the Liberals and myself on behalf of the government party, in order to determine the scheduling of dealing with the bill.
We agreed that in the three weeks that our House leaders had given us to deal with the bill we would allocate the first week to hear from persons wishing to make representations: Tuesday and Wednesday in Toronto, Thursday in Thunder Bay, Friday in Kenora, and that was the agreed schedule for the first week. The second week: Monday in Toronto, Tuesday in Fort Erie, Wednesday in Toronto, Thursday in Sarnia, and that was what we agreed to do during the second week. We were left with four days that we agreed to use in the third week and which all three parties agreed to allocate: Monday in Ottawa, Tuesday in Sudbury, and then two days, Wednesday and Thursday, for clause-by-clause consideration, namely, yesterday and today.
The agreement we had was that we would complete our work on this bill by today. I think it is our duty to those persons who made representations to our committee around the province and here in Toronto, and our duty to the taxpayers of Ontario, to keep our agreement and proceed to deal with the clause-by-clause amendments to the bill now, as we had agreed to do with the representative of the Liberal Party, Mr Ramsay, the representative of the NDP, Ms Boyd, and me on behalf of the government party.
I regret, given what I have heard said today by Mr Kormos, that it appears he is out of the control of his party and that he is intending, has already formed the intention, not to be bound by his party's commitments to the other parties represented by other persons on this committee. It's less clear what the position of the Liberal Party is, although I have spoken with Mr Ramsay and have made it clear to him that I expect him to keep his agreement on behalf of his party, that clause-by-clause consideration of this bill will be completed this day, this Thursday. It is now about 12 minutes after 6, so we have a little bit less than six hours in this day to complete the agreement made between the representatives for our parties. I realize that we're not in a court of law or anything like that, but one's word is one's word, particularly between colleagues in the Legislature on behalf of our parties, and I would hope that you keep your word.
That is something that is up to you, and if you think it's a political game, and if the NDP can't control Mr Kormos, and if Mr Crozier on behalf of his party does not feel bound to agreements reached by his representative on the subcommittee and his House leader, that I suppose is a choice one lives with in one's day-to-day dealings, and I think it's regrettable.
So there we are. Now Mr Kormos wants to adjourn. We have less than six hours to complete our work here and we have quite a bit of work to do to show respect for the people who came before us and made representations, to respond to them with amendments and to deal with the amendments, to show respect for the taxpayers of Ontario who are paying the bills for us to be here and who are paying our salaries, not to waste time, not to deal with whether or/and are conjunctive or disjunctive, but to do our jobs as paid people representing our constituents in the province.
1810
The Chair: Are you done, Mr Flaherty?
Mr Flaherty: I say this with respect to timing and the adjournment, if I may: that our party --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Flaherty. The clerk has just pointed something out to me. At the present time there is an agreement of this committee and the subcommittee to meet until Thursday, which could be 12 o'clock in the evening. By moving that motion really it is debatable, I think, Mr Crozier, because Mr Kormos has opened up a whole new issue of extending the sittings of this committee to tomorrow. So it's not just an adjournment; it also overrules a prior motion of this committee and subcommittee.
Mr Flaherty: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will address that, if I may, directly, forthrightly and quickly, which doesn't seem to be the want of Mr Kormos certainly. The agreement reached between the parties is that we would deal with this matter today and that we would complete our clause-by-clause work today. Our members are here. We're prepared to do our job for the taxpayers of Ontario and show respect for those who appeared before us across Ontario -- more than 200 people in the last three weeks.
If Mr Kormos and Mr Crozier, on behalf of their respective political parties, are of the view that it is necessary to spend tomorrow also considering the bill and can commit to completing clause-by-clause consideration of this bill tomorrow, in addition to confirming that it is necessary that the time be used tomorrow, then I am certainly prepared, on behalf of the government members -- I hope they would support me on this -- to undertake to adjourn at midnight tonight until tomorrow and continue tomorrow and get the report to the Legislature after we complete clause-by-clause tomorrow. This would have to be on the basis of on-the-record commitments by both of you gentlemen representing your political parties here, because right now the agreement we have had for two months is that we would complete clause-by-clause today. I'm not sure about the Liberal Party, but certainly Mr Kormos has already indicated on the record that he will not be bound by the commitments of his political party.
Those are my comments with respect to the request for adjournment.
Interjection.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos, you do not have the floor.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, if you wish to rely upon me applying the rules in your favour, you also should be taking the obligations of those.
Mr Kormos: Why does he lie like that?
The Chair: He has the floor.
Mr Kormos: He's been struggling to try to get some spin on this. The so-called high-priced help has been stranded.
Interjections.
Mr Kormos: Flaherty has lied from day one and he lies --
Mr Flaherty: You can dish it out but you can't take it, Peter.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, again you have used the word which you know is not permitted in our Parliament. For about the 10th or 11th time I point out to you that you are unparliamentary by the use of that word.
Mr Kormos: That may well be, but he lied again.
Mr Flaherty: Just to sum up, if I may, we intend to complete our work today pursuant to the agreement that was reached between the three political parties. I realize that Mr Kormos is breaching the agreement, wants to and is doing so intentionally and wilfully. I cannot control Mr Kormos's lack of commitment to his political party. He chooses to sit as a member of a political party; I don't know why if he doesn't feel committed to it and doesn't feel bound by his political party. Ms Boyd is not here, and I guess Mr Kormos doesn't feel any sense of obligation or commitment in that way, which is regrettable. I hope that the Liberal Party would stand by their agreement; I would expect them to stand by their agreement.
Having said that, I repeat that if the Liberal and NDP members are prepared to say, "We need some more time; we'll complete our work tomorrow" -- they feel we need some more time -- then I'm sure the government members would be prepared to work till midnight tonight. We're being paid by the taxpayers. We'll work till midnight tonight, start again tomorrow and work again tomorrow to get the job done. If, on the record, both of the parties opposite are prepared to make that commitment that we'll complete the work clause-by-clause tomorrow and report the bill, then I would be prepared, of course with the government members' support, to continue not only till midnight tonight but also tomorrow.
The Chair: We have Mr Kormos and Mr Crozier.
Mr Kormos: I'll switch places with Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: Mr Chair, do we have access to the minutes of the subcommittee meeting?
The Chair: Could we dig it out? Let's take five minutes, could we?
Mr Crozier: Yes, if you give me five minutes.
The Chair: So you can take a look at it. Recess for five minutes so we can examine the minutes.
The committee recessed from 1817 to 1823.
The Chair: We'll reconvene, and Mr Crozier has the floor.
Mr Crozier: Thank you, Chair, for your indulgence. I have the subcommittee minutes here. It's my understanding that the way they were dealt with was that the whole committee gave the subcommittee authority to deal with the scheduling, and these subcommittee minutes, number one, have never come back to the main committee and been adopted. Is that correct?
The Chair: That is correct, Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: I think it would be helpful if we went through the procedure rather than me make a lot of assumptions. Now, when I look at these minutes, there certainly is without doubt a schedule. It says, "The committee will meet for three weeks, commencing on August 6, contingent on a schedule from the House leader as follows," and it lays out the dates: "Wednesday, August 21, Thursday, August 22, Toronto, clause-by-clause."
Although I have to admit I've never seen an agreement in writing, it's my understanding that if there is agreement to limit the clause-by-clause, it's part of that agreement that you also specify how any amendments that have not been dealt with will be handled. They are deemed to have been debated or something like that and all the votes are taken at once. There's nothing in these minutes that refers to any point in time at which we will have deemed to have dealt with those amendments.
That leads me to believe, in the absence of my House leader and the subcommittee person, that there was no agreement, that perhaps it was an omission and perhaps it was an assumption on somebody's part that would be the end, and an assumption on someone else's part that if business was not concluded Thursday, August 22 -- because that's all the House gave us time for and they did allow us to meet on Fridays, I think, but they only gave us the certain three weeks and the option to meet on Friday -- it would then take its normal course; the committee would adjourn and it would reconvene when the regularly scheduled meetings of the justice committee will be held in September.
Now, I'm saying that without trying to slant it in any way. I'm telling you, that's the way I see it. And the important part is that there is no specific agreement here outlining how amendments would be handled that haven't been debated. Certainly the subcommittee members, with the assistance of the clerk and others -- if there was an intention to limit clause-by-clause to just these two days, I would have thought someone would have tied up the loose ends, because certainly in these minutes I see there are loose ends.
I've spoken with the House leader today, Jim Bradley. He did not suggest to me that if we didn't work diligently and get all our amendments debated we'd have to have them all deemed at the end; that was not mentioned. The parliamentary assistant, Mr Flaherty, sat here and discussed the issue, he's admitted, with Mr Ramsay. I was not party to that conversation. If Mr Ramsay gave any kind of a commitment that it should end today, that was not communicated to me. I can only go on what I know. Therefore, as long as this committee is in session, I feel it my obligation to be here and speak.
It was mentioned in the debate on this motion that with respect to our duty to the people of Ontario -- and, yes, we did hear more than 200 or around 200 submissions. You would have thought, from somewhere in those 200 submissions, some of us would have heard some of the pleas on behalf of our constituents -- and they're all our constituents, I think, when we're on a committee like this -- and we would feel the obligation to work on their behalf. In retrospect, maybe two days isn't enough time to debate all of the information that we get from 200 applicants.
So I feel an obligation, as a matter of fact, that if this committee feels it should sit till midnight tonight and sit till midnight tomorrow night and then adjourn until the House returns and regular sessions of this committee begin, and sit till midnight every night that it need be done, until all of the amendments are debated from all of the members, from what we feel we've heard from all of those people who took their time -- in fact, if there had been any kind of a time allocation, I would feel guilty that we're not giving it enough time in light of all the work that's gone into the submissions that have been presented before us.
I say again, Chair, nothing has been communicated to me. I'm not trying to hide anything. That's the way I see these minutes, and frankly I don't see any agreement. I don't even see the word "agreement" in those minutes. Therefore, I'm speaking for the motion.
1830
The Chair: Mr Kormos, and then Mr Guzzo.
Mr Crozier: You have to understand precedent and how this place is run too. You handle amendments. You allow for the handling of amendments.
Mr Kormos: You know, yesterday Mr Flaherty's spin on this, because he was scrambling, was, "Oh, the House leaders agreed." I said: "Oh, well, we'll find out then, Jim. I'll talk to the House leaders' office." I got it. "The House leaders agreed." That's what Jim Flaherty said had happened, the House leaders agreed.
So I talked to the House leaders' office last night and once again this morning. Huh? No. Not. Now, why would Jim Flaherty say that if it didn't happen? I talked to Jim Bradley, the House leader for the Liberal caucus. Jim Bradley's been here for a million years -- well, not quite; just for 22 or so -- and Jim Bradley left me with the distinct impression no, not. I'm going: "What gives? Why would Jim Flaherty say that?"
Now today it's converted to, "Oh, the subcommittee decided that." Interesting. You would think Mr Flaherty would have said that yesterday so we could speak with -- because Mr Ramsay was here yesterday all day. He was here this morning. Granted Marion Boyd ain't in town, but I would have been more than content to talk to Mr Ramsay. I've known him for a good chunk of time. By God, he used to be a New Democrat, so I've known him in his capacity as a New Democrat and as a Liberal. I quite frankly wouldn't have hesitated to talk to Mr Ramsay and say: "Dave, what gives? You were on the subcommittee." It wasn't raised earlier today while Mr Ramsay was still here, nor was it raised yesterday.
God bless the clerk for making minutes of the subcommittee meeting. I've known the clerks here for a good whack of time, and I know them to be conscientious and thorough and complete, bar none. So I was as interested in reading the minutes as was Mr Crozier because, by God, Mr Flaherty, he's in here, "Oh, Kormos is out of control." He ain't seen out of control. Hold on to your seat, Chair. "Kormos is out of control. Crozier's in trouble because he's hooked up with Kormos." No, the real problem is that this stuff is getting bad spin in the press. That's what's happening, and the ministry's little press people are run ragged trying to restore some credibility. I've been around long enough to see that happen many times as well.
Let's take a look at the memorandum prepared by the clerk: "Noted below is a summary of the subcommittee decisions reached at yesterday's meeting." She then proceeds to point out that she's going to go ahead and do the practical things.
"1. The committee will meet for three weeks commencing on August 6, 1996...." Boom. The first week: Toronto, Toronto, Thunder Bay, Kenora, Toronto, Fort Erie, Toronto. That's the first two weeks, yes. Then Sarnia, Ottawa, Sudbury. And then Wednesday, August 21, Toronto, clause-by-clause; Thursday, August 22, Toronto, clause-by-clause.
Oops, I turn the page, because I'm waiting in anticipation. My appetite has been whetted by Mr Flaherty's melodrama.
I go back to the first page: Toronto clause-by-clause, Wednesday, August 21; Toronto, clause-by-clause, Thursday, August 22. I go to the second page again. That's it, because on the second page we start up with the procedural matters.
"2. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Affairs will be invited to appear at 1 pm on Tuesday, August 6.
"3. The committee will place one advertisement in the English and French...newspapers in the cities in which public hearings are to be held." Standard sort of stuff.
"4. Time slots for witnesses will be 30 minutes; however, if it is necessary to accommodate more groups, the time slots will be 20 minutes.
"5. The clerk is authorized to arrange the scheduling of witnesses based on `first calls -- first scheduled,' and the daily itinerary of the committee as discussed by the subcommittee."
But the rest is blank space. I'm looking for the third page. I rattle the pages to see if they're collated out of the photocopy machine as if they're out of order. Because you see, Chair, please, I know what the memorandum of minutes says when there's been an agreement for effectively deeming or time allocation. I know what the minutes say. I know how the clerks report that. I've been involved in many, many, many of them.
This says exactly what it appears to say and I am confident it accurately reflects the subcommittee meeting, and that is that two days would be dedicated to clause-by-clause consideration. End of story.
Mr Crozier: Out of the three weeks.
Mr Kormos: Out of the three weeks -- Wednesday and Thursday. End of story. If Mr Flaherty thought something else, that's interesting, because he was present at that subcommittee meeting, and yesterday he was telling me it was the House leaders who had agreed.
Mr Flaherty: For three weeks.
Mr Kormos: Yesterday he had been telling me that it was the House leaders.
Mr Flaherty: For three weeks, you goof.
Mr Kormos: Yesterday Mr Flaherty was telling me that it was the House leaders who had agreed that there would be --
Mr Flaherty: You really are a goof, you know that?
Mr Kormos: -- only two days for clause-by-clause and that at the end of the two days there would be time allocation and deeming. Yesterday Mr Flaherty was telling me that the House leaders agreed and he told that to Mr Crozier, as well.
Chair, there's something very unsettling about this, very unsettling, because Mr Flaherty can't have his way all the time. He can have his way when it comes to votes because he can whip his little flunkies into shape.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: I'm sure you do. He can have his way --
Interjections.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos has the floor.
Mr Kormos: He can have his way when he's dealing with little people, so he can tell them, "Madam, didn't you know that more people died of alcoholism during Prohibition than at any other time?"
But unfortunately, Mr Flaherty is caught by the memorandum of the meeting of the subcommittee and exposed for what he is. Mr Flaherty yesterday was telling myself and Mr Crozier that it was the House leaders who had agreed on essentially deeming or time allocation, even though there was no motion in the House to that effect. I was concerned enough about that, coming from Mr Flaherty, that I checked with the House leader's office, my House leader, and I subsequently as well spoke with -- I checked with my House leader's staff person, who is the same as the previous House leader's staff person, and I subsequently spoke with Mr Crozier and Mr Bradley from St Catharines.
All of a sudden this morning the story -- I thought something was strange yesterday. I thought something stunk, because he's telling one person that it's subcommittee one time during the day, another time during the day that it's House leaders. I'm going: "Whoa, this is getting pretty convoluted. This is getting pretty mixed up. It's starting to be all things to all people," and I see these minutes. You see, Chair, if this had been my first walk around the block, I wouldn't say this with such confidence, but it ain't. I know what minutes or memoranda of subcommittee meetings say when there has been the type of agreement that Mr Flaherty refers to and I know what they say when there wasn't. These don't say it and there weren't. It's as simple as that.
Mr Flaherty might have screwed up. I understand that. That's human nature. We've all screwed up. I've done it myself, no two ways about it. When you screw up, Mr Flaherty, you've got to move on. It's as simple as that. When you screw up, Mr Flaherty, you've just got to move on.
1840
Mr Flaherty: You're so insulting.
Mr Kormos: When you screw up, you've just got to move on. You can't try to weasel your way out of it and you can't go backwards. It's not like when you wake up in the morning after doing a fender bender in your car and going outside and saying, "I wish it were a dream." You've got to live with the reality of it.
Mr Flaherty, here is the memorandum. Here are the minutes of that subcommittee. I want the record to reflect them accurately and in their entirety, Chair. I think I deserve that much. It's a memorandum. It's two pages, printed on one side each page. It's a memorandum dated June 28, 1996. It's addressed to Gerry Martiniuk, Marion Boyd, David Ramsay, Jim Flaherty, "justice subcommittee for Bill 57" -- I'm sorry, "Bill 75." See, I just screwed up, but I acknowledged it. No harm done. I said 57 and it was actually 75.
"From: Donna Bryce, Clerk
"Subject: Subcommittee decisions regarding organization for Bill 75 -- Alcohol, Gaming and Charity Funding Public Interest Act, 1996."
It's then underscored to isolate, presumably, the reference lines from the text of the memorandum. This is the beginning of the text of the memorandum:
"Noted below is a summary of the subcommittee decisions reached at yesterday's meeting. I will go ahead and start making arrangements based on those decisions; however I would point out that some of the cities and dates may require organizing based on travel, hotel and meeting room arrangements.
"Also included for your information is the advertisement for Bill 75 which is intended to go out for publication on July 5 (July 9 for the Fort Erie Weekly). Please note that the deadline for people to call in is July 15. The dates for each city has specifically been omitted as arrangements need to be finalized.
"1. The committee will meet for three weeks commencing on August 6, 1996 (contingent on schedule from House leaders) as follows:
"Tuesday, August 6, Toronto (1 pm to 5 or 6 pm)
"Wednesday, August 7, Toronto (evening travel to Thunder Bay)
"Thursday, August 8, Thunder Bay (evening travel to Kenora)
"Friday, August 9, Kenora (1/2 day)
"Monday, August 12, Toronto
"Tuesday, August 13, Fort Erie (day trip by bus)
"Wednesday, August 14, Toronto
" -- half day video conference with three expert witnesses -- Manitoba, Nova Scotia and third to be determined -- one-hour time slots
" -- half day -- public hearings
"Thursday, August 15, Sarnia (day trip by air)
"Monday, August 19, Ottawa (travel in am by air) (evening travel to Sudbury)
"Tuesday, August 20, Sudbury
"Wednesday, August 21, Toronto -- clause-by-clause
"Thursday, August 22, Toronto -- clause-by-clause"
Second page, and beginning with section 2:
"2. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will be invited to appear at 1 pm on Tuesday, August 6. The critics will make statements followed by a technical briefing as noted below:
"20 minutes -- statement by minister
"20 minutes -- statement by Liberal critic
"20 minutes -- statement by NDP critic
"45 minutes -- questions (15 minutes for each caucus)
"one hour (or two if necessary) -- technical briefing by the ministry
"one hour -- questions by members (20 minutes per caucus)
"3. "The committee will place one advertisement in English and French (in designated areas) newspapers in the cities in which public hearings are to be held. For Toronto, the committee will advertise in the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.
"4. The time slots for witnesses will be 30 minutes; however, if it is necessary to accommodate more groups, the time slots will be for 20 minutes.
"5. The clerk is authorized to arrange the scheduling of witnesses based on `first calls -- first scheduled'; and the daily itinerary of the committee, as discussed by the subcommittee."
That's the end of the text of the memo. The balance of the page is blank other than "c.c. Andrew McNaught, Research Officer."
Once again I appreciate the opportunity to address this matter. I regret if there's any suggestion that the clerk failed in any way -- because there's certainly none intended on my part -- to accurately memorandize the subject matter of the subcommittee discussions, of their agreement, or failed to accurately reflect not only the subject matter but the intent and spirit of it as well.
As I said, I'm familiar with these memoranda. I'm familiar with the manner in which clerks have for a long time been documenting these things. It is my experience that this memorandum documents exactly not only what took place, but it's very specifically contrary to what Mr Flaherty says took place.
I also register and underscore my concern about the fact that yesterday Mr Flaherty was insistent with me that it was the House leaders who agreed to this matter being finished for clause-by-clause, wrapped up, done deal, at the end of the second day of clause-by-clause. Today he changed his line to say it was subcommittee members. I find that most peculiar.
I should respond to Mr Flaherty's request for a commitment: Not on your life. I have a motion on the floor, sir. Once the question is called, I'll be requesting a 20-minute recess.
The Chair: If I can be of assistance, I think Mr Crozier did possibly suggest an amendment that we sit tonight and then adjourn till tomorrow at 10, which would permit this committee to serve the public. Did you not make that suggestion? I thought you did.
Mr Crozier: No, I supported the motion. I don't think I made an amendment.
The Chair: That's fine. We have Mr Kormos -- no, not Mr Kormos; Mr Guzzo.
Mr Guzzo: You're close. Is that actual? You called me Kormos, you know.
The Chair: Mr Guzzo, I feel badly that I have been cutting you off throughout the hearings, and I can tell you now you have unlimited time. Please proceed.
Mr Guzzo: First of all, I agree with my friend Mr Kormos when he says we must live with the reality of the situation. I regret to say that the reality of the situation is that our colleague Mr Flaherty, on four occasions today that I heard, has been called a liar on the record in this chamber. I say four occasions because I heard Mr Kormos say it on three occasions. I want to say for the record that the statement of Mr Crozier immediately preceding that of Mr Kormos just as assuredly and definitely called Mr Flaherty a liar as did the comments from Mr Kormos later.
Having said that, I think it's incumbent upon me to indicate that there were other people in the room when negotiations took place between Ms Boyd, Mr Ramsay, Mr Flaherty, and we're in a position to hear from you, sir, if there is anything you wish to add. You were there, I think, at that time. My point in speaking now is strictly for the record, to indicate that the comments of Mr Crozier are as out of line and unparliamentary as the comments of Mr Kormos when he has at least the backbone to look the man in the eye and call him a liar and use the term. But that is in fact what Mr Crozier's comments said to Mr Flaherty.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Guzzo. Mr Crozier?
Mr Crozier: I'm quite willing to --
Mr Flaherty: Was I not next?
The Chair: I did not have you down.
Mr Flaherty: Sorry, then.
The Chair: You can come back.
1850
Mr Crozier: Mr Chair, I'm quite willing to listen to any ruling you might have on what Mr Guzzo just said because you have been a diligent Chair. You have intervened when you thought that unparliamentary language was being used. I did not hear it when I was speaking. In fact, I will go as far as to give the opportunity to Mr Flaherty to give his opinion if he thought in any way, shape or form or insinuation that I was calling him anything unparliamentary. Did I, Jim?
Mr Flaherty: I will speak in a moment.
Mr Crozier: Jim, I'm asking you as a man: Did I?
Mr Flaherty: I didn't hear you call me a liar or anything like that, no.
Mr Crozier: Did I insinuate that you were?
Mr Flaherty: Insinuation --
Mr Crozier: Man to man, did you feel that I was calling you anything unparliamentary?
Mr Flaherty: No. I think you're in the difficult position of not having been at the meeting.
Mr Crozier: I'm not in a difficult position. I'm asking you as a man to answer some comments that have just been made in this committee.
The Chair: Mr Crozier --
Mr Crozier: Mr Chair, I need your indulgence, by God. This is important. It's important to me; it's important to my integrity; it's important to the way I approach this committee. I need an answer from Mr Flaherty.
The Chair: I'll give you an answer, because a point of order was raised, Mr Crozier, and I heard nothing that was unparliamentary. As a matter of fact, you specifically stated that if the assumption was made, it was unfounded, but that's all you said. I heard no innuendo that would state that Mr Flaherty was in any way stating an untruth at any time.
Mr Crozier: Thank you, Chair. I still would have appreciated hearing more from Mr Flaherty. But that's okay, Jim. I certainly did not and would not, as far as I'm concerned at this point in time, ever insinuate anything like that.
Just for the record, though, I would like to point out from my perspective that yesterday in our discussion -- it was because I heard interjections when Mr Kormos was speaking -- when Mr Flaherty and I spoke in the hallway in the afternoon, the only thing that was mentioned by Mr Flaherty was that there was an agreement of the House leaders. I undertook at that time and in fact made a suggestion that we check with our House leaders, which I did, and this morning I confirmed with my House leader that there was no agreement, the point being that the only thing that was mentioned to me was the House leader. I only heard of an agreement between members of the subcommittee late this afternoon, before we began this debate, and that's why I asked for the minutes before I even spoke.
Chair, I need that for the record.
Mr Guzzo: You were there, Jim; you were at the meeting. Tell them what was said. He'll call you a liar again.
Mr Flaherty: Despite the provocation of Mr Kormos, I am not wont to get involved in ad hominem argument or call people names. I haven't conducted myself that way in the past and I don't intend to start now because one member feels obliged to act in an outrageous and insulting way.
Mr Crozier --
Mr Guzzo: Who are you talking about now?
Mr Flaherty: Mr Kormos is the member to whom I am referring.
To respond to Mr Crozier, and I think I should, I did not take offence with anything you said in your remarks, nor did I hear anything unparliamentary.
With respect to the discussions we've had, the House leaders agreed that this committee would have three weeks for consideration of this bill, and that's the matter I discussed with representatives of both opposition parties yesterday. It was the whips who agreed on which three weeks and it was the subcommittee that agreed on how we would use the days we were allocated in those three weeks. That's the normal process, that's what we did and that's how we come to this place at this time. The subcommittee decided to use two days for clause-by-clause; more could have been used, and then less travelling and fewer witnesses. We were to deal with this matter in that time frame. That was the agreement and that's what I'm talking about.
I understand there's a failure to live up to that agreement, certainly on the part of Mr Kormos and his party. He's made it clear today, on the record, that if the committee did sit tomorrow he'd just filibuster all day anyway and waste everybody's time and the taxpayers' money, so there's no point in proceeding that way, I suppose. We're left with the motion to adjourn, which I will oppose, because it was agreed that we'd deal with this matter now in these days clause by clause and we're here to deal with it. I would perhaps foolishly suggest to the member for Welland-Thorold that he use the time constructively to actually debate the bill and proceed with clause-by-clause. I'm sure we could complete our work in the next five hours. I know that is a wishful thought on my part, because he does not share our concern with earning our money here.
Those are my comments on the motion to adjourn.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Flaherty. Are there any further comments before I put the question? The question is to --
Mr Kormos: Would you put in the question notice that I will be seeking a 20-minute recess, please.
The Chair: The question is that we adjourn immediately to 10 am tomorrow. All those in favour?
Mr Kormos: Please, Chair, a 20-minute recess.
The Chair: We have 20 minutes. We shall return at 7:20.
The committee recessed from 1857 to 1917.
The Chair: Recorded vote?
Mr Kormos: Yes, sir. Thank you.
The Chair: We have the question on the motion to adjourn this hearing to 10 am Friday, August 23, 1996.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
NAYS
Clement, Flaherty, Ford, Guzzo, Parker, Rollins.
The Chair: The motion fails.
Mr Kormos: I was prevailing upon the good judgement of the government members to recognize how important an addition Mr Kennedy's amendment is to section 2. I needn't rehash, I'm sure, the history of concern and, quite frankly, abuse of premiereal fiat to --
Mr Flaherty: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I can't hear the member. If he's speaking, I can't hear him.
The Chair: Speak up, Mr Kormos. Everybody is interested in hearing.
Mr Flaherty: He must be saying something important.
Mr Kormos: I'm sure people will be eager to listen patiently. The microphone's not working as well as it should.
Mr Flaherty: Speak up.
Mr Kormos: I spoke of the history of premiereal abuse in general use of the premiereal fiat to make appointments in this matter. I spoke, as you will recall, of the history of the Conservative Party's concern about very specifically that -- their concern about pork-barrelling or patronage. I indicated that I shared that concern. I indicated that some governments tended to be better at patronage than others. In my view, the last government wasn't very good at patronage. Indeed, there were a whole lot of members of the governing party that expressed concern about that frequently.
I suppose governments as well feel compelled, just as Brian Mulroney did in his appointment of Stephen Lewis to the United Nations, among other places, to try to generate the illusion that patronage isn't their focus. The last government appointed Andy Brandt as head of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, the LCBO -- not the alcohol control board of Ontario, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. One can't help but conclude that the same patronage is going to be employed or utilized indeed to the point of exhaustion here.
My previous amendment would have eliminated any possibility of a criticism on the basis of patronage, and it's unfortunate, as I say -- I regret that it was defeated by the government members, especially in view of not them but their colleagues' history of criticizing pork-barrelling. I suppose when you see how this government appoints people like Evelyn Dodds to the Social Assistance Review Board, and the evil that she has inflicted in short order in the course of her role there, I get the distinct impression that this government has no more interest than previous governments in legislatively mandating a way -- clearing the slate as such -- to ensure that patronage becomes a mere historical phenomenon, one of the past rather than one that remains as the status quo.
Obviously, Mr Kennedy in his motion has created a great deal of flexibility for the government, because it requires that only one of the people on the board -- again, there's no limit to the size of this board. In view of the amount of money that's going to be generated, one might anticipate that this board could become a veritable retirement home for defeated candidates and other Tory hacks. There's no limit. There will be limitless resources available to the commission because we know there's going to be an incredible amount of money generated by slots as a result of the victimization of slot players -- primarily the focus has been on gambling addicts here in the province of Ontario -- billions.
It's imperative that some interest in the victimization of these people, in the impact of their victimization on the community, be central to the activity of this commission as it carries on its business. Once again, we know the government can put people on this commission in such a way that -- just as opposition members here in committee are essentially without power. Of course, the government can outvote them any time of the week, assuming enough government members are here to form a minimum number of people. We're going to talk about that, about the board of directors too, in future motions.
It's imperative, and you've heard that, that somebody be on this board, and that it be essential it be legislated that somebody is on this board, who will address the issue of public health, victimization. There are amendments waiting to be moved which call out for supervision of the regime as it develops, with emphasis in particular on public health and the impact of this proliferation of slots on public health.
The economic costs of illness and disease -- and we're talking about addictions here -- can be put into two categories: direct and indirect costs. In the instance of gambling, direct costs are those dollars that are lost to gambling as well as the money that the society, the community, the health care system, the addiction research system, has to expend, or in this case the gaming commission has to expend, for protection.
There's a need, again, to engage in a process of identifying, because the research tells us that most gambling addicts are loath to identify themselves as gambling addicts. I don't think there's any quarrel with the fact that most alcoholics and, indeed, many drug addicts are disinclined to identify themselves as addicted to alcohol in the case of alcoholics, or addicted to drugs in the case of drugs.
So there has to be proactive exercise in detecting. You can't just throw the money out there, putting up bulletin boards or signs on bulletin boards and expecting people to come forward and surrender themselves. It's like that old Jack Lemmon movie with -- who was the woman who starred in it? -- Days of Wine and Roses. Lee Remick, I think, was in that classic old film about alcoholism and self-enlightenment and seeking out the cure and taking that big step. It's a movie and it's Hollywood drama, but it has been heralded by, among others, AA as portraying a pretty accurate picture of the depths to which people can descend in the course of suffering that disease. So detection is going to be a particularly important function.
You've also got the issue of prevention. That's a far more difficult task, because we know so little about gambling addictions. Then, at the end of the day, you've got out and out treatment. Again, the treatment programs are few and far between. They aren't well defined. Treatment, detection and prevention may well become a central role in the function of the commission. But those are direct costs.
We also have to concern ourselves with the indirect costs of gambling addiction. Those were referred to in no small part by Marlene Pierre. We were up in Thunder Bay when she spoke on behalf of native women. She was speaking very specifically about the indirect costs. She said: "Okay, fine. You're going to have 2% of the revenues from slots going to addictions research and treatment. Who's going to pay for the battered spouse, the abused spouse? Who's going to pay for the children whose lives are destroyed?" Indirect costs are also the costs that are linked to lost productivity which gambling-addicted people are part and parcel of. It's income forgone.
Quite frankly, in the case of gambling addicts, the pathological gambler, most of their working hours are devoted to gambling and the lost productivity -- I say to you there can be a serious economic cost. There have been some numbers presented to us, or at least available to us in the research, as to what it costs, what a gambling addict costs the community. Again, the numbers I acknowledge are all over the place because the work, the study and the analysis in that area are, oh, so incomplete, but we know that it's five-digit losses. The numbers that have been provided and available through the research are $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 per annum per gambling addict.
As I indicated, in the case of the gambling addict the lost productivity at work is profoundly -- and this is suggested by any number of researchers -- greater than it is with the alcoholic or drug addict because alcoholics or drug addicts are almost inevitably at work performing -- although probably no doubt in anybody's mind not as efficiently as they could -- their job. Indeed, drug addicts and alcoholics report to work in this province, in this country, throughout the world, on a daily basis. One isn't surprised at that. But the gambling addict, we're told, although he or she goes to work, has an even more marginal participation in the daily workday, is even less productive by and large than the alcoholic or the drug addict and indeed exploits the job site too. The gambling addict is at work reflecting on how she or he is going to find that $50, $100, $150 or $200 to carry them through the night at the slots.
We went through just a little while ago a series of -- again newspaper reports, I acknowledge that they are -- but a series of reports outlining this very phenomenon. Once again, lost productivity, we're talking about the high levels of theft from employers. Indeed, one newspaper report suggested that a source had indicated that 50% of all employee-employer theft is committed by gambling addicts. Even, if you will, the prospect of the interference of a gambling addict with fellow employees, putting the touch on them for 20 bucks or 50 bucks, and one wonders how many of us have undergone that perceiving it merely as inconvenient and failing to recognize that we were dealing with a bona fide gambling addict.
Again, I know so well, I've heard it so often, the citation from Gfellner about the statistical average, twice a week, 30 minutes a pop, $10 each crack. Well, the fact is that if the average were every gambler, the owners of slots wouldn't make a whole lot of money.
Look, there are all sorts of data because there's data that are pre-slots. I took a look at a report that was prepared in the state of Maryland, where at the time, because this was 1987 through to 1989 and 1990, the years covering that time frame, there was not a legal slot machine jurisdiction in Maryland even though it was conceded that the grey machines, as they are here, were readily accessible. There was, however, a very popular -- because Maryland, as some of you will be aware, was well known well beyond the state of Maryland for its state lottery system. What was interesting in Maryland, the research that was done at the instance of the Maryland Task Force on Gambling Addiction, was the profile of addicted gamblers, addicted pathological and problem gamblers, underemployed or unemployed and with, catch this, a tendency to gamble on the low-priced games, be it, and I can see it, bingo or lotteries or video poker machines, slot machines, the very sort of stuff we're talking about right here and now.
1930
The rationale wasn't hard at all. Those forms of gambling require a small outlay of money. You can go there with a loonie, although a loonie won't last you long. They don't have loonies in Maryland. They have loonies in Maryland, but they don't have the loonie coin. The readily accessible gambling venue is what attracted the pathological, problematic gambler, and that's exactly again what's been said time after time after time here during the course of these hearings, citing among others the Gfellner report from Manitoba.
How do we bring this home in a very direct, very specific way to the commission? I have no doubt the commission is going to be receiving over the course of time any number of submissions to it reporting back from any number of agencies or institutions being funded to investigate and research gambling, or from individuals whose families suffer from the impact of addictive gambling or compulsive or pathological gambling, or from newspaper reporters doing investigative journalism, or as a result of police investigations, or hopefully as a result of the type of ongoing review.
Interjections.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: No, Chair. I was distracted by the noise in the room. I expected --
The Chair: I wasn't distracted, Mr Kormos. I suggest you proceed or yield the floor to somebody else. Is there anyone else who wishes to make a submission?
Mr Kormos: I haven't yielded the floor.
The Chair: Fine, then continue.
Mr Kormos: I see the Chair is getting cranky. If the Chair would exercise some control over the meeting place --
The Chair: The meeting place is fine, Mr Kormos. You seem to be the problem.
Mr Kormos: God bless you, Chair. The Chair is getting cranky.
Mr Clement: You can make us sit here but you can't make us listen.
The Chair: The Chair is getting cranky, and so are some of the other people. My God, it's only quarter to 8 and --
Mr Clement: This is not a police state, Mr Kormos. We don't have to listen to you.
Mr Kormos: It's only quarter to 8 and already the hyenas -- do hyenas howl at the moon? Is it a full moon? I certainly hear howling and squealing.
Mr Guzzo: You have a tag team partner. Let him take over.
Mr Kormos: Oh, Mr Crozier will have lots of time to address any number of issues here.
Mr Rollins: I'd just like it if you'd talk about the motion.
Mr Kormos: So-and-so over there is having trouble running his finger down the page. What we're talking about is there's a serious phenomenon of gambling addiction. And clearly that being the concern that's being addressed by Mr Kennedy in this most liberal amendment -- I say that not in that it was partisan, but I say that in that it was liberal in the true sense of small-l liberal because it gives the government so much leeway -- I would truly be surprised to find the government members not supporting this amendment. I would truly be surprised.
Mr Clement: Let's put it to the test, Peter.
Mr Kormos: The government has tried to market itself as having concern about the public health issue. It talks a big game. Although they haven't been inclined to put it in the legislation, there's an amendment coming up some time over the next few months that will put the 2% promise into the statute. I think that's a very important amendment. That amendment may well be amended by others who feel that 2% is certainly a low ball, in view of the incredible potential impact on the communities that are going to have slot machines in them.
Why I speak of it as a liberal motion is because it still gives the government so, so, so much leeway. The government can, if it wishes, in exercising its unilateral power to appoint whatever hack it wants to the gaming commission, appoint enough hacks, like it has with district health councils and police services boards, so that the one person with expertise in the field of public health or in the field of charitable organizations is simply overwhelmed by the numbers such that that one representative is a mere token.
Now, far be it from this government to engage in tokenism, because I don't even think, from what some of the howling was by way of interjection here, that they're even prepared to give token or lip-service to the prospect of having somebody with a focus on the charitable institutions' interests or on the public health interests. They're not even prepared to pay lip-service to it by virtue of adopting this amendment.
Really, Mr Kennedy, in some respects, let the government off the hook. I suspect that he was trying to be as conciliatory as he could possibly be, that he recognized that the government had little, if any, real interest in the problems of gambling addiction and pathological gambling, that the government probably wasn't going to keep its commitment to $2 million once it gets its greasy, greedy, slimy little fingers on the money out of these machines that came out of the pockets of the unemployed and the underemployed and the poor. It's going to be hard-pressed to part with it.
I suppose at the end of the day this money could pay for any number of research teams that'll do the government's bidding and report back that, oh, the government has such a great scheme here, that the reports of gambling addiction are exaggerated or there's an overreporting phenomenon. I suppose the government could do that, and the government might. If it doesn't have this representative that Mr Kennedy speaks of, the government probably will. Why, it probably will, Chair.
Does the same concern exist with respect to representation for the interests of charitable organizations? I guess so. Indeed, it exists so strongly because we note once again that this government, with its slovenly, sloppy and poorly prepared, poorly conceived legislation, fails to put into the legislation what it promises will be 10% of the proceeds from slots to charitable institutions, fails to put in the legislation any indication that there is going to be a model for distribution.
You heard the concerns. Charities and other non-profit organizations are tired of having to line up and wait their turn. When it comes to a municipality getting its share of the proceeds, they know that the biggest are going to get the most. They know that the people who can afford the high-priced, Tory-connected consultants to write the applications, to fill them out, are going to be first in line. They know that, and you heard them say that during the course of the committee hearings. Why doesn't the committee want to listen to them?
1940
I suspect these Tories really don't care about the small charities. They're defunding them by virtue of taking away the modest means they have to raise money now. By virtue of slot machine jurisdictions they're going to defund them by eliminating the break-open ticket industry, by eliminating the bingo industry. What does the government say? "Oh, trust us. Trust us."
It reminds me of the old story about the world's three greatest lies. The first one is, "The cheque is in the mail." The second of the world's three greatest lies is, "Your money cheerfully refunded." The third is: "Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." People are aware of that; people know that. They simply don't trust you when you say -- not you specifically, Chair, because I know you're a government hack, but during the course of these hearings you've been the Chair. But they've been pretty candid in their responses to government members who have tried to spin them and win them over, who have tried to razzle-dazzle them, who have brought the pea and shell game out there, saying, "Now you see it; now you don't." David Tsubouchi is all smiles. He's all smiles because he doesn't even know about Bill 75. He certainly hasn't been reported to by Mr Flaherty, his parliamentary assistant.
The Chair: You're getting off the topic again, Mr Kormos. Would you stick to the amendment before the committee, please.
Mr Kormos: Of course I will. So here's David Tsubouchi all smiles. But David Tsubouchi --
The Chair: I've asked you to stay on the topic, and that is not on the topic.
Mr Kormos: But, Chair, I am, because David Tsubouchi has been a long-time supporter of --
The Chair: Mr Kormos, I've asked you three times now. That is not on the topic. Would you please deal with Mr Kennedy's motion, because I think it's an important motion that we have to deal with.
Mr Kormos: Chair, you can't talk about the motion without talking about it in the context of the bill. This is an amendment to subsection 2(2) of the bill, which you know, but mind you, only of schedule 1. There's a whole lot of other subsections, a whole lot of other schedules. When you talk about an amendment, you've got to talk about the amendment in the context of the impact of the whole bill. This amendment is one that's designed to guarantee -- I understand why you don't want me to talk about David, but this amendment is one that's designed to guarantee --
The Chair: I don't want you to talk about Mr Tsubouchi because that has nothing to do with the particular amendment before this House.
Mr Kormos: -- that the interests of this legislation --
The Chair: Mr Kormos, can you not act in a parliamentary manner? I give you the greatest latitude and you persist in being the town bully. I'm sorry. I've got this job to do. I don't appreciate your behaviour but, on the other hand, you are getting off topic and I'd like you to get on it if you could.
The Chair: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate -- please don't be cranky. It's going to be over soon.
Mr Flaherty: On a point of order, Mr Chair: You're not being cranky at all and I think the member knows that the standing orders provide that the member is not to debate the rulings of the Chair with the Chair. That's what the rules are. Mr Kormos doesn't care about the rules, of course. He has one set of rules for the rest of the world and one set of rules, or non-rules, for himself.
If Mr Kormos does not wish to debate the amendment before the committee, I'm certainly prepared to take over and debate that amendment and the other amendments we want to get done. We have quite a list of amendments to get through. It is now quarter to 8 or so. We only have about four hours left, according to the agreement reached between the parties, to get the job done, so I would ask Mr Kormos to please deal with the amendments. If he doesn't want to, the government members certainly are prepared to proceed and I'm sure that Mr Crozier would be prepared to do the business that we're paid to do by the taxpayers of Ontario. So if Mr Kormos wants to go out, have a cigarette or go for a walk or something, we can deal with the business that needs to be done.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Flaherty. You have the floor, Mr Kormos.
Mr Crozier: Was that a point of order, Chair?
The Chair: I assume that was.
Mr Crozier: Are we all allowed to speak to the point of order?
The Chair: If you have a point of order.
Mr Crozier: No, I'm speaking to the point of order. I think we're all given an opportunity, if you've ruled it to be a point of order, that we speak to it, or is that incorrect?
The Chair: I had suggested Mr Kormos was off topic. Mr Kormos proceeded to argue with the Chair, which he is wont to do because he pays very little attention to the rules. I take it that Mr Flaherty's comments were just pointing that out to Mr Kormos. They were quite improper. I certainly will give you an opportunity --
Mr Crozier: Either it's a point of order or it isn't a point of order, and if it's a point of order then we can speak to the point of order.
The Chair: I will certainly give you an opportunity to speak to Mr Flaherty's comments if it is a point of order.
Mr Crozier: I'm speaking to the same point of order. You should know that I'm inclined to agree with Mr Flaherty that people shouldn't argue with the Chair, but at the same time, throughout these committee hearings there has been, as you've said, a fair amount of latitude. I agree with Mr Flaherty about arguing with the Chair. By the same token I agree with Mr Kormos in that it's difficult to speak to a bill of this significance without from time to time referring to the minister, particularly when it's a minister who hasn't been spoken to about the bill. I think that's just Mr Kormos's concern, but I could be wrong and he could correct me.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Crozier. Mr Kormos, you have the floor.
Mr Kormos: Once again I thank you for your guidance. We were addressed by more than a few of those interests that spoke to the matter of public health. We were addressed by representatives of the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling in Ontario. They talked about, by virtue of the material they filed, the number of teen gamblers in Ontario rising at an alarming rate. These weren't people with self-interest; these were people who didn't even mention, if I recall correctly -- I'm sure that somebody is leafing through the transcript of their presentation right now and determining that I'm wrong, but I don't recall them saying, "Oh yes, we want to be a piece of the money pie." They simply want to be there telling the government that gambling is a high-risk endeavour. They wanted to explain.
Mind you, I think they should have a piece of the pie because these are public health issues that the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling addressed. Here are these poor folks, who've got an office in Windsor now, dependent on some corporate, and God bless -- Arthur Andersen and Co, Audrey Hellyer Charitable Foundation, Brentwood Foundation, CIBC, Casino Windsor, Classic Bingo, the law firm of Tait and Bradie, Norman and Harold Cayman, Ontario Jockey Club, Ontario Ministry of Health, Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank and the Windsor Star. These are corporations and individuals who donate $1,000 or more annually. Here's a group that has a real interest (1) in the public health end, but (2) as a non-profit organization.
One thing we may well have neglected to ask them is if they have a charitable foundation number -- I think that's the colloquial reference -- such that you make a donation to them and you get a tax receipt. I suspect they might, because of the nature of the people giving money now. They're more inclined to do it when there's a tax break.
1950
Here were individuals making these submissions that covered both facets. Remarkable, isn't it? Here's a group, one of whom could end up on the commission, on the board of directors, and the government could, by God, exceed expectations of it. It could kill two birds with one stone, if that isn't a politically incorrect phrase at this point in time. There are ornithologists out there for whom that would be an offensive proposition. Here's a group -- we met with the individuals here and I don't think anybody doubted their legitimacy, their concern, their commitment. So why is the government indicating some trepidation about Mr Kennedy's modest amendment?
We heard concerns from a whole pile of sources, but we heard from Rev Doug Sly, as you'll recall, from Windsor, and Rev Dr Don Bardwell, also from Windsor, who represented the Essex Presbytery and London Conference of the United Church of Canada.
The opposition members on the committee were under perpetual attacks, saying, "Oh, their interest was purely partisan." Fair enough. Opposition members may well be inclined to want to find little weaknesses in the government to try to discredit the government. That's what oppositions do. But surely to say that about the United Church of Canada, many of whose members I suspect -- far be it from me to say so for sure; I haven't done any research -- just might have voted for Tories -- somebody had to vote for the Tories. Lord knows there were enough of them elected. It's harder and harder to find people who will admit to it, but clearly somebody out there voted for Tories, including, I am sure, some Catholics and some United Church folks. But how can the United Church of Canada be perceived as having some sort of interest or some sort of partisan orientation?
Here is the United Church of Canada, which expressed great concern about the social impact, about the public health impact, concern for charitable institutions. How could anybody doubt the legitimacy of their concerns? They make reference to research that's been done. They rely upon that in a way that government members of this committee have refused to. They've read that research. They've undertaken the task of fleshing out what their instincts tell them. But they join with that research some concerns about the morality of this and its impact on society. Now here we are. Morality becomes an increasingly elusive question. Young Tories advocating the death penalty: There's going to be a whole lot of argument about whether that's moral. So why would the government dismiss concerns by the United Church of Canada which are addressed in no small part by the modest proposition of Mr Kennedy?
We heard an interesting submission, and it was sort of one of a kind, from Robert Howard of the Oshawa area, from the United Way there. He identified a real problem with the government's legislation. You talk a big game about distributing some of the proceeds to charities, although we haven't defined charities. How are you going to do it? Where's your model? During the course of the last three weeks, the Liberals and I have been at times haranguing the government members and Mr Flaherty. We know how slippery he can be, but every time we had a chance to, we tried to pin him down. We just never did. The slippery little devil just wouldn't be pinned down and give a straight answer. We want to know, what are the models? What's going on here? What's the proposition?
The United Way came forward, or specifically Robert Howard from the United Way, and said, "I've got an answer for you." I thought, "Interesting." That was up in Ottawa. He travelled all the way from the Oshawa area to Ottawa to make this submission. He proposed that the United Way could become a partner, could become a player in this money distribution process. He said, "We're familiar with what we do" -- can't quarrel with that. "We do it well" -- can't quarrel with that either.
I'm more familiar, obviously, with the United Way down in Welland. There's never been any hint or suspicion of there being less than the highest integrity in the handling of funds on their part. By and large, although every group that doesn't get what they want feels aggrieved, at the end of the day most organizations in the community recognize that the pie is limited in size and they've got what they perceive as their fair share.
That having been done, I was surprised, I tell you, not to see an amendment introduced by the government that reflected in this case the model proposed by the United Way. One would have thought that had government members been listening and, more importantly, if they were serious, if they really meant it about including the non-profits and charitables -- I guess that's a question to be asked too: When they talk charities, do they include the non-profits into their money distribution program? If they really meant it, they'd have included some sort of model, if not as part of the legislation, at least by way of -- what would you call it? -- a policy statement, by way of an outline so we could work it and test it. Not very satisfactory. The silence from the government in that regard is deafening and it causes, as I say, a lot of concern for a lot of people out there.
One of the proposals was consistent with other proposals we had, including from Mayor Don Cousens of Markham, Ontario, whom I like a great deal. These were a reflection of, among other things, the recommendations that had been adopted by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Once again, you see, you can't have it both ways. If we're going to be convinced that it's going to happen, it's either got to be in the legislation or the government members this evening have got to support Mr Kennedy's motion, because that will let the government members state clearly that they're serious about the public health and charities issue. We haven't seen anything yet, not a single thing, not a shred of paper, not a scrap of paper that would indicate in writing that the government is prepared to keep its word. There you go.
I think this is a amendment that warrants serious consideration. I believe it's an amendment that is complementary to other amendments that are before the committee. I agree that it may be not as complete as I wish and there may well be other amendments put forward that address the need for there to be a cross-section of representation. There may well be amendments to that effect, such that the board is a meaningful reflection of the real community.
I'm urging my colleagues on the committee from the government caucus to stand up and speak out on behalf of the potential victims in their community. I know they're there. The victims are victims of gambling addictions, the economic victims of a non-sustainable industry, to wit slots, and the victims are going to be the charities and the clientele of charities. That's who the victims are. This is a chance to speak out for them, a chance to show you're on their side and not just on the side of the mob and organized crime racketeers who are peddling slot machines. Even John Gotti made contributions and helped out local and family charities. There's room even in a mobster's heart to help the underprivileged; on the one hand he helps them and on the other hand he victimizes them, but that's the nature of the game.
Surely there's enough room in this government's heart, at least in the hearts of the members who are here, to pay this modest lip-service to the victims of this scheme. I tell you that in all sincerity. Thank you kindly.
2000
Mr Crozier: I wanted to add to this debate a couple of points. As was mentioned earlier in the day, the appointment of this commission, the makeup of the commission, the type of individuals who are appointed to the commission is very important because in the years ahead it will determine how the alcohol and gaming act is administered and probably what regulations will be proposed for this legislation.
I wanted to point out that there was a study by Smith in 1992 that points out that public debate on gambling issues rarely occurs in Canada. That's why I think it's important that we debate this bill fully, because as is pointed out here, it rarely happens in Canada. So this is a rare occasion, and I would suggest, then, a good thing that we have the opportunity to debate it.
Smith, in his report, which was alluded to by Mr L.E. Henriksson of Vancouver, goes on to say that typically the scheme is discussed and approved by a province's ruling party and presented to the public as a fait accompli. I expressed an opinion earlier today, or maybe it was even yesterday -- it's a while ago -- that I was rather shocked by the fact that a member of the government would say that, and yet I guess that's not unusual. This is a rare occasion that we're debating it, but the admission of the member of the government that it is a fait accompli is not rare. I felt I should bring that forward to point out to you that you're really being no different than most other governments have been, in the writer's opinion, that this is a fait accompli.
But then when it is a fait accompli, the public isn't listened to, ie, some of the recommendations they make aren't included in the final legislation. "The public outcry, for example, that has occurred in British Columbia and many other provinces and the flourishing interest in casinos among first nations indicate that the development of an acceptable process is a matter of considerably urgency."
Frankly, I think that's what we're going through here, this matter of considerable urgency, because it's only three weeks since we've been debating this bill, and in fact the residents of the province weren't even aware as early as a few weeks before the budget this spring that video lottery terminals would even be considered. Then, when the finance branch no doubt said to the government it needs the money, "You've got to get these slots on the road," it was part of the budget.
Then, during the public meetings that we have had, the profile of video slot machines has been raised to the extent -- and we have to agree this is summer. Like one of the presenters said, you'll recall the reverend father said to us that this is the rite of August. Committee meetings are held when everybody is away on vacation and the government may think that few are listening.
In spite of the fact that this has been brought up and the profile has been raised this summer, we now have 30 communities that have registered their opposition to VLTs. We have another 10 communities that have serious concerns, and they're supporting the AMO position. We all have read the AMO position. It's been presented to the record and it's not necessary for me to repeat it, but it certainly isn't a ringing endorsement of VLTs.
So while consultation can enhance the legitimacy and in some cases even the quality of the decision, it's not without problems. As Mr Henriksson goes on to say, "Because of the immense potential for private profit, it is very likely that there will be a severe power and resource imbalance in favour of pro-gambling constituencies."
In Vancouver again, for instance, the seaport promoters spent about $1 million on promotion-related activities. This was reported in Daniels and Hume, 1994: "The intensive polling and advertising campaign began long before opposition groups could mobilize. The time advantage was a strategic one and was an attempt to create a bandwagon effect," which was no doubt extremely difficult for the small, poorly funded groups to oppose. But lo and behold, when the real truth about these magic little machines came out in the province of British Columbia, those small, originally unorganized, underfunded groups headed up a campaign that ended up with written and telephone comments coming in to the government. The city of Vancouver, no doubt feeling its obligations to its constituents, even had public meetings on the issue, and we know what happened in Vancouver.
That's why it's important that we discuss these matters. That's why it's important that we take the time, no matter how long it takes, to express our views relative to --
Mr Flaherty: No matter what we agreed to.
Mr Crozier: I understand the interjection. I understand your concern, Mr Flaherty, because yesterday, as I said before, you told me very --
Mr Flaherty: I told you the House leaders allowed three weeks, and that's true. That's exactly true.
Mr Guzzo: Call him a liar. Call him a liar again. Go ahead.
The Chair: Mr Crozier has the floor.
Mr Guzzo: Get down to the bottom, right to the very bottom. Patti Starr and --
Mr Crozier: Then I'd be with you.
Mr Flaherty: I told you that the House leaders gave us three weeks.
The Chair: Mr Crozier, please proceed. Gentlemen, Mr Crozier has the floor.
Mr Flaherty: You know that.
Mr Crozier: What I do know is that it was agreed last night that I would check with the House leader, and I would have thought --
The Chair: We've dealt with that matter, Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: Oh, have we?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Crozier: I thought Mr Flaherty was bringing it up again.
The Chair: No. If he was, it's not proper to bring it up at this time. Will you please proceed with your presentation.
Mr Crozier: Thanks, Chair. The reason that I think it's important that we consider the appointees to this commission is because, as I refer to A Guide to Agencies, Boards and Commissions of the government of Ontario that's published by the Queen's Printer and sent out by Publications Ontario, it says on page 5 of the introduction:
"All agencies require representation from a broad cross-section of the community, including seniors, disabled people, francophone Ontarians, visible minorities, aboriginal and native Canadians, labour and management groups.
"Some agencies, such as those exercising a regulatory or licence-review function, may also require specific expertise in the area. Again, a large number of appointments may be made while only a limited number of appointees actually attend any given meeting."
We discussed how the chair and the vice-chair of that is handled. That goes right to the point that I would like to reiterate: that the use of experts as regulators is not without problems, though. Notwithstanding the fact that the guidelines for public representation say that it may require specific expertise, the use of experts as regulators is not without problems, so we have to be very careful on the appointments to this commission.
That's why this amendment to subsection 2(2) of the schedule is at least trying to bring emphasis to the fact that public health or charitable organizations should be considered, and we all know that those two organizations represent cross-sections of the communities, which might include seniors, disabled people, francophone Ontarians, visible minorities, aboriginal and native Canadians, labour and management groups. I think that this resolution can very well include those groups.
As well, the manual that is sent to each of us, A Guide to Agencies, Boards and Commissions -- in this case we're talking about a commission -- lays out the procedure that we must go through. We debated what I thought was a reasonable amendment earlier that it would be made up of a tripartite committee, but we've chosen not to accept that, so we're left, I guess, with the standing committee on government agencies to be the watchdog.
2010
The terms of reference for the review of appointments to the public sector there should be very important to us, because there is in fact a standing order on this, 104(g), where it was inserted that the committee "to review the intended appointments of persons to agencies, boards and commissions and of directors of corporations in which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder" should follow the following procedures:
"(1) A minister of the crown shall lay on the table a certificate stating that the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Premier, as the case may be, intends to appoint a person to an agency, board or commission," in this case what we're speaking about, "or to the board of directors of a corporation, together with a copy of the position description and a summary of the person's qualifications."
That's the important part, "the person's qualifications," because we know that we're later going to be discussing how those persons have to be persons with principles of honesty and integrity and social responsibility. Then these documents are referred to the committee. Of course, once the committee receives the certificate, which is the Lieutenant Governor in Council's order, the clerk of the committee shall distribute "to each member of the subcommittee on committee business a list of intended appointees in respect of whom a certificate has been received."
You can see the pattern starting to develop where even though we turned down an alternative method today of assuring that only the best of people are appointed to this commission, we still have a reasonable system in place.
Then there's a further step. Even though it's been filed with the committee, a subcommittee meets, and "at its own initiative or at the request of the committee," they select from the intended appointees, each member of the subcommittee representing each of the three parties, the appointees that the committee is going to review and "each member of the subcommittee, other than the Chair," can select one or more of the intended appointees for review.
If they weren't selected for review or "following 30 calendar days from the tabling of the certificate" during which no subcommittee meeting is held for the purpose of selecting any more from that list for which the review has taken place, whichever one comes first, a report is then "deemed to have been made by the committee and adopted by the House." That committee will not review any further of the intended appointees. They just go on automatically.
Since this alternative method has been not acceptable, those of us who are on the government agencies committee have to be very vigilant when it comes to appointees to the new Alcohol and Gaming Commission, because once there is notice from the clerk of the government agencies committee that the intended appointee has been selected for review, the minister who recommended them -- and I'm going to come back to this constant mentioning of the minister -- "the minister who recommended the appointment shall provide to the committee a copy of the intended appointee's application, a copy of his or her résumé, a description of the responsibilities of the position, a detailed description of the candidate's search process and a statement of the criteria by which the intended appointee was chosen." Thus far, that to me seems like it has some safeguards built into it so that we can be sure there is a broad review of the candidates for these committees.
Then, at any meeting of the government agencies committee called for the purpose of reviewing intended appointees, "the Chair shall divide the time," again being fair, to review the appointee so that an equal amount of time will be spent reviewing the selections that were made by each of the members of the subcommittee. That's only fair. I think that's the way our Chairman has acted over these past three weeks, notwithstanding the fact that it's getting late in the third week. But the Chair of the government agencies committee acts much in the manner of the Chair we've had with us chairing our meetings over the past three weeks.
Where the subcommittee has chosen more than one intended appointee for review, because we're talking here where there might be as few as five and -- we don't know how many. But where they have chosen more than one for review, again the member has to apportion the time available to review his or her selections between the appointees, because of course we have to use our time efficiently.
Mr Guzzo: Just ignore what the subcommittee does.
Mr Crozier: The subcommittee member, of course, then may choose to defer -- it's interesting, Chair. They might even choose to defer the consideration of one of the intended appointees, and if that member has been chosen for review, it can be deferred for up to 14 calendar days. So they're very careful. These guidelines, these terms of reference for the review of appointments in the public sector, are not to be taken lightly, because a deferral can last up to 14 days and that can affect the operation of the committee, of course, so you don't want to use these lightly, or until a future meeting of the committee at which the intended appointees have been reviewed, so long as the consideration of the intended appointee has not previously been deferred. Of course you can't just continually defer someone because that wouldn't be fair to them, nor would it be fair to the committee.
Then there's a further step in reviewing an intended appointee, and that is that "the committee shall not call as a witness any other person," because the only one they really want to talk to -- it might be helpful sometimes, I suppose, to have a character reference. It would be useful, but it's felt that these guidelines are sufficient that only the appointee is called before the government agencies committee.
Then comes an interesting fact that I'm not sure anyone who hasn't been on the government agencies committee would understand, and that is that the committee can determine whether or not it concurs with the intended appointment. This is done at the conclusion of the meeting when they review all the appointments, unless of course a member requests that there be a deferral, as I talked about just a few minutes ago.
Then in its report the committee states whether or not it concurs with the intended appointments and may state its reasons therefore. I think that's important, because if we're going to go through this process of appointing committee members under subsection 2(2) of schedule 1, and particularly if they're going to be members of charitable organizations or health organizations, and if the suggestion is that within that group we give consideration to a broad cross-section of the community, which I'm sure we'd all want to do, which includes seniors and disabled people, francophone Ontarians, visible minorities, aboriginal and native Canadians, labour and management groups, once we've done that, the committee may not concur with it, and it very often gives reasons for that.
I can remember on one occasion where we did not concur with an appointment this year and the government reviewed it and I think appropriately withdrew that person's nomination. So there is a case where it would indicate that the system, the procedure, the process is working. I certainly think and agree that even though it says the committee may state the reasons why it does not concur, it's only appropriate that the committee give its reasons.
2020
Then the committee presents its report to the House on its review of the intended appointments at the earliest opportunity, of course, following the meeting at which its findings have been made. That report then is deemed to be adopted by the House. If the House isn't meeting at the time -- they've kind of thought about everything here, because the House doesn't meet all the time -- the committee has the authority, and it has to take this with a great deal of responsibility, to release the report by depositing a copy of it with the Clerk of the assembly. Then, when the Clerk of the assembly receives that report, it's deemed to be adopted by the House.
Another interesting point: If that report of the intended appointee is not made within 30 calendar days -- in other words, they're setting it up so the committee can't just sit on this thing -- following the day on which the intended appointee was selected for review, the report is deemed to have been made by the committee and adopted by the House, and the committee will not review the intended appointee beyond that. That word "deemed" has popped up again, because what they have allowed for, much the same as I discussed earlier this evening if you don't get to all of the amendments that we have, is there are, or should be, in place specific instructions as to what is deemed to have been done with the amendments. In this case they've covered that. It's deemed to have been taken care of; you can't just let the appointment sit out in limbo.
As well, where the consideration of an intended appointee is deferred in accordance with the earlier comments I made where a committee member may ask for deferral, the time allowed for making the report that's established there is, as I mentioned before, only extended 14 days. So you just really can't, because you don't like an appointee to a committee -- maybe you have good reason not to like the appointee, but you still can't just let it hang out in limbo. You have to make a decision with it.
Finally, the clerk of the committee notifies in writing the minister who recommended the appointment of any decision of the committee and the subcommittee on committee business respecting the appointment. The interesting thing is, it doesn't matter whether the government agencies committee concurs with it or not. It merely has to follow through the reporting process and either agree or not agree with the appointment. Still in all, the appointment can go ahead. So in the final analysis, the minister, in spite of what the committee may think, can go ahead and appoint someone who perhaps -- it's rare, but perhaps a unanimous decision was made by the government agencies committee not to support that appointment. That is why I said I wanted to refer back to the minister. That's why it's important that when we're discussing this legislation, a minister who is going to be making these appointments, probably with some advice from others, should have the opportunity to comment on it, because it's a significant responsibility that the minister will be taking on.
Earlier suggestions that the new Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations appear before the committee were not made frivolously. We sincerely feel that when you go through this process as it's laid out in the guide to agencies, boards and commissions, you can see by all of those steps and the fact that the minister makes the recommendation that it's really important that the minister understand the significance of it and the absolute weight that's being put on the minister's shoulders in making these appointments.
I just wanted to add those comments to the comments that have been made by others. We have an opportunity here to take up the spirit of this guide here by taking into consideration charitable organizations or someone who has expertise in the field of public health, keeping in mind that this then would be a cross-section of the community which probably would include seniors and disabled people and francophone Ontarians, visible minorities and aboriginal native Canadians, labour and management groups, and even some appointees with specific expertise in the area. But we have to heed what Henriksson said in making those appointments of folks who have expertise because that brings with it some problems in that they tend to, let's say, reside among those who are financially supported by the industry. I suppose that's a reasonable conclusion, because that's where they get their experience.
I certainly would urge the government to support this motion.
Mr Kormos: Mr Crozier has certainly provided a perspective here which I quite frankly found fascinating. He spoke about the integrity of the system, among other things, and he spoke about the fact that notwithstanding that there's a guideline of procedure now for ABCs, the guideline is -- well, it's a right without a remedy. At least it is for the MPPs, the members of the Legislative Assembly. It's a guard dog with no teeth.
Mr Crozier, in his final comment, made reference to Henriksson's reference to a long-held theory. That is that the plight of most regulatory bodies is to become co-opted by the industry they purport to regulate. That was developed at length most recently. Henriksson refers to it in a study in a U of T law journal by Ian Scott before he was the Attorney General of the province. It's not difficult to understand the wherefore and the why of that.
There are two ways, and this is why I specifically asked Mr Flaherty about solicitation in terms of fulfilling the requirement of this new board of directors, staffing it, bodying it, if you will. One of the reasons I asked him about solicitation is there are basically two ways that it's done.
One, the ministry or the Premier's office will go out headhunting and actively seek people. In a body like this there may be some cannibalizing -- here we go again -- of existing LLBO people, although I suspect that some of the senior people in the LLBO, their days are numbered. Or in the gaming commission we've already seen some of the switching around, some of the chess-playing in terms of manoeuvring personalities from one area to another.
But that's why there was concern about whether there had been a solicitation going on or whether the government was simply going to raid its pool of wannabes from the public appointments secretariat. One is hard-pressed to believe that people interested in this action -- because there's action here. Surely Marshall Pollock wouldn't be one of the people even being considered. I suppose Marshall Pollock could divest himself of the role of director and could put his stock, if he owns any, in his gaming consortium into -- what do they call those? -- a blind trust and then make himself sufficiently pristine to be on the government's board.
But even if it weren't Marshall Pollock, the government will tend to look for people who have familiarity with the industry. That means that we end up with a result that's exactly as Ian Scott and so many other learned authors have spoken of when you talk about the regulatory body being co-opted by the industry purporting to be regulated. Quite frankly, it's happened with the Ontario Insurance Commission to a large extent and it's happened with a number of other regulatory bodies that will at face value argue that they have an obligation to the consumer.
2030
Mr Crozier also discusses at length the long-time or at least the established practice for appointments to ABCs. It's disappointing that Mr Flaherty either refused to or couldn't answer questions about what kind of requirements, what kind of model is going to be in the ABC book for 1997 once this legislation gets passed.
It would have been real nice to know whether there was anticipation of some sort of set of requirements or some sort of need for representation from one facet to another, one facet of the affected or, shall I say, infected bodies.
Today was virus day, as you well know, August 22, for one form or another of computer program. I can't remember which one was exempt, but it's also virus day in terms of this government infecting communities across Ontario with the insidiousness of slot machines and organized crime.
I would expect that you, Chair, would want to be extremely cautious, as would the government members, in not reflecting thoroughly on this amendment of Mr Kennedy. It's not the amendment that I would have liked, but I've got to tell you, if the government members are as dubious about this one as I am in that it doesn't really go far enough, it gives far too much leeway for a government that is also capable of being corrupted, then just hold on because there may well be an amendment moved in short order which requires that this board be far more reflective of the communities that it's going to impact and infect.
Mr Clement: The same old mistakes.
Mr Kormos: Here we're getting a little bit of life out of some of these guys, Chair. What was that line in the movie Deliverance? But none the less, when you get close to it now, one has to wonder why there isn't the responsiveness to this well-thought-out amendment that one would anticipate. One has to wonder why the members of the committee from the government side aren't eager to engage in the dialogue about this amendment to address the points that Mr Crozier made and to address the very specific point that Mr Kennedy's making.
So I'm not going to belabour this. We've got a whole bunch of amendments we've got to consider yet tonight on section 2 alone, a whole whack of them. Some are in English, some are in French. Some go to subsection (2), some go to subsection (3), some go to subsection (5), some go to subsection (6). Who knows? The debate and discussion around those amendments simply affecting section 2 of schedule 1 may well generate yet more amendments.
By God, we've witnessed here a veritable cornucopia of amendments and I never imagined that I would be stimulated by the government members as much as I have today. I've been stimulated to reflect on the bill and to write amendment after amendment improving on what's been presented to us. I want to thank the government members for the inspiration they've given me for the number of amendments I've prepared. Again, I can't and won't speak for Mr Kennedy. He'd be royally ticked off if I did, but I can't help but think that Mr Kennedy was inspired by the government members and that's what inspired him to present the amendment that we've just debated for the last 30 minutes or so. Has it been longer than that? It seems like a mere 30 minutes. It really does. It seems like time flies when you're having fun.
Interjection: Tempus fugit.
Mr Kormos: Tempus fugit. There you be. So please, Chair -- I suppose I should be prevailing on the whip, who I presume is Mr Flaherty, to -- these people will listen to him. They're going to do what he says. It's as simple as that. They're going to do what he says. He's got a chance to make a difference, to make his mark. Tsubouchi doesn't know nothing about this. Tsubouchi's in the woods. He's in the dark. Now is the time to do it. Slide her in while Tsubouchi's still out of the loop and you've got it made in the shade. Tsubouchi hasn't been told about Bill 75 yet. Mr Flaherty said so. Now is the time for Jim Flaherty to make his mark. Cabinet, three months, guaranteed. I'm urging Mr Flaherty. By God, I'm giving him advice here. I'm talking being in cabinet in three months. Three months' time, minimum. No two ways about it. Here's the chance to show Mike Harris and the gang and the Tom Longs and the governors of New Jersey that Jim Flaherty --
Mr Guzzo: He's a liar. You both branded him a liar.
Mr Kormos: Jim Flaherty is a man of substance and a man of decision and he's not just a little sheep that follows marching orders. He makes decisions. He takes the bull by at least one horn. Here's his chance to show leadership. Here's Jim Flaherty's chance to succeed Dave Tsubouchi.
Look what happened to Dave Tsubouchi's last parliamentary assistant. Bingo. She's the minister. Can you believe it? Tsubouchi's vulnerable, Mr Flaherty. Here's your chance to show Mike Harris where the real leadership comes from in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Just like Janet Ecker has Tsubouchi's old job, by God, Jim, Jimbo boy, you can have Tsubouchi's new job in as short an order because Tsubouchi, they've got him on something. They don't even have him near a phone. He's dreaming incredible dreams because, Lord knows, he ain't thinking about Bill 75. Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Are there any other speakers in regard to the motion? We're dealing with Mr Kennedy's amendment, I believe.
Mr Kormos: Chair, in anticipation of your calling the question, I wish to advise that I'm requesting a 20-minute recess pursuant to the rules.
The Chair: Fine. Shall the amendment carry?
Mr Kormos: No. I asked for a 20-minute recess. What is the Chair's problem?
The Chair: I have to put the question first, don't I?
Mr Kormos: I indicated that I'm asking for a 20-minute recess. Please, Chair.
The Chair: We will be adjourning to 9 o'clock.
Mr Kormos: Thank you.
The committee recessed from 2039 to 2057.
The Chair: It's 9 o'clock. I'll reconvene the meeting.
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote please, Chair.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Clement, Flaherty, Ford, Guzzo, Rollins.
The Chair: The motion fails.
Mr Kormos, you have filed a motion. Would you please read it into the record?
Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 2(2) of schedule 1 to this bill be deleted and amended as follows:
"(2) La commission a un conseil d'administration composé des membres nommés aux termes du paragraphe (3), sauf qu'aucun membre de la commission ne sera, ou n'aura été, un partisan actif du parti politique au pouvoir."
We've been struggling for some time today now with our concerns about the integrity of the board of directors of this commission. You've heard a number of efforts from both the Liberal caucus and from this caucus to assist the government in building into the statutory framework some safeguards for the integrity of this commission, recognizing again the incredible pressure that's going to be on it, incredible pressure, especially once the big gambling interests -- be they Marshall Pollock and his consortium -- get their foot in the door. Well, I suppose they already have their foot in the door.
Again, I can't avoid referring to subsection 3(3), which outlines the manner in what I suspect is a very peculiar statutory phrase, because it -- maybe it's just contemporary cynicism, cynicism that may or may not be deserved, but the drafters of this legislation -- the government, the minister, which one we don't know; well, it couldn't have been Dave Tsubouchi because he doesn't know. This says, "The commission shall exercise its powers and duties in the public interest" -- you're probably not going to hear a lot of quarrel with that, but also -- "and in accordance with the principles of honesty, integrity and social responsibility."
When we've considered during the course of this evening the number of amendments attempting to fine-tune, to give the government and successive governments the tools to ensure the integrity of the commission, there were, as you heard, efforts to identify certain components of the community that had to be represented. There was the most modest proposal of Mr Kennedy, which I was sure was going to get government approval, but that too was bypassed.
You heard Mr Crozier in his comments -- he may well wish to speak to this amendment as well -- talk about the incredibly difficult task of the committee which oversees, which screens, which scrutinizes, which has the responsibility to interrogate, question, engage in dialogue with potential appointees. Does this committee get to review all of them? Of course not. Time simply doesn't permit it. As it is, the committee is restricted to a mere 30 minutes for each appointee and receives a paucity of background information, other than what the committee members can glean on their own.
It's a very difficult exercise. I've been on that committee with Mr Crozier and others and it's a very difficult exercise. It's very difficult for the government members, because once government members wince in dismay and shock and embarrassment at the way some of those potential appointees respond to questions, the other government members feel under a great deal of pressure -- I understand this; this happened in the last government as well -- to support the pick, the quick pick if you will, of the public appointments secretariat or of whoever, because as I say, the system is far from perfect. I praise the fact it's there rather than nothing, because at least it gives an opportunity for some public, or if you want to call it quasi-public, scrutiny of appointees.
There is the perpetual din of accusations of patronage, patronage, patronage. Some of it is undeserved. I'll invoke the name of Paul Godfrey again who was before that board -- I'm sure Mr Crozier remembers that -- and to say that Mr Godfrey is a Tory is to be trite. Of course he's a Tory. He's an active and outspoken Tory. But to suggest, quite frankly, that that's patronage seems to me a little bit of overkill. Here's Paul Godfrey, and if I recall, his appointment was to one of the U of T boards of governors, and at the end of the day Paul Godfrey doesn't need the money if there is a per diem associated with that, not by a long shot. His box at the SkyDome is a most attractive and pleasant place, I tell you. His generosity as a host has been enjoyed by many.
But to say he needs the money is trite. To say he needs the hassle is even more absurd. Here is a person with a finger in Lord knows how many pots and one can't help but be convinced, knowing he's not going to enhance his stature -- there may be some personal gratification and I understand that as well, but to say he needs that to make headway in the community or to put on his résumé for a job, the guy doesn't need a job. The guy has got jobs of his own making and I presume -- I have no personal familiarity with his finances, but one presumes that he's reasonably well off, that, you know, he's got a couple RRSPs and a little bit in mutual funds and maybe a half-decent piece of real estate without a large mortgage left on it. He and Regina are getting on. They're not youngsters any more and the mortgage is probably close to being paid off.
Even I can see it, because sometimes I can be a little partisan at that committee. What is Mr Godfrey doing here for review? For Pete's sake, this is patronage, but it's not patronage with a capital P. At the same time, heck, what do you call it when a government appoints somebody who isn't of their stripe? What do you call it when the last government appointed -- I've used Andy Brandt as an illustration so many times -- Andy Brant, who had retired as the interim leader, if I recall correctly, of the Conservative caucus, who wasn't running in the leadership? Boy did Andy miss the boat. He had no idea that the caucus was going to be successful, but at the same time he's done well in his own career. What do you call it when the New Democrats appoint Andy Brandt to this flagship position as head of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario?
What do you call it when the Liberals appoint Elie Martel to the Environmental Assessment Board? Not as if Elie was ever partisan in the Legislature. Are you kidding? He was as partisan and as cantankerous as they come. That isn't called patronage. I suppose in some respects it's reverse patronage. As I indicated earlier during discussions, because we have been focusing on this, it's like Brian Mulroney appointing Stephen Lewis to the United Nations.
Mr Crozier: Chrétien appointed Kim Campbell.
Mr Kormos: And most recently, by God -- thank you kindly. On April 1 some newspapers do an April Fool's joke. Somewhere in the world it was April 1 a couple of week ago because I read that Jean Chrétien appointed Kim Campbell to be the trade emissary to Los Angeles. Somewhere in the world it was April 1 a week or so ago. Anyway, God bless her. She needs the work and Chrétien clearly is obviously shaking in his boots at the prospect of her making a comeback in the Conservative Party and wanted to displace her and get her down into, not Silicon Valley but lotusland. Is that what we're speaking of? Lotusland. But again, it could have been an April Fool's joke. So what do you call it? I suppose that's not patronage, but it's part of the patronage system because it's heralded by the government of the day by saying, "No, we don't do patronage because look what we did with your guy or gal."
When we used to criticize the Liberals when David Peterson was in power for Liberal hack after Liberal hack getting appointed to positions, they said, "Well, what about Elie Martel?" Bingo. When the Tories used to criticize the NDP for appointing New Democrats to positions, and Lord knows they didn't appoint that many, Bob Rae or Floyd or what have you would stand up and say, "Well, look at Andy Brandt." When the Liberals used to do it, they would cite Bob Nixon. I've been talking about the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Bob Nixon gets a classy posting in London. This was flagship stuff. This is slick. I presume you're talking about a credit card at Harrods and the whole nine yards, but Bob Nixon got it and then it got taken away in short order. But then again, he got taken care of by the feds. He got doing the airport reports and pieced off a little bit in that respect.
I acknowledge that governments use this as their line of defence. It's like mobsters who want to illustrate their donations to Boys Town as an example of what good, nice people they are. Even though they run slot machines, their donations to Boys Town or to the Girl Guides, what have you -- they have media spin people who help them get photographs in that regard as they're donating money, and the next day out they're running slot machines into some province in Canada which was foolish enough to embark on a slot machine jurisdiction.
That's part of the patronage discussion. Patronage is universally condemned but similarly universally embraced. Everybody condemns it, but at the same time, everybody has a passion to engage in it. It's all about timing, of course, because your timing has got to be good. If you're going to get patronage from your people, you've got to know when to bow out while your people are still around, otherwise you've got to hope you're the one in 100 or one in 200 who is being used to demonstrate, I guess, reverse patronage.
2110
Of course, the way the agencies committee works is that each caucus in rotation picks a person out of the list that is submitted on a regular basis, picks a person to come forward. Especially as the government members picked up on stuff, picked up on the way things work, they started -- and again they had their staff there, conscious of spin -- saying: "No, nominate the Paul Godfreys to come forward to the committee. Don't pick" -- who was that, the unemployed used car salesperson who had lost the Tory election up Pembroke way -- he had lost against Sean Conway -- who was appointed to the College of Midwifery? This clown had no familiarity with the issues. I got these letters of protest because, that's right, the chair adjourned the appointment. This guy had no interest, no background in the issue, no sensitivity to, among other things, the feminist -- and they are by and large feminist issues that gave rise to that movement.
He just wanted something, right? He was lonely. He got squeezed out of the biggest power play the Tories have seen in a long time. Don't forget, even in the latter years of Tory kingdom here in the province, we were talking about a whole lot of minority governments. So he got squeezed out. He figures: "Hey, guys, I ran against Sean Conway, again, of all people. You guys set me up big time. You told me I was going to beat Conway." It's the same as the guy who ran against Curling -- or she; I don't know. He got set up big time because he got sold the bill of goods too. "We're in this time. Just watch." Now he's going, "Oh, yeah, you didn't tell me Curling was going to get elected."
You've got this guy before the committee. I went after him like a junkyard dog. There's no two ways about it. So did the other opposition members of the committee. It's just too irresistible. We're not talking Milkbone here, we're talking about the hind quarter of a baby calf. We're talking about something you can really get your teeth into. We're talking about something that was absolutely delicious. That's what we're talking about when we talk about patronage, patronage as a despicable thing, as a phenomenon that has to be resisted.
How do we ever get out of the trap? Here we are, every political party in this Legislature has condemned it when they've been in opposition and then defended it when they've been in power, utilizing a number of tools. This, I think, is a solution. We're dealing here with a commission, a board of directors, that is given some interesting guidelines. It's required to "exercise its powers and duties in the public interest and in accordance with the principles of honesty and integrity" -- I don't know whether "social responsibility" is being perceived as a principle.
That's where we get -- looking over here at legislative counsel again and he understands what I mean. This is going to be the matter of, is it the principle of (1) honesty, (2) integrity, (3) social responsibility? One would suggest no, because if each of the three were to be regarded as principles, you would have "honesty, integrity, and social responsibility," right? But one could also argue that "honesty and integrity" are joined as somehow being intertwined, so the principle of this honesty and integrity as a juxtaposed or a conjoined concept, and the principle of "social responsibility."
Once again, I appreciate that it's only after the fact that you look at these. I know legislative counsel wasn't responsible for drafting this, and is sensitive to the ambiguities that are inherent in it, but probably is saying he's not going to be the person who has to answer for it, and legislative counsel is wondering when the question's ever going to be raised. He's saying to himself: "There are certain things that are just giveaways, throwaways, and you move on down the road. There's bigger challenges to meet."
But none the less, there's some sense here of guidelines: the social responsibility one and the public interest one. The honesty and integrity I think has to be assumed. I'm anxious to get to section 3, as I'm sure government members are, so we can talk to the parliamentary assistant about the nature of this section. But certainly the public interest and the social responsibility change the nature of this regulatory commission from any number of bodies, from any number of functions that are performed like the fence -- what do they call that committee?
Mr Crozier: The fence viewer?
Mr Kormos: The fence viewer, or whatever. Those are pretty straightforward. Many of them involve quasi-judicial roles where you have to interpret statute and then render the best possible judgement that you can. You're helping people resolve disputes, you're helping to maintain some sense of order.
The government, and for this I give it full marks, has tried to give this board something above and beyond, because what they've done by including subsection 3(3) is move them beyond merely following the law. It's moved them beyond merely applying the guidelines that a minister might prescribe or that a government might prescribe. It also injects into the mandate and the jurisdiction of this commission social responsibility and public interest. Now, boy oh boy, have you got a handful there. You've got stuff on your plate. Social responsibility, again, was reflected in the amendment that proposed that charitable institutions and/or public health concerns be reflected. That's certainly public interest, however that's contemplated.
Public interest could include, well, again, making the most amount of money possible. Because if part of this scheme -- and there's no two ways about it, the thrust of the scheme, notwithstanding the title of the bill -- and if the thrust of the scheme really were funding charities, as the long title implies, there'd be a section in here about charities.
Here we are trying to read merely the dust jacket. It's like one of those cheap novels you pick up at the corner store from the rack jobber like a Jack Higgins novel where the print is small and the cover of the paperback is far more seductive than the actual content. The Chair knows what I'm talking about, and cheap paperbacks do it all the time. You're drawn to it because it's glossy and colourful on the jobber's rack. As a matter of fact, I don't know if you've ever had this experience but I've actually -- usually at the airport because you're in a hurry and you buy a novel for the second time. They've just put a new cover on it, and you start reading it, and it wasn't that good a novel, but you start reading it and go, "Wait a minute." And then you realize, "I'll be goldarned," because you look at it. It wasn't published in 1996, it was published in 1988 and reprinted, and they put a new spin on the cover or Pamela Anderson or Fabio or whoever gets on the covers of these things and that's what happens. That's why these glossy covers on these paperback books, again --
Mr Clement: You've got attention-deficit disorder.
Mr Kormos: You know, Tony, I'm not about to quarrel with you on that, Lord knows. But the cover is out there to grab you. And here we've got to be careful because the cover is as deceptive as it is on those cheap paperbacks that some people are inclined to read when they're working. Because here we've got a cover that says "to fund charities," An Act to regulate alcohol and gaming in the public interest, to fund charities. There's no legislation here. There's nothing in the legislation. I looked. Shall we go through it? Turn the page, we're on page 4. I'll be darned. Keep going. Holy moly. Zonkers. Nothing on charities. So here's the cover that says one thing and what we've got is the body of the book that says something far different.
2120
"Public interest" -- especially without the presence of charities in here, without there being reference to the mandate being for the purpose of raising money for charities, even inter alia, we've undermined charities in the bill. So for an interpretation of "public interest", where does that take you? It's not charities, because that's only in the title but nowhere in the body of the act. There's not a single -- somebody should do one of those word search things on the computer. If the word charities is in there, somebody jump up and say, "Bingo," or "Three charities," or whatever the phrase is, because I can't find it there.
"Public interest" then could mean things like it's in the public interest -- because really this is about raising money for the government. So it could mean solely that it's the public interest to raise as much money as possible. Think about it. The statute requires this board -- if one isolates "public interest" without any mention or reference to charities in there, this board is required simply to raise as much money as possible. Then there's a little kicker, because it includes social responsibility.
What concerns me is the possibility that social responsibility is going to be part of that three things of principles, "principles of honesty, and integrity, and social responsibility," as compared to "in accordance with social responsibility", as compared to the principle of social responsibility, because they're going to be arguably two very different things.
If "in accordance with social responsibility" is the way that's to be read, then that really tempers the public interest. Especially with the absence of any mention of charities, it tempers public interest to suggest that social responsibility is on a par with public interest. It says you've got to do it in the public interest, which in Marshall Pollock's little world they're going to say: "That means to make as much money as possible and to pick as many people's pockets as possible. We don't care how many people are addicted because there might be some funding for addictions treatment and we can justify picking more people's pockets because the more people's pockets we pick, the more funding there will be for addictions treatment."
Trust me, there's going to be debate about subsection 3(3) and query about the intention. Mr Flaherty may say, "I don't know." That's what we've gotten so far and one can only hope for a little more complete response. By the time we get to that of course we'll be talking to the minister in the House during question period and be questioning him in question period about what that means.
We've got the problem then because we're imposing on a board of directors more than just the -- could I have the ABC book there, Mr Crozier, please? Again, I appreciate -- for instance, district health councils have a very broad, well-defined -- but look, what we do we have here? Yes, the Office of Social Contract Adjudication. A dirty word "social contract," but that's pretty straightforward. That's one where there aren't any social policy guidelines. That's attempting to resolve conflicts regarding the application of social contract which, mind you, is difficult enough because of the nature of social contract and the way it was written.
But the Building Code Commission, no issue there other than deciding "disputes between building inspectors and applicants for or holders of permits, or individuals who have been issued orders concerning the technical requirements of the building code." So it's a statutory interpretation. Boom, you apply it. There's probably a level of appeal -- I'm not sure -- or you can go to Divisional Court, what have you. These are cut and dried. These are hard and fast. This is not sexy or juicy stuff. This is dry application of the law. They're not talking about resolving -- because if they did, if the Building Code Commission had the sort of subsection 3(3) in it, it could go, "Technically you're in violation of the building code, but for a public interest issue or a social responsibility issue, we're going to permit it," or: "You are not technically in violation of the letter of the law with the building code. However, on the basis of public interest, or in the interests of social responsibility, you've got to put the extra fire escape in there, even though the law doesn't provide for it."
So that's what we've got here. We've got something that goes beyond a mere -- what is the word, technocratic? -- technocratic application of a statute, which makes the credibility and reliability of the board of directors crucial, absolutely crucial.
I made reference at the onset -- and Mr Crozier has spoken at length about the process in agencies, and at the end of the day he's ended up spending far more time in that committee than I have; he's far more experienced with that committee that I am.
I made reference to poor Paul Godfrey, because I always use -- well, not poor; he's not poor by any stretch of the imagination. But I've used him as an illustration of somebody whom I don't consider patronage in any sort of negative sense. But you've heard me talk to the contrary about people like Evelyn Dodds. Wow. Again, crass political patronage of the worst kind; appointed to SARB and in a position to hurt people, and she does hurt people. I read into the record a little while ago an illustration of the types of decisions she's rendered in her position as a vice-chair of SARB. She's hurt little people, vulnerable people, weak people, sick people. Again, that's the sort of patronage we want to avoid. She was a Tory candidate in the 1995 provincial election. She ran against Lyn McLeod; at the end of the day, probably thought she should have done far better, that is to say, Evelyn Dodds.
The appointment of people like Pauline Browes, a former Tory cabinet minister, Mulroney minister, to the Environmental Assessment Board; Jo-ann Best, Bob Runciman's campaign manager, to, of all places, the provincial parole board, here when Mr Runciman is the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. One wonders about the independence of Jo-ann Best. A guy like Gary McNaughton to the parole board, who only upon attending a Tory fund-raiser was thought of and asked, "Hey, would you like an appointment somewhere?" If he hadn't attended the fund-raiser, one has to conclude that he wouldn't have been on anybody's short list.
David Nash to the Ontario Casino Corp: campaign manager for Dianne Cunningham. This is what's scary. We've already seen, with David Nash's appointment to the Ontario Casino Corp, the political infiltration of a body that should be beyond reproach, that should be so aboveboard that nobody could ever question its independence and its servitude solely to the legislation and, in this case, that remarkable requirement of being in accord with public interest and social responsibility. This body has got to be beyond reproach.
I'm sorry, but the reality is that when one of these people appears before the ABCs committee and is interviewed and the press covers it, there's a tainting that goes on. I understand that. I know that. In some cases, the tainting is modest. In the case of Glen Wright, who was appointed to chair the board of the Workers' Compensation Board; Glen Wright, who served as Mike Harris's campaign tour director; Glen Wright, who headed the company managing the pension fund of the workers at Epton Industries rubber plant, screwed up and left millions of dollars -- well, thousands, short thousands of dollars in pension income. That is not a pretty sight.
2130
On the one hand, I understand. We talked before with Mr Flaherty about screwing up. Mr Flaherty screwed up; no problem. But in this instance, in the case of Glen Wright, he screwed up, but then he gets appointed, the suggestion is, because he's tight with Mike Harris, to head the Workers' Compensation Board. That amplifies it. That says you can do anything you want. You can be less than competent, but if you know Mike Harris -- in this instance, in the case of Glen Wright, if you were his campaign tour director -- you get the job anyway. That affects the integrity of that board. That leaves people dubious about the capacity of that board to meaningfully fulfil -- the same thing used to happen with appointments to the bench. Until Ian Scott in the 1987-90 --
Mr Flaherty: On a point of order, Chair: Could the member speak to the amendment that is before the committee?
The Chair: I'd ask you to direct your mind to the amendment, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: The amendment is one that's designed to enhance the integrity of the commission. It is, Chair.
Mr Flaherty: Why didn't you do it in your own party legislation about casinos? What are you talking about?
Mr Kormos: It's designed to enhance the integrity of the commission. I'm sorry if Mr Flaherty has difficulty with it.
Mr Flaherty: You don't know what you're talking about. Read your own party's legislation. You don't even know what you're talking about. Your party didn't put it in.
Mr Kormos: I'm trying to give this government an opportunity to make a fresh start, to absolve itself of the ills of the past.
Mr Flaherty: What a bunch of hypocritical nonsense. No fool like an old fool.
Mr Kormos: I want to try to illustrate why this is essential. I find Mr Flaherty's objections remarkable. I know it's 9:40 and he's getting a little cranky.
Mr Flaherty: No, you're cranky. You're not only cranky but you're foolish.
Mr Kormos: Maybe he didn't get enough sleep last night. Maybe he got up too early this morning.
Mr Flaherty: He's quite the fool. He doesn't even know his own party's legislation.
Mr Kormos: Who knows, Chair. But boy, oh boy, Mr Flaherty there is getting really cranky. He might have the grippe; I don't know.
Mr Flaherty: Where were you when your party was in power, anyway? Ignorance is bliss.
The Chair: Please, Mr Flaherty, Mr Kormos was a minister of the crown -- he's too modest to mention that -- and no doubt he's seen many of these things at first hand.
Mr Kormos: You bet your boots, Chair.
The Chair: I can understand your concern.
Mr Flaherty: So he would be familiar with his own party's legislation in which it did not do that which he demands now.
Mr Kormos: We look at the impact on integrity of patronage appointments and we have here an opportunity, because of the nature of the task given to this commission, to clear the slate, to move ahead. As I was saying, appointments to the provincial bench were infected for decades because they were pure patronage appointments. People who had no competence whatsoever were appointed to the bench because they were ex-candidates or because they were political hacks of one party or another.
Again, I have to acknowledge Ian Scott's role, which Howard Hampton and Marion Boyd expanded on. I believe this began during the course of the accord. Interestingly, in those two years more NDP legislation was probably passed than in the five years after 1990, and it was the successful NDP legislation between 1985 and 1987 that gave that government its strong majority from 1987 through to 1990. But during the course of the accord we saw an enhanced quality to the bench and the provincial appointments to the bench when we saw the appointment process being entirely detached from political interference. Ian Scott began the process with support and influence by New Democrats; I have no doubt about that. Howard Hampton and Marion Boyd maintained and developed that further. We've seen a real change in attitude towards the members of the bench. We haven't seen the same level of judicial inquiries into the conduct of judges as we saw with any number of jurisdictions.
Here is a chance. Look at what the amendment says, and here we have the difficulty. I and the other opposition members tried to address it earlier today, because we had some difficulty with the French-language version of the bill. For instance, Mr Kennedy looked at the bill -- and he's somewhat fluent in French -- and he was concerned about the words "alcohol," "alcool" and "ethanol," and the various variations. We struggled with whether or not the word "alcohol," as distinct from "beverage alcohol," was preferable or more precise or more specific.
What this amendment does is really quite clever, if I say so myself, because it makes it clear that anybody can be appointed. It's still the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, but the person being appointed shall not have been, nor shall be, an activist, a partisan, of the political party in power. Boy, is that scary, at first blush, to government members. Because they go, "Oh, does that mean we have to appoint New Democrats and Liberals?" No. Again, the Tories are not going to hold power for 40 years; those days are long gone. But what that means is that anybody who's appointed -- because we've got here terms of three years renewable. The French-language version is far more specific and I'm grateful to legislative counsel for helping me because the word "renewable" is in there, at least the French word for "renewable," which is absent in the English version. But I suppose it's akin to "may be reappointed," which I contrasted with "renewable." Again, the English semantics were expressed modestly differently.
But look what this does; it's very clever. It encourages any government to appoint people about whom it can't be suggested they have a partisan interest. Of course, everybody can vote. Not everybody does, but everybody's entitled to vote. But one's vote is -- that's why we have the secret ballot. I appreciate that the language of being an activist or a partisan in that particular party may not be the best possible language. I had a little bit of difficulty. "An active member," "an active partisan," "an active supporter of" -- I didn't know quite how to word that. Again, this illustrates how sad it was that the government members refused to look at French-language juxtaposed to English-language versions of the same amendment so we can look at it in its totality and its content.
But this says to any government: "Don't think you're going to pack this commission with your flunkies, with your hacks, with your stooges. Don't even think of it, because the act says it ain't going to happen." The act also says that we're looking at three-year terms and renewable terms. So you can't have a government introducing people to -- because at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor -- that's what's interesting too, because I see there's litigation now. The Tories are getting their butts sued off by people; Marion Dewar and her group in Ottawa are suing the butts off these guys for being dismissed. Are some police services board members doing it? I'm not sure.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Yes, police services board members are suing the butts off these guys. Wait till the Criminal Code charges start flowing after these slot machines get out there and some clever crown attorney -- too bad Skarica isn't still at the Ministry of the Attorney General -- starts prosecuting. Poor David. He doesn't even know what the heck they're doing. He's getting himself into big criminal trouble. I'll bet you he doesn't even have a criminal record yet. So much for that pristine quality.
In any event, this says to the government: "Don't even think of appointing people who at some point or another are going to be accused or suspected of being your stooges, your hacks. Don't ever think of appointing an Evelyn Dodds to this board. Don't ever think of appointing a Marshall Pollock, tight with Bill Davis and John Robarts." There are a lot of people out there who live out their lives and, God bless them, support particular candidates, as they should, and vote for them. You make choices. I'm told that if you are a lawyer or have been a lawyer you won't be serving on a jury. Is that unfair to ex-lawyers? I suppose not a disbarred lawyer. But is that unfair to an ex-lawyer? Probably.
2140
Mr Flaherty: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Can you ask the member to speak to the amendment that's before the committee? I'm going to keep after him every two minutes if he doesn't want to do it. I'd ask you to please instruct him to deal with the amendment, because we're wasting the taxpayers' money dealing with irrelevant matters. We're supposed to be working for the taxpayers.
The Chair: Please attempt to direct your comments to the amendment, please.
Mr Kormos: I was making something akin to a parable. Mr Flaherty may not know what a parable is, but it was something akin to a parable, because the government is going to say, if it says anything, "This is unfair because people have a right to be political partisans." I agree. You've got a right to be a political partisan; anybody does, just like anybody has a right to be a lawyer, and Lord knows anybody can be a lawyer. This Legislature illustrates it.
When I was a kid and I was worried about law school, I used to look at the people who were already practising law and say: "No sweat. Forget the anxiety issue. If they could do it, I sure as heck can." It was proven right. It was incredible.
Mr Flaherty: You really enhance the reputation of lawyers.
Mr Kormos: It was incredible, because I used to look at the dough-heads who were practising law and go, "If they can do it, I certainly can." Dough-heads and dimwits, quite frankly.
In any event, the argument is going to be made by government members or by Mr Flaherty, because he's certainly got a burr up his butt this evening. He's anxious.
Mr Flaherty: Why don't you speak to the point?
Mr Kormos: He's anxious, and he has interrupted and interjected. He's really carrying on.
Mr Flaherty: I want to see your fine legal mind at work. Deal with the point.
Mr Kormos: My God, I never knew he was that sensitive. I hope his close friends appreciate that of him.
I have to back up a little bit because there was that interruption. Where was I? The argument is going to be made by government members that this bars from these appointments people who have exercised their right to be politically active. I suppose it does, but it's in the same way that pursuing the profession of law bars you from serving on a jury.
One of the other things that the government members might raise is that this is a contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code -- and I'd appreciate advice from legislative counsel in that regard -- because what this effectively says is that your political activism as a partisan with a political party can bar you from consideration in the same way as it would be argued if we said age could bar you from consideration, except we also know that on age and gender discrimination issues there is some tolerance allowed. In other words, if you advertise for a lifeguard at your pool -- I'm not sure whether that's a good example or not -- that's one where you might be able to specify "youthful lifeguard," because you want somebody with the energy and endurance of youth.
I would appreciate, and I don't know if legislative counsel -- if there are concerns about the application of the Ontario Human Rights Code, if it's still going to be in existence over the course of the next short order -- because after all, we've got a government here that isn't particularly committed to human rights -- or even if there's a prospect of charter challenge -- I don't think so, not so much as the provincial statute, because what it says is exactly what it says, and its purpose is one that is laudable. That's what makes it distinctive from other, let's say, discriminatory procedures. Mind you, I'm not aware of any lawyers, disbarred or otherwise, who have brought actions to say, "I have a right to serve on a jury," probably because, as somebody has noted, jury duty is relatively unattractive and there's no great remuneration as compared to what there will be here.
I think this really clears the way and sets a standard, a new standard, a new guideline for the province and for the process of appointments. We could eliminate the haggling and the persistent, cantankerous criticism that accompanies almost each and every appointment that a government can make, and at the end of the day nobody's going to be happy. I'm certainly not happy with Evelyn Dodds, and I think for good reason, because she's a dog and doesn't belong on the Social Assistance Review Board, but the Tories probably think she's doing exactly what they want their rep on the Social Assistance Review Board to do. If the same standard that I am proposing for appointments to this commission were applied to these others, this government would have in almost a revolutionary way -- there you've got it; the revolution has come -- these people could make the revolution happen by passing this amendment.
If I have failed in any small way to put forward an amendment which is defensible, let's say, from the point of view of human rights or defensible from attacks under the charter -- I can't consider or conceive how that would be applicable, but somebody who knows stuff about that might be able to -- I'd be more than pleased to have part of the Tory brain trust present an amendment.
I think we are compelled in this instance, in considering the outstanding and unique powers and incredible responsibilities of this board -- we're legislating a highly addictive substance, and the government has denied it, but when they talk about social responsibility and public interest they must be conscious of how volatile and dangerous slot machines are. They must be conscious -- if they're not, the people who drafted this were certainly conscious of the fact that slots are indeed the crack cocaine of gambling -- otherwise they wouldn't have placed that incredibly onerous standard on the board.
I leave it at that. I suspect that other persons, if they speak to this amendment, may well raise matters that compel me to respond. I don't want to prolong this, of course. I don't want to see people stay here later than they should -- not than they have to; than they should -- because I've got a feeling we're after some people's bedtimes, from the wailing. By God, their kids are in bed and they're saying, "Why aren't I?" I've got a feeling we're keeping people up later than some of them should be, but here we are; I don't want to keep people up unduly but I will yield the floor, Chair, if there are other comments to be made.
The Chair: Mr Curling, it's nice to see you back.
Mr Curling: I'm glad that you're awake to see that I'm back, Mr Chair. I've been here a long time. As a matter of fact, I would like to make some comments on this very important amendment, the motion put forward by Mr Kormos. I too want to make a contribution to this, just a small but very important contribution, I hope, because I feel very passionate about this.
Some of the comments the honourable member made are important. I hope that we will take these comments very seriously because I think his intention here is to make sure, as he stated, that they do have a commission that has the integrity and honesty that are the desire of this commission. It is on this note that I thought I should add my words of support, hoping that the members support this motion.
I think it's an extremely important point that over the past years what really did happen was that members who were appointed to these commissions and boards would pay homage to the party in power. I just want to add a couple of names just for you to think about. Some of them are beautiful accidents. In other words, while the party was in power they appointed members of their own party, and some of these members, deservedly so, were quite capable individuals.
2150
I recall someone who wanted to retire from politics who had his friends in power able to give him a job, and he did an excellent job. That was none other than a wonderful man, Tom Wells, from my riding, who became the agent general to London, England, for Ontario. I have the greatest respect for that man. I think he was an excellent individual, but I know that this was done because he had his friends in power and was able to land that wonderful job there. I also remember another individual who is still I think making contributions: Frank Drea of the racing commission, who again was appointed.
We can go on and on, and just recently a very extremely important position, I would say one of the most important positions in the province -- my colleague sits on the committee of appointments and questions the individuals who come before us to see that they understand the importance of the role. The human rights commissioner had completed her term and needed to be replaced. Going back in history, that commissioner was leaving when the NDP was in power, who appointed another NDP member from British Columbia who was the human rights commissioner, and as soon as the other government came in she was replaced by another member who was also a former card-carrying Conservative to the post: Keith Norton, a capable individual. No one questioned that, but I am sure there are much more capable people.
This is the government that shut down employment equity in the sense that a lot of people didn't have access to some of the jobs, some of the appointments, some of the promotions, some of the training, and it is blatant how these things happen in a province, looking for equity, where the systemic blocking of people's access to these opportunities is sometimes blatantly denied. The fact is that if we have the right connections, the right friends, maybe there is access.
Therefore this amendment states emphatically, so that you'll not be seen as someone who is responding to the patronage kind of approach, that maybe the party in power should not be appointing any card-carrying individual of that same party to any position so it would not be seen as not being fair. In one instance, while we're trying to achieve equity and fairness and access to positions in this province, in this way it is seen as a great opportunity to put in one's friends or one's colleague who needs a job, and I understand that people need jobs, but there are others outside who have been shut out.
It reminds me, I was in England about a year ago and I was attending some parliamentary conference. It was asked of many members to explain or share with the delegates there, who were elected members from around the Commonwealth, what the greatest concerns were that they had in their own countries. A colleague of mine from down in the real southern part of Australia was saying that the problem he had in his country was those patronage appointments, that people were appointing just their friends and all those who basically were just party members, and they would like that to stop.
Our English colleague who was chairing the meeting at the time was so appalled to hear that and was making his contribution. I presume my comment there at the time was not taken very well. My comment to that was that the honourable gentleman should not be too concerned, because it is a widespread thing about patronage, and I told him there is a huge bureaucracy that does that in England called the House of Lords when they can't find jobs for their nephews or so, and you see how incompetent that area is in London. As a matter of fact, it's an embarrassment to the process.
In this direction the amendment is saying, "Don't lead into that direction where we can start saying it's pure patronage and friends we appoint to boards and commissions and especially those who are card-carrying individuals." I'm not saying that because of the Tories. Every single party in power does it. So when one shouts over here and says, "What about this one and what about that one?" -- it's a new era.
It's a new era of how we want to look and tell the people we're going to put in the most competent, and not only the most competent, but in the fairest way to do it, one thing that not only must be done but must be seen to be done in a very fair manner. Since you feel that it's not necessary to put bureaucracies in like employment equity standards or what have you, then behave in the manner. If you got rid of the bureaucracy to screen it, then behave in that manner. Behave in the manner where we say: "First, we shall not appoint people just because they carry the card of the party. We shall not do that." This is a great way in which not to do that.
Why? Why is this one so important in this issue and on this commission? This commission will sit down and give a licence, an approval to people to operate businesses, but to make sure that minors are not served alcohol or gambling. We must make sure about that. When we do that, when we're giving out a licence, we're going to make sure that we don't give it to our friends -- that is not partisan -- so when an individual sits down, when the commissioners dispense all these licences, it's not to reward their friends but to carry out something that is extremely important to our province and that it does not get into the wrong hands.
The other day, as we know, there were some questions about liquor licences and people paying under the table.
Mr Kormos: Excuse me, Mr Curling. Chair, quorum, please.
The Chair: We'll recess until we have a quorum.
We now have a quorum. Please proceed, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: I just hope that the members of the government stay around. It's a responsibility of the government to maintain a quorum. As a matter of fact, we are in full blast here on the opposition side, and with all their great numbers they can't even retain a quorum here. It tells us about the interest with which we carry out our responsibilities.
We have to be extremely careful how we appoint these individuals to boards and commissions and make sure they're not card-carrying party people.
Let me give you another example, and maybe this could help the members to make up their minds. In some countries, when a new party comes into power, all the senators and all the appointed posts automatically resign. They try to look after it that way. They say, "Okay, I've appointed all my lackeys to be senators and I've appointed all my lackeys to be in positions." So what happens when the new government comes in? They all resign.
Now that looks like it is fair on the surface. So the new government will go about trying to appoint new senators and new people on commissions and boards. On the whole, the people suffer. While they're trying to come up to scratch for what they should be doing, it takes some time so the services that they provide start suffering.
2200
I would recommend that's not the way to go. That's not the way to go at all, because if we do that, you can see the costs to the taxpayers. But if you do it properly from the inception, you don't have to go through that sort of exercise. If you go about getting the right people without looking, really, at what church they belong to or what party they belong to, but furthermore to look at what they can do and the credibility and the qualifications, then we are on the right track, but not because one carries the card of the Conservative Party, or one carries the card of the Liberals if they're in power, or one carries a card of the NDP that we should appoint them, because they worked so hard in the last election and they have contributed so much money to the last election, that somehow we have to give thanks and reward the brothers or the sisters or the wives or the husband or the business partner. Many times when we do that, many of them have their vested interests -- because it's good for their business, it looks good on their résumé. That's not the way to conduct a government.
I think this is an opportunity in which to say, let's start doing it right. Let's stop shouting over and saying, "But you did it, so I can do it." We get into that vicious circle of, "Okay, we will wait for our four years and when we get in we'll put in our buddy." Then we wait. Oh my God, what a bonus if we win twice. We just keep all our own people to continue doing the things as incompetently and looking so good that we don't have to appoint anybody else.
When the Tories, Mr Chairman -- and you're quite familiar with that -- were in power for 42 years, my golly, when the Liberals came into power, it was just that everybody on the board was openly telling us that they were Conservatives and they have done this their way for a long time. Some of them came up openly and said: "I think I should resign now. I think I've done my part and you people want to do your mandate, so you can do your appointments."
Then what happened? People started asking for appointments just because, of course, they had served the party. Wrong. It was wrong. Of course, as my colleague Mr Kormos pointed out, if we want to sneak in one or we want to sneak in two or three, we sneak in one member from another party.
I remember even right now a name I should leave out who is now a member of the caucus of the Conservative Party. After losing, surely he wanted a job, so we were asked, of course, if we could assist in that way. My first reaction was that I thought the job should be advertised. I think we should look at the best. So we responded and the individual got a job, but I wasn't much in favour of that, not at all. I think it should be open.
Mr Chairman, bear with me a bit because it is so important in this room in this context. I want to go back to the employment equity aspect of things. I want to go back to this, because one of the only openings that many of those people who wanted to be appointed to boards and commissions or to jobs or wanted a proper job were seeing was this great professional opportunity within the civil service -- they found that here was an opportunity but they were being shut out. But they found an access through boards and commissions and agencies. They had hoped that they would have gotten through there.
Some parties in the new government started to make sure that we have minorities, that we have women being appointed to these boards, because when we looked at these boards and commissions we saw one type of individual. They looked even beyond that. They looked at the firefighters and found out also that not only did they look alike, they looked so similar, alike, all the firefighters, that when they investigated, they were all fathers, sons, cousins, entire families. It became a point that one had to say, "We've got to do something about that," because it became a family affair.
We don't want this to happen here, have a family affair where it's only one party, where you get into an appointment because you are a card-carrying member of a party, regardless of what party it is, because the family of Ontarians is quite diverse. The family of Ontarians includes minorities, women, disabled, all those.
To have access to this, they would say, "If you want to get into the family, maybe you should join a party." Some people would say: "I don't want to be a member of any political party. I will vote, but I don't want to be a member of a political party." People are told that the opportunities are better if you become a part of that family. If you pick one of the three families, the opportunities are much better. For those who choose not to, the gamble there would be that opportunities are quite limited that they would ever get appointed, because they're not a member of a political party, and that's wrong. I think that's wrong. I think we should be able to say that I have an opportunity as much as anybody else whether I join a party or not. But if you are the governing party in power, your chances are higher.
I have people right now who are telling me, "I had hoped to be appointed to some of those boards, but I don't think I have that opportunity now because I did not carry a Conservative card." I say to them: "I sympathize with you, but I don't have much influence over there to tell you who to speak to. But still, make an application and see if you can be placed on the board."
Many of them say they have made application and have not even received a response, and they feel shut out from the process. They feel not a part of Ontario. They feel: "How can I make my contribution to my province? I know I've been in the province and I have been a part of the family of Ontarians or Canadians for the last 25 years, but I still feel like a stranger. But I want to participate, I want to serve on this board and I want to make my contribution, because I understand this issue, and you're telling me, regardless of the qualifications I have, I must join a party, I must join the current party."
Mr Chairman, you must have heard all this. There are some people who are federally Liberals and provincially Conservatives, and they asked them why. They said the opportunities are better if they do it that way. I thought that was rather ridiculous. I now understand why this motion is so important, to say: "Listen, the party is in power. I don't think we can appoint people. I think we haven't" -- the objectivity will be greater, the objectivity to say, "I don't have an allegiance to a party, so therefore my contribution here is according to the issue; I have the honesty and integrity" -- not that the Conservatives don't have honesty and integrity; not at all. I think they do. But it's not only that it must be done, but it must be seen to be done that we carry out these appointments in that manner.
But when that happens, as I said, and I want to go right back to this employment equity situation, they want to participate and they are being shut out again.
I have an example. The Republicans just the other day had their convention and the statistics have shown that of the coverage of that day, 20% was directed at visible minorities. They were quite surprised. Was there 20% representation at the Republican convention? They said no, only 3% of the entire population of that convention was visible minorities. You know what that was showing? It's a false image of what's going on. It was a false image. We live under this false image so much of those who want to be a part of the process, you see. That's not what affirmative action is all about. Affirmative action is not about if somebody gets a picture or gets in the media to say, "Ah, there we are." It's a false impression.
2210
Mr Clement: It's tokenism.
Mr Curling: Exactly. It's all tokenism. What they want to know is that the family -- and to fix it is not to put the image on TV to say, "Here they are." To fix it starts way down for access, basic access to the process. When you have people who, because they join a political party, can get an appointment, there's no access, there's no access at all.
That is why this amendment here will take care of that. It will not be seen to be any patronage. It will not be seen that because you are part of the political card-carrying party in power you were appointed. To do that, we'll say we shall not appoint people who are card-carrying members of the party in power. So we could open up those doors and have people participating.
No matter how we try in this province, there seem to be creative ways to shut people out, to restrict them from participating and paying patronage to people maybe by dropping a little bit of money here, a little bit of money there, to say: "That will look after you. We don't have to appoint you. We can do it better." So these people don't even get a chance to participate. I'm saying that this amendment itself would then tell you that you're trying in your own way, now that you have shut down other access in participating.
One of the things too that I hope you look at in this process is that those who want to be on a board, on a commission, understand what they are about, understand what they have applied for or what they've been rewarded for, and when they are rewarded, what they are going to do. It's too often that they will come before the legislative committee and haven't got the foggiest idea of what it's all about. All they know is they have been paid off and it's a matter of: "Thank you for being a great supporter of us. Thank you so much."
Coca-Cola is sponsoring a convention now because of course they have greater access and they're nearer, and other businesses are saying, "I wonder if I can get that nearer to premiers." It calls into question a lot of things, whether the process is for all of us, or is this process itself only for the selected few, those who are called, those who have heard the word when certain people have called? I hope that we can move this province to where it's an inclusive province of all people, a province where anyone, regardless of class, colour, size, can participate.
That ABC book we have is very thick, extremely thick. Thousands of people are appointed each day on that, thousands, and thousands are rejected. What you should do is to find out why are those rejected, why all the people who are rejected are the same type, constantly. Why are the same type of people appointed to these boards, to the commission, and if I may dare say, they look the same and they behave the same because they come from one type of family. They join the same party.
It's wrong. Because, as diverse as we are in this province, it's the only way that we can have the contribution on boards that they can bring that diversity, that kind of diversity to make it a whole sum of what Ontario is about. Every debate we have is either regional or from ethnic or from language and somehow we keep those sections separated so we can pit one against the other. If we can show that all those diversities can come together to make it a better place, a better board, a better commission, that would be very helpful.
Let me caution you all about the important aspect of this commission and why it's important that we have to make sure that the people who are selected don't have allegiance only to one cause. As I said, in my riding for instance, there's an individual who wanted a casino licence. It's for a charitable organization. He'd been running this casino for some time. Lo and behold, they came in and they told him, "It seems to me that there's a wall that should be put up, so we're taking away your licence." He'd had his permit and he'd given his word and he had a contract in which to carry through. These people were waiting for their money. Because it became important, you see -- and I'll get to that later on -- it became important why these charitable organizations need this casino. They turned him down and he said he's got about two weeks in which to put this on and can't cancel this.
After I took charge of the issue and pleaded for him and told them how important it was, which is a very difficult time in which to convince some of the individuals who were carrying out these licences, that he really needs this licence and he couldn't really do what you need to do within that short time, they were good. They decided to give him that licence for the time being. Then he decided to change the configuration of the place. That was some months ago. I got a call again, shortly, that they came again and said, "The wall is not good enough." This is the power these folks have. They didn't realize that they could see around the corner where liquor was served or some sort of infraction was happening. Remember now, this casino had been going on for a couple of years but all of a sudden now -- I'm not saying that the gaming people who are doing all this weren't right in calling that these bylaws should be adhered to. I'm not saying that they were wrong. Maybe they were right. I'm talking about the power which they have to give and to take away.
If we have people who are doing that, who can give it and take it away, we must make sure that they can be as objective, as fair, and as it's stated right in the legislation, they must have the honesty, the integrity and they must have the social responsibility -- they must have all that -- in which to carry out their duties. Because the people who depend on that go beyond the people you've given the licence to. Right now it's so difficult for charitable organizations to get money to carry out their wonderful work which they are doing. Government has said to them that all the cutback is now in force, so they've got to find the money elsewhere.
2220
I'm not only talking about the little bingo ladies down in the basement of the church hall, who of course make a nice little buck in order to carry the church on. I'm talking about all the people who have to deal with some of the social problems and support some of the young people out there who need that for their camps and many other things. Not that I support gambling or so, but they are depending on these events to have the adequate funds to carry out this good work.
Then they not only have to do that; they have to depend on those individuals who are giving those licences. Because I recall too that many of the charitable organizations that were looking for a liquor licence just put a little dance on to obtain some money to do the good work. It was so difficult to obtain those licences that many of them got into a lot of deep trouble trying to be creative. They couldn't understand the laws, they couldn't understand what are the full requirements in order to do that. Some of them of course became so creative because they wanted to get around the law, and some people were just too adamant, those who were carrying out and giving those licences, having those people going back and forth, back and forth.
Sometimes I would question their honesty and I would question their integrity, and furthermore I would question their social responsibility to understand that the need of those people is not that they want to make a big buck in their pocket to go home to, but they want to serve society at large; the society where we feel that the government that has collected the taxes can give back to the poor and those most vulnerable. Those charitable organizations need those moneys. They need the kind of counselling and support. They need the kind of commission that would be established here to have the integrity and to have the honesty and to have that kind of social responsibility to know where that was going. They need that badly. But they did not get that kind of understanding at all from those people who are giving and taking it away.
Why is it so important that the composition of this commission must be seen to be fair and not a part of a club itself or part of an organization or institution that you have to join? Because the people outside there want to know that they're treated fairly. I don't think this will do all of that. I don't think that this motion itself and this amendment will do all that I'm talking about, but it's a start. It's a start in the right direction. It's a start to say, "Yes, we want to be seen to be fair."
I think that is the reason why this justice committee is handling this: Justice must be seen to be done while we appoint people and who are serving and what kind of rules and regulations are making those appointments. Because we know too that this new era that we're going into of wide-open gambling or gaming, what comes with this is that we must be careful, as we give licences out and go into gambling, that drugs come with it, that prostitution comes with it. We can't bury our heads in the sand. Isn't that what they say?
Some criminal activity of all sorts comes with that. Addiction comes with it. So when we have a commission, we're appointing people who are just, not because they're paid off politically and not because they think it looks good on their résumé and not because they have also their own interests, because when they give it and take it away, it gives them power. Let's have those people who have the social responsibility, the integrity and the honesty that comes with all of that.
If we don't, we shall pay the price. The chicken will come home to roost later on. When that chicken comes home to roost, I'll tell you, the caca flies all over the place. It makes a lot to be cleaned up and a lot of people die with that, and the insects and the maggots that go along with all of that, the prostitution and the addiction and the drugs. And you said: "Where did that start? How did that come about?" You said, "It came about because maybe, just maybe, the appointment process of how we distribute the licence and how we appoint people to those boards did not understand the serious social responsibility that comes with it."
We form another bureaucracy to do that. We form something to investigate the police, why they don't carry their jobs out. We call it SIU or we call it something else. We form another bureaucracy and then some spinoff comes that a greater part of the gambling addiction should be funded more to deal with that. Or we try to form some moral group to call the John school if prostitution becomes rampant. So we've got to appoint another bureaucracy. Then we turn around later on and say, "The government can't be spending all this money all over the place." And where was the root of this? The root of it is how we appoint and how we have the composition of the commission that is seen that is not only a bunch of people who join a certain party. You can stand up and say: "You know what? We don't have any of that, not at all." As a matter of fact, we make sure and not because you're a party-card-carrying individual that you can turn around and say: "Here I am now. I am on this board. Here I am, but not only that, I have a socially responsible approach to things, an understanding of how important it is."
I mentioned to you that I was down in Windsor. What I didn't mention to you about that is that I think my own little weather finger was saying, "You know what? I think 90% of those people are from the United States." And you know what I thought too, what I saw and observed? I looked and observed that about 40% of those were people who were just about 19 and 20. Because, you see, over there they can't drink until they're 21. So they swarm in buses, the young ones, over here, bringing with them their social problems, depositing them on the doorsteps of Canada and maybe leaving some of the prostitution, leaving some of the spinoff of what addictions of drugs are, leaving some of the criminal elements.
I'm not calling them criminal; I'm just saying when you have an impact of people doing all that, we have to do that. And what do we do? We beef up our police services to protect those. Very soon we start complaining that the costs of the police are so high. "But we're making enough money," they say, because every time they put a quarter inside a slot machine, an American quarter, it's a little bit more than the Canadian quarter, so we're winning, we're really winning.
I'm saying, if you don't have the proper people we are appointing, since you are going to proceed with this gambling -- and this debate is not about whether we should have gaming or not; it's about who we put in charge to be responsible for those appointments. Who has the social responsibility? Who is it we're going to put on those boards and commissions that we can understand what we're getting? And this, only Windsor alone. That's only one aspect of it. Rama, of course, they decided was another social responsibility we have. Guess what those responsibilities were? Day care. My golly, we didn't even anticipate that, that these people on the commission we're appointing would understand that social responsibility, that the 10-year-old or the 11-year-old or the 12-year-old in the parking lot, running around, could cause some problems.
2230
Maybe if I'm a 12-year-old and my mom and dad are inside there gambling, I'm going to have my fun. I get bored after two hours or so. She or he may be winning or losing my milk money inside there, but it's okay, the government said it's okay for them to lose my milk money, or maybe can't pay the mortgage and all that. But I'm out here playing and maybe one of the ways to play is: "I wonder if we can get into some of the cars, get into some mischief, for fun?" It's the social responsibility of those who are on the board to understand that and we must be beyond reproach as to who we appoint.
This is a step in the right direction, and I know that as you vote on this and support this amendment, this motion itself, you understand why we feel so strongly about this, very, very strongly about this, because when the chicken comes home to roost, there's a lot to pay afterwards, a lot to pay.
Then we wonder why our social costs are so high, why prostitution creates so many problems, why drugs create so many problems. And we say, "Where is it?" We follow that trail back and say: "Who gave this individual this license to conduct that? Did we look very seriously at some of the things that are now causing the problem? Did we realize that if we bring a 12- or a 14-year-old on the premises, it also could cause some problems?"
Why are those children out there? Do we, as a government, have a responsibility for that? We would say, "Oh, no, the government can't do everything." As a matter of fact, lately we find that many of the ministers in this government are saying: "I'm the minister of housing, but I want to be out of housing. I'm the minister of welfare, but I don't want welfare, I don't want to look after anybody on welfare." My golly, where are these ministers? The minister of consumers: "Listen, I don't want to protect consumers, let the market deal with them."
We can't allow the market to deal with our 12- and 14-year-olds in Rama. We can't allow the market to deal with the prostitute in Windsor. We can't allow the market to deal with the drugs, because the social costs --
Mr Clement: Speak to the point.
Mr Curling: The point I'm trying to say to you is, we must have the responsibility that when we make those decisions and we appoint people to the commission, they know who they're giving it to. That's the point I'm making. Because it goes far and cuts very deep and the chickens come home to roost and we'll be long gone, many of us; we'll be long gone and other members of Parliament will be wrestling with different issues. Not this. They'll be dealing with issues I'm raising now, and I'm saying to you that it starts here.
Those who we're electing to serve should be people from all walks who understand this. That's why all these things are related. It is extremely important that we not focus so narrowly: "Oh, let's just ram this thing through and get on with something else. We've got more important things to do. My golly, this is only just to appoint some people on the commission; that's it. Nine, or 10 or 12, or whatever the numbers are, let's get on with it. Do you know anyone? Oh yes, my riding president. Well, let's get on with it." Not understanding the social responsibility that goes with that, not understanding the integrity and the honesty that must go along with the kind of a role they must play.
Where does responsibility start? Here. Not there, not the appointments. It starts here, how we conduct ourselves, how we manage and how we legislate, how we put legislation together. Every word has an impact, positive and negative, on someone outside there, protecting especially the most vulnerable.
I'm not too concerned about those out there who can get a nice lawyer if they get into trouble and get off. I'm not really too concerned about that, because I think they can look after themselves. I'm concerned about those who can't even read this kind of wording. I'm concerned about those who are saying, "My golly." I'm concerned about when a judge stands up and says: "That's the law, I can't do a thing about it. That's what it says right here."
That is why it is so relevant for us to speak on this and that is why I am so very happy that my friends Mr Kormos and Mr Crozier feel so strongly about this because I think they do understand that. I think you understand that too. I think you do understand me, but you're wondering now, "If I vote on this, I'm wondering if my boss will tell me that I am disloyal to the cause of the Conservative Party, because we have been whipped into shape to say, `This is the way we should go,' so let's not look that way."
But I appeal to your conscience. I'm not appealing to the Conservatives, not at all, I'm not appealing to the Liberals or the NDP, because I'm appealing to your conscience and your heart, of a society that you need, your children and my children, to come up and be able to go to Windsor and if there is gambling there, which is by law, that's fine, but the person who has gotten that licence was given that licence because a commission sat down on integrity and honesty and social responsibility and said, "If you ever slip, my dear man, or my dear woman, we shall take that licence away, if you're not making the proper provision." But they can't do that if they don't understand their role. If their loyalty and allegiance is not to that, if their allegiance is to the party or my friend, it becomes short and narrow, short-sighted.
It's short-sighted because the fact is it stops there. It only stops there or goes beyond. So when that chicken comes home to roost and we're paying for it -- not we, but maybe my daughter may be sitting here and saying: "What did my Dad do? Did he know that this legislation was going through, when they were appointing people who did not have that kind of social responsibility that today there are the repercussions, that we are having to pay for that? What did he do?"
I would be negligent in my role in many ways, negligent first as a father, next as a citizen, and also very important as a parliamentarian who makes the law -- that's what we do -- and I saw this and did not speak about it. I feel as strongly about this as when we rammed undemocratic things through the process and we said, "No way." Because I want to know when my daughter or my grandchildren -- I don't have any yet -- say: "Grandpa, so what did you do? What did your colleagues over there do? What did the Conservatives do?" I will say to them, "I appealed to their conscience, my dear; I appealed to their heart and their brain and their intelligence and they did change," or I may not be saying this at all because the chickens did not come home to roost.
2240
I may not even have this discussion with them, but don't allow us to have that discussion with our generation down the road: "What did you do? Did you allow this legislation through? Did you make any amendment?" I want to say to them: "My colleague Mr Kormos put an amendment through and I spoke on it, my dear, as best as I could in my limited expression of emotion and my limited way of expressing myself, but I tried my best. My colleague Mr Crozier also spoke and Mr Kormos spoke, because he's the one who put it in." She would say to me: "So Grandpa, did any of the Conservative members speak on this issue at all? Did they say they didn't like what you're saying or you didn't know what you're talking about?"
Mr Clement: We haven't had a chance.
Mr Curling: You will get your chance. I want to say to them, and you still have the opportunity. I want to say to them, "Yes" --
Mr Clement: This is a farce.
Mr Flaherty: Are you going to tell your grandkids about the farce that you perpetuated?
Mr Crozier: It's your bill. If you want to call it a farce, why it's up to you.
Interjections.
Mr Curling: They seem to have woken up.
Interjections.
Mr Curling: It's a farce, the Conservatives say, to look for social responsibility; it's a farce to have honesty and integrity; it's a farce for us to have proper legislation; it's a farce for us to debate this; it's a farce to be democratic; it's a farce for us --
Interjections.
Mr Curling: It's a farce for me, as a representative appointed by the people --
Interjections.
The Chair: Gentlemen, Mr Curling has the floor. I'd ask you to continue with your presentation, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: It's a farce for me --
The Chair: No, excuse me, Mr Curling, back to the amendment. We're done with that --
Mr Flaherty: You aren't going to be paid for today? Are you taking money for this from the taxpayers of Ontario?
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Flaherty. We're done with that. Please do the presentation.
Mr Curling: I'm going to.
The Chair: Good.
Mr Curling: It's a farce, as the individual would feel; it's no farce for me --
The Chair: No, excuse me, Mr Curling, now you're debating with the comments that were made. Those comments were out of order, and I don't think it's proper to debate them. So if you'd just stick to the amendment.
Mr Curling: Oh, you did say it was out of order.
The Chair: Let's get back on the rails.
Mr Curling: I wanted to, but I thought you accepted what they --
The Chair: No, certainly not.
Mr Curling: You didn't rule them out anyway, so I thought --
The Chair: No, they're definitely out of order, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Oh, good, now I shall not address them.
Now, let me tell you this. I want to tell my children and my grandchildren that I spoke on this amendment. I want to tell them too that I gave you all the opportunity -- not I, but the process gave you the opportunity to speak on this, to either defend it or to say that what I did is a farce because I want social responsibility and I want honesty and integrity in the legislation. I want it so that the commission there can conduct their job and when they are appointed these are the people that would have to say proper legislation was drawn and you carried out your work as best you know.
Many times what has happened -- as you know, Mr Chairman, as you listen attentively -- is that we have legislation that many of our colleagues haven't even read. It goes even beyond that. There are introductions of things and they haven't even known what the bill is, and they would like to pass it as fast as possible. We can't afford to do that. The lives of our people are too important. The lives of our children are too important. The lives of our grandchildren are too important. It's important to the extent --
Interjections.
The Chair: Have you completed, Mr Curling?
Mr Curling: No, I'm just warming up.
The Chair: Good, please proceed.
Mr Curling: It is as important --
Interjections.
Mr Curling: If it takes me the whole night to make this point, because it's important, it's very important --
Mr Flaherty: When's the intelligent part?
Mr Curling: When you wake up, it'll be intelligent. It is important because, as I said, we are moving into an area that is new to us, and we must move cautiously. We must put the right individuals in place, the individuals who can conduct it properly, but before we put those individuals into place --
Interjections.
Mr Curling: What I say is so important, and not only that it's important, I believe in it with my heart and I also know that the thousands and thousands, maybe millions of people who are not given this great opportunity like myself to express this, that they would like me to say this, and I will say it: As painful as it is to them over there that they will have to listen -- and if they don't want, as painful as it is --
Mr Flaherty: It is painful, very painful, extremely painful.
Mr Curling: -- to know that they're going to live up to their responsibility, and the responsibility starts here -- not in the commission; it starts here in making good legislation. When we direct the bureaucrats to go back and redraft this, we want to say to them that they got the input that is necessary to make the proper legislation. They got that. I know how painful it is, but I want to say this because I know I had not completed my thought. When I say to my grandchildren, "Grandchild, today we have a lovely, beautiful country" -- and the reason for that is that my colleagues, as we debated, we have a province in which you can walk safely, we have a province that the drug situation that would have been caused by the issuance of licences and no sort of adherence to law and order, all that adherence to law and order was looked after because we had the right people in place to give the right people the opportunity or the job to open a casino, or an alcohol-dispensing place. It's important.
The reason why we do this -- why do we do this? Why do we have a commission about alcohol and why do we do this for gaming?
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): We wouldn't have to have all this gambling if it wasn't squandered --
Mr Crozier: What about the $20 billion you're going to borrow?
Mr Curling: In the meantime --
Interjections.
Mr Curling: Yes, Morley Kells and all that, yes. All those people appointed --
Mr Crozier: Not one Liberal.
Mr Curling: We did Morley Kells and a couple of people like that.
Interjections.
The Chair: Gentlemen, the recording and Hansard are going to have a difficult time. Could we continue, Mr Curling?
Mr Curling: Mr Chairman, I'm trying to cooperate as possible. Of course, all the cackling over there --
The Chair: We know exactly what you're doing, Mr Curling, so just proceed.
Interjections.
The Chair: It's late at night, Mr Crozier. Mr Curling, I'd ask you to please proceed.
Mr Curling: Thank you. I'm glad you gave me back the opportunity.
The Chair: You never lost it. You had the floor. We have peace and quiet now. Please proceed.
Mr Curling: I like how neutral you are, Mr Chairman, and I appreciate that very much, because I will continue to make this point. You see, the responsibility, as I said, starts here. It starts here as legislators. It starts here, where we have to say to ourselves that the fact is that whether we are focused, we continue --
Mr Flaherty: Too bad it didn't start in 1985, when you formed the government. You could have done something about it. Where were you for five years, when you were squandering Ontario's resources, increasing spending 10% a year?
Mr Crozier: Chair, I can't hear my friend.
Mr Flaherty: Where were you for those five years when you were a minister?
The Chair: Gentlemen, it's late at night. Unless you want to recess for five minutes, I'd suggest we let Mr Curling say his piece. I'm very interested in receiving inside information. Please proceed.
Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, I'm not on Prozac myself, so it's not as if I can give anybody any.
2250
Mr Curling: Is there a recess of five minutes?
The Chair: No, no.
Mr Curling: I see. But they seem to need a recess. I don't need a recess at all. If they need a recess it's fine with me.
Mr Ford: If you'd been here for the last three weeks you'd need a recess.
Mr Curling: One of the things, Mr Chairman -- I want to make my point. I've been interrupted so many times that I have to go back to connect the point because I know their concentration at this time of night --
Interjections.
Mr Curling: If it takes me a week to make the point to you for you to understand, I will do a week to do this. You see, I will take the week to make it, because --
Mr Guzzo: When's the next election?
Mr Curling: We can't wait till the next election. We can't wait at all because in the next election -- I'm trying to say to you to save yourself in the next election, because here is an opportunity now to do something that is right, for my grandchild must be able to say to me: "Grandpa, I'm so proud of this country. I'm so proud because their colleagues in the House sat down and drew up proper legislation. We're not like the other country. I'm so proud because we know that what --
Mr Ford: I hope he doesn't grow up to be a little socialist. The poor little bugger will starve to death.
Interjections.
Mr Curling: It seems to me that any word that is socialist --
Mr Crozier: I think anything Mr Ford says that isn't written down you should --
Interjections.
Mr Crozier: These are spontaneous things that come from Mr Ford too. You don't usually hear Mr Ford spontaneous like that. I think we should listen to him.
Mr Ford: I've been sitting here all night listening to the gibberish on both sides there, and after a while you have to talk back because they just don't understand what we're --
Mr Curling: Mr Ford, who arrived here --
Mr Ford: That money that you squandered should be put into factories, resources. Develop this country rather than just squander.
The Chair: You're out of order, Mr Kormos and Mr Ford. If we could proceed, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: I don't want to tell my grandchild that the cupboards are filled, lots of money is here, but we have more drug addiction outside, we have prostitution, we have the poor. But the bottom line is we've got lots of money in the cupboard, lots of money there. I want to tell them that when we --
Mr Flaherty: Tell them how you sat at the cabinet table and approved Monte Carlo nights. Tell them about that.
Mr Kormos: -- 20,000 slots.
Mr Flaherty: He's against gambling he says.
The Chair: Mr Flaherty, you're out of order. Mr Curling, can you address the amendment before us.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Flaherty, please. Mr Curling, please address the amendment before us.
Mr Flaherty: Actions speak louder than words, Mr Crozier.
Mr Curling: Let me tell you something, Mr Chairman --
The Chair: No, no. Mr Curling, don't tell me anything, just address the amendment.
Mr Kormos: -- control the zoo there.
Mr Curling: If I can't speak to the Chair, who do I speak to? I said, "Let me tell you," you said, "Don't tell me anything." Who should I tell it to?
The Chair: You tell it to the committee, that's who you're addressing.
Mr Curling: Through the Chair.
Mr Kormos: He's supposed to speak through the Chair.
The Chair: Fine, through the Chair.
Mr Curling: Oh good, now I can speak to you, Mr Chairman. Let me tell you, Mr Chairman, since they're not listening, I want to tell my grandchild and I want, when my grandchild says to me, "Grandpa, how did we approve all these casino nights? How did we approve all this gaming? Why is it we weren't more responsible?" I'll say, "My dear, it started with good legislation" --
Mr Flaherty: Monte Carlo nights, that's where it started.
Mr Rollins: The rent control board.
Mr Kormos: Oh, oh, rent control. Alvin?
Mr Crozier: Did you hear that? Alvin, take it easy, take it easy.
Mr Kormos: Chair, the government members introduced a new issue here, rent control.
Mr Curling: That's no gambling, I'm telling you. Let me tell you an example, Mr Chairman, an example of appointing a board, what we did.
Mr Kormos: They're up to their knees in guano.
Mr Curling: That's a good example and I'm glad that the honourable member raised the point about the rent control board. I'm so glad about that because it's a good example, it's an excellent example --
Mr Guzzo: Let's be fair here. This is the most intelligent Liberal we've heard in three weeks right here.
Mr Curling: Let me tell you --
Mr Flaherty: The best opposition member by far.
Mr Guzzo: You make Kormos look smart.
Mr Curling: Let me tell you a good example about appointments to good boards and commissions and how it's comprised, how we got this going, because I didn't have the answer to resolve the issues. No. I did not come here in this Parliament to say: "Here I am, the saviour. I have all the answers." Oh no. What I did, Mr Chairman, is I appointed landlords and tenants to come up with answers, and when I was through, I appointed Morley Kells on the rent review board. I just thought I would appoint him, and I did.
Mr Kormos: Good Progressive Conservative. I read his stuff in the Star regularly.
Mr Curling: The idea about all of this, Mr Chairman, was to make sure we have some objectivity. That's why we have landlords and we have tenants.
The idea about this amendment is that we can have objectivity, that we don't have a selected few, so my grandchild, whom I was telling you about, would say to me -- there's one way or the other. If this happens today, he or she will say to me, "Grandpa, I'm so happy to live in a country that is not infested with prostitution and drugs and crime. I'm so happy. Not that I like, Grandpa, the gambling and the gaming that goes on or a lot of the drinking that goes on. I don't like it but, Grandpa, I understand. But I'm so happy to live in a country where it is regulated, it is done properly." I want to say to that grandchild, "It started off, my dear, with good legislation, with my colleagues with whom I had to speak at length before they understood that it starts with good legislation and appointing people in a very objective way."
I'll say, "Well, how do they do that, Grandpa?" and I'll say, "What we did, my dear child, is we sat down and put an amendment through to say, `We shall not appoint people who are card-carrying people within the government of the day.'" They'd say, "What a wise move."
I'd say, "I would not like to take all the credit, my child. There's a colleague of mine, Peter Kormos, who had moved that motion. And as they spoke, it took us some time to convince the Conservatives. There was a lot of heckling," I would want to tell them, Mr Chairman, "and sometimes some insults." They would say, "Grandpa, did you put up with those insults?" and I'd say: "Sure. Of course, my child. Because, you see, the struggle, the cause, was greater than I and the cause was greater than Mr Crozier and the cause was greater than Mr Kormos. The cause was greater than every individual. So I put up with the insults. You can read the Hansard. The Hansard couldn't keep track of the insults and the abuse that was put forward while we tried to put this amendment through."
Mr Ford: We weren't insulting you. We were stating facts.
Mr Curling: But I would say to them, "My dear child, today that's what we call democracy. It's okay. Don't lose sight of that goal. Keep your eye on the ball. I know their eye was on some money in the cupboard. They don't care about people. They said: `We want lots of money in the cupboard. That's all we want.'"
Mr Rollins: Because the guy who put the money in the cupboard wants some back.
Mr Curling: "And I said that what will be a disaster for that, if we had something otherwise, is we would say that the money's in the cupboard but the people are poor. There are no homes, no adequate policing. We couldn't spend because we wanted money in the cupboard."
Mr Ford: If you're going to put money in the cupboard, you've got to work for it. Why don't you tell them that? That's what matters.
Mr Curling: "But when we appealed to them, they saw the sense of it all because, my dear child, if the chickens had come home to roost today, it would have been bad that you have not supported this amendment." And at this time, the child says, "Grandpa, why is it that we have so much crime? Why is it that prostitution is rampant? Why is it that all these criminal elements are happening just around these places?" And I would say that the people who had appointed and given out these licences are supposed to have four of the most important ingredients to help them make a sound decision. They should have integrity, honesty, they should have social responsibility, they should have this commitment to that cause. What happened? They ignored that, and we're paying the price today. We're paying the price because they had appointed some friends to this.
2300
They would say: "Grandpa, what do you mean, their friends? Did their friends have any intelligence? What do you mean, friends? Don't you have friends, Grandpa?" I'd say: "I have friends but, you see, those who were appointed were members of the government of the day. They were the government of the day, and the government of the day wasn't too concerned about the cause and the issue."
Mr Kormos: Social responsibility.
Mr Curling: "They weren't too concerned about the social responsibility of what is happening today. They were just concerned about paying off some friends who had contributed to their party."
"What's that, Grandpa?" I'd say: "They gave money, you see, and they'd go out -- you see those things we used to do, my child, with the handouts? I'll show you some of my clippings, where we hand out and have them all so people can vote for us. Yes, they had no other way, they said, to pay them off, so they're appointing them to something we call boards and commissions." "What about the qualifications? What about those things you talk about, Grandpa?"
Mr Kormos: They were friends.
Mr Curling: That's right. "What about those things you talked about: integrity and honesty and social responsibility?" I'd say: "That was secondary. The primary thing now in all of this is that you're a member of a political party of the day."
"But didn't they understand all this? Wouldn't they understand all this?" I would say: "I thought they did. I spoke till I was hoarse. I spoke hoping that I would appeal to the heart, because outside of the committee they were decent, respectable people, fine people in Parliament." "Do you get along with them?" and I'd say, "Fine."
"But what had driven them to the point that they couldn't do the proper appointment?" I'd say, "They had this blind loyalty, you see, my child, to their leader, who tells them, `That's the way it should go.'" "No, Grandpa. You mean to say that they have no independent thinking? Did you appeal to their hearts?" I'd say, "Yes, I did, but the fact is that they said to me in their faces, as they stared at me across from my seat, my child, their faces were telling me, `I'd like to support this, I want to support this, but I have, you see, this blind loyalty.'"
And they'd say, "Did people elect them to the House of Parliament like you, Grandpa?" "Yes, just like Mr Kormos and Mr Crozier, because they came with a commitment and a conviction not to carry their own convictions, but what the people wanted." "What about them?" I'd say, "They were driven by their leader that they could not support this."
But I want to go away, my friends. I want to go away and throw that story out. I want it not to be ever repeated again. I don't want to repeat that story. I want it out. I want to repeat that first story, that long after you're gone, we continue to live in a society that is fair to all, that has a social responsibility to all, where honesty and integrity on boards and commissions blossom and bloom within there and continue. It's catching, because the next one that comes along will have to behave in the same way that you have appointed these people, because if you do the wrong thing, they're going to behave in the same way too.
So as I said and as I conclude, Mr Chairman, I say to you, do the right thing. Do the thing that I can turn around, and you -- not only my grandchild, because not only my grandchild will be around this place. It'll be yours and yours and yours and, Mr Chairman, also yours. Your grandchild will say, "Grandpa Gerry, you were in the Chair when Mr Curling was appealing" --
The Chair: I'm sorry. As I reminded my good friend Mr Kormos, I think it's improper to make reference to the Chair as part of your argument. If you wish to make reference to other members, I think that's quite proper. Thank you, Mr Curling.
Mr Kormos: The Chair doesn't want any part of this whole sordid affair.
Mr Curling: Let me put it this way: Whether it be Grandpa Gerry, whether it be Grandpa Alvin, whether it be Grandpa Peter, it is not the Chair I was addressing at the time, Mr Chairman. I was not at all addressing the Chair when I called that name. I was addressing the fact that that individual was sitting there, and I can address the Chair to say, where was he and where was that social responsibility to say: "My child, I heard this and I was moved. I had no vote unless it was a tie, and there was no way it could be a tie, because there were a massive number of Conservatives there"?
So I said to you, do the right thing, not for yourself but for your children. Do the right thing for one of the greatest countries in the world, Canada. Do the right thing for the greatest province, Ontario. Do the right thing because not only is it the right thing to do, but also it's an honest thing to do. It's the social responsibility that you should feel good in the eve of your time.
Interjections.
The Chair: Gentlemen, Mr Curling was almost concluding there.
Mr Curling: No, no. I wasn't almost concluding. Oh, no.
The Chair: We're here to listen to your wisdom, and I was in no way rushing you. You mentioned you were concluding. I just --
Mr Curling: You said near concluding. But I said to do the right thing, to talk about --
Interjections.
Mr Curling: Mr Chairman, to my colleagues who are commenting --
Mr Ford: I heard you talk yesterday. We had nine in the family. You talked about a grandfather and grandmother. We didn't have a grandmother and grandfather. You talk about having a mother and that. We had one woman to take care of 11 people.
The Chair: Gentlemen, you're out of order.
Mr Guzzo: When are you going to get around to your famous night in the Legislature? Going to tell any of that to your grandchild? They'll be proud of you then.
Interjections.
The Chair: I need a break, gentlemen. There will be a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 2308 to 2312.
The Chair: I reconvene the meeting. Mr Curling, if you would proceed to your seat. Thank you.
Interjection: Swing in with your main speech for Gerard Kennedy.
The Chair: Mr Kennedy. Sorry: Mr Kormos.
Interjections.
The Chair: I should have taken more than five minutes. Mr Curling, please proceed.
Mr Curling: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I know how tired and exhausted we are. This process is a tiring exercise. I know it. Making laws is tiring, tedious, difficult --
Mr Kormos: Unpleasant.
Mr Curling: -- and also sometimes unpleasant. Actually, to get it right at times we've got to go over it over and over and over, but we've got to get it right. We've got to make sure. If we have in this legislation, in this amendment, in this commission, the individuals who are appointed who have all those ingredients that we talk about today, it may take some time. It may take some time where you'll get mad with me, I know, and I understand that. Sometimes your eyes gloss over reading all of this, but you'll be happy later on, Mr Chairman, to know that good legislation was written, and we had lots of other things to do but it's no use we jump over this and go on to the next without doing the proper thing.
I'm going to appeal to you in my summary here to say to you, do the right thing. It's a step in the right direction. It's a process that is needed. It's a new era in politics and you have the opportunity -- you all have the opportunity; we all have the opportunity -- for you to do it and for us to assist you in doing that. Because you are the government, and you can take all the praise. It doesn't matter to me. Take all the praise. Say that you brought in legislation that is relevant and has all the things that are needed to have a socially responsible society and a government that is socially responsible.
Although someone said to me that I'm against gambling and I'm against this, I never for one minute say that. Of course I can be against it, but I live in a democratic country and I know there are some people who would like certain things that I don't like, and I may like things that they don't like, and that's all right. That's where the tough job is and that's why I was elected. I told the people of Scarborough North that I may do things that may not be happy with everyone but I'll be darned, I said, if I'm not here to protect the most vulnerable in our society, those who can't speak for themselves, those who have asked me to come forward and do this, those who are saying: "When you're making laws, remember me. When you're making laws and I read this, I can see myself reflected in it, that you have all considered me out there, so that when I get there I don't need lawyers to defend me with high prices, because I can't afford it. I don't have the time," so when we have those kinds of laws --
Mr Kormos: Pro bono.
Mr Curling: Support this.
I want to thank you so much, Mr Chairman, for your patience and I want to thank my colleagues for listening so attentively. Now they are all so calm. I know I've appealed to their heart and I leave it to their conscience. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Curling. Do we have any further comments?
Mr Kormos: I don't want to protract this debate unduly, but Mr Curling has, in a brilliant and articulate and passionate way, raised some facets of concern that I hadn't addressed. I think they warrant some very brief emphasis from my point of view at least as the mover, sponsor of this motion.
I'm grateful to the generosity of spirit of the government members of this committee towards me. I appreciate their collegiality and their warmth, and their support and recognition of the role that opposition members are obliged to play in this process.
Mr Curling very much emphasized youth and reflected on the fact that this isn't just a gaming commission. Too often the focus of course has been the slot machines, which is not unimportant in itself. As well -- and he put it in a way that's so readily understandable -- we're talking here about avoiding having members of the board with conflicting interests, protecting them from that, from the compelling interest of wanting to serve your master, and when you have political patronage that's what you've got. You have an obligation to serve your master; that is, your patron, the person from whom you derived and for whom you derive that position because of political payback. There's something implicit in that.
The role of this board, this commission, not only in managing what is the most dramatic and dangerous gambling regime in perhaps all of North America -- and I say that well aware of the nature of the regime in Nevada -- but as well what we've witnessed in terms of a relaxed attitude towards regulation of the sale and distribution of liquor and spirits and alcoholic beverages, one can only anticipate. One of the things that the LLBO, now not submerged but joined in with the gaming commission in this new supercommission, has been is a source of advice to governments on potential reforms. By and large, I suspect that every government has consulted them and will continue to consult them. That's one of their implicit responsibilities -- and the commission has that responsibility in this legislation -- to report back to the government on an as-needed basis, but also to provide advice and direction when the government is looking to respond to the various interest groups that appeal to it. This government has the pressure from interest groups, as every other government has -- different interest groups perhaps, but none the less interest groups all the same.
I can't emphasize enough that what the amendment speaks to is the enhancement of the position so that members serving in that position, members of the board of directors, can do so freely without there being any sense of indebtedness to their political masters, without there being any conflict of loyalties: Am I going to be loyal to the party and the government of the day or am I going to be loyal to the requirements that are imposed on me by the legislation?
I urge support for this legislation. I thank Mr Curling for his articulate and indeed brilliant analysis of the amendment and its need. I urge all members of this committee to support this amendment. They will have made history by doing so. This late evening session will be referred to and recalled with great pride by the members of this committee and by their colleagues in their respective caucuses.
Thank you kindly, Chair.
The Chair: You're speechless, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: No. I'm waiting for the Chair to call the question because I want to advise the Chair that upon calling the question I anticipate a 20-minute recess as per the rules.
The Chair: That's somewhat of a surprise, but I think it can be arranged.
We have a question: Shall the amendment pass?
Mr Kormos: A 20-minute recess.
The Chair: Mr Kormos has requested a 20-minute recess for the purpose of caucusing with his caucus. That means we shall return at 11:45.
The committee recessed from 2321 to 2341.
The Chair: The question: All those in favour of the amendment?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please, Chair.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Clement, Flaherty, Ford, Guzzo, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
Is there any further discussion or amendment relating to section 2 of the act?
Mr Kormos: I move that subsection (3) of section 2 of the schedule to the bill be amended by striking out "five" and inserting "nine and not more than 19."
The Chair: Mr Kormos has moved an amendment to subsection 2(3) of the schedule to section 1 of Bill 75. Is there any discussion?
Mr Kormos: As you know, from the very onset of this debate the focus has very much been on subsection 2(3). At the very initiation of the clause-by-clause consideration, there was concern about the vagueness and the lack of direction or guidelines or parameters in subsection 2(3). The original bill, as it stands, simply specifies that there have to be at least five people on the board. We've gone through a series of attempts to refine or assist the government in the course of its developing a body or a board that's going to meaningfully give effect to the provisions of section 3, which have been referred to frequently.
The purpose of this amendment is to give some scope. One is concerned that a mere five people would permit the board and its capacity as the directing body of the commission to be monopolized by a mere handful of people. The government could conceivably get away with five people. Again, not having had the government give any positive effect to the series of previous amendments, one has to be concerned about that board representing a cross-section of the community, a variety of those interests. It's my respectful submission to you, Chair, that five people simply can't do that, which is why I've suggested a minimum of nine. I of course picked an odd number because that permits a board to be in a position, conceivably, where it needn't necessarily be deadlocked.
At the same time as I'm concerned about the minimum of five, I'm concerned about the prospect of this kind of board becoming -- because there's going to be so much money here, there's going to be so much revenue coming out of these slot machines that this board will have the capacity, heck, to support or maintain 100 members, no two ways about it.
We went through exhaustive arguments about the prospect of patronage and although argued at length very skilfully by, among others, Mr Curling and Mr Crozier with respect to various amendments, one's left with the fear that this becomes a dumping ground, as I say, a collector for people to whom the government has obligations, because the government clearly has embraced the traditional model of patronage. The government clearly has embraced it.
I understand that they may not have been satisfied with the wording of each and every amendment that's been proposed so far to section 2, all of which dealt with the issue of adequate representation of a broad cross-section. There's more coming. With great interest, I note that we have an amendment that's -- and I didn't know whether that one was going to be called upon to be presented before mine or not. It's unfortunate that it wasn't because that in some respects would have addressed the issue of numbers. Implicit in it is a requirement that there clearly be more than five, unless you get some doubling up.
Look where we started. We started with Mr Kennedy's most modest of amendments. Got shot down, got shot down, got shot down. Here we are burning, we're in flames. We're at a point where we sorely want to see this board, because of the incredible powers it's going to have, the incredible resources it's going to have available to it, have the capacity to fulfil its mandate, especially that mandate prescribed in subsection (3).
So I have proposed a nine-to-19 model; 19 seems to me to be a particularly high number but one which could contain, should there be a government at some point in time, an adequate cross-section of representation such that all of the respective groups, organizations, facets of the community, persons affected, be they victims of the slot machine directly in terms of gambling addicts or victims, to wit, small business people who are clearly going to be displaced.
We heard from those people. They deserve representation. Nine to 19 accommodates them; victims like in the break-open ticket industry who predicted -- notwithstanding the spin that Mr Pollock put on his version of the Alberta data, the Alberta data appear to substantiate the fears of the break-open ticket industry, and notwithstanding that one can talk about break-open tickets in such a way as to express concern about the market that's there, one heard that the market for break-open tickets tends to be lower-income people. Indeed, at least one break-open ticket dealer spoke of seniors. Most of our personal experience would corroborate that seniors, although an exclusive market, are very much a market, be they folks at the Legion hall, folks in various social clubs and non-profit organizations. Our own experience tells us that's where the vast majority of these tickets tend to be.
In addition, we've got these tickets in what tend to be the smaller retail operations; by and large smaller towns, by and large mom and poppers as compared to chains, although I believe I recall seeing these in some of the chain drugstores and some of the 7 Eleven-type stores.
2350
With the break-opens we also, as we did with the young woman up in Sudbury -- she was speaking in Sudbury but she ran the small three-day-a-week bingo parlour -- we heard from break-open ticket dealers that there's a clear identification of every break-open ticket location with the particular charity that one is in effect donating money to. Although the likelihood of winning in break-open appears -- we heard the numbers from any number of the distributors -- to be much higher than probably any other game of chance in this whole business, whole racket, it remains that at the end of the day the purpose is for people to win a little bit of money but for the charity to benefit; for the retailer, the person who's the host of the ticket, to benefit; for the distributor to benefit; and for there to be overhead in terms of the people who manufacture and supply these tickets, who obviously are going to charge for their product -- because that's all it is, a product.
You have a very specific and identifiable group. As I say, the one interesting thing about break-opens is that they are a specific industry with an identifiable scope: $1.3 billion a year in purchases. One can assume, one can infer, some significant profits there -- not for the retailer, who gets a modest piece of the pie for his or her efforts at selling these and handling the tickets and of course guaranteeing the security of them. One will also note that this was identified by that industry. I think all on the committee did the best they could in terms of asking questions in the limited periods of time. This was identified by the industry as something of a labour-intensive industry, a reasonably high labour component. Everybody spoke of the employees. Certainly that's going to be the case -- a reasonably high labour component -- in the actual manufacturing, the printing and assembly of these tickets, although certainly not as much as it was perhaps in the past. There you go.
One of the other groups that clearly identified a strong interest in the future of this commission, this new regime that's being proposed, was the bingo industry. This industry seemed to range from big operators, and Delta down in Fort Erie may or may not be the biggest -- I don't think we ever found out -- but certainly was a pretty big, by my books, bingo operator that made significant profits but also provided significant amounts of moneys, in the millions of dollars, to charitable organizations. That's also an operation that has a higher labour component, in my view -- and this based on the stuff we've heard and read -- than the slots in terms of attendance at the bingo halls and once again in terms of manufacturing the product, which is a consumable product. Unlike the slots which are there, the production of bingo placards, bingo playing cards, is an ongoing thing. I know there are some places apparently, and Scarne made reference to this in his work as an authority on bingos, where they use permanent boards where you slide a marker across. In most bingo halls, and I've been in a number of them, people use their daubers. That accompanies the paraphernalia they take with them to bingo halls. You wouldn't believe -- I mean, good luck tokens and little stuffed teddy bears and porcelain figurines, and they're laid out in a pattern in front of the players in such a way that can't be disrupted, can't be interfered with for fear of generating bad luck. It's an interesting aura, I suppose, basically of almost superstition that accompanies it, but that's not unusual, I submit to you, in the whole gambling world.
People wear their lucky suspenders. They bet horses with their lucky numbers. Numerology is prevalent among several types of gamblers. It's remarkable how prevalent that is among, interestingly, people who otherwise would dismiss that stuff as pure bunkum, nothing scientific. Indeed, I've talked to a whole lot of bingo players -- mind you, you don't want to talk to them while they're playing because you're going to generate more than a little bit of ill will. Their job is to scan their -- and I suppose in bingo the level of skill is in the ability of a player to scan their bingo cards while the game is being called. Quite frankly, bingo is portrayed as a game of pure chance, and at the base level it is, it's pure randomness, but there is that modest element of skill which I think is interesting. I must say I hadn't, until preparing for the submissions to this particular motion, reflected on that, albeit modest, element of skill.
One of the things I think that can be noted is that bingo is a common recreational activity among senior citizens and it is actually utilized in places like Sunset Haven down in Welland, which is a seniors' residence --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. It seems our time has elapsed.
Mr Kormos: Chair, say it ain't so.
The Chair: I apologize once again to Mr Guzzo. We will not be able to hear from you this evening.
I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your attentive and good behaviour this evening. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 2357.