INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
CLARE LEWIS
CONTENTS
Wednesday 20 April 1994
Subcommittee report
Intended appointments
Clare Lewis, Gaming Control Commission
Nancy Backhouse, Grievance Settlement Board
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Mammoliti
Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/ Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND)
for Mr Malkowski
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC) for Mrs Marland
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1003 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Vice-Chair (Mr Allan K. McLean): We first have the subcommittee report. Do we have a motion that the subcommittee report be accepted? Ms Carter.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Sure.
The Vice-Chair: All in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
CLARE LEWIS
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Clare Lewis, intended appointee as chair, Gaming Control Commission.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Lewis, if you'd like to have a few opening remarks, fine.
Mr Clare Lewis: If I may, Mr Chair. Thank you very much. May I first of all introduce Mr Duncan Brown of the Gaming Control Commission. He is the director of gaming control for Ontario and chief executive officer of the commission. He is here today, along with members of the government offices, to observe the proceedings with your permission.
I very much appreciate the invitation of the committee to appear before it and the opportunity you are affording me to hear and respond to your questions and concerns. I must say that I am most honoured to have been nominated by the minister, the Honourable Marilyn Churley, to be the first chair of the newly created Gaming Control Commission of Ontario and to be asked to be considered by you for that appointment.
When Bill 8, the proposed casino legislation with its attendant gaming control provisions, was before the House and committee last year between, I think, July and December, as an Ontario resident I was rather interested in the debate the bill sparked and the questions it raised.
I actually did watch some of the proceedings on the legislative channel and I have since obtained and read the whole of the proceedings in Hansard. I'm of the view that the debates of the members of the House raised some very significant issues and provided a vibrant and helpful exchange of views on often very contentious matters on which there were divergent opinions. I say "helpful" because I believe that many of the issues raised require a credible response by government and by agencies of government engaged in the industry.
On a personal level, I cannot say I ever foresaw casino gambling in the province of Ontario. On the other hand, I can equally say that I never foresaw lottery gambling in Ontario either and we've had that for a great many years.
What the debates did for me was convince me that if gambling in this province is to expand, as it clearly has through the exponential increase of charitable gaming with its ancillary growth of a commercial gaming industry and with the advent of casino gambling, then the public of this province and all the stakeholder groups have an absolute need for diligent, firm, fair, open and cost-effective regulation of the industry.
The Vice-Chair: Just a minute, Mr Lewis. We have 20 minutes each.
Mr Lewis: Oh, I'm sorry.
The Vice-Chair: You're eating into the 20 minutes each time and I know that members have some questions.
Mr Lewis: By all means.
The Vice-Chair: If you could make it as short as possible.
Mr Lewis: I look forward to your questions.
The Vice-Chair: Good. Thank you.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I appreciate your comments with respect to the debate in the House. One of the fears with respect to gambling casinos, which has been raised in every jurisdiction in the world, is with respect to crime and that gambling casinos breed crime.
As you know, the former Attorney General, Mr Hampton, as a law student -- I believe he was a law student and I don't mean that in a demeaning sort of way, but as a law student --
Mr Lewis: I was one once.
Mr Tilson: -- so was I -- prepared a report for the then Progressive Conservative government in Ottawa with respect to gambling. It was a very detailed report. I'm sure at that time he had no dreams he would one day become the Attorney General of the province of Ontario but he, as you know, as I'm sure you've watched that issue where it's been explained to you, made it quite clear that every jurisdiction in the world that has got into gambling casinos breeds crime.
1010
You've been a judge; you've had extensive experience in the legal community; I think you've been a defence counsel. People in various communities, whether it be Windsor -- and notwithstanding what the minister's saying that this is an experiment; it's quite clear, the writing's on the wall; you're going to be the czar of gambling casinos all across this province. Communities are afraid of crime entering their community, whether it be Toronto, whether it be Niagara Falls, whether it be Ottawa, all of these various places. Everybody and his mother wants a gambling casino. What are you doing to do to alleviate the concerns of residents of these communities?
Mr Lewis: I agree with you that Mr Hampton raised that issue in 1984 and I can only hope that, as I recognized he voted in favour of this legislation, he's been able to be persuaded by his government that there are sufficient checks in place to answer the issue. However, I think the issues of concern to the municipalities are quite legitimate. They have an absolute right to fear and seek and demand protection against the incursion of crime. It's not just organized crime, of course, because there's always the concern which we hear from the police of the attendant general crime in the community which feeds off the casino, be it thievery, prostitution and other forms, robbery even.
My opportunity, to date, to view the workings of the commission has been, of course, not as a person working inside it, but rather having the opportunity to be briefed on some fairly substantial issues, and I've read a great many of their regulations and their internal documents.
It's the intent of the commission, and it seems to me to be well entrenched at this point, to operate quite differently from how some of the American jurisdictions have in the past. To begin with, I don't believe the industry in this province is created by organized crime, as it clearly was some many years ago in the United States, where organized crime got its handle into the industry very early and very extensively.
Mr Tilson: Sir, they're in it now. I'm sure you've read the news clippings. I have one in front of me from the Toronto Star of December 10, which talks about Caesar's World Inc, which is one of the groups that's going to be running the Windsor casino. This news clipping talks about how on November 17, the very day the government was using its majority in the Legislature to cut short a debate on the Ontario Casino Corp Act, the New Jersey commission had ruled that Caesar's casino in Atlantic City had improperly given more than $1 million to one of its biggest patrons, and it was a Venezuelan business person. So they're here.
Mr Lewis: They were staking a high roller, I take it. That was my impression.
Mr Tilson: They went on to say, "Caesar's had violated six different regulations, including ones dealing with recordkeeping, gifts, and transacting business with prohibited vendors." These are the people who are going to be running gambling in the province of Ontario. So you are now walking into this position, and I repeat, what are you going to do about it?
Mr Lewis: I repeat, sir, to you that I think we have regulations here which can address that very issue. Without going into the merits of that particular event, which certainly caused me concern, as it did you, I understand that not only is it under appeal, but if it were to occur today, it would not be an offence in Atlantic City. I'm not saying that's a good idea. What I am saying is that the audit provisions and the licensing provisions that I understand exist and are being prepared for the Windsor casino corp will permit random and periodic audit on just these issues.
There's also the issue of SEC filing in the States, in which the money-laundering issue arises, the $10,000 transaction having to be cleared. I'm informed that there have been corporations in the States which have not filed those reports. Again, this is part of the licensing requirement of the Windsor casino corp.
Mr Tilson: Let me ask one more question, sir. The Windsor police forwarded to Minister Churley, in the summer of 1993, a report dealing with what they believe will be a law enforcement problem if the casino is built. They stated that they're going to need 35 more police officers than they currently can put on the street. At a town hall meeting in Windsor, they found out that they would receive funding for 25 more. Atlantic City has a population of 35,000, 12 casinos, and it's controlled by 400 police officers. Of course, Windsor only has one casino, admittedly, but the population is much higher.
My question to you is, assuming the Windsor police know their job, dealing specifically with the problem of Windsor -- I'm now being specific -- how will you deal with the potential crime problem in the city of Windsor?
Mr Lewis: The city police of Windsor do have that responsibility very much by statute and expectation. They have asked for 35 officers, not 400, to increase their complement. I think the government's opening bid was 10, and I had heard 25 was the figure to be reviewed as the circumstances develop.
I think comparisons between Atlantic City and Windsor are of interest but sometimes misleading, sir. I think that Atlantic City was a city that was destroyed before the casinos came in. Its infrastructure was in pretty sad shape. Windsor is a city of some repute in this province, one that I even have an office in, in my own present position.
Mr Tilson: And more strip clubs than any city in the country.
Mr Lewis: I agree, and I gather that must be feeding the American market. Be that as it may, it still has a very strong economy, which has been hit lately by the attack on the automotive and other industries, but this is a city of significant substance and significant policing.
In my current job, I have no hesitation in saying that Chief Adkin and his force are very capable of addressing the problems which arise from here, and I would expect that this commission will work closely with any local police force and certainly with Police Chief Adkin on the matters.
Only two weeks ago, I was talking briefly to the deputy chief of that city. There are issues, there's no question about it, and they're going to have to be dealt with. I would hope to be open, as chair of the board, should you consent to that, to receiving and addressing any issues raised by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police or individual chiefs of police.
Mr Tilson: What do you think of the relationship between the Ontario Lottery Corp, the Ontario Casino Corp, the Ontario Racing Commission and charitable casinos?
Mr Lewis: Well, as I understand, by statute there is no relationship between the OLC and these others, and certainly not the casino or the Gaming Control Commission. They are distinct; they're discrete entities. If the question is, ought they to be, I'm not sure of that.
I know there's been a lot of emphasis in government recently, and I think this committee is probably working on it too, rationalizing the explosion of agencies of government and finding some interconnecting means of reducing them and perhaps thereby serving the public better and more cost-effectively. The racing commission and the gaming commission are in the same ministry.
Perhaps your question is this, sir, and if I'm wrong, please correct me: I know there are concerns about casino gambling affecting the charitable gaming industry and reducing the income which they have come to depend upon by reason of the failure of their traditional sources. I think that's something that the Gaming Control Commission would want to be alive to, would have to look at when looking at issues of licensing within, for instance, the charitable industry itself. I think that's an industry that has to be tightened up as to who is licensed.
Mr Tilson: Should all of the operations be amalgamated?
Mr Lewis: That's the question you were asking? That would make some sense, but I'm not --
The Acting Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): Thank you, Mr Tilson. Mr McLean.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Lewis, I wanted to ask you a few questions. It has to do with regard to the position that you're now assuming on the Gaming Control Commission and whether you're aware of the bingo halls that are established and being established. There's a great need for the charities that the bingo halls raise the funds for. Are you aware of how the Gaming Control Commission looks after allowing new bingo halls to be established?
1020
Mr Lewis: I don't have detailed information; however, I do have an overview of the needs of charities and I think that I could say this: that, as potential chair of this commission, I would have great concern that the whole charitable industry and its commercial gaming component be watched and regularized very carefully.
As you know, it was under the entertainment standards branch previously, and that's been rolled in, the gaming part, to the commission. I think, given that 98% of the licences are issued by municipalities, the need for centralized licensing and recognition of the needs of legitimate charities is very much of an important feature for the commission. I would hope that I, as chair of a board yet to be created, with the supportive staff, could be very helpful to the charitable gaming industry, because I think it's a very big need.
Mr McLean: I want to bring to your attention, so that you'll know as you take over as chair after today, a bingo hall that has been established in the town of Penetanguishene. It's the first one in Ontario that I know of that is divided; it's got fans, a non-smoking area, it is one of the nicest ones that I know of. They have a C licence for three nights a week. They have applied for an A licence.
The opposition in the area has issued a complaint saying there's not enough need for another bingo hall. They've had their lawyer write a letter and the ministry has taken the step now of saying, "You have to do a study for $20,000." The Orsers have forwarded a cheque to the ministry for $20,000. The ministry is saying, "We will decide and determine who does the study and when." Orser, Angel Gate, has no control over who is going to do their study.
They have a book here that's got all the feasibility studies that have ever been needed to establish the hall and the ministry has said, "We've got to do another study to determine whether you should have an A licence or not," and they indicate, "We can even pull the licence that you have now as a C," if they determine they could do that. I don't know how a ministry could ask them to do a study without any input from the company.
Mr Lewis: You have the advantage over me on that situation, but I think that clearly is going to be an area for the commission to be in constant communication with the stakeholders, which include the various persons and companies in the gaming industry.
You raise issues of fairness here, it seems to me, procedural fairness, and I can't comment on whether or not they've been met but I've had the experience in my current position, knowing that if you err on procedural fairness you're in big trouble.
Mr McLean: I've certainly brought it to the minister's attention. She's well aware of it. The company that's objecting to it is a large one. They have about 10 different establishments in the province. They don't want opposition. I find it hard to believe that the ministry would make them go through a study, which they've already done, a feasibility study. They wouldn't have spent millions of dollars on their hall if they hadn't done a study. I wanted to bring that to your attention.
Mr Lewis: I could undertake to you that, should my candidacy meet with your approval, that would be a matter of early interest to me.
Mr McLean: The other questions that I have pertain to the availability of bingo halls, because we're going to get a lot of requests. I understand there's a large store in Orillia that's out of business and they're wanting to put a bingo hall in there. Highway 11 between Barrie and Orillia, a food store is out of business; they want to put a bingo hall in there.
I wanted to bring this to your attention because I think we're going to have some major requests, especially from the charities that cannot get into the ones that are already there. I have a feeling that the bingo halls are going to be a large part of your job when you get in there.
Mr Lewis: Yes. Well, again, I see the whole charitable gaming industry as a matter of principal concern and one I need to learn a great deal about.
Mr Tilson: I guess I'm still concerned with the impressions on crime. There is a concern out there, sir, and, with respect, you are saying that the system is there to stop it. We understand that the casino project team consulted widely with law enforcement agencies, the people in Windsor and the people in Peel, to ensure that there would be a minimal chance of organized crime at the casino. However, at least five of the proponents shortlisted for the casino project failed to file proper IRS forms. Negotiations continued with these proponents. I've commented that at the very time the voting was going on in the House, Caesar's was being raked over the coals.
I, as a member of this committee, and I think the people in this province want some assurance -- particularly the people in Windsor, where it's now a reality -- want to know that there isn't going to be any crime there. Now, you've said that the structure is there. Tell me what the structure is in there, when you already know that one of the people running it has been convicted in the United States.
Mr Lewis: That caught my attention. I think that event was perhaps a learning experience for the investigation team in the commission, although as I understood it, and I'm not fully apprised of this, there was an awareness but a lack of recognition of the significance of the event. I don't think that would be repeated, should I have the chair of that commission.
Mr Tilson: How won't it be repeated?
Mr Lewis: Because I think that would have to be considered as a very relevant factor. I'm not presuming to say that it would necessarily preclude the approval of a licence at this stage -- I'm not fully familiar with all the circumstances; I simply am not in the job -- but I certainly see it as relevant.
Mr Tilson: You see, we're going to be talking gambling casinos across this province.
Mr Lewis: Yes, we are.
Mr Tilson: This is going to happen over and over; we're guaranteed.
Mr Lewis: What we have, though, is a very good system of investigation, of required exploration of interested parties, of their directors, their officers and of persons who have equitable interest in them which is really quite extensive. There is an opportunity here not only to check them on what they are; there have even been extensive interviews with the heads of the corporations -- for instance, in the existing consortium in Windsor, those three companies. They have been interviewed with a view to considering simply what kind of people run these organizations at the very top.
Am I saying to you that there will be no attempt to do anything improper? No, I'm not saying that, sir. I've been in the criminal justice system for 30 years. I am saying that with vigilance they can be stopped, and I believe this is an opportunity which is being well prepared to that end. I quite agree with you that this province and its citizens and its legislators have every right to demand that that be done with vigour.
Mr Tilson: I wish you luck.
Mr Lewis: Thank you.
Ms Carter: Welcome to the committee. There was a very nice write-up about you in the Star on Sunday, of which I'm sure you are very well aware.
Mr Lewis: He was generous, Ms Carter.
Ms Carter: I gather you've been thoroughly checked and investigated and everything else.
Mr Lewis: By the police.
Ms Carter: You must be Mr Ultimately Clean, I think.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I'll bet he's been checked.
Ms Carter: I understand from the article that you voluntarily gave up your prospects of completing your career as a judge --
Mr Lewis: Yes, I did.
Ms Carter: -- and the full pension that would have been involved, so I think we have to congratulate you on all those points.
Mr Lewis: Thank you.
1030
Ms Carter: Why do you see yourself as a good candidate for appointment as this chair?
Mr Lewis: I have had almost 30 years of experience in the criminal and administrative justice system and I've had the opportunity of being a judge, required for six and a half years to not simply be an advocate but also to actually adjudicate between competing interests and arrive at fair and open decisions, hopefully. I've had the opportunity, for the last eight and a half years, to be the head of a pretty contentious and challenging government agency in its own right, which had some very serious issues to deal with over the years and still continues to. I think those are experiences which give me an awareness on a number of levels that will be useful in this position.
I think I have the background to chair a commission, to begin with, a tribunal, if you will. I have, I hope, the skills to work within the administrative law requirements. I know about law enforcement, I know about crime, and, whatever might be thought to the contrary with some of the disputes I've had with the policing community, I work very well with the policing community throughout this province and in fact in the last year and a half have been actively engaged with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police in negotiations in my current job. I share the concerns that have been raised by Mr Tilson and others, and I care about this province and how it is affected by legalized gaming.
I believe, with respect, that I have the skills that might be useful to what is already a very capable team in the Gaming Control Commission in curbing the incursion of crime and indeed stopping it. This industry is both important and troubling, and that's the kind of challenge I think I could fulfil.
Ms Carter: The casino project team had various choices it could put before the government about how this should be set up. It could have been a single agency that regulated and managed, and what we actually have is a regulatory agency and a business corporation. This being the case, could I ask you to comment on what is the actual mandate you will have and whether you think this division between business and the regulation side is a good way to go and will be effective.
Mr Lewis: If I may answer that first, I think the division is imperative. I believe very strongly in dividing certain functions, and that's one reason I left the bench in order to do my current job. I think there are certain things that cannot be done appropriately by one person or one body.
The Ontario Casino Corp is a business and is going to be responsible for the running of Windsor and any other casino in the sense of choosing it and making economic decisions. It is not, therefore, the right body to do the regulation of the industry and indeed in itself will require some looking at by the regulatory body. The business of business belongs one place and the business of regulation in another.
The commission itself has a mandate to ensure the honesty and integrity of the industry for the public interest of the province of Ontario. As chair of the commission and of the tribunal, I would have the obligation by statute to advise the registrar and the director of gaming control upon request and have the power to hold public hearings when appropriate in furtherance of that role.
The specific power of the tribunal is to set the rules of play and also to exclude certain persons from the casino when appropriate, in accordance with the criteria in the regulations.
I should also point out to you that there is authority for the registrar to transfer the registrar's functions to the commission, the tribunal itself. That's a very important potential for this commission. That involves the licensing, punishment and revocation of licences of all operators within the industry, be they casino operators, key employees, gaming-related suppliers or otherwise and so on. So the commission is really quite an extensive body with rather extensive power which has to be used very carefully.
It's extremely important that a regulatory agency react appropriately to certain circumstances, that it doesn't overreact. I think the role of the commission is to provide the stakeholders -- and I see them as the elected representatives of the province, including and maybe particularly the municipal representatives, the charitable industry, the commercial gaming industry and the public -- with a predictable regulatory scheme, one that operates within a narrow and known band of activity so that people know what to expect. It's the obligation of the commission to ensure that the gaming public gets a square deal, that they know what to expect, that they know what the odds of the games are and that they will be assured of that.
Also the commission will, I would hope, have a role on an issue that I know has arisen, that is, compulsive gambling. It's one that troubles me. I've personally done a literature search on the issue, and I have started to assemble literature for my study on it. That's an area in which I understand the government is making a commitment to put moneys aside for research and education and perhaps rehabilitation, but it's something the commission might be able to assist on as well.
I want to make the point that I'm not for a minute suggesting that the casino is the cause of compulsive gambling. It already exists. It's a pathology of its own. But obviously any gaming opportunity can enhance that danger. I think government and the agency have a responsibility to address it. We have a very real responsibility to ensure that advertising of a casino is done in an appropriate way. It must not be seen to induce gambling, and it must not, assuredly, be seen to pander to underage would-be gamers. It shouldn't do certain things. I think the commission will have a very real role in policing the advertising of gaming. I've gone on rather long. I'm sorry.
Ms Carter: That was very enlightening. As has been pointed out, you're responsible not just for the casino but for the whole charitable gaming scene we already have. There already are problems with people breaking the law and running off with money and so on even in that context.
Mr Lewis: Doing which? Breaking the law and --
Ms Carter: Running off with money. We've had problems in my own area of Peterborough with charitable gambling. I'm sure you will make as good an attempt as anybody possibly could to get it clean and keep it clean. Do you think you're going to be able to succeed right across the board in keeping crime to an absolute minimum?
Mr Lewis: This industry, like any other, has got to deal with human beings, and the capacity of human beings to do wrong as well as good is infinite. Do I think we can police well? Yes, I do think we can police well. Do I think we can address issues such as -- well, you mentioned the running off with money. If by that you mean the robbery like occurred in Toronto, the commission has already responded to that very quickly.
1040
I think it's important that in the charitable industry there be a rationalization of what has been a very fast growth, and the commission is going to have to get, if it isn't already, on top of that. Charitable gaming is obviously extremely important to the people of this province for its revenues. It's important that the commercial gaming industry be a clean one, because it supports the charitable industry. While the commission will never be able to ensure, nor is it its business to ensure, profit in charitable gaming, it should be able to ensure fair dealing by the commercial gaming industry for the charities it serves. That includes not running off with the proceeds, if that's what you were speaking of. I think we could act in fairly swift ways in that area.
Ms Carter: The project team had various possibilities as to how this could be set up. I believe there were about four ways it could have been done, such as 100% government-owned or 100% private and so on. Of course, what was decided on was government-owned but privately operated, so that the government gets the profit and the operator gets an operating fee. I just wondered if you would like to comment on that.
Mr Lewis: You mean, do I approve?
Ms Carter: Whether you think that is a sound basis.
Mr Lewis: As I read in the debates on another issue, that train has already left the station. That's the model for the Windsor casino as such. Should there be other casinos, that could change. This was a model. Does it attract me? I know politics is always a bet, and not always a safe one, but I don't think the government is necessarily the best equipped to run a casino.
Ms Carter: But if we move to aboriginally run casinos, it might be a totally different setup.
Mr Lewis: Yes, it might. I understand there has been a commitment to a native casino and that bids for that have been made. I agree with you: I think that will raise whole new issues of a great variety. I believe the commission will have a very real role to play in native gaming, and indeed it's anticipated that the tribunal itself will have representation from the native community, along with other relevant groups, like law enforcement and so on. But I think this is a proper model at this stage, yes.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you for coming, Mr Lewis. I want to let you know directly what my position is. I represent the city of Niagara Falls, and it certainly is an international destination. You may know we get over 10 million visitors a year, and I believe we're actually entering a new era with regard to tourism locally: Things are changing, upgrading.
Part of my rationale for saying that, yes, Niagara Falls is an appropriate place for a casino is that we certainly need that economic stimulus, that it is a place to bring in foreign currency with these many foreign visitors we have, and third, that gaming is a legitimate entertainment and, as such, can be seen as part of tourism.
What I want to ask you are some of the reflections of my constituents in Niagara Falls. The first thing that comes up is the image of Atlantic City, these types of concerns that were also raised from across the floor. I believe we have a unique culture and heritage in Ontario and the people have a way of looking at things, and we want whatever casino operations are here in Ontario to reflect that heritage and culture. I'm wondering what your feelings are about how the casino gaming will be different from other places.
Mr Lewis: I don't think it will be the raison d'être of the community. Atlantic City exists literally for the casinos. I mean, they sit there on the boardwalk and that's Atlantic City, and God help you if you go too far away from there. Reno, although it's got the University of Nevada, is very much a casino city, and so are Las Vegas, Laughlin. I don't anticipate that this will be the Ontario experience. We are talking communities of long standing, with their own infrastructures, their own mores and expectations for their community. I don't believe casinos can be grafted on and necessarily undermine. I think they will be there, but they will not fuel or drive the community.
Ms Harrington: Can you pinpoint any description of our casinos that would be intrinsic to the Ontario experience?
Mr Lewis: I believe they will be policed in a different way. For instance, dealing with the Windsor experience, the commission itself will have a policing presence in the Windsor casino, and the surveillance systems in the Windsor casino, I understand, are extraordinarily state-of-the-art. Interestingly enough, they are double systems. You have the Windsor casino corp, with its basic and extensive video surveillance process, but the OPP contingent will have an override video surveillance. In other words, they will be able to observe the activities of the casino in a manner that is unknown to the Windsor casino corp. We have a policing check attached to the commission which will, I think, be unique in casino gambling.
Ms Harrington: My constituents certainly believe it must be done carefully here, must be done correctly here. We obviously have the advantage of looking at everything that has happened so far and the process as it unfolds in Windsor and seeing how it is done. We have to have, I believe, in this province a great respect for your commission.
Following from Mr Tilson's comments about the crime aspect, is there any evidence, if we look at, say, the casino in Montreal or the casino in Winnipeg, that there has been organized crime involvement in those, to your knowledge?
Mr Lewis: I'm not aware of any, but we have to fairly say that they're different structures. Neither of those has the strong American ties that Windsor casino corp will have, either through its consortium or through its audience; it's anticipated that the Windsor casino will draw 80% of its audience from the American states. But I do say it's clear that the Canadian experience in casino gambling has been a good one so far, and the opportunity to share the benefits of that history is very real.
I might also say that there have been agreements signed with both Nevada and New Jersey on sharing of information with the Ontario gaming commission. There will be -- there already is, actually -- knowledge by us, if I may use the term, by the commission, of the bad sides they have in their gaming commissions. Nevada and New Jersey have extensive experience, obviously, and they have agreed to supply information on persons, corporations and practices, which would be very, very helpful.
Ms Harrington: I just want to reiterate that it is so important in what you are doing that we have the utmost confidence in this commission.
Do you see it in the mandate of your organization to look at the impact on the social fabric of the community where a casino is located?
Mr Lewis: Yes. As you know, the legislation requires that when a casino is created, there be a community advisory committee. But the social impact is something that interests me very much, and to the extent that I can shape the mandate of the commission, and I think there will be an opportunity for the tribunal to do that, the whole issue of social impact is an important one and should be one of interest to the commission. In so far as it raises opportunities to limit inappropriate behaviour, then it's a very proper commission mandate.
1050
Mr Curling: Mr Lewis, here you are again in a challenging position, something you've never shied away from, and your ability is well known. It's part of your nature to deal with the sometimes controversial aspects of things.
I just want to understand some of this, so I'll go into it very quickly. I want to understand the Gaming Control Commission. It says there are five members on this commission.
Mr Lewis: Minimum.
Mr Curling: A minimum of five, and then it's the five members who select the chair and the vice-chair. When I read it here it says "five members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council...who also designates the chair and vice-chair."
Mr Lewis: The Lieutenant Governor designates the chair and vice-chair.
Mr Curling: So you have been selected by the Lieutenant Governor, so to speak, the cabinet, in order to come before us.
Mr Lewis: I haven't gone the full route yet.
Mr Curling: To acquire this job, you come before us for us to make this great decision about whether you should be that chair.
One of the concerns I have and one the things you'll be handling is the charitable organizations too. I'm just going to take that part of it, two areas there, maybe three: bingos, for instance, with about a million dollars' worth of business going through the enterprising opportunities they give; raffles also, which I think generate about a half-million dollars in business; and now you have the video lottery out there.
Will this formation give the charitable organizations a fair share? The reason I ask is that today a charitable organization depends very much on raffles etc, and as the government comes into casinos, some of the people are worried that it's the only hope they have to raise money to do charitable things. Do you think this will impede them or make it more difficult for them to get licensed, or will it assist them?
Mr Lewis: I understand the concern of the charitable industry about the advent of casinos. For that matter, I understand it was a concern of the racing industry. The competition was seen to be formidable, and it's a legitimate concern.
In so far as casinos are concerned, I believe that the Windsor casino corp's target audience is really not the normal target audience of the charitable gaming. It's very much an American, out-of-province target. One can never know if the estimates are going to be accurate, but as I mentioned earlier, it's estimated that 80% of the business will come from the American states, and these are not persons who would normally come in to play the charitable gaming, the Monte Carlo nights and so on. If that holds, it would be relatively little impact, and it may indeed be a very different type of gambler or gaming person who attends the casinos.
It cannot be denied, it seems to me, that there will perhaps be some impact on charitable gaming by casino gambling, depending on the extent of it. We don't know what that's going to be yet.
For that reason, it is very important that the charitable industry be heard, that the licensing of charities be very carefully regulated, that it be limited to legitimate charities, that there be a centrally controlled regulation of who gets licences to run charitable events, because that can be a bleed-off too. It's not so hard to think of how you might have people purporting to be in the charitable industry who aren't really charities, and they are a major concern to the legitimate charities, for whom you have, quite properly, concern.
Will there be an impact? Perhaps, but I think it's going to be the role of the commission, to some degree, although we are not the economic driver in this industry, to see that the marketplace is fairly run and operates so that all participants in it have a fair shot.
Mr Curling: One of the strategies of the casino establishment, especially in Ontario, is to put it at the border, especially in areas where the population is large. It is said we're trying to attract -- somehow the argument always comes -- those from the other side of the border. Funnily enough, many from this side go over there to gamble.
Mr Lewis: That's true.
Mr Curling: Therefore, sure, it may give the impression to the people of Ontario: "We're really putting this casino in because we need some of those American dollars. A lot of people want to come and gamble over here, and we can get some good bucks out of that." As a matter of fact, it does have an impact on those who now may not go over there to gamble but stay in Ontario and gamble. It also has that impact on gambling.
Mr Lewis: Sure, but I don't know that that's a bad thing. Keeping our dollars at home is not so bad.
Mr Curling: Okay. Going to other countries, many countries don't allow the residents to even participate in casinos. The argument is, "We don't want in any way to create an addiction to this with our residents." I hear this argument that gambling is bad, and since it's that bad, "We will only have the foreigners," like in Nassau, "come and gamble," and nobody in Nassau can gamble. When we are here, we say we want the other people over there to come with their money.
In the meantime, I'm hearing other arguments. My feeling is that gambling -- you made a kind of profound statement, that casinos are not the cause of compulsive gambling; it already exists. I heard you say that. But the fact is that it feeds into that. Don't you feel we'll have to be dealing with more situations with the crime that's associated with casinos and that the social fabric of that area will, I would say, degenerate in that sense? It will gravitate to people who want to gamble, who are compulsive gamblers etc.
Mr Lewis: I think I agreed with you, Mr Curling, in earlier statements that the advent of casinos raises its own issues, exactly the kinds of issues you're speaking of. While I said that compulsive gambling already exists, I agreed that of course the creation of a casino industry will enhance the potential for falling into it.
I'm interested in this position because I see the problems that are inherent in the industry. Although I've been in casinos in a number of countries, actually, I'm not much of a money gambler. I guess I'm a little risk-averse. Maybe I'm afraid -- I don't know -- of the potentials of gambling. But it's a very human conduct, it's a very normal conduct, it seems, and we've long since, it strikes me, gone beyond the purity state of not allowing our citizens to gamble. We gamble in major ways in this province quite legitimately, with the full approval of all governments.
What's happening here is that we have expanded the industry in a way that raises new issues that have to be addressed. I'm not much impressed with countries that would provide an industry to outsiders that it would deprive its own citizens of. I don't think I would feel much admiration for a government that considered an industry to be so sinister that its own people couldn't be involved, but didn't mind trafficking in it. That's like a drug culture sort of thinking. It's not yours; I don't mean to suggest that, sir. I agree there are countries like that.
Ontario has long since chosen to be involved in gaming. To me, it seems the challenge is to ensure that it's done properly and that it's regulated in a way that it never has been. This is an opportunity which is being afforded through the Gaming Control Commission.
I've been invited to chair that commission. I've talked to Deputy Minister Judith Wilson and Duncan Brown, the director, about their views of the mandate and the challenges of the commission. I am most impressed by their command of those issues and by the work they've done to date. I would consider it a privilege to be part of their team in serving the public interest of this province by assuring the honesty and integrity of this industry.
1100
Mr Curling: It's very interesting that you made the comparison between drugs and gambling itself in a sort of addiction situation and not depriving people from doing it in, if you want to call it, a controlled environment. I presume cigarettes and alcohol are the same thing. The government has controlled alcohol very well by having its own outlets.
In the meantime, the other arguments will come that we may have to feed into it later on or to have it dealt with later on by the addiction research people, who are looking at controlling people who have those addictions one way or the other, either for smoking or drinking or gambling itself. It's very interesting.
Mr Tilson actually raised a point which was rather interesting to me and I just want to raise it because he didn't have an opportunity to ask it further. With your commission, I think he did ask somehow whether you will be going around the province to carry the good news, the made-in-Ontario casino stuff, and since it works here, whether you will go up to any other areas to do so. You said yes, or maybe. But I haven't heard the government itself, as he's pointed out, stating that, that you will be the disciple somehow carrying that good news around to say, "This is a good thing to do, and maybe you could do it in other places and parts of Ontario."
Mr Lewis: I think that's a very good question. I am not carrying a brief for casinos. I am not expected to carry the government's intents on casinos if it should intend to expand them. That would be a matter for the Ontario Casino Corp, which reports to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. The business of the commission is regulation. I am saying that I am not overwhelmed by the fact that there is a casino. I'm intrigued by it. I see the issues that are raised by it and have been well expressed by yourself and Mr Tilson and others. My job will be to see they're regulated.
You won't find me, if I travel the province -- and I'm sure I will; I'll have occasion to through my regulatory responsibilities -- being the salesman for casinos. That is not going to be my job and it is not in any way anticipated. I think I'd be in big trouble if I tried.
Mr Curling: My last question to you, and my colleague will be asking some questions after: Let's talk about some of your mandates then. You said what would be your mandate. One of your mandates would be to conduct it with honesty, integrity -- and I understand those -- and the other part, in the public interest. What would be in the public interest in a casino, in gambling? How would we see that conducted in the public interest? Help me understand that part.
Mr Lewis: The public interest really is served by the industry operating with honesty and integrity. The casino is obviously intended to be a revenue-generating institution for government. That's a fact of this structure in this case.
The public interest will be served by ensuring that the operator of that casino operates it in a legitimate fashion that makes sure that the government is fairly treated, as the owner of the casino. It is imperative that those people who attend in the casino know what the rules are and feel confident that the games are operated in a way which is explained and fair and known, that the odds are rational or at least that the minimum payouts are known, which is the odds.
The argument as to whether gambling can ever be in the public interest is of course the argument which the House had, but the fact of gambling is here. It's a fact of life in North America and it certainly is now in Ontario. The challenge for the public interest is to ensure that those who are engaged in the industry -- be they the operators, the employees, those who serve the industry, that is, the suppliers and the trade unions that get involved -- are above reproach and that they're financially creditable institutions or people, that they are not infiltrating the industry. That's the role of the commission, and it's the role I hope to be able to assist the commission in fulfilling.
Mr Curling: Good luck.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Welcome to the committee, Mr Lewis, and for answering your questions in the way they were asked.
I'm still concerned about the violence casinos attract. We've had some bad experiences in our part of eastern Ontario on a native reserve. We're very concerned about that, and we're concerned about the cost of law enforcement. I think some of the problems that we're having yet there were created by that.
I guess the other thing that many of my constituents and constituents across Ontario are concerned about is the waiting list charities have to get a licence at bingo halls. I guess we all have great service clubs in our communities and they're very worried about their ability to raise funds, because there are only so many dollars in the communities. We're very concerned about that.
You went on to say that we might not have to worry about some of these problems to do with policing because it would be done in a different way. I'd just like your comments on some of those.
Mr Lewis: Mr Cleary, you're from Cornwall, I believe.
Mr Cleary: That's right.
Mr Lewis: I appreciate your awareness of some of the issues that have arisen in that community, and they are of concern to me.
I believe that crime outside the casino, which we were discussing with Mr Tilson, is something that's going to have to be very much addressed, and I think government will have a responsibility to assist local police services to meet that challenge.
Now I know that's always a matter of negotiation and I'm not blind to the realities of police boards and local councils having to fight with provincial government for more than their policing grant, for instance, to meet new challenges. But it seems to me that if a casino comes into a community, one can presume, and one will soon know through Windsor, what the outside ramifications of that are in terms of crime.
Maybe I'm out on a limb here. I don't speak for government on this, but I, as a member of the commission, for instance, would not hesitate to advocate that government be very open to the policing needs of the community.
I've been in the policing and law enforcement business for quite a long time and I have some familiarity with the negotiating that goes on for extra police for every which reason, but I think this is a legitimate one that's going to have to be looked at very closely and I think you've raised the issue well.
I am frankly encouraged by Chief Adkin's assessment of the implications of the casino, because they don't seem extreme to me, given the size of his force and the policing capacities of that community.
Going to your other point of the impact on charitable gaming, I think I've emphasized that I consider that to be a very real issue. I think a very important role for the commission will be ensuring that appropriate charities are able to get licences in a reasonable time for legitimate purposes.
I can't speak to what the ultimate effect of casino gambling will be on the charities. I think some of it will be there and some of it may not be, because of markets and so on, and appealing to different types of gamblers.
But it's a major concern to me that the commercial gaming industry, which supports the charitable industry, be tied down very, very closely so that it does not exact an inordinate amount of money from the moneys which are collected for charities under these Monte Carlo nights and so on, and raffles, and secondly, that those who are licensed as charities to have games are appropriate charities -- and that's going to be a tough call -- and that their licensing is done in a quick manner so that they don't suffer the kinds of delays that you're talking about.
1110
I think what's happened to some degree is that in the last two years there has been an enormous explosion in charitable gaming in this province, and the entertainment standards branch, I suspect, as I was in my present role as police complaints commissioner, was overwhelmed by the growth. When I was public complaints commissioner in Toronto up until 1991, we got 1,000 complaints a year, and overnight I got 4,200. I didn't get the staff to go with it, I have to tell you, for many, many months. You have to learn how to cope with that.
I think this commission is now well under way in that regard, but I think your issue is real, I think it must be addressed, and it would be a matter of great concern to me.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Lewis, for appearing before the committee this morning. We've run over our time. We wish you well.
Mr Lewis: May I ask a question, Mr McLean? I go to Vancouver tomorrow morning. I'm on the board of governors of the Canadian Centre for Police Race Relations, and it may be my last board of governors meeting, but I don't get back till Sunday.
As you know, my own office is a little bit in limbo. I've delegated all my authority to my legal director, who is intended to be the acting commissioner. It was hoped that if this committee approved, I would begin my responsibilities Monday in the new job. I'm going to be away. Would I have any way of knowing what the intent of the committee is on this?
The Vice-Chair: You'll know in half an hour.
Mr Lewis: Oh, all right.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sure that it will be approved because there's never been one that hasn't been.
Mr Lewis: Well, that's faint praise, sir.
The Vice-Chair: I would be one who would endorse the recommendation that you be approved and then you will be notified within a day or two.
Mr Lewis: Thank you, Mr McLean.
Mr Tilson: And he's a Tory.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for appearing. You can be assured you'll be in your new office on Monday.
NANCY BACKHOUSE
Review of intended appointment, selected by the government party: Nancy Backhouse, intended appointee as vice-chair, Grievance Settlement Board.
Ms Nancy Backhouse: Good morning.
The Vice-Chair: Do you have any opening statement? If not, we will go right into questions.
Ms Backhouse: I don't, other than to throw myself on your mercy and say I find this process somewhat intimidating.
The Vice-Chair: Well, you may get to enjoy it in a minute. The government party has asked you to come. Who's first?
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I'll try. Welcome. We don't intimidate here. You're on the board currently, I understand.
Ms Backhouse: I've been mediating for the Grievance Settlement Board for approximately five years, but I think the official term is grievance settlement officer, which is to be distinguished from a vice-chair, which is what I'm hoping I'll be approved for.
Mr Frankford: Yes. So you are, in your current role, quite familiar with the workings of the board.
Ms Backhouse: As a mediator. I have also been doing some labour arbitration, so to that extent I'm familiar with what the role of a vice-chair is and how that will be different from the responsibilities that I have had as a mediator.
Mr Frankford: The legislation has changed, I understand, so that there will be some differences in what you're operating under now. Could you sort of briefly outline what you see as the major changes?
Ms Backhouse: All right. I guess one obvious one is the restriction on the board from making orders that alter job classifications or require the government to create new job classifications.
That has been an order that I'm advised is granted as often as two or three times a week. The Grievance Settlement Board has been making orders that require the government to either find or create job classifications because they've found that grievers have not fitted within the existing job classifications.
That's now been basically stopped by this amendment, and the replacement, I think, that is to be made is that a committee may be established and both management and unions will be working together to try to come up with a new job classification system, which I think will result in really a more orderly method of dealing with what is quite a quagmire and a problem.
Mr Frankford: Do you have any thoughts on how that's going to affect the workload and the content of the work of the board?
Ms Backhouse: I think with the addition of 2,000 more employees into OPSEU, which was the byproduct of supervisors now coming within CECBA, the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, they're not going to be short of work. The job classification business has been shut down, but I think with the addition of those new bargaining unit members, there's going to be still plenty of work to be done.
Ms Carter: I believe there's some problem about who pays for the activities of the board. Any comments?
Ms Backhouse: Yes. My understanding is that prior to the recent CECBA proclamation, the GSB acted as a crown agency, but it's now more like a joint responsibility of both management and labour where the unions are being asked to contribute to half the cost of proceedings.
The crown is being required to pay for their appointee and the unions are being required to pay for their appointee, but then they'll both be required to pay for the costs of the chair or vice-chair who's sitting on a particular grievance, and for the administration.
It seems to me that's likely to make a more responsible kind of structure that certainly will be required to take into account the views of both sides and where the kinds of grievances that are brought forth are ones that really require arbitration, need to be arbitrated, are important issues, as opposed to matters that really are such that they're a bit of a waste of time.
Ms Carter: So everyone will be interested in keeping the expenses and the activities to a reasonable minimum.
Ms Backhouse: Precisely.
Ms Carter: Perhaps you'd like to tell us something about your qualifications for the job and how your background does make it appropriate.
Ms Backhouse: All right. I've been a practising lawyer approximately 15 years. I started out with a small law firm called Kronby, Chercover and became a partner there in -- I can't remember when. It was a while back. In 1986, I joined the law firm of Fraser and Beatty and became a partner there in 1988.
I'm the complaints officer for the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario and have been a lay appointee, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to be a bit of a public watchdog, I guess, in essence for the engineers. I'm on the board of the Victorian Order of Nurses. I am a director of the Advocates' Society, which is the group of civil trial lawyers in Ontario.
I successfully completed the Ministry of Labour arbitrator development course and I have been specializing in litigation with a primary focus in family law but am expanding my practice to do labour. I've been mediating for five years for the Grievance Settlement Board and I'm hoping to do more labour.
Ms Carter: Okay. Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Ms Backhouse, for appearing before the committee today. We wish you well.
Ms Backhouse: Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair: The committee determination of whether or not the committee concurs on intended appointees we have reviewed today -- some of you we don't know. The last one we had on our list missed the bus, so she will not be appearing before us.
Interjection.
The Vice-Chair: We understand that she can be passed on. We're not going to request that she come back, if that's agreeable. If we could have a motion to concur with the ones we have dealt with this morning.
Ms Carter: So moved.
The Vice-Chair: Concurred? All in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried. They're confirmed.
The clerk has something she wanted to raise.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): Yes. I wanted to indicate to you that Ms Paine was scheduled to be reviewed on April 27. She couldn't make it on April 27, but she is available on May 4, so she will be scheduled in on May 4.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. The subcommittee will now meet.
The committee adjourned at 1121.