Hansard Transcript 1993-Jul-27 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Ontario had a slogan that asked, "Is there any place you'd rather be?" Well, according to an Environics poll commissioned by Ontarians for Responsible Government, 49% of Ontarians say they would seriously consider being anywhere but Ontario if they could afford it.

Even more troublesome is that 61% of Ontarians aged 18 to 24 indicated they would leave the province. This is a disturbing figure when you consider that the future strength of any economy is largely dependent on its young people and their ability to bring new ideas and new energy so that the province continues to develop and prosper. Young people also have the flexibility and drive to take their enthusiasm and ability and move to another region of the country or to another region of the world.

These numbers do not bode well for the future of this province and for our future as a growing and competitive economy. These numbers are a direct reflection on the record and policies of the NDP government and are an indication of the low esteem in which this government is held.

Another recent poll shows that the NDP government currently has the support of just 13% of the decided voters in Ontario. This figure is even more startling when one considers that it is even lower than the 15% of respondents who in another poll believe that Elvis Presley is still alive.

These numbers can only mean one thing: The people of Ontario are overwhelmingly rejecting the policies and performance of the NDP government, and it is time the government recognizes that it has lost the confidence of the electorate and changes its policies accordingly.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): People in Ontario are very unhappy with the administration of justice in Ontario. Recently there have been court backlogs and thousands of cases were dismissed before going to trial. There have been increased tensions between the police and the Ontario government. Police have been forced to become political, so that they now have to be concerned with far more than their normal policing duties in their communities. The public is questioning the administration of justice that gives very lenient sentences and allows convicted criminals out on the street.

So many people have voiced their displeasure and frustration that we in the Progressive Conservative Party have decided to take a positive, constructive consultation with the public and various organizations involved with the justice system. That is why we formed the Mike Harris task force on crime, justice and community safety.

We have had thousands of definite concerns raised by Ontarians about specific aspects of crime, justice and community safety, and we continue to welcome opinions. People are joining with us in examining the problems facing the system and proposing changes. If we hope to prevent crime and deal with its consequences, the public, police, social agencies and governments must work together to find and implement practical solutions.

KELSEY-HAYES CANADA

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Despite all the doom and gloom we're hearing from the opposition, I'm very pleased today to report some good economic news that occurred in my riding recently. That is the announcement by Kelsey-Hayes Canada of a $6.5-million expansion of its assembly plant in my riding.

One of the reasons Kelsey-Hayes is expanding its plant is the top-quality work that is produced as a result of good cooperation between management and labour, the members of Local 636 of the Canadian Auto Workers. In fact the quality is so good that Kelsey-Hayes has won the Chrysler Quality Award eight years in a row, and last year they were one of only 14 plants in the entire world to win the Chrysler Quality Award seven years in a row.

I want to compliment some of the union leadership there: Ross Gerrie, president of Local 636, and also, at the Beard's Lane plant, Broderick Carey, president of the Oxford Regional Labour Council and plant chair at the foundry of this Kelsey-Hayes plant.

There is good economic news occurring in my riding. Ontario does remain a good place to invest and we have a top-quality workforce, as demonstrated by these wonderful union members who produce world-quality work that has been recognized by Chrysler eight years in a row.

I just want to congratulate all the fine workers at the Kelsey-Hayes plant in my riding and hope that we'll see more good economic news like this occurring not only in Oxford but also in Ontario, as it remains a good place to invest, with top-quality workers who produce world-quality products.

CLOSURE OF FISHERIES RESEARCH UNIT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise once again to bring to the attention of members of this Legislature and to the people of Ontario the impending closure of the South Baymouth fisheries research unit.

On September 30, northern jobs are being transferred to southern Ontario with no discernible savings to the taxpayers of this province. Commercial fishermen, anglers, the community of South Baymouth and the local economic development group have all been vocal in asking the minister to reconsider this move. Yet without ever acknowledging either the petitioners' request or announcing the transfer of northern jobs in this House, ministry personnel arrived last week to discuss the relocation to the south with employees. The minister has not even had the courtesy to reply to the reeve's letters.

This government has removed one ferry from South Baymouth terminal, through an announcement issued under the cover of Christmas carols, and now has, without even acknowledging the community's concerns, pulled away these important jobs in the community.

The people of Manitoulin, the people of South Baymouth, the people of northern Ontario deserve better. Mr Hampton should come to South Baymouth. Mr Hampton should talk directly to the people affected. This is just unacceptable.

1340

INSURANCE TAX

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Once again this government has shown that it does not understand or does not care about small businesses in this province and the needed jobs that they create. I am referring to one of the latest tax grabs announced in the May budget: the introduction of the 8% retail sales tax on the insurance premiums for worker benefit programs.

This illogical move will serve only to force employers who are presently sponsoring group life, medical, dental and disability programs to rethink their policy and possibly to reduce the protection they provide. They may also pass the increased costs on to their employees, who are already suffering financially because this government has no idea how to manage our money.

As well, employers who provide no fringe benefits will not be affected. Does the Treasurer not understand that he has taken away any incentive for them to adopt these programs in the future?

One example of a business wrestling with decisions because of this increased levy is Edwards in Owen Sound. It is a major company in my area which employs around 630 people. As of July 1, it began paying almost $80,000 in extra taxes to the Treasurer. Edwards officials say that this cost will have to be offset with reductions elsewhere and that jobs will invariably be affected in some manner.

The Treasurer must realize that he cannot keep businesses here or attract any new ones if he keeps raising the cost of labour. If companies are to be taxed, surely the proper approach is to tax profits, not expenses.

This illogical, ill-conceived tax will hurt far more than it will help. I would ask the Treasurer to scrap it and come up with a solution which makes more sense for employers and employees alike.

MOUSELAND

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I would like to share with you a modern-day version of Tommy Douglas's famous story Mouseland.

It is called Mice in the House and coauthored by District 6 of the United Steelworkers of America. This story, like the original, takes place in Mouseland, a nice place to work and play except for one thing: The cats who govern Mouseland took the lion's share of everything. Things went on this way for a long time.

Of course, the fat cats thought this was a fine way to run things, but for the mice it was another story. The cats jacked up rents. They polluted the cities and countryside. They grabbed all the money and left the mice begging. Finally, enough was enough and the mice were elected to the House of Mouseland.

Mouseland rejoiced. Mice expected great things, but running Mouseland was no picnic. The cats retaliated. They did everything they could to make life tough for the mice. They shut down factories and threw mice out of work. They used the press to try to turn mice against one another. But worst of all, the cats left the cupboard completely bare.

But the mice kept working. They built lots of good warm mouse holes and kept rents low. They trained thousands of mice and put them back to work. They worked together to make Mouseland a better place to work and play. There wasn't a lot of cheese, but they made sure that both mice and cats received and contributed their fair share.

But the tough times took their toll. Some of the mice started squabbling. Some said that the head mice weren't brave enough confronting cats. The cats thought this was great stuff and did all they could to fuel the fire. Times were not easy, but the mice knew they were better off than if the fat cats were running the show. The mice refused to give up. They knew they had achieved many good things and to this very day continue to work to build a better and more fair Mouseland.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Charles Beer (York North): As the Minister of Education and Training knows, the Ottawa Board of Education and the Metro Toronto boards have been told to pay the provincial government collectively over $100 million under the social contract, this despite the fact that neither of these boards receives grants from the province.

In their attempt to understand the implications of what the province has proposed, boards are finding that once again there are more questions than answers. The boards would like answers to the following questions:

(1) How is the money to be paid to the province and for how long?

(2) What will happen if the Metro and Ottawa boards take the province to court and win? How will this impact on the government's target under the social contract?

(3) What guarantee do Ottawa and Metro residents have that the government will use the money to pay down the deficit as initially promised?

Yesterday, the public school boards in Metro Toronto launched a radio campaign. They will be asking ratepayers for their views on the social contract before deciding how to respond to the province's demand.

The reality is that should they decide to take legal action against the government, they may win. One can't help but wonder what impact this will have on the government's target, or will the government decide at the last minute to reduce the total amount, as it did with Hydro?

The real question has to do with our children and the impact the government's so-called social contract will have on them. Not once during social contract talks did the government talk about measures to preserve and improve the quality of education for our children. Spending $3 million on a royal commission doesn't help deal with the impact of the social contract on our kids.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Press reports today indicate that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board has had to resort to placing radio advertisements in an attempt to consult with the public over its required $93-million social contract contribution to the province.

The Metropolitan Toronto School Board receives no transfer payments from the province, and it has been put in the awkward position by this government, through the social contract process, of raising money from the property taxpayer for education purposes and then turning this money over to the province for completely different purposes.

The school board is also concerned about how dangerous a precedent this could be, as there is no guarantee that this type of funding demand is only for the length of the social contract.

I quote from the August 31, 1990, press conference from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board when the board asked all parties about their position on financing public education in Metro. Mr Rae promised "to restore Metro's funding to at least the 1981 level of 21%."

I also quote from the Metro chair, Mae Waese, who said: "All three leaders have assured us that they would oppose taking education dollars raised from the Metro taxpayers to fund education in other parts of the province. Such a situation would be a major threat to our tax base, and it is a great relief to know that this is not something that we have to fear in the coming months."

A far cry from the reality of today's social contract in Bob Rae's Ontario.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I want to take this opportunity to put on the record for the benefit of all, and especially for the leader of the third party, that I have been unjustifiably attacked without provocation by the member when introducing Bill 103 for the committee of the whole.

The leader of the third party -- and I have it right in Hansard here -- said that I was displaying a "partisan, cheap-shot attitude" in dealing with Bill 103.

I defy anyone in this House to show any justification for that scurrilous attack.

Let me quote from Hansard my exact words on concluding my brief opening remarks. I said, "I'm sure my colleagues on all sides of the House will want speedy passage of this very worthwhile legislation." Then I added, "Basically, every member in this House is behind this and wants to see this get third reading."

Later, one of the members opposite, the member for Leeds-Grenville, complained that I hadn't mentioned their part in this debate. I acted immediately on it, rose to my feet and said I wished to "recognize the contribution of both the third party and the official opposition in making this bill a success and being able to proceed with it today."

I want to challenge the leader of the third party to tell the truth, admit his mistake and apologize for the spurious, vicious and unjustified accusations he chose to insult me with last week. I have it all in Hansard, and I ask everyone to examine it and come up and make --

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

Mr Mills: This is awful. It is absolutely disgraceful.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Mills: I don't care.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Mills: It's a lie. It's a lie.

The Speaker: The member for Durham East, just relax.

Interjections.

Mr Mills: Have the guts to stand up and say it.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know the member for Durham East is upset, but he did say: "It's a lie. It's a lie. It's a lie."

The Speaker: The member for Carleton has a point of order. Indeed, I would ask the member for Durham East to please withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Mr Mills: This is the evidence. How can you say it's a lie?

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Durham East please take his seat.

Mr Mills: I'll withdraw it because I want to be here today, but it's the truth.

The Speaker: Well, you said the two magic words.

1350

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): People giving people a hand up instead of a handout: that's what happened in my home town last week. The former Governor General of Canada, Ed Schreyer, and his wife, Lily; the former President of the US, Jimmy Carter, and his wife, Rosalynn; in fact, even the Premier was there working side by side with over 600 other volunteers who decided to build 13 homes under the auspices of Habitat for Humanity.

On Monday, the foundations were poured. By Saturday, people moved into their new homes. Habitat for Humanity, as most know, is a non-profit organization that secures time, money, materials and volunteer labour to ensure that individuals can have a home, individuals who perhaps otherwise may not be able to afford a home.

It truly was an amazing community event. When they needed to put up the drywall, the media stated that drywallers were needed and, miraculously, drywallers showed up. The same happened when it came to plumbing or the electrical work. All the skilled trades joined in to give a helping hand.

While most of the media attention focused on the Premier, former President Carter and the former Governor General, the individual who really is the unsung hero of Habitat for Humanity in Canada is Reverend Wilmur Martin, who decided to take a leave of absence from the pulpit approximately two years ago and really put Habitat for Humanity Canada on the map.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I have carefully reviewed the report presented on July 22 with respect to an appeal from the ruling of the Chair of the standing committee on estimates.

As I understand it, the member for Durham West sought to raise a point of order at the committee meeting on July 21 relating to an occurrence in that committee on July 20. The Chair of the committee declined to allow the point of order on the ground that it related to activities of the committee on the previous day. The ruling was made on the issue of timeliness.

At page 396 of the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice it states, "Speakers have exercised discretion over the taking of points of order and have indicated at what point in the proceedings they are prepared to hear them."

The Chair of the standing committee on estimates in this situation was technically correct in his decision that a point of order by convention should be timely, and under normal circumstances would not be allowed on an occurrence of a previous day. However, in reviewing the details of the report and the committee Hansard of both meeting days, I find that the member for Durham West did in fact attempt to bring the matter to the attention of the Chair on July 20 and was prevented from doing so. Thus, the first available opportunity for the member to raise his point of order was at the commencement of the committee proceedings on July 21. This the member for Durham West sought to do.

It is my decision, then, that the member for Durham West should have been allowed to raise his point of order at the time that he did for the consideration of the Chair. I trust that the committee, which perhaps is meeting today, may have an opportunity unanimously to solve the difficulty which the committee was presented with.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a question for the Minister of Health, who I believe is about the precinct. I'll stand the first question down to the Minister of Health and take a second question to the leader of the government.

There has been much discussion inside and outside Ontario Hydro about privatization. It is no secret to anyone who knows anything about what's occurring in Hydro affairs that the new management particularly is looking very seriously at privatization as an option to assist with the rehabilitation of the debt-ridden utility.

My question to the leader of the government is simply this: Since this decision will be made at the very least with the involvement of his government, can the Premier indicate what the policy framework will be from his point of view with respect to changing any aspect of Ontario Hydro's heretofore monopoly in matters of electrical generation, distribution and transmission in the province of Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I am delighted with a question of substance from the member opposite. He describes the utility as debt-ridden. Without for a moment wanting to engage in any excessive partisan discussion, I would say to him that I think that is a fact with respect to the history of Ontario Hydro, previous governments having taken decisions which have left Hydro with an enormous financial burden and which we now find and have found over the last several years since forming the government have placed Hydro in a very, very tough predicament with respect to its affordability, the rate structure which it charges to consumers and the general level of efficiency with which it is able to run.

Mr Strong, as chairman of Ontario Hydro, has carried out some very difficult decisions which have come from within the organization. They've come from within the Hydro board and from within the senior levels of management at Hydro after a long period of discussion with its employees.

I can say to the honourable member that any decision with respect to a major reorganization of Ontario Hydro would obviously require legislation, as we understand it, and would obviously not be something in which the government would simply be involved. It would obviously be a decision of the government, not simply a decision of the Hydro board or of anyone else.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I can say to the honourable member that there have been no cabinet discussions with respect to the issue of privatization, whatever that means exactly, because it's a word that has many different meanings and many different possibilities. There have been no cabinet discussions either at the committee stage, at the policy and priorities stage or at full cabinet.

What we do know and what is under way within Hydro and within the government is a serious assessment of how we can provide the citizens of the province with the most efficient and affordable power, which we see as being in the historic mandate of Ontario Hydro going back to Sir Adam Beck.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: I know the honourable member, as a historian of the province, and there really is no one in the House with equal knowledge of the history of the province, with perhaps one or two exceptions --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please take his seat. Supplementary.

Mr Conway: Hydro has some very considerable assets. According to its latest report, it has assets in the range of $45 billion to $46 billion. Many of those assets are of very real interest, I suspect, to the private sector in this country and elsewhere. It's also well known that under Mr Strong's leadership, there is well advanced now at Hydro a plan to privatize certain parts of the Hydro monopoly.

1400

My question to the leader of the government is simply this: Can he indicate, as the leader of the government, what his views are or might be with respect to breaking up this public sector monopoly, which he rightly observes is rigorously reinforced by the Power Corporation Act among other statutes of this Legislature? What does he, as the leader of the government of Ontario, see as the policy framework in which privatization of some parts of generation, of some parts of transmission, of some other parts of the Hydro monopoly might occur?

Hon Mr Rae: I must contest the fundamental assumption behind the member's question, and that is to say that the assertion he's made, as he frequently does in the House, where he confuses a point of his own opinion or conjecture and then asserts it as a matter of fact, is an interesting form of argument.

But I would say to the honourable member that it sometimes leads to very false conclusions. It's one thing to build, on a daily basis, a mountain out of a molehill, but it's important to have one's foundations secure when seeking to build the Matterhorn, which the honourable member attempts to construct every day.

I would say to the honourable member that I have no reason to believe, in particular, his assertion that there is a plan, a well-developed plan within Ontario Hydro for the privatization of certain parts of Ontario Hydro. There have been no discussions within the government of any such proposal or any such plan.

Rather, the chairman and I have discussed the fact that Hydro has a significant debt problem and debt challenge, that there already is under way a process of reorganization with respect to Ontario Hydro and its management and that we obviously want to consider all of the ways and all of the possibilities as to how Hydro can best serve the public.

But I would say to the member that one of the criteria I'd apply is that first of all the monopoly is not now absolute, as he well knows. We have private power supplying parts of the system, as he well knows.

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: We also have the municipal electrical associations, which have a sense of ownership of the system that they have asserted from time to time.

But I would say directly to the honourable member that my concern overall is with the integrity of Ontario Hydro, is with respect to its mandate to serve the public, which I think is primary, and with respect to the need for us to continue to provide public power at cost to the public in a way that is the most efficient and the most reasonable. That's the direction the government is taking.

The assertion he's making, that there is some plan to break up Hydro or that there is some well-developed plan to sell off part of its assets, I would say is quite untrue.

Mr Conway: Final supplementary to this question to the Premier: As a social democrat and as leader of the government of Ontario, what parts of Ontario Hydro are you prepared to see privatized, beyond that which has already occurred?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that he is attempting to construct a question and scenario which is, I would say to the honourable member, not a path which the government or this particular Premier is prone to or a path which I have any intention of following.

I would say directly to the honourable member that I think he's barking up the wrong tree, and I say that to him as kindly as I can. I think that the issue he should be addressing and which I would be interested in hearing is what are the positive policy alternatives presented by the honourable member.

He has been such a singular advocate of nuclear power, which we now know is the most inefficient part of the entire system. He was one of the most singular defenders of the nuclear system when he was in government. I can remember when, in opposition, he was as singular, saying: "Build Darlington. Build more Darlingtons. Build bigger nuclear stations. Build more reactors."

I would say to the honourable member that he and his government, of which he was a member for five years, bear a very heavy responsibility for the very difficult decisions any government would have to take in terms of restoring the financial integrity of Ontario Hydro.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My second question is to the Minister of Health. Is the Minister of Health aware that under her government's social contract charitable organizations like the Red Cross, the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Alzheimer Association of Ontario, to name but three, will be compelled to pay over to the government of Ontario 5% of their annual charitable donations?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Questions with respect to the social contract are within the purview of the Minister of Finance, and I will refer the question to him.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The social contract talks are going on as we speak, and negotiations on this and many other matters are quite active. The point that has been raised by the member is correct. That is one of the items under discussion and under negotiation at the social contract table.

Mr Conway: The Ontario division of Red Cross has told the Ontario Liberal caucus today that they have been told to prepare a cheque in the amount of $1.7 million this year and to make that cheque payable to the government of Ontario.

Those discussions are ongoing, it is true, but all of the charitable organizations operating in the health care field, like the Red Cross and the Alzheimer Association and the Victorian Order of Nurses and the Arthritis Society, have been told as recently as today that they must be willing and they will be compelled to offer up 5% of all charitable donations in the next few years as their share of the social contract.

The minister is aware of this because I gather two weeks ago Red Cross and others put this concern to him. Is he prepared today to relieve these charitable organizations of this unconscionable and unfair burden which has been imposed on them but which was not imposed on similar organizations in the community services sector?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would remind the member for Renfrew North that these organizations do receive money from the taxpayers of this province, and it is not totally charitable contributions that fund these organizations. I would just put a word of caution to the member not to categorize all of their funds as having come from charitable contributions, because they do receive money from the Ontario government. I don't think the member would suggest that they be exempt totally from the social contract exercise, even though his caucus did vote against us trying to achieve compensation savings in the public sector.

Mr Conway: I say to the Minister of Finance that we in the Liberal Party have today spoken to people at organizations like the Ontario division of Red Cross, the Arthritis Society, the Alzheimer Association, the Victorian Order of Nurses, and these people are making it very clear that what they want is an exemption that you've already provided in the community services sector. They rightly resent your tax on their charitable donations.

Let there be no confusion. The Ontario division of the Red Cross has said today that it has been told by Mr Laughren's negotiators at the table repeatedly over the last number of days and weeks that it will be expected to offer up 5% of its charitable donations. Surely the Treasurer agrees with me that the social contract must not mean a tax on charitable organizations. It must not mean a tax on charitable donations.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): It's not on the donations. Don't be so silly.

Mr Conway: It is on the donations, and if you don't believe me, talk to the Red Cross, talk to the Victorian Order of Nurses.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Conway: They have been told specifically by your negotiators that they must offer up 5% of their charitable donations over the next few years. Will you, Mr Minister of Finance, give these charitable organizations, doing wonderfully good works, like Meals-on-Wheels, running blood donor clinics, offering a range of seniors' services --

The Speaker: Would the member complete his question.

Mr Conway: Will you give these charitable organizations in the health care field the same exemption that you have already provided to the community services sector?

1410

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't want to be unkind but, once again, the rhetoric of the member for Renfrew North exceeds his grasp of the facts. We are not imposing a tax on charitable contributions but rather on compensation. It's not a tax; it's a contribution under the Social Contract Act.

No one on this side questions the value of work and service provided by the organizations delineated by the member. We all understand the good work they do.

In conclusion, while negotiations are going on with those very organizations in the health care sector, we're certainly not going to engage in negotiations here on the floor of the Legislature.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday the Ombudsman tabled a report on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. She found, and I quote, "delay in commencing, conducting and completing investigations."

Every time this issue is raised, the government responds by throwing money at the problem. In fact, you and the Liberals threw so much money at the commission, its budget increased by almost 100% between 1989 and 1992. But money is not the solution if cases continue to take for ever to complete.

Premier, what do you intend to do to ensure that human rights in this province are upheld?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that to the Minister of Citizenship.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I welcome the opportunity to talk about making sure that human rights issues are addressed in Ontario. I know that we share, on both sides of the House, the concerns that we do make sure that human rights issues are addressed promptly and expediently.

I also take note that you have said the Ombudsman has reported that she has concerns about the delays in the procedures. We have taken all the steps we can in making sure that the process under the existing code is applied so early settlement initiatives have been addressed, and we've been trying to get that procedure under way.

However, there are some concerns that still have to be addressed. We understand that and we do take great concern about that. We are now looking at various reports that have been done over the previous years to see if there are areas that we can address by taking some other measures, non-legislatively, so they can be done expediently, and as well if we can address some other issues through looking at amending the code.

Mr Harnick: It's interesting that the only time the Human Rights Commission ever improves is when the Ombudsman is looking over the shoulder of the commission.

There have been three procedural reviews, including the coroner's report. The commission is still plagued by ineffectiveness. A member of our caucus staff recently testified at a case that's seven years old, and it's going to resume again in February 1994.

The Ombudsman, in one case, made some conclusions. She said, "The actions of commission staff in at times subjecting Ms R to less than professional and courteous conduct were oppressive." She went on to say that the commission's actions in pressuring Ms R to accept a settlement she considered inappropriate were coercive and, as such, oppressive.

Clearly, these examples confirm the Ombudsman's findings. How much more evidence do you need and how much more time and money do you intend to spend on reviews before you take action?

Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, I want to make it very clear that I'm not going to address a specific case that is before a board of inquiry. I would hope that no member in this House would do so, so that we don't prejudice a case that is before a quasi-judicial body.

But having said that, I would like to say very clearly that we have looked at the studies, the reports, and I promise you, Mr Speaker, and I promise the member opposite that there will be no more reports done to see about the procedures.

I might add that there have been reviews taken of the Ontario Human Rights Commission that go back many years that were not addressed by previous governments as well. The Coopers and Lybrand reports that were done in 1985 and 1987 were not addressed. Not until we came into government did we start to look at these reports and start to implement the non-legislative procedures that were initiated and were brought about by this government. We do share your concerns and we continue to do so.

If we want to make sure that the Human Rights Commission works properly, this is not a political issue; it's an issue that all of us should share, that all of us should be working together to make sure that we do so. I take your comments very seriously. I take my other critic's comments very seriously. I've met, of course, with the critic from the Conservative Party. We have worked very hard together to make sure that we can look at all the issues.

Mr Harnick: All of these nice words don't amount to a hill of beans. The Ombudsman looked at 38 cases, starting in 1989. Thirty-one of those cases are still around. Cases are not getting dealt with. The most disturbing conclusion in the Ombudsman's report is that "it may be that the present system for enforcing human rights in the province cannot be brought to a truly acceptable state as long as the system remains within the confines of the existing legislation and organizational framework."

It's time to quit hiding behind the tired excuse that the commission operates at arm's length from the government. If the body charged with the responsibility of upholding our human rights in this province is not working and may never work, what do you intend to do?

Hon Ms Ziemba: As I said earlier, we're taking a review and making sure that the non-legislative measures that make this process work properly are being looked into, and we're implementing those as quickly and as speedily as we can. The legislative areas of amendments that we must concern ourselves about are now under review and we will be coming back to the House and coming back to our cabinet colleagues to see if there's an opportunity for us to address those amendments reviews and amendments to the code in our legislative time that we have available to us.

But again, I must say to all of you that human rights issues are extremely important in this province. We want to make sure that we carry out those cases in a very effective way, that people have their day in court and that their rights --

Mr Harnick: You're not. You're doing it in a discourteous, coercive way.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Ziemba: -- made sure that they are treated fairly and equitably. I'm very pleased that some of the areas have been addressed in a non-legislative manner and that we have taken those steps, even though Coopers and Lybrand did suggest and make clear these recommendations in 1985.

1420

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SETTLEMENTS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My question is to the Premier. In February of this year, you decided to get rid of several dedicated and capable deputy ministers. Why? For no other apparent reason than to impose your political partisan stripe on a neutral civil service.

I understand that one of those deputy ministers, Mr David Hobbs, has continued to collect his full deputy minister's salary of approximately $140,000 a year, despite the fact that you decided his dedication and experience were no longer necessary. Can you confirm that in fact Mr Hobbs continues to collect his full deputy minister's salary?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can't and there's a simple reason for it, and that is that the settlements involved in deputies leaving the employ of the government are arrived at individually with people. They are negotiated. Let me say this directly to the honourable member. So with respect to the point about the settlement arrangements, in any individual case it would be improper of me and in fact contrary to the freedom of information act, and with respect to the privacy of individuals, which is very real. I'm surprised the honourable member wouldn't understand that. I'm sure he is aware of it.

I would say to him that I reject categorically his description of what has taken place since we formed the government, and I must say, for a member of the Big Blue Machine of such honoured stripe as the member for Parry Sound to talk about the politicization of the public service of this province, I'm surprised that his tongue didn't cleave to the roof of his mouth when he spoke those words, because he would surely know how bizarre that is coming from the 42-year-old regime of the Progressive Conservative Party.

We have appointed people on merit. There are some people who have left, people of great ability --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and of great talent, who will continue to serve the public of the province in a variety of ways. I would say to the honourable member that I reject categorically and completely the assertion that he's made.

Mr Eves: For the Premier to stand in this House and talk about other parties being partisan in political appointments, I can tell you categorically that before you and your government came on the scene, the civil service in this province was indeed independent, dedicated people, and even my good friends to the right of me recognize that fact. I also understand, Mr Premier, that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, through you to the Premier: I understand that Gary Posen, former Deputy Minister of Transportation, is also collecting his salary, and they are but two.

This policy of yours to replace upper-echelon civil servants is costing the taxpayers of the province a bundle. How many deputy ministers and how many assistant deputy ministers have continued to be paid by the taxpayers of this province after you've decided to fire them, for no other apparent reason but their political stripe didn't necessarily match yours?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that his description of what has taken place -- first of all, any large organization such as ours which is going to reduce the size of its upper management -- at one time, under the leadership of that government, there were 44 deputy ministers. There are now 30. We have downsized. Like every other major organization in the western world, we have taken a decision to downsize, starting at the top in terms of reducing the size of cabinet, reducing the number of deputy ministers.

When people leave, they leave under terms of settlement and under terms of severance, as they did under your administration, as they did under that administration, and to turn this into some sort of a partisan exercise is beneath the member for Parry Sound, a member of whom I spoke warmly and fondly when I visited his constituency a short two weeks ago. If I'd known how the worm would turn, I must say I might have treated that visit in a slightly different way than I did when I was so happy to be in the member's constituency just a short two weeks ago.

Mr Eves: I am sorry that the Premier finds it difficult that he has 30 deputy ministers but he's paying 60 to do the job of 30. If that's the problem, if that's downsizing -- somewhat like his cabinet downsizing. He started with 25, got rid of five and hired seven and ended up with 27. That's called downsizing the NDP way.

It was bad enough when you appointed your former campaign manager and principal secretary as commander-in-chief of what should be a neutral and professional and independent civil service. But now you're asking every single public sector servant in the province of Ontario to cut back, you are wasting at least hundreds of thousands of dollars, possibly millions of dollars, to get rid of civil servants you don't like. Can you tell us what the total cost is to dismiss these upper-echelon civil servants?

Hon Mr Rae: I would be glad to provide the member with a comprehensive approach, not only to the question of deputy ministers leaving the system but also with respect to other voluntary exits. I would say to the honourable member that in order to achieve a significant downsizing, it is necessary, as he will know, when you're dealing with people who have contracts of employment and order-in-council appointments, to reach reasonable settlements that involve severance. You did it. They did it. Anybody would do it. And it's a cost which is borne by a corporation. Northern Telecom is having to do it. IBM is having to do it. Every major organization is having to do it. There is absolutely no difference between our determination to deal with this issue and to deal with it fairly --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): They're not replacing those people, Bob. Get a grip.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and any other government dealing with it in a fair and upfront way. Short of behaving like an administration with no respect for people's rights in law, it is simply not possible to sever people without offering them some compensation in exchange for that severance. That's the fact.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre, please come to order.

JOBS ONTARIO

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Will the minister tell the members of this House exactly how many Jobs Ontario brokers, sub-brokers and employers have been or are currently under investigation by Jobs Ontario Training for fraud or misappropriation or mismanagement of funds?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I believe that there are a couple who have had some difficulties. I believe the number is two or three in the province. I don't have the exact number.

There are well over 100 brokers and sub-brokers in the province and they are dealing, obviously, with millions of dollars. We have regular auditing of the brokers across this province. If there are any financial difficulties that are discovered, as you would expect when there are many people involved, many agencies involved and millions and millions of dollars, they are discovered immediately and the ministry moves in in order to take remedial action. That's what's happened. That's what will continue to happen.

Ms Poole: Mr Minister, you might be aware of two or three cases, but the official opposition is aware of at least four investigations going on. In addition, we know that contracts with several brokers and sub-brokers have been cancelled due to allegations of financial mismanagement.

The minister might refer to "some difficulties," but we wouldn't call the $640,000 that's been lost from Jobs Ontario in Brantford a small difficulty. There are also allegations that hundreds of thousands of more dollars have been given to the employment and immigrant training organization in Scarborough and that they've been misspent.

Jobs Ontario is a $1.1-billion failure and a fraud. In light of the problems with the lack of financial controls by Jobs Ontario, on July 8, Lyn McLeod and I asked you to call in the Provincial Auditor. As each day passes and more cases come to light, it becomes more and more urgent. The taxpayers of this province must be assured that their hard-earned dollars are not being wasted or misspent. Will you call in the Provincial Auditor without delay?

Hon Mr Cooke: That is one in a series of ridiculous questions about the Jobs Ontario Training program. As I said, there are well over 100 brokers and sub-brokers in this province. Of course there are going to be a couple of areas where you're going to --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

1430

Hon Mr Cooke: All of the difficulties have been discovered by this ministry when we have been doing our regular financial accountability. We've involved the community, and this program --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Eglinton.

Hon Mr Cooke: She's talking about four brokers. She's making an accusation about the one in Brantford, which she knows is currently under investigation by the police and shouldn't even be raised in this House because the matter was turned over to the police. She should respect the process in this place.

In the meantime, we have created under this program nearly 30,000 jobs, many of which are going to people on social assistance and have saved the taxpayers of this province millions of dollars by getting people back to work. She can describe this program as a failure, but the fact of the matter is that for the 28,000 jobs that have been created for the thousands of people on welfare who are now in the workforce, this is a successful program.

I could go through the two pages of questions that have been raised by that member, where she's been consistently and totally wrong. Whether it's the buttons that she said were made in Taiwan or whether it's the individual cases, she doesn't understand the program. She never will.

FUNDING APPLICATION FORM

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Premier. I have in my hand a copy of a form 1 from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It's the 1993-94 Funding Request Service Provider Profile. This form is a standard form that's been used for the last number of years; a couple of decades, in fact.

This standard form is filled out by service providers who are looking for funding from your government to provide such things as home care, but there's a very new wrinkle this year and a very new question. On this year's form it asks the service provider to include the name of his or her provincial riding. Premier, what on earth does the service provider's provincial political riding have to do with providing health and social service care?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'd have to see the form before I could comment on it. If he wants to quote from a form, perhaps he could do us the honour of passing over a copy.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary?

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to let him see the form before I get my supplementary in.

Hon Mr Rae: The member refers to the political partisanship issue when all that's being asked is the provincial riding of head office, the provincial riding of program delivery. I think you're reading far more into this than would be required. I would have thought that as a member you'd want to know about applications that are coming in from your constituency. Perhaps the explanation would be -- I would think it would be -- that it's simply an effort to provide information not only to the ministry but also to members of the Legislature with respect to where funding applications are coming from.

Mr Stockwell: I didn't say anything about political partisanship; I just asked why it was on the form. You yourself came up with the answer that I was asking about political partisanship. Naturally, that leads into the supplementary question.

Considering that you have such a guilty conscience with respect to the question of political partisanship in terms of the form, we phoned the ministry offices to ask those people in the front line why this new question was on these forms this year. They said: "We have no idea. We have no idea why this question was put in, we have no idea who wanted this question put in, and we have no idea why this question is on the form this year."

Therefore, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the government would like to know exactly what political ridings are receiving funding through your particular ministries and what political stripe happens to represent that riding.

Considering that the ministry staff has no idea why this question is on there, considering that this question has never been on the form in past history and considering that it's your government that has instituted this new question, would you not think it's reasonable to conclude that the reason this question is there is based on political preference, and the funding will go to government-held ridings and not opposition-held ridings?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say that judging from the --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Don't look to the press gallery for help.

Hon Mr Rae: Have I ever asked you for help? Have I ever received help from up there? Give me a break.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: Yes, that explains why we're at 13%.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): You did that all by yourself.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: This form the member has referred to: First of all, it's precisely because I've got to know the honourable member over the last two and a half years that when he referred to the political partisanship issue, he then goes -- it's like listening to the member for Renfrew North. They turn it from a molehill to a Matterhorn in 22 picoseconds. It's unbelievable to watch this construction.

What does the form say? "Provincial riding of head office. Provincial riding of program delivery. Date of incorporation. Languages of service. Date of last general meeting. Contact person for funding request. Chief, mayor, reeve or chairperson." Why would we want to know the mayor or reeve or chairperson? "Geographical boundary in which service is provided. Executive director," and all the rest of it.

I say to the honourable member that there must be room in his heart, and if not in his heart in his mind -- I can hear him shaking his head, so I know there's room in his mind; I can hear him from over here.

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: There's lots of room in there. There must be room for a nonpartisan breath, thought, a little twinge, a slight tinge of conscience, that would allow him to come up with an explanation which is entirely in keeping with the public interest and with public policy and has nothing to do with the kind of cheap partisanship to which he so narrowly refers.

RACCOON RABIES

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Raccoon rabies has become a major public health concern in many parts of the United States. As you know, unlike foxes, cats or dogs, there's no vaccine against raccoon rabies.

This virus has been moving farther north every year. My riding of Kingston and The Islands borders New York state, where last year the state confirmed 1,761 rabid animals, most of them raccoons. Raccoon rabies could become a serious problem in Ontario as early as next year. What is your ministry doing to protect the province against the spread of this deadly disease?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): As the member alleges, raccoon rabies is quite a serious problem in New York state. It is not yet a problem in Ontario. We have at this point in time met with Agriculture Canada, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Health to look at a funding program which would be available should raccoon rabies become a problem in Ontario.

We recognize that the first line of defence in these issues is always public education and prevention. We want to advise all pet owners that it would be a good idea to have their pets vaccinated. We do know that the current pet vaccination efforts are effective against this strain of raccoon rabies. We'd also advise people not to pick up and transport wild animals such as raccoons or foxes or other wild animals of that variety.

Mr Gary Wilson: The provincial costs of treating an infestation are significantly higher than the costs of preventing the spread of rabies. Why has our government reduced funding for rabies programs when this is clearly the most cost-effective solution?

Hon Mr Hampton: In fact, the Ministry of Natural Resources, over the past few years, has initiated a number of research programs for dealing with fox rabies and other strains of rabies. Many of these research programs have been quite successful. In fact, Ontario is the first jurisdiction to develop a fox vaccination bait to counteract rabies. As some of these research projects have wound down or have been concluded --

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): When are you going to start using that?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Grey.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- funding for them has been withdrawn. So I want to point out to the member that in fact we are still very active on the rabies front and in dealing with raccoon rabies --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Grey please come to order.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- but we have withdrawn funding on some of the research projects that have been brought to a conclusion.

1440

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a question about tourism. In the absence of the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, I was going to go to the Premier. Now I guess I'll have to go to the Deputy Premier.

Members of the Legislature, especially the member for Quinte, along with every resident in eastern Ontario, are aware that the Tourism ministry has forced closure of seven eastern Ontario parks since 1990. Also aware of these closures are potential tourists who have been turned away simply because the remaining area parks are not sufficient to accommodate them at certain times.

I have pleaded with every successive Tourism minister that private investors be allowed to reopen the parks. I even have with me today a tender notice that states that the St Lawrence Parks Commission, which is an agency of the Tourism ministry, invites innovative business proposals from both the public sector and private sector for tourism-related operations on six waterfront properties along the St Lawrence River. This notice went out almost three years ago, yet interested private investors tell me they are being shunned by this government.

In the absence of the minister and the Premier, Mr Deputy Premier: Is the government truly interested in tourism for eastern Ontario? What concrete steps are you taking to ensure that these parks reopen under a partnership, as this government always preaches?

Hon Mr Laughren (Deputy Premier): I appreciate the fact that the member for Cornwall was able to get the question to me in the absence of others here today. I wanted to assure the member -- because I know he does have an ongoing and abiding interest in tourism, particularly as it affects eastern Ontario, and tourism is a very important sector in this province; we all understand that -- that this government is interested not only in tourism but in promoting tourism and in doing so in partnership with the private sector. I would simply ask the member to send over to me what information he has, so that I can then share it with the Minister of Tourism and we can have a meaningful and fruitful discussion on the issue which the member has so appropriately raised.

Mr Cleary: I will be delighted to do that, Mr Deputy Premier, because I've been shooting it over to that side of the House for a considerable time now.

Earlier this month, on July 18, I personally witnessed potential visitors being turned away because there was no room at the parks that remained open. Media reports say that as many as 1,500 people were turned away.

Does this government not understand the implications of how this affects our local economy? This coming weekend is another holiday weekend, yet we are no closer to having the parks reopened. As a result, I fear that more visitors will be turned away. It is obvious that everyone would gain if the parks were open, including regional investment, job creation in park maintenance and administration, local economy spinoff and of course our tourists, who we'd like to accommodate.

It is well known that this government is dragging its feet or perhaps outright opposing the eastern Ontario tourism base by refusing to take an active role in this matter.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question?

Mr Cleary: What will you personally do to ensure negotiations are complete by the end of this summer and that we will all benefit from the parks being reopened?

Hon Mr Laughren: I reject the rather unusually partisan nature of the member's question. I just spent this past weekend in a wonderful, wonderful provincial park in my own constituency called Wakami park, and I invite all members to visit Wakami at some point, because the provincial park system in this province is second to none anywhere in North America. We really do have a wonderful provincial park system.

I do take seriously the question from the member for Cornwall and I will have a discussion with the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

FEES FOR USE OF CROWN LAND

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has discovered that you will be charging new fees for public services which have always been available free of charge in this province. You're planning, I understand, to charge new fees for caching boats on crown land, for mandatory cottage and home inspection, for camping on crown land, and get this, Mr Speaker, he's also going to have a licence fee for ice huts for the fishermen. Now, that should turn the angler cold if nothing else does. How do you justify these user fees on crown land?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The member should not believe everything he reads or everything he hears at third hand. In fact much of what the member relates is simply not accurate, and I want to tell him that here now.

The Ministry of Natural Resources was asked by the Ministry of Finance in the budget to look at possible non-tax revenue sources. We have looked at some areas of crown land where crown land is currently being used and is of some value and yet is not being paid for. We have also looked at inequitable situations where some users of crown land are in fact paying a fee but other users who are identically situated or similarly situated are paying no fee whatsoever. But I want to tell the member opposite that no decisions have been reached on these issues, and certainly some of the details which he has related today are quite inaccurate.

Mr Jordan: I quote from the news release of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters:

"The fees will slap a tax on ice fishermen for using a hut. The fees will charge for caching boats on crown land -- another blow to anglers and tourism -- effectively charge people for protecting the environment by hitting cottagers and home owners with a charge for getting MNR site inspections done."

Taking that, as you stated, you're going to have selective choices from this list, I ask you, how much revenue will be raised from these taxes and where will the money go? Will it go to conservation or towards the government's deficit?

Hon Mr Hampton: Let me say again to the member that his list is quite inaccurate. But let me also point out something else to the member. In fact, in many areas of northern Ontario, controlling the number of boats that are cached on a lake is the way in which we try to lower the pressure on the fishery. To allow an unregulated number of boats to be cached on a lake is simply to invite overfishing. So I would ask the member to be mindful of that.

Similarly, on many lakes in northwestern and northeastern Ontario, we do have problems with people who put ice-fishing huts, or in some cases ice-fishing cabins, on lakes and do not remove them in time. We have had some problems with that on some lakes. We have problems with garbage disposal. So some of the issues the member raises are bona fide conservation issues or environmental issues.

1450

I just want to say to the member that even though we charge fishing licence fees and other resource user fees, what we in fact charge in this province comes nowhere close to matching the amount of money we put into fish and wildlife management, fish and wildlife conservation, fish and wildlife protection in this province every year.

PICKERING AIRPORT LANDS

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Yesterday I rose in this House to indicate that the residents in the North Pickering lands, the lands that were expropriated over 21 years ago by the federal government, are again in a case of uncertainty. Their lives are in turmoil because they do not know what is going to happen to them. They have been put on 30-day leases by the federal government. It has also come to my attention that the federal government has an independence in the lands that they own and that they can do what they wish with them.

Given that these lands are 80% class 1 agricultural lands and given that we have on repeated occasions indicated the need to preserve agricultural lands, could the minister tell us today, tell me, tell my residents, what can be done to help preserve this agricultural land for future generations?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I think probably the best answer to the member's question comes from what the provincial government did with the south Pickering lands that are owned by the provincial government, where we made a decision to protect about 6,000 acres of those lands for agriculture. We've been meeting with the community groups in the Rouge area, working with them to see what we can do to preserve that land for agriculture.

I think the federal government would be well advised to follow a similar pattern rather than what is being suggested by the member, that they're simply going to sell off the North Pickering lands and not be concerned about agriculture, not be concerned about their future. So I think my advice that we would give the federal government is it should follow our example and preserve those lands for agriculture.

Mr Wiseman: Under the worst-case scenario it is possible for the federal government to subdivide all of these lands into quarter-acre estate lots, creating a huge influx into the market, put them on the market, and the people who have bought them would then find that perhaps they are both under the regulations of the Planning Act and under the official plan.

My question to the minister is this: In the element of fairness and the element of clarifying what would happen to those lands, perhaps the minister could explain exactly what jurisdictional processes they would be covered under should those lands be sold back to people, back to the private sector in Ontario.

Hon Mr Buchanan: They would have to come under official plans, the same as any other development. I think the question the member raises, though, is around the fear and the concerns of people who live there, who I understand are on 30-day cancellation leases. If you're involved in agriculture, 30 days' cancellation is not a very long time.

I think we need to urge the federal government to clarify what its intent is on that land right away and get on with planning in the Pickering north and south areas so that we can preserve agricultural land. This is good agricultural land and we would like the federal government to be committed as much as we are in terms of preserving the good agricultural land for the future of Ontario.

DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Your ministry is saving about $60 million a year, having cut off Ontario residents from going to the United States for drug rehabilitation programs, as you know.

Your predecessor has made us a promise about what to do with the savings. This money, she said, would be used to create better drug rehabilitation services in Ontario. Instead, you have made cuts across all programs and, to use a specific example, reduced the number of beds at the Addiction Research Foundation, a methadone clinic, from 60 beds to 20 beds. What is a person going to do once he or she gets off drugs and is being told: "Come back in one year. We might be able to help you then"?

When will you keep the promise made to us and to thousands of addicts who are looking to you to help them get off drugs? When will you keep that promise?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say to the member that in fact there has been a considerable reinvestment in health care, and in fact in reduction in drug addiction, as a result of the savings that were achieved by reducing out-of-country health care.

In the member's own community, a methadone clinic is I hope going to be opening in the very near future, where a number of people who are suffering from an addiction can be treated. So I reject his charge that there has not been a provision of extra services.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

It is signed by 233 constituents. I affix my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Again, I add to the thousands of signatures which are against casino gambling in the province of Ontario:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I'm very glad to affix my signature to this very fine petition.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have two petitions which are identical in nature signed by 297 constituents of Sarnia and the surrounding area. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

I present this petition.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have petitions here signed by over 4,000 residents of St George-St David, and Mr Murphy asked me to read them on his behalf.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Free and open collective bargaining for teachers has had a long and honourable history in Ontario. In order for change to occur, all parties must work cooperatively, not independently, where one party would be seen as working unilaterally in its own interest. The current economic situation requires both the government and teachers to work together to find an equitable solution.

"The social contract will deny teachers their rightful salaries/jobs and eliminate valuable programs and services for students.

"We ask that the government restore immediately the principles of free and open collective bargaining for teachers. The government must also maintain its share of the funding for public education as defined prior to the June 9, 1993, announcement of reduction in payments to school boards."

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with 431 signatures to add to the many thousands that have already been read here on this solution:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to the rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

1500

PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from some 47 members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 55. It's addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That free and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to its honourable position in Ontario;

"The social contract in its present form be destroyed and that the valuable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians;

"The government withdraw Bill 48, and in place of this bill the government work cooperatively with the public sector unions to find equitable solutions rather than eliminating valuable public sector services."

HEALTH CARE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

That petition is signed by a number of constituents in my riding.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a petition from the people throughout Etobicoke: Etobicoke-Humber, Etobicoke West, Etobicoke-Lakeshore and Etobicoke-Rexdale, and I will read it:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas these proposals will result in severe reductions in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to a rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

I myself have signed this and wish to turn it in.

GO TRANSIT

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition that was presented to me last Thursday at the Stouffville Legion from GO bus drivers. A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers and will substantially increase the travelling time for all users; and

"Whereas the lack of transit service will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels at a time when all levels of government are making efforts to reduce pollution and to encourage public transportation systems; and

"Whereas the cuts will leave no alternative means commuting of in or out of Toronto for individuals with flexible working arrangements and child care commitments (the earliest train departs from downtown Toronto at 5:20); and

"Whereas it will have a negative impact on the local economy; and

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers to incur extra expenses, finding and using alternative forms of transportation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"To object to the proposed cuts of GO bus services to Stouffville and Uxbridge, and we demand that the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision, to continue the GO bus service to Stouffville and Uxbridge."

They have offered a lot of alternatives, including a survey, and I hope they will present that. I have signed my name to it.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario:

"That free and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to its honourable position in Ontario;

"The social contract in its present form be destroyed and that the valuable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians;

"The government withdraw Bill 48, and in place of this bill that the government work cooperatively with the public service unions to find an equitable solution rather than eliminating valuable public services."

I have also signed that petition.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I affix my signature.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition signed by 26 members of Local 1802 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers employed by Sarnia Hydro. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, strenuously object to the use of our pension fund for the purpose of contributing to the proposed Ontario investment fund. The OIF, if established, would invest pension funds in venture capital high-risk types of investments. Pension moneys should not be used in such a manner and to date the OMERS board has made sound investments which ensure our retirement income and protect our future. That is what a properly run, soundly administered pension fund should do."

I present the petition.

TECHNICAL FEES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have another petition presented by a number of residents in the riding of Kenora. It reads:

"As patients and taxpayers requiring radiology, ultrasound and nuclear radiation services, we support radiologists' efforts to provide high-quality care for their patients. Cutbacks in fees will affect the quality of health care we receive, impact the accuracy of diagnosis due to limitations on modern equipment, increase waiting lists and prevent the radiologists and their staffs from providing the services they are trained to do. Reducing technical fees will have a grave impact on the delivery of high-quality medical imaging. We are deeply concerned that the government is proposing to unilaterally decrease technical fees, which will adversely impact diagnostic imaging, lower the level of health care and impact the quality of diagnosis."

I have attached my name to that as well.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Constituents from my riding of Oakville South have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here addressed to the members of the provincial Parliament. The petition reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on the retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendments to the Retail Business Holiday Act of Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I present the petition on behalf of some 200 signatures.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas the large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than before;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I affix my signature to this very fine petition.

1510

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EXPENDITURE REDUCTION AND NON-TAX REVENUES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RÉDUCTIONS DES DÉPENSES ET LES RECETTES NON FISCALES

On motion by Mr Laughren, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 81, An Act to amend certain Acts to reduce certain Expenditures and to provide for the increase of certain Revenues as referred to in the 1993 Budget / Loi modifiant certaines lois afin de réduire certaines dépenses et de prévoir l'augmentation de certaines recettes comme le prévoit le budget de 1993.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This bill amends seven statutes in order to implement revenue-raising and expenditure-reducing measures referred to in this year's budget. The acts being amended are: the Corporations Information Act, the Extra-Provincial Corporations Act, the Small Business Development Corporations Act, the Health Insurance Act, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, the Game and Fish Act and the Public Lands Act.

The requirement for corporations operating in Ontario to file an annual return is being reinstated. The fee payable with the annual return will provide added revenue to the province, and the information from the annual return will provide far more current and up-to-date information on corporations to the public and the government than is now the case.

The program for grants under the Small Business Development Corporations Act will be phased out this year. This measure will save both program and administration costs.

In addition to providing for some administrative matters under the Health Insurance Act, amendments will provide that entitlement to health insurance coverage is based on residence in Ontario rather than on being the dependent of an insured person. Provision is also made for payment towards the cost of accommodation for treatment for mental disorders in certain hospitals and facilities.

The amendments to the Ontario Drug Benefit Act authorize different dispensing fees for different circumstances. For example, lower fees can be paid to reflect the greater efficiency and economy to an operator of a high volume of prescriptions. Dispensing fees paid by the government will be better able to take account of economies of scale, location and method of operation, and thus reduce cost to government where that is appropriate.

Amendments to the Ontario Drug Benefit Act also permit establishing conditions when a product will be a listed product whose cost will be reimbursed. This provision could reduce costs by requiring, for example, that the price of certain costly products will be reimbursed only if less expensive options had failed or are shown to be likely to fail.

Beginning in 1994 provision is made for a royalty to be paid to the province from commercial fishing.

Finally, the province will raise additional revenues through the amendments to the Public Lands Act authorizing additional charges for the use of our water resources to generate hydro-electric power.

The amendments in this bill play an important part in promoting administrative efficiencies, raising additional revenue and reducing expenditures. They are small but important steps in the government's deficit reduction program, and I believe they merit the support of all members of this House.

OWEN SOUND LITTLE THEATRE ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Murdoch, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr35, An Act to revive Owen Sound Little Theatre.

BUDGET STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN FONCTION DU BUDGET

On motion by Mr Laughren, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 84, An Act to amend certain Acts to eliminate the Commercial Concentration Tax and reduce certain expenditures as referred to in the 1993 Budget / Loi modifiant certaines lois afin d'éliminer l'impôt sur les concentrations commerciales et de réduire certaines dépenses comme le prévoit le budget de 1993.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This bill amends several statutes in order to eliminate the commercial concentration tax and implement revenueraising and expenditure-reducing measures referred to in the budget. The acts being amended are the Legal Aid Act, the Business Corporations Act, the Corporations Act, the Centennial Centre of Science and Technology Act, the St Lawrence Parks Commission Act, the Commercial Concentration Tax Act and the Employee Share Ownership Plan Act.

Assessment officers under the Legal Aid Act will now be provided by the Ontario legal aid plan. Expenditures of the Ministry of Community and Social Services will be reduced as the cost of assessments for legal aid is assumed by the plan.

The program for grants under the Employee Share Ownership Plan Act will be phased out this year. These measures will save both program and administrative costs.

Changes to the act governing the Ontario Science Centre and the St Lawrence Parks Commission will allow these agencies to set their fees for admission to, and use of, their facilities. The fees will be retained and applied to further the objectives of the agencies and will no longer be required to be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. As a result, the expenditures voted for these agencies will no longer include amounts to replace the fees they collect. Provisions are included in the amendments that require the agencies to provide to treasury board an annual expenditure plan that will be implemented as approved by treasury board.

Finally, the commercial concentration tax on parking lots is eliminated on July 1. The commercial concentration tax on all other property is eliminated at the end of this calendar year.

The several amendments in this bill eliminate the commercial concentration tax and play an important part in promoting administrative efficiencies, raising additional revenue and reducing expenditures. They are small but important steps in the government's deficit reduction program, and I believe they merit the support of all members of this House.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES GAINS RÉALISÉS À LA SUITE D'UN ACTE CRIMINEL

On motion by Mr Jackson, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime / Loi visant à empêcher les personnes de s'enrichir injustement des gains réalisés à la suite d'un acte criminel.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would the honourable member have some brief remarks?

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Yes, I would, Mr Speaker. The House would be familiar with the fact that on two occasions I've introduced a victims' bill of rights, and one of the sections within there talks about criminals profiting from their recollections, for selling their stories to newspapers, to television media, to book publishers, and profiting.

This bill requires that moneys that would be payable to an accused, a convicted or admitted criminal or a member or former member of that person's family for the sale of his or her recollections or for interviews or public appearances instead be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and that the board is required to use these funds received to satisfy any judgements obtained by victims of crime in the province of Ontario.

1520

The Acting Speaker: Orders of the day.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, just before we move to the orders of the day, I believe we, first of all, have agreement to sit till 8:30 this evening.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have agreement to sit till 8:30 this evening? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: Secondly, I'll be calling the first bill, Bill 8, the casinos act, and then later in the day Bill 50, which is the health expenditure control plan. I believe we have agreement that at 6:15 this evening we will adjourn the casinos act debate and move then to Bill 50.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement to discontinue debate on Bill 8 at 6:15? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of 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): The honourable member for Parry Sound had the floor when last we debated this, and he may resume his participation.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): It is my pleasure to continue on in this debate. We really just started to touch on the subject of referendums and why or why not the government seemed to have a problem with a referendum on the question of casino gambling in the province of Ontario.

I believe I left off last evening by indicating that the minister's response seems to be predicated on the fact that she regards the referendum process as an American process and not applicable in Canada. I reminded her at the very end of the debate last evening, at about 8:30, that indeed her Premier, and I think rightly so, and her government spent a great deal of time and money last year, many months, with respect to the referendum on the Constitution, which was Canada-wide.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): That was Brian's idea.

Mr Eves: The Minister of Natural Resources says, "That was Brian's idea." I happen to have been at those meetings, and it was an idea agreed to by all first ministers in this country, including the Premier of this province, and as I said, I think rightly so.

I don't think the fact that in the past American jurisdictions have had referendums more frequently than Canadian jurisdictions precludes any of us in Canadian jurisdictions. In fact, if you listen to what the public is saying and the support that different parties across the country have in different regions of the country, I think the people actually want a change in our political style here in the province of Ontario and indeed in Canada. The public wants to have more direct input into what's going on in society, especially, I think, moral issues that affect them directly, such as this issue of casino gambling.

I indicated in a question to the minister yesterday that in numerous American jurisdictions, including Michigan, Mississippi, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio and South Dakota, referendums have been held on this very issue of casino gambling. Some jurisdictions have accepted the idea of casino gambling and some have not, but the important fact is that the people in those jurisdictions have decided, not particular governments, not state governments, not city government. The people have decided.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): What would happen to stable funding?

Mr Eves: The member opposite talks about stable funding. I didn't know that stable funding was a moral issue. If he's listening to what I said, I said on moral issues, which should be non-partisan and non-political, such as, for example, abortion, capital punishment, casino gambling. Those are moral issues on which I think the people have a right to have some input to decide in this country and, in this case, in this province.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Parry Sound has the floor. Please allow him to continue. If other honourable members want to participate, they will have the opportunity.

Mr Eves: I didn't think I was being very provocative at all, but it's hot and it's late in July and maybe these members have to have something to talk about, so they're getting a little concerned.

The minister also mentioned yesterday that I didn't say anything about casino gambling in Manitoba, I didn't say anything about casino gambling in British Columbia, I didn't say anything about casino gambling in Quebec. Well, that's true. There are, however, some differences in some of those jurisdictions, perhaps not the province of Quebec: They're not up and running yet; I understand they're going to be operational later this year.

But let's take Manitoba for an example, one of the ones the minister wanted me to look at. The minister will know that the casino in the Hotel Fort Garry in Winnipeg is owned and operated by the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation, not by some private enterprise. All moneys are directed to the health care system and very specifically directed to the health services development fund. The minister will also know that two years of research was done by the Manitoba government before it even thought about introducing a casino into the Hotel Fort Garry that is owned and operated and run by the province.

The province of Ontario is not going to own and operate its casino; it's not going to be owned by the province of Ontario. They're seeking proposals from numerous large corporate entities that are, in a very big way and a very real way, involved in casinos in other places in the world. She will also know that the Ontario casino is not going to specifically earmark its funds for a charitable purpose for the health care system, as is done in the province of Manitoba.

Also look at the attendance, if you want to compare the size of those two entities. The casino in Manitoba has about 400,000 visitors a year. It is anticipated by the ministry's own documentation and by the city of Windsor that the Windsor casino will handle anywhere from 12,000 to 20,000 patrons a day, which even at the bottom figure is 4,380,000 a year; a little bit different operation, I would suggest to you, from what is being proposed here, different from the one that is operational in the province of Manitoba.

British Columbia was another jurisdiction the minister indicated some interest in. British Columbia has established a system of charitably run casinos. This was the result of a 1987 task force which reorganized the regulation of gambling in the province, giving the province greater control and ensuring that casinos may only be operated for the benefit of recognized charities.

There again, that is totally different from what is being proposed for this jurisdiction here in the province of Ontario. It's like, as I think the member for Brampton North said yesterday, comparing apples to oranges. They are totally different entities.

I'm not saying I'm against them. All I am suggesting to the minister is to let the people decide. That is the only point I'm making in this entire discussion about referendums and whether or not we should have casino gambling in the province of Ontario.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A quorum call, please.

The Acting Speaker: Would the Clerk check to see if we have a quorum.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): 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 Parry Sound may resume his participation in the debate.

Interjection.

Mr Eves: It wasn't my fault.

The last issue I want to touch on in this portion of my discussion is Bill 8 itself. I don't think that we've spent very much time -- and I'm sure in committee we will be debating the particulars of Bill 8.

1530

There is one aspect of Bill 8 that is kind of troubling, however, and that is that there will be a Gaming Control Hearings Panel established under the bill. This panel will be a panel under the auspices of the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal, and I understand the need for such a panel, I'm not debating nor disputing that fact.

The interesting thing I do find about this particular panel, though, is that there will be no appeal from a decision of this panel, unlike other panels of the same tribunal. I don't know exactly all the panels, but I'm assuming there's one in the trucking industry, for example. Every other panel in this commission has the ability to appeal a decision that it doesn't like to Divisional Court, if I'm not mistaken, but this panel will not be appealable from. That is my understanding of the legislation. If that indeed is the case, I think it is an issue that bears looking at by us in committee, and I'm saying that in a constructive sense to the minister, not a critical sense.

The next issue I want to touch on very briefly is the issue of experience. I take some of the comments that the minister has said quite seriously. I would agree that no two situations are exactly the same. Atlantic City is not the same as Ontario or Windsor; just like Manitoba is not the same as Ontario or Windsor; just like British Columbia is not the same. I think you have to deal with each situation on its merits.

My point about raising some of these issues in the Legislature is not that I don't want to see a casino in Windsor, is not that I don't want to see casino gambling. I do want to make sure, however, that we in this jurisdiction avoid some of the pitfalls that some of the other jurisdictions have fallen into, and Atlantic City, of course, is the most obvious one, so I guess it's the easiest one to refer to.

Infrastructure: If you talk to the city council --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): How are you going to vote?

Mr Eves: We'll get to that. You're going to get to see how I vote on this issue as you're going to get to see how every other member of the Legislature votes on this issue.

Mr Perruzza: Give us a sneak preview.

Mr Eves: Listen for the next hour and nine minutes and 20 seconds and you might find out.

Developing the downtown: There are numerous quotes which I will come to in a few minutes, and I won't read them all, but suffice it to say that the downtown business core in Atlantic City -- the merchants' association and various other associations would now admit that they made a mistake, that the jurisdiction made a mistake when it introduced casino gambling.

They did not put the proper infrastructure in place. They did not do their homework before they introduced casinos. They introduced casinos and then tried to deal with the problems that they created, the fallout later on, and that led to horrendous problems in Atlantic City and problems for which they're still paying. Just one of the issues that I think we have to look at when we're talking about this issue is the infrastructure that we are putting in place to make sure that doesn't happen in the Windsor experience.

I've raised a few other issues from time to time during question period and in members' statements as well. One big issue that I'll touch more on later as well is the issue of money laundering. Because we have not had a history of casinos, or our history of casinos in Canada, in Canadian jurisdictions, is very short on a comparative basis to the United States of America and other places, we don't seem to have in place any revenue measures or laws that go out of their way to prevent money laundering.

Money laundering is a very big issue anywhere you have a casino, because it is quite simple for people who have obtained moneys by less than lawful means to use casinos as a laundering process. As a result, in the United States of America, for example, the Internal Revenue Service has developed rules and regulations and laws that require that any time there is a cash transaction in excess of $10,000, that must be reported to the Internal Revenue Service and the casino where the deposit is being made is required to fill out a form and file that form with all the particulars immediately.

That is lacking, as far as I can see, in the province of Ontario. In fact, it's lacking in Canada, period. I'm not suggesting that it is solely the province of Ontario's problem, but I would submit to the minister that I think that issue bears substantial consideration before the Windsor casino project proceeds.

Hopefully, the federal government will see its way clear, with your prodding, I hope, to do something about that issue. But if it doesn't, I would submit to the minister, I would ask that the province of Ontario seriously consider a similar reporting requirement by provincial law if the federal government indeed is not willing to cooperate on a national basis, which is how I would prefer that the matter be dealt with.

There's the issue of increased crime. We'll get to that in a minute; I have a file on it as well. But as I've pointed out at various times, and other members have as well, there are, unfortunately, some side-effects that go hand in hand with casino gambling in whatever jurisdiction it has ever been introduced in. Money laundering is one, and increased petty crimes of all kinds. I note that there are 10 or 12 casinos in Atlantic City, and so it's a larger problem, but the crime rate there went up 171% over the first three years casinos were in place in Atlantic City.

As Donald Trump himself says, with casino gambling come some not-so-nice aspects. Sure the income comes, the money comes, but there are some side-effects that aren't so wonderful: drug trafficking, increased petty crimes of all kinds, increased prostitution, policing costs, policing needs, societal costs, gambling addiction. What's the effect or fallout going to be on charitable organizations, in this case particularly, in the Windsor area? What's the fallout going be on the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario, but then again in particular on Windsor Raceway?

I think we have to have a game plan with respect to all of these aspects before we jump into the casino gambling game, so to speak. Another thing that concerns me is that I don't know why we are rushing headlong into an interim casino without having done all these things. I mean, the mayor of Windsor has said, and I take him at his word, that the infrastructure will be in place by the time we have a permanent casino up and running in two years' time. Fine. What about the interim casino? Are all these measures going be taken care of before the interim casino is up and running in the city of Windsor? I would think that's a serious question that perhaps we should be asking ourselves.

On gambling in general, I heard a couple of comments yesterday. I think it was the member for Cochrane South who alluded to the fact that these people are going to gamble anyway, so why not have a casino? That may well be true. They are going to gamble anyway. They gamble in forms of lottery. They gamble in forms of horse racing industry now.

There are only so many gambling dollars, like shopping dollars, to go around, though. I think the impact or the fallout that you might find on some of the established, for example, the horse racing industry and agriculture in the province of Ontario, the fallout that you're going find on charitable organizations perhaps is going be a little bit greater than you think it might be.

Governments of all political stripes in all provinces in Canada, and indeed in the United States as well, seem to be becoming more and more addicted themselves to the revenue that's obtained from gambling; Nova Scotia, for example, with respect to its video machines. We have seen recently, in the last few months, where the province of Nova Scotia indeed has pulled the plug, I believe, on some 2,500 video slot machines. They said that they were too easily accessible and they said that they had quite a few instances of people becoming addicted to them. That's a whole other issue I will deal with in due course.

1540

I'd also like to say to the minister that it would be helpful if we could obtain copies of the three studies that are being done with respect to casino gambling, or have been done in two cases, I believe, and perhaps is still being done in the third case.

I do understand, from talking to her House leader earlier, that we are going to be shortly getting the Ernst and Young study of the social impact of the casino on Windsor, and hopefully we will get that later today, but we have been asking for some months now for the report of the Windsor Police Services Board. I first raised this issue in the Legislature back in May, I believe it was.

We've talked to several members of the police services board in Windsor, and they indicate that the ministry has been in possession of this report since about January of this year. They indicate that they would like to release the report themselves but have been instructed by officials in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations not to release the report. They indicated in May that the ministry's wish was that it not be released before June 30. We are now at July 27 and we still haven't received a copy of the report.

One can't help but wonder if the date that's being chosen here just doesn't happen to coincide with the adjournment of the Legislature. I'm sure that's far too cynical. I'm sure that couldn't possibly be the reason. But it is kind of strange that it was June 30 and now it's almost July 31 and we still don't have a copy of this report. But I'd almost be willing to bet that if we adjourned this Thursday, next week somehow that report would find its way into our hands mysteriously.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I can see how you would say that, but it's much too cynical.

Mr Eves: It is much too cynical.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Far too cynical.

Mr Eves: Well, then, I presume we'll be receiving it this afternoon.

The other report, I understand, is the Coopers and Lybrand study. There seems to be some debate as to whether or not that report in its draft form or some other form has been made available to officials in the ministry and whether or not that will be forthcoming soon, and hopefully it will be.

I noted yesterday -- and despite the fact that I wasn't here while the minister was delivering her remarks, I do want her to know that I watched her on television in my office as I was doing some other business and listened quite attentively to what she was saying.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Did she convince you?

Mr Eves: She doesn't need to convince me. I just want to make a few points with respect to some of the things she said.

She indicated that, well, the horse racing industry was concerned and that there were other competing factors that put some pressure on the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario. Two examples she cited were the Toronto Blue Jays baseball team and the success of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team and that that was putting some immense pressure on --

Mr Wood: What about the Argonauts?

Mr Eves: Well, the Argonauts don't put pressure on anybody these days, including their opponents.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): The shareholders maybe.

Mr Eves: Yes, the shareholders. I'm sure they put a lot of pressure on them.

The difference, I would say to the minister with all due respect, is that those two entities are not government-sponsored entities. They're not being paid for by taxpayers' dollars or government money. They are indeed private industry, and I think the horse racing industry expects that competition from private industry.

But there is going to be a very real effect, I believe, on the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario. It has happened in every other jurisdiction where they've introduced casino gambling and had a viable horse racing industry, and there's no reason to believe it will be any different here in the province of Ontario.

Going back to the issue of infrastructure, I would like to deal with a couple of these quotes from the Atlantic City Merchants' Association:

"The right way to do it" -- that is, to introduce casino gambling -- "is to revitalize the downtown first. That way you already have something that can induce people to come out of casinos."

I think that whether you have 10 or 12 or one, that's pretty viable advice. I think it's advice well taken, and although the mayor and the city council and the minister on occasion have assured us that that is being done with respect to the city of Windsor example, is it going to be in place before the interim casino site opens?

Again I come back to my question, why the rush to introduce the interim casino without doing our homework and taking care of these issues I've raised -- and I'm sure there's more that others have raised -- without making sure that the proper infrastructure, not only capital infrastructure but societal infrastructure, is in place as well before we get on the casino gambling industry in the province of Ontario?

Thomas Carver, the president of the Casino Association of New Jersey, had this observation. Interestingly, it's a similar observation to that of Mr Rae before he was the Premier of the province, and that is:

"'It's human greed and public greed basically,' Carver said. 'The real problem is that the government can get so greedy and want so much. I see this repeated over and over again. They see something coming in and they think it's the gravy train, and they assume they'll be able to be a part of it, a result of which becomes milking it for all you can milk it for."'

I don't think this is the goose that lays golden eggs. I know that the mayor of Windsor believes that he is not treating it that way, that he is treating it as a way to diversify the economy of the city of Windsor. I respect that, but I'm not so sure the public sees it that way, I'm not so sure the public understands that this is not going to be the be-all and the end-all to the economic problems of the city of Windsor or any other community in the province of Ontario. I think we have to approach this, as I keep on repeating, in a very orderly, prepared fashion or we're going to regret the day we rushed in perhaps before we should have.

Speaking of the interim site, I want to put on the record concerns that I have raised before about the process with respect to the interim site. Firstly, I have several quotes here, which I will come to in a minute, under the police section of my discussion. I believe I'm correct in saying -- I'm not quoting the Windsor police chief verbatim -- that he didn't see any need to rush into an interim casino site. I believe I even have a quote here from Mayor Hurst himself saying that several months ago, back in January or February of this year. I say again, why the rush?

There were, as I understand it, three basic sites that were being considered for the interim casino in the city of Windsor. Eventually, the government made a political decision that it wanted to locate the site for the interim casino at the art gallery in the city of Windsor, which is a downtown site. That's what one of the purposes of the casino is: to help the downtown core in the city of Windsor.

I quote the ADM, Domenic Alfieri, who is in charge of the casino project team: "It's regrettable it had to happen," and, "These things are not done lightly and one can appreciate why [the losing bidders] are seething. But what I would say to them is, 'Take comfort in the fact that it has never happened before and it is very likely never going to happen again."'

Then we went on and visited this issue previously with respect to the fact that the ministry has indicated to the two losing bidders that it would -- it hasn't said that it would do it, but it has indicated it, as I understand it -- "consider a reasonable request from you for compensation for your actual expenses." That is a quote that comes from a letter, as I understand it, to the losing bidders.

I think it is of some note that the government is proceeding rather rapidly with respect to an interim casino site. I don't see the need. I don't know why we are rushing into an interim casino site before we have some of these difficulties ironed out. We certainly have a problem with the process as to how the interim site was chosen.

If the government had decided that it was going to, for whatever reasons, its own reasons, locate the interim site downtown, fair enough, but I think it would have been fair and equitable to indicate that ahead of time to the bidders that submitted bids, especially the one from Windsor Raceway, well out of the downtown core in the city of Windsor. What you have is an entity that spent, I believe, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200,000 putting together a proposal which, as it turned out in the end, had absolutely no chance of success or succeeding.

1550

Another issue that I would like to touch on briefly with respect to casino gambling in the city of Windsor and proposals are the numerous groups that paid their deposit and therefore requested the information that was required to submit a proposal, one of which, of course, was Sun International, which operates a resort, Sun City, in South Africa.

This was an issue of some concern, not only raised by myself but I believe by other members of the Legislature as well over a period of a few days or a couple of weeks. The minister seemed to be intent on saying that because they didn't make it to the short list and fell off the list, or chose, by their description, to no longer proceed of their own free will and volition for business reasons, not for political reasons -- she seems to think that there was nothing wrong with the fact that officials in her ministry indeed were discussing the possibility of Sun City filing a proposal, that there was nothing wrong with them seeking information.

In fact, the officials at Sun City whom we talked to indicated that they were totally unaware of the Ontario government's policy of not dealing with South African companies until we told them that in a telephone conversation. I'm just telling the minister that's exactly what the chief financial officer of Sun International told us on the telephone: that at no time was he told by officials of the ministry that they could not deal with him. He told us that he decided his company was not going to proceed because they currently were proceeding with proposals or bids on casinos in Athens and Amsterdam and just didn't feel that it could do Windsor at the same time, and that this was the reason why they withdrew.

Hon Ms Churley: That's not the way it happened.

Mr Eves: Well, the minister says, "That's not the way it happened." Obviously, she has been told by officials in her ministry that this is not the case. This gentleman says that is the case. Obviously, they're not on the same wavelength and they don't have the same recollection.

I want to deal a little bit with the effect on the horse racing industry and with the effect that casino gambling will have on charitable organizations in the province of Ontario, in particular in the Windsor area. As I have stated, I believe there are only so many gambling dollars to go around, just like there are only so many shopping dollars to go around. People are going to spend them somewhere and they're going to make a decision as to how they're going to spend them.

The reality is that if residents in the city of Windsor decide they're going to spend their gambling dollars primarily in a casino, then they are not going to be spending them in charitable casinos and they're not going to be spending them with charitable organizations in the Windsor area. They are also not going to be spending them at Windsor Raceway, which I understand has been in financial difficulty prior to this even being discussed and is going to be in great financial difficulty, perhaps out of business, if the casino project in Windsor proceeds.

That is a decision the government has to assume some responsibility for, because I don't think it's going into this totally blind with respect to the impact that it will have on the horse racing industry either province-wide or, in particular, in the city of Windsor proper.

Mr Hope: Stuck for comments?

Mr Eves: Stuck for comments? No, I don't think so. I've got about three more files here.

Mr Wood: You got one guy supporting you sitting back in the corner, Ernie.

Mr Eves: Oh, good. The honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton. I've got a file on him too, a lot of quotes from Dennis in here somewhere.

I'm sure the minister has a copy of this. The Coalition Against Casino Gambling in the Province of Ontario, in part supported by the horse racing industry and various aspects of the horse racing industry, has presented a brief, and I'm sure she has this brief in her possession.

They estimate that there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50,000 jobs directly or indirectly created by the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario. Their estimate is also that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 9,500 to 18,500 of those jobs will be lost if the casino gambling industry, and I might add this "if," is in place in the province of Ontario.

I'm not suggesting that just the Windsor casino would have that impact on the horse racing industry, and I don't think they are either, to be fair to them. There are however, as I understand it, in the neighbourhood of some 500 people or persons who are directly employed by Windsor Raceway, which is directly in the Windsor area. I think it's safe to say that if Windsor Raceway closes, those 500 people are going to be out of work in the Windsor area as a result of casino gambling being introduced.

By the way, before I leave that particular point, those figures aren't just taken out of the air. They are figures that are based on practical experiences in other jurisdictions that have had a viable horse racing industry before casino gambling was introduced.

I think it's fair to say that the general effect has been, in very rounded-off terms, that about a third of the betting handle is lost at racetracks in jurisdictions that introduce casino gambling into their jurisdiction. There is no reason to believe that this experience will be any different here in the province of Ontario if indeed we go ahead on a more widespread basis with casino gambling throughout the province of Ontario. I don't think there's any doubt that it will have a very direct and adversarial impact on Windsor Raceway as a direct result of introducing a casino into the Windsor area.

What about the charitable organizations that have a stake in this, especially in the Windsor area? I asked the minister on one occasion if she would be interested in diverting some funds raised by casino gambling in the city of Windsor to the horse racing industry in the city, to charitable organizations in the city. I believe, and I'm sure the minister will correct me if I'm wrong, that she unequivocally stated that no, she was not interested in diverting any funds to those charitable organizations or to Windsor Raceway, or to the horse racing industry for that matter, out of the money the province would make or indeed the operator would make with respect to introducing casino gambling in the city of Windsor.

I again would ask her to reconsider that. I would think that of the proposals that are being submitted by various companies and entities, maybe she would want to look at insisting that they include in their proposals some way of assisting those organizations that are going to have a very adverse impact as a result of introducing this into the community in the Windsor area. I think the experience is going to show that especially charitable organizations are going to be very hard hit indeed, and I think experience will show that in a few months or a year after the casino opens, there won't be a Windsor Raceway operating in the Windsor area.

I also noted with some interest a press release that came across our desks yesterday with respect to the minister announcing new charitable gaming policies for the province of Ontario. These go into effect on August 1, which of course is next week. The government is now, by these new rules, going to regulate the issue of Monte Carlo licences more closely, monitor the growth of activities and help maximize the profits, so it says, for charitable organizations, but it's becoming more restrictive as to what these charitable organizations can do, or these charitable casinos or casino charity -- charity casinos is I guess how they really describe themselves -- throughout most of the province of Ontario.

I'm a little concerned here again if the province isn't getting into direct competition, by opening a casino and maybe more casinos in the weeks and months and years to come, with these charitable organizations that have sought this out as a source of revenue. One might wonder if the ministry is now trying to make it more restrictive for charitable organizations to operate such charitable casinos because it doesn't want the competition for its own casino. I think it's going to impact very directly on a lot of these organizations that do some very good work throughout the province of Ontario, and I'm sure they do very good work in the Windsor area as well.

1600

Crime and policing, I think, is a really big issue with respect to casino gambling wherever it is. I noted yesterday that the minister indicated, I believe it was in response to the member for Brampton North -- is that correct? -- about consultation with the RCMP and the OPP.

I don't doubt for a moment that the province of Ontario and the ministry have had consultation with the RCMP and the OPP, but I don't believe the consultation was in the form of a question: "Do you want us to introduce casino gambling into the city of Windsor?" I believe the consultation probably went more like: "We're introducing casino gambling into the city of Windsor. Now can we sit down and talk about how we're going to deal with the problems that we're going to create for you people by introducing it here in the first place?"

I would be very surprised if the RCMP and the OPP rubbed their hands with glee and said: "Oh goody, goody, you're going to introduce casino gambling into the province of Ontario. We can hardly wait for all the social ramifications that you're going to bring upon us."

Mr Hope: You never know. Some may want to go there.

Mr Eves: You never know? Are you suggesting that the RCMP and the OPP would be in favour of introducing casino gambling into the province? I would suggest that they probably would not.

Mr Hope: Do they take vacations in Las Vegas and other places to go gambling?

Mr Eves: I would think that would be the farthest thing from their desires: to introduce not just casino gambling but all the other problems we've alluded to that go hand-in-hand with it.

I've already touched on the issue and I won't go through it again at any length with respect to the Windsor Police Services Board report except to say that I certainly hope we receive that report before the House adjourns; that means, ie, today, tomorrow, Thursday at the very latest.

Hon Ms Churley: It's their report.

Mr Eves: The minister comments that it's their report. They seem to be under the impression, from at least one member of the board whom I spoke to, that they are not at liberty, under the direction of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, to release the report until the ministry says they can. So I guess it's back to you, Minister.

I'm now looking at an article in the Windsor Star on March 31 of this year: "Windsor police won't be ready for a temporary casino, Chief Jim Adkin said Tuesday," and he goes on to explain why he wouldn't be ready. He goes on to explain the problems that it's going to create, that it won't be big enough to accommodate all the people who want to get in etc. Again, I think that underscores the point I made, that I don't know why we are rushing headlong into the idea of an interim casino before we have ironed out the problems of money laundering, increased crime, societal costs.

Do we have programs in place for gambling addiction? As I understand it, there isn't one single program anywhere in the country of Canada for gambling addiction, and that currently people who have to be treated for that addiction -- like any other addiction for which treatment is required -- have to go to the United States to get treatment, and that treatment is anywhere from $15,000 to $20,000 per person.

Are we going to ensure, when we set up this interim casino -- and the permanent casino, for that matter -- in the city of Windsor that sufficient funds out of the proceeds are going to be set aside to deal with the societal problem we are going to help create by placing casino gambling within our jurisdiction? It is going to happen. It's happened everywhere else that they have casino gambling and it's going to happen here, and I think it's an interesting and a very serious problem.

The province of Nova Scotia -- I was listening to CBC Newsworld about a week ago -- has alluded to this problem, the great cost it's placing on its provincial health care plan because it has to send the gambling addicts it has created to the United States for treatment. Are we going to do the same thing here in the province of Ontario?

I think we, as government, have to assume responsibility for that. If we're going to introduce this into the province, I think we have to be responsible and recognize the fact that the reality is that there are going to be people who will become gambling addicts as a result of the casino, and we're going to have to deal with their problems in a very real and direct way and have programs in place before or at the same time as the casino is up and running.

Organized crime: I haven't got into that in a great way. I will touch on it briefly. I note that the minister has been quoted on several occasions, and here is one quote from the Windsor Star of June 25 of this year, a quote from the minister: "'I categorically say we don't want anybody involved with the casino who has broken the law,' she said. 'I have said I want it to be squeaky clean and we don't want anybody who has broken the law involved in our casino."'

I believe that came as a result of a question I and perhaps others asked in the Legislature about an article in Eye magazine listing 10 casinos in Atlantic City that have contravened the regulation of the IRS that I alluded to earlier to prevent money laundering through casinos in the United States of America. The IRS found 11,829 instances of failure to file cash reporting forms by 10 Atlantic City casinos. The fine for each count is $25,000, but the casinos were levelled penalties totalling only $2.48 million.

The interesting point of the article, I found and I believe others found as well, was that of those 10, five then, and I believe now four, are on the list for obtaining proposal information and supposedly submitting proposals to the Ontario government to operate the casino in the city of Windsor. I would remind the minister again of her words that she wants to keep the operation here "squeaky clean," as she describes it. I think that we need not only a similar law or penalty as they have in the United States with respect to money laundering, but I also think we might want to pay some attention to those we are dealing with and what their past track record has been in other jurisdictions.

The cost of policing: I believe, and again I'm sure the minister will correct me if I'm wrong, that she has stated that they are now saying to the city of Windsor police department that they are going to provide them with 10 additional officers. I believe also, somewhere in here -- I can't find the quote right at the tip of my fingers, but I'm sure I could if I looked hard enough -- that the chief of police was quoted somewhere as saying he needs a minimum of 20.

Some of these concerns would be greatly addressed if we could indeed get a copy of the Windsor Police Services Board report so we don't have to talk in abstract about the issue we're dealing with here and we could talk about some concrete findings and proposals that the report came up with. Hopefully we can, in the not-too-distant future, also get to look at the Coopers and Lybrand report, as well as the Ernst and Young one, which I hope is forthcoming.

New Orleans: New Orleans is estimating that for its 100,000-square-foot casino, the cost of policing, because of increased crime, will be anywhere from a low estimate of $2.5 million a year to a high estimate of some $5 million. I just want to leave the minister with those figures, because I think we can expect some sort of similar experience -- I'm not saying exactly the same, but some sort of similar experience -- in the city of Windsor.

We have Donald Trump's quotes here. We've read them out before and I don't see the need for reading them out ad nauseam again. But he's somebody who's been in that business for a long time, certainly has a great deal of experience, certainly recognizes the fact that with the good things about casino gambling, ie, cash flow and money, also come a lot of societal costs, as we've been alluding to; also comes increased crime; also come things that perhaps were not in the community or the jurisdiction into which you are introducing casino gambling before casino gambling was there.

1610

I think that we, as government, have to be responsible to our fellow citizens. Not all of us, not all the public agree that casino gambling is a good thing. I know there is a very vocal opposition to casino gambling in Windsor because I've heard from it, and I'm sure the minister has as well. I'm sure that as we have public hearings around the province we will hear more and more, not only in the city of Windsor but in other communities as well, their opposition and reasons for opposition to introducing casino gambling into the province of Ontario. If you decide to proceed in any event, the very least we should do as responsible government is to take care of the problems we are helping to create by introducing this into our jurisdiction.

I'm sure the minister is more than aware of the series of articles that appeared in the Toronto Star.

Hon Ms Churley: You mean that old rehashed stuff?

Mr Eves: She says "old rehashed stuff." Maybe it is, but they also are very real concerns and problems that other jurisdictions have experienced and that she's going to perhaps have to deal with here in the province of Ontario.

This article points out that it isn't the direct involvement of organized crime in the operation of casinos that most jurisdictions have found to be the problem. The problem is, to quote this article, that "even if casino ownership is beyond reproach, criminals can flex their muscles through hotel unions, food and laundry suppliers and the supply and servicing of vending and gambling machines."

The article goes on and on. I believe the member for St Catharines has alluded to this article on numerous occasions, and I don't think we should be living in a fairytale world where we believe for one instant that these situations might not also be a problem in our jurisdiction here in the province of Ontario.

The member for Brampton North said yesterday and on a few occasions, if I can remember his words correctly, that another aspect of this, which perhaps the ministry has thought through and perhaps it has not, is that if indeed we introduce a casino into the community of the city of Windsor, how long do you think it will be before that monopoly, so to speak, ends, and the city of Detroit or the state of Michigan introduces its own casino into what I would suspect is a very large portion of the market that the minister or her ministry hopes to tap into?

We've seen this happen with Windsor Raceway, for example. I can recall that when Windsor Raceway was first opened, it was a unique thing; that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of visitors who came over from the US every night to visit Windsor Raceway. But it wasn't too many years until the city of Detroit developed its own Standardbred or harness racing track and the city of Windsor's Windsor Raceway attendance figures and hence profitability started to decline.

I think it's a very real possibility that a similar situation may well occur here with respect to casino gambling in the city of Windsor and in the city of Detroit, and I think the ministry and the government should be thinking about that. While they may have a monopoly in the first instance, they may well not two or three or four or five years down the road, and then how viable will the casino in the city of Windsor be?

Here's an interesting quote from a 1984 Solicitor General's report on legalized gambling, a quote from the Honourable Howard Hampton, which I'm sure the minister is quite aware of, which says, just to show that there are members on all sides of the House in all three political parties with concerns about casino gambling being introduced into our jurisdiction:

"Wherever casinos are found, they are inseparable from organized criminal activities. If a jurisdiction is not willing to accept this involvement, it should not get involved in legalized gaming."

That's what the former Attorney General, now Minister of Natural Resources, thought about introducing casino gambling into jurisdictions in 1984. This being 1993, perhaps he's changed his mind, I don't know.

Michael Pollock of New Jersey's Casino Control Commission states:

"Three years after Atlantic City's casinos opened, calls for police help increased by some 2,000%. Amongst the crimes that increased most dramatically were larceny, theft, aggravated assault, drug sales and political corruption. Activities associated with organized crime like loan-sharking, bookmaking, prostitution, open drug trafficking, labour union extortions and shootouts between rival gangs also increased dramatically."

Not surprisingly, Atlantic City is now listed last among US cities in Money magazine's rating of places to live -- last in the entire United States of America. I think that is what casino gambling can do to a community if it isn't properly introduced and taken care of beforehand.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): It was second last before the casino. If there's a place lower than last, that's where it would be now.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Skyrocketing along.

Mr Eves: Skyrocketing along? Are you in a hurry? Are we going somewhere?

Mr Hope: No, but you're putting us to sleep, Ernie.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): He's doing a good job. This is good information, if you listen to it.

Mr Eves: All I'm trying to do, really, is to make --

Mr Wiseman: Trying to talk out the clock.

Mr Eves: No, I'm not trying to talk out the clock. I'm not going to use my whole time. I don't believe that because you have 90 minutes you have to use it.

But I do want to point out that there are some very serious concerns that a number of people have, and if they're not properly addressed, we're going to be here dealing with these concerns for many, many years to come and we are going to inflict upon some unsuspecting citizens of our province something that perhaps I'm sure we don't intend on inflicting on them. If we don't do this properly, with our act together, so to speak, and do our homework, I think we're going to live to regret it.

I alluded to comments by Mr Trump earlier, and I really have to say that I think some of his comments sum it up very well:

"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. It brings money, but also the money is dissipated because maybe you're going to have to pay your school teachers more because otherwise you're going to lose your school teachers. They're going to be working in casino as croupiers. There's a big cost to pay.

"I mean most jurisdictions have considered gaming and most jurisdictions, even though right now it seems to be the craze, but most jurisdictions 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."

Who better to talk about casino gambling than somebody who makes a great deal of his income from casino gambling? Those are his objective observations as to what casino gambling can do for a community or for a jurisdiction. Money comes with it, but a great deal of problems and societal costs come with it as well.

I would just simply urge members on all sides of this House and in all three political parties to consider whether they think the price that the community and the jurisdiction and the public will have to pay is worth it or not and whether the public perhaps should not ultimately be the ones to decide whether this is introduced into their jurisdiction or not.

1620

I note with some interest that over the past few days and weeks there have been no less than 178 petitions introduced and tabled in the Ontario Legislature this session alone, thousands of signatures against the introduction of casino gambling into the province of Ontario.

I come back to the premise upon which I started my remarks last evening. Surely this is an issue where the people of this jurisdiction should be given the right to decide whether or not they want casino gambling introduced into the province of Ontario. I don't know why the government wouldn't consider that.

I don't see any need to rush headlong into an interim casino. I don't think we've properly prepared unless there's a lot more preparation being done than I'm aware of, and perhaps we'll find that out in committee. I don't think we're prepared to proceed with an interim casino. If we're not prepared to proceed with a permanent casino, we're not prepared to proceed with an interim casino either, because they bring the same types of pitfalls and problems. Just because one's permanent and one's interim there isn't any magic that excludes crime, increased policing costs and all the other societal problems that come with them.

I'm going to conclude my remarks by again asking the minister if she seriously would not consider putting this out to some sort of referendum so that the public of Ontario can decide whether indeed they want casino gambling introduced into their jurisdiction.

I have some 20 minutes left, and in an effort to perhaps save time I would ask that the member for Victoria-Haliburton be allowed to use my 20 minutes in addition to his time, because I know he has a lot of things he would like to get on the record. I could stand here and talk for another 20 minutes, but I think perhaps he should avail himself of this opportunity.

The Acting Speaker: It has been suggested by the member for Parry Sound that the member for Victoria-Haliburton use the rest of his time. Do we have unanimous consent of the House? Agreed. Questions or comments on the member for Parry Sound's participation. The honourable member for Sarnia.

Mr Huget: I listened very carefully to the member for Parry Sound's comments, particularly around the issue of a referendum as it concerns the gambling issue. I note with interest that the Ontario Lottery Corp, which was put in place during the member for Parry Sound's government's term of office in the province of Ontario, was done so without a referendum. So I find it passing strange that there is a concern from that member now about a referendum on this issue when in fact the Ontario Lottery Corp is a creation of the Conservative government of the day and there certainly was no referendum when that corporation was created.

Secondly, I think for anyone to stand in the House, certainly from my perspective, and pretend for a moment that a gambling casino is the economic salvation of the province of Ontario, or any community for that matter, is a little naïve. I think it is part of a perhaps more palatable economic situation in our province and in those communities that choose -- and I have to stress "choose" -- to have a casino in their community.

The residents of Windsor and everyone from the mayor to the man on the street looks at this as an economic opportunity. I can't speak for the people of Windsor, but it's certainly been my impression in listening to people from Windsor that they don't expect this to be the sole economic activity of their community, but they do expect it to help.

Windsor is one among many communities in Ontario that have been ravaged by the recession and the free trade agreement as it impacted on the auto industry and others. Certainly, there's a need to stimulate economic activity not only in Ontario but of course in Windsor.

I think that, provided communities choose this alternative and it's not forced on them, it is in their interest that they act. I leave it to their judgement in terms of determining whether it's something their community wants. Certainly in this case the elected officials of that community want it.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I just want to make one or two comments on my friend's response. I think it's important to note that many people from Windsor who initially were very, very supportive of the concept have now had second thoughts and grave reservations, given an opportunity to review the plans of the current government with respect to the project under the terms of Bill 8.

I hasten to add that our party position has been and remains that we don't have particularly a problem per se with the concept, but I say without reservation that we have taken a position. I think it's become abundantly obvious, abundantly apparent that this project has been undertaken without the due process, if you will, of consultation in a meaningful way.

I ask again rhetorically, as my friend from Parry Sound has said to the minister: When are we going to see the Coopers and Lybrand study? You say it's only in draft format, Minister? I'd be delighted to see the draft. When are we going to see the Price Waterhouse document that you commissioned? When are we going to see the police services board report in terms of the impact of casino gambling on the services required by that community?

It seems to me that what has happened here is that we've undertaken a project and now we're doing the studies to rationalize it after the fact. Anybody with any sense of how you would normally operate in a business sense would say that the first undertaking is to establish the groundwork, look at the empirical data and formulate your plans accordingly.

What we have here is a government that has done everything, if I can say so, backwards. They have begun, set out on the course and now after the fact are beginning to rationalize by way of studies what needs to be done and will patch it up as they go. The constant refrain, the constant response we hear from the minister is this: "It's a pilot project. We'll work it out. The interim casino will give us an opportunity to work it out."

I am going to run out of time before I have a comment on this, Minister, but let me simply say this. It's naïve and absurd and is indicative of a failure to manage and conduct this in a business-like fashion.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): The member for Parry Sound in his remarks made a number of comments about issues that are important and concerns that are important to take into consideration when we're dealing with the matter of the establishment of the casino in the city of Windsor. They're all issues that we can study and discuss and that's going to be done when the committee deals with this matter.

However, there are some things that you could study ad nauseam. You're never going to reach a consensus and you're never going to reach a conclusion on them, and at some point you have to make a decision and move forward.

I know that this is something that we need to do properly. We need to move forward cautiously and carefully and make sure that the social fabric in the city of Windsor is not altered or it is altered as little as possible and that Windsor's reputation as a safe city is not tarnished.

If you listen to some of the comments from the member for Parry Sound, you'd think that maybe this is something that's being foisted upon an unwilling city, but I can tell the member that I have over 2,000 people from my riding alone who have indicated their support to me for this project. They're ready for it, and if I get any complaint, it is "You're not moving fast enough on it."

My friend has also asked questions here with respect to what would happen to tourists once they come to Windsor, that maybe there's not going to be anything in the city for them to do to stick around and to enjoy. I'm reading from a letter that's from the Convention and Visitors Bureau of Windsor, and it was written to the member on July 9 and says that there has been established a casino-tourism task force to assist the local tourism industry in maximizing the benefits of the casino and to ensure that spinoff benefits accrue to the community. So there is work being done in the city of Windsor to make sure that it's an important tourist destination and that tourists do remain in the community when they visit the casino.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. The honourable member for Brampton North.

Mr McClelland: As I ran out of time the last time around, I just wanted to indicate --

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, you've already had your two minutes. The honourable Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

1630

Hon Ms Churley: I appreciate your allowing me to do this because there were a number of issues that the member for Parry Sound raised which I can't respond to now of course.

I would like to respond specifically to the three reports that he talked about, the police report in particular, the Windsor police report. It was done, as I said before, by the Windsor Police Service. My understanding is that the project team asked them to not release that study at that time because we asked the bidders to tell us in their bids and their RFPs how they would deal with policing and crime in Windsor, and we want them to do their own homework on that.

My understanding is that the ADM of the project team suggested to them that now the bids are in, they should feel free to release that report. It should be made available by them, therefore, at any time.

In terms of the particular study on social services and problem gambling, I believe that will be released today. The Coopers and Lybrand report, which I know everybody is very interested in, will not be available, it's my understanding, for possibly another couple of weeks. As soon as it is available, I will be able to release that.

I do want to say to the member for Parry Sound that I appreciated his comments, notwithstanding that at the beginning last night I believe I did heckle him outrageously for a little while. I think he made some very good suggestions today. I would like to say that most of the issues, if not all, that he mentioned of course I'm aware of. I don't agree with him on all of them, but I am certainly aware of them. I'm sure at the committee level he will get many answers to those questions he asked today.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Parry Sound has two minutes in response.

Mr Eves: Just very briefly, I say to the member for Sarnia he's quite correct when he says that the previous Conservative government did not have a referendum when it introduced lotteries into the province of Ontario. Just because we made a mistake, why would you make the same one? Times do change, as Bob Rae says. They even change within the same year from time to time, as indeed his stand on casino gambling did within a matter of months before and after the election of 1990.

It is interesting to note that everybody is assuming that the citizens of Windsor want a casino because their municipally elected representatives want a casino. From time to time I'm sure we've all experienced the fact that the opinions we express in this House are not necessarily those of our constituents or the people we represent. We usually find that out on election day, whether they agree with us for the most part or they don't.

All I'm asking the government to do is to find out whether the citizens in the city of Windsor agree with them or they don't. I don't think that's a frivolous request. I don't think that's an unreasonable request with respect to casino gambling in Ontario.

I say to the member for Windsor-Walkerville, why the speed in proceeding with an interim casino? I think that all these concerns, which I think are very legitimate concerns, have to be addressed. Will the issue of money laundering be solved by either the federal or the provincial government by the time the interim casino, for example, goes into effect? It should be or I don't think we should permit the casino to go ahead.

All I'm asking is that the government do its homework and give the people of any jurisdiction the say as to whether they want casino gambling introduced into their jurisdiction.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate. The honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton. I want to remind all members that according to unanimous consent, the member has the allotted 30 minutes plus 19 minutes and some seconds transferred from the member for Parry Sound. I want everyone to understand this.

Mr Drainville: The first thing I would like to do is thank the gracious minister for being so forbearing in allowing me the extra time. I do appreciate that. I think that kind of largeness of spirit is something that needs to be respected when that's offered to another member of the House. So I'd like to begin my discussions on that kind of a basis.

I'm going to be discussing casino gambling within a different context than most members of this House. I have to state from the outset that I do not come to this legislation, Bill 8, looking at it and saying, "How can this legislation be made better?" I'm here to say that casino gambling is wrong for the province of Ontario. I am against the principle. I have always been against the principle and I want to state unequivocally why it is that moving in the direction of establishing expanded gambling opportunities in the province will, I think, lead to a lessening of the social fabric of the province.

So it is that I'm not going to be suggesting to the honourable members of the government possible ways of making the legislation better, because if you don't agree with the principle to begin with, you don't want to see this kind of legislation passed. I come at it from a different standpoint and I may be the only one in the House who's going to come from this standpoint.

Because of that, I'm going to really restrict my comments to look at the principle itself, and then I'm going to look at the articles that have been written about this. Thousands of people in the province of Ontario have contacted me. I now have an anti-casino network of over 500 organizations, churches and individuals who have contacted me about this issue.

This week I will be submitting my 15,000th petition here in the House. That's how many people have signed petitions against the establishment of casino gambling. This is a little over 2,000, and I have been presenting these since the fall of 1992. So we go on with people who are indicating to the government of Ontario, the New Democratic Party government, that they have very significant concerns about moving on this principle to begin with.

So it is that I want to begin my discussions and say that, for me, the decision to go ahead with casino gambling was a very major decision that affected me very greatly. Years ago, I worked in the inner city of Toronto and I worked with low-income people. In that period of time, I am on the public record as indicating that the use of lottery schemes for moneys to government was in my view an abomination, that in fact it led people to abuse their money, and very often I saw the effects of that on their families. I saw the people who would come to the agency that I was the executive director of and I would see that their families were not being fed.

I would be there to help find shelter for people. I was there to help people through some very, very difficult times. I was there when people were having major problems with gambling addiction to try to find places where they could be hooked up with help. That was very difficult because there aren't places in Ontario, other than Gamblers Anonymous, and there are not a great number of Gamblers Anonymous places in the province.

I have been intimately involved in this problem for many years. I don't come to this House without having considered the full ramifications of expanded gambling in the province of Ontario. In fact, I have a great deal of experience in this area.

I'd like to begin by saying that from the beginning, we have not had the kinds of studies, discussion, debate, consultation on the principle that needed to be done. In fact, if we look very carefully at the public utterances, we knew nothing about the establishment of expanded gambling opportunities until we had the budget of 1992. It was in that budget that all of us, myself included, for the first time saw that this was going to be a policy of the government of Ontario.

There was a great deal of problem on my basis dealing with that, a great deal of problem because I realized what the impact was going to be. But more than that, I realized that the decision to go ahead was not based on solid thought and impact studies and discussion, but rather it was based upon, I believe, a view that we must secure moneys at all cost, under any circumstances, to help buoy this government through these very difficult, almost disastrous, I might say, economic times.

If I was to put it in other terms, I would say that what we saw was that the government was moving towards the politics of desperation, because indeed if you look at it from one standpoint, I think you would see that any government that seeks to make at least a major initiative into the reception of money through gambling as a means of buoying up its projects and its policies -- you will see that as being a rather desperate measure. I think that's true in this case.

1640

Right from the beginning, in what we heard from the honourable minister as she presented the case for the government for the moving into casino gambling, we saw that the minister was providing things like poll results. The minister was talking about the need to have entertainment opportunities for Ontarians, that we had changed our attitudes towards such things. In fact, I believe that on the day the pilot project was unveiled, on October 6, 1992, the honourable minister said, "We're going to have a fun casino and we're going to invite people to enjoy themselves at this casino."

But the question that keeps on coming to my mind is, how much fun, how much enjoyment can there be when you are going to be, by this act, consigning a certain number of people, a certain percentage of the population, to significant hardship, either social hardship or crime or other such difficulties? It seems to me that as we talk about a philosophy of government, a philosophy of leadership, surely one of the fundamental views of that kind of leadership has got to be that you maintain for people their quality of life, that you offer to people opportunities and challenges that are going to build up their citizenship and going to give them opportunities of realizing the fullness of their potential as citizens within that society. The question then must be asked: Do expanded gambling opportunities do that? I would say no; I don't believe they do.

The government has said many things, none of them based upon actual documentation or reports. In fact, we're only beginning to get reports now from those that were initiated over the last number of months. The government has said, for instance, that it has consulted. The government has said, for instance, that there will be job and economic renewal in Windsor. The government has said that there will be no crime increase in Windsor. It has also said that the policy it is now espousing is in no way a repudiation of the tradition it has been part of.

I have responded to those views. I responded to them in the first paper I wrote, a paper which I distributed to all members of the House: A New Democrat's Case Against Casino Gambling. That was the view I took, that indeed this was a betrayal of where we had stood for so many years as a party, even up to the spring of 1990, immediately previous to the election call; that our views were very cogent, very direct on this issue of lotteries and on raising moneys for the state through gambling means.

In the second paper I wrote, I responded to the view that somehow this was going to be -- naturally, I'm going to use this word; I'm sure the government wouldn't -- a panacea for the economic problems of Windsor. Indeed, I wrote a second paper, called Casinos -- No Answer to Our Fiscal Fortunes: Another Perspective on Casino Gambling, in which I look at the claims that have been made by the government and I proceed also to make some comparisons, looking at the Crystal Casino in Winnipeg, because there has been a great deal of talk about comparisons. Well, there's no comparison; they are two very different models. You can't compare, the honourable member for Parry Sound has said, apples and oranges. I would say it would be more like apples and turnips. It's a very different kind of thing.

The minister and the government have been indicating that the casino and the establishment of expanded gambling opportunities is something that is going to be helpful to the province. In fact, they have made a great deal of the fact that it is not a regressive tax on the poor; it is not that, according to the government. I have here in front of me academic studies done by creditable academic sources throughout many jurisdictions in Australia and the United States -- in Canada, even -- proving through their studies that indeed any kind of taxation that is used by the state in this way is indeed fully a regressive tax on the poor.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It's not a tax.

Mr Drainville: The honourable member for Oxford says it's not a tax, that it's not a tax because only certain people do it and they only do it under certain situations. What is it when we place it on tobacco? What is it when we place that kind of thing on liquor, which only certain people use at certain times according to their own usage?

It is a regressive tax. These academic studies have proven it. I've asked the government repeatedly, I've asked the minister repeatedly: "Please, forget Drainville for a moment" -- I know they'd love to -- "and deal with the academic studies. If you can come up with academic studies and show how these are wrong, then I'm willing to debate that." I'm willing to debate that, but they haven't done it.

In fact, they won't do it, because the reason they are moving in the direction they're moving in is because it is for them a cornerstone of their attempt to make money, to maintain revenues so they can do the things they want to do. That's understandable; they're the government of the day. That's what they choose to do.

The fourth issue is crime. The honourable minister has said many times that there's not going to be an increase in crime in Windsor. The minister has likened Windsor and the establishment of the pilot project to Disneyland, and that under those kinds of entertainment venues we don't have significant problems, we don't have major problems of crime. To compare the establishment of a casino to Disneyland is, I would say to you, not exactly a fair comparison.

What else do we have in terms of a government initiative where we are sending police down to Atlantic City to learn what they do in Atlantic City; where we're setting up panel after panel of experts on crime to look at what impact this is going to have; where we're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on studies, knowing full well that there are going to be significant problems; where we have leaders in police enforcement in the province of Ontario indicating their significant concern about the establishment of casino gambling in the province?

You cannot compare, I would say to the honourable members of the government and the minister, the establishment of a casino, which is inherently corrupt, as we've seen throughout the jurisdictions in North America, anyway -- we cannot see that this is in any way applicable in the same way as, let's say, Disney World. We're talking about two different kinds of operations, and they both have their own kinds of clientele and they both have their own kinds of problems. But certainly casinos are something suspect in our society, and we've seen that in many places.

I have written four policy papers, and I have written them because I have felt very strongly that the information people need to have, they need to be given. I know it's very difficult for members of the House, with the demands made on their time, to be able to do the kind of research I've done in these things; it's very difficult indeed. But I think these papers need to be read and I think they need to take them seriously. I would hope they have, and that they've read them. I don't know whether they have, but I hope they've read them, because I think it would shed a different light than perhaps the government position would shed on the future of this province with expanded gambling opportunities.

Those are my prefatory remarks. What I'd like to do now is go to the material that has been sent to me. I'm going to hold them up here; I have hundreds and hundreds of letters. This isn't all of them. This is a portion of the letters I've received over the last number of months on this issue.

I wish there was a way we could have all those people give their own testimony, because I believe some of that testimony is very straightforward. I believe it would be helpful for the members to have. I'm going to begin just talking about some of these letters and reflecting on some of the comments that have been made.

I have one here from a crown attorney. I'm not going to name his name, but it's from a crown attorney here in the province of Ontario. He writes to me and he says:

"After 30 years as a crown attorney, I find it hard to believe that what was formerly criminal activity is now actually being promoted by the government.

"In a shocking perversion of language, we see people being invited to 'play' when there is no such activity involved, except 'pay.' A western Ontario college is about to offer a course in 'gaming.'

"Tell me if there is anything I can do to assist you in trying to avert the pending calamity."

This is signed by a crown attorney, for 30 years a crown attorney here in Ontario. I think that's a significant letter and speaks of someone who has some knowledge of our criminal justice system.

1650

From Exeter, Ontario, this gentlemen says:

"Government should (a) not encourage more gambling which can destroy lives and (b) not push gambling on people as a saviour for budgetary woes. Please take the energy and focus on getting the economy working again, not putting in gambling casinos, VLTs and various other lotteries."

Signed, W.G. Balsdon, doctor of veterinary medicine.

We have another citizen who is very concerned about this. It's from Bath, Ontario, an executive member of the New Democratic Party:

"I am writing to express my support for your stand against government-sponsored gambling in Ontario. I am the former president of the...association" -- and I won't name it -- "and have held several executive positions within the provincial party....But how is it that this government can cheerfully endorse a policy which has such obvious negative impacts? Isn't it obvious to the cabinet that casinos will only prey on the poor? And it is a very sad comment on the government if gambling is the best economic development strategy that we have for border communities."

It's signed by Mr Michael Dawber.

From Hamilton, Ontario, Lorraine Beitz writes:

"I am extremely opposed to legalized gambling in Ontario for many reasons. Not the least of these is the enormous increase of crime of all kinds, including organized crime. This occurrence has been well documented in American cities which have recently implemented legalized gambling. I believe that it is unrealistic to think that government control could keep organized crime out of gambling. As parents of four children, my husband and I fear what serious side effects await our communities and our children's future."

We have a letter that was sent to the Premier of the province of Ontario by Mrs Evelyn Thomson of Willowdale, Ontario, and she writes:

"Dear Premier Rae:

"Perhaps it has been a hard thing for you to cast off the beliefs and standards that won respect and finally power for your party. Perhaps that last is true and perhaps you still harbour doubts about many aspects of your government's activities during the last two years. Honest mistakes are usually forgiven in people involved in public life, and even sometimes they are understood. Better to admit to a mistake than to be a party to disgraceful practices."

Here is one from Val Therese in northern Ontario, and this is written by Doris Labelle and Albert Labelle:

"We want to let you know that we are with you in opposing casinos in Ontario and we definitely do not want video slot machines, no matter how much revenue they bring in. Keep up the good work and do all you can to stop this piece of legislation from being passed. We agree with you that this will cause a great deal of hardship in our province, with many more children going hungry and an increase in family violence. We already have enough gambling in our communities with all the lotteries that are held, and where does all that money go?"

From a professor emeritus at Queen's University, department of political studies:

"I write to support the stand that you have taken. The government is the last authority that I expected to encourage this antisocial activity. When I first heard of it, I immediately wrote to the Premier expressing my objections. I enclose a copy for your information."

The letter to the Premier is also included, but I won't read from that.

This is a letter from Windsor, Ontario, and I might say just parenthetically that I've received scores of letters from Windsor and I've received literally thousands of petitions, people petitioning from Windsor on this particular issue. This is Mr Ernie Harris, who writes:

"I'm thankful for your stand on casino gambling, and I still will fight and oppose this way of making money. I have kept a blank copy which I will copy and get filled out again then send it to you. Myself and others have tried to talk with the MPPs in my area...."

Anyway, Mr Ernie Harris sends this letter and is concerned about the opening of casinos in the province.

Stewart Kinsinger, a doctor of chiropractic from Simcoe, Ontario, writes:

"Gambling victimizes the poor, the disabled and the disadvantaged. I believe it is as destructive as any compulsive behaviour such as any substance abuse."

He sends his regards and asks us to keep up the fight against the establishment of casinos.

I have a letter here from someone who will be known all through this House, that is, Dan Heap, a member of the federal Parliament. He has sent copies to me. He's written to the Premier and he also wrote to the three newspapers in Toronto, which as it happens didn't carry the letter, but I will read it into the record because it's a thoughtful letter to the editors of the three papers in Toronto:

"Dear Sir:

"There are at least four good reasons why governments ought to avoid public endorsation of gambling: (1) It fosters the 'get-something-for-nothing' attitude, which is unneighbourly and destructive; (2) It requires that many lose so that one can win, without merit. Our society doesn't need more cynicism like that; (3) If it is successful financially, it encourages the schemes of criminals, who after all sincerely believe in 'getting something for nothing'; (4) Mainly for those reasons it attracts and damages many low-income and discouraged people and teaches them to depend on a fantasy.

"For an NDP government to promote casinos, lotteries or other kinds of gambling is no better than preaching, 'You'll get pie in the sky when you die."'

This is signed by Dan Heap, member of Parliament for Trinity-Spadina. That is a gentleman I have a great deal of respect for, a man who has stood up for many years for the kinds of issues that are important to the people of this province.

From my own riding in Lindsay, Lance J. Mitchell writes:

"May I congratulate you on your stand in opposition to the establishment of gambling casinos in Ontario. I too am opposed to this move by the NDP and support you wholeheartedly."

He says at the end, "Would you please petition the Legislative Assembly on my behalf in this regard." I'll say to Mr Mitchell, here in the Legislature I have. I have on many occasions.

We have from London, Ontario, a letter from a Dr Robert C. Buck:

"On this issue, the NDP party officers seem to be indifferent to criticism from the public. In any case they do not respond to letters that present a different viewpoint from that of the government. I wrote to Julie Davis last November about this."

He encloses that, and in that letter to Julie Davis, he wrote:

"There is, however, one policy of the Ontario NDP with which I strongly disagree. Mr Rae writes in his letter, enclosed with yours, that he has 'a continued commitment to social justice.' Is it social justice for the government of Ontario to derive millions of dollars by devious means from the poor and the ignorant rather than from those who can afford to pay and who have an education? Is it social justice to advertise ways in which such people can waste their money in the vain hope of winning a lottery? I had hoped that when the NDP came to power in Ontario, they would eliminate these loathsome institutions, so inappropriate in a truly democratic society. Instead, they have brought in casino gambling!"

This is from a member of the NDP, from a doctor, and someone who says that moving in this direction is not good for the province of Ontario.

We have from Rexdale, Ontario, Grace Olds. Grace writes, and this is to Premier Rae:

"I do not require a reply setting out your reasons for opting for casinos. As a delegate to our recent convention, I have heard you and Floyd Laughren and Ed Philip (my MPP) all express identical reasons for this action. I merely want you to be aware that there are some within our party who strongly oppose your policy of expanding gambling in this province, and who feel that, in doing so, you are betraying what the party has traditionally stood for.

"I realize that being in power is very different than being in opposition and that you are under stresses from all sides, but I find it very disappointing that so many of the ideals we have upheld for so long in opposition seem no longer to matter, and our party in power seems more and more indistinguishable from the other two parties. The millennium seems to have come and gone, but not much has changed."

A very poignant letter indeed from Grace Olds of Rexdale, Ontario.

1700

I think perhaps I'll end with these two letters that have come to me. One is from Imtiaz Akhmad, who is a PhD professor in engineering here in Toronto. He writes to me:

"Everyone knows that gambling is a game of chance. It involves taking a risk with the possibility of gaining some advantage. The risks are obvious. Most people who gamble lose money. Only a few win.

"Consider the case of lottery gambling. For every 10,000 losers, there may be one or two who win a few dollars. For every 100,000 losers, there may be a few who win hundreds or thousands of dollars. For millions of losers, there may be a few who win $1 million or more.

"Those who offer gambling are enticing people to lose money. Many of those who lose can ill afford it, and they, in the process, lose self-respect and possibly much more. Those who do win rarely bring true prosperity to themselves or the society that they live in. The government has found a way to raise money by seducing people to part with their hard-earned money.

"In particular, the casino gambling will have a devastating effect for a small city like Windsor. The city government may collect more taxes, but it will also see more poor people, more destitute and homeless and more who will depend on social services.

"Please show a caring attitude to the wellbeing of the society and, as an influential member of the Ontario Legislature, take a lead in opposing casino gambling. Do not let casino gambling come to Ontario cities. Do not let the government gamble with the lives of people."

Again, another poignant letter from a citizen of Ontario.

I'm going to leave off with one from Windsor again, because I think it's appropriate to try to have people from Windsor respond in the House, because I'm not sure that their voices -- I mean, we've heard from many members in this House how much Windsor wants the casino.

I can only say that when people make that kind of a statement, they need to take a deep breath and think, because in fact there are thousands of people who are against the establishment of the pilot project, and those people were not the people who came out and supported it and they're not the people who really get any credit in all the public utterances that are made either by the council in Windsor or by the provincial government.

It's important that those voices are heard here in this Legislature, and that's why I presented the thousands of names on petitions of people who are against the pilot project and also I have tried to read some of these letters in.

Interjection: You read a lot.

Mr Drainville: Indeed, that's precisely what I'm going to do. This is from Matthew H. Diegel, who is a pastor of Christ Lutheran Church. This is sent to Floyd Laughren and this is a copy.

"Dear Mr Minister:

"I am writing to you out of concern about the legislation on casino gambling currently before the assembly. I oppose this direction of the government for at least three reasons, and ask you to do the same.

"Firstly, many studies have demonstrated that revenues from such gambling are nothing more than an indirect regressive tax. The majority of those who gamble lose, so that others might gain a profit. In this case 80% of the profits will go to a private operator, who, probably American, will likely invest it out of the province. In your budget you spoke of fairness in taxation, and I believe in this strongly, so much so that I am a member of the local tax force, related to the FTC. However, the proposed legislation is not built on fairness, but on greed, pure and simple. This has never been the policy of the NDP and I fail to see why it should now become so.

"Secondly, the pilot casino project is being promoted on how much tourism it will bring to downtown Windsor. However, this is a naïve boast, in the light of all the other casinos springing up on weekends, and being proposed for Detroit, Montreal, London, Ottawa and first nations lands. The people of Windsor are hurting; however, a casino with a dubious future is not our answer. How much will the province have to pay to compensate us for increased policing, upgrading traffic infrastructure, and servicing the complex? What happens if or when it becomes a white elephant, as patrons flow to newer, and more convenient sites? I suspect that the city and province will have to pay dearly, the exact opposite of the dream being touted.

"Lastly, even if the casino is a success, most of the jobs created will be low paying and probably part-time. There is no guarantee citizens of Windsor, or Ontarians, will get them. Nor will they go very far to replacing jobs lost in factories during the last recession. Thus casino gambling is not a satisfactory job creation program, and indeed might create a ghetto effect, as the tourism industry is well known for spinning off other low paying jobs to service it."

Again, that's sent from Windsor. Those few letters that I have put into the record are people from all across the province of Ontario from different economic groups. I've chosen them from the literally hundreds and hundreds of letters -- this is just one file folder of all the letters that I've received on this issue -- from people who are very concerned about the future of this province and concerned, I might say, about the kinds of things that are being done by the government to try to insist that this policy is one that is for the people.

So it is that I'm glad to put those on the record. We now need to look at the public record, that is, the media, and see some of the things that have been written, the facts that have been presented and some of the investigations that are being done.

Interjections.

Mr Drainville: I hear the honourable members on the other side. They're trying to heckle. They're trying to say that the things I'm presenting aren't worthy of being presented. These are citizens of Ontario. Their voices should be heard in this Legislature. This is their Legislature, not that of the honourable members who sit across the floor. This is the people's Legislature. If they want this cacophony of sound to continue, they can continue. It's not going to stop me from bringing these letters here. It's not going to stop me from presenting the facts. It's not going to stop me from debating the reality that this initiative on the part of the government is a bad initiative. It's bad in every possible way.

We read in the various articles that have been written over the last while some substantive questions that are being asked by the media regarding the expansion of gambling in the province of Ontario. Let me begin, if I can, with the Toronto Star on March 20, written by Thomas Walkom, who says:

"Gambling on Casinos a Sign of Desperation

"What's so very sad about Ontario's decision to introduce casino gambling is the sense of social desperation that lurks behind it.

"When a government encourages its citizens to gamble in order to produce revenue for its treasury, it is admitting defeat. It is saying that society is no longer able, in an open and democratic way, to tax itself for the services it wants. It is conceding that government has lost the moral authority to convince taxpayers that, if they want public goods such as roads and health care, they must be willing to pay for them.

"It is saying instead that the only way to pry more money from the electorate is to con it -- to appeal to its cupidity rather than its sense of rational self-interest. So it encourages gambling and takes a hefty cut.

"Gambling is a con. On average, the gambler can't get out what he puts in. Odds are against him. This is how gambling concerns make money."

He finally says: "Officially, the Windsor casino is a pilot project. But almost certainly, there will be more. The government has had requests from Indian reserves and other hard-hit border cities. The pressure is intense."

I might say that it's important as we address Bill 8 to say that the minister has often said, "We're only talking about a pilot project." I know the honourable minister is saying, in view of what the government is proposing at this time, "We've got one pilot project."

But as the government will admit and as the honourable minister will admit, Bill 8 in no way talks about one casino. It opens the door to the establishment of casinos throughout the province of Ontario. It's not dealing with one; it's dealing with the possibility of many. In fact, we know, sources have said, that the government has every intention, once we get the first one established, to be moving and establishing other casinos in the province of Ontario.

That's why the legislation doesn't prohibit that. I might have been perhaps a little more circumspect and a little standoffish about the bill if the bill were dealing with one pilot project, but indeed it's not. It's opening it up to casinos to be established throughout the province, and that means they certainly have an agenda to expand gambling in the province of Ontario.

1710

We go on to other articles. Perhaps this is a good time to read a couple of the opinion pieces that were in the Detroit Free Press. You know that in Detroit, they've had four plebiscites or referendums on the possibility of establishing gambling casinos in Detroit. They have been defeated each four times, although the last one that was held in Detroit was a very close thing indeed. I think it was 51% to 49%.

But in the Detroit Free Press, this is how it characterized the vote and this is the position it took and tried to communicate to the people in that city. It is from the Detroit Free Press of May 30, 1993. The headline in this editorial is "Vote No on Casinos, a Losing Bet for City."

"Proposal A is a good deal..." and that refers to the school referendum, but proposal B, casinos, is a bad deal. "Casino gambling is a sucker bet for Michigan, especially Detroit. Voters in Michigan's largest city should vote no on the casino ordinance before them this Wednesday.

"There is no more reason for Detroiters to embrace legalized casino gambling today than there was on the three previous occasions in the past 17 years when they rejected it. If anything, the dismal experience of communities afflicted with casinos has strengthened the case against this form of gambling.

"In Atlantic City, New Jersey, major crime has increased by 250% -- more than 20 times the state-wide rate -- since its first casino opened in 1978. Now it has a dozen casinos, but after an initial surge in tourism and convention business, the number of annual visitors to Atlantic City has fallen in the past five years.

"Employment, tax revenues and construction have increased, but little of that growth has trickled down to Atlantic City's impoverished residents. Most casino workers live in suburban communities.

"In the city, blight and homelessness have spread, and population and housing stock continue to decline. The casinos have driven out many once-thriving small manufacturers and retailers. Service jobs, many of them low-paying, have supplanted more substantial ones. Amenities for Atlantic City's children and families are few.

"Detroit -- and, for that matter, every other Michigan community contemplating casino gambling -- can't afford to take the same losing gamble. The city, and especially its youth, doesn't need another form of addiction and corruption. It doesn't need to offer another excuse for families and businesses to leave town, or not to move in.

"It doesn't need to impose another massive burden of crime, organized and street-level, on its overextended police department. It doesn't need to weaken the community's hope and spirit. And it surely doesn't need a further transfer of wealth from the poor to the privileged.

"Proponents of Detroit's latest advisory referendum on casino gambling assert that theirs is a grass-roots community effort. But it is being bankrolled largely by the promoters of an Indian 'reservation' casino plan in Greektown.

"Detroit's economy and neighbourhoods can and will be rebuilt -- by productive, honest work and with solid morals. Phony something-for-nothing schemes can only make things worse.

"Detroiters should vote no on the casino gambling ordinance. With luck, their implacable opposition to casinos in their city finally will be acknowledged."

This speaks volumes about how the people in Detroit, through the Detroit Free Press, believe that casino gambling is going to be something which is hazardous to their future as a community, and in fact in that plebiscite, they voted against it.

I want to say at the same time that the issue they raised about crime in Detroit is a very serious one vis-à-vis the situation in Windsor. Detroit is the murder capital of the United States, with many, many violent crimes, great problems with the drug trade, and in fact what we see is that this has seeped over into the Canadian side. Last December, there was a petition that was signed by the customs officers in the tunnel and the bridges in Windsor, and that petition said to the federal government, "We cannot continue with the level of staffing we have and the limited resources we have to do the kind of protection of Windsor and the Canadian border that we need to do, that this is getting beyond our capacity," and with government cutbacks they were continuing to find major problems.

When you have a casino, as has been attested to by experts, by studies, by even a good friend of Ontario himself, Donald Trump, by everybody, we know they are magnets for crime, so it is not going to take a whole heck of a lot to see that crime move across the border.

The honourable minister has said many times that she does not think there will be an appreciable increase in crime. You might want to know some statistics on that. How many police officers do you think there are in Windsor, which has about 200,000 residents? There are just a little fewer than 400 police officers. How many do you think there are in the city of Atlantic City, which has 35,000 residents? Four hundred. Now, think about that: 400 for 35,000, and 400 for 200,000.

Mr Sutherland: It shows we're saving.

Mr Drainville: That's right, for now; precisely the point. I'm glad the honourable member for Oxford's in the House, because he grasped the nettle immediately; he understands precisely what I'm saying about that issue.

We have some more articles here that bespeak the kinds of concerns that have been raised by so many. I'm not, obviously, going to have time to speak about them all. We know that the London Free Press has said, "Gambling is the wrong approach to the raising of public funds," and that was on December 11, 1991.

We read in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record on January 23, 1993, "Ontario is Hooked on Lottery Funds." It goes on to talk about the expansion of gambling and it says at the end, "When a government gets hooked on gambling, whatever its motives, it is society that pays the price." I subscribe to that view. I think it's true.

In the Financial Post, January 29, 1993, we read, "Gambling a Bad Bet for the State," and we read at the end of that editorial: "There can be little doubt that the proliferation of government-backed gambling is encouraging more people to gamble. There's no evidence to suggest that the vast amounts of money pumped into the country's illegal gaming systems are being switched into legal games of chance. Indeed, there's much anecdotal evidence to suggest that the burgeoning government-run games are producing a whole new generation of gamblers. Although they have a duty to regulate such activities, governments should not encourage people to gamble. A moratorium on new gambling initiatives would be a sensible bet."

Those who have been involved in this issue and looking at it from the standpoint of the concerns about the addictive behaviour and the increase in addiction in the province and in the country with the expansion of gambling have all said the issue here is accessibility to gambling. We have not, in a sense, come in Ontario to the point where we have saturated the market to the extent that we have a high percentage, that is, 3% to 4%, who are compulsive gamblers and another 3% or 4% who are problem gamblers; we have not saturated that market. But the more opportunities that we put into society, the more lotteries we have, the potential of VLTs, the potential of different kinds of schemes, will actually increase the number of compulsive gamblers and problem gamblers. What are we talking about in numbers? Three per cent to 4% of Ontarians is, what, 350,000 to 400,000? Another 350,000 to 400,000 people would be problem gamblers?

These are significant problems, and we have not one program in this province set up to care for people who are going to lose their homes, their families and lead to major family problems. Again, the government has not understood that there is going to be a major social cost to be paid. And how is it going to be paid? By the taxpayers. It used to be that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Now it's the government giveth and the government taketh away. That's a problem for us.

1720

One other -- no, I'd better switch to this one because I think it's more germane: "Police Casino Squad to Monitor Mob Activity." This is an article from the Toronto Star, June 18, 1993, by John Duncanson.

"Police officers are taking a crash course on the gambling trade in Atlantic City as they prepare to join a special 'casino squad' set up to handle an expected influx of underworld activity in Windsor.

"Over the past month, intelligence officers with the Ontario Provincial Police, the Mounties and the Windsor police have been recruited to keep an eye on mobsters, bikers and others police predict will try to move in on the lucrative casino trade.

"Eight other OPP officers are delving into the background of the dozen or so business groups vying to operate Ontario's first legal casino....

"'We're doing extensive background checks to determine the honesty and integrity of the partners involved."'

They go on and talk about this and indicate that, according to these sources, there's going to be an increase in crime, and that's why we're spending so much money sending these people to learn how to take care of underworld connections, how to find out more and more who is involved with casino gambling and who is involved with expansion of gambling and what the various connections are.

We're spending a lot of money already, and why? Because we are inviting opportunities for more crime in the province of Ontario. Now the government can say, "Oh, no, no," but their own police people, the law enforcement people, are saying, "Oh, yes, yes, there will be more crime."

It's a pretty difficult situation. My time is running down. In this last bit of time I want to bring all the threads together and say essentially that the policy that is set forth by the government is not thought out, that there has been lots of consultation but no consultation on the principle of moving in this direction, that it is, in effect, I would say, a sellout of the traditional values that the New Democratic Party and the CCF had.

I would say that there will be considerably increased opportunities for crime. Criminals will take advantage of it. I would say that the hope that there will be major economic benefits to Windsor is going to be ultimately a false hope. I would say as well that the social problems, on one hand the addictive nature of gambling but on the other hand the social problems that will accrue to people and to families, will be extensive.

For all of these reasons, because of the thousands of people who have petitioned this Legislature, because of the hundreds of letters that we've received against this initiative, because of the people who have been saying that this direction is the wrong direction for this province, I come here to this House today and I say to the honourable members, for gosh sake, take these people seriously. Take seriously the academic studies that have been done. Take seriously the fact that people are concerned about this and that those concerns have a basis in fact.

I would say that I will vote against this bill because it is bad for the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments? The member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: The whole debate about establishing a gambling casino in this province has seemed to border on the extremes. The member for Victoria-Haliburton said that each model has to be looked at individually. He says those who are in support of it can look at the Winnipeg model, yet those who oppose it want to compare it to Atlantic City. Well, Atlantic City doesn't have one casino. I'm not sure how many it has; I understand it has about a dozen casinos. There's a big difference between setting up a whole city of casinos versus putting one in one community.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton says he opposes casino gambling because of the impact it's going to have on the poor. First of all, some of the attitude that comes through implies that poor people aren't able to make their own decisions. One of the key principles that I always believed in as a social democrat was the idea of empowerment of individual people, that they're able to make their own decisions. Now, sometimes they will make bad decisions, but they are able to make their own decisions and empowerment is a key thing as well.

I don't dispute the fact that there may be some increase in crime, in pickpockets, in some other types of crime going on. But there are all kinds of things that we do in this province that have some negative impact. I mean, we do things. We build more cars. We build more highways. People get killed on highways. People get into accidents on highways. There are negative aspects, but the overall good far outweighs the negative.

In terms of the effect that casino gambling is going to have on the poor, the people in my community who do some casino gambling are not the poor people. They're middle-class people who fly to Las Vegas, who go to Atlantic City. They're the ones and they're spending their money outside the province.

I just want to say that I don't think establishing one casino here or a couple of others is going to mean the moral decay of Ontario.

Mr McClelland: It's interesting, the latter comments of my colleague who says that it's only the wealthy and the well-to-do who gamble. Let me just put on the record parts from an article that recently appeared in the Toronto Star, written by a well-known former New Democrat, one Pierre Berton. He writes as follows:

"Anyone who has read the Star's recent four-part series on the Ontario government's plans for a casino society, cannot help but be struck by the incredible naïveté of the NDP members of the Legislature."

Now hear this. Mr Berton continues to write, "Even Gambling Bob, who once declared (in opposition)" -- of course -- "that legalized gambling was 'a tax on the poor,' has climbed aboard the bandwagon."

Pierre Berton asks: "How long before one casino becomes two casinos, and then three, or four? If one casino brings in $140 million a year, why not a dozen -- and balance the budget?

"Does Ms Churley really believe that organized crime can be kept out of the casino business in Canada? Anyone who believes that, as the Duke of Wellington said, will believe anything.

"Talk about selling your soul" -- and selling your principles -- "for a mess of pottage! Well, at least we know what our priorities are in this province" under this government.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I listened carefully to what the member for Victoria-Haliburton had to say. There's no two ways about it: He has demonstrated leadership, first within this caucus and now within this Legislative Assembly, in articulating the views of a large number of people across this province.

Look, I've got to tell you I don't share some of the same ground as the member for Victoria-Haliburton. He has a well-rooted opposition to the concept of casino gambling. I, on occasion, have gone to the racetrack down in Fort Erie, without hesitation. I buy the occasional lottery ticket. Indeed, unlike some other members of this caucus, I've been to casinos.

I tell you, the casinos have not made a great deal of money from me, nor have I from them; similarly with the racetrack, similarly with Lottario. But I would suggest that some people take a walk and take a look and see who's participating in this process, because I'm sorry to tell you, it ain't the wealthy, because indeed the wealthy are down in Las Vegas. The reality is that for three hundred and fifty bucks, perhaps less, you can get a flight to Vegas, four days, three nights and Wayne Newton thrown in to boot.

The market that Windsor is designed for is the people living in a 100-mile radius of Windsor: the unemployed CAW workers of southwestern Ontario and the poor of Detroit. I tell you, if there's any money left in Detroit, the Americans would have got it first. I'd suggest to you that there had better be a lengthy and considered debate about this issue before we embark upon what could be a very perilous course. I thank the member for Victoria-Haliburton for his leadership in that regard.

1730

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want as well to commend the member for Victoria-Haliburton for putting forward a very logical and well-thought-out argument against casino gambling and specifically against this bill. I think what is significant in his particular case is that he has felt so strongly about this issue that he has been prepared to depart from his caucus primarily in regard to his opposition to casino gambling.

Anybody who knows the circumstances that face members of the federal or provincial Parliament knows that it is very difficult to leave a caucus. There has to be a very good reason to do so because there are a lot of perks that are available if you are in a government caucus. You can be a cabinet minister and make a lot more money and have a lot more perks available to you. If you are a parliamentary assistant, then you have available to you that opportunity, along with close to $10,000. If you have a committee chair -- it used to be called chairmanship, now called a committee chair -- you would in that case make more money. So there are a variety of ways, and there are some favours that you can gather from cabinet ministers if you know them directly.

That is why I'm saying that in any Parliament it is very significant when a member is prepared to leave a government caucus to sit as an independent in the House, and primarily over an issue about which the member feels so strongly.

I commend the member for that. I think it should cause members of the government caucus, of the New Democratic Party, to reflect upon the position of the cabinet and perhaps to revert back to the old position of the CCF and the NDP.

The Deputy Speaker: You have two minutes to reply.

Mr Drainville: I thank the honourable members who have responded to my address to the House: the honourable member for Brampton North, the honourable member for Oxford, the honourable member for Welland-Thorold and the honourable member for St Catharines.

In the very brief time that's allotted to me, I will respond to the honourable member for Oxford.

The cry of "paternalism" has been said often by people who try to avoid the whole issue of the regressivity of the tax on the poor, which is a reality they do not acknowledge. In fact, it's an issue which really has to be tied to leadership; that is, what is the government's role in society? Is it the government's role in society to provide more opportunities for people to be hurt, for people to lose their homes, for people to have problems with their money, for people to have family problems?

You haven't experienced that, I say to the honourable member, and that's fine. I have. I've seen the devastation that this has on families and on communities. So when you say that it is paternalism, I would turn it around and say it's time for leadership. It's time for the government to say, "We're going to initiate programs and processes and legislation that will ensure that people are built up, that they have opportunities that are going to use their abilities and their talents."

The moneys that will come from this are not going to provide that. Any of the statistics that have come from the minister have not been statistics that are based on fact. They're based on conjecture and they're based on polling and they're based on total fabricless information. I would say to the honourable member that when you're talking about paternalism --

The Deputy Speaker: Please address the Chair.

Mr Drainville: I would say that when the honourable member speaks of paternalism, he is speaking really about an unwillingness to take leadership and say: "No, our government will not continue to hurt people. We will change this direction and we will ensure that people are protected as they should be in society."

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Lawrence.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm delighted to have this opportunity to speak on this most important subject, one which touches all of us in this House and affects all of our constituents in fundamental ways. But I must say that I'm a little delirious at the level of sanctimony that I've heard on occasion in this chamber, and particularly on this subject.

Having said that, let me just say this. It is with particular interest that I note that some people in this chamber have the strength of their convictions; namely, to fight for what they believe in and to put their money where their mouth is. That's certainly the case with the member for Victoria-Haliburton on this issue. I must remind government members that we must look at the fact that the member for Victoria-Haliburton has believed so strongly in the wrongheadedness of his former party's position on casino gambling that he went so far as to cross the floor and sit as an independent. No one should question that level of conviction.

I say that to say this: This is not a discussion, for me at least, that is to follow on moral ground. Perhaps the member for Victoria-Haliburton speaks from his convictions, speaks with a sense of moral higher ground, and I leave that for others to determine, and those who are watching.

I would speak from a position of practicality on this subject matter, as I always have approached this. The minister, is sitting in the House, and I, being the former critic for Consumer and Commercial Relations, have said on many occasions on this matter that you have approached this in a wrong fashion, and I say this now with some new perspectives, which I bring to light in my speech today. You haven't looked at the practical aspects of the effect that you will have.

We have on repeated occasions asked for impact studies from this government, the kinds of impacts that will be felt by every citizen, not just in the city of Windsor. If there is the degree of success with the casino in Windsor, and we're talking about a pilot project today -- and that, again, is questionable -- I would ask the minister to consider the fact that when her casino opens in Windsor -- if it's successful; success breeds success -- there will be additional competition from across the border. I guarantee that. It is my belief that the state of Michigan, the state of Ohio and the state of New York will not sit idly by and watch potential revenues being sucked from their states into the province of Ontario. I firmly believe that there will be head-on competition which will inevitably lead us into a struggle for the market share that is to be gained. The competition will be fierce for those people who would attend the casino.

Remember now, we're talking about a population base in the millions within easy driving distance. There are those who have looked at this from a business point of view and have said there will be additional competition. There are those who have said that certainly one casino would not stand the test of time, that in fact other casinos, even in the city of Windsor, would be required to meet the expectations and the competition that is to come.

Let's not fool ourselves. Once you set this train in motion, you have indeed embarked on a long journey which will require additional investment, additional outlays of capital on the part of the government, additional requirements in other centres. This will inevitably spread, if not even to keep a successful operation going, but the fact that there will be competition emerging on all sides. This will set a chain reaction. There is no doubt about that in my mind.

I think this government is ill-prepared to deal with that, has not factored that into its plans. We have repeatedly pointed that out and I think to suggest to the citizens of this province that this is simply a pilot project which will be self-contained in the city of Windsor, that it will be one casino, that it will not look like Atlantic City, those are hollow promises, I think based on naïveté, at best. I won't be more cynical than that. I think what we're talking about here is being on the road to full-fledged casino gambling throughout the whole province and additional strengthening of the casinos at the border sites, because there they will face the stiffest competition in the future.

1740

Having said that, I just want to note that it's symptomatic of this government, or at least a tell-tale sign, something that we will remember this government by, that it always acts not looking forward but looking backwards and taking initiatives which are dated. This is an initiative which has a lot to be longed for, in the sense that this government has not looked at the fact that there will be additional competition, as I've pointed out already, and the fact that the additional revenues it hopes to create simply will not be, down the road, as fruitful unless it's prepared to spend additional dollars.

Let's not be fooled about that, and that's what I'm trying to tell the government: that it will have to spend additional dollars down the road and that this will be an ongoing struggle for market share, for attracting tourists and attracting a continuous flow of players. We know that's what's required in order to generate the big dollars the casinos are generating in places like Atlantic City. If the government tells me that it doesn't want to generate big revenues -- its estimates are out the window about what it's going to generate. They're looking at these big dollar amounts and have convinced the people of Windsor and these other cities that are interested in having a casino that there will be huge dollars involved and that the spinoffs will be tremendous.

The spinoffs, I say to you, will be very limited to those businesses. We see from the experience in Atlantic City that most businesses that were hoping for spinoffs, that were located next to the casinos, found that these were pie-in-the-sky promises. They did not see the spinoffs; in fact, many of those businesses closely situated to the casinos lost money, and most of them have since closed down in Atlantic City. That will be the problem for this government in the city of Windsor. I say to the government, you will see that the spinoffs simply aren't there.

In a casino economy, the casinos need to generate a continuous influx of people, which means they need high volumes of people and those people have to gamble for great lengths of time in order to generate the kinds of revenues that this government and this Treasurer are interested in and lusting for. I would say that as a result of that, the casino economy does not encourage spinoffs; it will not permit spinoffs.

The people who go to a casino to gamble are going to be encouraged to stay in the casino for as long as they can keep them there, because that's the way the casino will make money. This has been pointed out by many experts, and I'm sure the government is hearing this from those who are bidding on the tender that has been competed for.

The fact of the matter is that those businesses in Windsor simply will not see any of the benefits. That's a case in point. We saw that in Atlantic City. In fact, in Las Vegas you have casinos which offer everything to their clients, from the possibility of eating right in the casino to having entertainment right there and staying in accommodations right on the premises. Those are all things that are designed to keep the client in the casino, keep the customer there, keep them gambling. After all, that's what this is about, huge-volume gambling, and that's what produces those large revenues. Let's not fool the people of Ontario that this is somehow not going to lead to that. Let's be clear about that.

There are a number of other factors which have to be considered and that this government has failed to consider. The impact studies, which I have called for and the present critic calls for and other members of the opposition have questioned the government on, simply have not been made available. You have to ask the government, do you really know what the impacts of this will be?

I understand that the minister has said there's a Coopers and Lybrand report that she will table some time in the near future, long after the fact. This bill, Bill 8, is set to go to committee within the next two weeks, and no one in the public or the opposition has available to them yet, as a result of the government having conducted impact studies, the kind of information which is important.

I remember the minister arguing at the time, when I asked her about this, that it was a pilot project which was going to give us the kind of information that was being sought by members of the opposition and the public; that it would be the pilot project which would answer the questions about the social impacts, the ills that will be facing the people in the city of Windsor; that questions like that would be answered by the pilot project once it was up and running and we could actually see what the results were. The questions around policing, the questions around organized crime, the questions about laundering money, the questions regarding who is going to pay for the additional costs of policing, the additional social impacts, I say to the minister, those questions still hang out there.

The city of Windsor is not benefitting directly in the revenue flows from the casino that will be generated. I think that's a negative; that's quite a disaster for the city. Costs will go up, property taxes will go up to offset those costs for the municipality, and there will not be offsetting revenues from the provincial government.

The minister has talked vaguely about -- and there are ongoing discussions, as we understand it, and negotiations with the city of Windsor -- some additional grants going to the city of Windsor, but we have precious few specifics and details on that which have been made available by this government. I think that simply leaves the debate open constantly for the kinds of questions which have been raised in this House, and the public has the right to know, because those are serious impacts.

In the communities that will seek to have casinos located in their particular city, I think it would be appropriate to have that kind of discussion and debate go forward from this time on so that the people in this province would be well informed.

As I said, this train has left the station. Once you have one casino up and running, it will be very difficult to reverse that, because it would be like a sunk cost; the casino will be operational. If it's really successful, there will be additional competition on the American side of the border. There will be an additional requirement for further investment in casinos to keep up with the competition that's across the border; the casino size will have to expand. I think we'll see at the end of the day that this will be full-fledged casinos, the type which we see in Atlantic City and Las Vegas. In my mind, there's no question of that.

To suggest to people that we're going to look something like Winnipeg or look something like other casinos in Europe I think is incorrect, ill-conceived and not telling the total story about what's going to happen here. That's why I think it was important from the outset to have these impact studies to be able to determine what the real impacts are.

We know that the horse racing industry will be devastated by this; there is no doubt that there will be a negative consequence on the horse racing industry. It employs 54,000 people across the province, and it's an industry that generates about $2.2 billion in revenue right across and about $55 million in revenue to the province directly. That's an enormous industry which this government has failed to look after, and the consequences and the impacts of casino gambling will simply add another blow to an industry which has been employing, as I say, 54,000 people.

We have no indication of the kinds of consequences and how many jobs will be lost in the horse racing industry. There have been cases in the United States -- again New Jersey, for example, and other states -- where horse racing has declined and wagering has declined. We see that there have been negative impacts there as a result of casino gambling.

The other sector, of course, to be affected quite negatively is the charitable gaming organizations. We've pointed out repeatedly that charities will be hurt by the establishment of casinos, and again I point out that it's not just one casino in Windsor but that in fact this will set off a whole chain reaction. As the government has implied, there will be other casinos in other cities across the province to come; more to come, folks.

1750

So I say, as a result of that, charitable organizations across the province will be affected, because there are only so many dollars to go around -- and this is an argument that we've made in the past and continue to make -- there are only so many dollars to go towards gaming and, quite frankly, you keep cutting that pie up smaller and smaller and more of it will go to the casinos, because they'll be offering the kind of total package which cannot be offered by the charitable organizations on a casino night which they establish in a church basement.

The kind of glitter and excitement that will be offered by a casino is no match for a charitable organization in a church basement hall. I say that has serious implications for the revenues that are generated by those organizations in the future, and the government cannot ignore that. It simply cannot ignore that.

As a matter of fact, the government should realize this from its own experience in lotteries. The government realizes that it has to continuously update lotteries, introduce new ones, to keep the attention of the people who play these lotteries and keep the interest and excitement going. That's exactly the kind of thing that has to happen in this area as well, and when casinos are being offered up as an alternative form of entertainment, you know very well that those charitable organizations simply cannot compete with the casinos in offering that form of entertainment.

So you leave the charitable organizations with a lot of questions about their future, pondering how they're going to sustain their revenue stream, and quite frankly I am not at all satisfied by this government in its answers to the charitable organizations as to how they will make up those lost revenues. Not much has been said by this minister; not a great deal has been said at all by this government.

Again, this government is forsaking all of those groups, simply because, as a practical consideration, it lusts after those revenues. The Treasurer can't wait to get his hands on the revenues that are generated by the casinos. It's a jackpot. It's the kind of thing where they've thrown all principle out the window.

I find it interesting; I have a quote here, going back some time, of course, but the Treasurer once said:

"I would hope that the government doesn't get into the position of using lottery funds to bail it out of fiscal deficits or for essential services. That truly would be offensive."

That was something the Treasurer said back in 1975 with regard to the subject matter of the introduction of lotteries in this province.

Now, that was a long time ago, and the Treasurer obviously has changed his view about the world, but no consideration has been given to the kind of philosophical, principled position that once was the trademark of the Treasurer and the trademark of the Premier and I suppose could have been said about the entire New Democratic Party. It's no longer the case.

But, as I say, I've tried to deal with this subject on practical considerations today -- I've dealt with some of those other matters in previous addresses -- but as a practical consideration, after having forsaken their principles and after having given up any sense of who they represent and what this party stands for in regard to this issue, I say to the minister, who was at one time opposed to casinos, not so long ago when she was a councillor, at the CNE. I recall she was very opposed to the introduction of a casino at the Canadian National Exhibition.

Hon Ms Churley: Do you know why?

Mr Cordiano: For whatever reason, the fact remained that the minister was opposed to the establishment of a casino at the CNE back in those days. That was then, this is now, and again we point out the reversal of roles. That happens a lot in this place, and I understand.

But when the Premier stands up and says, "I can appreciate the opposition saying that because they're in opposition and they're opposed to everything we do and say," it becomes a little difficult to sit here and to hear the Premier say that day in and day out as a defence for what he's doing today when in the past he was so vehemently opposed and the positions he took were so stridently based on what we thought were his convictions. Obviously, that is not the case today.

Getting back to practical considerations, which are very much to the point today since we're dealing with a piece of legislation which is going before committee, obviously we're not dealing with the principle of the matter. Once we get to committee, we're going to be dealing with the practical elements of the bill.

I still think this is a flawed project. We need additional measures to be taken to ensure that once the casino is up and running, it will prove to be a success, and that the government understands what it's getting into. I still think the government fails to realize just what its competition is going to be like, what the requirements are going to be, what the elements of risk really mean for the people of the province of Ontario and the impacts they're going to be facing.

Again, one other consideration: Let's not forget the fact that another group to be considered in all of this is native Canadians, native groups across the province. I understand the task force dealing with this has been meeting with natives, but it has not come to any agreement with the native groups. Quite frankly, there is a recipe for disaster that looms on this matter. With regard to native groups, there has not been a clear direction which the government has stated it will follow. Again, negotiations are ongoing, but they seem to be leading to chaos.

I think it would be incumbent upon the government to establish a clear direction in this regard, to ensure that there is an agreement with native groups so that we don't have a chaotic situation across the province and reservations across the province, where native groups legitimately would say that they're going to move forward and where the government entrenches itself so that there is no agreement for all to see and for all to understand that we move forward with.

The other matter I wanted to deal with in the time that remains to me is the fact that the process that was followed was also flawed. In our opinion, the very integrity of the bidding process was called into question. The fact that the selection of the site of the interim casino was questioned and continues to be questioned is of some concern to me. We're getting off on the wrong foot here, so to speak, and it does not bode well for what's to come in the future.

Again, this speaks to the ability of the government to manage a process, to see that there is equity and fairness that guide the entire undertaking that is pursued. Again, I say to the minister, you must be very cautious about how you proceed in this regard. This process must be seen to be fair, it must be with integrity. That's being questioned and has been questioned by my colleague and others in this House and will continue to be questioned, because there are legitimate concerns about the integrity of this process.

I would caution the minister to ensure that the integrity of the process remains intact, that there is seen to be a fair and equitable process that's undertaken in the bidding and that, quite frankly, nothing could be called into question at the end of the day, because there are a number of continuing questions that beg answers and most of those have not been answered.

We in committee will be making a number of inquiries on behalf of the minister with respect to this. Ongoing questioning will be pursued because there are so many unanswered questions.

1800

Finally, I want to say that after the government decided that it needed new revenues, additional revenues, a new revenue source, it looked to the easy answer of casino gambling. As I started to say at the beginning of my remarks, there will be additional competition to be concerned about. I think that this government, as it has done, as it is showing its hand right across and its patterns are becoming quite a bit more visible now -- if you want to look at things objectively and to be objective, I would say this government comes up with initiatives which, quite frankly, are outdated.

This initiative, casino gambling, I think is fraught with problems because you're not looking at this industry in the way it needs to be looked at. I understand that even in Las Vegas it's an ongoing struggle to keep people coming to Las Vegas. It's an entertainment dollar that keeps shrinking and constant competition exists for that entertainment dollar. I understand that in Las Vegas there are plans to have a mega-entertainment centre under away, and I know the minister would want to listen to this. She's not paying attention, but maybe she can review what I'm saying later.

The fact of the matter is that the competition remains for the entertainment dollar and is growing each and every day, in places like Las Vegas where they're planning a mega-entertainment centre that goes well beyond just casino gambling. It's something that I think this government needs to take into consideration when it's planning the casino in Windsor and expecting huge revenues. When the Americans look at what we're doing -- I've said this already -- they will no doubt follow and then initiate their own plans for casino gambling immediately across the border; people in Detroit, people in other parts of Michigan, Ohio, New York state. I think we will see intense competition for these dollars.

I say to the government that you've got to be prepared for that competition, and if you're thinking that you're going to set up a small casino in Windsor and make huge dollars from it, think again. You're going to be required to put in additional expenditures, additional capital outlays for those dollar returns. You're going to be required to put up with a great deal more competition than I think you bargained for, if you want this to be successful on the revenue side. Having taken this decision -- and I'm not arguing; again, let's leave moral issues aside, which I did at the beginning of this debate, on whether you've taken the correct decision in that regard -- the bill has been tabled for consideration. As a practical consideration, you have to understand that you're dealing with an entertainment product and that it's far more complex than just setting up a casino, if you want this to be successful.

Again I say to the minister that you have not shown me, at least. I don't feel you have done this to the extent that you should. You've taken on additional studies to show what needs to be done. You haven't released them, and I would ask again that you do that so that we can all be apprised of what it is that you're dealing with in terms of impacts and what it is that you're going to have to deal with in the future.

I say to the minister that you failed to do that. You failed to satisfy the opposition's concerns and, I suspect, a greater number of people in the province of Ontario than you care to admit.

The Acting Speaker: Question and/or comments?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio in Culture, Tourism and Recreation): Mr Speaker, through you to the member for Lawrence, I disagree with a couple of comments you made in your debate. First of all, you say that there'll be no spinoffs at all in a community that will house a casino, and a lot of people have taken the time to read letters, read newspaper articles. I ask you to read the Windsor Star of July 20, where it give almost half a page of benefits to that community's spinoffs.

Both of us know that when anyone goes into another community, they become a tourist. Not only will they go into the casino, but they will look around Windsor and see all the wonderful things that Windsor has to offer: the shopping, the entertainment, the amusement parks, Point Pelee National Park. I keep hearing that people are going to go into casinos and it appears they're going to be chained to a machine or chained to a table. For heaven's sake, give people some credit. Not only will they go there to enjoy the casino, which has been planned by this government, but they'll also be able to get out as a tourist and enjoy. There will be spinoffs.

The other thing you brought up that I disagree with is you feel this government has not been addressing the concerns of the horse racing industry. I represent the riding of Niagara South, which has the Fort Erie Race Track, and if there's anything in my term here, it's how proud I was last year when this government stood by that racetrack, made it a viable racetrack, and kept 4,500 people working in my riding. Those were a lot of spinoff jobs and direct jobs at the racetrack.

This minister has given consideration to horse racing, even the sites. There has been consultation with the horse racing industry, with the unions, with all the farmers in that area. This minister and this government will not hurt the horse racing industry. We want to work with them. But I'm very proud about the idea of having casinos. There will be spinoffs for communities, there will be extra tourism, especially in Windsor.

Mr McClelland: I want to commend the member for Lawrence for his contribution to the debate and also recognize and acknowledge the fact that when the legislation was first being discussed and was in its draft form, the member for Lawrence was critic for the official opposition for Consumer and Commercial Relations. I want to express publicly my thanks for the work that he did. Quite frankly, that made the transition in my assuming that responsibility in the opposition much easier, because of his good work and his collegiality and cooperation throughout.

A couple comments with respect to what the member for Lawrence said in this debate: I think he makes a very good point in terms of the economic benefit that may accrue to the city of Windsor or indeed any other site. Certainly the member for Niagara South raised that issue. I don't believe she was here last evening, and perhaps other members. I simply again want, in light of the member for Lawrence's comments, to remind members in this House that the empirical data show very plainly that most people who come into a casino do not come as tourists per se, that they come in to gamble and that, on average, they stay six hours and spend five hours and 40 minutes gaming. The other 20 minutes is devoted to travelling and to secondary industry. Because of that, I doubt very much that we are going to see a $325-million accrual to the secondary benefit that has been suggested.

Further -- I just want to comment very briefly -- the member for Lawrence also makes a very good point with respect to the horse racing industry. We're not talking about subsidies. The member for Niagara South may have a different view of it. The horse racing industry wants to be treated, if you will, on a level playing field, to be taxed as it would be, if I can use this, in a competitive sense or equally with other gaming. The fact of the matter is that they're taxed as a monopoly. They are no longer a monopoly and that ought to be given consideration.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): While I appreciated his comments, I know deep down inside that the member for Lawrence does agree with the casino. I'm not saying to the member that I don't believe him and that I don't believe he disagrees with it. Understanding his constituency as well, I would think a lot of his constituents would even want to see a casino nearby.

Mr Cordiano: Oh, you assume too much.

Mr Mammoliti: I may be taking a chance by saying this, but I think that deep down inside the member for Lawrence does agree with the casino.

Let me just reflect on some of the things that the member neglected to mention, probably unintentionally, I would think. In his argument, he doesn't mention the amounts of money that are currently going across the border. Billions of dollars a year of Ontario money are currently going to places like Las Vegas and New Jersey. We need to take a look at that as well.

What are the potential savings on that? How much of that money will actually stay in Ontario after this is built and running? You need to start talking about this, as well, because this is very important. Restaurants, the hotel industry in Windsor, talk about the positive things. Don't speculate because if you speculate, you're only misleading yourself. You should be talking about the positives.

I tell the member for Lawrence, go to Windsor, if you haven't been there, and have a chat with the first five people you see on the street, and ask them how they feel about the casino, because I can almost guarantee you that most of them will say they appreciate the fact that the government is bringing one there, and they appreciate the fact that it's going to bring business. Do a little bit of homework.

1810

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Lawrence has two minutes in response.

Mr Cordiano: These are all idyllic kinds of views that things will prove to be just dandy for the establishment of a casino in the city of Windsor, and that there'll be huge numbers of jobs created. We wave a magic wand and all the problems will be solved.

That's what I caution against. I caution against that because the type of economy that's created by a casino does not lead in fact to very good-paying jobs. It does not lead in fact to any of the kinds of spinoffs that have been mentioned here.

It's the very questioning of these spinoffs that is the reason I bring these concerns to the chamber today because, quite frankly, I doubt seriously that there will be the kinds of spinoffs that perhaps, in a naïve kind of way, the members opposite have hoped for and, with good intentions, want the citizens of Windsor to benefit from.

All of us want the citizens of Windsor to benefit from real economic spinoffs, and for that matter, the rest of the people in the province of Ontario, but I say again, this is not a panacea. This is a ploy on the part of the government to extract as much revenue as it possibly can from a revenue-generating operation. Quite frankly, that's why I'm so cynical about it.

If you had insisted that the city of Windsor was to share in some of the benefits directly from the revenues that are generated, then I could see some merit in what's being proposed. I could see that, but when you simply say, "Let them have the spinoffs; let them be content with that," I say no, that's not enough. That's simply not enough, because we know from the experience of other cities that this has led to misery, that this has led to failed dreams and promises that were not kept.

I say, do not tell the people of the city of Windsor promises that you cannot keep.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Cordiano: I move adjournment of the debate on Bill 8, it being past 6 of the clock.

The Acting Speaker: We have a previous agreement that we go to 6:15.

Mr Cordiano: Well, it being close to 6:15, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement? No. Further debate?

Hon Mr Hampton: I'm not sure exactly what motion the member opposite intended to make. I merely wanted to say that if we have concluded debate on the question, we want to call the 18th order.

The Acting Speaker: It is an order of the House that at 6:15 --

Mr Cordiano: Mr Speaker, if I may, I'm simply calling for adjournment of debate on Bill 8. On Bill 8, the matter that we have dealt with, we had agreement that we would continue until 6:15. It being close to 6:15, I've asked for adjournment of debate on Bill 8.

The Acting Speaker: Okay. The Chair will assume adjournment of the debate, it being very close to 6:15. It would be quite unfair to the next participant. We now move to orders of the day.

Report continues in volume B

July 27, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT POLICY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

KELSEY-HAYES CANADA

CLOSURE OF FISHERIES RESEARCH UNIT

INSURANCE TAX

MOUSELAND

SOCIAL CONTRACT

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

SPEAKER'S RULING

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SETTLEMENTS

JOBS ONTARIO

FUNDING APPLICATION FORM

RACCOON RABIES

PROVINCIAL PARKS

FEES FOR USE OF CROWN LAND

PICKERING AIRPORT LANDS

DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

GAMBLING

HEALTH CARE

SOCIAL CONTRACT

HEALTH CARE

PUBLIC SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

GO TRANSIT

PUBLIC SERVICES

CASINO GAMBLING

PENSION FUNDS

TECHNICAL FEES

HEALTH CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CASINO GAMBLING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EXPENDITURE REDUCTION AND NON-TAX REVENUES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RÉDUCTIONS DES DÉPENSES ET LES RECETTES NON FISCALES

OWEN SOUND LITTLE THEATRE ACT, 1993

BUDGET STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN FONCTION DU BUDGET

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES GAINS RÉALISÉS À LA SUITE D'UN ACTE CRIMINEL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO