ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO
Report continued from volume A.
1800
ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO
Ms Churley moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 8, An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos / Loi prévoyant la réglementation des casinos par la création de la Société des casinos de l'Ontario et traitant de certaines autres questions relatives aux casinos.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable minister have some opening remarks?
Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes, thank you. I'm pleased to open the debate on second reading of Bill 8, the Ontario Casino Corporation Act, 1993. Since the announcement in the 1992 budget of the government's intention to proceed with this initiative, there has been a great deal of activity.
Shortly after the budget announcement, I established the Ontario casino project team. Members of the team include staff seconded from the business practices division of my ministry, the ministries of the Solicitor General, Attorney General, Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Finance, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and of course the team has important representation from the Ontario Provincial Police. This team has been assisted by consultants from internationally recognized and respected consulting firms, economists from McMaster University and the universities of Toronto and Windsor and other experts from the OPP and Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
My staff also had many productive meetings with those directly involved in the industry. They have met with both gaming and casino regulators from a number of other North American jurisdictions. They have also consulted extensively with casino operators themselves. We want a top-notch, competitive casino, and it made a great deal of sense for us to speak with those companies which are currently successful in this industry.
In addition, invaluable advice and assistance has been received from Mayor Michael Hurst, city council and staff and the police service of the city of Windsor.
Finally, and most importantly, I want to thank the many citizens of Windsor who attended consultation meetings, and people who wrote and telephoned me. Their advice and assistance have served to reinforce my belief that we made a good choice when we chose the city of Windsor as the location for the casino.
The decision to establish a casino in Ontario represents a small part of this government's strategy for economic renewal. The initiative was taken in response to a growing number of requests by various groups and municipalities.
Every day many Ontarians travel outside Ontario's borders to enjoy the entertainment that casinos offer. The range of possible destinations continues to grow. This cross-border shopping for entertainment is costing Ontario millions of dollars and thousands of jobs annually.
I and staff of the casino project team have met with many representatives from business, labour, horse racing, charity, law enforcement and community groups. Their views contributed to our decision to approach expanded casino gaming in a careful, cautious and measured way.
Gaming is a well-established component of the entertainment industry, sanctioned in every Canadian province and territory and virtually all American states.
In Ontario, some $4 billion is circulated each year from wagering on lotteries, horse racing and charitable games. A significant portion of this money is reinvested here in the form of salaries, consumer and government spending and support for charitable activity. Ontario charities earn more than $1 billion each year from bingo alone, while the lion's share of provincial lottery revenues goes to hospitals.
Casinos are not a new idea in Canada. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Yukon already have year-round casino operations, and Quebec will soon join them. In Ontario and across the rest of Canada, Monte Carlo nights have long been enjoyed by many residents. A temporary casino at Toronto's Canadian National Exhibition last summer generated about $800,000 for charity and attracted thousands of tourists to the fair.
We are confident that an Ontario casino will help stem the flow of Canadian dollars being spent in places like Las Vegas and Atlantic City, where nearly $500 million Canadian was spent in 1991.
A recent federal tourism study reveals that one fifth of Canadian tourists visiting the United States for more than two days are there to gamble, and 50% of such travellers report that they would play at a casino closer to home if given the opportunity. This outflow of dollars, as I said, is costing Ontario thousands of jobs and lost revenue.
We appreciate that a casino will not magically solve the economic problems created by free trade, the GST, cross-border shopping, federal transfer payment cutbacks and the recession. It is our view, however, and the view of many communities across Ontario, that casinos can enhance community economic development and generate government revenues to address pressing social needs. Bill 8 provides the strict regulatory regime necessary to ensure that this happens with honesty and integrity.
We chose Windsor for the province's first casino because it is the largest of Ontario's hard-hit border communities. It's also well positioned to attract American tourists to a year-round casino. The infusion of new dollars into the Windsor economy will help create new jobs and create economic growth, especially in the tourism and hospitality industries.
We are working very closely with Windsor and various community and business groups to ensure our overall planning reflects and respects community values. Full attention is being paid to the aspirations and concerns of Windsor residents.
The city of Windsor recommended that the casino gaming area be between 50,000 and 100,000 square feet --
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If the minister is going to abort party policy to such a degree, I think they should have a quorum to see this debacle.
The Acting Speaker: Will the clerk check if there is a quorum, please?
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): Mr Speaker, a quorum is not present.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable minister may resume her participation in the debate on second reading of Bill 8.
1810
Hon Ms Churley: The maximum size of the casino's gaming area will be 75,000 square feet. While the market could easily sustain something much larger, the province wants to ensure that the casino will not overwhelm this community. The casino will be located on the city's preferred site. The restaurant and hotel facilities within the casino complex will be deliberately modest in order to maximize the benefits for the Windsor hospitality industry.
Since I announced on October 6 of last year that the casino would be located in Windsor, I have repeatedly stated in the media and in the casino project newsletter that the casino would pay for any necessary increases in the Windsor Police Service. The government has already devoted substantial resources to provide the highest level of security within the casino. We have a number of expert OPP staff assigned to the casino project, and they're working with local and national police forces and regulatory bodies, both within Canada and from other countries. They're involved with such issues as casino design, internal surveillance systems, money handling, audit structure and background checks.
Recently, I met with Alvin Shpeen, who is the director of the division of gaming enforcement in New Jersey. I am pleased to report that the province has signed an information-sharing agreement with New Jersey whereby our two governments will fully share the information each jurisdiction has on those involved in the gaming industry. Obviously, New Jersey has a tremendous database on operators, suppliers and similar companies, and this agreement will save the OPP a lot of work and obviously save Ontario taxpayers a lot of money. My officials are in the process of making a similar arrangement with the state of Nevada. It is these sorts of arrangements that will assure Ontario residents of the highest level of safety and security in the Windsor casino.
Naturally, as with any large tourist attraction, there will be concerns for safety and security. We have forecast up to 12,000 daily visitors to the casino.
I am pleased to say the casino will provide funds to the city of Windsor for necessary increased police services. As a first step, we have already agreed to fund 10 new officers in Windsor for the opening of the interim casino. Casino project staff will continue to work with the Windsor Police Service to determine the number of additional staff beyond those first 10 who may be required. Windsor has a well-deserved reputation for being a safe city, and we will ensure it stays that way.
Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting Winnipeg, where there are now three casinos in operation. Their first casino, the Crystal Casino in the Fort Garry Hotel, has been in operation for a number of years. I'm pleased to say that I was informed that the casino has virtually no effect on the Winnipeg crime rate, and I'm confident that the same will be true of Windsor.
Our close consultation with the community includes productive and ongoing dialogue with the Windsor Raceway. We intend to market the casino in a manner that will complement rather than compete with other Windsor entertainment attractions, including the Windsor racetrack.
The horse racing industry is particularly concerned about the introduction of casinos in Ontario. This concern is understandable, but it must be viewed in the proper light. It is important to understand that horse racing competition is much more extensive than just other forms of gaming. All forms of entertainment compete with horse racing for the consumer's dollar. For example, the arrival of the Blue Jays in Toronto lured people away from the tracks, as have other entertainment forms.
Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I believe there should be a quorum to hear the honourable minister's policy statement on this bill.
The Acting Speaker: Could the Clerk check if there is a quorum present, please.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable minister can resume her participation in the debate.
Hon Ms Churley: Track attendance was even affected by the recent superb entertainment provided by the Maple Leafs in the playoffs.
However, it is important that members know that notwithstanding the significant diversification within the entertainment sector, horse racing still ranks first in attendance among Canadian spectator sports and a respectable second place in the national contest for gaming dollars. Ontario continues to boast the third-largest horse racing industry in North America.
Between 1991 and 1992, the total amount of dollars wagered on horse racing in Ontario declined by less than 1.5%. Although many other industries have faced worse hardship, this government has demonstrated a serious commitment to the viability of the horse racing industry with a number of specific measures.
As the minister responsible for the regulation of horse racing, I have worked very hard with the industry to encourage and help it to modernize its product and provide more opportunities for innovations such as offtrack betting.
It is important that all the players in the industry work cooperatively to respond to the challenges and opportunities before them. If we can all work together, I am confident the vibrancy of this industry can be maintained. If it is to survive in a healthy form, the horse racing industry must respond to the continually growing competition for the consumer's entertainment dollar.
This bill brings the 8,000 direct and indirect jobs the casino operation will create closer to reality for the people of Windsor. It also brings approximately $140 million in increased revenues a step closer for all the people of Ontario.
We have consulted widely on this initiative. This bill reflects, in large measure, the concerns and suggestions of the groups and individuals with whom we have consulted.
The bill, when enacted, will establish a crown corporation to own the casino business and a Gaming Control Commission to regulate the casino and other forms of gaming. The regulation of wagering on horse racing will remain unchanged. I wish to draw the members' attention to the fact that the funding of the Gaming Control Commission will not be paid for with tax dollars; it will be paid from casino revenues. All profits from the casino will accrue to the government, so all of the people of Ontario will benefit.
In conclusion, this bill creates a strict regulatory framework, based on the twin goals of honesty and integrity, which will allow the government to own a casino business and in so doing bring economic revitalization to the city of Windsor. At the same time, the casino will help to diversify the entertainment sector and attract even more tourists to Ontario.
I look forward to the debate on Bill 8 and the committee hearings which will follow. I urge all members to study the bill, listen to and join the debate and support, of course, Bill 8.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments on the minister's opening remarks?
1820
Mr Stockwell: It was with some interest that we spent some time listening to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations outlining her interest in casino gambling and this government's new-found interest in casino gambling.
It kind of frustrated me to hear this little preamble to the debate that's going to take place and not once did the minister ever revert back to party policy pre-1990. It was kind of curious, and I'd like comments on this.
They were always opposed to casino gambling. Let alone casino gambling, this government was always opposed to lotteries, for heaven's sake. Even their leader, Mr Bob Rae QC himself, had said that lotteries were simply a tax on the poor. Yet here we have a minister of the government, a social democratic government, standing up in this House extolling the virtues of legal public gambling.
They used to outline the horrors of the glass and concrete structures in Las Vegas. They used to turn up their noses at the Atlantic Citys of the world. They used to suggest that this is not what a fairminded, democratic country would do: institute gambling to prey on those poor individuals who can't control their public addiction.
Yet today we have a minister, in cold, stark contrast to those heady days of pious self-righteousness, standing before this House extolling not the virtues of the clean, honest, upfront living of the NDP but now of the money-grubbing industry they used to call gambling. It's a very, very interesting day -- and I'd like to hear the minister's comment -- when we stand here in July, hearing this minister of this government extolling the virtues of gambling.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I take it from the comments of my friend across the floor that he was impressed with the minister's remarks, as I was as well.
The minister talked about some of the things this is going to mean for the city of Windsor: It's going to diversify its economy; it's going to revitalize the downtown in the city of Windsor; it's going to create jobs, the most important element of this opportunity; and it's going to attract tourists to an area that has been very hard hit by the ravages of the recession.
It's been affected tremendously by the introduction of the goods and services tax. At one time, we used to have a lot of tourists who came from the United States to shop in the city of Windsor, but the introduction of the goods and services tax really ended that, and we need to turn that around.
Something else that affected the city of Windsor's economy was the introduction of the free trade agreement. We've seen a number of plants close in our city, with a tremendous loss of jobs. We need something to bring jobs back to our city, and this provides that opportunity.
We also need to revitalize our downtown, which has seen a great number of stores closed and now boarded up as a result of federal Tory economic policies. We need people to come to shop in our stores. We need to see some stores open up.
I want to thank some of the people who have been important in bringing this initiative to fruition, people like the mayor of Windsor, Mike Hurst, and the members of city council; their vision in establishing the twin anchors concept with respect to revitalizing the downtown in the city of Windsor, with the casino on one side and the multiplex sports facility on the other side. That is going to provide a tremendous boost for the downtown and the development of the riverfront.
Mr Drainville: It's good to have this opportunity to respond to the remarks made by the honourable minister.
I would say to my honourable friend that I just wish we would stop hearing the public relations pitch that is being made: Let's all have fun in Ontario. Rather, let's hear about the problems we're going to have through casino gambling.
The honourable member has indicated that we're going to have a casino of 75,000 square feet. People may not know what that means, but it means in effect that we'll have a casino basically the same size as most in Atlantic City or in Las Vegas.
What we'll have is a casino which is basically going to bring more and more problems to the Windsor area. We hear about 10 new police officers who are being hired. We don't know the costs or how much money they've already put into looking at the difficulties with law enforcement, as they make this transition towards the casino.
We know, for instance, that there have been significant problems in the tunnel and the bridges in Windsor. Last December, the customs officers sent a petition around indicating that they had had significantly more violent crimes, more people to deal with, more armed problems. These are the kinds of things that we're going to be bringing to Windsor à la NDP government.
I would say also about this initiative of the government that there is this attempt to sell it through consultation. What kind of consultation are we talking about? We're not talking about, "Do you, people of Windsor" or "Do you, people of Ontario, want to move into casino gambling?" Oh no, there was no consultation on that. There was no consultation with the caucus. There was little consultation with the cabinet. It was decided behind closed doors.
So when the minister talks about consultation, she's not talking about consultation on the principle but rather: "This is what we're going to do, whether you like it or not. Come on and tell us whether you like it. If you don't like it, we don't care anyway. We're going to set up the casino in Windsor. We don't care if there's more crime, we don't care if there are social problems and we don't care if Windsor is going to be a city that's a disaster afterward."
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rather enjoyed the speech that was made by the minister. Like everybody else in this House, when there's a new initiative or when there's going to be a significant shift in public policy, the introduction of something new like casinos, you're initially apprehensive, but after you take a much closer look at what's being proposed here and the way it's being proposed, it's going to be an isolated pilot project essentially intended to help the Windsor area economy, an economy which, as my friend from the Windsor area has outlined, has been ravaged by the recession and by a number of very significant federal government policies, Conservative government policies, like free trade, the GST, the interest rate and monetary policy. It has caused major, significant problems in a very local area of this province.
To simply say, "If you introduce this new policy initiative you're going to plunder this region, because it has to hire five or six or seven new police officers because there's going to be a significant rise in the ills of the area," to me seems a very fallacious argument. I invite the opposition and I invite all the people who essentially don't support gambling to Downsview where, I may add, we can walk into a number of casino-type gambling houses today that are unregulated and essentially remit no taxes.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It's all for charity. You stay out of there. Those are charities. You stay out of this, please, Anthony.
Mr Perruzza: You bring your money and then they take it from you. I assure you of that.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member's time has expired. There is a limit of two minutes for questions and responses. The honourable minister has two minutes in response.
Mr Harnick: Unanimous consent for two more minutes.
The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? No, we don't.
Hon Ms Churley: I listened, as I always do, carefully to my honourable friends across the floor, and I'm genuinely quite interested in hearing what the opposition has to say in response to my comments. I want them to know that I know there are different opinions about casino gambling and that I respect people's opinions if they don't share mine.
What I would like to do is to point out the myths and misunderstandings that are being told about casino gambling. Unfortunately, most people, when they think of casino gambling -- the examples are raised constantly here in this House of Atlantic City and Las Vegas. Atlantic City has 12 casinos in a town of 35,000 people and, I think, 90,000 visitors a day. There is absolutely no comparison. It's unfortunate that this is the kind of reality people keep hearing about.
1830
We're talking about one casino as a pilot project in Ontario where we have really done our homework. We have consulted widely with the community. We really have. We have consulted widely with all of the police community, including the RCMP and the OPP and the Windsor police. We have consulted greatly with the industry, and what we are doing is making sure that up front we've put the kinds of regulations --
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's obvious again this minister is going to advocate their previously held position. We should have a quorum to hear this debacle.
Hon Ms Churley: I'm losing my time.
The Acting Speaker: Please, could you stop the clock. Is there a quorum?
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is not present. Call in the members.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable minister can resume her response.
Hon Ms Churley: I think I was talking about the fact that people are making I think very unfair comparisons between what we're doing here in Windsor and Atlantic City. I think we should try to focus more on the kinds of things that we're doing here.
I would ask my honourable friends in the opposition to get their heads out of the sand. The world has changed around us drastically within the last little while. Casinos are starting to be planned in most provinces all across the country and all over the United States, and certainly it's quite justifiable that in Ontario, when our tourism industry is hurting and our hospitality industry is hurting, we take a look at what we can do here in Ontario to keep those dollars from flowing out of Ontario. That is what we --
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I understand the two minutes are up.
Mr Stockwell: Give her another chance, Mr Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the minister to continue? Agreed? No, I have some negative -- we will continue with further debate.
Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I'll be taking some time to review a number of points with respect to Bill 8 with respect to the whole issue of casino gambling and how it will impact a variety of elements in our society.
But let me at the outset start, if you will, where the minister finished in her opening address this evening and her discussion on second reading of Bill 8. She concluded by saying that there were two goals with respect to this legislation, that it be done with honesty and integrity, and I want to start with those two points of view with reference to this government and the main players, the leadership of this particular government.
Eighteen years ago, the then MPP --
Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum present.
The Acting Speaker: Could the Clerk check for a quorum, please.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Brampton North can resume his participation in the debate.
Mr McClelland: As I said prior to the quorum call -- I might parenthetically made a comment that it's very interesting that a number of New Democrats aren't here. Some weren't here for second reading as well, and I think we understand why they're not here. I'm sure we'll talk about their absence and how they feel about it, but I give credit to Mr Hansen as he leaves, the member for Lincoln, because I know how he feels about this deep in his heart. I know how he's opposed to it and how he's been under tremendous pressure to toe the party line on this one.
Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum present.
The Acting Speaker: Could the Clerk check if we have a quorum.
Mr Harnick: I know this is a matter these people must want to debate, gambling being near to the hearts of the NDP.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Brampton North can resume his participation in the debate.
Mr McClelland: I might say that I had a coach for a team I played with who always said I was a slow starter. It took me three or four shifts to get going, so maybe we need this time to warm up.
I was talking about the minister's closing comments when she referred to the two issues of honesty and integrity. Eighteen years ago in this place, actually somewhere right around the area where the now member for Scarborough North is taking good care of --
Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: These people do not seem to understand the importance of having a quorum here. You call them back and then they leave as soon as they count the numbers. We're trying to have a debate here and there's not a quorum present. I appreciate how uncomfortable it is --
The Acting Speaker: Order. There's been a call for a quorum. Could the Clerk please check if there's a quorum.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Brampton North can resume his participation in the debate.
1840
Mr McClelland: I want to express my appreciation to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, who leaves the moment I mention him.
I was referring to the comments made by the now Minister of Finance, who rose in this place 18 years ago. I know we'll hear that a lot has changed in 18 years. Indeed, a tremendous amount has changed. Let me tell you what he said 18 years ago:
"I would hope that the government does not get into the position of using lottery funds, gaming funds, to bail it out of fiscal deficits or for essential services. That truly would be offensive,"
So said Floyd Laughren on February 4, 1975.
What do we hear today in the opening comment? The minister says, "We're looking forward to the revenue this will generate, because it will provide the opportunity for us to provide services."
Another quote, this time about honesty and integrity: This is 1984, getting a little bit closer in terms of time frames here:
"Wherever casinos are found, they're inseparable from organized criminal activities. If a jurisdiction is not willing to accept this involvement, it should not get involved in legalized gaming."
That was in 1984, the now Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable Howard Hampton.
Another quote regarding honesty and integrity:
"There are high rollers who are benefiting directly from the ripoff of the working people. They are gambling with your lives, they are gambling with your jobs and they are gambling with the future of your country. What is moral about a system that creates that kind of unemployment just because somebody gets greedy? What is moral about an economic system that feeds on greed?"
So said Bob Rae, who then went on to say, "If the NDP forms the next government, it will replace the casino economy with an economy that rewards enterprise -- but not reward greed."
Bob Rae said in the latter part of 1986, "It's time that we presented the Canadian people with a vision of a democratic society that is far more compelling because it draws, not on what is most narrow in people but on what is most generous in people." That was Bob Rae in late 1986, talking about honesty and integrity.
The minister said in her opening comments, and I want to walk through a couple of these items point by point, that there has been a great deal of activity.
It's interesting the kind of activity that there has been. Certainly, there has been a great deal of activity in the ministry. There has been a team put together. Some very able people have been seconded to the team, and, given their mandate, I would say they have done a credible job for the most part. There have been some problems, as there always are and always will be in any undertaking. But those individuals have done their best to fulfil that mandate.
Let's talk about what their mandate was. The mandate that drove this great deal of activity the minister talks about in her ministry was "to get a casino built." It was not to examine or to do a rational study of the impact of casino gambling on a community or indeed the province. It was not to take a holistic view, a long-term view, and to collect some empirical data from which one could draw a variety of conclusions and act accordingly. It was rather to build a casino and to get that job done.
The minister will admit that since that point in time there has been a great deal of consultation. In fact, she made some reference to that, and we'll talk about that a little bit as well.
But the point is very clear, as I've said before, that the ship had already left harbour before it was decided which course would be charted. The decision was made to move ahead. Having made that decision and having launched, if you will, on this voyage of what I call the Good Ship Casino, it was then decided that we would put together a crew and we'd chart out the course that we're going to follow. And yes, there has been a great deal of activity, sailing, if you will, through uncharted waters and trying to find where they're going and how they're going to arrive there, with the goal in mind of building a casino, at all costs, without regard to any of the consequences, but we will build a casino.
The minister talked about representations by a variety of groups and people she has brought together for the project. One of the things I would like to comment on is the absence of particular representation, and I'm referring to the absence of any representation from people from the Windsor area specifically.
There was a great deal of concern from the population of Windsor, from members of city council and leadership in the community who were proponents of a casino project, with respect to the absence of a particular representative from the Windsor community on the variety of groups that have been brought together, and particularly in terms of the casino project team.
The minister mentioned that she has had a variety of consultations. Some of them have been very anecdotal in their nature, just discussions with a variety of people. I presume, and I'm pretty sure, that many of them have been comprehensive, good, if you will, academically sound and empirically sound studies, some consultation that has been done. The question many of us have --
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A quorum call, please.
The Acting Speaker: Could the Clerk check if we have a quorum, please.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Brampton North can resume his participation in the debate.
Mr McClelland: I was talking about consultation and meetings. The minister speaks quite proudly about her extensive consultations and the variety of meetings she's had, meetings with particular interest groups, meetings with representatives of the casino industry, police bodies, people from various ministries.
Where are the findings, Minister? Where are the findings from the variety of meetings and from the studies you have commissioned that chart the course you're undertaking right now? The cart before the horse, Minister, all over again. You started out on your path, and now you're coming back and saying: "We're going to do the consultation. We're going to do the study."
I say to my friends opposite, many of whom have some grave concerns about this legislation from a philosophical point of view, from the particular points of the legislation, from the particular definition of the scope of this project and the impact it may have, that you know very well that essentially the die is cast.
You know the process we are going to undertake in the next number of weeks when we go on committee hearings. I'm told it may be as much as three weeks of public consultation around the province of Ontario, doubtless some of that time in Windsor, doubtless some of that time in other areas where casinos will inevitably be located should this government have its way. We know that notwithstanding whatever is said, whatever information is brought forward, whatever objections people raise, indeed whatever affirmation people bring to the legislation, the die has been cast and the minister will proceed essentially as set out in the bill.
We've all been through that. It's been a frustration of many of us. It was a frustration in years past, and it will continue to be, I suppose, until we have some very fundamental reform in terms of how we do business around this place.
At least one of my friends opposite who is present this evening is very concerned about this legislation and has been described by colleagues in his caucus as being livid about what the government is doing. I say to him, as he sits here and considers this tonight and over the next number of weeks, bear in mind that all of the objections you are going to hear and all of the concerns that you hold deep in your heart about this are meaningless when all is said and done, because the minister has made a commitment; her political career is very much tied in to the success of this particular legislation.
I might add that we know really who's driving this. We know that the Minister of Education and Training, the member for Windsor-Riverside, has taken a significant leadership role in not only the genesis of this legislation but certainly the work to date in terms of what's taking place as we move towards the government's agenda on Bill 8.
1850
Interjection.
Mr McClelland: Well, we'll hear some consultation in three weeks, and as we said in the past, the proof will be in the pudding, when we wait and see what kind of impact that consultation has.
I am willing to stand here tonight, no pun intended, and bet dollars to doughnuts that you are not going to make any substantive changes to the legislation, Minister. Regardless of what is said by the people in communities across the province, regardless of the expertise that is brought before the committee, you have essentially made up your mind. I suppose in one sense I even feel in a sort of perverse way that it would be better if you would just ram it ahead, because that's what you're going to do anyway.
I know the history of your government. I know how you very much, as a collective body, don't like legitimate public debate. That's been very evident in terms of the rule changes. There are some people in your own caucus who feel very, very unhappy about that, they're very uncomfortable about the way you've dealt with that very issue: the way this place works. We understand that you're not happy about some of the dissension out there, but it's going to have little or no impact in the final analysis.
Minister, another point you made -- and I don't have the benefit of a copy of your comments this evening in front of me, but I did try to make reasonably succinct bullet points as you went through it. You talked about prior successes in the industry being the models upon which you were going to draw. The question I have to ask you is this, and I hope we hear this over the course of the hearings that will follow and perhaps in this place in response if you choose to use the two minutes: How do you measure success?
Are you measuring success simply in bottom line? Are you looking at people like the Trumps of the world -- and we'll talk about some of the things he has to say about the legislation and its impact on communities -- who make a buck; make, if truth be known, millions of dollars in the industry? Is that your measure of success? Is your measure of success providing a type of job, a job category, to a community and saying to that community: "This is our economic strategy for your community?" Is that your measure of success? Will it be the number of person-hours of employment, whether it be part-time, full-time, unionized, non-unionized? How are you going to measure success? What is the quality of measurement that you're going to bring to bear on that?
I thought that perhaps the most telling point in your comments this evening was that you mentioned the rationale for Bill 8. You said, if I heard you correctly, the rationale for this particular legislation was that you wanted to have economic renewal for the city of Windsor. I have to ask that question again: Is the substance of your economic strategy for the city of Windsor, for southwestern Ontario, based on the gaming industry, based on casinos? You said in your comments that economic renewal was the issue that drove this legislation for locating in Windsor. I would say to the people of Windsor that if that is the basis, the foundation, the cornerstone of the economic strategy of this government, then they should have some grave concerns; they had better be very, very concerned if that is the direction the government wants to go.
Mr Drainville: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum.
The Acting Speaker: Do we have a quorum?
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Brampton North may resume his participation in the debate.
Mr McClelland: During the interlude, the minister spoke across the great gulf that divides us here and indicated I didn't quite hear everything she said. She said this was but a small part of the economic renewal. I think a lot of people in Windsor are wondering: Is this the substitution for the long-term government jobs they were expecting, for the Ministry of Labour jobs that had the plug pulled? Is it substitution for dealing with a diversification of the economy of Windsor, moving away from dependence on the auto industry and giving a broader-based economic mix to the Windsor area?
Minister, I come back to that. I think it was very, very telling that you made such a point of saying this was driven essentially by a need for economic renewal.
Another point as you worked through your comments this evening is that you said you met with the horse racing industry. Indeed, you have met with them, but I say to you in all candour that they will dispute without qualification that you heard anything of substance they had to say. Every representative of the industry with whom I have spoken has said to me that, yes, they had an opportunity to meet with you, they met with your representatives, but they don't for a moment think you heard anything they said.
The absence of hearing anything substantive about what you're going to do to address their concerns speaks volumes. Your silence effectively condemns you in terms of that consultative process with the horse racing industry. They have said to me, and if they were here tonight, they would say it to you, that you have not met with them or consulted with them in any significant fashion. We'll be talking about that, no doubt, over the weeks ahead and perhaps in the remaining time we have here this evening.
You talked about casinos at the CNE. I thought the member from Etobicoke was going to have to be tied down there for a minute and we would have to hold him back. Minister, you know about the casinos at the CNE. You talked about that as a model you wanted to draw upon, knowing full well that that comparison is miles apart from the type of project that is envisaged in Windsor. Then later on, in response to some of the members opposite, you said, "Well, you're making unfair comparisons." You can't have it both ways.
You talked about the CNE, and I know what your record was on the CNE, just prior to an election in 1990. I remember what you said then. You said at that time that there was no way you could in good conscience support a casino at the CNE. You were worried about the type of impact it would have on what was essentially a family outing.
Mr Harnick: Marilyn didn't say that, did she? Did she vote for it or against it?
Mr McClelland: My friend from Willowdale asks me a very pertinent question. My friend from Willow-dale says, in the final analysis, when the minister was sitting, as she was then, on city council, how did she vote when push came to shove in terms of a casino at the CNE? Guess what, Minister? In case you've forgotten, you voted against it because of your grave concerns. What's happened to those concerns? Is a cabinet seat too important to you?
Mr Drainville: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I think the members of the government should hear this important point that's being raised by the member for Brampton North.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr Drainville: There is no quorum.
The Acting Speaker: Are you calling for a quorum?
Mr Drainville: I am calling for a quorum.
The Acting Speaker: Sorry. Is there a quorum?
Acting Table Clerk (Mr Franco Carrozza): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Brampton North may resume his participation in the debate on Bill 8.
Mr McClelland: I talked a little bit about the CNE and the remarkable conversion on the road to cabinet that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations had.
Mr Harnick: Anything to get into the cabinet.
Mr McClelland: Well, only she can comment on that.
I think there will be a lot of NDP supporters, people who were with the minister in her political life for many years, who are really questioning and wondering what happened, as indeed will people be wondering about what happened to the member for Nickel Belt, who stood in this place and made the comments he did, or the member for Rainy River, or the member for York South, the Premier, and the change of heart that he has had over the past number of years. Then again, it's getting very customary around this place to hear the Premier say, "Well, that was then and this is now."
That becomes the rationale for a change of heart, a change of direction, a change of policy and, dare I say it, a change of principles. I suppose therein lies the real rub with my friends opposite, those who can't support it, a goodly number of them, who are struggling with it in the NDP caucus.
1900
I think back to a piece I saw on one of the networks this evening where the left-leaning Diane Francis and the centrist Clayton Ruby were talking about why the NDP was in such despair and was dropping like a stone in terms of the polls and was at 18%. My goodness, even since then they've fallen another 5% today, down to 13%. Goodness knows where they'll be tomorrow.
Do you know what Clayton Ruby said in that piece on TV? He said it was because they had abandoned their principle, that it didn't really have a lot to do with economic policy. Sure, that's going to impact some people, but those people were never really NDP supporters. What happened was that the core NDP vote is vanishing because this used to be -- operative phrase, "used to be" -- a party of principle, principles enunciated by people like the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations but a couple of years ago, who had grave concerns about the impact of a casino at the CNE, and sat in her place at city council and voted against it, but as I said, has had this remarkable conversion.
Minister, during your comments you also talked about charities and about how wonderful gaming had been for charities over the past couple of years, particularly with the new legislation that you brought into effect, Bill 26. I want to make a comment or two about the regulations that you announced today, because that has some impact on casino legislation as well.
The minister said she was delighted that charities were being the beneficiaries of casinos all around the province. The member for Downsview said that you can come and have a casino any day, any time in his riding. I guess the question is, what's going to happen to those charities? What will be the impact on the charities, particularly in the Windsor area?
Now, the minister has an answer for that. The minister says: "Trust me, we'll take care of you. We're going to consult with you. Don't worry. We'll deal with this as it evolves. This is a pilot project, so we're going to have to work this one through and iron out the wrinkles as they develop, deal with this problem over here, deal with the racing industry problem over there. Charities, I know you've got some real concerns, but trust us, we'll take care of you. We'll deal with it."
I come back to what I said earlier, Minister. The problem is that you said to the good people you have brought together on your team, competent, able people, "Build that casino." You didn't say to them, "Go out and get the information together; plan on how your going to do it; what will be the impact on charities; have a contingency plan for them," but rather: "Go out and build that casino and address those problems as they evolve, if you can address them. If you can't address them, trust us; we'll take care of you," says the minister. Cold comfort, I might add, for those people in Windsor who run charities, who have been contributing to the fabric of that community, indeed to the social fabric of communities all across this province for so many years.
The member for Bruce asked you a question today, Minister, and it was very well put, I think. He referred to the roving casinos that are operating and allow virtually seven-day-a-week access throughout the Hamilton-Wentworth region. We heard tonight from the minister -- the member for Downsview. God forbid, I almost said "the minister from Downsview," but you never know. I mean, anything can happen in Bob Rae's Ontario. But you can be in a casino any night in Downsview as well.
The minister's answer was, "We're not too worried about it, because it will take care of itself." I looked at that answer and I tried to reread it. The member for Bruce came back and said: "That's exactly the problem, Minister. It's generating revenues. We're concerned about the impact the casino legislation or the eight permanent casinos, the type that you envisage in Windsor, will have, because we know full well it's not one. We know that this is but the thin edge of the wedge and there will be more, given the agenda of this government." The minister's response was: "Well, you know, we're going to generate more money and it's going to go into general revenues and we're going to address social problems."
Minister, have you ever thought of the impact, dollar for dollar, of pulling money out of charities, the impact that's going to have on the economy? I can't break it down precisely for Ontario, but I can tell you that the volunteer sector across this country contributes a net value of some -- I want you to hear this -- $328 billion of net worth to the social services in value in kind through the volunteer sector across this country. I'm sorry. I said $328 billion; it's $32.8 billion. I saw you looking at me with a little quizzical look, Speaker, and rightly so. I want to correct the record. Indeed, that's still a huge, huge amount of money: $32.8 billion contributed to our economy by the volunteer network across this country.
I can only presume that inasmuch as we have close to half of the population -- we must be somewhere in the 33% to 50% range -- even at a conservative estimate that would be over $10 billion a year contributed in the province of Ontario by volunteer agencies. Many of those agencies and organizations depend on gaming, as we know it now, to raise funds. Those moneys are multiplied, not added, into the economy. You and I, Speaker, and other members opposite have said on many occasions, when we pay tribute to the value of the volunteer network, how they multiply their resources in and throughout the community.
The minister's response to the question put to her by the member for Bruce or the opposition House leader today was: "It's okay. It's a good business because it generates lots of money." The member said: "That's exactly the point. It generates a lot of money right now for charities and we're concerned about the impact it will have." Indeed, there's a coalition, as you know, that's been formed. It represents some 30-odd charities in the province of Ontario that have some grave concerns. We're going to talk about those in due course.
What else did she say in her opening comments? She said that she was looking at a list of revenues and that there was going to be a tremendous net benefit to the economy. But I have to ask the questions: What cost is there going to be? What will be the cost to the city of Windsor? What will be the cost in terms of social services across the province, the impact that it might have? Has any study been done? Has there been a review of the literature and the data that suggest there will be a significant cost? What is that cost?
The minister has failed to address that. She talked, again I say, of consultation and the fact that she has had studies done. The people of Ontario and the members in this place want to know, where are those studies? Show us the data. Show us the planning. Let us know what it is we're dealing with. I'll tell you, in all sincerity, that there are a lot of people who are very concerned about the ultimate cost-benefit of the casino, not only in Windsor but across the province. Doubtless there will be revenues raised. You'd have to be living in some kind of dream world if you didn't think that a casino was going to generate revenues. The question is, at what cost? What is the cost going to be?
Minister, I say to you in sincerity that you haven't even begun to address that. You haven't provided us on this side of the House, and I doubt your own caucus colleagues, or the people of Ontario generally, with anything that indicates any handles you have in terms of the impact on social services and the needs that are going to arise as a direct result of the casino in Windsor, and as we know, ultimately elsewhere in the province.
You closed with honesty and integrity and talked about that. We've already talked about that a little bit. No doubt that's going to come up frequently. Minister, you mentioned that the project team had chosen Windsor in large measure because of its location. It's situated within a couple of hours' drive of a large population. Obviously, you're looking at the Detroit market and down through the Ohio River valley, that industrialized part of the northern United States, wanting to impact that.
Let's get a little bit of a dose of reality right here. Do you honestly think that the city of Detroit and the legislators in Michigan are going to stand by idly while Windsor builds a casino? You know what? All the data say that if you want an economic benefit, you're going to get an economic benefit as long as it's not the citizens of your own jurisdiction who are spending the money, because if it's the people in your own jurisdiction spending the money, it's ultimately going to end up costing you a lot more.
1910
You're going to hear that time and time again through committee over the next few weeks. You've said yourself that you're hoping that 80% of the clientele of the casino will be drawn from the United States. Well, if you think Detroit is going to sit back and let it happen without responding, it's time to wake up and get into the real world. You laugh and you sit there and smile, but you know full well that there are negotiations under way currently with a native group looking to locate in Greektown, looking to use that as a vehicle, notwithstanding the two votes that have been held in Detroit. You know there are ways they're going to do that.
You know what's really interesting? Very prominent people in the Governor's office, people who were involved in his transition team, are now working on -- guess what? -- a casino project. Sound familiar, Minister? Guess what their mandate is going to be. Their mandate is going to be to get a casino built, very much like the mandate you gave your team. And the day you put the shovel in the ground or this legislation passes, I'm willing to virtually guarantee you that you'll see a Michigan project under way through a variety of different mechanisms.
We know there have been two votes in Michigan, in Detroit, and they've both been defeated. We know things have a way of changing. Look at what's happened over there, people changing their minds on that one. I'm willing to bet almost anything -- again, no pun intended -- that you're going to see a change in the vote at Detroit, perhaps with the state legislators in Michigan or some other mechanism, and that would be the vehicle of using aboriginal peoples to establish a gaming house, a casino, in the city of Detroit. If that happens, the deck of cards begins to come down in terms of the economic viability.
I regret I can't remember the gentleman's name, but, Speaker, you hosted a function with a number of legislators who spoke, of all topics, on transportation issues. There was a gentleman -- my friend from Lincoln may remember his name -- a legislator from Pennsylvania, a very gregarious gentleman, who said to us, as we talked about Bill 8 and its impact, "You guys are asking for trouble with a capital T." I don't know if you remember the man: a short, very roly-poly kind of gregarious black gentleman who was a legislator from Pennsylvania. He said, "One worked for a while, two were problematic, and now that we have three it's an absolute disaster." I don't know if you recall that discussion. I'm not sure if my friend from Lincoln remembers that, sitting around chatting with him.
Minister, think about that. Your market is the Detroit area. Essentially, what you want is to draw Americans in, and if you think they're going to sit idly by, you're absolutely dreaming. Wake up, Minister. You've got a real problem on your hands in terms of the market you want to draw on.
I'm almost certain that if they decide to go ahead with the project, they will do it in a fashion that will have your head spinning. They will have that thing up and running in record time that will make you wonder why it took us so long to get it going, and they'll be competing directly for the population you want to draw. You think they're going to sit by and accept us saying: "It's okay. We're not going to have any food in the casino and we're not going to have any alcohol served at the tables because we want to make sure we keep a nice, pristine operation"?
Minister, you're going to have competition on your hands, and you're going to be competing with the big leagues. You had better understand and you had better know full well that the economic carrot you're holding out to the people of Windsor may be very much illusory and the bubble may burst. They will come back to you and they will come back to the member for Windsor-Riverside and backbench colleagues who are here supporting it and hold them accountable for the decision you made when you held out that illusory carrot of economic benefit for the city of Windsor. You know full well that if Detroit goes ahead with the project, or Michigan near Detroit, whether it be in one of the satellite communities around Detroit or in Detroit itself in Greektown, the Windsor project will be in serious economic trouble. I challenge you to show us some data, show us some marketing analysis and some surveys that would indicate that you have that problem well in hand.
You are contemplating moving to other parts of Ontario -- and we know you have begun to do studies, or have already done them; I presume they're already done and that they've been given to you and have perhaps been brought to cabinet. That I don't know. You have indicated other potential locations in the province; doubtless, one of those will be in the Niagara Peninsula.
My friend the member for Lincoln will have significant interest, and the member for St Catharines-Brock, who's here this evening, will also have great interest when we find out that that's a preferred site, because we know -- I just want to doublecheck here and make sure my number's right -- that 120,000 video lottery terminals have been purchased by the state of New York. Guess where they're going to go? They're going to go right along the Ontario border, because the state of New York will not sit by and allow those moneys to migrate into Ontario. You've got to be absolutely naïve and living in la-la land if you believe that our friends to the south in Michigan and New York are just going to sit by and let it happen.
The target you're talking about, the population market you're talking about to make this economically viable will be short-lived at best, and it may not even survive getting the key turned in the full-time casino. Minister, I'm going to challenge you, put you on notice now, day after day, as we go through committees, to show us the economic numbers and the marketing surveys that show you can withstand that kind of competition and make it viable for the city of Windsor and indeed for the province of Ontario.
The tourism and hospitality industry in Windsor, according to the minister, will be almost incapable of handling the windfall. It's going to be milk and honey falling from heaven on the people of Windsor by way of the Ambassador Bridge and the tunnel.
Minister, let's look at what happens when people gamble.
You said that you've designed the casino, and you're putting it upon the people who are in the request for proposal to show us how they're going to ensure the viability of the local economy. Mr Speaker, you will know that part of the plan as envisioned by the minister and the casino team -- which I think is very honourable; I given them credit for thinking about this -- is that they want to design a casino that will have limitations in terms of the seats available for the hospitality industry, ie, restaurants, and which will not provide alcoholic beverages on the floor in order to induce people to go out into the surrounding community.
My friend, a restaurateur, Kirk Dyck, and others in Windsor are delighted with the prospect of having these 12,000 tourists coming in and spending money and eating and drinking and spending hundreds of dollars on a daily basis in their establishments.
You know what happens in Atlantic City? The data show us that everybody who comes in to gamble in Atlantic City spends an average of six hours, and five hours and 40 minutes is spent at the tables or at the slot machines.
The minister will say, "Well, that's different, because they get drinks there and they can pick up munchies and they're going to be there." Interestingly enough, I confess, I've been to a casino. You said you've never been. People who are there are not concerned about getting their drinks; they're there to gamble. Those people who are coming and going specifically for that reason, you know what they're going to do? They're going to spend their time and their money gambling.
You tell us that the benefit will be -- and I can't believe this -- $325 million of secondary economic spinoff to the city of Windsor. Are you serious? Are you real? These people who come in are going to spend $325 million? I want to see the numbers on that, Minister. I'm going to ask you for that, and people are going to be asking you for that in Windsor as well.
The data show us very plainly and very clearly that when somebody comes to gamble he spends an average of six hours in the host community, using Atlantic City as a model, and he spends five hours and 40 minutes at the tables, at the games; 20 minutes is attributed to travel and secondary economic spinoff, 20 minutes travel in going around the corner to pick up something to eat or going to the local bar.
I'm very, very sceptical about the $325 million, but I look forward to having you have the opportunity, throughout committee, to present the numbers and the data that would support that. I think you're, quite frankly, selling the people of Windsor a pack of goods, and we'll talk a little bit about some of the local editorials and the people around Windsor who have begun to see through what they've been told.
1920
Well, how about community values? What are the community values of Windsor? How about the people who have been opposed? How about the citizen groups that have said they want to meet with you, want to talk with you? Your basic line to them has been: "Look, if you're opposed to this, there's no point hearing you. We've already made up our mind." As the member for Victoria-Haliburton said: "We ain't going to listen if you don't agree with us. That's our definition of consultation."
Minister, when you talk about community values, don't perpetuate the myth that you're concerned about the values of the people of Windsor, because what you're concerned about is the values of people who agree with you. If they disagree, you don't want to hear from them. They're going to be there; you're going to have a lot of people. I trust the committee will go to Windsor: It makes sense that the finance committee, in its deliberations, would go to the host community; we may indeed spend a couple of days there.
Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum present.
Acting Table Clerk: A quorum is not present.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable member for Brampton North may resume his remarks.
Mr McClelland: I was talking about the restaurant industry. Let me just tell you that the Ontario Restaurant Association has some real significant concerns, Minister. We're going to be inviting them to committee, and I hope you would invite them as well.
When we go to Windsor, I know we're going to hear from a lot of people who are supportive of the legislation, but I'm going to ask the minister -- she's an honourable woman; I respect her as an individual -- that she would listen, I hope honestly and carefully, to the people who are opposed to this, because the minister made reference to community values. Community values, as we in this business all know, are diverse, and sometimes people disagree with us. I think it's important that we hear them; not just listen to them, but actually hear them.
I challenge you as a colleague to give them your hearing and to listen very carefully to the concerns they have, because your staff -- and I understand how that happens: You're busy, you've got a full schedule, and they haven't felt they've really had an opportunity to present their concerns to you. So when we go there, please listen to them, hear their concerns.
I say that to my friends opposite as well, those of you who will be serving on that committee, those of you who have some misgivings, who had them in the past and continue to have them. We know the pressures that are being brought to bear on you to toe the party line on this one. We know the pressure that's being brought, particularly by the member for Windsor-Riverside; he has a tremendous political interest in this. That's fine, that's part and parcel of fulfilling his responsibilities, but as you feel that pressure, listen as well to the people of that community and indeed people from all across the province.
I made reference to the Ontario Restaurant Association. They will certainly want to be talking to you and letting you know about their concerns with respect to the size of the restaurant, the setting of alcohol prices. You know all about these, but I just want to get them on the record and assure my friends in the association that we'll be going into these in considerable detail. Also, there will be some reference to the hotel development, how we're going to measure the threshold that's set out in the legislation on the 75% occupancy.
The minister spoke as well about the police service and that the government will cover the gap. That's really interesting, because I want to refer to an article that appears in last Wednesday's Windsor Star. The headline says, "Gap Still Wide on Casino-Related Policing Needs." The article reads, in part, as follows, "The numbers game between the Windsor Police Services and the Ontario government continued Tuesday." That would have been Tuesday, July 20. "At stake is adequate protection for Windsor against casino-related crime."
This is not talking about a stop sign at an intersection. This is not talking about trivial matters. It's talking about some very significant concerns that the police services board has, and the headline says that the gap is wide. I won't go into a great deal of detail, but Chief Adkin met with the project team manager and expressed his grave concerns about the inadequacy of the commitment of the government to cover policing.
We know, and the minister has said, that they have offered 10 police officers on an interim basis, and certainly the OPP have been doing the security checks and so forth. But I say to you that the gap is indeed wide. The chief has spoken in terms of 30 or 30-plus officers. At the present time, the government of Ontario, the New Democrats, have said they will take care of 15.
The police chief says there are 15 different branches of the police that, and I quote the chief, "need support to give Windsor residents the kind of safety they've come to expect." I'm sure the members from Windsor will do everything they can, given the folly of the government to proceed with this without due regard to the safety -- and I say that in all sincerity, Minister. These people are concerned about the safety of the residents. I'm going to read it to you; I know you had to step out for a minute and perhaps consult with your staff.
What's at stake? Here's what's at stake, and I reiterate it: "At stake is adequate protection for Windsor against casino-related crime." When the member for St Catharines asked you a question a week or so ago, you laughed it off. You said: "Don't worry about it. We're going to take care of it. Trust us. Our security measures" --
Hon Ms Churley: I did not.
Mr McClelland: You didn't laugh it off. Let's be fair: You didn't laugh it off in a glib sense, but you said his concerns really weren't all that valid, weren't that well founded. "Don't worry," effectively is what you said. I can pull it from Hansard, if you like; I have it here. You said: "Trust us. We're going to take care of it. We've got the OPP working on it. We're going to provide police officers," and somehow that's going to ensure there's no crime.
I don't know how many of my friends here have spent time in the north; maybe some of you have cottages or whatever. Occasionally, when you're in the north -- and I digress for a moment, Speaker; bear with me. I had the pleasure of spending six summers as a canoe tripper and guide. From time to time you'd run across orphaned raccoon kittens. Minister, I want you to hear this. This is important. It's a cute little illustration. You know how we tell stories to make a point from time to time? This one you've got to hear.
Little raccoon kittens are cute, they're cuddly. This has happened to a lot of people; you'll read stories about this. Mr Ramsay, I'm sure, can tell you all kinds of incidents. Kids get these cute little raccoon kittens and they want to raise them as pets. You know what? People say, "It won't happen to me." There has never been a raccoon that has been raised by a human being that at some point in its life hasn't turned on the human and attacked without provocation. You know why? Because it's the nature of the beast. It can't help it. There's nothing terrible about it; it's just the way the animal is made. You live with them and you raise them, and I've seen it happen. I've seen young people get these little kittens and insist that theirs will be different. They name them like puppies and like kittens, and they bottle-feed them and they nurture them. And at some point in time --
I read this spring -- maybe Mr Ramsay could help me with this; I forget the location in northern Ontario -- that a young lady who had raised a kitten that she found last summer was severely mauled and required extensive plastic surgery. You know why? Because it's in their nature. They never change. Do you know what every young person who raises a little raccoon kitten says? "It won't happen to me. Mine will be different."
You, Minister, say time and again to the member for Bruce, to the member for St Catharines in his questions, to the member from Haliburton, to myself, to the member for Parry Sound: "We will be different. It's not going to happen here. We're going to change the way it's always happened in the past." You'll leave here nodding your head with the assertion in your own mind that somehow, somehow, the nature of the beast will be different for you.
I say to my friends in government that it's not going to be any different this time. No matter how you try to package the product, no matter what kind of pre-consultation you do, you can't change what's going to happen in terms of the attraction, the magnet, of a casino to organized crime. We know that's going to happen.
1930
The Windsor Star had a really interesting commentary on Saturday, April 24. It was under the authorship of Ms Karen Hall, who is a Windsor Star editorial writer. She comes out with some great lines in here. One of them is, I think, of some interest when we talk about what's going on here. Let me read her comment:
"There will be complaints once a casino is established in Windsor, even though it might bring 425 new provincial jobs to the city, because there are going to be some serious problems that we haven't been told about and that I'm only beginning to understand. The casino game plan has changed so many times and become so estranged from what Windsor wanted that I personally cringe at my early support for the project."
There are more and more people in Windsor in positions of leadership who are beginning to say the same thing, because as they begin to understand the potential impact of a casino on their community, they too are cringing at their early support. I think you're going to hear that in spades as we proceed with the committee on this one.
The minister says she's delighted because she signed an agreement on information with New Jersey. She's negotiating an information linkage, package-sharing, with Nevada. Believe me, the Canadian Police Information Centre is going to be really busy too. You know that, I know that, and we'll wait and see whether she closes the gap with the policing needs and tries to change the nature of the beast.
I think the minister is being entirely naïve if she feels that she will somehow ensure that the Windsor project will not be fraught with the same difficulties with respect to organized crime, and the attraction of criminal elements and some of the more unsavoury elements that have been experienced in virtually every community.
She made reference to Winnipeg and she says at the same time that we draw unfair comparisons. I say to her, if she's listening -- I'm sure she'll read the transcript -- you cannot draw a comparison with the type of project you envisage in Windsor and the Winnipeg project. That's an apples and oranges comparison. You know it, I know it, and every thinking member in this place knows it. That's all 130 of us, because we all take our jobs seriously. I'm sure every member does. They're going to think that one through and they're going to know that you're dreaming if you're going to tell the people of Windsor that there's going to be no significant increase in crime.
I heard a new one tonight. I heard that it's the Blue Jays fault. It's Robbie Alomar's and John Olerud's fault, and Pat Gillick and company, that the horse racing industry is in decline. It's the Blue Jays to blame. I'm sure the Blue Jays management is going to be upset to hear that, because tonight for the first time I heard it here, right here on this station, this channel, that the Blue Jays are responsible for the decline in the horse racing industry and any problems that are visited upon the horse racing industry.
Speaker, you weren't in the chair at the time; it was our good friend from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and God knows wherever, in God's country down in eastern Ontario, who was in the chair. But the minister stood in her place earlier and said that the horse racing industry was really adversely affected by the Blue Jays. I'm sure Pat Gillick and company are going to feel terrible and maybe they can take some of that $45-million salary cap and help offset, because I'm sure they're people of good conscience. I say that facetiously.
Minister, come on, let's get real. There are some real concerns that the horse racing industry has. Don't brush it off. I made some comments earlier that the people in the horse racing industry, could they stand in this place this evening and make a comment, would say, "Minister, you might have listened to us but you didn't hear anything we had to say." They have some grave concerns, and we're going to talk about that as well.
The Gaming Control Commission is going to save us harmless from all these difficulties, and I wish it well. We know that they're reasonable, they're intelligent and quite impressive if you look at their background, the individuals who have been named to serve on that commission. There's no way that they're going to be able to close the door and keep organized crime out of what's going to happen in Windsor.
The minister made mention of the impact of the casino on the charitable gaming industry, and today I just want to make some sort of tangential reference to the new policies that were announced, one in particular. She thinks that by coming down with tight regulations, closely monitoring Monte Carlo nights and licences, the charity Monte Carlos are going to be protected from the impact of casino legislation. One of the things that she said was that she is going to limit new or inexperienced charities to operate a maximum of 10 games in any event. I just want to take this opportunity to say that you're going after the wrong target here.
The target is not the charities; the target is the operators, and they have proliferated at a great rate. Some of those who have been running legitimate and very controlled operations for charities in the past are finding that they have some -- and I say this advisedly -- fly-by-night operators who are coming in and have some, and I say this on very good authority, very questionable practices.
It's not the charities that need to be monitored, licensed and looked at for the appropriate enforcement; it's the operators of the Monte Carlo nights, and I would urge the minister to deal with that.
We have, as well, in the province of Ontario an organization that has grown up called the Ontario Charitable Gaming Coalition. That coalition, Mr Speaker, as you may know, represents a goodly number of charitable organizations throughout the province. They have some real, great concerns. We talked about that.
I want to tell you that those people have said they are desperately concerned about the viability of their operation and the organizations they represent as a result of the government's decision to proceed with the casino legislation. As well, they're saying, now that they have had an opportunity to make their submissions, that they haven't had any real sense of satisfaction, that they don't really think their message is being heard, that they would hope the government would respond in a more substantive way to the concerns they have raised.
They also make a point, and I think it sums it up very well and I want to read from their submission, their material:
"Members of the Ontario Charitable Gaming Coalition are deeply disappointed and anxious about the future reductions in our services because of reduced revenues. We, therefore, ask the minister to reconsider her decision to exclude Ontario charities from the operation of Ontario casinos."
I know that the die has been cast and we're going ahead with requests for proposals and the model that's been set up by the minister, but implicit and fundamental to the concerns raised by the coalition is the fact that it has some grave concerns about the economic impact on charities.
We talked a bit earlier about what contribution charities make. I would hope the minister would hear their concerns, and I will not at the present time go through all of them.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Good.
Mr McClelland: The member says good. Maybe if we have time, I say to my friend from Essex, we will go through them. Let me tell you why it's maybe not a good idea that I bypass them. Their concerns are legitimate. They're succinct. They have six essential points, I say to my friend from Essex who says it's good that I'm not going to go over them.
Mr Hayes: Essex-Kent.
Mr McClelland: Essex-Kent, thank you. Mr Hayes, the member for Essex-Kent, reminds me that the good people of Kent want to make sure their member is appropriately identified, given the good representation he is attempting to give them, no doubt.
The point is this, I say to my friend, that they raised six very succinct, legitimate concerns about the impact of the casino on the charitable network across this province. We have had questions raised in this House, and again I say the minister's responses have been shallow, they've been superficial and inadequate, and the people who run the charities are very significantly concerned.
I mentioned that Ms Hall in one of her columns in the Windsor Star not too long ago said that she regrets she had at one point endorsed the casino project. She bought the bill of goods that it was going to be an economic boon and provide all kinds of revenue and employment opportunities.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think they were trying to get me to line up the water so I'll have to quit early.
She says she cringes that she once supported the legislation.
I quote from a column entitled "Business." My friends Mr Lessard, Mr Hayes and others from the area will recognize the publication. It's Windsor's business publication, entitled In Business in Windsor. The editor of this particular publication, Mr Halberstadt, makes some very interesting observations.
I want to get on the record a couple of points that he has made in his editorial entitled "An Industry of Despair." Not an industry of hope, not an industry of 425 new jobs -- we'll see how that pans out -- not an industry of economic boon to the downtown community. This is an editor of a business magazine in Windsor who says the following:
"Indeed since Churley's" -- the minister; I'll substitute for her last name -- "confirmation of the casino plans, Windsorites such as myself are discovering much more about the sordid underbelly of this industry....
"'This is a hostile industry you're getting into,' warns Jim Wortman, director of the Casino Careers Institute in Atlantic City."
1940
This industry will bring to your city problems of a magnitude and of a type you had never imagined or envisaged. Be very wary and be very careful. As we go to the city of Windsor, it's easy to hold out the carrot and promise the world. I say to the minister that I doubt she's going to be able to deliver even a small portion of what she said she would.
There are countless other issues to talk about here. We don't have a great deal of time left, but I want to talk about one that I see as emerging that will be significantly problematic in the next few months and perhaps years ahead.
There is in the fabric of Canadian society and indeed Ontario today legitimate and very well-founded concern about our aboriginal peoples. As we went through the process, first of all of Meech Lake and subsequently of the Charlottetown accord, the Premier addressed that issue as being very much at the forefront of his deliberations and his concerns. The Minister of Environment and Energy has always been very active and very significantly involved.
The casino project has raised an issue with respect to aboriginal peoples as well. For those of my friends who are not familiar with the potential problem that lies therein -- and I doubt if there are any; I'm sure that they're all aware of the potential difficulty -- for some of the viewers who might be watching, let me try and summarize as briefly as I can the potential difficulty with casino legislation and our aboriginal friends.
Although the government announced that it was going to proceed with negotiating arrangements for native casinos, the government has to date failed drastically, quite frankly, to work with the province's first nations to arrive at any kind of comprehensive strategy to deal with the issue. Many of Ontario's first nations are frustrated at the government's failure to develop a comprehensive strategy to implement their request for native gaming.
I think it's not in any sense fearmongering, but simply to put on the record and to make it known that a number of bands across Ontario have already indicated their intention to proceed with casino gambling with or without the government's approval, with or without the government's control or intervention. They maintain the position that they have the right to proceed as they choose. I can tell you, if anything will spur that on, it's the construction of a casino, when they see moneys being generated and will say, "We want a piece of that action."
The government has, by its own admission, failed to negotiate any kind of comprehensive agreement or even terms of understanding to proceed with that. When you ask the minister or ask her project team people, the response is, "It's a very, very difficult issue." Indeed it is, and I don't possess the wisdom of Solomon to come up with a suggestion on how to deal with it. But there is a serious problem, and we have seen from responses in other jurisdictions, particularly Manitoba, the difficulties that are created when a first nation band says, "We're going to go ahead and we're going to proceed and we are going to institute casino legislation."
Without the controls we have talked about, notwithstanding the best wishes and the intention of the minister, I don't, quite frankly, accept her assertion that it will be devoid of problems. I think we will have grave problems with the Windsor project in terms of organized crime, in terms of some of the difficulties, the economic impact. I don't believe the benefit they talk about will be there. I don't believe for a moment that it will generate $325 million of spinoff benefits to the people of Windsor. As our friend says, "They're buying a package of goods that they really don't understand." It's a very hostile industry they're bringing into the city, with a whole range of inherent problems that has caused the chief of police great concern as well.
But those bands across Ontario have said they're going to go ahead. I say with, I hope, a sombre, solemn voice that will be heard by people in the government, that you're risking absolute chaos if you don't respond to the issue raised by our first nations people and work with them on this issue and come to a resolution. It's not one of those issues that I believe, as the minister would say, we can deal with after the fact. I can't put words into her mouth, but her response very well may be: "This is only a pilot project. It's only the first of many. It will give us an opportunity to iron out some of those wrinkles and to deal with the problem."
I suggest that if we don't deal with it and the spark hits the tinder on this one, we could be into some very serious difficulties. I hope the minister would work with her colleagues in government, the first minister, the Premier, and others, to work with the Attorney General, who is here, who has come in at the present time, to sit down with the first nations people and arrive at some resolution of this issue before it becomes an unhappy reality. I don't even want to speculate about what could happen, but simply let me say that I sincerely fear what could happen with our first nations if this is not resolved in an adequate fashion.
The minister has made a few interesting comments about what has been said with respect to this industry. I want to pay tribute to the member for Victoria-Haliburton, whom I hope this House gives an opportunity to be heard on this matter. I say this simply because he's extremely well read. He has perhaps done more work on this than any single member of this House, and I say this with the greatest respect to my colleague critic in the third party, the member for Parry Sound; I'm sure he's been diligent as always and has done a great deal of work on this issue. I will say -- I hope I don't sound self-serving -- that I too have done a significant amount of work in reading as I prepared for this and tried to undertake my responsibilities as critic in the best way I'm able to do.
But certainly the member for Victoria-Haliburton has delved into just volumes and volumes of literature and has come up with some very interesting reading material, some of which I agree with, some of which I find to be very thought-provoking but haven't drawn any specific conclusion on. I simply say it's been very useful and provocative in terms of the process of trying to arrive at dealing with this legislation. I don't know how much time he's going to get. I hope we give him a full and fair and adequate hearing, and I hope my colleagues would find it in their heart and soul to give him a fair amount of latitude in terms of the presentation he makes. I want not to pay tribute, just to be honest and let people know I'm reading from his material and drawing from his material and acknowledge that.
The regional police chief of Peel, Chief Lunney, whom I've gotten to know personally over a number of years, has had some experience. He worked previously in Manitoba and had some experience with casinos. He said at one point in time that if you're going to proceed, bear in mind that you're going to have all kinds of problems, but if you're bound and determined to proceed in the face of those problems and somehow feel you're going to be immune from them, for heaven's sakes make sure it's completely government-run and government-controlled with no private gambling firms as partners. Notwithstanding that I take nothing away from the individuals, most if not all of whom I'm sure are honourable, decent, law-abiding people, the operation of a casino by private firms will attract and will bring with it some difficulties that may or may not be avoided if it were run by the government.
1950
Now, I'm not convinced of Chief Lunney's position. I'm not sure that even the government running it would eliminate those problems -- in fact, I don't believe it would -- but I'm prepared to I talk to my friend the chief and to hear other people who would have an opinion on that, simply to say that here is a person who has had some experience, a man who is respected in law enforcement not only in the region of Peel and Ontario, but indeed across the country. He says, "I don't even agree that you should be doing it, but let me tell you right from the start that you're doing it the wrong way."
There are others. In a piece of literature, a paper that was put together in June of this year by the member for Victoria-Haliburton, he quotes Donald Trump, the owner, as we know, of three Atlantic City casinos. He quotes from the transcript of the CBC program Venture. Interesting stuff here. Let me quote a little bit of it and put it on the record for the viewing audience and for those who really are sincerely interested. He says:
"Donald Trump: 'Gaming doesn't come cheap and I have to agree with a lot of the critics on that. It brings crime. It brings prostitution. It brings a lot of things that maybe areas didn't have before.... There's a big cost to pay.... Most jurisdictions have considered gaming and most jurisdictions, even though right now it seems to be the craze...have rejected it. And the ones that have accepted it, many of them, if you gave them their choice again, they would have turned it down."'
Do you know what? I hear and read about Karen Hall from the Windsor Star, from Alan Halberstadt, the editor of In Business in Windsor, and do you know what they're saying? "We've had a chance to reconsider it. We've had a chance to think through and to look at what the government promised us at the outset and what is really evolving here, and do you know what? We don't like it," and "We cringe," to quote Ms Hall, "that we supported it at one point in time."
That takes a tremendous amount of courage. There is not one of us in this place who doesn't have, and I say this with no disrespect, a fair smattering of pride, or we wouldn't be in this business. We all have a bit of ego or we wouldn't get involved in this business. I hope, and I'm virtually certain, that none of us has that as the principal motivating factor for our involvement. Most of us, from whatever political party, got involved because there are things that we believe in and contributions that we want to make, and we feel very passionately about the democratic process. We all know, as colleagues, what's involved in the work around this place and in the community, and so we believe in it.
One of the greatest things that's required in terms of leadership today is the courage to say, "Hey, I've been wrong." It's hard to do. I don't like doing it. I don't like telling my seven-year-old boy that daddy's made a mistake, because I'm proud too. I recognize that as a human weakness and one that I have in spades and that I've got to work at overcoming. But it takes a tremendous amount of courage to say, "Boy, I've made a mistake," and I hope I have the opportunity, if nothing else, to implore my colleagues to listen carefully.
I know, and I don't want to embarrass my friend from Victoria-Haliburton, that there's an awful lot of passion involved here in terms of party politics and the decision that he made, but listen to what he has to say. Listen to some of the literature that he's brought together. More importantly, listen to the people in the province of Ontario.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Let's let Drainville speak.
Mr McClelland: Listen to the average men and women, I say to my friend from Durham Centre. Is that correct? Listen to the people of Ontario. Mr Drainville will have an opportunity to speak and, as I said, I hope that you would hear him fully, but the people of Ontario will bring to you some very compelling arguments. Please listen to them. Please hear what's being said.
I know the process we're going through, and I think that what the member for Welland-Thorold said was so appropriate. He said: "You know, I would have no difficulty going through this process and at least giving it a chance if I really believed that the committee hearing would have any impact."
I know, or at least I think I know -- none of us knows anything for certain, but I believe -- that there are six members on the NDP caucus who have some really serious concerns about this, at least six who have said that notwithstanding the party position, they're prepared to look at this and look at it honestly.
I would like to digress for a while, if I could, from the substantive arguments. I could spend a lot of time, and maybe I should, talking about the Ontario Jockey Club's concerns and the coalition that's representing the horse racing industry and the agricultural industry. They should be heard and they have some very legitimate points.
Let me talk about the issue that the minister closed with, about integrity and honesty. Boy, I wrestle with that every day. We all do. I would hope that members opposite would really listen carefully to the concerns, understand the dynamics of party politics and understand that ultimately there's something much, much more important here, and that's what the people of Ontario have to say. Hear what they say and make your judgements for yourselves.
I shared in a conversation with one of my colleagues that, in the previous government, I absented myself for a vote. In the three years that I had an opportunity to be a backbencher in government, if there's one thing I could redo, it would be to come back and redo that vote, not to disappear to the washroom for five minutes but to stand in my place and vote against. The legislation still would have passed. I don't think I would have initiated a caucus revolt of any nature. But I wasn't here and I regret it. People ask me if I have any regrets in this business, and generally speaking, no, it's been a tremendous opportunity. Given the opportunity by the people of Brampton, I hope to have a chance to do it for a number of years to come.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of you are going to wrestle with that. I know that. I know that some of you sitting here right now are going to wrestle with that when we come to third reading on Bill 8 particularly. Second reading is a bit different. Some of you are going to say: "Take a wait-and-see attitude. Wait and see what happens in committee. Maybe there's something that can be redeemed in terms of the legislation or the philosophy or the policy or some safeguards can be introduced that I can live with that will make it more palatable for me."
The appeal I would have for you is to listen carefully and to be the judge on your own. Boy, that's tough in party politics, but I would implore you to do that.
The Ontario Agricultural and Horse Racing Coalition has come up with a number of concerns. We're running a little bit low on time, but let me just touch on a couple of the concerns they have. They make it very interesting in a letter they sent to me dated June 18, which I believe probably all members received. Paragraph 4 of their letter of that date starts out as follows:
"Let's deal with facts." What a novel idea. Let's deal with facts for a while. "No responsible government in any jurisdiction would consider such a potentially devastating move without a thorough economic impact study in advance."
What have we heard from the minister tonight? "We're doing a study. We've got some studies going and hopefully we'll see the results of those, and we'll fix things as we go."
I think the Ontario Agricultural and Horse Racing Coalition makes a very valid point. No responsible government would make such a dramatic move without first of all understanding where its going and how its going to arrive there.
Earlier, when you were in the chair, Speaker, I indicated that it was my view, I think borne out from the experience we have seen in response to questions over the past number of weeks, that the minister was charged with the responsibility to build a casino and brought together a team to that end. Having decided that they were going to build a casino, they then began to do the things that those of us who were setting out in a business enterprise or any other significant undertaking in life would do prior to making the decision. In other words, the decision was made by this government, "We will proceed." Now, having made that decision, let's figure out what some of the problems are and do the studies.
I think the point is very well taken by the coalition. Let's deal with facts. No responsible government in any jurisdiction would consider this without a thorough impact study. You know what? None was done. Only a small part of the Coopers and Lybrand effort was in fact directed to the horse racing industry.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food had a report done in September 1992. That's virtually two years less a month into the mandate of the current government. It stated the following, and I quote from this study commissioned by this government:
"Let there be no mistake, casinos would have a substantial adverse impact on Ontario racetracks and therefore on Ontario breeding and therefore on racing and breeding industry jobs and tax revenue."
We're talking about a group of people who represent 47,000 men and women employed in the industry. Twenty thousand of those people are members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. These are good federation folk who have oft-times supported our friends opposite, our friends in government, and they're very gravely concerned.
I'm glad the minister's coming back in. Minister, as you return, let me repeat for the record and repeat for you what a report from one of your colleagues has said.
2000
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Don't worry, she has been hanging on every word. This is one of the great moments in provincial history.
Mr McClelland: Thank you.
"Let there be no mistake. Casinos will have a drastic impact on the horse racing industry."
As I said, I think you have an obligation, I would dare say a duty, a responsibility, to sit down and to talk with those people and discuss fully the impact your Bill 8 will have on them and give them some assurances. I want to talk a little about the industry over the course of the next few weeks and hope we might even be able to let it get its oar in the water and talk about maybe levelling the playing field. I also have a letter from the Ontario Jockey Club which provides me with a substantive amount of data and information that it wants to bring to the table. Minister, you're going to hear about that as well.
On a more general note, let me make a couple of brief references to a transcript of ABC News Nightline that was aired on May 31 of this year, just a few weeks ago. I want to quote some people in the jurisdiction -- I think it's almost ironic -- of Cripple Creek. Maybe they feel that way because they've got a casino now.
The minister said there's going to be tremendous economic benefit and a tremendous economic boon to the city of Windsor. Let me tell you what these people had to say:
"It has pushed out the quaint little shops we had. It discouraged many of the family-type tourists we used to have."
Another quote: "It'll change it overnight" -- your community -- "and it won't be the same place you fell in love with, or the same place you're used to living in," or the place where you wanted to raise your family.
Interesting comments from people who live in communities that have had casino legislation.
I could spend a great deal of time talking about the impact on various industries, but I want to go back to a couple of first principles we talked about. I'm going to conclude by going back to where I started, and that's where the minister started and where the minister concluded. She talked about honesty and integrity.
I come back to the quote of one Mr Robert Rae QC, in November 1986. "What is moral about an economic system that feeds on greed?" asked the Premier. Again, he said it draws on what is most narrow in people but not on what is most generous in people.
I think back to what the Treasurer said. He said it was a sad, sad day when the government based its economic policy and fought its deficit by going after the most vulnerable.
There's a lot at stake here, and we've spent a lot of time; I've spent the better part of an hour and a half talking about it, and I've only begun to scratch the surface in terms of some of the substantive issues.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'll be on tomorrow night.
Mr McClelland: And Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, in his inimitable fashion, with a tremendous amount of passion and vigour -- which will indeed be, I say to the Minister of Environment and Energy, perhaps one of the great parliamentary moments, certainly of this session -- will have an opportunity to address Bill 8 tomorrow.
Mr Bradley: I think I have 21 votes on the government side on this issue.
Mr McClelland: I want to come back to that and talk about the point my friend makes as I conclude. I know there are half a dozen, at least five or six, members over there who are really concerned about this.
Mr Bradley: Oh, more than that.
Mr McClelland: At least five or six who are truly concerned. This is an issue that gives you an opportunity to stand up and be counted in a way that demonstrates what you used to be, and that was a party of principle, not a party that seeks to look for expediency, not a party that builds an economic plan for the city of Windsor on a crumbling and false cornerstone.
Minister, I remind you that if you say to the people of Windsor that this is an economic boon to them, that you are providing this to solve their economic woes, you are providing them with an illusory bubble that will burst. I say to you again that the day you go into Windsor, Michigan will move ahead. The day you go into the Niagara Peninsula, New York will move on the 120,000 video terminals that it has and locate them right along the border.
You know very well that if you can't draw 80% of your market, 80% of your consumers for the casino, from another jurisdiction, you're buying more problems than you're benefitting. The cost in terms of the social impact on people's lives is immeasurable, but even the dollar costs will put you in a negative situation.
I remind you of what you said but a few years ago when you sat on city council and said that you would not allow a casino to be established at the CNE because of the impact it would have on the community because of the unsavoury elements it would attract and how it would take away from the CNE as family entertainment. Minister, you were there, and you voted against it at that time. That is something only you can explain: your sudden change of heart. I would hope you would explain fully what it was that made you change your mind. I would hope that maybe the member for Rainy River would explain what changed his mind. I would hope that the Minister of Finance, the Treasury minister, the member for Nickel Belt, would explain what changed his mind so significantly over the past number of years.
Minister, Bill 8, although well intended, I'm sure, by yourself, has been fraught with mismanagement and uncertainty right from the start, and the problem is very basic. I said to you before and I say it again: You let the ship leave harbour without knowing where you were going or how you were going to get there. You've tried to patch it together. You've pulled together a good team of competent people, but you've told them their mandate is to build a casino, not to make a rational, well-thought-out decision. You haven't done the studies. You're doing them as you go along to justify your position.
As we go through committee, I know we're going to have people who are lined up by the government, as we will have people lined up in opposition, but I want you to hear them, Minister, hear them very carefully and clearly, because they're going to bring concerns to you. Listen to the people of Ontario. Listen to the people who run charities, who have contributed in an immeasurable fashion, who have woven strength into the fabric of this province by multiplying the resources we have through the volunteer network. You're putting them at jeopardy.
Don't substitute something illusory for an economic plan, something well-thought-out for the city of Windsor. Rethink this.
To the members opposite, my friends in the NDP, who know deep in their hearts that if they vote in favour of this, something they didn't believe in in the past, they're being pressured into it: Stand up and be counted. Don't just disappear. Have some principles and stand by your convictions. You'll be a better member for it, and this will be a better province because you did the right thing.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Brampton North for his contribution to the debate and invite questions and/or comments.
Mr Harnick: It's interesting. There were a number of articles in the newspaper this weekend talking about industrial strategies and the fact that Ontario really didn't have an industrial strategy. The person who was writing that article obviously didn't realize that casinos were the industrial strategy of the New Democratic government.
I suspect that very few people have read the bill itself, but the bill is very interesting. It talks about casinos, and it defines a casino as a place "kept for the purpose of playing games of chance." Now, when you talk about that definition, a place "kept for the purpose of playing games of chance," if you had ever put that proposition to someone in the New Democratic Party a year ago, two years ago, five years ago, and told them they would be in a place today voting to create places that are kept for the purpose of playing games of chance, they would have told you that you were out of your mind.
2010
But now this is a party that believes in games of chance, this is a party that believes in lottery schemes, because that's how it defines "games of chance." But the reality is that the games of chance they're really talking about are blackjack, roulette and slot machines. Those are the games of chance that this party believes in as the industrial strategy for the province of Ontario.
Admittedly, they will create jobs in Windsor, but at what cost? What's the cost of policing going to be? What is going to be the increase in crime? What's going to happen to the horse racing industry? What's going to happen to charities in the province of Ontario? What are the social costs going to be?
We all remember that Bob Rae talked about a tax on the poor. To think that people are going to come to this casino and enjoy the activities around Windsor is purely folly when you have the opportunity to stay in the casino and then go back to Michigan.
The Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Cochrane South.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): The cameras would have to see what I'm looking at to understand why I'm laughing. It's unbelievable.
I just want to take a couple of minutes to respond to the member opposite who spoke for the last hour and a half in this House and made a number of assertions around the question of casinos. I don't have the time, unfortunately, in two minutes, to go through it, but I would like to say that a lot of the figures the member quoted to support his argument around casinos leave a little bit to be desired. There's no question that a casino in Windsor is going to attract economic development in that community.
I would agree with the member to a certain extent: Like all issues, not everybody's unanimous on the issue. Like any other political party, and just like the public, some people are for it and some people are against it.
But I want to make one thing clear. The member made the point during his hour-and-a-half deliberation on this debate that members on this side of the House are not in support of this particular policy, that when we were in opposition, way back when, we were against it. I'll tell you, those questions were asked directly to me during the 1990 campaign. People asked me how I felt about casinos, because a group in my community of Timmins wanted to started a casino in my community. I supported it then, and I support it now.
I think casinos are not a bad idea. I think people who gamble are going to gamble anyway. As a matter of fact, I was at a riding function on Sunday in my riding, at a 50th wedding anniversary, and spoke to a number of constituents at that particular function. Three of the tables I went to, out of seven tables I talked to, all talked to me about how they had either gone to Las Vegas, to Sault, Michigan, or off to Atlantic City over the past two or three months in order to gamble.
Gambling is a fact of life; it happens in our community. If we're going to allow gambling to happen, because it happens, we may as well do it within the confines of our own province and regulate it ourselves according to our own beliefs about how it should be regulated.
I just say that the policy, unlike what the member opposite says, is supported by members of the government because we believe it's not a bad policy. It's a good idea.
Mr Drainville: I'd like to affirm the comments that have been made by the honourable member for Brampton North. He spoke about a number of issues that are very cogent and important for the House to hear. I know members on the opposite side don't want to hear these things, yet the things the member for Brampton North have said need to be reinforced.
He said there have been no impact studies done before the decision was made. That's true. There was no consultation. There was no consultation with the caucus itself; there was no consultation with anyone. The principle was established by the political élite of the New Democratic Party government, and then we were all dragged along, kicking and screaming.
In terms of the negative impact of this on charities, it is hard enough in this day and age, with the recession and the difficulties in our communities, for charities to try to find ways that they can reach out and continue to support our society. What we are doing when we set up more opportunities for state gambling is that we are cutting out the foundation of those organizations which provide us with very important fundamental services, so we end up introducing a negative impact on those charities.
Also, there will be a negative impact on the horse racing industry. I don't know whether people across the floor know this, but we have people over there who are from rural ridings. Yet the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has said straightly that this direction is the wrong direction for the government of Ontario because it's going to impact directly against those farms and those people who raise horses and also those who provide feed for horses.
We have all of these negatives added to the social problems, added to the addiction, added to the increase in crime, added to the more money we're going to have to produce just to maintain a superstructure which basically panders to the lowest common denominator in society. The honourable member for Brampton North was right: This is a bad deal for everyone.
Mr Lessard: My friend, when he began his comments, made reference to a number of quotations from 18 years ago. I wasn't here 18 years ago, but I can tell you that things have changed a lot in the province of Ontario. Beliefs have changed, times have changed and, most importantly, the fiscal situation in the province and in the city of Windsor has changed in 18 years.
I was in the city of Windsor 18 years ago, where I was born, where I lived, where I went to school, where I still live. That was a place with a vibrant downtown where Americans used to like to come to shop, but that doesn't happen any more. It was a place with a healthy manufacturing sector that has seen tremendous job losses in the last few years.
In one of the arguments my friend makes he says, "You had better not do this, because if you do it, Detroit or New York state or Michigan is going to do it." If we use that argument, we might never try to do anything different here in the province of Ontario. I don't think that's the approach we want to take. Sometimes you have to take a gamble in this business, and this is one I'm prepared to take and become accountable for.
I'd like to know what my friend across the floor proposes to try to help the people of the city of Windsor. I haven't heard many of his ideas to hold out hope, to create jobs to diversify the economy there. Perhaps he's suggesting a project that the Liberals proposed a few years ago: The SkyDome in Toronto comes to my mind as a big tourist attraction, and that's been nothing but a huge money drain on the province of Ontario ever since it was built. This is a project that's not going to require a cent of government money to build or to operate, and I think it provides a good example of the type of project we should be involved in here in the province. We're not going to take any lessons from the Liberals as to how that should be done.
The Speaker: The member for Brampton North has up to two minutes for his reply.
Mr Bradley: Before you do, Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Each of the parties, including the one party which is independent, would have been represented in this round. There was one New Democrat, one Conservative, one independent and, I would have thought, one Liberal to make it equal. Instead we have two New Democrats and no Liberals allowed to speak on this. Is there a reason for that?
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: In fairness, I think what really happened is that because the independent member was allowed the two minutes, you sort of lost the floor. I'd like unanimous consent to let the member for St Catharines have a two-minute response.
The Speaker: To the member for Carleton, I'll get to that question in a moment. To the member for St Catharines, it's always difficult to provide a balance. Four people can use up to two minutes with three parties. In this particular instance, it was evident that the independent member wished to contribute, that there was one Conservative and there were two government members, and so we utilized the four. This debate seems to have generated a considerable amount of interest among the members.
I will put the question that the member for Carleton has placed, that there be unanimous consent for the member for St Catharines to have two minutes. Agreed? I heard at least one negative voice.
The member for Brampton North has up to two minutes for his reply.
Mr McClelland: I think the negative voice speaks volumes about the spirit of collegiality that is missing in this place. I think it's indicative of the fact -- and the member for Carleton made a very good point, that there's an oversight in terms of the rotation because of the independent speaking. I think most honourable members recognize it but for a few people who are a little, perhaps, shallow and narrow in their thinking, I say with respect. I just wanted to get that off my chest.
I say to my friend the member for Cochrane South that I appreciate the fact that you support this legislation. I appreciate your forthrightness and the fact that you've been upfront and candid about it from the beginning. My point, I say to M. Bisson, is simply that there are a number of your colleagues who have grave misgivings. My challenge to them is to think it through very carefully and to vote their conscience and to vote their principles.
2020
I say, in response to my friend the member for Windsor-Walkerville, that I understand what you're saying about fiscal realities. The comment made by the now Minister of Finance, the member for Nickel Belt, had, interestingly enough, ironically made reference to fiscal realities and said that you can't link principles with a fiscal situation. He was talking at that time about principles. Yes, the situations have changed, but you have to ask yourself a very fundamental question: Do principles change from day to day, based on the changing economies and realities of the fiscal situation in the province?
It seems to me that principles are much more fundamental than that. The polices adapt and programs adapt, but principles are something that are very basic, and I ask you to question your rationale. Don't do it because it's being done in New York and Michigan. I never suggested such a thing. What I'm saying, and I'll say it again, is this: In the studies that you have, Minister, as we go from place to place and particularly the city of Windsor, I'm going to be asking you to provide us with a market analysis that indicates that you've considered the impact, should those jurisdictions proceed.
Minister, I ask you to listen very carefully to the debate that will follow and to the people across this province. There are some grave concerns. We'll do our best to bring them forward and I hope that you will act upon them.
The Speaker: The member's time has expired. Is there further debate?
Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'll have the opportunity to deliver most of my remarks tomorrow, I presume, but I would like to get a couple of brief comments on the record at the outset with respect to Bill 8.
First of all, I think the government is a little paranoid. They assume that because people don't like Bill 8, they are against casino gambling. That isn't necessarily the case. I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker that there are many members of this Legislature in all three political parties who are morally against casino gambling and there are probably members of all three political parties in this Legislature who have no moral query about casino gambling per se, but who want to ensure that if it is done in this province, it is done in a thoughtful and orderly manner and that we avoid some of the pitfalls that other jurisdictions that have introduced casino gambling into their jurisdictions have fallen into. I think there are all kinds of examples out there, especially in North America, that we can learn from.
The minister indicates that she will enjoy heckling me throughout the 90 minutes. That's her prerogative. I would say to the minister that if she's a little disconcerted about heckling that she receives during question period, that's the nature of this place. It's always been thus. That's what question period is all about. For my part, I don't heckle unless I see a minister going off on a tangent, deliberately trying not to answer the question, but answering some other question.
Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): Your nose is growing.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Eves: I don't have to go back any further than this very afternoon's Instant Hansard to get a perfect example of ministers not answering the question that is asked.
Hon Ms Churley: You don't listen, Ernie. You never hear the answers.
Mr Eves: I will read to you my question and I will read to you the minister's answer. Would you please interrupt when you tell me that she's directly answering the question, yes or no.
"My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the issue of casino gambling. Prior to September 1990, when the last provincial election was held" -- just a coincidence -- "the Premier of the province is quoted as saying, 'The casino plays on greed.'
"On May 17 of this year, my leader asked the Premier if your government would hold a referendum on whether or not casino gambling should be introduced into the province of Ontario. The Premier said no." The Premier knows how to answer a question.
"When a government turns its back on the very principles and reasons it was elected to power, should not that government give the public an opportunity to express its opinion?" I think that's a fairly simple, straightforward question. The Premier thought it was. He said no.
I asked the minister the same question. Here's her answer. Is it yes or no? "I believe the Premier has said, and I certainly have said, that no casino would go into any community which did not demonstrate its wishes for a casino to be in that community."
I used to think that Bill Davis had some legalese that he spun around without answering a question, but I can tell you that that answer says absolutely nothing. It is verbal gobbledegook. It doesn't address the question that was asked. The question that was asked is, are you in favour of a referendum, seeing as how you've totally changed your principles as a political party with respect to your stand on casino gambling? Before September 1990, the NDP is on record, and we have numerous members' quotes here about being on record, against casino gambling, and after the election, when they need money and Floyd says, "Please send money, please somebody think up some ways to get me more money," somebody has a brainwave and says: "Hey, let's create a casino. We can make $150 million a year minimum." All of a sudden, principles out the window, cash in the pocket, we have no principles.
Hon Ms Churley: The mayor's going to write you a letter again.
Mr Eves: The mayor can write me as many letters as he wants. As a matter of fact, I'm glad the minister brought that issue up, because on July 6, the day that an article appeared in the Windsor Star with respect to some comments I had made, and indeed the minister had made, about the city of Windsor, I had quite a lengthy talk with Mayor Hurst of the city of Windsor, who, by the way, the minister might be interested in knowing, agreed that every single question I had raised in the Legislature on this issue was a viable one and was a concern that should be thoroughly addressed by the province of Ontario. We are trying to get answers to these questions, but we're getting verbal gobbledegook instead of direct answers, and that's why we have a problem.
Other NDP notables have said about casino gambling and gambling per se in the past: On June 8, 1971, Ian Deans, NDP, then member for Wentworth, "I hope the government never gets to the point of running lotteries to subsidize the consolidated revenue fund."
Floyd Laughren, February 4, 1975:
"The principle of lotteries, Mr Speaker, rests quite easily with me as long as the funds are being used for the delivery of marginal services and not essential services in the province. That's the responsibility of taxation. I would hope that the government doesn't get into the position of using lottery funds to bail it out of fiscal deficits and so forth or for essential services. That truly would be offensive."
Mr Stockwell: Who said that?
Mr Eves: The Minister of Finance said it in 1975.
On May 29, 1990, Mr Laughren said:
"I think the reason we collectively feel that way and have ever since 1975 is that lotteries are a game of chance. They are an extremely volatile source of revenue. With all the individual lottery games, any one game does not last a long time and they have to keep changing them and so forth. I think most people felt right from the beginning that essential services in Ontario should not depend upon lottery profits. There seemed to be a consensus from the beginning that this was the case and that lottery profits should go toward such things as sports, culture and recreation, where there is a discretionary aspect to the allocation of the amount of funds."
Lastly, but not least, I would like to refer to remarks made by the current member in the Legislature for Cambridge, who again has been reinstated into cabinet, who said on May 30, 1990:
"What I have attempted to provide is an assortment of views put forward by elected members of the CCF and the NDP in the federal and provincial parliaments. All of the citations mentioned show considerable concern about the negative effects of gambling on society. Many of the citations are totally and absolutely against the state's involvement in setting up gambling as a means of generating income for the provision of core government programs. This anti-gambling approach has been the basic thrust of our political movement since it was founded in the Depression years."
Where are your principles now, I ask you members sitting over there? You just throw them all out the window because we need 140 million bucks. "Principles for sale: 140 million bucks. That's our price." My position is let the people decide, and you say you don't want to let the people decide. You're neither new nor democratic.
I repeat what I said this afternoon: I do not know why the minister steadfastly refuses to answer this very direct question of what she has against democracy, what she has against the people in the province of Ontario deciding whether they want casino gambling or not.
This afternoon, as I did before, I rhymed off numerous jurisdictions in the United States of America, some of which have casino gambling, some of which do not. But in fairness to those jurisdictions, at least they had enough class and enough respect for the democratic principle to put it to their people, to let the people decide whether they wanted to impose casino gambling on them or not. I can't say the same for the current government in Ontario.
The minister said, in response to a question this afternoon, that referendums were part of the American way, not part of the Canadian way. Would you mind telling me what your Premier and I did spending months upon months in the Constitution referendum debate? What were you taking part in that debate for if referendums aren't part of Canadian society?
It being 8:30 of the clock, I will continue this discussion with the minister tomorrow afternoon.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Parry Sound for breaking his remarks at this particular point. By agreement of the House, this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2032.