CONTENTS
Monday 30 September 1996
Alcohol, Gaming and Charity Funding Public Interest Act, 1996, Bill 75, Mr Sterling /
Loi de 1996 régissant les alcools, les jeux et le financement des organismes de bienfaisance
dans l'intérêt public, projet de loi 75, M. Sterling
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford PC)
Mrs MarionBoyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North / -Nord L)
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
*Mr TimHudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
*Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC)
Mr FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC)
*Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Mr BudWildman (Algoma ND)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Ms IsabelBassett (St Andrew-St Patrick PC) for Mr Doyle
Mr MikeColle (Oakwood L) for Mr Ramsay
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L) for Mr Chiarelli
Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC) for Mr Tilson
Mr GerardKennedy (York South / -Sud L) for Mr Conway
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND) for Mr Wildman
Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC) for Mr Parker
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr Christopher Wernham, legislative counsel
J-1475
The committee met at 1534 in room 228.
ALCOHOL, GAMING AND CHARITY FUNDING PUBLIC INTEREST ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉGISSANT LES ALCOOLS, LES JEUX ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE DANS L'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC
Consideration of Bill 75, An Act to regulate alcohol and gaming in the public interest, to fund charities through the responsible management of video lotteries and to amend certain statutes related to liquor and gaming / Projet de loi 75, Loi réglementant les alcools et les jeux dans l'intérêt public, prévoyant le financement des organismes de bienfaisance grâce à la gestion responsable des loteries vidéo et modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait aux alcools et aux jeux.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): I reconvene this meeting of the administration of justice committee, a continuation of our hearings on Bill 75, An Act to regulate alcohol and gaming in the public interest, to fund charities through the responsible management of video lotteries and to amend certain statutes related to liquor and gaming. We have a quorum present. We last finished -- we didn't finish. We were dealing with the third-party motion to amend subsection 2(3) of the schedule to the act, and Mr Kormos has the floor.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Thank you, Chair. It's been some time, and I understand that Mr Flaherty is frustrated by the failure of this bill to have been driven through committee, he as PA. Sometimes these sorts of things can be career-limiting moves when you don't deliver for your minister.
A lot was said and done during the course of the three weeks that I was with this committee, blessed as I was to substitute for Ms Boyd. I know the committee members missed Ms Boyd, but I felt very welcome here on this committee.
I think some apologies are in order, Chair. As I say, during the course of three weeks some things were said and done that were unfortunate, and I certainly do want to apologize. I want to apologize to the people of Ontario and to the participants in this committee process, many of whom made some very valuable contributions, many of whom had concerns about the slots, the 20,000 that are being proposed by this government, and cried out for, at the very least, some local optioning so that municipalities would have the right to say no to slots in our community, like the city of St Catharines has done, said no, no, like the town of Iroquois Falls has done and like some 20 other municipalities had already been on record as doing when these committee hearings commenced.
These proceedings were, oh, so bizarre, and again, the utilization of them by any number of people for any number of reasons was remarkable. Indeed, I have a carbon copy of a letter to the parliamentary assistant. I was cc'd. This wasn't submitted to the committee but I think it warrants being on the record. It reads:
"Dear Mr Flaherty:
"Thank you for your letter of September 16, which I presume to be a reply to my letter of September 15 addressed to the Premier."
Then the author of this letter says to Mr Flaherty:
"In attempting to explain how your party fund-raisers obtained my address, you mentioned that you previously wrote me a note of thanks at my home address. Indeed you did. It was a lovely note and quite right and proper in your role with the committee on the administration of justice.
"Once again, what was not right and proper was turning that information over to your riding association for their fund-raising list. That was a misuse of privileged information and abuse of incumbency.
"You say in paragraph 3 that your riding association referred to the written submissions to obtain addresses for fund-raising. This is clearly not the case. Certainly I'm not so foolish to have written to you in the first place if such an explanation were available."
You see, in the copy of the submission which she attached to the letter, it indicates that it's not her home address that's contained on the submission. She was appearing on behalf of a committee, and it was the address of the committee. That mailing address is quite different from her own. The conclusion is obvious. She writes, most politely under the circumstances, "Yours sincerely, Ms Rogers."
Incredible. You see, what's even wilder is that Ms Rogers appeared before the committee on behalf of the Golden Horseshoe Social Action Committee down in Fort Erie, criticizing the slot machine proposal, and here she ends up on a Tory fund-raiser list. Lots of luck, Mr Flaherty, but I know Ms Rogers well. I don't mind your Tory riding association spending time and money on the postage, but if you ever get a nickel or a dime out of Ms Rogers, it will be a cold day in hell, I can tell you that. Ms Rogers is far too committed to fairness and social justice to ever want to contribute money to a Tory riding association.
What more have we seen? We've seen now -- and I'm sure everybody is in receipt of this because it was copied to all members of the provincial Legislature -- correspondence from the Bishop of London, Rev John Sherlock, writing on behalf of the Social Affairs Commission of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops and soundly condemning in a very non-partisan way the proposal of this government.
We've got filed with the committee, presented to us today, a letter from Planned Parenthood, Waterloo region, soundly condemning the slot machine proposal. It was attached to this -- what's this? A letter from Councillor Berry Vrbanovic from the city of Kitchener, saying please slow down and exercise caution.
1540
We also know there's been a whole lot of Tory backbenchers -- I've talked to some of them -- who are royally ticked off, to avoid using unparliamentary language. "Ticked off" is an understatement, because they figure they've been had. I'm told -- and far be it from any members of the Tory caucus to tell stories out of school or to talk to me about what goes on in a Tory caucus room, but Mike Harris's spin doctors were in there giving them the line on slots. It was one of those "Don't worry" things. Come on. Grow up, people. Every time somebody precedes a statement with "Don't worry," it's tantamount to saying -- I don't want to be offensive, but --
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): "Trust me."
Mr Kormos: "Trust me." These slots were going to slide through like poop through a goose. Communities were going to be ecstatic with them. Remember, the first few days of these hearings, Mr Crozier, Mr Kennedy, Mr Colle, myself, we incited apoplexy on the part of some of the Tories, if not all of them, by referring to these as slots. Some of these dough-heads actually wanted the Chair to rule that we couldn't use the words "slot machines." That was all part of the spin, that these weren't slots, that they were somehow VLTs.
I must say the committee hearings for me were most revealing, because they illustrated the pathetic spin that the government has put on this issue and how transparent it was and is. I've since learned that again there's a whole lot of Tory benchers -- we even heard one on at least a provincially televised broadcast over the course of the weekend say that he's not going to vote for them. I hope Mr Murdoch has the guts to actually vote against them rather than take the proverbial walk. It's not as if at this point he owes anybody anything or that he's put himself into that much of a risk position. There will be some who will say, "Oh, Mr Murdoch, that's a career-limiting move." It all depends what you're interested in in terms of your career. Are you interested in serving your constituency after the next provincial election? I suspect Bill Murdoch is. He's a Reformer. I disagree, but at least he's an honest Reformer, because unlike many of his colleagues, Bill Murdoch acknowledges being a Reform Party supporter federally.
I of course was in the committee when the Tory leadership convention was taking place out west. I had friends monitoring it on television. They couldn't find hide nor hair of a single Tory backbencher or frontbencher up there at that convention. While there may have been one or two, they're hard to recognize when they wear those Groucho Marx glasses and the big nose and the fake moustache in futile efforts at disguise because they're embarrassed to be seen where they know they don't belong.
So what have we got? We've got a proposal here that's lost spin even with the government members, that's lost attractiveness. They've realized what some of us have been trying to tell them for a whole long time, that this doesn't have the popularity out there in the communities, least of all in what I call the real Ontario -- I've got nothing against Toronto, but what I call the real Ontario, small-town Ontario, places like Welland-Thorold, the kind of folks that I speak for here at Queen's Park. I'm sure there are going to be isolated areas where, because of the obsession with gambling as some sort of industry -- and again, we learned about the unsustainability of it as an industry.
Apologies are in order to the people who tried to come to this committee knowing full well that this government, jackbooted as it is, is going to ram through whatever it wants, regardless of what the critics say, even the critics within its own caucus. "Bill Murdoch, go away. You're just a little fly in the ointment here; you're just a modest irritant. Morley Kells, go away, you're just a modest little irritant here."
The real career-limiting move is to support this legislation. People who are interested in serving in this Parliament beyond the next three years or so, or two years if Mike Harris does a David Peterson, which I suspect he's disinclined to do -- he might wait three and a half, though. I think the fall of 1998 is a maybe.
You see, a whole lot of these people never made this much money before in their lives and they're never going to make this much money again. Granted, even though the pension plan has been denied to at least those elected in 1995, 78-plus grand a year for starters ain't bad bucks in the total scheme of things when you're looking at growing unemployment here in the province of Ontario. A lot of these guys have never made this much money before in their lives and they'll never make this much money again. They could extend their tenure here beyond one term if they start listening to folks out there who at the end of the day have a whole lot more common sense than Tom Long ever had, has or ever will. Tom Long got the government elected. I'm not sure he'll keep the government in power. The people in the province keep government in power.
What happened? Both the Liberal caucus and, I suspect, Mr Crozier -- I'm not going to speak for him; he's quite capable of speaking for himself -- presented a number of amendments, all of which were in response to submissions made to this committee by well-meaning parties that had a good handle on what was going on here, who weren't as stupid as some of the people who swallowed the guff that was coming from the spin doctors in the Premier's office.
We have yet to see or hear from David Tsubouchi. Where's David Tsubouchi? "Where's Waldo?" David Tsubouchi has remained silent on this whole issue, not a word, notwithstanding that he knows, or maybe people just aren't telling him, that his absence from this committee became a significant issue on the Wednesday and Thursday of the last two days this committee sat, that more than a few members of this committee thought it was more than appropriate that David Tsubouchi should present himself here and perhaps make some comment on where he stands on the issue. Where's David Tsubouchi? Not to be seen, certainly not to be heard from live, in person or by way of printed word.
We had legitimate concerns raised by people who knew that this gang of Tories, increasingly being referred to by the media and journalists as Reform-a-Tories -- I noticed that on Focus Ontario on Saturday night. The nomenclature "Reform-a-Tories" has picked up currency over the last six, seven months or so, since it was first coined by persons unknown, and it's become part of the lexicon of the day, I say, knowing full well that this slot machine bill is going to go through come hell or high water.
The other concern I have: I believe some members of the Liberal caucus had requested production of that 80-plus-page secret police report because we haven't heard a single word about what's going to be done to the 15,000 -- I don't care if it's 20,000 or however many thousands -- so-called grey but potentially illegal slot machines and many, if not most, are being used illegally at least from time to time. We haven't heard a single word about how the government proposes to rid Ontario of those -- nothing, absolute silence.
1550
We requested that from the parliamentary assistant. I don't know what he did for the balance of the summer through to when the House started. I can't see him as having been ticked off for too long about not being able to get the bill through clause-by-clause so that it would be there in time. Maybe for a day or two he muttered and mumbled and made references to one or two opposition members in most uncomplimentary terms. He may have talked unflatteringly about some of us to his barber or his hairstylist. He might have gotten chided a little bit. Then again I can't say that for certain; he's surrounded himself with relatively charitable people who know what it's like to screw up, and they'd understand that of him. He fumbled the ball. It happens. You don't get thrown off the team just because you fumble the ball. You may not become captain of the team; you may not become front string.
Then again he could be chastised as he was by Ms Rogers for getting her name on to his Tory riding association fund-raiser mailing list. I think it's really kind of neat. I wish more Tory riding associations would put more non-Tories on their fund-raising lists so that they'd spend that much money on postage. Lord knows the Tories have got money. Boy, they've got money.
I've looked at the Liberal amendments and they reflect, in my view, the comments that were made about this bill. I've reflected on the amendments this caucus made and by and large they respond in a similar way. Most are similar in principle -- different wording, perhaps a different sort of spin on them.
People out there have said: "What are you doing this for? They're going to put the slots out there. Let them get them out there, because you've got two and a half, three, who knows how many years left to grind these people in question period. Start collecting the horror stories. Start collecting the stories of addiction."
I was speaking with a young woman -- it's remarkable, and I believe Mr Crozier has had much the same experience, how much more we've learned from people approaching us knowing that we've been sitting on this committee about gambling addiction, something which, remember, the Tory gang were tittering about, the locker-room kind of stuff: "Ha, ha, ha, gambling addicts. Well, Pete, what are you addicted to?" I could be addicted to any number of things, because addiction is a disease. It's not something that should be laughed about. It's something that should be treated very, very seriously.
We've learned so much as a result of being on this committee, and I know that the Tories -- not all of them, of course not, but some of the Tory backbenchers are getting a little bit nervous because they've been getting messages back home that folks in any number of postal code areas, in the telephone exchange areas, are not interested in slot machines, especially in these ultra-high-tech, ultra-money-maker slot machines that are being proposed. We heard the management from the Windsor Raceway talk about how slick they are. In terms of the joy, I must tell you I was in Montreal a few weeks ago for a service at the St Joseph's Oratory --
Mr Crozier: Is Brother André's heart still there?
Mr Kormos: Yes, Brother André's heart is still there. I was over at St Joseph's Oratory. It was the presentation of a crèche -- St Joe's collects nativity scenes, crèches from ethnic communities -- that the Slovak-Canadian community had asked me to participate in. There was a bishop from Spis, in Slovakia, whom I had not met before, but I know the community, along with a large contingent of Ontario and Quebec Slovak-Canadians.
To make a long story short, I stayed in a hotel in downtown Montreal, and the first night I drove in, got there quite late, and the hotel was being renovated. It had just been bought by a big chain; it used to be independently owned. I went with the person who was with me to the hotel next door, I think it's the Delta on Sherbrooke, and had a drink. I was sitting there, and there were two slot machines, nowhere near as sophisticated or slick -- pretty traditional electronic slot machines. I found it remarkable, because I sat there, and the machines at first were unoccupied, but it didn't take too long for somebody to sit down in front of the slot machines.
I was looking for signs of pleasure on the faces of the people playing these slots. It was around 11:30 at night. I was looking for some indication, some sort of body language, facial expression, even a whoopee or one of those exclamations that indicate joy or pleasure -- two slots, right side by each. It was so uncanny to be in that scenario so soon after -- by mere happenstance. I know we had talked about Quebec, we had talked to the Quebec lottery people and about the slots in every bar and tavern. Sure, it was the Delta, right beside La Citadelle on Sherbrooke, up by the Main.
This is a mid-range hotel. It ain't the Ritz-Carlton down the road, because I couldn't afford to stay at the Ritz-Carlton. I was in there once -- that's a different story -- not to stay, but it's a nice hotel, I suppose, in the total scheme of things. Had I had the time I would have wandered down there to see whether they put slots in a place like that where perhaps you've got clientele who can afford to pay for them. It was a lounge-restaurant sort of scenario. It wasn't a separate room. I'm hard pressed to believe, and all the assurances of the parliamentary assistant, Mr Flaherty, notwithstanding, we both know that at the end of the day this separate room stuff simply ain't going to happen that way.
Here's a place, a hotel that catered to families. It was a mid-range hotel. It wasn't a fleabag and it certainly wasn't the Ritz-Carlton. It was the sort of place where people, when they're travelling to any other city, in this case to Montreal, would take the kids. It was a sort of lounge-restaurant environment where one normally wouldn't be offended at seeing children. We're not talking about the beverage room at the Spadina Hotel, if that is even open any more. Did they close down the Spadina Hotel? Mr Kennedy might know. He's a Toronto person.
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I'm not sure.
Mr Kormos: You're not sure? Okay. They closed down the Wheat Sheaf but reopened it, I'm told, recently. I had been in the Wheat Sheaf. The Wheat Sheaf was a neat, old-style beverage room. I'm glad it was reopened.
So I'm in the restaurant-lounge and I'm watching these people play the slots. These people weren't intoxicated; I'm convinced of that. They didn't display any signs of intoxication, of being drunk. They were younger people -- and again, I'm not alleging or trying to indicate that it's scientific in any way. But I just couldn't for the life of me -- I changed positions in case I was getting these slot players from the wrong angle. I'm changing seats. Maybe one side of their face is not as expressive as another side. Nothing.
1600
I did reflect on what we had done for three weeks but a few weeks prior to that. I don't buy it. People out there don't buy it either. Not for a minute. They simply don't believe any more. I think one of the worst exercises -- look, I've got to concede something. The Tories have been pretty good at the spin doctoring of some of their issues. They screwed up big-time on Bill 26. It blew up bad -- labour stuff, a horror show.
On this one, I should confess to you, I was worried because of this benign "video lottery terminal" stuff and the language, the thrust about funding charities. But you know what? As a result of those three weeks of hearings, nobody believes this government about the slots any more. Whatever polls might have been out there before the hearings would be dramatically different subsequent to the hearings.
I watched the newspaper coverage and, quite frankly, as we went about from town to town I thought it was quite fair. The fact is that folks don't buy into this. They know they're being had. They know they're being set up, in essence, for a sting. They know it. Take a look at some of the editorial cartoons you've seen about the issue. If it weren't so tragic in its consequences, they'd be funny.
But also look at how the Tories have refused to file one single amendment that in any way reflects the commentary of people appearing before the committee, especially the consumer protection issues, especially the commentary about concerns about the addictiveness, commentary about concerns about local optioning, commentary about the lack of representation on the board, on the commission, that would adequately represent all the interests, commentary on the inevitability of involvement of organized crime, how the suppliers of these machines have been linked to organized crime -- that's what police reports say from eastern Canada -- and how this kind of money historically and inevitably attracts organized crime.
Norm Sterling, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, as he was then, acknowledged that there wasn't any meaningful cooperation with the Ministry of the Solicitor General, using these 20,000 grey or illegal slots as a rationale for this bill, the most dishonest, deceitful thing that could ever be done.
The fact is that there's no intention of cleaning up on the illegal grey, black market slots, no intention whatsoever. Quite frankly, that's a big industry already and one that I'm convinced has more than passing acquaintance with organized crime, as is the coin vending -- the coin vending industry has gone through some difficult times. If you go back all the way to the days of pinballs -- it's not difficult -- one of the reasons why the coin industry has been so popular with organized crime is that you can launder money and you can get away without paying taxes on huge amounts of revenues. That's what a cash business is all about. The quarters just come in and, as I say, you can either load them up with money from ill-gotten gains and sanitize, launder money, or you can just not pay taxes on substantial revenues. We're talking millions and millions of bucks here.
Is there any response on the part of the Tories to the concerns about the inevitability of organized crime? No. The Liberals and the New Democrats produced and tabled, and you've got them there, a number of amendments which basically said -- and again, I think the opposition members have been pretty consistent. We don't think the slots are the way to go. We've had a lot of serious discussion in that regard, and again, we've gone through the rationale.
The business of advertising or promoting the playing of video lotteries is one amendment that was produced.
Putting into the legislation the promise of the government for 2% of revenues to be dedicated to gambling addictions, be it research or treatment: Why, for the life of me, that wouldn't have been there to begin with, why that wouldn't have been a government amendment, beats the daylights out of me.
If there's one thing I've learned around here -- it's remarkable. Here I am sitting on this committee and, believe it or not, even though I'm younger than everybody here except I guess one or two -- it just shows you how volatile the Legislature can be. Strangely, peculiarly, I'm the senior person on the committee. Who would have ever thought? One of the things I've learned around here is that when you've got a government that's obliged -- my concern is I'm not really sure who they're obliged to here.
Marshall Pollock, the progenitor -- is "progenitor" the right word? Well, I've said it; I'll live with it -- of the Ontario Lottery Corp now comes before this committee insisting that lottery schemes, including the slot business, should be done by the private sector, that government has no business running lottery schemes. A remarkable transformation.
I think there is a corruption that's already set in. There's a cancer that's been spawned. I'm not about to say I can pinpoint it or with any great confidence that I can track its course, but I'm convinced that the deal has been done. As I've said before, the kind of people that this government is dealing with don't take reneging on deals very kindly. I don't blame people. Why would anybody willingly want to get their legs broken, or what happened to Paul Newman, where his thumb is broken in the back of the pool hall? There's absolutely no reason. But I'm convinced, as I say, that the deal is done. As we've said so many times -- sometimes lightheartedly; as often as not, not -- the fix is in.
1610
You've got government backbenchers who know better, but they're afraid. They're literally afraid to speak out. They're literally afraid to stand up and say no to an ill-conceived scheme. They're afraid for the loss of a parliamentary assistantship. What's that: nine, 10, 11 grand a year? I understand that's not peanuts, but you'd compromise your principles for 11 or 12 grand a year? One would hope that the price would at least be a little higher. They're afraid.
This legislation is going to get to the House. We know that. I've sat here with Mr Crozier and Mr Kennedy and Mr Colle -- Mr Curling was in last time we met -- and watched the complete disdain and disregard the government has for the amendments being proposed, amendments which reflect the submissions made to the committee: complete disregard and indeed disdain. It's the same kind of disdain that a hooker has for her john, the attitude that this government has for people who make submissions. People who make submissions were here for their 15 or 20 minutes, and once the government's done with them, it wipes up, pulls its drawers back up and moves on to the next. It's all for show, no real interest in hearing what people had to say.
The government hasn't acceded to a single amendment made by either the Liberals or the New Democrats. The government has made it pretty damn clear that none of the amendments that are put forward which reflect the content of the submitters are going to be given any currency, are going to receive even the slightest bit of attention. This government's dug its heels in, but as far as I'm concerned, politically, it might as well have just dug its grave. It's been suggested to me, not unwisely, that that may be the best possible thing to do.
Eventually there will be a closure motion; there will be any number of things done to force this through. Eventually it's going to get to the Legislature. I'm looking forward to that debate in the Legislature, among other things because it will be televised. We've struggled with the handicap of being here in this room instead of the Amethyst Room, without any television coverage. I concede that for some members the presence of television cameras might make them more inclined to play to the cameras, so to speak, to want to appeal to the television audience, perhaps to engage in dilatory discourse, so I understand why maybe there might have been some motive in not having these hearings in the Amethyst Room. But there's going to be debate in the Legislature, and the people are going to be watching it. The old legislative broadcast channel is going to be heating up on that one, I tell you.
I'm becoming inclined to say, why are the opposition doing this? Why were our staff, in cooperation with the submitters, working hard preparing amendments, some of them in English, some of them in French? Why, when none of those are going to receive any due consideration? The Tory hacks on the committee don't even debate them. They won't even put their position on record. Oh, it became late in the night when some people were getting cranky and people wanted to get on the record to take personal shots.
Do you know what's going to be interesting, Chair? It is going to be how the Tory back bench stands up in the Legislature to use their 30 minutes of speaking time to explain why they're supporting the bill, especially the bill as presented. There are going to be people mighty interested in hearing what they've got to say.
Part of me is very much inclined to say that's it, let's move on, let's get this into the Legislature. Quite frankly, if this gang, with their friends in the mob, are going to put slot machines out there in every corner of every neighbourhood -- they're so restrained today it's remarkable. The House leaders met before today's meeting, and I note how restrained the Tory members are, I suppose for fear of kiboshing an agreement made between House leaders. I suspect some of them suspect that I could give a tinker's dam at the end of the day, if provoked, whether there was an agreement to get this thing rolling on, and they may suspect that.
I'm telling you, Chair, I am very much inclined to say no, let's let these clowns get these machines out there and then we'll start. This is sad. I feel so badly having to resort to that, to having to contemplate, knowing there will be victim after victim after victim after victim. Tsubouchi's going to have to take extended leaves of absence to avoid the questions in the House, and we all know he ain't that good on a speech. The other day Bruce Crozier from down London way --
Mr Crozier: Leamington.
Mr Kormos: I'm sorry, Windsor way, Leamington way, past London. Boy, did he have the minister in a veritable tizzy on the simple issue of negative option -- Tsubouchi didn't have a briefing note. He got caught in flagrante something. He got caught. Tsubouchi's going, "Oh, that's federal." Dumb and dumber. Of course when it's dealing with the CRTC and cable television it's federal, but it's not federal when you're dealing with -- Jeez, for two minutes a day what do they do? They show Tsubouchi those little instant clips on the cable television news where they give the little headline reports. He saw that some Liberals passed legislation against negative option billing of cable TV, those dumb packages they force on you. That's Ted Rogers and his crew, and boy, that's a debate I'd love to get into too. I see folks are nodding yes. Ted Rogers, but that's a different story.
Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): He's a good New Democrat, isn't he?
Mr Kormos: That's Mr Rogers who's the New Democrat. Ted's the miserable moneymaker who could care less about community television as long as he's eliminated every TV antenna in the province of Ontario. That's what it's all about. It's all about the privatization of the airwaves, and if you've ever read anything -- you're old enough, Chair, because you were around in the evolution of television. I, quite frankly, was there too in the 1950s.
One of the remarkable things about television is that it was being marketed, it was being sold on the basis that it utilized public airwaves. That's what they talked about, public airways that nobody could monopolize. The concept of buying up the airways and monopolizing them was tantamount to owning a monopoly over the air or over water. We've already seen it done with water, and I'm sure we'll see it done in some respects with air.
1620
I'm interested in what the Liberal caucus has to say and I want to reflect on their comments as well. But I'm at the point where I'm inclined to say, the Tories want to wrap this up in committee? Good. Fine. Want it wrapped up? You'll get it wrapped. Because the minute you get this bill wrapped you've got to get it into the House, and then we're going to have public debate, people are going to be watching, and Tory backbenchers are going to be expected to stand up on their own two hind legs instead of all fours and tell people where they stand. I'm anxious for these guys and gals to justify their position.
Those are my comments on this amendment. I'm going to be voting for it. I'm going to be calling for a recorded vote. I'm interested in hearing what other members of the committee have to say.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Here's Mr Murdoch, star of TVO, outspoken critic of the government --
The Chair: Mr Murdoch has provided us with some surveys that he's done.
Mr Kormos: -- one of the few members with the brains and the gonads to speak up and speak out when speaking up and speaking out is called for and one of the few Tories to get himself re-elected, even if he really is a Reformer.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: I'll be relatively brief, but I want to bring some comments that Mr Kormos has made to the committee's attention because you may just have missed them. Reference was made once more to an 80-page, as Mr Kormos has put it, report on the concerns the enforcement people in the province of Ontario have with gaming in general and perhaps with VLTs in particular.
I think it would be beneficial to each of the members of the committee, not just one or two, if they had this information, and I think it would be important if we each had reference to it. What it is is the report by the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario headed Gambling in Ontario: Current Enforcement Concerns, 1995, and I would ask that this committee request the clerk to obtain this report and provide it to each of us.
As Mr Kormos has said, if some of the members of this committee and others of the government caucus have heard concerns recently, it would be of benefit to all of us and to everybody on both sides of the floor if we were to contact the policing services division of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, specifically the intelligence services section, and I'm sure each of us would want a copy of this report. You wouldn't want any one of us to have it alone. I think it would be beneficial for all of us to have because you very well might find that this report contains some startling information.
We've heard from various sides of the issue when it comes to VLTs. We've heard from the entertainment-foodservice industry who feel they would benefit from VLTs. We've heard from racetracks. We've heard from charitable gaming. Some come on one side of it. The racetracks are in favour. We have charitable gaming on the other side who have great concerns about what VLTs might do. Then we've heard from that section who are concerned about the terrible addiction that might result from the introduction of these machines. But we haven't heard a great deal about the criminal element, those who are going to benefit perhaps even more than the government from the introduction of these machines.
Perhaps we could have the clerk get each of us a copy of the report of the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario, CISO, Gambling in Ontario: Current Enforcement Concerns, 1995.
The Chair: Do you have a copy of it with you that we might copy?
Mr Crozier: I can provide you at this time with a copy of the head page from it.
The Chair: Okay. Is there any objection, on the assumption that this is a public document, to this being provided to all members of the committee?
Mr Crozier: I don't have the authority, frankly, to share the whole report, so that's why there's only one page at this time.
The Chair: If there's no disagreement on that, we will have the clerk request a copy of the report of the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario, which I take it is a branch of the Solicitor General and not the Attorney General?
Mr Crozier: It's a branch of the Solicitor General under the policing services division.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): On a point of order, Mr Chair: It is an annual report, is it not?
The Chair: It says Gambling in Ontario: Current Enforcement Concerns, 1995. I doubt it very much. It looks like a one-time report.
Mr Crozier: It's a special report.
Mr Guzzo: There was one other one I'm aware of -- well, it's probably too old now.
The Chair: Assuming, as I say, it's a public report we are requesting, we'll have the clerk request it.
Mr Crozier: If I might, there's a certain urgency to this because I think we're only going to be another day or two on clause-by-clause.
Mr Guzzo: That's what you told us a month ago.
Mr Crozier: I didn't tell you that. But there is a certain amount of urgency to this and I would request the clerk to treat it in that way.
Mr Kennedy: I just want to support Mr Crozier's request. The minister said at the beginning of these hearings -- I'm sorry, the former minister, the late departed minister, indicated that he had not consulted any police forces or police authorities anywhere in the province to determine what the effects might be on either increases in criminal activity or in crime or in any of the deleterious effects that had been noted in other provinces.
I think it is extremely important that before we conclude our deliberation we have access to the official concerns of this coordinating group which, I understand, is headed up by the police chief in London but which functions as an arm of the OPP. As I indicated earlier, one of the conclusions of that group was that VLTs should not proceed because they're associated with increased criminal activity.
It was a further opinion of that group that the government's contention that somehow grey market machines would be eliminated is just simply misstated and inappropriate, because the RCMP in western Canada found that far from that, instead they increased the prospects for grey market machines, some of which are associated with the operations of organized crime, because they make it harder to detect those machines in an open environment that provides for VLTs on a widespread basis. I think this is a pretty important issue that was not very well elaborated in the course of our hearings and would make an impact on all the members of this committee.
The other question that is somewhat germane is our proposal to have the board expanded a little. My original motion was for a small expansion of the board, and the honourable Mr Kormos has amended that to make it larger. But part of that concern is to make sure there are people who bring other things to the table, and I think we have to be concerned too about the whole enterprise we're involved in today, because we understand that once again there's been a request for proposals made by this government, put out ahead of the conclusion of these hearings, for a consultant.
I see we have the parliamentary assistant here. Perhaps he could clarify, for the edification of the members, whether our time is spent on a bill that is still in discussion or whether the government is already proceeding on its implementation and precluding any conclusions being drawn by this committee on its amendments, on the amendments of the government side or amendments from the opposition side of the House. I think that goes right to the core of there being some cynicism expressed by one of the government members that these hearings were not worthwhile. The public out there certainly deserves to know whether these hearings are being held in earnest or, in actual fact, are being undermined by a ministry that's already proceeding with requests for proposals for consultants and preparing another one, we understand, for the system which would operate the VLTs in the first place. If indeed those RFPs are out there, this committee has a right to know. It affects our deliberations if it gives the sense -- and I think the public probably would follow in their concern -- that the government is not interested in the input from the groups who deputed at the hearings or in the considerations of the people of this committee who have committed some fair time to deliberation of this bill.
1630
I think that too would be a question which would be germane to our discussion of these amendments so that we know what direction we're headed in. I would invite the parliamentary assistant, if he possesses that information, to share it with the committee. I'd like to make that request even more specific. If the request for proposals has been made, again it would be of benefit that this committee actually sees that request for proposals so that we see on what basis these actions of the government are being predicated. They don't have perhaps a legal basis yet, because this bill hasn't been passed, and I think it's incumbent on us to know exactly what kind of designs are being made by the government in the absence of the consideration of this committee and the approval of the Legislature.
On both of those things, we'd like to hear today, if possible, from Mr Flaherty: whether or not the RFP has been made, in as much detail as he can tell us about it, and then a commitment to put that RFP in front of us so we can have access to it before we make final decisions on the clause-by-clause hearings.
I do that in the spirit of cooperation which we would like to extend so that we can conclude these hearings, and do that in the interests of the wellbeing of the province. I hope Mr Flaherty will respond on that kind of basis.
The Chair: Mr Flaherty, there has been a question put to you as representing the ministry. I assume you still represent the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): So far.
The Chair: I don't know whether you can answer that question or whether you wish to answer it tomorrow.
Mr Flaherty: I'm advised that the Ontario Lottery Corp did put out an advertisement asking for expressions of interest from potential manufacturers of video lotteries, expressions of interest in the supply of video lotteries. No RFP has been issued.
Mr Kennedy: Could I, in a spirit of inquiry, just ask if you could check with the ministry? We understand that there has been an RFP for a different part of it, for a consultant to oversee the process; that it was let over a week ago by the ministry directly. I understand that there may be some time lag in informing the parliamentary assistant, and that may be natural, but it would be certainly helpful if some further inquiry could be made. We would otherwise have to confirm through our sources whether this has taken place, and I think it would behoove this committee if it was the ministry instead which was able to let us know what is actually taking place. I would certainly express interest in the invitation made by the lottery corporation and on what basis that was made for the actual machines.
Mr Flaherty: I'm told that there was an RFP from the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism a couple of months ago -- that one came up earlier in the hearings -- looking for a consultant, and that further efforts were made in that regard recently with respect to hiring a consultant. So it's not something that's new.
Mr Kennedy: Are we in a position to receive the terms of reference from that RFP that I understand was re-let again? It was first withdrawn and then brought back approximately a week ago. Can this committee have access to that information?
Mr Flaherty: There was no formal RFP last week.
Mr Kennedy: Are there terms of reference for the consultant?
Mr Flaherty: There was some sort of description of the task.
Mr Kennedy: Mr Chair, I don't wish to take up more of the committee's time, but it would be helpful to see on what basis the ministry is proceeding, in the absence of the direction of this committee. Any formal documentation that goes germane, you may agree, to the part of the bill we're considering right now, that is, which governance is needed for the new corporation -- the ministry is giving away the ability to control this in future. As we see in other sections of the bill, very wide powers are being let from the ministry, indeed from the Legislature, and I think it would be very, very important to know in what spirit the government is proceeding here.
Any documentation concerning the hiring of a consultant to implement this bill, as I understand the wording of that, is something that should be shared with the whole committee, and I would hope that would be possible.
Mr Flaherty: This legislation, as has been said repeatedly, is not the implementation legislation. This is the framework. This has been said throughout the month of August at our hearings. There are all kinds of implementation issues: What's a charity and what's not a charity? How many charity gaming halls should there be? Where should they be located? Who should be permitted to share in the proceeds? There are all kinds of questions like that that are not answered in this legislation, nor will they be answered in this legislation, which is Bill 75, the framework legislation.
Questions about implementation can be asked here, I suppose, because everyone has the right to bring up that which they want to bring up, but quite frankly, they're not relevant, because this legislation doesn't deal with the implementation of the system.
Mr Kennedy: I just wish to point out to Mr Flaherty that earlier we were told from the government side that there was no RFP, that there was no consultant. Now we're told that there is a consultant and that it's not relevant because it has to do with the implementation. Well, we still have a bill in front of us here that doesn't permit implementation until it's passed.
It's important that we know, as members of this committee, whether or not the subsequent discussions here are being made irrelevant by the ministry because it's already hired a consultant to implement things. That has direct bearing on what we're discussing here today. It is incumbent on the government, if it wishes to be taken in good faith, having once denied that there was an RFP and now having admitted today that there is, that we see the details of that. I don't wish to take up more of the time because we've many more amendments to discuss in the clause-by-clause, but I do think this is germane, and is not something the government would wish to deliberately avoid disclosure of.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Kennedy. I can't agree with your submission. The question as to whether there was an implementation prior to the bill being passed and prior to this committee considering it certainly was relevant; I permitted that, and you obtained an answer. The specifics of what took place I don't think are relevant to this bill. You certainly can argue, however, whatever you wish to argue, that there was some initiation of implementation before this bill being considered by this committee. That's a matter of argument.
Mr Kennedy: If that is the full degree to which the government is prepared to cooperate, I think the detail is general in the sense it would let us know to what degree the implementation has taken place. But, Mr Chair, I thank you for the opportunity of establishing that indeed implementation measures have taken place by the government ahead of the conclusion of this discussion.
The Chair: We are dealing with Mr Kormos's motion, which is 1b on your amendments. That is an amendment to subsection 2(3) of the schedule. Are there any further questions or commentary? If not, I'll put the question.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: A recorded vote is requested. Shall that amendment pass?
Ayes
Crozier, Kennedy Kormos.
NAYS
Bassett, Flaherty, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
1640
We are still dealing with subsection 2(3) of the schedule. Are you in a position to make an amendment to that section, Mr Crozier?
Mr Crozier: Yes. Need it be read into the record?
The Chair: Yes, it must be.
Mr Crozier: I move that subsection 2(3) of the schedule to the bill be amended by adding at the end "giving consideration to a broad cross-section of the community; including seniors, disabled people, francophone Ontarians, visible minorities, aboriginal and native Canadians, labour and management groups."
The Chair: Any comment or debate in regard to the motion made by Mr Crozier?
Mr Crozier: I should at least speak to my own motion, I guess. What we want to do is make sure, because of the wide range of social issues a bill such as this involves, that we give every segment of the community the opportunity to have input. We think it's of such importance that we have outlined -- and not to eliminate anyone else; in fact, the government may, in its wisdom, see other groups that should be added to this. But we should give the opportunity for a very wide cross-section of the community to be part of the implementation of this bill, should it pass.
Seniors, of course, have a stake in this. In fact, if anybody watched the National last night, they talked of the future of the country and the fact that seniors 20 or 30 years ago were considered part of the poorer section of our economy and now we've made social advances, advances in safety nets that have certainly not eliminated that but have decreased the number of seniors who are dependent on the rest of society. Seniors have a lot of experience in this area, a lot of experience when it comes to those things that affect society. They've seen it over the years; they've been part of forming the society we have today.
Disabled people: I'm concerned that more and more disabled people are being disfranchised, being left out of the system, certainly in the area of the funding of charities. On occasion those who are disabled are able to benefit from the activities of those agencies. Just this past weekend we had a most successful apple festival in Ruthven, in Gosfield South, and it was the Association for Community Living that was going to benefit to a great extent from those activities. Therefore, I think the disabled in our community should have a voice in a piece of legislation that's as far-reaching as the one that's before us.
Francophone Ontarians also form an important segment of our society and should be able to sit on the governing body that would be involved with this legislation.
Then, just so we wouldn't miss anyone, I suggest that visible minorities oftentimes don't have anyone to speak for them, and therefore, when it comes to gaming legislation, when it comes to alcohol legislation and the combination of these two commissions into one, should be involved.
Aboriginal and native Canadians: With the great concern there has been about the establishment of casinos in the province of Ontario and the part that aboriginal and native Canadians have played in establishing casinos in Ontario, we can see why they should have a role to play in this as well.
Labour and management groups -- it goes without saying. Practically every part of this bill, the legislation and the regulations that this legislation enables, will involve labour and management at some point, be it in casinos, in the area of liquor licensing, liquor sales. We want labour and management to work together to see that whatever it is we do in the province of Ontario is to the benefit of all of us, and therefore I think it would be certainly beneficial if labour and management groups had a role to play as well.
The Chair: Is there any further comment or discussion in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, I'll call the question. Shall the amendment carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
Nays
Bassett, Flaherty, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
We are proceeding to what you would have as page 1b-ii. This is Mr Kormos's proposed motion. Would you like to read that into the record, Mr Kormos?
M. Kormos : Je propose que le paragraphe 2(5) de l'annexe soit supprimé et remplacé par le texte suivant :
«Quorum
«(5) Deux tiers des membres constituent le quorum aux réunions du conseil et peut exercer les pouvoirs de celui-ci.»
As you know, Chair, that's self-explanatory.
The Chair: You graduated from the Diefenbaker school of French, I believe.
Mr Kormos: I try, Chair.
The Chair: You do better than I do, I'm sure.
Mr Kormos: I suspect I did.
The Chair: Do we have any debate or questions, either in English or in French, in regard to the motion? If not, I'll call the question.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: A recorded vote is requested. The third-party amendment, shall it carry?
Ayes
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
NAYS
Bassett, Flaherty, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Mr Kormos, you have 1b-iii.
M. Kormos : Je propose que les mots «peut en désigner un ou plusieurs autres à la vice-présidence» au paragraphe 2(6) de l'annexe soient remplacés par les mots suivants :
«peut en désigner au plus deux autres à la vice-présidence.»
These things become, increasingly so with this government, gravy trains for Tory hacks. These roles of chair and vice-chair are inevitably very lucrative, will be here. Quite frankly, one questions the need for unlimited numbers. I think this provides a meaningful restriction on the number of people who'll be occupying roles of vice-chair.
1650
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment? If not --
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment?
Ayes
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
Nays
Bassett, Flaherty, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Shall section 2 of the schedule, as amended, carry? Any discussion? All those in favour?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
NAYS
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
The Chair: There are no amendments proposed in regard to section 3 to section 17, inclusive, of the schedule. Yes, Mr Kennedy?
Mr Kennedy: I have a motion to propose at subsection 3(3). I'll just read it out.
The Chair: Could you please pay attention, mambers? This is an amendment which was not filed, so you do not have it on hand. I'd like everyone to hear it. Mr Kennedy, please move your amendment.
Mr Kennedy: The amendment is to add a new clause 3(3a) which will read:
"The minister will hold public consultations with respect to the licensing, inspection, enforcement and disciplinary capacities and processes and other potential functions of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, including the setting of the maximum amount of time it should take to process liquor and gaming applications, hold licence hearings and respond to community complaints."
What we have here is an opportunity for the members of this committee to build some confidence, which currently is probably quite low, around this initiative. When we talk about general powers, and in the sense that we want give the commission the direction that it exercise its powers and duties in the public interest and in accordance with the principles of honesty and integrity, we should make sure we're giving the provision of the powers there some specific expression.
We're asking that there be public consultations before those powers are passed on and, further, would recommend that those consultations help us define what those principles mean in the instance of this act; in the amendment, at least that we undertake the public consultation so that we know what the functions of this new body will be before they're simply assigned by the minister. I think there is some great concern that this commission could be a device by which certain activities could be privatized. If we're taking powers away from the Legislature, we should at least give the public some ability for input on the minister's decisions before the decisions are finally made.
There is a great deal of apprehension out there about: What exactly will this new body do? Will it actually look after the public interest or will it simply become a closed-door means of looking into liquor and gambling? That is what a lot of people are wondering out there: Is this going to be some arm's-length device by which the government gives away its responsibility?
With the concern about that, particularly some of the functional concerns that people who have to deal with the pre-existing agency have, they wish to have the input. The department of public health in Toronto and the Ontario Public Health Association both recommend that this clause be added in the interest of the public. We believe it's something that would add to accountability inherent in the bill, which is conspicuously absent in a number of places. When we look at the preceding subsection 3(3), it says something which I think many people observing this government think should be defined. What does this government in particular mean by "honesty, integrity and social responsibility"?
We would wish at least to make sure that around this broad provision of powers you're giving out in section 2 there be public consultations, that we find out the input of the public, that the minister be required to hold those consultations. There is no ability under this bill right now for anything further to be decided in a public forum; instead, we have actions taking place by regulations and order in council and no access at all to the public on the details of this commission, which could have a tremendous impact on the quality of life in their communities.
That's the intent of this new clause, and we would invite the members opposite and the New Democratic caucus to see it in that sense, as an improvement on the accountability for this new organization.
The Chair: May I suggest that we have that matter set down and we can deal with a short matter and come back to it. There are copies being made for us.
Mr Kennedy: Mr Chair, there's an earlier amendment that goes with this that I neglected to put forward. Could I have your indulgence to do that? It's an amendment to subsection 3(3). What I just gave you was subsection 3(3a), which is new. There's also an amendment for subsection 3(3) that I'd like to put forward, if possible.
The Chair: Is that in writing?
Mr Kennedy: Yes, we have it in writing.
The Chair: It would still seem that we're going to have to make copies of this amendment now.
Mr Kennedy: I apologize, Mr Chair, for getting out of sequence.
The Chair: You might as well read it in.
Mr Kennedy: The amendment I'm proposing to subsection 3(3) is that the words be added, "the primary public interest" --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kennedy, are they connected, these two amendments?
Mr Kennedy: One follows the other.
The Chair: Perhaps we'd better deal with the one that's before us.
We now have copies of Mr Kennedy's amendment, on page 1b-iv. It is an amendment adding a new subsection 3(3a) to the schedule. We're dealing with that matter. Is there further discussion, now that you have the written amendment before you? Is there anything you wish to add, Mr Kennedy?
Mr Kennedy: No, I'll leave my explanatory comments at that.
1700
The Chair: Is there further discussion in regard to Mr Kennedy's proposed amendment? If not, I would call the question. Shall the amendment carry?
Mr Kennedy: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
NAYS
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Rollins.
The Chair: That amendment is defeated.
Mr Kennedy: I have another amendment to move on subsection 3(3), that we add within the section the words, "The primary public interest with respect to alcohol and gaming is to manage sales in the province in such a way to reduce and hold to a minimum all harms to health, safety, work and family life as a consequence of consuming alcoholic beverages or engaging in gambling." That would be an amendment to subsection 3(3).
The Chair: Is it your wish that we set it down until we have it in writing in front of us and then we can come back to it?
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Chair: I suspect that on consent we can dispense with the --
The Chair: On consent only, unanimous consent. We're just setting it down for about five minutes. Do we have unanimous consent to set it down?
Mr Kormos: No, to deal with it without having to file a written amendment.
The Chair: He can deal with it, Mr Kormos, but I won't be able to understand it, nor will other members of the committee.
Mr Kormos: We should have all read it in the submissions, in the Tabuns report.
The Chair: Okay, we're not going to save that much time. Mr Kennedy, would you proceed and give us your comments in that regard? It's difficult, because I have no idea what your amendment is.
Mr Kennedy: The amendment is relatively straightforward, but it does request this committee to be specific, to tell the new body what its public purpose is. Rather than use the very broad terms "honesty and integrity, and social responsibility," which are laudable in and of themselves but look starkly out of place in this bill, we believe there is a requirement here to ensure that the public interest is not avoided by the elected members of the Legislature; that instead, as we give away, as this bill proposes, tremendous power to an unelected body to look after liquor and gambling in this province, we at least prescribe to it what we would like it to conduct itself in accordance with.
The wording, which is proposed by some of the deputants we heard in the hearings, is one that hopefully could readily be endorsed by the members of this committee. It outlines the public interest as one of making sure that we're not just trying to maximize sales or simply trying to make the government the most money, which the late, departed minister agreed at the beginning of these hearings was in actual fact the primary reason Bill 75 was being moved forward at this time, but rather that we pull back from that rather dangerous singular objective and put forward instead some guideline so that this agency which is about to be formed and take over a tremendous amount of what should have been elected legislative accountability at least have the very strong direction of the Legislature in terms of what its outcome is supposed to be.
The wording you now have in front of you indicates guidelines I hope this government would not disagree with. I hope this government would not find it inappropriate to ask this body to manage the sales of liquor and gambling in such a way that it reduces and holds to a minimum all the harms they can cause -- and this government, through the course of the testimony, has at least agreed there will be some harms; this does not presuppose any particular view about the degree of harm that can be forthcoming; that those "harms to health, safety, work and family life" should be the focus of this new commission; that we make sure that's what it's looking after and not simply "honesty and integrity, and social responsibility," which this government declines to define into any practical form.
We would wish that the government look at these particular measures as ways of improving the bill, particularly the accountability in the bill. The label on the bill says "the public interest." If that public interest is really to be understood and accepted, it will be necessary to define it, to make it real, to make it something the public can indeed hold us accountable for. For that reason, I am putting forward this amendment to give focus to this commission in its responsibilities, and ask that it be added to subsection 3(3).
The Chair: Is there any further discussion with regard to the proposed amendment put forth by Mr Kennedy? If not, I will call the question.
Mr Kennedy: A recorded vote.
Mr Kormos: Same vote.
The Chair: I don't know whether it will be. We don't know exactly what will happen on the government side, Mr Kormos. It may or may not be.
Mr Kormos: If I may, Chair, could the Hansard record show, "Kormos: Laughter, loud laughter, prolonged laughter," in response to the Chair's last comment?
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
Nays
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
Shall sections 3 to 17 of the schedule pass?
Mr Kennedy: I have an amendment.
The Chair: To what?
Mr Kennedy: Subsection 6(1).
The Chair: Sorry. Let's deal with section 3 then. Let's make it simple.
Shall section 3 pass?
Mr Kormos: The same vote reversed.
Mr Kennedy: Recorded vote.
The Chair: They are requesting a recorded vote and they're entitled to it.
Ayes
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
NAYS
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
The Chair: Section 3 passes.
Shall sections 4 and 5 pass?
Ayes
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
NAYS
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
The Chair: Sections 4 and 5 are carried.
We are now dealing with section 6 of the schedule.
Mr Kennedy: I'd like to propose an amendment to subsection 6(1): "There shall be a registrar of alcohol and a registrar of gaming for the purposes of the act, the Liquor Licence Act and the Gaming Control Act, 1992 and the regulations made under them."
1710
The Chair: That's a new amendment.
Mr Kennedy: It's being prepared now.
The Chair: Do you want to stand it down? Do I have unanimous consent to stand section 6 and the proposed amendment down so that we can proceed with other portions of the act? No objection? It is stood down.
We are now dealing with sections 7 to 17 of the schedule. There are no proposed amendments, are there, Mr Kennedy? Are there any questions or discussions in regard to sections 7 to 17, inclusive, of the schedule? That does not include section 6 of the schedule, which we previously set down by unanimous consent and will come back to. If there are no questions or further discussion, I'd put the question: All those in favour of passing of sections 7 to 17 inclusive of the schedule?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
NAYS
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
The Chair: The section's carried. We are now going back to section 6.
Interjection: It's not here yet.
The Chair: It's on its way. Well, it's stood down. Let's deal with section 2. There are no amendments I know of to section 2 of the bill. We're on the bill now, not the schedule. We'll have to come back to the schedule. Is there any discussion, questions or comments in regard to section 2 of the bill? If there are none, I would put the question.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Shall section 2 of the bill carry?
Ayes
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
NAYS
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
The Chair: Section 2 carries.
We have the first amendment by the government, to subsection 3(6) of the bill.
Mr Flaherty: I move that subsections 15(1.1) and (1.2) of the Liquor Licence Act, as set out in subsection 3(6) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Revocation, suspension re Ontario Lottery Corporation Act
"(1.1) A member or employee of the board may direct that a proposal be issued to revoke or suspend a licence to sell liquor where the licensee or a person acting on the licensee's behalf contravenes or is convicted of contravening subsection 8.1(2) of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.
"No gaming on licensed premises after suspension
"(1.2) Where a licence to sell liquor is suspended under subsection (1.1), the licensee whose licence has been suspended shall not permit gaming to take place on the licensed premises during the period of the suspension."
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, shall the amendment carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote is requested. Unless there is a request otherwise, we will have a recorded vote for all the sections.
Ayes
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Kormos, Leadston, Rollins.
Nays
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
The Chair: The amendment carries.
Mr Flaherty, you have an amendment to subsection 3(6.1).
Mr Flaherty: I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(6.1) Subsection 17(1) of the act is amended by adding at the end `unless a proposal to revoke or suspend the licence has been issued.'"
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments in regard to the proposed amendment moved by Mr Flaherty?
Mr Kennedy: Could I ask Mr Flaherty to explain his amendment.
Mr Flaherty: This is the "salting the earth" section. The concern has been that some owners of licensed premises and licensees, when challenged because of their inappropriate conduct, have gone about the business of transferring their licence before any sort of hearing would take place so they could thereby defeat the purpose of the section. The idea is that this subterfuge, this attempt to defeat the purpose of the section would be defeated by this amendment.
The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Bassett, Crozier, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Kennedy, Kormos, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: All those against the amendment?
Mr Kormos: My God, Chair, it was unanimous.
The Chair: We have, I understand, a new government motion on page 3a.
Mr Flaherty: I provided Mr Kormos and Mr Crozier with copies just before we began today.
I move that subsection 3(12) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(12) Sections 25 and 26 of the act are repealed.
"(12.1) Subsection 38(7) of the act is amended by striking out `the provisions of section 23' in the second and third lines and substituting `the provisions of section 10 of the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996 and of subsections 23(5), (11) and (12).'
"(12.2) Section 50 of the act is repealed."
1720
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments in regard to the amendment proposed to subsection (12) of section 3 of the bill? Is that correct, Mr Flaherty?
Mr Flaherty: I gather in the language of current legislative drafting it's subsection 3(12).
The Chair: Are there any comments or questions before I put the question? If not, shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
NAYS
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
The Chair: Unless there's unanimous consent, we must continue to the end of the bill. I would prefer and I suggest that you give me unanimous consent to permit Mr Kennedy to put forth his amendment so we can get rid of the schedule. Agreed? Thank you.
Mr Kennedy: I have an amendment that requires that there be two different registrars to the administration of the act. This again comes to making this a functional act before we give away the powers proposed here. When I look at that small amendment in terms of what we're asking for, the requirement here I think is reasonable because it addresses one of the many areas where we don't have adequate control as this leaves the Legislature.
Some of you may remember the testimony that came from a professor at Osgoode Hall, Alan Young, who suggests that the bill as a whole will be subject to legal challenge simply because the bill doesn't provide for what the Criminal Code asks for. The Criminal Code says the only gambling schemes you can have is when the government of the province undertakes to manage and conduct the video lottery scheme, in this case. We have nothing in the bill that talks to how any of this would function, and having a registrar for gambling and one for liquor is one way of trying to make it more functional.
We have told the public nothing about who will oversee the management of the VLTs, who will purchase the machines, who will service them, all these things which people have called implementation but which may well, according to Professor Alan Young from Osgoode Hall, who specializes in this field of law, invalidate this legislation. We don't have the criteria for choosing locations, we don't have who will approve the choice of games or machines. In other words, we and you on the government side, reflecting the provincial government, are not operating and managing because we are leaving that subject to regulation or subject to the operation of what could be still, under this bill, a private concern. If it were a private concern, we would find ourselves in some significant difficulty in terms of what this says. So the amendment being proposed is one of what could be several that would help to provide at least some direction for the operation of the VLTs.
The government has promised at various times to have a cap on video lottery terminals in Ontario, on electronic slot machines, and other jurisdictions that have said the same thing have at least put that in legislation. They've done that in Alberta, they did that in Manitoba, they did that in Nova Scotia, and we've not done that here. We haven't talked about a cap on the number of VLTs per establishment like they have in Quebec, yet this government wants to be seen as being moderate in terms of being able to bring this into the province without causing the massive social dislocation and damage that takes place elsewhere.
We talk about also the need to have this happen responsibly, as we've heard more than once, on many, many occasions, in fact, from the government side, and we see that there is no provision in this bill to address the concerns that would make it responsible and accountable. We don't know how many legal VLTs are permitted. They should be under licence so that there is some control.
The report that Mr Crozier referred to earlier talked about the police concerns. I'm sure that when we have that report we'll learn that one of their concerns is that you have grey market machines operating right beside the legal machines. There is no functional way to make sure that people don't do that unless you provide for that in the law by having it on the actual licence in the establishment.
Some of these things can follow from having at least separate registrars and some follow-on amendments in this section. I want to address them as a whole so the government can understand that we're letting this go out the door without any direction at all that we make this functional.
I return to the point that if we don't make it at least functional to the point of a certain test, we will not be able to have confidence that we're in conformance with the Criminal Code, with the requirements it sets out which make gambling -- which after all is an illegal activity in this country, with the exception of when it's conducted and managed by the government of the province, and there are many, many parts of this that we are simply not addressing at all. They have been in the press releases from the ministry, but they are not in the legislation. If they're not going to be in the legislation, we're just simply letting the gambling expansion monster out the door with no leash, with no requirements at all in terms of how it can act.
The bringing together of the alcohol -- well, liquor really. As we looked at the definitions, the government changed the proper word from "liquor" to "alcohol" simply to give it a softer turn of phrase, but this is really about liquor and gambling. Those two particular activities are going to be conducted by the same registrar, which shows a certain lack of seriousness on the government's part to actually control them.
This amendment to 6(1) asks that there be a registrar for alcohol and a separate registrar for gaming, and I would again invite the government's support so that we may have at least some opportunity to show to the public that there is an effort by the government of the province to actually control and manage the video lottery scheme that this bill simply right now "enables," in the parlance of the parliamentary secretary. We're indeed enabling, but we're not taking any responsibility for what happens once we put in place the VLTs. I think for that reason in particular there needs to be a separation between the registrar of alcohol and the registrar of gaming and would invite support for the same.
Mr Kormos: Very briefly, I'm loath to support the amendment because, quite frankly, at the end of the day, I'd love to see the scheme successfully challenged. However, having said that, I have three choices. I can vote against it; that would perhaps leave the wrong impression on the record. I can absent myself from the room; I'm not inclined to do that.
I think it's important that the record show that this committee's attention was specifically drawn to the failure of this bill and the structure, as we've been aware of it to date, to comply with the very strict provisions of the Criminal Code so that when a challenge is brought to the scheme in the courts. Knowing -- you'd know more about this than I do -- that from time to time courts have become more inclined to use parliamentary debate for background when they're doing statutory interpretation, I'm going to support this. I think it makes quite clear -- I'm emphasizing now that it was brought to this committee's attention very specifically -- that this legislative scheme is extremely flawed, invites the challenge of the criminality of it. I appreciate the amendment, and my support for it I hope at some point will reinforce an argument in the courts that the scheme is in violation of the Criminal Code and that this committee was well aware of it at the outset.
The Chair: Any further comment or question in regard to the amendment put forth by Mr Kennedy and shown on 1b-vi? If there is no other comment, all those in favour of the amendment?
Ayes
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
Nays
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
Shall section 6 carry? All those in favour? All those against?
Mr Kennedy: Mr Chairman --
The Chair: I called the question, Mr Kennedy.
Mr Kennedy: I tried to get your attention, Mr Chair, for just a few comments.
The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent? I didn't notice that Mr Kennedy wished to debate the section. Thank you. Mr Kennedy, please proceed. We're discussing section 6.
Mr Kennedy: In regard to what we're permitting in section 6, in letting that go, we're letting go our last opportunity to be able to put forward some of the restrictions for VLTs. I just want the government side to note, as we enable this particular schedule to go forward completely -- and I believe this is the last part of it to be done -- that this new commission then has powers that will be completely unchecked in terms of what it can do. I just want that to be noted.
1730
The Chair: Is there any further comment? If not, shall section 6 carry?
Ayes
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
NAYS
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
The Chair: Section 6 carries.
Shall the schedule to the act, as amended, carry?
Ayes
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
NAYS
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
The Chair: The schedule carries.
We have had three amendments to section 3. We're dealing with the bill now, not the schedule. The schedule has been passed. Shall section 3, as amended by the three government amendments, carry? Is there any discussion or comment in regard to that motion?
Mr Kennedy: To be clear, it's section 3, the Liquor Licence Act, is that correct?
The Chair: Yes. There's no comment? Shall section 3, as amended, carry?
Ayes
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
NAYS
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
The Chair: The section carries.
We are now moving to section 4. There is one government amendment.
Mr Flaherty: I move that subsection 4(9) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(9) Subsection 4(1.2) of the act, as enacted by Statutes of Ontario, 1993, chapter 25, section 31, is repealed and the following substituted:
"Trade union
"(1.2) In addition to any provision of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, no trade union within the meaning of that act shall represent persons employed in gaming premises unless the trade union and such of its officers, officials and agents as are prescribed by the regulations are registered as suppliers."
Mr Kormos: You'll correct me if I'm wrong, but it's been pointed out to me that this moves this beyond mere casino, into the broader realm of gaming premises. Quite frankly, that's a little troublesome, because gaming premises are going to be any number of places. Clearly, we're not just talking about that square footage we've been told is going to contain the gaming machines. This is one of the faults or one of the flaws with your merger of the Liquor Licence Board and the gaming commission, because what that means is that bartenders in a place that is a gaming premise are going to be restricted in their choice of bargaining agents to trade unions that are similarly falling within this definition. I think this illustrates the inherent flaw and I'm opposed to this.
Mr Flaherty: If I may speak to that for a moment, the purpose of the section is so that the provision that applies to casinos that exists under the law of Ontario will also apply to gaming premises. Gaming premises are defined in the legislation as "a place which is kept for the purpose of playing games of chance." The purpose of course is to try to ensure that criminal elements are excluded from gaming premises and casinos.
The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments or discussion in regard to Mr Flaherty's proposed amendment to subsection 4(9)? If not, shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Rollins.
NAYS
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
The Chair: Shall section 4, as amended, carry?
Ayes
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Rollins.
NAYS
Crozier, Kennedy, Kormos.
The Chair: There are no proposed amendments to section 5. Is there any discussion or questions? If not, shall section 5 carry?
Ayes
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Rollins.
NAYS
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: Section 5 carries.
We have a number of amendments to section 6.
Mr Crozier: I move that subsection 8(1) of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, as set out in subsection 6(2) of the bill, be amended by adding the following clauses:
"(c.1) prescribing the questions that may be submitted to a vote under subsection 8(3);
"(c.2) respecting the conduct of a vote held under subsection 8(3)."
The Chair: Are there any comments or questions in regard to the amendment to subsection 6(2) of the bill? If there are not, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
NAYS
Bassett, Flaherty, Guzzo, Hudak, Ron Johnson, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
1740
Mr Crozier: I move that section 8 of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, as set out in subsection 6(2) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Prohibition
"(3) No video lottery scheme shall operate on or through video lottery terminals located in a bar or restaurant."
Throughout the hearings, again referring to those areas that were in favour of the bill without question -- there were areas that were opposed to the bill, some of them on moral issues, some because of the effect it might have on charitable gaming. Then there were those, a considerable representation, although I think they all basically had the same submission, for the placing of video lottery terminals in bars or restaurants.
This is the one area that, if this motion is not accepted, if this prohibition is not accepted, will certainly open the door and unleash the vicious part of video lottery terminals. To think that you'll be able to literally, I suppose, go to any local bar or restaurant and play video lottery machines is something that I don't want to see, and I'm sure my caucus doesn't want to see, in the province of Ontario.
Up to this point, we have been able to introduce gaming in the province in a relatively orderly fashion. Certainly we've been able to introduce gaming in a fashion that could be controlled. We set up particular environments where, if you wanted to gamble, you could go. For many years, of course, we've had racetracks. That's been an acceptable social atmosphere in which to enjoy racing and/or, as some would put it, the entertainment of gambling. We then moved to the introduction of permanent casinos as well as temporary casinos in the province. Although this certainly wasn't done with the approval of the public in general, the government of the day decided that casinos could be introduced to the province of Ontario; for example, Casino Windsor. It's a controlled environment in which the intent of most people who attend there is to gamble. Since then there have been several other casinos opened in the province of Ontario.
It's when you start to move beyond the controlled environment that I start to have particular concern. I think of rural Ontario. We just received some information today from Bill Murdoch, the MPP for Grey-Owen Sound, who held two days of hearings in Owen Sound and Hanover on the Alcohol, Gaming and Charity Funding Public Interest Act. As Mr Murdoch said in a letter addressed to the clerk of the committee:
"The submissions were received during two public hearings held in Owen Sound and Hanover September 9 and 10, 1996. As the administration of justice committee was not scheduled to travel to my riding, I took the liberty of holding my own public hearings to stimulate feedback from the community on the bill. The response was overwhelmingly negative.
"As the committee begins clause-by-clause review, I would appreciate it if all due consideration would be given to the enclosed. Thank you.
"Sincerely,
"Bill Murdoch, MPP, Grey-Owen Sound."
I think that speaks to what we're trying to say here. Every bar or restaurant or licensed establishment in the province goes into every community, and although there may be some of us who prefer not to see them in any community, certainly we should take some step to limit them.
Twenty thousand video lottery terminals is what has been suggested that may be the number in the province. We know that to be viable, that means they are not likely to go into every restaurant and bar, but certainly the pressure is going to be there. If 20,000 video lottery terminals will service only 1,000 bars and restaurants, there will be pressure from the other 15,000 licensed establishments in this province, if they're proven to be the magic little machine that some would believe they are. If those are as successful as some suggest, there will be all kinds of pressure to spread more and more of these video lottery terminals throughout the province of Ontario.
It's been suggested by some, of course, that by having these VLTs in licensed restaurants and bars, it's somehow going to eliminate the illegal ones. In fact, I was talking to Sergeant Moodie today, and I used the term "grey machines." He corrected me. He said: "There are no grey machines. They're either legal or they're illegal. There's no grey area when it comes to this."
Mr Guzzo: But he confirmed that they exist. Last month you were having trouble finding them.
Mr Crozier: I still haven't been introduced to one, although I did comment that you seem to know the location of a number of them. I think if I did know where there was an illegal one, I'd report it to the police.
I don't want to see these machines spread to all corners of the province. If they're going to be introduced, I want to see them introduced in an orderly fashion in a controlled area. If any of the representations we heard across the province in our public hearings are to be considered representative of the view at large, I agree with what most recently has come in from Grey-Owen Sound, that "The response was overwhelmingly negative."
I don't think Essex South is any different than any other small urban or rural area of the province.
Mr Flaherty: It must be. There are no grey machines there.
Mr Crozier: As a matter of fact, Mr Flaherty, there were grey machines there. When I was mayor, I was aware of illegal slot machines and there was a raid carried out in which a significant number were confiscated. That's the way it should be done, and it should be done through enforcement. As I mentioned earlier today, if we are all able to read the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario's report, entitled Gambling in Ontario: Current Enforcement Concerns, 1995, we'll find that a great step could be made towards eliminating these illegal machines if we simply gave the police, the law enforcement officers, the tools with which to do it.
For anyone to think that legalizing them is going to get rid of the illegal ones, I think you're naïve. For anyone to think that by not putting them in bars and restaurants, we're going to eliminate them, I don't think that's the case either. I just don't think we should facilitate the spread of these machines. I don't think we should facilitate the social destruction they can put on the citizens of Ontario. We've received a great deal of evidence, not the least of which is from one of your favourite provinces, the province of Alberta, where they've limited these machines. I suggest if they weren't so addicted to the income from them, they would probably pull them out altogether.
I still am wrestling with the idea that we might even consider putting them in racetracks and permanent charitable casinos. As time goes on and as we deal with this bill, I'll deal with that question. But I certainly have no reservation in supporting a motion such as this that they shouldn't be located in bars and restaurants. I think we're taking a step down a long, long road to having many more than 20,000 of them in the province, and the social effects of such a move would be those we would regret. We have to consider that having allowed these at all, and certainly if we allow them as widespread as bars and restaurants, it's very difficult to pull back. I think you would agree that in many instances, when we make drastic changes, when we allow this sort of thing to happen, it's very difficult to pull back from it.
I'm concerned that in spite of what's been said in the past by the likes of the Premier and the Treasurer of the province, the finance minister of the province, we've had to go to the extent in a very short period of time of moving to supporting the placement of VLTs in bars and restaurants. It was less than a year ago that statements were made that the government doesn't need the money, that we wouldn't at that point even consider VLTs anywhere.
It would appear several weeks prior to the budget being introduced, as I've speculated before when we've discussed how many of these VLTs are needed across the province, or whether any of them are -- several weeks before the budget, I suspect, someone has come along and said one of two things. Either it's been the finance advisers who have said: "You know, Minister, we've got a revenue problem. Notwithstanding what the Premier has said, we have a revenue problem, and one of the only answers we can give to this revenue problem is to look at video lottery terminals in the province." As I say, it was either the financial advisers of the government who did this or it was some of the whiz kids who make some of the major decisions regardless of what the advice is who said: "Well, finance has pointed out that we have this problem. We know how to solve it, and that's the introduction of VLTs."
It sounds as though we have a vote in the House, Mr Chair. I'm at your --
The Chair: I would think that since we're approaching the 6 o'clock hour, it would be an opportune time to adjourn the debate on your amendment.
Mr Crozier: I'll be able to wrap it up shortly at my next opportunity.
The Chair: We'll be adjourning to tomorrow at 3:30 pm. Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1755.