The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN POLICE SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I wish to bring the attention of the House to a very serious problem in a small town in my riding, Sioux Lookout. I must say that this deserves the immediate attention of this government, especially the Solicitor General and the Attorney General.

The Solicitor General will recall my statement of June 8 when I pointed out the need for additional OPP services in the community of Sioux Lookout. As well, various ministers have received correspondence from myself on behalf of the Sioux Lookout Street Patrol.

Today a crisis exists in Sioux Lookout and I appeal to the present NDP government for help. If we take a look at some statistics, between January 1, 1992, and September 30, 1992, there were 271 assaults reported to the Sioux Lookout detachment of the OPP in this small community.

Not only are the citizens of Sioux Lookout upset, but let me quote to you the judge's response to this situation:

"Speaking from the bench last Tuesday in Sioux Lookout, provincial court Justice Roderick Flaherty denounced the rise in assault charges stemming from the violence on Sioux Lookout's streets.

"Calling the situation 'intolerable' and 'overwhelming,' Justice Flaherty had harsh words for the people appearing before him on assault charges."

He goes on to say, "The predominance of violence in this community is overwhelming."

Again, I must repeat my appeal to this government, especially to the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, for immediate action to take care of this situation existing in the town of Sioux Lookout.

POLICE USE OF FIREARMS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Solicitor General. It concerns this government's introduction of restrictions on police firearm use.

Police forces in Simcoe county, like those throughout the rest of Ontario, will be confronted with these new restrictions effective January 1, 1993. Our police officers are worried about being killed if they are hesitant about using their weapons in dangerous situations.

The new restrictions are obviously the NDP government's knee-jerk response to groups that have been calling for more controls on police gun use. This government has accused some police forces of being trigger-happy in their dealings with some minority groups. If the NDP government seriously believes that racism is the problem, imposing firearm restrictions on our police officers is not the way to deal with it.

The NDP government has chosen to respond to the desires of specific interest groups and failed to meet the primary concern of the majority of the public, which is to ensure the protection of law-abiding citizens and the officers themselves.

As the crime rate soars in Ontario, the people of Simcoe county find the NDP government focusing its attention on questioning the integrity of police officers, cutting back on police force budgets and imposing firearm restrictions on our men and women in blue.

The NDP government's priorities are clearly misguided and misplaced. Don't you think you should be doing something positive to help our police officers fight crime and protect the law-abiding citizens in the province of Ontario?

STUDENT FORUM

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Yesterday, Premier Bob Rae, the Prime Minister of Canada and first nations Chief Ovide Mercredi were in Guelph to open the unity forum at Our Lady of Lourdes high school in Guelph. The title of the forum is Forum '92, Unity in Diversity: The Charlottetown Accord. This forum brings together student delegations from every province, the Northwest Territories and first nations. They will discuss the new constitutional package and challenges facing Canada. Their aim is to formulate resolutions to renew and reconstruct the federation.

This is the fourth unity forum organized by history teacher Joe Tersigni, and it has promoted dialogue and understanding among young Canadians about Canada's future. Last year, after three days of sometimes heated debate, the students passed three resolutions: firstly, that Quebec be granted "distinct society" status; secondly, that we recognize the aboriginal right to self-government, and thirdly, that the Prime Minister call an immediate first ministers' conference, which includes aboriginal delegates, to solve our constitutional crisis. These came to pass.

This program, Our Future Together, spells out many key objectives of the forum. Let me quote what one of those objectives is: "to appreciate the value of our differences and to recognize the existence of a diversity of opinion."

These young students are showing the way to the rest of Canadians by finding out exactly what is in the Charlottetown accord.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'm rising on a matter of urgent public concern. Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington has just been told that the Ministry of Health will provide about 10% of the equity funding that it needs to operate. As a result, it can no longer provide the services necessary to operate as a community hospital.

Other hospitals in Ontario are moving to the ministry target of 850 patient-days per 1,000. Joseph Brant hospital is now operating at 300 patient-days per 1,000 below the ministry target.

There's no room for the hospital to move. It can't close any more beds. It can't decrease staff any more than it already has. Given its facilities, it can't increase day surgery or ambulatory care any further. It can't move patients out of the hospital setting any earlier than it is now doing. It cannot move patients into community-based facilities because there are none. It cannot put off the refurbishing or replacement of medical equipment any more than it already has.

The Minister of Health has said that it also can't operate with a deficit. The Minister of Health had better find some more money for Joseph Brant hospital, because it can no longer operate as a community hospital. It can no longer place patients who require urgent admission and can no longer provide the services needed, at an acceptable level of quality, in the hospital's catchment area.

People in my community are at risk. I'm demanding an immediate review of this situation and the appropriate amount of Ministry of Health funding so that Joseph Brant hospital can provide the services that are urgently needed in my community.

1340

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Today, I would like to report to the Legislature, to the people of Ontario and especially to the people of York, Durham, Peel and Metropolitan Toronto that the first ever dump summit was held this week at Canada's largest landfill site, the Keele Valley landfill site in the city of Vaughan in York region.

The dump summit was attended by representatives from the 12 different groups working hard to protect communities from this government's action. Each of the dumps was represented at this meeting, and we had an opportunity to learn what each of the groups is doing with regard to this major battle that's under way. It's been under way for almost a year right now, since Minister Grier brought in Bill 143, which mandates three large megadumps in York, Durham and Peel.

The people of these areas are representing themselves and coming forward to the people of Ontario to make sure that this province and this government understand that the people are angry and frustrated at the way this government is going to force large megadumps in the urban shadow of Metropolitan Toronto.

The battle plans are under way. If this government thinks it's going to railroad these dumps right into our communities, it's wrong. These communities are ready for battle. This government will not get away with it. The public is going to rally around the cause and make sure that these landfill sites are not brought into these communities, and destroy our land values and fail to understand the significant consequences of these sites.

ST CLAIR COLLEGE

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm pleased to inform the members of this Legislature that Windsor has been and continues to celebrate its 100th birthday. Another celebration is coming up and this time St Clair College is the host and sponsor of the Silver Gala Dinner and Dance. This Friday, October 23, the Silver Gala dinner will be hosted at St Clair College in Windsor. The guests will enjoy a seven-course meal and dance to a 20-piece concert band. As well, the Windsor Community Concert Band will entertain during the dinner.

At the same event, we will honour all the dedication and hard work that the college has done for the city of Windsor in the past 25 years.

I'd like to invite Windsorites, both past and present, to attend the gala and help make a significant contribution to the future success of the city of Windsor, the province of Ontario, and of course Canada. Say yes to Canada and yes to the Silver Gala celebrations.

Windsor's 1992 centennial committee means dedication and it should be congratulated, along with the hardworking city of Windsor team. The all-star team spent this year putting together a memorable party for the citizens of Windsor. They have offered memories which will linger for many years to come.

I offer personal accolades to the mayor's office, the centennial committee, St Clair College and all those who have worked endlessly throughout the year to give Windsor a feeling we will for ever cherish.

On behalf of my Windsor colleagues, we wish Windsor a very heartfelt happy birthday.

BOB MCCANN

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In all of our communities across the province of Ontario, there are individuals who make a significant contribution to the welfare and to the lifestyle of the community in which they reside. One such person is Bob McCann who is the president of St Catharines General Hospital. Mr McCann has been the president for the past decade and he informed the board of governors in September of this year that he would be retiring in March.

Mr McCann has been at the General for more than three decades and he's bringing his career to an end in part because he has seen two major dreams realized, dreams that were important to patients throughout the Niagara Peninsula and specifically in St Catharines; that is, the go-ahead for a huge hospital expansion and emergency redevelopment. They have an emergency department at St Catharines which has been chronically undersized and not adequate. Mr McCann has fought for the transformation of that over the years. It is coming to fruition.

The second is a brand-new Moore-McSloy chronic care wing. Mr McCann was impressed negatively by the appalling conditions that existed in that particular wing and fought very hard with all of us who are in public office and certainly with the Ministry of Health to ensure that was changed.

Because of the contribution made by Mr McCann to St Catharines General Hospital, it serves our community far better than it could have without his assistance.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to bring to the attention of this House my concerns with Bill 40 and how this NDP government is ramming it through both the Legislature and committee.

The changes to the rules of debate that this government chose to bring forward after introducing Bill 40 has limited my abilities as a member of this Legislature. I have not been given the opportunity to debate this bill in the House because of the new time allocations and the limiting of debate.

The public has also been left out of much of the discussion, with over 1,000 people being turned away from being involved at the public hearings.

Both myself and the NDP of Dufferin-Peel are also being shortchanged because of your "trust me" attitude. I have been asked by the local NDP riding association of Dufferin-Peel to be involved in a debate of Bill 40 next Thursday with Leo Gerard, Ontario director of the United Steelworkers of America and vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress.

You have not only limited my ability as an opposition member but also the people of Dufferin-Peel and Ontario to educate and inform themselves on this bill. You may have introduced these rule changes to cut the opposition's voice, but in fact at the same time you have limited the public's voice as well. Bill 40 will probably be law by next Thursday when I debate Bill 40 with Mr Gerard. You are not giving your own people an opportunity to find out about this legislation in a non-partisan, public discussion that would educate the people of Dufferin-Peel about the repercussions of this legislation.

It is no wonder that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has introduced a computer program that will evaluate bills and legislation that governments are bringing forward.

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): It's a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today and to give public thanks to a number of groups in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton that have been kind enough to allow for forums to be established where the issue of the referendum could be discussed. In particular, I'd like to thank the Lindsay Collegiate and Vocational Institute. I'd like to thank also Sir Sandford Fleming college. I'd like to thank the county council of Haliburton county, and also the Citizens' Open Circle from Fenelon Falls. In all these cases they have provided forums where people have been able to come and hear about the various elements of the Charlottetown accord.

There's no question that there has been a great deal of controversy about the accord, and there's no question that there's been a great deal of debate. It has been my honour and my privilege to have the opportunity of standing on the Yes side and indicating the reasons to people in my riding and beyond my riding why I support the Charlottetown accord and believe that it is the direction that we need to move in as citizens of Canada and Ontario.

In particular, I want to say about this accord and this time that we've had to discuss it that if Canadians indeed have a vision of the future and if they dream about their country and the direction that they want to go in, then they need to take this time to hear this debate, get involved in this debate, learn about the accord, and hopefully on October 26 give a Yes vote for Canada.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would invite all members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon a very special guest from Finland, the deputy speaker, Mrs Olander, who is joined by her husband, Mr Olander. Ms Shalden is coordinating this very special visit. Welcome to our gallery.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): And in the members' gallery, the member for Welland-Thorold.

The Speaker: He may be joining us later.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Labour.

Minister, today at least five members of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency are announcing their resignations from the board because of interference from your government. Our information is that an important issue of training was forced to a vote without the serious concerns of employer groups being listened to.

Minister, can you tell us why you have alienated these appointees to the agency to the point where they feel they must resign in order to be heard?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The decision regarding the hours of training for certification was made through a vote, and that provision is allowed for in the by-laws of the agency. The two vice-chairs from management and labour jointly decided to successfully resolve the issue. While the ministry has encouraged the agency in its efforts to work out the hours-of-training issue, there has never been any interference or authority exercised. The agency has remained true to the spirit of bipartism.

I think it's important to point out that we feel it important to carry on with the good work of the last, Liberal government in here, which set up the agency. It has been two years since the Occupational Health and Safety Act was amended, and it was clearly time to move. It's unfortunate, I think, that some members did feel that they could not support --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- the issue that had reached general agreement at the agency.

Mrs McLeod: Well, at least the minister has recognized that the resignations today constitute such a serious issue that he has come prepared with a response in order to try and minimize the damage which has been created. But I would suggest to the minister that what is strictly allowed by the rules and what constitutes effective cooperation and collaboration are two very different things; at least, they used to be.

1350

Minister, I would refer to the agency's management advisory committee spokesperson, Shelly Schlueter, who says that these resignations leave the future of the agency very much in doubt. She says the process currently being pursued at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, with the involvement and backing of the Ontario government, is on a direct collision course with the agency's stated objectives of reducing accidents and diseases in every workplace in the province.

Minister, will you not admit that your direct and unwarranted interventions have resulted in a crisis which could seriously affect workplace health and safety in this province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the leader of the official opposition that I reject her charge that we deliberately intervened. I have, and I make it very clear to this House, indicated that I spoke to the full board, both parties of the agency, back in May, when we heard that they might not be able to meet their own deadlines of June, and urged them to do so, and that has been the extent of the involvement in it.

I might also point out to the leader of the official opposition that the delay, now several months overdue, in getting certification and health and training programs in place has seen, for example, five deaths in the last week. It's long past time we had this two-year effort we've been on in place in the workplaces of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, the fact is that these responsible individuals who entered into the work of the agency with a desire to bring about cooperative bipartite planning have been forced to resign. They've taken the difficult step of going public with their concerns because of their great fear that workplace health and safety is in fact going to be jeopardized, and that their concerns could not be heard in any way other than through their public resignations.

Minister, I ask you then, why do you believe their resignations have been necessary? And now that you have created this mess, what steps are you going to take to restore confidence in the Workplace Health and Safety Agency as a truly bipartite body that is free of government interference?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: One of the things that's rather interesting is that the motion and the recommendation were moved by a management member and seconded by a management member at the agency. It seems to me that the fact that some people find it difficult to make decisions is not a reason why we go several months past the deadline dates and still have no action taken. That's a responsibility I've got as minister, to see that we do something about the health and safety conditions in Ontario.

The Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I'll continue to raise this issue with the Minister of Labour. The minister is well aware that this agency was set up, admittedly by a previous government, as a balanced, bipartite body that would allow both management and labour to deal effectively with the very serious issues -- and we agree they are serious issues -- of workplace health and safety.

But we remember once before when this minister set up a bipartite committee in order to deal with labour relations in the province, and that particular bipartite committee simply could not be allowed to work and to complete its job.

I ask the minister if he would not admit that this is yet another example of a complete breakdown in the effort to have a bipartite body work effectively. Will he again not admit that his interference in and mishandling of this situation has jeopardized a process that should have worked to protect the interests of health and safety of workers in the province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The leader of the official opposition should understand that we have been able to make most decisions at the agency on a consensual basis up until now, and that's certainly what we would like to see happen. But when we reach a point in the centrepiece of the agency's work, which is health and safety certification processes, and you can't reach an agreement within the agency board, they have to make a decision. They can come to the minister and say, "You make the decision," or they can decide to take up the issue themselves and force a vote, which is allowed in the bylaws of the agency. They made that decision.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you use all the words, but the reality is that in no instance has the effort to have bipartite planning been allowed to work by you or by your government. Minister, I would remind you of Bill 40, where the result of your insistence on pushing forward your legislation has polarized labour and management in this province, and where you continue to refuse to let the tripartite body of labour, management and government even look at the potential impact of that piece of legislation.

I would remind you of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, another example where your government is setting up a bipartite body but which very few people believe will really be allowed to function as a truly bipartite body.

Minister, I wonder why you cannot understand that your attitude towards business, your absolute refusal to hear the concerns of any but union leaders, is making any kind of cooperative planning truly impossible. Minister, why are you determined to do everything in your power to drive business and labour apart in this province?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Lyn, what would you do?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You don't know.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I wonder why we had to carry coffins around. To wake the Liberals up.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): All you've done is create interference.

Mr Hope: That is exactly why we had to do it; to wake things up.

Mr Offer: Don't you realize they've resigned?

Mrs Caplan: They've resigned because of your incompetence.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it's unfortunate that the leader of the official opposition would try to drag Bill 40 or training boards or any other programs into what has been a relatively successful effort in this province to try to come up with healthier and safer workplaces in the province, and I reject her charges. What I am trying to do is see that we come up with something that does allow us to cut down on the deaths and injuries in the workplace. That's the intent of the agency and the work that's involved with it.

I might point out once again, the motion that was moved was moved by a management member and seconded by a management member. I don't know whether she's rejecting their recommendations totally or not.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, what I'm concerned about is the fact that it is very obvious today that what was set up to be an effective bipartite process has broken down.

Minister, the government House leader called across and said, "What would you do?" I'll tell you what we did. We set up this bipartite agency because we were concerned about workers' health and safety, about health and safety in the workplace. But what would we have done? We'd have let that agency work. We believed it could bring about exactly the kind of results you are saying today it is supposed to bring about.

Minister, we are concerned because as we see this process breaking down, it seems to us that the facts are clear to anyone who does not have your particular set of blinders on. You have not let this agency function in a balanced way and the management representatives on the agency have given up.

Minister, when are you going to realize that it is you and your policies that are the problem? When are you going to take the actions that would be necessary to actually bring business and labour together on the important issues of workers' safety and of economic growth? I don't think the problems are unrelated in the way in which you deal with them and the way in which you create polarization.

Where are you going to go from here, Minister? How are you going to restore the bipartite nature of this agency, and why would anybody believe that you really intend to listen?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It seems to me that we have to continue with the work. I'm not sure if the leader of the official opposition is saying that a program at the agency -- and it's the one area we've had some problems in getting agreement on -- that's now several months overdue should be left to go on for ever, which is what she just said. I have the responsibility for that agency, and I'm not prepared to see that we can't make decisions in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: New question, third party, the member for Waterloo North.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Waterloo North has the floor.

Interjections.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's not even cold today, Mr Speaker. Have a seat.

The Speaker: It's definitely warmer in here today. The member for Waterloo North.

1400

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. In your unseemly rush to push Bill 40 through the committee before anyone was aware of what was included there, 62 of the amendments that our party proposed on behalf of over 600 groups and individuals who made presentations this summer were never, ever debated or even read into the minutes. These people, I can tell you, are very disappointed that there was no consultation and that their concerns were rejected without any explanation.

Since there was no opportunity for the members of the committee to even discuss why they were defeating our amendments, I'd like to ask you some questions about some of the amendments that we proposed. It's interesting, you've just told us how supportive you are of public health and safety. I would like you to explain why your party opposed the amendment that the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario requested to section 32 of the bill concerning that clause's conflict with the Professional Engineers Act and the potential danger to the public's health and safety. APEO believes very strongly that health and safety are not negotiable and should not form a part of the collective bargaining process, and so does our party. Why did you reject that amendment?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Health and safety have got to be part of the legislative process as well as workers' involvement in the workplace. I have difficulty understanding the position of the Labour critic for the third party in the argument she's raised.

I want to tell her that we have consulted widely in this province: over 550 groups and the umbrella groups three times around in my ministry. I've been in this House 17 years and I have not seen another piece of legislation where there's been the kind of consultation we proceeded with as we have on this labour bill.

Mrs Witmer: I can tell you, Mr Minister, that your response does not satisfy the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario. I have their response right here for you. However, I'd like to go on to another amendment, since you feel that you've consulted with so many groups and individuals.

As you know, the Ontario Nurses' Association has requested an amendment to subsection 7(2.4) which would ensure that ONA would be recognized as a professional group, along with the other male-dominated groups, and that its membership could be limited to registered and graduate nurses. ONA was told that if the Ontario Federation of Labour approved of this amendment you would agree to it.

Apparently the OFL refused to discuss this matter with the nurses, and CUPE and OPSEU have opposed this amendment as well. In a letter which the president of ONA sent to you yesterday -- you and I have the same letter -- I quote, "It is nothing short of insulting that this government would allow CUPE to block our amendment without even allowing the courtesy of an explanation or without meeting us to try to resolve it."

While I know that there was a meeting this morning between the interested parties at which OPSEU and CUPE indicated their continued opposition to this amendment, ONA has still not received any reason as to why your government is going to defeat our amendment.

Minister, I intend to reintroduce the amendment today. Do you and your colleagues intend to defeat it again and, if so, why?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Gord Wilson didn't think it was a good idea.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Let me say first that the government heard from ONA very late in the consultation process. Let me also say that joining the professional ranks, in essence, their request -- these groups have not had the right to organize previously. ONA has had the right all along to organize, and to insinuate that it has to get the approval from some outside group is wrong. You can take all of your feelings out on this minister, but I can simply tell you they've had the right to organize. The other professional groups have not had the right to organize. There are other unions involved in this field and we're going to have to consult with them. We understand the nurses' position, but there are a lot of answers --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- to be received before we move on the issue.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, the nurses of this province deserve a better response than that to this issue. You know this is a fairly straightforward request from the nurses which is only going to serve to maintain the situation which currently exists. ONA wants to preserve the status quo which it feels is meeting its needs. The system is working for the nurses and they cannot understand why you insist on rejecting our amendment. Unfortunately, your answer has done nothing to clarify the position.

Mr Minister, I would like you to tell us why the OFL, OPSEU and CUPE are now apparently dictating government policy. Will you explain to the nurses of Ontario why you refuse to accept their very legitimate and reasonable request for this amendment?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Mr Speaker, the critic --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- for the Conservative Party is ill-informed in her comments on the situation with regard to ONA. We have not closed the door on looking at this, but she has not got the information correct. I can also tell her that if we had listened or if we let the OFL dictate what our policy would be, Bill 40 would look a heck of a lot different than what we're debating in this House today.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health, and given that I understand from the chief government whip that the minister will be arriving shortly, I ask your permission to stand down the second leader's question.

The Speaker: Agreed. Then we revert to the opposition.

TUITION FEES

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Minister, I have here a letter to all the NDP members of Parliament. This letter was signed by a rather illustrious array of your supporters. It includes, among others, Gord Wilson, president, Ontario Federation of Labour; Fred Upshaw, Ontario Public Service Employees Union; Patrick Ryan, Canadian Union of Public Employees; Ken Craft, chair, Ontario Federation of Students, and Saul Ross, president, Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations.

Here's what the letter says. Mr Speaker, it will take a little while, but I think it's very important to have this on the record and I quote:

"We write because we are alarmed about proposals that would add new and potentially insurmountable barriers to post-secondary education for all but the privileged.

"We understand that both significant increases in tuition fees and reductions in the grant portion of the Ontario student assistance plan are under discussion. Proposals have also been discussed to increase the loan funds available under OSAP -- "

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Daigeler: " -- thus increasing levels of student debt.

"As educators, students and trade unionists, we are appalled by these proposals. They contravene -- "

The Speaker: Would the member place a question.

Mr Daigeler: " -- long-standing NDP policy."

Minister, what are you saying to your NDP backbenchers about these accusations?

1410

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): I guess, Mr Speaker, in a moment like this it would be nice if he could ask the backbenchers directly, but of course he can't under the rules of the House. So I'll undertake to answer on their behalf.

This government has stood from the very beginning for the widest possible access to universities and colleges and all post-secondary educational opportunities. In our first year of office, we gave double the average increase for the university system of any other system across the country. We also have instituted programs such as the women's campus safety program. We've added additional money for disabled students' access. We have a post-secondary native student strategy which wasn't there before. We have done a great deal for student access. We have --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Allen: -- increased the Ontario student aid program by about $65 million since we came to office. We are giving every support we possibly can to that system in very difficult circumstances.

Mr Daigeler: If I could ask your backbenchers, I'm sure what they would say is that the commitment of the NDP to student concerns was a mile wide when you were in opposition, but it's only an inch deep when you're in government.

From what you said, Minister, it's clear that you will most likely raise the tuition fees again well beyond the transfer rates as you did last year. Minister, will you at least today commit yourself on very wide consultation before you bring in any radical changes to the OSAP grant program?

Hon Mr Allen: I happen to have been in a consultation mode on that subject since May 1991, and I don't know but that the member opposite would probably criticize me for consulting endlessly if I conducted a further consultation.

We've heard every single recommendation that could possibly be made to us; we've measured that against our economic circumstances; we're reviewing all aspects of student aid; we're looking at student needs; we're looking at the fact that in Ontario over the past 10 years we have lost millions of dollars from the federal government in support of our system. We are having to look at all those factors as we weigh our future course.

This government will not knowingly put future barriers in the way of students, and it will do everything it can to maintain the quality of post-secondary education in Ontario.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Solicitor General. This government's inaction on the policing issue has now forced the position and the situation into a logjam. The Metro police association refuses to stop the job action until the Premier meets with it. The Premier has dug in his heels and will not meet with the association until it ends its protest.

Solicitor General, there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. My question is this: What is your plan of action to end this unfortunate and unnecessary situation?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): It is an unfortunate and unnecessary action, and it would be my hope that the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association would end this job action.

The Metropolitan Toronto chief of police, Mr McCormack, and the police services board have, I understand, sought an injunction in the Supreme Court of Ontario to end this illegal action, and the courts will deal with that particular matter.

As for the Premier, he has indicated clearly that at the time of a cessation of this job action he is more than willing to meet with that association, and I have indicated for approximately the past two weeks that my door is open to discuss this matter and obtain a clarification of the regulation. There have in fact been some significant police authorities that have availed themselves of that opportunity, have obtained that clarification, and I was pleased to pass it to them.

Mr Carr: In other words, the Solicitor General doesn't have a plan.

The civil disobedience displayed by the Metro police is an act of desperation. This government has shown a total disregard for police officers across this province, and now, even two weeks after the protest, you still have no plan to settle this situation.

Mr Speaker and Solicitor General, my caucus and I would like to propose and put forward a compromise to end the logjam. Would you commit today to allow the police in this province to come before an all-party committee of this Legislature to air their grievances, to have their concerns heard and to get some action from this government? Since you don't have a plan of your own, will you commit to that today, Mr Solicitor General?

Hon Mr Pilkey: We have already in the Ministry of the Solicitor General undertaken significant and broad consultation with stakeholders, including the Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the police service boards and other community groups. All of that was done. The regulations were aired in this particular Legislative Assembly and all of that process has been properly done. The regulation will come into effect on January 1.

The issue of the particular job action by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association is a matter to be dealt with by the Metro chief of police and the services board, and they are doing so. There would be no necessity or reason at this particular time to follow up on the suggestion from the member opposite.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, I'd like to return to a serious matter I raised in your absence yesterday. It concerns the close to 12 million health cards that have been issued by your ministry, which is approximately 2 million more than the population of Ontario.

Outside the Legislature yesterday, you were quick to blame the Liberals, and even admitted, "If anyone applied for a health card under their dog's name, there's a good chance they might have received that health card." Given what we know about how many cards have been issued and the ease with which these cards are obtained, the potential for fraud is staggering.

Minister, I want to know when you were first made aware of the situation, and specifically what did you do to prevent further abuse of the health card system?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I thank the member for the question. I was going to stand on our rotation to provide an answer, because the Treasurer had taken it under rotation.

First of all, there are two points the member raises that I would like to correct. In my comments yesterday I indicated that the previous government, in implementing a changeover from the OHIP number to the Ontario health registration number, at that point in time made a determination not to put a verification of applications in up front, as a system, and to worry about that once the cards had been issued. I indicated that that may have been a decision as a matter of expedience.

In retrospect, in looking at it, it has caused us a problem, and we do have a serious problem of monitoring and verification that needs to take place. I think it is absolutely appropriate to take a look back sometimes and say we could have done something better. This is not simply finger-pointing, and I don't think it's fair to characterize it that way.

What I would say, however, is that the member also needs to get his figures correct. Quite frankly, when we deal with questions from this member in particular, he often has incorrect numbers that he asserts. The 11.9 million cards that have been issued is a number that will continue to grow every day, as new cards are issued every day. What's important to note is that since the time we finished issuing the first set of cards, which was as of last summer, we have put in place verification procedures which have taken well over a million of those cards, those numbers, out of service. They are no longer appropriate cards and they can no longer be used to charge to the system.

There are a number of other steps that we have taken. The member asked for details around identification and resolution of disputes, duplicate registration, analysing and monitoring card utilization. There are 26 initial measures and there are more being taken. In the supplementary perhaps I can give more information.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Point of order? What's out of order?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Mr Speaker, I'm concerned that in the minister's response there has been some information that has not been presented quite as accurately as it should be to the House. There was money in the budget since 1990 --

The Speaker: The accuracy of information perhaps is something that can be determined through questions and responses, but it is not a point of order.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, your attempts to discredit my figures and me personally --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Jim Wilson: I'd say to the minister that her attempt to discredit me and the figures I'm using in no way helps the beleaguered taxpayers of Ontario.

Minister, you continue to insist that verification procedures have been put in place, yet while you insist that those procedures are in place, fraud and OHIP incompetence continue unabated.

Last year, a gentleman from Oakville applied for a card for his daughter and received the card a couple of months later. Two weeks after receiving his daughter's card, the gentleman received a second card for his daughter with a different number from the first card. The gentleman contacted OHIP to inform them of the mistake, and in the gentleman's own words, "OHIP didn't even acknowledge that they had made a mistake and didn't ask for the card back."

1420

Minister, yesterday you're quoted as saying, "For the life of me, I can't understand why a decision would be made to issue the new cards without a verification system in place at that time." You knew the health card system was flawed and lacked verification mechanisms when your government came to office. Why did you proceed to issue health cards when you knew the system was flawed and open to abuse?

Hon Ms Lankin: I'd like to again clarify one point. I think this is important with respect to the previous minister under the previous government, who was responsible for the introduction of these cards.

The point I have made is that there was a decision taken not to do verification of cards upon application. So the initial cards would be sent out and after distribution of the cards, when that process was over, there was a system of verification to be put in place. I think it's important to stress again that in hindsight, I disagree with that decision. I might have made the same decision if I were in that place at that point in time. This is not simply finger-pointing, but it is a problem we're faced with now in terms of a number of cards out there.

The member says I knew about this, so why didn't we just stop the issuing of cards? Talk about a further waste of money. We were in the process of already having millions of cards issued out there, we had a backlog in the offices and we needed last summer to get that backlog cleared and get the cards out there.

Since that time we have put in place procedures -- and they are working their way through the system and they're actually getting results -- of identification and resolution of duplicate registration. We're looking at areas where we can monitor out-of-country services in border vacation locations. We've set up a registration analysis unit. As we have had surplus employees in one area of the ministry, we have reallocated or relocated them to look at analysis of this problem. I think we are moving on this with the best of the technology available and with the resources available.

What we've achieved is that 1.2 million of those cards have been rendered inactive. We always know there will be a difference between the numbers that are out there, with births and deaths, and the numbers of people who are in the population. Quite frankly, we think we still have --

The Speaker: Could the minister complete her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- about 400,000 cards that we need at this point in time to further analyse and to find out whether or not there is fraud, whether or not there are duplicates, whether there are deaths. We are working on that. I think we're doing a very competent job.

Mr Jim Wilson: To the minister again, your statement that you are carrying out verification procedures now is small consolation to Ontario taxpayers, who know that the health card system is being exploited. Recently, I was contacted by a woman who works in a neurology clinic in Toronto who told me that four Iranian citizens who have health cards routinely visit Ontario for health care treatment.

Minister, your so-called procedures in the system are not working. Your ministry has never recalled the 1.2 million cards in circulation that either belong to dead people, are duplicates or are considered fraudulent. I presume you've cancelled these numbers in the government's computer, but the cards are still out there and they can be used by anyone to obtain health care services.

What steps have you taken to recall the 1.2 million cards out there?

Hon Ms Lankin: When the member raises examples that he has been made aware of with respect to citizens of foreign countries who are using the services etc, I take those as very important examples and would be very pleased to work with that member to follow up on those sorts of things. Those are the exact kinds of problems our system is prone to experiencing that we need to ensure we follow up. Where there are those examples or the earlier example he raised, I would be very pleased to work with him on that.

With respect to the cards that are out there, as he has indicated, we've taken the first step, which is to make them inactive within the ministry's system. Whenever there is a billing registered against that card, it allows us, through the verification analysis unit, to follow up on that card, to be able to trace down that individual and to be able to do something about withdrawing that from the system.

The next steps are to develop an interactive system with the doctors. As you know, over the last number of years the Ministry of Health, under the previous government and this government, has worked very hard to move more doctors on to a direct billing system, on to an interactive technology for machine-readable input. As we complete that process, we can bring in place the kind of technological advantages that will allow us to have this kind of verification.

I say again that I don't dismiss the member's concerns. I'm glad he's concerned. So am I. We are taking steps. I think we are being very effective in trying to deal with this issue.

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): My question is to the Minister of Health. I preface my remarks: I suspect all members of the House would want to join me as I commend the Minister of Health for her extraordinary leadership in achieving significant efficiencies in the field of health care.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Now that the member has captured everyone's attention, perhaps he could place a question.

Mr Farnan: Minister, provincial expenditures on laboratory services are approximately $1 billion a year, and they continue to increase. What action are you taking to ensure that this large amount of taxpayers' money is being spent effectively?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): There are a number of initiatives in the area of laboratory services that have been undertaken: first of all, our continued negotiations with the association around the fee schedule and around how much we pay for various lab tests. We took some actions which I think the association correctly objected to. They sat down, worked with us and found some better alternatives. That's paying off. We are seeing some savings as a result of that.

We've also looked at the need to review the whole area of lab services in terms of looking at issues of utilization, trends, causes, service needs. We know this is often driven by doctors ordering tests and then we end up paying for it. We have to look at the efficacy of the tests and look at whether there were indications that warranted the ordering of those tests.

There's some work we need to do with a lot of stakeholders. We've brought them together in an advisory committee to be part of a review. We've appointed Diana Schatz as chair of this advisory committee. People will know of her qualifications in this area. They were appointed this month and we expect that we will be seeing results from that process over the next number of months.

Mr Farnan: Of the $1 billion I referred to, Minister, the 1991 budget said that $490 million was spent on fees for service to private laboratories. As the amount spent on public laboratories is part of a hospital's global budget, how can we sure that the level of funding for public laboratories is sufficient to provide the same level of service as that provided by private laboratories?

Hon Ms Lankin: This issue has often been presented as one of equity. I know that workers in hospital labs, managers of hospital labs and hospital CEOs have often suggested that the response might be to bill outpatients under the fee-for-service schedule, the same as private labs do. In fact, I remember a time when I was an advocate on behalf of hospital lab workers when I advocated that same thing.

Having come into the position and looked at it a bit more, I understand that within the hospital's global budget there are in fact already funds allocated for the running of labs for both inpatient and outpatient. This doesn't mean, with the kind of restraint we've seen on hospital budgets, that they don't have problems and that there isn't a tendency therefore to move outpatient work out to private labs and use those funds that might have been allocated for that for other services within the hospital.

This is one of the issues that is clearly one of the points of reference of the review. It's not the only one. It is an issue I can't give you the answer to but one we're concerned about and that we've asked the advisory committee and others to advise us on.

1430

LEGAL AID

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, several days ago I referred a constituent with a WCB problem to a legal aid clinic in my riding. The constituent called me and said that the legal aid clinic was no longer accepting WCB files.

I contacted the legal aid clinic and spoke to a staff lawyer who indicated to me that they are absolutely swamped with files and that they've made a decision they are no longer accepting WCB files or immigration files. The staff lawyer indicated to me, Treasurer, and this is an exact quote, "There is a sudden occurrence of a lot of people calling because their WCB supplements are being cut off."

I've also learned, Treasurer, that this is the case across the province, including places such as St Catharines. The workload crisis is so severe, Treasurer, that clinic directors Peter Showler from Ottawa and Jim Arenburg from Sudbury recently issued a statement in which they said the following, "The clear implication is that this government does not value the work of legal clinics and therefore does not value the plight of the poor."

My question, Treasurer, is this: The poor are clearly losing access to justice in Ontario. What are you going to do now to remedy this unacceptable situation?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I believe the member had a legitimate question. I don't know why he felt he had to clutter up the end of it with a lot of nonsense.

This government needs no lecture from the Liberal opposition in this province on its commitment to people who are poor in this province, absolutely none whatsoever. At a time when this province experienced the greatest prosperity since the Second World War, the official opposition, which was then in government, chose not to take actions that could have alleviated a lot of problems.

Having said that, I can assure the member opposite that there is a commitment to the people who have less than most of us in this province. Secondly, to say or to imply that workers' compensation claimants suddenly have a problem is really to stretch credibility to the breaking point, because he knows as well as I know, that certainly in the 20 years I've been in this assembly, the problem of workers' compensation has been a consistent one regardless of who was in office.

Mr Chiarelli: Treasurer, your commitments are worth only the rhetoric that comes from that side of the House. The fact of the matter is that legal clinics across this province are refusing access to justice for poor people because they're underfunded and they have no commitment; in fact, they have no strategy from your Attorney General. The fact of the matter is that WCB injured workers are not given access to legal services in this province. You, Treasurer, are permitting the legal aid clinics to be funded on the backs of injured workers. What are you going to do about it?

Hon Mr Laughren: What the member says is total and absolute nonsense. This Attorney General has a greater commitment to legal aid clinics than any Attorney General in the history of this province. The member opposite should understand that. That's absolutely true. There's been an increase in funding to the legal aid clinics, but I can --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite knows that this Attorney General does have a major commitment to legal aid clinics, and this government has made a major commitment to injured workers in this province. But I can tell the member opposite --

Mr Chiarelli: Two minor projects three years down the road. Big deal.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to deal with the problem of legal aid clinics and the number of injured worker claimants in a rational way. But I can tell the member --

Mr Chiarelli: Document the fact that they won't give them access.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member opposite will stop yapping for one minute, I'll give him an answer.

I can tell the member opposite that this government is not going to follow the policy of the previous government that simply opened the purse-strings on every problem that came along. You would bankrupt this province if you were still in office.

PAROLE OFFICERS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. Mr Minister, at a time when increasing numbers of violent offenders are being placed back into the community --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, order. With the cooperation of the member for Ottawa West and the member for London North, we'll be able to ask a question.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Minister, at a time when increasing numbers of violent offenders are being placed back into the community with occasionally tragic consequences, why then is your ministry secretly lowering the standards needed to be a parole officer?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I'm familiar with the issue and we've received a number of concerns from probation and parole officers. I'm sure the member is aware that there's been an attempt on the part of this government to recognize other life skills and life experiences that would allow people to qualify for certain jobs that otherwise have been closed off to them. On this particular issue, there has been a six-month review period that I have been given to look at the issue, and I'm currently doing that.

Mrs Cunningham: Neither the parole officers' association nor its union was made aware of any of these changes. This is a government that's supposed to consult, and quite frankly, I'm even more disappointed than I expected to be with the minister's response. I thought he'd probably say something like, "The level of expectation is the same," but he didn't, so I'm going to ask this question again.

Mr Minister, for the benefit of our young people entering post-secondary education, and at a time when our educational system is apparently very serious about providing the kinds of candidates we want for these positions -- and if you don't understand that, speak to the Minister of Colleges and Universities -- why would you then, Mr Minister, be lowering the standards instead of keeping them exactly the same -- that's a university degree -- or expecting even more specifics to go with this most important job that not only helps people to get back into society, but helps us to keep our society safe? Why would you do such a thing at this time?

Hon Mr Christopherson: First of all, I would again state to the honourable member that this decision has not yet been taken. I don't know how much clearer I can be. That decision has not been made. I am reviewing the matter. There is a goal in our ministry, as there is in all ministries, to ensure that we have adequate requirements for people who perform very important positions, and these certainly are that.

Mrs Cunningham: Why are you even thinking about it?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Christopherson: The member insists on saying that we're lowering the qualifications in other places in the government where this has happened. It's to look at other experiences that would give equal requirements, not lower the standards. But again, the matter is under review. I am actively looking at it, and when a decision is rendered --

Mrs Cunningham: Give me a break.

The Speaker: The member for London North.

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- the honourable member as well as everyone else will be informed of it.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, many parents and teachers in my riding have been asking me about the status of the work you and your ministry are doing on the integration of children's services. In fact, Minister, last Friday I met with a school principal in Stouffville secondary who was asking me about this. Often, parents and their children must go to several different agencies to access needs and services. This is often time-consuming and very frustrating.

Minister, can you tell me, the House and the viewers exactly what's being done on this interministerial committee, its priorities and time frames? I understand there's a secretariat being set up to link up the ministries and their services. Could you please tell us when this will be in place?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the member for the question. The issue of interministerial cooperation and the integration of children's services is one of the priorities of our ministry in terms of managing the current situation we find ourselves in, both in terms of the disarray of those services and their ability to meet the needs of individual children and families and also, of course, the hard times that all these services are facing in terms of the recession.

The interministerial committee consists of representatives of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and the Ministry of Housing as primary members, and then the criminal justice ministries are also part of that, as is the Ontario women's directorate.

What the group is doing initially is setting out a framework for policy development on integration that will really look at how we look at funding and program development to ensure that integration exists. The chair of the committee is the assistant deputy minister in Education and we are modelling this as an integrated approach.

1440

Mr O'Connor: Minister, you never mentioned the secretariat that's going to link all the ministries and their services together. There's a concern about how the principle, in particular, is going to work, and I'm sure the secretariat might just answer some of those questions.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I'm sure this is why the question arose, because we have sent out announcements to the community that's concerned about the secretariat. It is located in the Ministry of Education. The person who is heading that up is named Suzanne Hamilton. The idea is to coordinate the work of the committee and to bring in proposals that come in from communities and really vet those through the community. So we think it will be an effective way of ensuring that the good policy work that's done actually gets put into action by the various ministries involved.

CHILD ABUSE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm sorry I didn't have an opportunity to respond to that ministerial statement. My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the Prescott area, we have a project called Jericho, which unfortunately continues to discover a massive, multigenerational network of child abuse. Up to this point, we have almost 200 alleged victims.

Madam Minister, Project Jericho is a unique intervention model and was the first child sexual abuse investigation in Canada to have police and social workers working together as a team. It has become a model. The social workers and police officers on Project Jericho have just been told that the team is about to be dissolved and its members are going to be reassigned to new duties. This team investigates allegations. This team counsels children and families, gives advise to parents and foster parents and continues to be subpoenaed to court. The dismantling of this team will indeed decentralize efforts and resources at a critical time. Madam Minister, why are you undermining this success?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): We are certainly continuing to provide the services that families and children need in this circumstance. The action that has been taken, in terms of the regularization of the process, is because it's not an emergency at this point; it's an ongoing process that is going to take a number of years. We need to be funding and supporting that service in the way we do in other communities so that the additional resources that have been attached to this project, for the various areas, will continue to be available but the actual way in which it has been delivered will be put into the normal operation of the CAS.

I understand from the Solicitor General that the office the police have had will be maintained there but that the individual personnel who have formed the initial team naturally are moving on because of career changes.

Mrs O'Neill: Madam Minister, my knowledge is very different than yours. I do not think people are moving on because of natural career changes. I do think they're being asked to change duties and go into routine duties.

This is a situation that is unique to this community. It's multigenerational, as I said. It spreads itself continually. You're telling me that it's like other communities and must have the same services as other communities.

Madam Minister, it has been recently announced that there will be cuts in staffing to this project on December 31, 1992, reducing the level of services to children in their own natural homes who are victims of this profound tragedy. The case loads of the workers assigned to these victims, these victims who are particularly at risk, will rise from 15 to 1 to 30 to 1 on December 31. Why, Madam Minister, are you cutting staff assistance to vulnerable children who have already endured a horrendous nightmare?

Hon Mrs Boyd: As this situation has unfolded, we have learned a great deal about how the needs need to be provided. Although we certainly have been criticized in the press, we are not in our view reducing the level of service that's going to be available overall. We are certainly changing the way in which we are delivering that service, and we are doing that because of what we have learned during the whole course of the situation.

The member is well aware that this is an area in which I am quite experienced. Indeed, one of the agencies in my home town, the London Family Court Clinic, was one of the major initial parts of the project that was set up. I knew about it long before I was part of this place.

It is very important for the member to understand that, in terms of the initial kind of response, we had to get up and running a lot of services that were not originally available in that community. They are going to need to be available over a long period of time and cannot be continued on an ad hoc basis. They need to be provided in a regular way --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- so that community can be assured that they are going to be available over the long run. That's my concern.

We now have a large number of those children who have become wards of the court.

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: They are our responsibility through another whole situation. As the state as parent obviously has a very strong need --

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): After that statement to the House by both sides there, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, in five days Canadians will be voting on the most significant issue our country has faced since Confederation. At this time of national decision-making, this Legislature is being forced to consider the most important piece of legislation brought before this House by your government: Bill 40, changes to the labour law, a piece of legislation which undoubtedly is pivotal to the economic health and future wellbeing of Ontario.

Impact studies show 295,000 jobs lost and $8.5 billion in forgone investment.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Turnbull: This will prolong the recession. Is the minister so ashamed of the bill that he's trying to sneak it through the House --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member please take his seat. When order has been restored to the chamber, I will allow the member to briefly place a question.

Mr Turnbull: Okay, my question to the minister is, is he so ashamed of this bill that he's trying to sneak it through when the media's attention is distracted? How can he justify pushing such major legislation through when the attention of the public is gone?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Labour.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to assure the honourable member for York Mills that I'm not trying to sneak the bill through. I don't know a bill that has been more in the public spotlight than my bill.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to register my dissatisfaction with that answer and I'm calling for a late show on that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Occasionally, members are dissatisfied with responses. I trust that the member will file --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Maybe we should turn the heat off. Even a modicum of restraint on both sides of the House would be helpful. I trust that the member for York Mills will file the necessary document at the table.

1450

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from Emmanuel Baptist Church, 607 Vine Street in St Catharines. It reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of a legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families. The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of a 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I agree with the sentiments of this petition and present it on behalf of those who have brought it to my attention.

GAMBLING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas it is against United Church of Canada policy to indulge in any type of gambling

" -- Gambling casinos bring crime to a community

" -- Not everyone has the self-control to limit their betting

" -- Low-income people will suffer from unwise use of their resources

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

"Be it resolved that the Toronto Conference of United Church Women do strongly object to the Ontario government's proposed legislation to promote offtrack betting, sports lotteries and gambling casinos."

I've also affixed my signature.

FRUIT GROWERS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am presenting a petition signed by 24 members of the Carleton United Church of the Niagara Presbytery. This petition deals with the tender fruit growers in Niagara and it states:

"Whereas the Ontario tender fruit growers are in financial crisis,

"Therefore, we, the members of the Niagara Presbytery of the United Church of Canada, petition the Ontario government to act immediately to find a solution to economic viability of tender fruit farms.

"Whereas the Ontario tender fruit growers are in financial crisis; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is undertaking an agricultural land protection program,

"Therefore, we, the members of Carleton United Church, strongly oppose restrictions on tender fruit land until economic viability of the tender fruit growers is restored."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

This is signed by 33 citizens of Middlesex county and I have affixed my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my signature as well.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr Speaker, I'm bringing 350 names here today to add to the hundreds of names that have been brought before.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

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

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

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

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly, along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I've signed this, Mr Speaker, and it's my pleasure to present it to this House.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of people in St Catharines concerning Sunday shopping. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing Sunday shopping in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government uphold the common pause day. We are opposed to Sunday shopping and we want one day a week for all, free from shopping and work."

I agree with this petition and present it on behalf of those who brought it to my attention.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I again today have 310 names on a petition that says:

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has seen fit to ignore the council of the township of Tiny and their plea for reconsideration of boundary line changes within the municipality; and

"Whereas the minister has stated that restructuring within the county of Simcoe will be implemented,

"Now, therefore, the taxpayers of the township of Tiny find it necessary to band together and lobby against the implementation of the restructuring of the county of Simcoe.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing the County of Simcoe Act until the provincial government deals with the township of Tiny in a fair and equitable manner."

As I said, it has 310 names and I have affixed my name to it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 29 citizens of the county of Middlesex in regard to the greater London area arbitration. These citizens respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario to set aside the arbitrator's report because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings, it awards far too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London and it will jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have two petitions here, one from the Haileybury Pastoral Charge of the United Church of Canada and the other from the Haileybury and District Baptist Church, and it's in regard to Sunday shopping. I'll just read one of them:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition to wide-open Sunday business."

It reads:

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment on the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of a 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

GAMBLING

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am presenting a petition signed by 85 members of the Virgil Mennonite Brethren Church who are in opposition to the proposal to license a permanent gambling establishment in the Niagara Peninsula. The petition states:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. I believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where a family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and in the Niagara region in particular. I believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity. By my signature here attached, I ask you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

I have affixed my signature.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'd like to indicate my support for the petition presented by the member for St Catharines-Brock.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): You definitely have a point of interest.

1500

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have, it looks to me, close to 4,000 petitions from people in York, Durham and Peel, and I have affixed my name to these petitions, to the one on top.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 57 proposed sites in the regions of York, Durham and Peel as possible candidates for landfill;

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, section 5(3); and

"Whereas willing host communities such as Kirkland Lake will not be allowed to have a proper hearing to consider the Adams mine site as a possible solution to the greater Toronto area garbage,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of disposal sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a willing host community exists which is interested in developing new disposal systems for the greater Toronto area waste."

I submit this in the hope that the government will do something with it other than just file it.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

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

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

It's signed by a number of citizens and I've affixed my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT, 1992

On motion by Mrs Sullivan, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Burlington.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONDON-MIDDLESEX ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LONDON ET MIDDLESEX

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex / Loi concernant les annexations faites à la cité de London et à certaines municipalités du comté de Middlesex.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): This is a deferred vote on Bill 75. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1505 to 1510.

The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

Mr Cooke moves second reading of Bill 75. Those in favour of the motion will please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget;

Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Wark-Martyn, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Cooke's motion will please rise one by one.

Nays

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Conway, Cousens, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Mancini, Mathyssen, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): I now have to ask Mrs Cunningham, Mrs Marland and Mr Harnick.

[Applause]

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Never mind the applause. Vote with her.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the member for St Catharines to please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the member for St Catharines to please come to order.

All members know that once in the chamber it is necessary to cast a vote. I ask the members for, first, London North, which way she wishes to vote: for or against?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'll be voting in favour.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: Mrs Cunningham.

The Speaker: And the member for Mississauga South?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In favour.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: Mrs Marland.

The Speaker: And the member for Willowdale?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): In favour.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: Mr Harnick.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57, the nays 30.

The Speaker: The ayes being 57 and the nays 30, I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): No, the finance committee.

The Speaker: Finance committee? So ordered. Orders of the day.

Hon Mr Cooke: The fifth order.

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The fifth order. Committee of the whole House.

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: If this is to call for committee of the whole House, Bill 40, I wish to raise with you a point of order which in my view would prevent us from dealing with Bill 40 in committee of the whole House. Under section 77(c) --

The Speaker: If I could be of assistance to the member, first of all, I am at this very moment not able to know what it is that we're being called to do.

Mr Elston: Since it's the only item on our list, it's pretty easy to assume that that's what we're going to deal with.

The Speaker: I wonder if it would be possible to get some direction from the government House leader as to the purpose for calling committee of the whole.

Hon Mr Cooke: It was our intention to call Bill 40.

The Speaker: I would be pleased, in that instance, to hear from the House leader for the opposition.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, since it is the intention of the government party to call Bill 40 in committee of the whole House, I wish to bring to your attention and to the attention of other people that under standing order 77(c), it specifically says with respect to the conduct of public business, "When a bill that is reported from a standing or a select committee is referred to the committee of the whole House, it shall not be taken up earlier than the second calendar day after the referral."

Mr Speaker, I have for you a copy of this particular set of the standing orders for your edification and so you don't have to refer to it straight away in your office. I also give to you a copy of the resolution that was passed under Mr Cooke's name on behalf of the government which talks about the conduct of the government business with respect to Bill 40.

When you read through it, you will note that it specifically indicates time lines and time frames for conducting each stage of business, starting with what would be described as the last day of second reading debate and carrying on through until the passage of the bill. It clearly says that we are to consider Bill 40 in committee of the whole House for two sessional days, but it does not preclude the use of standing order 77(c) as to determining when committee of the whole House may start.

My point to you, Mr Speaker, is that while a time allocation motion like this, which is now the regular order of government business, supersedes the regular operation of standing orders, it is not going to supersede a standing order which in fact is not talked about in the text of the time allocation motion.

I therefore indicate to you that while the time allocation motion says that two days shall be held for committee of the whole House, it does not tell us that 77(c) of the standing orders is to be abrogated in the consideration of it. I request that you review this and find that the motion to move to committee of the whole House to consider Bill 40 is in fact out of order and that we not now deal with that because it would be a violation of standing order 77(c).

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce -- first of all, I must ask if there is any other member who wishes to contribute to this particular point of order and be of assistance.

1520

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It is a rather important point when you consider that the standing orders have been developed by all members of the House and hopefully in the best interests of the House. Section 1 of the standing orders indicates:

"1(a) The proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in all committees of the assembly shall be conducted according to the following standing orders."

Therefore, as you understand the importance of 77(c), it would indicate the necessity of having some time for such bills to be given a period of time in which they are held in abeyance before they come into the House, to give all members an opportunity to be prepared and ready and on deck in order to respond to it.

There's a scheduling matter that gets involved with a number of people. To expect them to be able to respond without any kind of cooperation coming from the government makes it extremely difficult. When there is an opportunity to know what is coming and when, through the due process of giving notice, those members who want to participate in those debates will be able to schedule their agendas accordingly.

When the government, on its own initiative and without prior consultation, goes ahead and changes activities that are going to be scheduled in the House, as we have today, it takes away from the whole purpose of the standing orders and the trust that everybody has built within them.

I have to say, Mr Speaker, though you're caught on short notice of this, as it's been tabled and it's come, I can understand the frustration you have when you're in the chair and you don't have proper notice of it and have to respond very quickly. How much more that is true for members of the Legislature, when we, who are trying to schedule our time on a regular consistent basis to speed and accelerate the activities of the House, find this kind of surprise coming from the government House leader.

Therefore, when you are considering this, I have to echo much of the intent that has been tabled by the honourable House leader of the Liberal Party. I have to say on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party that we read section 77(c) as having a necessity for more than the time allowed before such an activity can be scheduled in this House.

I hope, having drawn your attention to it and having referred to some of the precedents that have been part of this House, that we will not see this as a time for the Chair to break new precedent. In defence of the government House leader, I would have to say that we have not begun to look at such items as the Sunday shopping legislation, we have not had full and complete debate of the budget; there are numerous other bills like that which the people of Ontario are waiting for this House to deal with. If the government House leader were able to establish a time schedule and deal with the agenda of the government in a way that all members of this House would understand it, it would increase the sense of cooperation that could be established in this House.

Every time the government House leader begins to think he can make rules or doesn't know the rules or doesn't follow the rules, I think he further undermines a sense of orderly conduct of business in this Legislature.

In presenting this as a concern, I sincerely hope the Speaker of the House will take the time to properly consider it, and that the government will do the appropriate thing and find other matters to deal with than what it has suggested today. I table these concerns with great concern and the fear that this is just another example of the incompetence of the government House leader and his failure to really work with the House.

The Speaker: Does the government House leader wish to contribute to the point of order?

Hon Mr Cooke: Not really, Mr Speaker, other than to say that the point of order that has been raised is one we anticipated might be raised, and we understand that the point is correct. All I would ask is whether we could have just a 10-minute recess while the three House leaders get together to look at what we'll deal with for the next couple of hours.

The Speaker: In fact, I listened very closely to the member for Bruce, and indeed I do believe he is correct. Having been taken by this matter very quickly, I was going to ask for a couple of minutes so I could confer with the table and try to determine whether my instinct on this is accurate. Indeed, I hear a request from the government House leader for 10 minutes for the three House leaders to meet, and that perhaps would serve all of us well. It would give me an opportunity to review this. As I say, I do believe the House leader for the opposition is correct, but of course I want to be absolutely sure before making a final determination.

Mr Elston: Briefly, Mr Speaker, I think what you probably also heard from the government House leader was that he agreed with myself and the member for Markham that in fact it cannot be called, so I think that really puts an end to the issue. But what we really need is some time now, if we're in agreement, to search out what business might be available for us. That's all.

The Speaker: I do appreciate any member believing that a particular point of order is in order. The Speaker has an independent role to fulfil. This house stands in recess for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 1525 and resumed at 1535.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, indeed he is right. I must refer members to standing order 77(c), "When a bill that is reported from a standing or select committee is referred to the committee of the whole House, it shall not be taken up earlier than the second calendar day after the referral." The referral was yesterday. This is day one. Day two would be tomorrow. Thus, it cannot be raised earlier than day two. The exception to that is two possibilities:

(1) In the special resolution of the House which was passed earlier, it would have been contained in that special referral. Had that been done, that would have superseded the standing order.

(2) As always, unanimous consent can override any particular standing order.

Thus, it is not possible, unless by unanimous consent, to call forward Bill 40. The earliest it can be dealt with would be tomorrow.

GAMING SERVICES ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES SERVICES RELATIFS AU JEU

Ms Churley moved second reading of Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services / Loi prévoyant la réglementation des services relatifs au jeu.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes, Mr Speaker, I do.

On May 27 I introduced for first reading the new Gaming Services Act. It is now my pleasure to move second reading for the bill.

As I informed members of the House back in May, the number of organizations participating in charitable gaming and the frequency of events has increased dramatically in recent years. A commercial sector providing bingo halls, callers, dealers and other services has grown to the point where Ontario has the largest commercial gaming sector in North America.

Until now, these operations and their employees have been unregulated. This unregulated sector means that worthwhile charities are increasingly losing control over the conduct and management of their gaming events. Despite the growth in charitable gaming, many charities are seeing a substantial decline in their proceeds.

A moratorium was placed on the licensing of bingos in new commercial facilities in 1989. This measure was taken to stabilize charitable profits and attendance levels, which were being affected by increased competition between charitable groups and saturated gaming markets.

In the spring of 1990, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations produced a discussion document of charitable gaming. This document was widely circulated to solicit a range of opinions on future directions. All sectors of the charitable gaming community responded. The comments received have been, where possible, incorporated into this new legislation.

The new Gaming Services Act will provide a framework to regulate the public gaming sector. This will give charitable and religious organizations greater control over the conduct and management of gaming events. It will also ensure honesty and integrity in Ontario's gaming marketplace.

1540

The framework we are proposing will be used as the basis for talks between the government and the first nations related to control, regulation and administration of gaming activities on reserves.

We support the right of first nations to self-government within the country's constitutional framework. We also recognize the need of first nations' people to have the right and the opportunity to raise funds through gaming to support development of facilities and services to benefit native communities. At the same time, we also recognize that there is a viable, charitable gaming marketplace that must be considered in the course of negotiations with the first nations. Consideration of the local, non-native gaming sector will be a factor to be addressed and considered during the talks.

There is only one gaming marketplace in Ontario. Gaming activities must operate in a way that is fair to all participants. A level playing field is vital to a healthy gaming market.

We will be negotiating to reach an agreement through which Ontario removes itself from the regulation of gaming on reserves. Each first nation with which an agreement is signed will assume responsibility for regulation, control and administration of all gaming activities on its reserve. The negotiated agreements will outline the responsibilities of the first nations in establishing processes and procedures for regulating and controlling gaming, as well as other responsibilities in terms of assisting the first nations where desired.

Prior to the first reading of this bill, I signed, on behalf of the government, an agreement to negotiate with a first nation in northwestern Ontario, the Rat Portage band. I'm pleased to say that talks with the band are under way now.

Besides the Gaming Services Act, three other initiatives are being taken to change the regulatory framework governing charitable gaming here in Ontario. First of all, a new order in council is being developed to clarify roles with respect to licensing. As a result, local governments will emerge with even greater authority to issue licences. I believe it is in the best interests of the community for charitable gaming licences to be issued at the local level. Giving municipalities more authority makes sense when you consider that they issue 90% of the charitable gaming licences throughout Ontario now.

Second, the current set of terms and conditions a charity must follow once a licence is issued is outdated. It will be revised to reflect the realities of today's gaming marketplace and to incorporate the changes proposed by the new act.

The third initiative is the design of a new lottery licensing policy manual. This guide will help municipal lottery licensing officers administer the charitable gaming program in a consistent manner province-wide.

I would like to emphasize once again that the new Gaming Services Act is not related at all to the issue of casino gambling. Plans for a regulatory framework for the charitable gaming marketplace have been under development for a very, very long time.

I urge members of this House to support second reading so that necessary controls on the industry can be implemented as soon as possible. These controls will help charitable, religious and native communities achieve their very worthwhile goals.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. Questions and/or comments.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's always interesting to see the delivery of a second reading debate. But I must say that with regard to this debate on the Gaming Services Act, I was kind of expecting a little bit more detail on the actual content of the bill from the member.

I know she spent a lot of time on the negotiations which are about to take place or which will have to take place as a result of the new regime put in place by this act, but as we have all seen, the degree of security of the citizens of the province of Ontario is somewhat destabilized when they think that the legislation to be dealt with only means more talks and really doesn't settle any of the questions which are going to amount to very big issues in the locales, some of which were mentioned by the minister.

I would like to hear from the minister, when she replies to my brief intervention here, just how long she expects all of these negotiations to take and exactly what the ramifications are going to be for the interesting new steps to be taken under what I hope will be the constitutional amendments to be voted on on October 26, because it seems to me the regime of negotiations with native peoples in Canada will change after October 26 if we have a positive vote on referendum day.

I am interested in that because it seems to me that, while there has been very serious negotiation with our native population over several years, in fact a lot of it was initiated, if I might say so, by the former Attorney General, Ian Scott, who has just recently stood down from this place, as you recall. It seems like a new day will come about in terms of negotiations, almost a new sense of how negotiations should be carried on will fall from the positive acceptance of the October 26 question, and I want to hear the minister speak more clearly about that.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I must say it is a rather strange time to proceed with the second reading of this bill with the uncertainty, as the member for Bruce has indicated, concerning the negotiations of our aboriginal peoples, particularly when we are now less than a week away from a referendum and this subject could have an effect, if anything, on the proceeding of the referendum.

Most of the people in this House are taking the affirmative position in supporting the Charlottetown accord, but you now, through your own admission and your statements and your press releases, are talking about how you will be starting to negotiate to reach agreements throughout our various aboriginal peoples, because this bill will certainly not apply to reserves. In other words, we're going to have one set of laws in this province for gaming services within the reserves and one set outside the reserves. That may or may not be a good thing. I think the difficulty is that probably you're premature in proceeding with this bill at this time when you haven't determined those issues. You haven't determined what your agreements are going to be. You haven't determined what self-government is going to be. You haven't determined what the effect of not having the Gaming Services Act within the aboriginal reserves is going to be.

So I find it rather strange that you're proceeding at this particular time with the bill, particularly with some of the uncertainty that has been arising concerning the negotiations with our aboriginal people, particularly for the first nations. I, too, hope that the minister will comment specifically on the fact that the regulations of the Gaming Services Act will not apply to Indian reserves. I think it's a most important issue that should be dealt with now, before this bill proceeds further.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): As we begin this debate on Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services, I think one question that the minister should be prepared to answer at the outset is whether or not this act will require amendment as a result of the Charlottetown accord, what would happen to this act if that accord is ratified by all of the provinces and the federal government and what, if anything, would happen to this legislation, as far as required amendment, should that accord not be ratified.

The other question I ask the minister, in conjunction with this, is: Does she anticipate, at this point in time, substantive amendment to any part of the legislation as a result of any of the comments that she has heard in the initial response to the tabling of this legislation for first reading? Some time has passed since the government first announced that it was going to be moving forward with the establishment of casinos.

I know that this act empowers the government, as it said, to establish one in the vicinity of Windsor. But I would like to know, because a number of people have asked me: Would this act require amendment prior to the establishment of additional casinos in other parts of the province or does this act empower the government to move forward unilaterally or by regulation to establish more than just the one which the minister has announced?

There are a number of questions which I think should be clarified through the course of this debate and discussion. My constituents in the riding of Oriole are mixed in their views as to what the impact would be and they'd like to see some impact studies and analysis as a result of the work of the minister. I look forward to that debate.

1550

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one further participant in questions and/or comments. Seeing none, would the honourable Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations proceed with a two-minute response.

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, in terms of the negotiations with natives -- I should have clarified this in my statement -- the courts have already determined that any native gaming comes under the jurisdictions of provinces. Beyond that, our government, as you know, signed the Statement of Political Relationship last year and we had decided at that time that we would also work with the first nations people on this issue before the Charlottetown deal was made.

So we do have the jurisdiction already as a result of the historic document we signed, the Statement of Political Relationship, last year, so that is not a problem. We can proceed as when we first came out with this bill. We do know that if the accord passes it may have universal impact on us, but that's hard to say. But we feel confident that we can go ahead with this because we already have the jurisdiction to do so.

Another question that was asked was: Is this connected in any way with casinos? It is not in any way connected with casinos. It is to deal precisely with regulating the commercial charitable gaming sector. What is happening right now is that it's totally unregulated. Most of the charities out there are very pleased to see this because there is skimming of profits. There are real problems out there and the sector, since it's growing so huge, really has to be regulated.

It will not, as far as we understand, require any amendments. I know that there were some questions asked from both sides of the House, but the kinds of questions that were asked are separate from this actual document, this actual bill, and we'd be going ahead anyway with the orders in council. I can address that a little later.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services. The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: The gaming services bill --

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, on a point of order.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the honourable member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: I was distracted for a moment, but I meant to stand in my place and indicate that since we have had to create certain combinations for the carrying on of business today, we are allowing the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel to start with his opening remarks. The fact that we have not joined the debate is only an indication that our critic is not here and that we wish to reserve the full, opening leadoff speech for our critic when he is able to be with us. I think that arrangement is agreeable unanimously with all of the members here in the House, but I wanted that to be brought to the fore at this moment.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the request from the member for Bruce. Agreed? Agreed. We have unanimous consent. The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel can proceed.

Mr Tilson: I rise as the critic for the Progressive Conservative Party to speak on Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services. This bill received first reading on May 27 of this year and I think we should add to some of the comments that were made by the minister with respect to what this bill is doing, because it has created a certain amount of confusion and concern among the charities and also the bingo parlour operators in this province.

I think the minister is going to have to spend a considerable amount of time on perhaps making amendments to her bill or persuading us, at least on this side, that the way she is treating those people isn't the dastardly way that it appears to be coming forward. The concern is widespread and has increased, if anything, over the summer since this bill was first introduced.

As you may or may not know, the Criminal Code of Canada permits provinces to license specified lottery schemes. Under a licence, charitable or religious organizations may operate such activities as bingos, Monte Carlo nights and those types of activities. The licence-issuing authority may be a municipality or the entertainment standards branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

As the number of charitable organizations in our own community relying on these types of activities, bingo and other related events, has increased over the past several years, so has the size of the commercial sector that has gotten into this field to facilitate these events. In other words, there has been a form of partnership with respect to bingo parlours and charitable organizations in running these events. So, to date, this sector has been largely unregulated.

This bill, as has been indicated by the minister, provides a regulatory framework for the commercial sector. The operators and their employees will now require provincial scrutiny and registration to provide support services under Bill 26. Charitable and religious organizations, however, will still require a licence to hold a gaming permit.

The provisions of this bill, if I could briefly summarize it so that we will know where we're headed in this debate, consist of nine points, which I would like to refer to briefly for purposes of proceeding this afternoon.

First of all, a director and a registrar of gaming services are appointed under this bill.

Second, persons who provide premises, materials, equipment or the services of a gaming assistant must be registered as suppliers.

Third, bingo callers, wheel operators and others paid for participating in a game of chance must be registered as gaming assistants.

Fourth, registration as a supplier or gaming assistant may be refused, revoked or suspended by the registrar, subject to appeal by the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal.

Fifth, power is given to investigate contraventions of the act, including the right to apply for a search warrant. That's a topic that seems to be creeping up more and more in the legislation that is coming forward by this government: the expanding power of the search warrant.

Sixth, the director may, for the preservation of the public, freeze the assets of a supplier or other person to ensure their safekeeping. Appeal procedures are provided.

Seventh, specific rules of conduct are provided for suppliers and gaming assistants, including recordkeeping and accounting requirements. The director may make an order requiring compliance with the act. Appeal procedures are provided.

Finally, there's a provision in the bill which deals with contraventions of the act being punishable by fine or imprisonment.

The minister has made some preliminary comments, in her opening remarks to this House, dealing with the fact that she states that this bill does not concern the operation of bingo parlours in this province. There's no question that this bill is intended, generally speaking, to deal with the commercial gaming sector. It appears, from what the minister has said both in this House and outside this House, that it's not going to deal with the establishment of government-operated casinos in the province of Ontario.

1600

However, what she isn't saying, which I would submit to her -- and she knows this -- is that it may be possible to interpret the legislation in such a way that would allow for the creation of casinos operated by charitable organizations. For that fact alone -- because that's what this bill is all about; the regulation of charitable organizations, religious organizations, that are operating games of chance, those types of things -- it seems to me that we must be very careful about this minister. We must be very careful in monitoring what she is doing.

She has stood in her place in this House and talked of how she is going to have a gambling casino somewhere in the city of Windsor or somewhere in the Windsor area; she isn't too sure. She's also made it quite clear in her press conference that she doesn't know the type of gambling casino that she's going to operate. Is it going to be operated by the government? Is it going to be operated by a private enterprise corporation? Is it going to be operated by a partnership of both, or is it going to be operated by a charitable organization?

That is indeed a great possibility, that this is exactly what her intent is going to be, in partnership with this government. I don't believe that she will assign the whole project to a charitable organization, to run the Windsor experiment, the Windsor test plan. I believe that she will do it as part of her NDP government, that they will be a partner in this experiment and that the gambling casinos will become a reality in the province of Ontario through this bill, because there's been no indication from this minister or anyone on that side of the House that the Windsor experiment isn't going to occur through a bill.

I made a statement in this House last week on this subject, and it still stands, which expresses my concern that in fact Bill 26 is the tool that is going to be used for the implementation of gambling casinos in the province of Ontario, and specifically with this Windsor experiment.

Mr Speaker, I think we should spent some time on gambling casinos, and I will tell you that I intend to spend some time on that and the effects of gambling casinos, because this minister doesn't want to talk about it. She doesn't want to talk about how she's going to do it. She doesn't want to talk about the cost to the municipality. She doesn't want to talk about the addiction problems of gambling and what she's going to do about that. She doesn't want to talk about how her party has been opposed to this type of thing over the years and how she personally has been opposed to this type of venture over the years, particularly in her position as a municipal councillor. So I think this is a time when we should spend a few moments reflecting on where I believe this minister is going, and that she knows exactly where she's going on gambling casinos and it's through the Gaming Services Act.

This piece of legislation, Bill 26, follows on a discussion paper which was first put forward by the Liberal government in February 1990, and much of what is proposed was contained in that document. It will be interesting to hear the Liberal critic's comments as to how this bill has varied from the original Liberal initiative, because it is an area that needs to be regulated.

I think the problems that have occurred specifically with the charities, and the concerns of the charities and of many of the people in the province of Ontario that this is possibly an underhanded way or a back-door way of bringing gambling -- well, she's shaking her head but I can tell you clearly, if you haven't read your bill: Your own regulations that you will be able to put forward under this bill will enable you to put forward gambling casinos that will be operated by charitable organizations. That's exactly what your bill is going to be doing; it's going to be regulating the operation of gambling casinos.

This bill will enable gambling casinos to be introduced in this province in all aspects except slot machines. Slot machines won't be under this bill, you couldn't put forward slot machines, but all other aspects of casino gambling you could put forward. The slot machine is the one exception.

She's been very vague on what she intends to do. I would hope we would have some hearings on this subject so that we can hear more about specifically what she proposes to do. Either that or perhaps she will be putting a bill forward on gambling casinos so that we can debate this matter in a proper manner in this House and listen to the people around this province for and against as to the appropriateness of gambling casinos at this time.

That has not been provided to the people of this province. It's simply been announced that we're going to have a gambling casino in the city of Windsor, without any impact studies being revealed as to how it's going to affect jobs, the economy, crime and other matters that are involved in this, other concerns that we have in this province.

As I indicated, the native issue is a subject that concerns us on this side, that you're going to have one area where there can be gaming services, or the subject of gaming, which would be within the reserves, being unregulated by the province of Ontario. She's actually negotiating that.

In other words, the subject of self-government is coming forward. We don't know what that means. Here I'm finding myself talking about the Charlottetown accord, which puts us all in a very difficult position at this specific time, but since she has raised it, I think she's going to have to spend some time on that.

The fact of the matter is that she's admitted today and in her press releases that she's in the process of negotiating agreements as to what is going to be and what is not going to be as far as gaming services on reserves are concerned. Either they're controlled and regulated by the province of Ontario or they're not, and if they're not regulated by the province of Ontario, if that is outside -- as you have indicated you have agreed to -- if that whole subject is outside the laws of Ontario, then we've got some problems. We've got some problems that in one particular area of my province we'll have one set of rules and in another area we'll have another set of rules, for two different situations -- hardly a fair procedure concerning what you're trying to regulate.

I believe there's no question that the reservations will do everything they can to proceed with their own gambling casinos. Why shouldn't they? It's a profitable venture. Again, we need more input perhaps from the minister and from the Minister of Natural Resources, who has jurisdiction in this area.

The whole subject of downloading is a subject I hope the minister will spend some time on in her reply. Again, much of this will be dealt with by the municipalities. There will be regulations that will put more duties on to the municipalities to regulate gaming services, again, more of an expense.

As I say, it is a continuation of a Liberal policy, all of which we on the Progressive Conservative side and you on the NDP side stood up during the election campaign two years ago, talked about how downloading was affecting the property taxpayer of this province. But in almost every bill that comes forward to this House, there's some rippling-down effect to the municipalities, and the municipalities are only going to get the revenue from one source. That's from the property taxpayer. The grants aren't forthcoming. We have 1%, 2% and 2%. We have a 1% transfer. So where are they going to get the money? It's just an added expense, another administrator, another bureaucracy that's being created with no adequate financial assistance from the province of Ontario.

The whole subject of downloading needs to be discussed and, I believe, the topic of increasing the ability to adjust licensing fees. The minister can correct me on that when she gets up for her response, but I don't believe that the municipalities have that ability. They don't have the ability to adjust their licensing fees. With more added responsibilities being put on to the municipalities, they're going to have to find revenue from other sources. They're not finding it from the province. They will find it from the property taxpayer and hence our property taxes will go up.

1610

There are some subjects which talk about the registration of the suppliers, the charities, the individuals who are running gambling casinos, and there's a specific clause that I will be spending some time on in my remarks that talks about honesty, integrity and working in the public interest. There's a suggestion that all of these operators are a criminal element, that they're all evil. The wording is quite offensive to many of these operators. It's quite offensive to the charities and the religious organizations -- very offensive wording. I would hope that when we go to committee that subject will be dealt with at some length.

There are a number of groups that wish to address this Legislature in committee or otherwise and have already made presentations, I'm sure, to the minister. They have made presentations to me expressing their concerns with this bill and I'm sure they've made presentations to the member for Lawrence, Mr Cordiano, who I believe is the Liberal critic.

One such response was presented to me which I'm sure the minister has read. It's a presentation that came from the Ontario Bingo Hall Owners' Association and it's dated March 1992. It is quite an extensive report and I'd recommend to members of the House that before you vote on this bill you all read it. There are 20 pages, all of which are points that should be considered before we proceed with any further debate in this House.

Perhaps a more appropriate time will be in a committee and I'm sure the minister will consent to allowing us to go to a committee because there are certainly charities and religious organizations and operators of bingo halls that want to come. They're very concerned as to how their operations are being affected by this legislation.

I've spoken to the minister privately about this and she says everything's okay. If it's okay, she hasn't done her job because many of these charities --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: I'm telling you, that's exactly what's happened. The charities, the sports organizations, the religious organizations, they've all contacted me and I can't believe that they haven't contacted the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and they're still concerned. We're still getting letters of concern. I believe these individuals will want to come to a committee and express their concerns; either that or the reading of this bill can be delayed so that the minister will have an opportunity to communicate with all these organizations and say they're either wrong or they're right. I believe many of their concerns are valid and I certainly will be looking forward to hearing from them when we proceed to the public hearing stage.

I'm going to take us through this report because it does summarize a lot of the concerns that are put forward around the province. The first policy principle that is put forward by the Ontario Bingo Hall Owners' Association is:

"Gaming is conducted for the benefit of charities. Gaming is permitted in Canada to benefit charities, which depend on this source of fund-raising to provide important service to their communities. It is the privilege of gaming service operators to be allowed to work with charities in their fund-raising activities."

That's a very important principle, considering that in many aspects of our society we rely on the charities, we rely on the religious organizations and the sports organizations that raise funds to provide services that government can't provide. It may be simply donations to a Boy Scout movement. It may be the providing of sweaters to a hockey team. It may be the putting up of a recreation hall in a community. We all know what all of those activities are and we all laud, congratulate, work with and encourage charities, sports organizations and religious organizations and the great work they do in this province.

I don't believe this bill has been sensitive enough to their concerns. The minister is shaking her head, but she can't be reading the letters and the correspondence, and delegations that have come to my office expressing their concern over this bill. If they're wrong, then let the minister stand in her place at the appropriate time and explain why they are wrong, because the concerns that have been raised to me seem quite legitimate and should be at least listened to.

That's probably one of the big problems we've had with this bill. On this bill, like a number of other bills, there has been inadequate consultation to deal with many of the issues. There's no question that the regulation of the commercial gaming sector hasn't been adequately dealt with over the years, and I think we all acknowledge that. But there is a concern of the charities that I think the minister is going to have to address.

The second basic policy principle is -- again I'm referring to the report of the Ontario Bingo Hall Owners' Association -- that charitable gaming activity has expanded. They say, basically, that controlled growth of charitable gaming is to be encouraged. They elaborate on this point by stating:

"Charitable gaming activity has expanded in the past few years. We expect that gaming activity will, and should, grow over the coming years. This growth should be encouraged. We think every effort should be directed to building a regulatory scheme that encourages controlled growth of charitable gaming and the orderly development of the gaming services industry.

"3. Charitable gaming is part of the entertainment industry. We think charitable gaming should be viewed from the perspective of a regulated commercial activity that has the potential to substantially increase resources available to charitable organizations. We believe that charitable gaming and the gaming services industry that supports it should be regarded as part of the entertainment industry. The day has long passed when lotteries, bingos and other gaming amusements can be viewed as some kind of 'immoral' activity."

That's an important statement because, when you look at some of the sections in this bill -- and I'll be referring to those -- there is a suggestion of some sort of criminal activity, some sort of immoral activity. There's even a provision that has to do with fingerprinting; it's being suggested that individuals should be fingerprinted before they receive their licence.

Before we proceed with that line of development, this type of activity is considered as an entertainment industry. Do we really believe that when we go into a local service club, a local sports club hall that is organizing a Monte Carlo night, that we're going into a gambling casino?

Interjection: Yes.

Mr Tilson: Well, I don't think we do. The answer to the question was yes, but I don't think we do. I think we look at it as a way of assisting this organization to raise funds for the great work they do.

The fourth basic principle put forward by this organization is: "Regulators must assume that gaming service partners are good citizens. We believe that a regulatory regime must start with the premise that it will aid and encourage the activities of a vast number of the industry partners who conduct their activities legally and ethically. We strongly believe that a system that is based on the idea of controlling a very small number of rule breakers will have a disastrous effect on Ontario charities."

It's the sensitivity of this bill that we need to concern ourselves with. It's almost as if the people who are running the games -- the charities, the churches, the sports groups -- are doing something wrong. When you start suggesting that there may have to be fingerprinting -- normally you don't have to be fingerprinted unless you have been charged with a criminal offence. Yet under the regulations that may arise -- very strong wording for this bill.

1620

The report goes on:

"There are key groups that work in partnership within the charitable gaming services industry. A regulatory scheme will recognize each of the partner groups and reflect their appropriate functioning in the system. Regulations will also be concerned that relationships with each and with all of the partner groups are enhanced."

The report then goes on to talk about charities, gaming suppliers, commercial hall operators, municipalities and the players. There are five topics, and I'd like briefly to summarize what the report says about that.

The report points out that there are at least 25,000 registered charities in the province of Ontario, and these numbers are growing continuously. Whether they be charities, whether they be sports groups, they are growing continuously. "As well," the report goes on, "there are a huge number of community groups and associations which are eligible to fund-raise through charitable gaming activities. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has estimated that there may be as many as 50,000 charitable organizations in the province." So only half are registered.

"The various forms of lotteries, casinos, break-open tickets and bingos that are licensed in Ontario probably provide revenues to charities in excess of $300 million a year."

When it comes to these types of activities, on the one hand, we have regulation through Bill 126 of these very groups that are trying to raise money for various activities in our society, and on the other hand, they put forward a gambling casino, specifically one in Windsor, and suggestions that there will be at least a minimum of five others throughout this province in a very short period of time. We don't know how or where or how they're going to do it or whatever, but the statements have been made quite clearly that these are going to come forward.

With these figures and the amount of revenue these charities make for our society, what will be the effect of government-run casinos, with perhaps charitable organizations as silent partners or minority shareholders, on their revenue? How will the gambling casino -- whether it be Windsor, if you take the Windsor area -- affect the charities in those areas?

There doesn't appear to be any impact study that has been completed by the NDP government that explains it. If there is, they haven't produced it. They do come forward with this bill, which is going to very strongly regulate the industry.

The report proceeds by saying:

"The revenues to charities from gaming should be compared to the annual funds raised through donations in response to charity appeals and fund-raising drives. It's estimated that personal donor contributions in Ontario amounted to $1.12 billion in 1990. The estimated share of Ontario's corporate giving to charity amounted to slightly more than $55 million. Clearly, gaming accounts for a major share of Ontario charities' revenues."

That fact alone says we should be very cautious with this bill. This could be termed in political circles around this place: "Well, this is just a minor bill. This is a filler that we'll proceed with until we get our Bill 40 in line, until we see how we're going to proceed with Bill 40. We'll put this in as a filler. We'll just kill some time and get this bill out of the way."

But I say to you, Mr Speaker and other members of this House, that realizing the effect of this legislation on charities, sports groups, religious organizations, I hope we would treat it much more seriously than this minister appears to be treating it. I assume this may not be her; it may be her House leader. She probably does as he says and has proceeded today with this bill, not even knowing she was going to proceed with it today.

That's the point: It's the trivial, almost flippant attitude of this government towards this bill, not realizing or appreciating the effect it's going to have on charities, sports organizations and church groups in this province.

The report goes on by saying:

"The fund-raising picture for Ontario charities, especially during the current recession, is not promising. It is going to be more important than before to assist charities in development of gaming activity. Bingo is a particularly important source of revenue for charities, and future regulation must include careful consideration of how charities will benefit from expanding this market."

These are very sensitive observations. I emphasize that charities we rely on to assist in everything from Boy Scouts and Girl Guides to hockey teams, to art groups, to putting up community halls, to all kinds of necessities for our community, are having a tough time. They're having a tough time raising funds through their charities, through their fund-raising ventures. Whether it be Monte Carlo nights, whether it be bingos, they're having a difficult time. The facts reveal that.

Yet this bill, of course, is going to put severe restrictions on them and is scaring the heck out of them. They've got enough problems trying to meet their commitments for budgets. Many of these charities have community halls, buildings they've put up. They know they have to raise so much each year, and that's done through fund-raising ventures such as those this bill is going to regulate. They're very concerned. They're concerned with the recession. The people don't have the money available to give to charitable and sports groups as they have in the past. This bill, at this particular point in time, is going to make it even more difficult, because of those regulations.

The second partner in the charitable gaming services industry, as outlined in this report, is the gaming suppliers. The report goes on to state:

"The charitable gaming services industry in Ontario is well served by a number of gaming products suppliers. These enterprises have a record of working closely with provincial and municipal regulators to respond to concerns about security of product and accountability. The suppliers work closely with operators to meet their needs and to respond to market demands that emerge from the players themselves. The gaming products suppliers have an understanding about the charitable gaming market and about the ways that should be considered in an effort to improve profitability for charities."

I doubt whether this minister has consulted with these people. She certainly hasn't consulted with the charities, because they're all up in arms; they don't know what the heck this means. My guess is that the gaming suppliers, who also employ a substantial number of people in this province, have the same types of concerns.

The third partner is the commercial hall operators. The report states:

"There are approximately 270 facilities operating as bingo halls in Ontario, and about 170 are commercial halls. At least 75% of bingo licences are issued to charities which conduct their games in a commercial hall."

There's a certain relationship between the charities and the commercial hall operators. I understand the bill that's been put forward, originally by the Liberals and then by this government, is to regulate these people, because there are all kinds of concerns that have been coming out as to their operations. But they're not all evil. In other words, the onus isn't on them to prove that they're not immoral.

1630

"In medium-sized bingo halls," the report goes on, "15 charities may be served in a week." So these bingo halls obviously are run by a number of charities. "In a large hall, as many as 40 charities may be served weekly. There may be as many as eight sessions a day. Halls may operate seven days a week. The assignment of any session and day to a charity sponsor will have a significant impact on the profits that can be earned for a charity. The size and stature of a charity is a consideration in the assignment of session times."

So who gets these things? There have been suggestions made to me that if some of these licences are given out, there are holes in the system. I haven't seen the regulations, but I'm not so certain that those are going to be rectified. I hope that the minister or her parliamentary assistant, during the public hearings, will be in a position to relieve those concerns.

The report goes on: "Other kinds of charitable gaming are conducted within commercial halls, including sales of Nevada tickets. At this time, hall operators are not allowed a commission on the sale of Nevada tickets. However, hall operators could assist charities to improve their Nevada ticket fund-raising if allowed to act as commissioned sales agents for the charities." This is a submission, again, that is being made by the Ontario Bingo Hall Owners' Association. I believe it would be useful to hear from these people and others on these topics, because this is only one of many opinions.

"Commercial hall operators and managers usually have close working relationships with the charities that rent their facilities. Many hall operators have established charity or sponsor committees to deal with issues of concern to charities, such as the allocation of session times, sharing superjackpots and occasional concerns regarding municipal licensing."

Many of these people are not the fly-by-night operator that's being suggested. Many of them are reputable individuals, and they're all being treated under this legislation as almost being -- it's suggested that they're wrong from the outset, that they're operating incorrectly.

The report goes on and talks about the fourth partner in the process. I have not heard of too many municipalities, certainly in my riding, that have had any input with respect to this bill. In fact, there has been some confusion and some concern. If I have time, I will refer to correspondence that I have received from municipalities in my riding, specifically in the county of Dufferin, expressing concern about this bill.

The report that I'm referring to states that: "Ontario municipalities are allowed to issue licences to charities to engage in charitable gaming activity. The licensing of charities is shared between municipalities and the province.

"The proposed regulatory scheme devolves much more responsibility to the municipal level."

Again I emphasize, remember that word "downloading." If this responsibility is being passed down to the municipality, it's going to require more bureaucracy; it's going to require more staff to administer these things. So either the province is going to have funding -- and it's already indicated it isn't; it's only allowing 2% next year, 1% this year and 2% the following year, as far as transfer payments are concerned. There doesn't appear to be any statement that deals with the ability to adjust licensing fees, to increase the licensing fees to meet the administration of this bill that is being put on the municipality. If I'm correct in that assumption -- and we really haven't had adequate time to debate that in the House, but it appears that is the case -- then we would be putting forward an amendment to this bill at the public hearings to allow that to take place.

It is being suggested that the dollar limit for bingo prize boards that a municipality may license be increased. In general, the revenues from lottery licensing will be increased and a greater portion of the licence revenues will be collected by the municipalities. Again, remember that terrible word "downloading," the passing on of the administration to the municipalities.

"In relation to the proposals relating to bingo" -- and again I'm referring to the report -- "municipalities will be concerned about any significantly increased requirements for inspection and compliance monitoring that may fall to them." That's another area the municipalities will be responsible for and will be obliged to deal with under this bill, although the report does state that "increased revenues carry...additional burdens."

This submission by the Ontario Bingo Hall Owners' Association proceeds by saying that "a too-complex system could carry a very big enforcement responsibility. New rules and regulations should not be imposing new duties that sources of licensing revenues will not cover." So again, municipalities, take note of this bill. Make sure you understand it and push the minister to clarify many of these areas.

The report proceeds by saying the proposal to extend the group identification number to applications for municipal licensing applications appears to be very useful -- they do support that -- and should provide significant assistance to municipal licensing officers. That is certainly one positive point this group believes in.

The report goes on, "The difficult and sometimes contentious decisions regarding eligibility as a charity (as required under the Criminal Code) can best be made by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations." In other words, as opposed to the municipalities which are already overburdened with degrees that come from this government and are then passed on to the municipalities.

The report concludes the section on the partnership of the municipalities by stating that: "Changes to the rules relating to bingo gaming should not result in any reduction of current levels of profitability to charities. Any reduction in local charities' revenues could result in increased demand for municipal resources or pressure on a municipality to provide services which charities can no longer provide, in the face of diminished bingo or other gaming revenues." That is a factor I would hope the minister, if she has any studies on this subject as to whether this bill will have any effect because of the increased regulations on charities -- whether that will reduce their revenues. If it does reduce their revenues, many of these things that are performed by charities and sports groups and religious organizations are going to fall on the government. It won't be this provincial government; it'll be on the hands of the municipality, on the property taxpayer.

Municipalities take note and contact my office, contact the Liberal critic and of course contact the minister, more importantly, for a clarification on these matters. I hope that many of these matters will be dealt with during the public hearings.

The fifth partner, of course, is the players -- the people who play these games. The report states that these people "regard bingo as an enjoyable, sometimes exciting and affordable form of entertainment." Again, many of these games are affordable. You're not going to go into a bingo hall or a Monte Carlo night that some local service club is putting on and go bankrupt and have to mortgage your house like you will in the Windsor gaming casinos. They shouldn't be treated in that same way, and I believe that's one of the things this bill is doing. "Like other entertainment consumers, they have their preferences and unique qualities. Like customers in any market segment, our players share certain common characteristics and respond to a variety of factors that operate in the marketplace."

The report goes on by stating: "Charities, hall operators and suppliers have experience in dealing with this industry's customer -- the bingo player. We all share the same desire to satisfy the customer, and are interested in all the tools and techniques other industries and businesses use to keep the customer happy."

"Bingo players do not regard themselves as gamblers." They don't, Mr Speaker.

1640

This bill gives the innuendo that it's going to be like the casino gambling. I mean, it is ironic. Here we are debating a bill which is being compared to, in many ways -- in which the operators and the players and everyone involved are being treated like the gambling casino. Yet there's no bill. There's no bill for the Windsor experiment. There's no bill forthcoming.

If it is, let's put it forward, so that the people involved in this province, the many people who have expressed concerns -- the horse racing industry, the churches, the addiction people and others who have expressed concerns -- can voice their views and assist the government in getting out of this project, because I don't think they're ready to do anything. There have been no impact studies on anything. At least if there are, the minister hasn't produced them.

The report states that players of bingo "do not regard themselves as gamblers -- any more than the average Ontarian who buys a weekly Lottario or Wintario ticket thinks himself a gambler."

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe a quorum is present.

The Acting Speaker: Could I ask the clerk, please, to check if there is a quorum present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel had the floor. He can now resume.

Mr Tilson: I have been referring to some extent to the Ontario Bingo Hall Owners' Association response to this bill, which was produced in March 1992. Again, I would recommend that if members do not have this report, they all get it and read it before they proceed any further with this bill, because I think it expresses a lot of the concerns that have been occurring around this province.

Dealing again with the subject of the players, the people who play these various games, "Bingo playing rarely attracts addictive personalities." Can you imagine walking into a service club where they're playing the Monte Carlo type of game, the people who support the service clubs around this province, the people who support the bingo halls around this province, and saying they have an addictive personality to gambling?

Yet there's nothing that's being done with respect to the gambling casino, the gambling casino that the minister has guaranteed -- and, I'm sure, much against her own personal wishes; I know much against her own personal wishes. She has to do what she's being told if she wants to remain Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. She has to follow that.

But if you observe what she has said in the past, specifically in her performance as a municipal councillor and her own philosophy as a member of the New Democratic Party, I can't believe that she supports gambling casinos in this province. Yet she stands up and says: "We're going to have all kinds of gambling casinos. It's going to raise all kinds of money. We're going to have fun, and we're going to have an experiment of some sort done in Windsor." That's what she says.

She won't provide any bill on that. She won't provide any bill on that subject as to how she's going to deal with the impact of all the other items I've raised in this House. She has no idea.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): She doesn't know.

Mr Tilson: She has no idea. The member for Simcoe East is quite right. She has no idea. I would submit that in this bill, she's treating all these people as gambling addicts.

The report, in that section, concludes by saying:

"The regular bingo player would have a hard time in losing any large sums of money.

"Hall operators keep close track of the average 'spend' in their halls. This evidence makes it clear that people who prefer bingo as entertainment do it at no greater cost than people who are entertained by going to the movies.

"The charitable gaming service industry will continue to remember that players are the customers, and the charities we serve depend on a satisfied customer."

I guess we certainly have to observe the comments that were made in this report. We can't ignore it and I would recommend again that we all proceed to review that report in more detail.

I'm glad that this bill was raised today, although it has taken us all by surprise. I'm concerned again at the triviality of it. It's a filler before we start getting on to the most important piece of legislation this province has ever seen, Bill 40. It's being treated as a filler and I think that is regrettable.

I have written the minister a letter that expressed some concerns from constituents in my riding and from people around this province. It was a letter that was written last September 14, and I asked for a further response on September 30. I'm going to read this letter to the House, the letter that I wrote the minister on September 14. Maybe when she gets an opportunity, she won't write me a letter responding to the letter in person, but maybe she'll stand in this House and deal with some of the issues that are being raised. It's an excellent opportunity. She'll save the postage. All she's got to do is rise in her place and answer the letter. I'll be looking forward to when she responds to deal with that letter.

I know she's busy, but she's not too busy to put this bill forward. This letter was written in anticipation of this bill, to better inform me, as the critic, but she's been silent on it. So I'm going to read this letter for the purposes of all of us to deal with it in this House.

In this letter I've raised three questions. It's addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and as I indicated, was dated September 14:

"I'm writing to you regarding the government's new legislation governing the licensing of specified lottery schemes under Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services.

"There appears to be a great deal of confusion among municipalities, charitable organizations and sports organizations as to what the procedure is now for obtaining a licence for fund-raising purposes. Now that we are into the fall, a number of these organizations will be wanting to hold their annual fund-raising events, and they are at a loss as to which rules now do or do not apply.

"My understanding is as follows:

"1. Bill 26 provides a regulatory framework for the commercial sector. Operators and their employees will now require provincial scrutiny and registration to provide support services. Charitable and religious organizations, however, will still require a licence to hold a gaming event. Under a licence, charitable or religious organizations may operate such activities as bingos and Monte Carlo nights."

I'm anticipating that the minister is going to stand in her place and say, "You're all wrong; it doesn't affect these people." I know she's just dying to stand up and say that, but that isn't what the charities are saying and that isn't what the bill is saying. So I'll save you the time from that.

The second point in my letter is policy manual or terms and conditions.

Mr Elston: This must be a lonesome man, answering his own correspondence.

Mr Tilson: It is lonely when I write a letter to the minister and she won't answer me and I have to read it to her in this House to get a response. The question is, will I yet get an answer? Madam Minister, you're going to have to listen to me read this letter to you, because for some unearthly reason, you won't respond to the letter.

Well, you shake your hands. Who knows? I'm going to read it to you so you've got some time to think about it.

The second point I raised of my understanding of this bill has to do with the policy manual or terms and conditions:

"This is a licensing guide for municipal offices and ministry offices. There apparently was a second draft of the consultation paper sent to all municipalities and interest groups for their comments. They were to have been returned by September 1."

Here we are, of course, in second reading, and we ask for some more consultation to be returned by September 1. I suspect they haven't even read these things.

1650

Third, order in council: "A new order in council is to be issued which will change the current authorities for licensing lotteries and gambling events. For example, municipal councils currently issue licences for bingos under $3,500. This is to be changed to $5,500, thus leaving the minister responsible for the commercial sector."

I've said that and of course she has said that and we understand that. However, I'm going to read my questions to you, Minister, because you probably haven't read the letter, or maybe you have read the letter and you don't know the answers.

Mr Elston: She didn't receive the letter, she didn't read the letter and she didn't answer the letter.

Mr Tilson: I should get the member for Bruce on record, but I won't do that; he can say that in his response.

My questions are very serious questions, Madam Minister. I know you don't want to answer them, but I'd like you to listen to them at least.

"Firstly, what requirements are placed on both the municipality and the charitable and religious organizations in applying for a licence?" That's a simple question; why can't you answer that?

"What about Nevada tickets? Who can apply for and sell them?" That's another simple question. Why can't you answer that? What am I to tell my constituents? I'm sure that all members in this House are getting similar types of questions from the people who operate these things around this province. They're all in a grand state of confusion.

I also asked the question: "What about sports lotteries? Can any charitable or sports associations run one of these now under this bill? As this bill has not received royal assent, are the requirements for licensing in effect now or will they take place at that time?" What are your staff telling these people, because we're getting some letters that are almost treating this bill as if it's the law of the land?

So that's the first question; I agree there are a series of questions there, but they all deal with the same concern that come from the municipality, charities and religious organizations.

The second question is, "What is the result of the consultation on the second draft?" Are you going to tell us that? You've asked for consultations. You, of all the ministers, talk about all your wonderful consultations that you perform in this province and, of course, you haven't done anything with casino gambling. Even your own members of your own caucus are lining up and you'd better not turn your back on them because they're very concerned about where you're going with casino gambling in this province. And you can put it in this bill. Don't say you can't, because you can. They can be connected to charitable organizations and you know you can through the regulations.

I believe that before we proceed with any further debate in this House and in committee we must have the result of the consultation, the second draft. Will you be introducing these amendments as a bill in the Legislature or will they merely be regulations to Bill 26? You put out Bill 26. You asked for some more consultations. Are you going to say: "Well, thanks very much for your letters, but we've got the bill rolling. We're now into second reading. I'm not too sure about amendments. I don't know what we're going to do"?

"I don't know what we're going to do" is probably her main statement. She's walking around her office saying, "I don't know what we're going to do," and she doesn't know what she's going to do.

But, Madam Minister, if you're going to ask for consultation, we on this side of the House at least -- I'm sure there is a substantial number of members in your own caucus -- would like to hear the results of the consultation of the second draft.

If you are going to be putting forward amendments to Bill 26 as a result of the consultations that you have asked for, when can we expect them to be introduced? It's astounding that we're now proceeding to second reading, a second reading which has been sort of thrown at us at the final hour, and either the government has some amendments or it doesn't. They've asked for consultations and they've asked for viewpoints as to this bill or a second draft; they've asked for that. If there are amendments, when are we going to see them?

The minister made no remarks in her introductory remarks, and I as a member of the opposition and I believe members of your own government would like to know what those amendments are, because it may well be that some of these amendments will relieve many of the concerns that we're going through. This is a very busy place, Madam Minister; you can't treat it as very trivial. If you have some amendments that are going to solve some of these issues we and other people around the province have been raising, the appropriate time would be to raise them now. But maybe you don't know them, maybe you haven't seen them, maybe you haven't seen the consultations.

I also ask, Madam Minister, will we as legislators get an opportunity to debate these proposals? I have a number of concerns regarding them. I've been expressing that. It would be useful to me when we're debating a bill that we see what the wording of the bill is. How can we possibly debate something if we don't know what it's going to say? If there are amendments coming out and they're already in your back pocket, produce them so that we can have a look at them because I, as I'm sure all of us in this House do, have a number of concerns regarding them.

Finally, I ask, "What guidelines are the municipalities and organizations to use in the meantime?" There's absolute confusion out there in this whole subject around this province since this bill was introduced in May. The municipalities don't know what to do. Are we following the old rules or are we following the new rules? I have municipalities call me and say they have been told by the ministry officials, "Oh well, it's going to be Bill 26, the regulations under Bill 26." It hasn't even passed, we haven't even had second reading on it, and for all we know, there are more amendments that are going to come forward which we have yet to debate.

The third question that I ask in my letter is, "Again, when can we expect this order in council to be introduced and what are the municipalities to do in the interim?" If we're going to have regulations -- and the bill says you're going to have regulations -- when are they going to come forward? We're going to pass the bill. Are we using the old rules or the new rules? The new rules haven't been created yet. When are these rules going to come forward? When are these regulations going to come forward? What are the municipalities to do? They're in confusion. The charities don't know what to do; they don't know how to prepare for it.

I'm going to read the final paragraph in my letter in its entirety, because I expect and demand the minister respond to that letter. "As you can see, all the municipalities, charitable and sports organizations in my riding are somewhat adrift as to what their current position is on this matter." I've provided you with that information, and if you've lost the letter I'll be pleased to get that to you. "Accordingly, I would appreciate your providing me with a detailed reply as soon as possible in order that I might respond appropriately to my constituents."

I don't know what to tell these people. I don't know what to tell them. These are very legitimate questions. The minister won't answer me. She won't answer my correspondence. She won't tell me. What am I to do? Well, here we are. I'm standing in this House. It's now on record. I'll be looking forward to hearing your response.

Then I wrote her again. I wrote her on September 30. It's simply a letter asking for a response, and I guess I've asked that now.

I would like to make a couple of other comments with respect to --

Interjection: Horse racing.

Mr Tilson: Sure, we'll talk about the horse racing industry. We'll talk about how this bill is going to affect the gaming. I believe that the gambling casino is going to come through this bill, through the back door. It will be related to charities. What a wonderful way to have an experiment. They'll say, "Oh, it's going to be looked after by the charities," under the strong arm of Big Brother, of course; namely, the NDP government. There's no question that this is the plan, because no other bill seems to be forthcoming.

When the minister talks about gaming services under this bill, we know she's going to be implementing gambling casinos through this bill. We know that because there's no other bill, there has been no other plan put forward. That's the plan. We pass the bill. That's the way this government operates. They'll pass this bill and then the regulations will put forward the Windsor experiment and a gambling casino in Windsor.

1700

There are reports all over North America on the gambling casino and the effects of gambling casinos. You don't need to spend a great deal of money on these; you can just phone them and ask them to fax them up to you or send you a photocopy of them. There are very detailed reports: effects on the horse racing industry -- and do remember it's been estimated that 50,000 jobs will be lost as a result of your initial proposal to put forth gambling casinos in this province -- the effects on the charities, which I've been spending some time on this afternoon, the effects on addiction. You people used to stand up in this House -- Hansard is full of your speeches in this House when you were concerned with lotteries being introduced in this province. You talked about how we don't deal with the problem of gambling addiction. You don't talk about that now.

You haven't talked about the effects. All you've got to do is to go to someplace like Atlantic City, which is another major industry. The ironic part is, of course, that this minister and her Treasurer -- I suspect it's more her Treasurer than the minister, because, to be fair to the minister, I suspect she's doing exactly as she's been told. She's been told, "We have to find new sources of revenue." This isn't her idea. Look at her record in the past. She doesn't even like gambling casinos. She hates them. She's voted against them in the past. So she's doing as our Treasurer says: "Well, the province is broke. We're going to have to have gambling casinos. We're not too sure how we're going to do it, but do it. Get your staff working on something and do it." So I think we're now, believe it or not, surprisedly talking about gambling casinos, because I believe, until I can see otherwise, this is how she's doing to do it.

She will admit to you that this is to regulate the charities, and guess who can run gambling casinos? One of the options is that the charities can, under the supervision of the government, and that is something we should watch.

There was a very detailed article on gambling casinos, specifically dealing with Atlantic City, that came out when the whole subject of gambling casinos was first discussed by the Minister. I refer specifically to an article in the Toronto Star in May 1992 headlined "Gambling Getaways." It gave the example of Atlantic City and talked about all the problems Atlantic City has.

I believe that this minister thinks she's going to attract all kinds of tourists to Windsor, that people are going to come to Windsor instead of Atlantic City or Nevada. Well, why would they? I mean, what's her plan? Is she going to have all the glitter and the entertainment and the tourist attractions that Atlantic City and Nevada have, or is she just going to have a hotel building, similar to the one in Manitoba, where you go into an old hotel and you climb up the stairs and you start gambling? We're not too sure of the rules. Is that what she's going to do? Are people going to get in buses and drive for miles to see this stuff, to play these things? Is that what they're going to do? There's been no concentrated plan put forward that we in this House can deal with and comment on. We have no idea.

The city of Toronto says: "Listen, if you're going to do that, if you're going to try and attract tourism to the province of Ontario" -- the Minister of Tourism may have some comments on that -- "why would you pick Windsor? Why wouldn't you pick an area of this province such as the city of Toronto, with all this great city of Toronto has?" We've seen what the World Series is doing to this great city, the tourist dollars and the world reputation this city is getting as a result of this World Series. It's absolutely wonderful. With all the wonderful things, the culture and the sporting activities, the retail facilities and the other matters this great city has, why would she pick Windsor?

Dare we suggest it's because there are three rather dangerous NDP seats that need some propping up down in the city of Windsor? Is that a possibility? I don't know, but it's very suspicious. It is ironic that at the same time the minister had her little press conference -- she didn't even announce it in here; she eventually came in here, but the announcement was first made in a press conference. At that same time, the House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, was making a similar statement in his city announcing gambling casinos. Can you imagine? What a neat trick.

Anyway, I'd like to comment briefly on this article that came from the Toronto Star, and it says it is something we should look at very seriously. The city of Windsor should look at it very seriously. They didn't know it was coming. They've passed resolutions, and they think they're going to get great revenues. The city of Windsor believes it's going to get great revenues to that city. The people are going to throng by the thousands to the city of Windsor and gamble and leave all kinds of money outside the gambling casinos.

Before you proceed with that experiment, listen to what happened in Atlantic City. I'm going to refer to this article, because it does comment on the difficulties the people of Atlantic City are experiencing. Atlantic City thought it was going to get great tourist dollars: "They're going to come in by the busload and stop at the gambling casinos. They're going to gamble and then they're going to go out and shop, go out and buy things."

What happens, of course, in the city of Atlantic City is that they come in by the busloads from other states and other cities and other countries and go directly to the gambling casinos and stay there. They gamble and then they get back on their buses and they leave, and they don't spend a dime outside in the city of Atlantic City, not a dime.

This article was written by Steve Johnson, and it's called "Gambling Getaways," another article I would recommend that members of your government read, because it's an example of what a gambling casino can do to a city.

"Life here imitates Monopoly, the board game fashioned from the streets of this city 59 years ago, when it was in its first heyday as the playground of the eastern seaboard.

"In Atlantic City's most recent incarnation as a gambling haven, dollars still change hands like play money, free parking abounds, and if you land in a boardwalk hotel, it will cost you big bucks, especially if you have the chutzpah to try and beat the odds at the gambling tables.

"But much of the town hasn't passed Go in years. Since casino gambling was legalized here 16 years ago, Atlantic City's central business district has deteriorated."

So Windsor, watch out. Watch out for what this woman could do to your city. Watch out, because she hasn't thought it out. She hasn't thought out what could happen to the city of Windsor when she puts forward a gambling casino in the city of Windsor.

"The pavement of Atlantic Avenue has well-worn grooves from the 500 buses that come to town daily, disgorging wage earners and retirees hoping to turn a quarter into hundreds in the slot machines that dominate the city's 12 casinos."

Isn't it wonderful how the NDP members used to stand up and they were against gambling because they felt that the poor, particularly with lotteries, the poor and the people receiving social assistance were going to be the ones wasting all their money on this gambling. It was the idea of pie in the sky. Isn't it strange that the people of that philosophy are now introducing gambling casinos to this province? Isn't it strange? I don't know how you people sleep at night.

Interjection: Lying down.

Mr Tilson: Well, you're lying down right now, and it's terrible. It's terrible what you're doing to this province.

"The tourists -- 30 million of them a year, more even than visit Disney World -- generally ignore the local businesses that remain, and the result is that 'you have a strip of casinos along the Boardwalk, and the rest of the town is pretty much a ghetto,' said Louis Toscano, a former United Press International reporter who is now senior policy adviser to Mayor James Whelan."

Mr Johnson goes on in his article:

"You also have about 50,000 new jobs in the region, an assessed value of property in the city that went from $316.6 million before casinos to $6.4 billion in 1990, and all the problems that come from combining so much money and so much poverty in a small city."

I don't think the minister's thought about that. I don't think the minister has thought about the economics of it, the social impact that it's going to have on the city of Windsor. I don't think she's realized that. I don't think the three NDP members from the Windsor area have thought that out and I hope they all rise and tell us what they think is going to happen.

1710

These are situations that have occurred in North America where gambling casinos have occurred, and the tremendous poverty that has arisen around the outside, the literal destruction of the horse racing industry that has occurred, the job losses, the closing down of the tracks. You put up a gambling casino on one side and right across the way the horse racing industry, which isn't just the people who work at the tracks -- it's the farms, the suppliers of feed, the suppliers of the tack, all the people who serve these people, restaurants -- all these people are going to be out of work. It's estimated 50,000 people in Ontario are going to be out of work because of this minister's plan to destroy this province.

The article goes on:

"The publicity campaign that persuaded New Jersey residents to legalize gambling in Atlantic City, after they had voted down a proposal applying to the whole state two years earlier, made it sound as if casinos were the answer to every municipal problem from crime to taxes."

Doesn't that sound like the city of Windsor? Someone's hoodwinked those people. They've hoodwinked them. I don't think the city of Windsor, with all due respect to it -- I've never met any of the councillors, I've never met the mayor, and I'm sure they're all reputable councillors, very excellent politicians, but the province has gone in and it has told them things.

Mr Elston: Not a Tory among them.

Mr Tilson: There aren't too many Liberals down there either, I might add.

The article goes on:

"The publicity campaign that persuaded New Jersey residents to legalize gambling in Atlantic City, after they had voted down a proposal applying to the whole state two years earlier, made it sound as if casinos were the answer to every municipal problem from crime to taxes.

"Indeed, Atlantic City residents still talk as though they were promised Utopia, a place where unemployment and even property taxes would disappear.

"'We all thought we would be rich overnight,'" this article proceeds. "'It didn't happen,' said Pierre Hollingsworth, president of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 'But that's what was sold to the people,'" and that's what this minister is trying to sell specifically to the people of Windsor and surrounding area, that it's going to be Utopia, you're not going to have any problems, there isn't going to be any crime, there are not going to be any job losses. Really.

Proceeding on with the article:

"'Instead,' said Hollingsworth, 'it's a tale of two cities. You look and you see the casino industry. Then you see the rest of the town.'

"Although most everyone agrees that gambling has been great for Atlantic county, its failure to make this city of 38,000 a suitable companion for its gaudy waterfront temples is a complicated stew of greed, corruption, incompetence and bad legislation."

That's what's going to happen here and that's what could happen in Bill 26 because this government can bring forward gambling casinos in Bill 26. That's what they can do. So watch it, because that's what's going to happen. That's what she's up to. It's a possibility that this gambling casino phenomenon that this government has created is going to come in this "little, trivial bill" -- and I put that in quotation marks -- that has been snuck in this afternoon and, "Oh, well, it's an insignificant bill." This is a gambling casino bill. This is it, folks. So watch it and watch them.

The article goes on:

"There is also the fact that, as Toscano put it, 'gambling is not going to be the magic wand. People hear casinos and they just assume it's the gold at the end of the rainbow. It's not. It's like any other industry that comes to town.'

"The first wave of post-gambling fervour saw the speculators moving in with a vengeance," and that's what's going to happen in Windsor. "Landlords were so eager to rid themselves of pesky tenants that they would cut water and sewer lines, forcing the potential deal-breakers to move.

"Everyone wanted to build a casino," and that's what's going to happen down there. Everyone wants it. Individuals are going to want it, but they don't realize the impact it's going to have on our social system and on this great province. "One proposal came from a company whose principal business was the marketing of" -- this is referring to the Atlantic City article. Good heavens, do you know what this says? "Beefalo semen." That's what the article says. "Another came from a Rhode Island tombstone company."

All these strange Looney Tunes things that come in are associated with casino gambling. I don't think the minister realizes it. I don't think she realizes it for one minute. The Treasurer said: "We're desperate. We've got to get some money." A gambling casino is his salvation to save the province of Ontario.

The article continues:

"Often, though, properties that sold would remain idle waiting for a casino magnate to come knocking. Many stayed that way for more than a decade, leaving nearly 1,000 buildings still abandoned in July 1990.

"Since then, Whelan's administration" -- he is the mayor of Atlantic City -- "has embarked on an aggressive demolition program, bringing down nearly 400 abandoned buildings."

Isn't that unbelievable? Windsor, watch out. Watch out for these people.

"The original casino laws provided very little for Atlantic City proper." "Original casino laws": We don't even have any casino laws. We don't have anything. We're just going to go ahead with an experiment. We don't know what we're going to do. We don't know what our laws are going to be. At least these people had casino laws. We don't have them.

Again, I'm referring to the article:

"'The casinos were allowed to put so many restaurants and shops in there that there was no need to go outside the building,' said Cora Boggs, a community activist.

"Or, as Hollingsworth said: 'They gamble and they eat. They get back in the bus and they go home.'"

It's an absolute dream, the minister and her friends think. It's not all the NDP. Some of the members over there have spoken against casino gambling, so it's not all of them. Some of them stuck to their principles. Some of them stuck to their promises that they made to this province.

But the minister seems to have a horde of people around her who simply don't honour her promises. Those people think, and those people in the government believe, that what's going to happen is that busloads of people are going to come in from Detroit, that they're all going to come in and gamble and they're all going to give the city of Windsor all kinds of money. I'd like to see the impact studies that justify that. I'd like to see the proof they have. Why do you do something on a gamble? Why guess? Don't you have a plan? Don't you have a plan as to how to run this province? Is it all just guesswork?

The article continues:

"It wasn't until 1984" -- isn't that an ominous word: 1984; we've passed it and guess who we've got? -- "after a group of community activists, including Boggs, pressured the Legislature to change some tax laws relating to casino profits, that the complexes were effectively forced to reinvest in the city.

"The result has been about 2,800 new units of moderate-income housing either built or about to be."

God help us. Are we going to have more non-profit housing? Is the whole thing going to be such a big mess that non-profit housing, that great hole of endless funds, is going to be thrown down into more work -- more housing positions in Windsor because of gambling casinos? Are you creating another social problem in housing down in the city of Windsor?

What happened in Atlantic City was:

"The result has been about 2,800 new units of moderate-income housing either built or about to be. In one new complex, three-bedroom town homes that cost the developers more than $200,000 to erect, largely because the city has a turn-of-the-century infrastructure, were selling for $70,000."

It's kind of sad, what's happened to Atlantic City. I hope it doesn't happen to Windsor. There's still time for this government to come to its senses. There's still time for the minister to put forward her own personal views, that she's opposed to gambling casinos, that her backbone tells her to stand up to this Treasurer, this desperate Treasurer, this desperate government and say: "Your answer, your salvation is not in gambling casinos; that's not the place. Don't do it. Find some money somewhere else, but don't do it. Don't destroy the city of Windsor. Don't destroy other cities in this province as has occurred in Atlantic City."

1720

Finally, the article continues:

"Under the new administration, casino money is going towards widening some major downtown streets and cleaning up the entryway of the city, part of a plan to create a commercial corridor between the boardwalk and a new convention centre that the state recently approved. Conventioners may come, but gambling will probably remain king. One need only watch the fervour with which people feed the slot machines to realize this."

Doesn't that sound like your own personal philosophy? You're opposed to greed and that's the answer for solving the economic woes of this province.

Mr Johnson concludes his article by quoting Pierre Hollingsworth, the president of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People: "'If you don't believe it,' Hollingsworth said, 'let somebody yell fire in a casino and you watch. People will have to drag them away.'"

It's a sad story that has developed in Atlantic City and I hope, after this experiment the minister is proceeding with, that we're not going to have similar stories in the city of Windsor. It is depressing. I suggest you lobby your minister, that you lobby your other members to tell her to reverse this position, and watch this bill because this is how she is probably going to do it.

The legislation on Bill 26 also refers to several interesting provisos, a number of which will appear in the regulations. For instance, the regulations will require that all registered bingo operators and their employees must have photo identification and fingerprints on file with the minister. What kind of state is this becoming? These people are trying to run an economy. You're going to photograph them and take their fingerprints. They haven't committed a crime, but that's what you're going to do. Has Big Brother arrived?

In part, this is because there is a strong recognition of the attractiveness of this cash-based industry to the criminal element. It's the belief of this government that the criminal element has taken it over. Service clubs, religious organizations, sports activities -- they take great offence to that. Try to be a little more sensitive in your legislation. Try to appreciate that the criminal elements have not taken over this industry. Try to be a little bit more sensitive.

In order to further dissuade any criminal intentions, the ministry has established stringent authority for the examination of the books of the registered suppliers to ensure that the charitable organizations are receiving their full share of the proceeds. In addition, all suppliers wishing to be registered must pass an examination of past history and financial worthiness performed by the ministry.

The government also intends, through regulation, to define what forms of charity may make use of charitable gaming. For example, semi-professional junior A hockey will not be able to use charitable gaming as a fund-raising tool. In addition, minors may not sell Nevada tickets.

We have to spend a great deal more time on this bill and I believe we need to hear from charities, the service clubs, the religious institutions, the people who run these industries, the gambling casino people -- for and against. We need to hear more of that and I believe this bill should go to public hearings in order that the people of Ontario can express their concerns on this bill.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation. Questions and/or comments?

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): I'm glad that the honourable member from the Progressive Conservative caucus did in fact mention the Gaming Services Act during the last two minutes and 33 seconds of his presentation, because he of course spent by far the majority of time talking about his dislike of casinos in the city of Windsor. I would suggest that when we get to the casino legislation perhaps he might want to go down to Windsor and talk to the good people of Windsor, who overwhelmingly support the proposal.

There's another statement that he made at the end. He said this won't help Junior A hockey. In fact, it will help Junior A hockey in this province. If the Ontario Hockey Association applies for the licence as required in the bill, in the regulations, then of course all the hockey clubs will be entitled to raise money through charitable events for their particular cause.

I want to tell you that it's no secret that bingo alone -- notwithstanding Nevada lottery licences, a number of non-profit casinos that happen now across the province -- is a billion-dollar industry in Ontario. This government has heard, as did the past government, from a number of municipalities that have recognized for some time that some real inequities exist in the system and that without question there are some individuals out there who have become very rich off the bingo industry alone, not to mention a number of the other charitable fund-raising events that take place.

The purpose of this bill, which was introduced by the previous government -- and now we have the bill reintroduced with some modifications -- is simply to put some fairness back into the system for the charities, so that those dollars will in fact go where they're most needed and it won't just be a get-rich-quick scheme for some people in the province.

The Acting Speaker: Time has elapsed. Further questions and/or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I recall hearing a number of interesting interventions by people about this bill and the future potential of gaming in the province of Ontario. I must say that I was pleased to hear exposed for all the people of Ontario the ramifications of this bill for the province, particularly of casino gambling.

I know from talking to my good friends in the New Democratic Party, some who used to sit in this House and some who have never sat in this House, who have informed me that the person who was most strongly opposed in the NDP caucus to casino gambling on every occasion was none other than the member for York South, the Premier of Ontario. So I found it extremely surprising that the government would now be bringing this forward.

Like so many other people, while I found myself at times in conflict with the views of the members of the New Democratic Party when I was sitting on the government side or even when I was sitting on the opposition side eight years previously, with the NDP to my left, I always felt that in principle it was opposed to certain things. They were strong on those things and, whether they were right or wrong on them, one could count on the NDP to stand firm on them.

When I see this bill brought forward and the potential for casino gambling in Ontario, gambling which would have, in my view, a detrimental effect, I thank the government for not putting it in St Catharines. I don't want it in St Catharines and I don't care who in St Catharines does. I'm quite pleased to see that if you're going to put it somewhere, you didn't put it in my city, because I don't want it.

Now, there may be other people in the community who do, and I respect their point of view. But I believe it's detrimental; I believe it has an effect. It's a glamorous type of gambling which is going to attract people who otherwise might not spend as much money on gambling. It's going to have a bad effect on the community in which we reside and it's going to take money away from various charities and service organizations that could use that money much more than the government of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Simcoe East.

Mr McLean: I wanted to comment briefly on the comments of the member for Dufferin-Peel today, some of the aspects the member mentioned.

The raceways: If we look at the Orangeville, Barrie and Windsor raceways, what effect is this bill going to have on those facilities? Are they going to put the raceways out of business when there are some 50,000 to 60,000 people employed there?

Many small community groups in my riding raise money through the Nevada tickets. We have the bingo halls that raise money for the groups in the communities. Casino gambling is going to have an effect on those very groups the small communities rely on, such as the Coldwater legion, where they raise money for the community centre, raise money for the seniors. Many small communities are going to be affected by this.

1730

There was an opposition leader here one time who said something not very nice about gambling. He said it was the worst thing anybody would ever do, to institute gambling. I believe it's the Premier of today who said that, and I can't believe they would be bringing in legislation to do the very thing he condemned so sincerely in this House.

The other aspect of this is the police and the crime that can be involved from this legislation. The members from Windsor talk about how great it could be. I predict that there could probably be two casinos open in Detroit before they even get around to opening the one in Windsor. The revenue is not going to stay in that community; the revenue the Treasurer is looking for is going to come from the people who visit that city and leave without spending money to keep the downtown core alive.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and or comments?

Hon Ms Churley: I just wanted to say that we're not here today to talk about -- I understand people want to talk about casinos. There'll be lots of opportunities to talk about casinos, but we're here today to talk about the Gaming Services Act, which is a really important act to the charitable sector. I want to answer a few of your questions. Obviously I'll have to sum up later.

In terms of the municipalities, this is a good deal for them. They're happy about this. They in fact get to do a small increase of work, but their revenues increase as well, about 9% or 10%. Their revenues actually increase. The province will continue to provide the policy framework and the licensing forms and all that kind of stuff.

In terms of consultation, ministry staff have consulted with representatives of over 3,000 charities and over 800 municipalities, including 300 hall owners. It's been really extensive. The comments received from those parties have been almost universally positive.

To sum up on this, I want to say very clearly that we recognize the valuable contribution of the private sector in making the charitable licensing as profitable as it's become. We also recognize that there are problems. As always in these things, there are some who act illegally and are skimming profits. That's a very, very serious problem for the billion-dollar non-profit sector that relies on these proceeds, so it's really important that we address that as quickly as possible.

The association and various other sectors have been involved in this and in fact are quite positive and feel it's very important to move ahead. It's been out there for some time, and after a lot of consultation we really are ready to go with this.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes in response.

Mr Tilson: I'm disappointed in the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations for a whole slew of things. I take the time to read you a letter with very simple questions, and you forget my letter and just babble on about something that has nothing to do with it. When am I going to get my mail answered? It's a very legitimate question.

With respect to the city of Windsor, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party spent this past weekend in the city of Windsor and those questions were asked. I'll tell you, they'd never heard of this subject. The matter has been debated at council because of a developer who has paid the province all kinds of money for some sort of study he's doing -- I don't know where that is -- but the people of Windsor didn't even know it was coming. Out of the blue the minister makes this announcement. Even the mayor didn't know about it. He had no idea.

So there's been no consultation with the municipal officials in this province, specifically the city of Windsor, for a new gambling casino that's going to be developed in Windsor. The city of Windsor is going to have to pay for and operate increased police services. The province isn't going to do that. The city of Windsor is going to have to do that. So all the crime that's going to be coming -- your own Attorney General has told you in a very detailed report which was presented to this House fairly recently, "Don't do it." He said that virtually every study undertaken in the United States, Britain, Australia and elsewhere points out that gambling casinos, whether legal or illegal, encourage criminal activity. He told you that if a jurisdiction is not willing to accept this involvement, then it shouldn't get into legalized gambling.

Mr McLean: Who said that?

Mr Tilson: The Attorney General of Ontario. I don't imagine those ministers even talk to each other in matters like this. She's just plowing ahead with her blinders on. I suspect the blinders have moved over and she can't see a thing.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): It's a pleasure to rise in support of Bill 26. I'll be speaking about the Gaming Services Act, not casino gambling, as some people have been going on about, because this is not casino gambling; it's the Gaming Services Act. Everyone knows that gambling in Canada is illegal.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder, before we get an explanation of this act from the member, if he believes that a No vote in the referendum on the 26th will affect the status of this bill when it comes back to this House for reconsideration.

The Acting Speaker: That, I believe, is a question for question period or questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Guelph now has the floor on Bill 26.

Mr Fletcher: I will not even respond to that question.

As everyone knows, gambling in Canada is illegal, and it has been. The Criminal Code itself recognizes this. The code also recognizes that three forms of legalized gambling are allowable: lotteries offered by provincial governments, horse racing and charitable gaming.

Let me just explain what's been going on in Guelph as far as bingos are concerned. More and more charitable organizations have been trying to get into the bingo halls so they can raise some money for their organizations, but they've been having trouble because all the spaces have been taken up. When they do finally get a spot to go in, they put all the work into it -- I've worked in bingo halls, and they're not the nicest places to work -- they finally get their spot and find that the amount of money they take in has gone down from previous years. That's because it's an unregulated commercial sector, and even though there is more money coming in, the percentage going to these organizations has decreased. This is because of unscrupulous commercial operators who, without any regulations and without any monitoring, have been skimming money off the top.

Let me give you an example. The entertainment standards branch staff were working closely with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force on a joint investigation. They uncovered thefts and fraud in one bingo hall that will likely exceed $1 million. Several people who were involved in this crime have been charged and the religious order has been cheated out of thousands of dollars. "Representatives from the law enforcement community have repeatedly" -- I'm reading this from a communique -- "expressed strong concern that as long as commercial sector activity is unregulated, charitable gaming is particularly vulnerable to the influence of organized crime. In a business that deals strictly in cash, the opportunities to launder money are limitless."

As far as the licensing authority is concerned, right now municipalities license over 90% of all charitable events and the province licenses the others. The authority is delegated from the federal government to the provincial government, and the provincial government has passed on some of this to the municipalities. As the minister has already said, municipalities are going to be gaining on this.

Regarding a lot of what the member for Dufferin-Peel has said, there were a lot of members in our caucus who had similar concerns. We brought them up at caucus and the minister answered those questions, made assurances and also changed a lot of what was going to happen as far as an original proposal was concerned because of concerns like the member opposite has brought up, and, yes, she has also met with that member on a personal basis.

Many of our caucus members who are sitting here had the same concerns. I'm glad the minister's still sitting here. The minister went into what I call the bear pit. When you're in our caucus meetings, you have to be ready, because there are people who are coming at you left, right and centre, not because they don't agree but because --

Mr Tilson: More from the left.

Mr Fletcher: More from the left. You're absolutely right. The member for Dufferin-Peel has it exactly right.

1740

There were a lot of people who were upset, and that goes on with a lot of the things we're doing. We have to get these things out, so we have some great discussions and some great debates in our caucus meetings.

Mr Elston: Name projects. For example, what are people upset about?

Mr Fletcher: You should have been there for auto insurance. I'm telling you, that was a good debate.

But the minister handled the one on gaming very well and listened to the concerns of the people in caucus and of members opposite who had concerns. Now, if you put a return address on your letter, you'll get an answer. That's understandable.

She did come in and say: "I understand your concerns as far as what is happening with charities -- and we're here to protect the charities; that has to be there -- and to make sure that these regulations still remain within the Criminal Code, that we're not going outside the bounds. But the municipalities are not being overburdened but are going to collect some money, some revenue from this."

The municipalities have been saying for years, "Give us some control over this, because it's going out of control." Perhaps the moratorium the previous government placed on bingo halls is going to be lifted. There's a possibility of it being lifted and more bingo halls being constructed, which is going to, in my opinion, create some employment in this area.

Mr Elston: Oh, a building boom in bingo halls. That will resurrect the economy.

Mr Fletcher: Well, it's a little part, and it takes a little bit of this, a little bit of that, as the member from Grey-Bruce or wherever he's from says.

Mr Elston: Just Bruce.

Mr Fletcher: Just Bruce? Oh, yes, I was thinking of Mr Murdoch.

The member for Bruce is saying, "It takes little bits to resurrect an economy, especially at this point in time."

Mr Elston: This is more of an economic plan than the Premier has given us. Put this man in cabinet.

Mr Fletcher: Let's not get carried away over there.

Mr Elston: Let's build bingo halls and get this province going.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Guelph has the floor. Other members will have an opportunity.

Mr Fletcher: I'm going to leave some time for my colleagues who also wish to speak on this, and some of the people who are going to be speaking on this had concerns. As I said, the minister addressed these concerns, such as those of my friend behind me.

When I talk about charities, right now there are approximately 50,000 charities that benefit from bingos, casino nights, from the rip-off tickets. This provides a framework in which fund-raising can be profitable, and it's going to increase the fund-raising for charities. It also creates a consistent and stable marketplace for suppliers that charities must deal with, and it promotes charitable self-sufficiency, resulting in less demand on government. If these charities are working the bingos, working with the lottery tickets, working with other organizations to raise money, then the government isn't always going to be there, looking at groups saying, "We need money to carry on our important work." And yes, they are important organizations.

If it lessens the demand on government and charities become more self-sufficient, why is it bad? Why is it wrong? I have to take with a grain of salt what is coming at me from across the floor. I recognize your job is to be opposition, but to oppose just for the simple fact of opposing, I have some problems with.

You go on and talk about casino gambling, when this has nothing to do with casino gambling but has something to do with helping out charities and shifting the load to municipalities. And you say it's downloading. No, the municipalities were asking for some more control. It's not a download. Why not accept the fact that the government has done something that is not only good, but is something that municipalities and charities have been asking for?

We get this all the time. The opposition will say: "You didn't go out and you didn't consult. When you did consult, you didn't listen." Well, yes, we did consult. We consulted with many groups, many municipality groups, and they were saying to us: "Yes, we need more control over this. It's getting out of hand. Bingo halls are opening up all over the place. We don't have any regulations on the bingo halls, and we need this."

I'm not going to continue speaking for long; I hope to leave a lot of time for other people from my own caucus who do wish to speak on this. But let me just reiterate the point that when you start bringing in the other aspects such as casino gambling and what this government is doing, you're missing the target. The target, as far as what this bill is going to do, is that it's going to help municipalities and it's going to help charitable organizations. The money the charitable organizations raise is going to definitely go to the people who need it most. That's why I'm so happy to be able to rise and support Bill 26.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation. Questions and/or comments?

Mr Elston: I rose a little earlier, inviting the honourable member to talk to us a little bit about what effect the No vote might have on this piece of legislation, inasmuch as the introductory comments of the minister, as you well recall, dwelt for a considerable amount of time on the efforts she has undertaken with her ministry to deal with the question of operating bingos on reserves with natives. I thought it was a particularly good chance for the member, who knows a fair bit about the referendum items, to speak during his remarks about the effect it might have on the minister and the ministry's efforts to deal with bingos on reserves, but he chose, I guess, to ask me to raise it in this two-minute time period.

I ask him the question again seriously, because some of the provisions here may have to be reworked to deal with the discussions and negotiations that are ongoing. It's an issue that's extremely important for a good part of the province, because there have been very serious disagreements in communities about the establishment of gaming services on reserves. In fact, during the time when we were in government, we spent some considerable time dealing with the issue of whether or not there was a violation of the Gaming Act by a reserve that set up bingos at times when we thought it wasn't authorized to do so.

I only put that in the context of the overall difficulties which are addressed in here, because I think it's going to be important for all of us to eliminate as many as possible of those irritants to all the people who ultimately are going to be able to operate these facilities. All those things have to be taken into consideration, but perhaps it will go out the window if someone leads a No campaign in their communities, and I'm extremely concerned about that as an issue.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Tilson: To the member for Guelph, there's no question that when you look at the bill, it does not deal, on the face of it, with gambling casinos. The purpose of the bill is to regulate gaming that is operated by charities, religious organizations and sporting activities. When you get your act together with respect to gambling casinos -- if you haven't already and just don't want to tell us, or maybe you're still thinking about it -- you will see that one of your options is to have a charity operate gambling casinos. That can be done through this bill, and you know that and you should come clean with this House and admit that.

Yes, I believe you have problems under this bill of operation, with the exception of the slot machines. Every other aspect of the gambling casino can be operated under this bill. Both the minister and the member for Guelph have now stood up and said there's just no way that gambling casinos are going to come through this bill, and I just remind members that when you look at what the bill is doing, that is, to regulate charitable organizations, there are charitable organizations that run gambling casinos. When you realize that fact, that's what I fear your minister is going to do.

Maybe she hasn't told you. Maybe the Treasurer hasn't told her. I don't know who's calling the shots over there, but I'm just concerned when you stand in this House -- I'm addressing my comments to the member for Guelph, Mr Speaker -- and make those comments that there's no way that gambling casinos can come through this bill, because I say to you that they can through the regulations you're putting forward, that you propose to implement through Bill 26.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Bradley: The problem I know the member would have heard from his community has been the issue of bingos as they affect Junior B hockey teams and Junior C hockey teams and lacrosse teams and softball, baseball, soccer, any kind of sports. One of the concerns that was expressed last year to members of the Legislature was that the government would be moving in a direction which would mean that there would be a termination of the opportunity for those people to run bingos.

I know I've been been contacted by the St Catharines Butler Junior B Falcons executive. They have expressed their grave concern that the government is moving in this direction.

1750

I directed a question to the minister and made some statements in the House. The minister attempted to clarify that previously and indicated a bill would be coming in that would deal with this subject. One can say that we always want to ensure that bingos are operated in a fair fashion, that those who run the bingo halls are operating them in such a way that the organizations that are involved in the bingos are getting a reasonable benefit from it and not simply the lion's share of the money going to the operators of the bingo hall.

However, I want to implore the government to recall that the various sports organizations in the community that it considers to be profit are actually virtually non-profit organizations. They provide an opportunity for young people in the communities to be able to enjoy these activities, to participate in these activities. The old saying was that it kept the kids off the street. I guess there is some considerable validity in that. It allowed them to be involved in a constructive activity within their community. It allowed spectators to enjoy the sport. It allowed people to become involved in volunteer organizations.

I hope this bill will not result in these people losing their opportunity to operate bingos as they've had the opportunity to do in the past.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant in questions and/or comments. Seeing none, the honourable member for Guelph has two minutes in response.

Mr Fletcher: I welcome the comments. As far as the Constitution is concerned or the accord, whatever happens for self-government with natives is going to have to be negotiated over a period of time anyway. You can't just jump in and, bang, have native government. Everyone knows there are different circumstances and I think the Premier has answered that quite well. The same thing will happen as far as charitable organizations, bingos and things are concerned; it's going to be an ongoing negotiation.

As for as the member for Dufferin-Peel saying that this is going to open the door for casinos, it's there right now. Charitable organizations can already apply for casino night. We've been seeing them all over the place. That's with the regulations now, so this isn't going to open up anything. It's nothing new under the regulations as far as that's concerned.

As far as Junior B and Junior A hockey teams, they have an option. They were approached by the minister and her staff with a plausible solution to the situation that they've been operating illegally for years and it's time to get back under the fold. They didn't exactly like it, but I know with the Junior B team in Guelph, the director came and spoke to me and said: "Thanks for the help. We think the solution that we're getting close to is a good solution." Even though my son got cut from the team, I think he was being honest when he was speaking to me.

As for as what has been coming across from the other side, I think that as I said before, we have to take a lot of what opposition is saying as just that: It's their job to be opposition. Even though they do like parts of these regulations, even though they wish they could stand up and vote in favour of them, we know that party lines are holding them back.

The Acting Speaker: I want to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate on Bill 26, the honourable member for Mississauga West.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Point of order.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the honourable member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, I thought we were on a rotation and the last member to participate in the debate was Mr Tilson. I thought that our party was --

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, that is not the case. It's not a point of order. The honourable member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: The member for Guelph obviously really drove his points home with the members of his own caucus; I congratulate him on that.

I have only about eight minutes left so I'll have to conclude my remarks the next time we get an opportunity to get back to this bill. But very briefly, the issue of eligibility of groups to be licensed for bingo is really what my colleague the member for St Catharines and others are talking about. The one thing, I say to the minister, that concerns me and others here is there may be a need to look at the different communities and the impact on those communities.

Indeed, in some of the smaller communities around the province, the only game in town may be Junior B hockey, and they may indeed need the bingo revenue to be able to survive due to the travel costs in northern Ontario -- and all over the province, frankly -- whereas you may get into another situation where there are all kinds of activities and in another part of town, perhaps in a more urban populated area, the Junior B clubs are not even using bingo as a revenue generator because they make money at the gate and they share funds from all the teams in the league in their particular loop.

I would ask you to consider when you're getting to eligibility -- which I know you have not said is part of this particular bill, but it is addressed and it is a fear that's there -- that the potential to change the eligibility for groups should not necessarily be based on whether or not they are simply for profit or non-profit. That may be one criterion, but another criterion could be to look at the individual circumstances: the town, the league in which they play, the costs. There may be extended travel costs. We shouldn't be putting in place a situation where a club like a Junior B club from St Catharines or a Junior B club from Sault Ste Marie or whatever -- and I stand to be corrected on this, but I don't know of any Junior A clubs that are involved in charitable gaming, but certainly Junior B clubs are.

I would say that while the purpose of my remarks would be primarily directed towards the charity organizations in minor sports and other groups of that nature, we should not just simply do what all too often is done around this place, and that is, pass legislation that's designed for one part of the province and doesn't take into account the vagaries of another part of the province or another situation.

Mr Bradley: Like Toronto?

Mr Mahoney: Well, it could be Toronto. It could be that there may be areas where the revenue is high, as I say, in the larger urban communities. I know that if you go to a Streetsville Derby Junior B hockey game in Mississauga, the place quite often is packed. It's exciting. They play in teams in a loop where they generate a lot of interest and a tremendous fan following. That may not be the case in another area. So I would simply ask you to look at that.

Minister, I would also tell you that, as you know, I wrote you a letter expressing concerns from some constituency groups of mine dated July 8, and I'm pleased that on September 2 you did reply to me. I guess maybe I was nicer in the tone of my letter; I don't know. But I'm just concerned and I want to place on the record the fact that the main concerns of the charity groups that came to see me and my critic, Mr Cordiano, about this had to do with the level of the prize money.

In Mississauga, we have bingo organizations grossing $5.5 million a year. People are astounded. They don't realize how much money's involved in this. So they're generating $5.5 million a year. The concern was that your terms and conditions would raise the level of prizes from 50% of the revenue brought in up to 60%. It's only 10%, but if you look at it, the 10% of the gross revenue of $5.5 million means that the charities in that community would lose over $500,000 in revenue annually, and for what reason?

The discussion paper and the comments you make in your letter surround communities that are not making money in bingo, that are indeed losing money. You refer to that. You want to ensure that the charities make money. Once again, don't attempt to pass legislation to solve a problem for a particular part of Ontario at the expense of another part of the province that's doing just fine, thank you very much, as far as the profit they're making is concerned.

All you're doing by raising that level from 50% to 60% is putting 10% more money into the prizes and taking it right out of the charities. It will not come out of the commercial operators, which indeed are the people you are attempting to regulate with this legislation, and not the charities. You have responded and said this is referred to in the terms and conditions, but not in Bill 26 itself.

There is a fear and a concern, regardless of who's in government. I say to you that bingo is definitely a non-partisan issue. Probably one of the biggest issues annually at city council in my community and many communities is, who's going to get the licence to operate bingo to be able to fund their particular ongoing charitable organization? It is a huge issue, and what we do not want to get into is the province regulating or determining the eligibility and the criteria for the bingo operators.

That's something, in your letter back to me, Minister, you responded to by saying, "Sports organizations are considered charitable only when they are non-profit, non-professional, youth-oriented leagues and associations."

The question is, are you going to change that? Are you going to start using the money perhaps more for health-oriented issues? Are you going to start using it for cultural organizations, at the expense of the minor sports? I'm not taking it away that the heart fund and the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society, everybody needs money, but there are some issues that clearly, historically are the responsibility of the government to provide the money.

Even though you are attempting to say that casino gambling is being brought in just to solve your debt problem, the reality is casino gambling will hopefully help the community. Remember that it's taking away from the bingo operators. There's only so much money available. Just be very cautious about the eligibility.

I see the Speaker motioning. It being 6 of the clock, I guess it would be up to me to adjourn the debate and carry on with remarks at a later time.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It now being 6 of the clock, this House will stand adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, October 22, at 10 in the morning.

The House adjourned at 1802.