Journal des débats 1998-mai-25 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I have a message from the Administrator of the government.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): The Administrator of the government transmits estimates of certain sums required for the service of the province for the year ending 31 March 1999, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I want to continue to pursue the urgent issue of mental health services in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario, or more accurately the increasingly critical lack of mental health services.

Individuals in Thunder Bay who suffer from mental illness are not able to get the care they need when it is needed. They have to wait for a hospital bed, for outpatient services and for any kind of community support. There are not enough psychiatrists to treat acutely ill patients and not enough community services to keep these individuals functioning outside the hospital setting. The situation is getting worse because of the uncertainty about mental health planning.

The Minister of Health has said there will be no further closure of psychiatric beds in this province until community supports are in place, but the date for closing the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital less than a year from now has not been changed.

There can be no planning for community support services, because the mental health agency that was supposed to be making these plans has never been established. The health restructuring commission, which recommended that the agency be set up, still seems to think it's a good idea, but nothing has been done about it. No plans are being made to provide outpatient services for the 1,300 outpatients that the psychiatric hospital treats every year. No one knows what will happen to the rehabilitation programs that have made an independent life a possibility for many former patients of the hospital.

This is what happens when health care planning and restructuring is all based on theoretical abstraction and the application of arbitrary formulae: The people who need the care simply aren't part of the equation. The reality and the immediacy of their needs just doesn't fit neatly into the planning framework.

Tonight, a group of concerned individuals were to meet to discuss what should be done. I hope the government will listen.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): For the first time in its 107-year history, the editorial staff at the St Catharines Standard have been forced on to the streets in a strike action. It should come as no surprise, in view of the fact that their new corporate owners are led and owned and controlled by none other than Conrad Black, who has no regard for workers' rights, for their welfare and quite frankly for editorial integrity.

These 31 editorial employees have been forced into a strike position. They have engaged in lengthy negotiations with no response from Tubby Black and his gang operating the Standard in St Catharines.

I tell you this: I urge all of those residents of Niagara region, in particular St Catharines, to make it clear to Conrad Black and his bunch that they're not going to tolerate this type of treatment of working people, those trained, skilled, competent staff at the St Catharines Standard. We in Niagara region will not be purchasing the St Catharines Standard.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Oh, if you want to take a look at the obits, go down to the corner store, open the paper, read the obits and put it back where you got it from.

The Independent, a weekly newspaper being published by these same workers, is going to be distributed for free come this weekend, May 30 and 31, and weekly thereafter. I urge people to rely on that for their news, sports and editorial comments.

MISSING CHILDREN

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Today, May 25, is National Missing Children's Day. I would like to share with the House some important information about Child Find Ontario and its Green Ribbon of Hope campaign. The idea of wearing a green ribbon as a symbol of hope for missing children began at Holy Cross Secondary School in St Catharines after the tragic disappearance and murder of Kristen French. The campaign continues today so that we can be reminded of the plight of missing children in Ontario and Canada.

RCMP statistics show that each year more than 50,000 children are listed as missing. This is an alarming statistic. Happily, however, with the support of the community, law enforcement officers, customs and immigration officials, more than 90% of these children are successfully recovered. But still about 5,000 children remain missing in this country each year. As a legislator and a parent of five children, this is indeed a serious issue that must be addressed. The Green Ribbon of Hope causes us to reflect today on the missing, runaway and kidnapped children.

One of my local constituents, Gord Levis, is chairperson of Durham Child Find, based in Ajax. This chapter has been in operation since 1994 and during that time has done valuable work assisting in finding children who have been lost. Durham Child Find is hosting an event this weekend on Saturday, May 30, with a fingerprinting program to be held at the Bowmanville police station from 10 am to 2 pm. I would encourage parents and all people to support Child Find in Ontario.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): The member for Durham East is wearing a ribbon. You haven't received unanimous consent to do so.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I request unanimous consent for the wearing of the Green Ribbon of Hope in honour of National Missing Children's Day.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? Agreed.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): My statement is directed at the Premier and the Minister of Health. After three flip-flops, now you both claim unqualified support for hepatitis C victims, at least to the press. You make media statements demanding immediate action to ease the burden of sufferers. What a grandstand performance. You have done nothing to help them. You have not even contacted the hepatitis C society. They know how you can help victims by removing provincial roadblocks and bureaucratic red tape. You're not interested. You prefer instead to stage-manage a kinder, gentler public image. You're not fooling anyone, Premier; not the hepatitis C society, not the public and certainly not the victims.

My young constituent Trisha Beadle is newly married, but her future is being threatened by hepatitis C. She needs the drug interferon, but OHIP won't pay for it. Cut the hypocrisy, Premier. Put your money where your mouth is. You have a chance to make life easier for Trisha and many other victims immediately. Do it today. Make OHIP responsible for interferon and other drugs for victims. Justice demands it; justice demands it now.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to point out to the House that the new Ministry of Education so-called funding formula, which is really a cutting formula, which will mean a 7.8% cut to the Algoma District School Board over three years, doesn't take into account additional costs that these boards are incurring. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board is planning to increase administrative charges to schedule 2 employers, of which this board is one, after the amalgamation. The increase is from 14.5% to 19.5%. This represents an increase of about 34%, which will add directly to the cost of employee benefits at a time the ministry is reducing funding to school boards.

Also, Algoma District School Board - district school board 2 - is the largest geographic board in Ontario. It covers approximately 72,000 square kilometres or approximately two thirds the area of southern Ontario. This has not been recognized in the cutting formula, and as a result there are additional costs required for trustees to travel to Sault Ste Marie, a central location, for meetings. The limit of $5,000 per trustee for travelling expenses doesn't cover it. Right now the board is having to pay approximately $1,400 for trustees from Wawa, Elliot Lake and Bruce Mines to attend meetings each month. This is going to run out very quickly. Why is the government -

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Thank you. Before we continue, could I ask the House to come to order, please. Take your meetings outside. Further statements, the member for Halton Centre.

1340

LIQUOR CONTROL

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): There is a newly popular kind of alcoholic beverage appealing to young people who don't normally consume hard liquor. It masks the bitter taste of alcohol and packs a nasty wallop. They are called coolers and they come in a range of flavours - most of them sweet, fruity and carbonated; basically soda pop - some containing 6.9% alcohol, almost double that of light beer. Having consumed two or three of these quickly, our youth are left staggering drunk.

Coolers are insidiously marketed with names that evoke sexual undertones and images of wild times - the Original Stiff, Mike's Hard Lemonade, Spiked Cherry, UFO and Kaos - and at $2 each they're inexpensive and can fit in a purse or pocket easily.

Another risk is Frozen Dream, a drink disguised as a milk shake that contains 12.5% alcohol, the same as wine. One tall glass could render a young person a dangerous driver or a young girl vulnerable to date rape.

The LCBO manages an excellent program called SMAART - strategies for managing age and alcohol-related trouble. It's designed to prevent those who are under age from purchasing alcohol and it works quite well most of the time.

But there are still some adults who insist on purchasing booze for minors, potentially putting lives in danger. To these people, on behalf of parents, I ask: Stop facilitating under-age drinking. To the manufacturers of coolers, I ask that you think twice about the young demographic group your products are reaching and that you practise responsible marketing.

With summer break around the corner, parents must be on the lookout for bush parties, along with drinking and driving, alcohol-related accidents, alcohol poisoning and date rape. Awareness is the key to preventing these perils.

MISSING CHILDREN

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Today, May 25, is the seventh annual Green Ribbon of Hope campaign, this day being the National Missing Children's Day across this country. This coincides with Child Find Ontario's Green Ribbon of Hope campaign that highlights the plight of missing, runaway, lost, kidnapped and abducted children in Ontario and Canada.

I think it's very important that members of this Legislature make sure that the public is aware of this day and also what Child Find Ontario accomplishes through their various 25 chapters across this province involving 1,100 volunteers across Ontario.

Every day they work with everyone involved in the search for a missing child - parents, law enforcement agencies, lawyers and government agencies - quickly producing and distributing posters with photographs of missing children and getting those distributed right across the province; alerting the public through TV and other media of missing children; and providing emotional support to the parents. They operate a 24-hour toll-free national telephone line to collect tips and reports on missing children.

They undertake preventive measures by providing education on child safety to parents and children and by sponsoring programs like the Kidcheck fingerprinting program and All About Me, the baby ID footprinting program for infants. All these Child Find programs are free of charge and are supported by donations and volunteers.

AMBULANCE SERVICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): On Wednesday, May 13, Sudbury regional council passed a resolution calling on the Minister of Health to review ambulance response times to ensure that these are equitable and the most efficient they can be throughout the region.

This follows on the heels of a near tragedy that occurred in my home town of Capreol three weeks ago. At 10 in the morning, 20-month-old Travis Trim had a seizure and was pulled out of his crib by his parents, gasping for air and turning blue. His father sought help from the neighbour, Julie Dinsmore, who is a registered nurse. A call for help was also made to 911. Ministry of Health records then show that an ambulance was dispatched from the main Sudbury station versus the substation in Hanmer, which is much closer to our community of Capreol. The ambulance in the substation was on its way to Sudbury as a result of an earlier call. There was no other vehicle in the substation as a backup.

Our first response team was called but they were delayed 15 minutes by a train. An ambulance supervisor was dispatched from the airport to act as a first responder, but he arrived only one minute before our first response team. It took 18 minutes for the ambulance to arrive from Sudbury. In that time Travis Trim had another seizure. Had it not been for Julie Dinsmore carrying out CPR, this child would have died.

The Minister of Health must review what happened here. Important questions need to be answered, including why the air ambulance was not dispatched and why it's not ministry policy to replace an ambulance in a substation when the regular vehicle is off on call. This could have been a tragedy. It has to be avoided in the future.

JUNIOR HOCKEY

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): Hockey is Canada's game and junior hockey is a proud tradition in Ontario and in my riding of Guelph. It's my pleasure to rise today to recognize the Guelph Storm Junior A hockey team as the 1998 Ontario Hockey League champions.

Junior hockey is often described as the purest form of the sport because these young men play with such enthusiasm and intensity. Many representatives here in this House have OHL teams in their communities, such as the Kitchener Rangers or the North Bay Centennials.

Guelph Storm played well all year, never falling below second place and finishing first in the central division three out of the last four years. Coached by George Burnett and Rick Allain, this team of talented players proudly represented Ontario at the Memorial Cup at the Canadian Hockey League championships recently held in Spokane, Washington. They battled their way to the final game, where the Portland Winter Hawks defeated them in overtime, winning the Memorial Cup.

The people of my city have been thrilled by the performance of the Guelph Storm all year. This team brings excitement and pride to our city. It's an honour for me to congratulate general manager Alan Millar, the coaches, the management, the billets, the sponsors, and most of all the players - Guelph Storm, the 1998 Ontario Hockey League champions.

VISITORS

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): I would like to inform members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today councillors from Prince Edward county led by His Worship Mayor James Taylor. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 25, An Act to reduce red tape by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two new Acts / Projet de loi 25, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant ou abrogeant certaines lois et en édictant deux nouvelles lois.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Minister, would you like to make a brief statement?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): To be very brief, this is merely a reintroduction of several matters that appeared before us and were tabled during the last session. I will take the opportunity, though, to congratulate Frank Sheehan and his Red Tape Commission in terms of the good work they've done to reduce red tape in this province that will go on to create jobs and bolster the economy in this province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Response.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for St Catharines, you would know that there are no responses to this.

1350

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 95(d), Mr Patten, Mr Conway and Ms Castrilli exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business such that Mr Patten assumes ballot item 33, Mr Conway assumes ballot item 64 and Ms Castrilli assumes ballot item 45.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on May 25, 26 and 27, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): No.

The Deputy Speaker: I hear a "no."

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The motion is carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, Queen's University students are here today to tell you how concerned they are about skyrocketing tuition fees and unmanageable student debt loads. They say that you've broken a promise you made to keep tuition costs at 25% of the total cost of a student's education. We know that you've removed all limits on how high tuition can go in graduate programs and many professional programs, but even in undergraduate programs where you sanction the fee increases, tuition is going up by 60% under your watch. That means that students will be paying 35% of the costs of education, and in some places students will be paying 50% of the costs of their education, a far cry from the 25% that you said was a fair share.

Minister, the World Bank, in 1994, recommended that students in publicly funded universities should not be charged fees exceeding 30% of the costs of their education. You used to say that a fair share was 25%. What do you now say is a fair share for students to pay?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): This government is looking at a number of issues pertaining to post-secondary, and one of the issues is accessibility. We feel that students coming out of the secondary institutions in the province of Ontario should all have the opportunity for post-secondary education if they have the ability and if they have the interest. I have been assured by the council of universities that indeed that will be the case, that every one of our students who is interested and has the ability at a post-secondary institution will be given the right to have that education.

Second, then we will look at the funding. What sort of assistance is required by our students at post-secondary institutions?

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Ottawa West, come to order.

Hon David Johnson: That may be in the form of a grant or a loan -

The Deputy Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon David Johnson: The province of Ontario has contributed over $500 million a year, plus various other loans that I'll address in the supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: So you aren't prepared to answer the question about what you think a fair share for students is.

Prior to the election campaign you were prepared to talk about a fair share, at least your government and your now Premier were, but now you won't even answer the question because the fact is that your idea of a fair share is whatever the universities think they can get away with charging. You're trying to avoid any responsibility at all for making sure that students pay only a fair share, because fairness for students just isn't part of your agenda.

I suggest to you, Minister, that student debt isn't something that you worry very much about either. You have allowed the student debt load to grow each year. Graduates are now less and less able to make payments because of the size of the debts they're graduating with. I have a freedom of information request, Minister, that tells me that the default rate on Ontario student loans is up to 23.5% this year from 18.6% last year. This isn't because of an unwillingness to pay; it's because graduates can't manage the debt they have now.

Surely, Minister, you realize that increases in tuition and the increasing debt that you have already allowed are crippling our graduates. I ask you how you can be comfortable with the fact that young graduates cannot get out from under the debt load they are facing, and in conscience I ask you, how can you let this get worse?

Hon David Johnson: During the term of government of the Liberal Party from 1985 to 1990, tuition fees in fact did increase by some 35% in the province of Ontario. For that there was no additional assistance to the students. That was something they had to bear themselves.

We have said that no tuition will be increased unless, first of all, there is 30% set aside to assist all students who need assistance at the post-secondary level. That will involve tens of millions of dollars over the next year. We have said that no student will be denied access to our post-secondary institutions. If the universities and the colleges decide to put the tuition fees up - and that's a decision they'll have to make - no student will be denied an opportunity of post-secondary education in the province of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: Please deal with the facts that students are facing: You made a decision that students could have a debt load of $7,000 a year. That was a decision your government made that increased the debt load. You are now saying with deregulation that this debt load can go up by even greater amounts as long as the university or college is prepared to loan the students the difference, so their debt load can go up by whatever amount the universities and colleges feel is bearable. The problem is clearly going to get worse.

Minister, there is only one other province, Nova Scotia, where they have deregulated tuition fees. That province is the only province that has higher tuition fees than Ontario, and very quickly now under deregulation Ontario will have the dubious distinction of having the highest tuition fees in the country. Nova Scotia has also tried your proposed approach to the debt problem: They brought in an income-contingent repayment plan. But guess what? The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is no longer part of the plan. They found that tuition increases and high debt loads made students very bad risks -

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mrs McLeod: - so they withdrew from participating. The banks have given you the same message here: They won't be part of your plan because student debt load is too high.

My question to you today is to say that the only responsible way to deal with student debt is to start with a tuition freeze so that you can give answers to the questions about what is a fair share -

The Deputy Speaker: Minister?

Hon David Johnson: The decisions we made with regard to post-secondary education are, number one, for quality. If any institution determines that it needs to put the tuition fees up, then it must come hand in hand with an increase in quality, in the level of education in that particular institution, quality enhancements in the programs for students.

Secondly, the decisions we made are for increased opportunities in terms of more spots in the universities and colleges for students who want to go through various programs but are being denied today. We've said students no longer should be denied; they should have that opportunity.

Finally, it's in terms of assistance to our post-secondary students so that they will be assured accessibility to a high-quality education: $600 million over three years that the province of Ontario is putting in; a $600-million opportunity trust fund to assist those students who need help; and 30% set aside, if post-secondary institutions put the tuition fees up, to ensure that each and every student gets the education they deserve in the province of Ontario.

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is for the Premier. Today, Maclean's magazine exposed yet another of your health care messes. In January, you passed a regulation that changed how privately funded laboratories in this province are paid. What you did was put a cap on individual labs where there used to be one for the industry, and what you did in the same breath was take money away that had been earned in the last two years from small labs and give it to their competitors. This is not only a suspect use of government power, Premier, but it turns out to be anti-competitive and harmful to the health of Ontarians.

Mr Harris, the affected labs, including this one, Alfa Laboratories, which you commended for expanding their business in 1996 and sent this nifty little certificate to, are now facing going out of business because of this bizarre regulation you've passed. Why would you pass a regulation that would take $5 million in fees earned already over the last two years from a number of laboratories and give it to other labs that are their competitors? Why would you do that?

1400

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Health can answer.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Referring to the cap and the regulation, since an application for a judicial review of this regulation has been filed, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this time.

Mr Kennedy: Ontarians deserve some answers, and I think the minister who is responsible for making sure that patients get services has to answer some of the questions here today. Not only are you putting labs out of business, you're hurting patients. You know that right now there are problems in many communities. For example, we have letters from Dr Cross and Dr Wilson that say 7,000 patients in Waterdown will be without lab services. This is going to be a significant hardship for seniors in that community.

The question is, why, when the competition bureau of Industry Canada told you specifically that your proposal, your cap, would constitute a violation of the conspiracy provisions of the Competition Act, would you override protection for patients?

Maclean's magazine indicates that the principals of one of the companies that is benefiting has made $41,100 in donations to your party since 1995, 10 times the amount to any other party. Will you at least answer today, why are you giving Ontarians discount health care, and for whose benefit are you working, anyway?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's important to understand that the Ministry of Health has always negotiated and discussed any issues related to lab issues with the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories. This has been going on since 1970. All previous governments, in any discussions that dealt with issues related to labs, have always dealt with the umbrella group, the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories.

It's also important to know that other governments have always known there are systemic problems associated with Ontario's public and private sector labs as well. In fact, it was the NDP government that first issued some very formal recommendations on changes that should be made to the laboratory system in Ontario, and they actually did bring in some industry caps on lab billings because they realized they could not go unchecked.

However, talking about access to lab services, I want to stress that if there are any situations where there is a change in accessibility, the Ministry of Health is working to ensure that existing services will be provided.

Mr Kennedy: The minister doesn't tell us that she and her ministry were advised, beginning in July 1997, that consumers would be affected by this. She's had letters from doctors telling her exactly the same thing I've raised in the House today. Maybe what those doctors didn't know was that the labs of Ontario, part of the OAML, voted against this proposal 14 to 10 but you imposed it anyway.

You'll put these small labs out of business. Dr Fiorini of Toronto, who has 28 years with one of the firms, Gamma Dynacare, says that as a physician he is simply not equipped with sufficient expertise to obtain timely and relevant tests for his patients, which is an absolute necessity in family practice. He says patient care will suffer. It's like going back in time prior to 1970.

Dr Fiorini and 130 other doctors like him have been dumped by the labs which stand to benefit from this arrangement and they've been picked up by the very labs which you now want to close down. This goes into effect next month. You've put other parts of the health system into chaos - hospitals and home care. Next month there will be patients who won't have access to tests.

It's your regulation. What are you going to do about it?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's important that we remember that the ministry is working with the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories. They are the group with which the Ministry of Health has always worked when it comes to any issue related to labs. It's the group with which the Liberal government worked when you were in power for five years and the group with which the NDP worked. We are going to continue to work with them in order that we can prepare for the implementation of the provision of the corporate tax regulation, and we are also going to ensure that we protect the access to lab services in this province.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier, and the question is this: You have been very successful in cutting $800 million out of hospital budgets; you have been very successful in cutting a lot of money out of school budgets, out of colleges and universities. Can you explain how, while you're cutting hospitals and schools, colleges and universities, you found the room to increase your own cabinet office budget by 50% this year?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, with regard to the preamble, our goal of course is to improve the quality of health care and improve the quality of the education system by taking any waste in bureaucracy - non-classroom spending, for example - and get it into the classroom, any waste in bureaucracy and get it directed to patients in health care.

With regard to the two offices for which estimates are out today, first of all, the Premier's office, I think you'll find a decrease when you compare apples to apples, down a little over 2.3% year over year. In the cabinet office, when you compare apples to apples, it's down as well. However, included in the cabinet office now is the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board and the process for consultation that we undertook with my parliamentary assistant for referendums. But certainly when you compare apples to apples, you'll find our spending down quite significantly.

Mr Hampton: If this weren't so sad, it would be laughable. The Premier describes 10,000 nurses going out of hospitals and nursing homes as getting rid of waste and inefficiency. He describes schools being closed and colleges and universities being underfunded as getting rid of waste and inefficiency. But in his own office, in his cabinet office, when he increases the budget by $4 million this year over last year, he calls it a wonderful thing.

It's very clear from the estimates that it's your good friend, your buddy David Lindsay, your political adviser, who is heading up the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board. It is your good friend, your buddy, who is getting the money. Hospitals are losing, schools are losing, colleges and universities are losing, but your good friend David Lindsay gets a plum job and a $4-million budget. Can you explain how that is?

Hon Mr Harris: I would be surprised that you would not be 100% supportive of the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board. We have used it to replace the NDP Premier's councils, which in 1991 alone spent $7.6 million, double the budget in the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board. I am sure you would want to look at the job creation record when in almost five years in office your administration and all your Premier's councils spending led to net 10,000 fewer jobs in the province. That's your legacy and that's your record.

I would think you would want to say to David Lindsay and to this government: "Thank you very much for record job creation. Keep that Ontario Jobs and Investment Board going."

Mr Hampton: Premier, it's the people of Ontario who want to know something. They want to know where the money for their hospitals is going. They want to know where the money for their children's schools is going. They want to know why their children will be paying $3,000, $4,000 and $5,000 tuition increases. Meanwhile, you've got $4 million to spend on David Lindsay and this political propaganda that he's putting out. You've got no problem finding money for political propaganda but you can't find money for hospitals, for education, for colleges and universities.

Answer to the people of Ontario why your government can find money for this disgusting political propaganda but you can't find money for health care, education and for people who need help.

1410

Hon Mr Harris: It is exactly because we cut your former spending in this area on the Premier's councils in half that we've been able, in the last budget, to make announcements like $546 million more in the health budget, which I think will lead to some 7,400 new nursing jobs in Ontario. It's because of the efficiencies and savings and a whole host of the budgets that we took over from your government that we're able to put so much more money into post-secondary training, so much more money into children and schools, $200 million more in education this year, $150 million more into Canadian safety, $175 million more into roads.

It is because we have precisely, through the leadership of people like David Lindsay, who, yes, is a friend; that's fine. Robin Sears is a friend of mine, good gosh. But I want to tell you this: It is through finding savings -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please. Premier, take your seat.

Hon Mr Harris: - by the former Premier that we're able to put money into these other areas.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is also for the Premier, and let me paraphrase his answer. You're cutting hospitals, you're cutting health care in order to fund your phoney tax scheme and provide money for your corporate friends. That is the essence of my next question.

We find out over the weekend that not only do your friends advise you on how to set up casinos, but after they advise you, they then go over to the other side and they actually head up the operation of the company that wins the casino bid.

For example, you had after the last election someone named Andrzej Kepinski advise you on how to set up casinos across the province. Surprisingly, he is one of the people who's behind the company that has now won the right to operate the Niagara casino. Then Michael French is someone who advised you on how to set up casinos but, not surprisingly, now he is behind the Niagara casino. We could go on.

I want to ask you: Doesn't it strike you as odd, Premier, that your same political friends who advised you on how to set up casinos are now on the other side of the table, running these casinos, and are going to benefit to the tune of millions of dollars from the operation of those casinos? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Chair of Management Board can answer that. I've never heard of these people.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The process, as the member is well aware, went through David Nash, the president of the Ontario Casino Corp. It's an arm's-length process from the government. It had an internal review and I'm told there's nothing inappropriate about that and that it can stand up to scrutiny.

There have been allegations and there have been rumours and there has been innuendo, but I don't think that's new to governments or to industry. But the facts are that there was an independent process. David Nash went through the proper process.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): I can't hear the answer. Minister, are you finished? Okay, supplementary.

Mr Hampton: The minister introduced David Nash into this. The public needs to know who David Nash is. David Nash was a fund-raiser for Dianne Cunningham, who sits in the Conservative cabinet. He was a fund-raiser for someone who sat in the Mulroney cabinet: Tom Hockin. In fact, he was Tom Hockin's chief of staff.

We have a Conservative political hack deciding that casino operations are going to go to other Conservative political hacks, because it's very clear that Michael French was involved in telling your government how to set up casinos. Now he's involved on the other side in getting the casino franchise

Hon Mr Harris: Never heard of him.

Mr Hampton: Andrzej Kepinski was involved in advising your government on how to set up casinos; now he's on the other side and he's going to benefit from the operation of this.

Hon Mr Harris: Never heard of him.

Mr Hampton: Premier, since you seem to want to comment now, can you explain to us, how is the public interest going to be served when Conservative hacks are advising you how to set up casinos, Conservative hacks are going to benefit from operating those casinos -

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: - and Conservative hacks are going to make the decisions that other Conservative hacks get to operate the casinos? How is the public interest going to be protected in any way in that kind of process?

Hon Mr Hodgson: It's always interesting when you just want to sling mud and have personal character assassination.

I can tell you this: David Nash went through the proper procedure. He went through the select committee of this Legislature and the Liberals voted for him, feeling confident that he would deliver in a fair and consistent manner. So I don't know where you get off personally attacking people like that. He went through the proper process. The Liberals even voted for him in that process.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The minister is imputing false and unavowed motives to another member, namely, those members of the government agencies committee, and I would ask him to withdraw those statements.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Second supplementary.

Mr Hampton: I want to be clear. I have not damaged Mr Nash's reputation in any way. He is clearly a Conservative political hack. That's what he is. He self-identifies that way.

My point is this: You've got Conservative advisers telling you how to set up casinos. You've got Conservative advisers selecting who gets the casino, and then if you look at who gets the casino, it's the same Conservative advisers who advised the government in the first place.

I want to ask you about something else. I want to ask you about the Latner family. Now, the Latner family owns companies like Greenwin and Dynacare and they donated $48,000 to the Conservative Party in the last election campaign. They also are part of the Falls Management casino bid. They own about 20% of Falls Management casino. George Boddington, who is a lobbyist for Falls Management casino, is also a lobbyist for Greenwin and Dynacare, the company that gave you $48,000 in the last election.

David McFadden, who advised Falls Management, is another Conservative insider.

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: With all these Conservative insiders helping other Conservative insiders to the trough, don't you think it's time you opened the books and let the people of Ontario see exactly what's happening here?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The leader of the third party makes a lot of allegations. There have been no contracts made between the bidders and Brian Wood, the president of the Ontario Casino Corp. The Falls Management company was selected because in the opinion of the selection committee it had the highest-quality bid. That's been stated by the president, Brian Wood. If he wants to make these kinds of spurious allegations, I invite him to do so outside the Legislature.

1420

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I'm speaking to you on behalf of the thousands of people out there in the local communities who are faced with a hospital being shut down by your hospital destruction commission, but you won't take responsibility for it. Today it was individuals from the community of Northumberland county who came here to find out if this government could be made to listen that their commission had got it fundamentally wrong, or in the words of Dr John Aldis, who lives in Northumberland and helped to invent medicare in Ontario, the preposterous decision they made in terms of the assessment they made in Northumberland county. They even got the number of beds in the hospital wrong.

What the people of Port Hope, of Cobourg, of Northumberland county want to hear from you is, will you be listening to them when it's proven that their needs are different from what the commission concludes? Will you listen to them and make sure they get quality health care?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Certainly we are aware of the fact that health and hospital services and all health services are very, very important to people in Ontario. Of course the Health Services Restructuring Commission made its interim report, and the community that was here today has had an opportunity to make a response. They've been able to provide information that is now being considered by the commission. At the end of the day, I'm very confident that the commission will make a response. The people will have had an opportunity to provide the input, and we will have, as a result of the recommendations, excellent health services being provided.

Mr Kennedy: I think the people of Port Hope have one benefit going for them. It's not that the member for Northumberland is making anything happen for them and it's not that you're listening; instead, it's that they are further along in the process. They've seen what the people of Thunder Bay have done by standing up, they've seen that in Kitchener-Waterloo some different formulas were applied, and they perhaps understand that you're responsible for this process; in the final analysis, you have the power to change these decisions. It's your job to look after health care, not some phoney-baloney commission that only answers appeals to itself.

Minister, will you assure the residents of Northumberland county that you will stop the cuts that are taking place to their hospital corporation and give them the time to work out a local solution as to what the best health facilities are to serve their area? You know it's the $10 million you've taken away and the $5 million more you want to cut that are causing this chaos. Will you at least guarantee the citizens of Northumberland that your political agenda to close hospitals way in advance of the election won't get in the way of their health care? Will you restore some of the cuts and allow them to make a decision that's good for the people of Northumberland?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's important to remember that what we are endeavouring to do is to deal with the neglect of years and years and a health system that wasn't responding to the needs of people in Ontario.

So the Health Services Restructuring Commission is going to communities, it is taking a look at what the needs of communities are, it is making interim recommendations, it is listening to people, after people have an opportunity to review the interim recommendations, and then it's issuing final recommendations.

What we are seeing is needs being addressed. We're seeing, for example, a new long-term-care system being set up in the province. We're seeing community care enhanced. Recently, we made a $1.2-billion announcement. We're also seeing new investments into priority services - cardiac care, cancer care, dialysis, hip and knee - and we're seeing new investments into primary care. As a result of the initiatives our government is undertaking, we are developing a better health system that is going to be responsive to the needs of all people, not only today, but it's going to provide the health services that take us into the 21st century.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a question to the Chair of Management Board. For years, your experts and experts of previous governments and experts in the Niagara region understood that the development of tourism was crucial to the economic future of the Niagara region, and one of the critical elements was a major convention centre. Falls Management, laden with your and your Premier's friends, was the successful bidder. Falls Management's proposal does not contain any substantial convention facility. That's in contrast to Fallsview, a bidder who proposed a convention facility nine times the size of that contained in the Falls Management proposal.

Your abandonment of a convention centre has betrayed the people of Niagara Falls and Niagara region and has sold out the prospect of tourism in favour of the profits going to the private sector and to government coffers from casino gambling. How could you let that happen?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The original Gateway RFP was changed from just a tourism proposal request to include the permanent casino site. The reason why? Because under the NDP plan there was very little interest generated before the casino site was added to the proposal. The new RFP called for the same tourism initiative as the original, first-class, year-round attractions that will make Niagara region a tourism destination of first choice for the 21st century. That's exactly the same. That was not changed.

We have not abandoned the tourism initiative; in fact we want to enhance it and expand upon it. Just two weeks ago I met with the mayor and the business improvement area of Niagara Falls. This government is very committed to seeing that tourism is enhanced and expanded upon, and that's what we're doing.

Mr Kormos: The problem is that the mayor of Niagara Falls doesn't agree with you. The mayor of Niagara Falls has expressed great concern about how your acceptance of the Falls Management proposal is going to create a mere black hole in Niagara Falls, where everything shifts to the casino, where there is no element of economic development. Now, you know, or you ought to know, that Hyatt, one of the major players in Falls Management, just happens to operate substantial convention facilities across the river in Niagara Falls, New York. It should come as no surprise that they wouldn't be interested in developing a competitive convention facility in Niagara region in Ontario.

This deal stinks; it reeks, it stinks to high heaven. When and how are you going to clean it up?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The member of the third party should know, or ought to know, that there has been no contract signed. We're in the middle of negotiations. The tourism component is a component that was weighted, along with five or six other things, by an independent selection committee. He'll have to wait to see at the conclusion of the negotiations if in fact there is an agreement. At that time, I think he will be pleased, along with the mayor of Niagara Falls and others who are in this spirit of uncertainty while the negotiations take place, that tourism will be enhanced and will be built upon and that this government cares deeply about that and making sure that we continue on.

But unlike the NDP, who just stated that in goodwill terms, where no private sector proponents came forward with any credibility to make it happen, this government will try to ensure that not only do we have a process that talks a good line but also over time will deliver a quality tourism package to the people of Ontario, and Niagara Falls in particular.

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Minister, as you are aware, the Institute for Management Development recently released its world competitiveness report. This report ranked Canada 10th out of all the countries that were ranked, and in the category of government Canada is ranked seventh. I also noticed in the report that our government's ranking improved dramatically, from 23rd to 10th, in the year after this current provincial government was elected.

Minister, as the largest province in Canada, can you outline what initiatives the government of Ontario has undertaken to improve our international competitiveness?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I certainly would like to thank my colleague for the question. Canada's improved competitiveness obviously is a major contributor, but Ontario has been the driving force as to why we have been doing the job that we have internationally. I think this government has taken the initiative. When you take a look at the approach we've taken to streamline government, overall reduction of taxes, I believe these have contributed to a very positive economy.

The economists predicted that Canada would have one of the best business environments going into the next millennium. I believe that is definitely going to happen. Ontario has been playing a leading role towards Canada's overall performance. We have put money back into consumers' pockets, and I think that has also contributed to an upsurge in the economy. Our initiatives are making Ontario once again the driver of our economy. We are helping Canada become even more competitive. Just as Ontario has helped boost Canada's position in areas such as government efficiency, I believe we have a major role to play in improving our trade performance, and that is why we're going to continue to find new markets and certainly encourage Ontario businesses to export the great products we manufacture in Ontario.

Mr Ouellette: Canada's ranking in the competitiveness report has been attributed to the strength of our domestic economy. As a nation, we ranked ahead of such economic engines as Japan, Germany and Hong Kong. Canada's domestic economy has been driven by Ontario's economic growth and job creation. For example, in my riding of Oshawa, unemployment has declined from 1997 to March 1998 by 0.2%. This means an estimated over 3,000 people from Oshawa have found jobs so far this year. Minister, what is the province going to do to promote job creation and economic growth in Ontario so that my constituents and all Ontarians have increased employment opportunities?

1430

Hon Mr Palladini: As I said in this House before, I'm willing to get on a bus, a train, a plane, even in a car to promote Ontario investments. Private sector job creation and economic growth have been a priority of this government. The province's economy has expanded by 4.3% in 1997. The average private sector forecast for growth is only 4%. Most predict that Canada is going to lead the G-7 countries in industrial growth.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You are better at kissing voters than answering questions.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Kingston and The Islands.

Hon Mr Palladini: Ontario's employment has continued to grow. Employment has increased by 32,000 in the month of April, which brings us to approximately 400,000 net new private sector jobs since June 1995. The other accomplishment of this government that I'm very proud of is that 32,000 new young people have gotten a job since February last year. That is why we're going to continue to create the positive environment that we have been creating.

TEMPÊTE DE VERGLAS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and minister responsible for francophone affairs. Le 29 janvier dernier, lors de votre passage dans la région est-ontarienne, vous avez fait la distribution de chèques, desquels nous avons entendu parler à plusieurs reprises, de 1000 $ et de 2000 $ aux agriculteurs. Vous les avez également assurés qu'il ne s'agissait que d'un début des compensations pour leurs pertes et dépenses encourues durant la tempête de verglas.

Les agriculteurs attendent toujours les compensations promises. La ferme Cayer de St-Albert a dû procéder à des réparations de ses édifices à un coût de plus de 80 000 $. Il doit apporter des changements à son troupeau. La ferme Kaisin de St Isidore a connu des pertes de plus de 75 000 $. M^me Campbell de Lefaivre a dû déménager. Les agriculteurs de Cumberland n'ont reçu des avances que de 1000 $ plutôt que 2000 $ tel que promis par votre ministère.

Ma question est celle-ci. Serait-il possible aujourd'hui d'informer les membres de cette Assemblée, et rassurer les agriculteurs de l'est ontarien, quand pourront-ils finalement recevoir le financement complémentaire pour enfin mettre de côté cette fameuse crise écologique?

L'hon. Noble A. Villeneuve (ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : Oui, je suis fier de dire à mes collègues, et à mon collègue principalement de Prescott et Russell, que nous avions le 29 janvier dernier 1000 $ et 2 000 $ comme un paiement de début à ceux qui ont eu des dommages dans la tempête de verglas. Maintenant, nous avons demandé à nos cultivateurs qu'ils fassent affaire avec leur compagnie d'assurances initialement pour obtenir les factures et pour établir exactement leurs pertes.

Je suis fier de dire à mon collègue que nous sommes maintenant à rembourser nos cultivateurs qui en ont fait la demande et qui ont fourni des factures et qui ont réellement fait tout ce qu'ils pouvaient pour essayer de tout obtenir de leur compagnie d'assurances, et maintenant le gouvernement ontarien est en train de combler leurs besoins.

M. Lalonde : Les agriculteurs attendent toujours. Ils doivent procéder à remplir un cinquième formulaire. Toujours suite à cette visite du 29 janvier dernier, un employé de votre ministère faisait une déclaration à RDI rassurant les gens de la région que personne ne sortirait perdant de cette tempête de verglas, et que toutes pertes et dépenses encourues lors de cette crise seraient remboursés à 100 %. Pouvez-vous aujourd'hui-même assurer des agriculteurs qu'ils seront bel et bien remboursés à 100 % pour leurs pertes et dépenses ? Sinon, pouvez-vous nous expliquer sur quel fondement politique la promesse est basée ?

L'hon. M. Villeneuve : Comme vous le savez et comme j'ai mentionné au début, nous avions des chèques en place le 29 janvier, avant même faire aucune entente avec le gouvernement fédéral, et puis nous avons négocié longuement et durement avec le gouvernement fédéral pour assurer que nos cultivateurs seraient bel et bien récompensés. Je peux vous rassurer que pour les dommages qui ont été subis du côté de la distribution d'électricité, nous avons immédiatement agi. Nous avons négocié longuement. Les pertes de revenus ne sont pas couvertes par le gouvernement fédéral, et il y a certainement un degré de distinction entre ceux qui étaient cultivateurs à plein-temps et ceux qui étaient cultivateurs à temps partiel chez le gouvernement fédéral.

Votre gouvernement provincial ne fait aucune distinction entre nos producteurs agricoles soit à temps partiel ou à plein-temps. Je veux rassurer mon collègue que nous faisons tout ce que nous pouvons. Nous demandons toujours que nos cultivateurs fassent affaire avec leur compagnie d'assurances premièrement, mais le gouvernement provincial est bel et bien là pour les aider.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. I want to go back to the issue of health care restructuring in Northumberland county. I listened very carefully to what you said. You seemed to be giving a bit of a subliminal message: Be happy; everything will be all right in the long run.

But the problem here is that this case demonstrates one of the major problems with this Health Services Restructuring Commission you've got. They clearly had all the wrong information. They said it would cost $23 million to refurbish Port Hope to meet the needs of Northumberland county and only $10 million for Cobourg, yet when the figures are done appropriately, it's about $19.5 million for each. The same hospital board runs both hospitals, and it's quite clear that the hospital board is hoping to have the same success that Thunder Bay had of getting itself a brand new hospital.

Minister, what input did your ministry have to the hospital restructuring commission initially and what response has your ministry made to the preliminary report of the Health Services Restructuring Commission in Northumberland county?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I remind the member that the commission is at arm's length from the government. I know there is information provided through the district health council. As I indicated to you, the interim directions were issued, and there has been an opportunity now for the community to respond and provide the information that can now be reviewed by the commission so they can issue their final directions. I feel very confident that when the final directions are issued and they have had an opportunity to carefully review all the information, again we're going to be able to see that the response is one that addresses the needs of that particular community, that is going to enable us to provide patients with the best services as close to home as they can possibly be provided.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, you have a situation where the whole community has agreed that there only needs to be one hospital. You don't even have a disagreement in this community about that.

But what you have is the Health Services Restructuring Commission suggesting that the sole hospital in the area should be a hospital that was built around a pre-World War I building that is inaccessible, that has ceilings too low to have air conditioning put in, even into the operating rooms, that has less than three acres of land and no room for expansion and that has to depend on a helicopter pad in a neighbouring school; as opposed to a building that was built by money raised by the people of Northumberland country in 1964, built so it could accommodate a second storey when expansion happened because they knew they had a growing population, that has a site with lots of room for expansion of ancillary or additional direct services, that has a helicopter pad onsite, that has trauma accreditation, that is close to the highway, as opposed to in the centre of the city, where traffic jams occur all the time.

Minister, I can't believe your ministry didn't respond to this preliminary report. You know they have elsewhere. We know your ministry, for example, suggested that forensic patients now at St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital should go to the General Hospital in St Thomas. We know your ministry responds. What did your ministry say to the preliminary report in Northumberland county?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member knows full well that when interim directions are issued I, as Minister of Health, am not in a position to make any comment. However, I do believe that if all the information has been provided to the commission, that will be very carefully considered. It's being very carefully considered right now, and I await the final report.

Again I would indicate to you, I am confident that when the final report is issued we're going to see once again an opportunity for services to be provided to individuals as close as possible to their own homes, within their own communities. It's going to be services that are going to enable us to provide the best health services and take us into the 21st century.

1440

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): My question today is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, as you know, spring is the time when home renovators are in the field doing their work. I have had calls from my constituents inquiring how scams can be avoided. In fact, we hear of people who have to pay for their full job up front or, once having paid for the job, are not guaranteed that the work will be done correctly and with the quality of work done which they paid for. Could you please tell me how the ministry helps people avoid situations provided by such scams?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I would like to thank the member for Bruce for the question. It is topical right now because this is the time of year when most people are thinking about doing renovations and it's very important for them to address this possible problem.

I might begin by saying that most renovators do provide excellent service at reasonable prices, but it's important that consumers do some background checking of their own in order to protect their own interests. A lot of this is common sense. Many people should check references, ask their neighbours or friends etc, and hire someone after they've checked them out. They need to compare prices. If they ask for guarantees, it's very important to get them in writing, as are all the terms and conditions of any contract. We all know that an oral contract is only worth what the paper it's written on is worth, which is nothing, so it's very important for us to check these things out.

Secondly, our ministry does provide valuable information and material with respect to choosing a renovator and on contracts. This covers a number of issues, not only the renovation industry but also driveway paving and any other door-to-door sales. I will just finish this part by saying that they can get further information from my ministry by calling 1-800-268-1142.

Laughter.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Madam Speaker, they might think it's funny in the opposition benches, but I guarantee you that it's the seniors of our communities who are affected by this important issue.

Mrs Fisher: We know that reference checks and business checks are good. However, sometimes people seem to slip through the system and especially find themselves prey, and those being seniors often find themselves being prey. I wondered if there is anything specific under the provisions in the Ontario consumer protection legislation that could help people avoid ending up in this renovation disaster.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Madam Speaker, I know you would appreciate this, having had this portfolio before, that what we're talking about here is consumer protection, and that is important to the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Despite the levity over there -

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me for a moment. Actually, he's quite correct, I do want to hear this answer. Could I have order, please. Minister, go ahead.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The one thing that we do have going for us in Ontario is under the Consumer Protection Act there's a cooling-off period of two days for someone who comes to your house for door-to-door sales. The good thing that we're working on right now is we're trying to harmonize the standard across the country with the other interprovincial ministers. We want to have a standard of 10 days, which will give people a better opportunity to check references and check out things, and if they have second thoughts, to make sure these are addressed.

Also, under the Business Practices Act, it gives the right to consumers to cancel a contract if they believe there has been a false or misleading statement made by the salesperson. That's very important, and there are specific examples. Last year I remember the member for Brant-Haldimand brought to my attention a whole raft of vacuum sales in his area that were actually defrauding seniors. That, of course, was brought to the attention of our ministry and we tried to deal with it.

ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. It has been three years since the Premier promised in writing that your government would pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in your first term. Since then, we have seen nothing but delay, lip-service and evasions. Your Premier has refused to even meet with the ODA committee, the very group he promised to work with to develop this law. For 18 months, you and your predecessor have promised a consultation process to precede the drafting of the law. The budget paid lip-service to an ODA but allocated no money to it. Will you at least make a public announcement of the long-promised public consultation today?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): First of all, I thank you for your question, because this government is committed to the ODA. If you read the finance minister's budget, he committed to an ODA, and this is one of my prime concerns, one of my major priorities, as it is the Premier's.

What we are doing, when you say "as for the delay," there have been, as I'm sure you're aware, 18 studies done on the disabled if you put together those done by the provincial government and the federal government, and members of the disabled community have told me and have made it public that they do not want endless travelling studies, so I have had to take my time to consider what is the best way to achieve a balance for this province between -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Answer, please.

Hon Ms Bassett: I'm trying to answer, Madam Speaker, if they would calm down a little bit.

We are trying to achieve a balance so that we can move in a manner that takes forward the needs of the disabled and our community as a whole, and I am committed to doing that, as is my government.

Mr Morin: "Commitment" and "action" are two different words. In an article in the Globe and Mail the Conservative member for Peterborough is quoted as saying that he expects the government will launch a consultation on an ODA with the disabled community this summer, led by a well-known disabled person.

Minister, you know that the disabled community has asked that the consultation be conducted by members of the Legislature, not some outside consultant, and we know the reasons why. MPPs must pass this legislation. MPPs must learn what various disabled people face. Will you agree today to have the consultation conducted by a non-partisan committee of members of this House?

Hon Ms Bassett: I am certainly committing to start our consultations some time in the summer. We are still in the process of working out the final details, and you will be the first to know when they are in the final stage, very soon now.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Premier, on September 6, 1995, Dudley George was shot and killed at Ipperwash Provincial Park. Since then, the facts confirm that the Ontario government told the police to remove the occupiers as soon as possible. The headline in the paper the next day said of the shooting death of George, "Queen's Park to Take a Hard Line" with occupiers. The court trial proved that the first nations had no firearms. The Premier told his executive assistant prior to the high-level meeting the day of the shooting, "out of the park - nothing else." Last week documents surfaced - Premier, you know it - showing that the OPP riot squad was in fact ordered to enter Ipperwash park.

This absolutely contradicts sworn testimony by OPP officers and even the former OPP commissioner. It smells like a coverup to most of this province, Premier.

When are you going to hold an inquiry? When are you going to do the just, fair, democratic thing? Will you commit today to holding a public inquiry?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'll refer this to the Attorney General.

1450

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As you are aware, there remain a number of cases before courts and it would be most appropriate that those cases be concluded. To discuss any of the allegations the member has made pertaining to evidence that's in argument before those courts would be clearly improper.

Mr Kormos: The Premier, with the complicity of the Attorney General, has been stonewalling this thing over and over and over since September 1995. The government just wishes that the name of Dudley George is somehow going to go away. Well, I tell you, it's not going to go away, because the people of this province will not forget Dudley George.

I will tell you what's going to happen: Today I filed a letter with the clerk of the administration of justice committee. You see, we're going to hold our own inquiry. We're going to call our own witnesses. We're going to find out just what you've been hiding, Premier Harris.

Please, Harris, one more chance: Will you do the right thing? Will you declare your commitment to a full, fair public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harnick: As I've indicated, there is a number of cases before the courts. There is a number of civil cases and there is a number of criminal cases. Evidence is being adduced in all of those cases.

Certainly there is no coverup. The facts are in the public domain. They are being elicited in courts of law, where cases should appropriately be concluded.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. I'm sure we all watched with great interest last week's coverage of the NDP convention. Among the more visible points coming out of the convention was a resolution promising an end to funding cuts imposed on programs to combat violence against women.

Minister, my question for you today is, could you please inform the House exactly what this government is doing to combat violence against women?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): As you well know, our government has taken important steps both to stop the violence against women by improving the safety of women in their communities and to provide opportunities so women can be part of their community and economically independent. We've reduced income tax rates so that poor women can take more money home and spend it on their children and on their families. We've formed a partnership with the Ontario Women's Directorate so that five ministries work in the north with us to provide opportunities for women in areas where they haven't had those opportunities to become economically independent.

But the most important point is that we did establish the violence-against-women initiative called Agenda for Action, which most members of this House are aware of. We have added to the violence-against-women budget by over $27 million over four years.

To have a resolution, an end to funding cuts imposed on programs to combat violence against women, we would welcome the support of the NDP to provide more -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order. Minister, wrap up.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We actually spend more money, but we would welcome the support of the New Democratic Party, as well as the Liberals, to work with us so we can become more effective in our communities and make it a non-partisan issue. Violence against women is not to be tolerated.

PETITIONS

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by hundreds of my constituents.

"Whereas the Diabetes Education Service in Kenora is a necessary program; and

"Whereas the Harris government has refused to provide long-term funding for diabetes education in Kenora; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has acknowledged that the program is cost-effective given the volume of clients seen and the degree of specialization required;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, join our MPP, Frank Miclash, in calling upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the Harris government provide long-term, stable funding to the Diabetes Education Service in Kenora."

I have signed my name to that petition as well.

CHILD POVERTY

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and passed a resolution to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000; and

"Whereas at the first ministers' meeting in June 1996, the Prime Minister and premiers made tackling child poverty a collective priority; and

"Whereas Campaign 2000 records the province of Ontario as having the highest increase in child poverty since Canada's House of Commons vowed unanimously in November 1989 to eliminate child poverty; and

"Whereas the following signatories declared their intention to support the political parties in the next federal and provincial election which convinced them that they have a plan to promote the wellbeing of all children;

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

"To take immediate steps to eradicate the hunger of poor children by working vigorously with the federal government to reduce the poverty rate among Canadian children, currently the second-worst in the industrialized world."

I attach my signature to the petition.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of Gloucester and the surrounding area, wish to express our firm opposition to the establishment of a gambling casino in this residential community, in close proximity to two local high schools. We wish to communicate to the Legislature the widespread opposition which this has generated in the community.

"We also wish to communicate our disappointment in the total lack of democratic consultation on the part of our local city council. Decisions were made and voted on prior to any meaningful public input. We are also hereby expressing our concern for those families who will be hurt through gambling addiction, with the resulting problems of suicides, divorce, family violence and impoverishment.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose the establishment of a charity casino in Gloucester, Ontario."

I will also affix my signature.

FRAIS DE SCOLARITÉ

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud): J'ai ici une pétition qui dit :

«Attendu que les frais de scolarité ont augmenté de plus de 40 pour cent durant les trois dernières années ; et

«Attendu que depuis 1986, les augmentations annuelles du coût de la vie n'ont pas dépassé deux pour cent, tandis que les augmentations annuelles des frais de scolarité se situent entre sept pour cent et 20 pour cent chaque année ; et

«Attendu que les frais de scolarité élèvent présentement un obstacle aux étudiants postsecondaires, notamment chez les étudiants et étudiantes de milieu de faible revenu et chez ceux qui ont des responsabilités parentales ou des besoins spéciaux ; et

«Attendu que les étudiants et étudiantes paient maintenant plus de 40 pour cent des coûts de fonction des universités et des collèges ; et

«Attendu que la qualité de l'éducation se détériore, en partie à cause de la dégradation des installations de classes ;

«Nous, les soussignés, faisons appel au gouvernement de l'Ontario pour la mise en oeuvre immédiate d'un gel des frais de scolarité.»

Je suis fier de signer cette pétition et de la présenter.

ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas ownership of a domestic animal is a responsibility, not a right;

"Whereas owners have a responsibility to treat their domestic animal with care and utmost concern for their wellbeing; and

"Whereas cruelty to animals should be punished and sanctioned with fines, penalties and/or bans on animal ownership; and

"Whereas inspectors of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should not be obstructed from carrying out their duties to investigate abuse and neglect;

"We, the undersigned, support the amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act."

I'm pleased to sign this petition.

ABORTION

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

1500

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition addressed to the Ontario Legislature and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.7-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is restricting access to alternative cost-saving treatments for patients of the province; and

"Whereas two recent reports commissioned by the Ministry of Health called for increased OHIP funding to improve patient access to chiropractic services on the grounds of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and

"Whereas over one million Ontario adults now use chiropractic services annually, increasingly those with higher incomes because of the cost barrier caused by government underfunding; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has shown blatant disregard for the needs of the citizens of Ontario in restricting funding for chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors, and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service" in Ontario.

I have signed my petition on the bottom.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

I proudly affix my signature.

ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is from people with disabilities, and it states:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontarians with disabilities are important people;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request the government of Ontario to keep its promise to pass the Ontarians with Disabilities Act which would require the removal of all barriers to full participation within society by persons with disabilities. Specifically, the barriers to employment, public transportation, education, social services, communications, recreational programs and facilities, housing, consumer products and information provided to the public must be eliminated in Ontario."

This was circulated by Earl Black, and I affix my signature to it.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

I affix my signature.

ABORTION

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

This petition is signed by a number of residents from Essex county, and I affix my signature to it.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury, or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

I present the petition. It has been signed by many constituents in my riding. It was taken up by the Knights of Columbus.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition is regarding the standing orders reform. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care and quality education; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has passed new legislative rules which have eroded the ability of both the public and the media to closely scrutinize the actions of the Ontario government; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now reduced the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its rule changes, has diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead has chosen to concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to withdraw his draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I affix my signature as I'm in full agreement.

ABORTION

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have a petition signed by about 600 people from the Fort Erie area, due to the good work of Arthur Almon, grand knight of the Knights of Columbus, St Michael's church, which is also my church. It deals with defunding abortions.

"The undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

In support of my fellow parishioners, I assign my signature.

OPPOSITION DAY

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I move the following motion:

Whereas Mike Harris promised Ontarians that he would not expand casino gambling, stating: "No new taxes. No new fees. No hidden taxes. My friends, I am committed to these. No photo radar, no casinos"; and

Whereas Mike Harris also said in regard to casino gambling: "I don't want a million dollars a day into the province of Ontario. I don't want the money. I don't want the Ontario government to have it"; and

Whereas Mike Harris said that gambling doesn't come cheap and that "It brings crime, it brings prostitution, it brings a lot of the things that maybe areas didn't have before. There is a big cost to pay"; and

Whereas Mike Harris said that "Every officer and every policing dollar that goes towards casino crime or that kind of criminal activity is a dollar that's taken away from fighting crime that currently exists on our streets"; and

Whereas Mike Harris criticized the former NDP government for not conducting social and economic impact studies before it introduced casino gambling; and

Whereas now the Mike Harris government is expanding gambling without regard to the impact and without regard to its commitments to Ontarians;

Therefore, this House calls upon the Mike Harris government to explain why it has not kept its campaign promises with respect to the expansion of gambling in Ontario; to listen to the communities across the province who have overwhelmingly rejected the Harris plan to establish 44 neighbourhood casinos; and to stop its attempts to force charities, municipalities and citizens into accepting these gambling halls.

1510

The Premier of Ontario has said that, and this is to be debated today. I appreciate the opportunity to raise this once again in the Legislative Assembly because I suspect it's an issue with which many members in this House are uncomfortable because of the fact that we're seeing an expansion in gambling activities, not only in this province, though that's where we have jurisdiction, but across the country and indeed across North America.

We have had gambling in this province sanctioned by government for a number of years, but when it started out it began with a good deal of caution and care. I remember one of my predecessors, the Honourable Robert Welch, who was then Minister of Culture and Recreation, established something called the Wintario lottery. The purpose of the lottery was simply to have some funds which would be available for cultural and recreational activities, funds which would be derived from the Wintario lottery but would be matched by government when various service and volunteer organization were raising funds of their own. In other words, if you were to raise a dollar, the provincial government was prepared to match that dollar in terms of raising it for a good charitable cause, a volunteer cause, but in this case mostly for culture and recreation.

It started out with a good deal of care and caution. The minister of the day, Mr Welch, indicated that he expected this to be a very small step, that it would not be a major government undertaking. I believe he hoped at that time that we would not see the kind of escalation of gambling we've seen today. But right across this country, regardless of what the political affiliation of the government happens to be, we have seen governments move more and more into the field of gambling. I almost said "organized" gambling; I guess it's organized, in this case, by the government.

I think this is a wrong direction for the government to move in. Governments have really now started to rely more and more on the proceeds of gambling for their ongoing programs. This has got to be a matter of great concern to people in all jurisdictions where gambling has been expanded. We've had casinos out west and we've had video lottery terminals introduced in many jurisdictions. They're in the Maritimes, they're in Quebec, they're in Ontario, they're in western provinces, they're certainly across many states in the United States. I think what has happened, however, is that it has gotten out of hand. What started out as a small initiative designed to raise a modest amount of money for specific purposes has now become a major way for governments to gather money into their coffers for whatever purposes they deem appropriate.

I think one of the reasons we've seen it is that some people have tried to portray it as a voluntary tax, that nobody is compelled to pay it, that somehow it is a painless tax. I think, however, that those who have studied this field carefully would not agree with that.

I have included a number of comments that the Premier made in days gone by as Leader of the Opposition. We're wont to do that in this House; we certainly do that from time to time. But I genuinely respected the Premier, when he was leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the third party in the House, and the Treasurer of this province today, Ernie Eves, who was then the House leader of the third party, when they stood in this House and in other venues and expressed their genuine concern about the government getting involved more and more in gambling. I thought that was positive; I thought that was reasonable criticism. I genuinely believed, with the fervour with which they stated their opinions, that we would not see this government move heavily into government gambling. Unfortunately, that has not been the case, even though on many occasions both of them have said they would not want to see gambling expanded.

I thought Premier Harris, in one of the cases he made, which was on October 6, 1992, in a question to the Honourable Marilyn Churley, who was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations of the day, made a good point when he asked the question this way:

"Wouldn't it make more sense from a sound management point of view, something we haven't seen very much of, to do the social projections and economic studies before you announce the casino? Second, in the absence of having done that, when can we expect to see the economic and social projections and results of those impact studies, even though you've already made the announcement?"

He was obviously expressing the concern that many people in the province have, that we in this province and other provinces and other jurisdictions are moving forward rather rapidly and rather drastically into more and more gambling activities, expanding and escalating those activities without having looked at good data to determine what the impact will be on the province: on the social fabric of the province and indeed on the economy of the province.

Derwyn Shea, who is a man of the cloth, an Anglican minister, said in the Hamilton Spectator on March 5, 1997: "I just don't think that they're the sort of thing we need, should have or want. I feel very strongly about this. Casino gambling panders to the most vulnerable in our society. People who can least afford it tend to get caught up in it." A person who is a man of the cloth, a religious minister, tends to counsel people and encounter people who require counselling for such problems as gambling, and I thought he stated the position well in the Hamilton Spectator.

Mel Lastman, who is, I think everybody would agree, a free enterpriser, a person who's open to a lot of new ideas, said on February 19, 1997, when confronted with this question about charitable casinos: "Gambling is of no advantage to our city, and we don't need it. People go out and they rob and steal to get the money to gamble." That was Mel Lastman, who I think is not a person who is closed-minded to new or different ideas, expressing a genuine concern.

I thought the National Council on Welfare's publication entitled Gambling in Canada - this was in regard to government advertising promoting gambling - stated it very well when it said the following:

"What the advertising carefully sidesteps is the dark side of gambling. Literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians are problem gamblers and their addiction takes a toll on themselves, their friends and families, and society as a whole. Families break up, bills don't get paid and people take time off work because of their obsession with gambling. At its worst, problem gambling degenerates into a world of criminal activities spurred by the gambler's frantic search for money from every possible source."

I think they stated it well when they put that forward.

Methodist minister Tom Grey, head of the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion in the United States, when he spoke to Belleville city council had the following to say - again worth listening to. Here's a person who has made a study of this. He does a pretty objective evaluation and comparison of what gambling was like previously and what the escalation is causing. Reverend Tom Grey had the following to say:

"Your government is addicted to the revenues it's getting from gambling and therefore it's now going after its own citizens through charity casinos. They're using charities as a Trojan horse, as a way to sell what is really a tax. The track record on gambling is that it's not good economics, it's not good public policy and it's not good for the quality of life."

Those are just a few people who have offered observations. I suspect that in the confines of the Conservative caucus, the government caucus, there have been members who have expressed similar concerns about the expansion of gambling opportunities.

1520

I am not trying to roll back the clock. I know we've got a major casino in Windsor and a major casino in Niagara Falls, and we have one in Rama. I'm not saying today that the government or the Premier should close down those casinos and somehow end all gambling activities. It's probably unrealistic to do that today.

What I am pleading with the Legislature, with the Premier and with the government to do is to halt the escalation of gambling opportunities, to call a moratorium, to say: "Enough is enough. Let's not move forward with any more expansion of gambling activities, because they'll have a detrimental effect on our province."

I saw the government moving forward at one time with video lottery terminals - VLTs, as they are known. There was a great movement to move them into every bar and every restaurant in the province, that you would have, from municipality to municipality, people who owned bars and restaurants who would be able to operate video lottery terminals. The excuse was that somehow there were illegal ones operating out there and the only way to solve this problem was to make it legal and have the government run it.

I reject that argument. I don't think we can say the government should get into the business of selling crack cocaine, for instance, simply because someone out there is selling it illegally. The role of the government would be to prosecute in that particular case and end those particular uses. I really and truly believe that a major step forward was taken when we in the opposition and when the public in general finally persuaded the government that it should not permit video lottery terminals in bars and restaurants. I think we have halted that particular escalation.

Then there were the video lottery terminals going into the so-called charity casinos, as I've kiddingly said in this House from time to time, the new Mike Harris gambling halls around the province. I had a great concern about that. The government has put forward a change in policy which says in fact: "Somehow we can do without the video lottery terminals. We'll simply have the good, old-fashioned slot machines, along with other gambling activities, in the charity casinos."

What is happening is that charity casinos represent a major escalation in and of themselves. If you look at Niagara Falls, it's a tourist destination. More than 50% of the people who would come to that casino in Niagara Falls, or indeed to the one in Windsor, would be people from outside the area. Whether that will be the case if they establish casinos on the American side of the border, I don't know, but at the present time, one could say that they are tourist destination sites. So we differentiate those from the charity casinos, which are proposed for various municipalities around the province.

I think it would be devastating for communities which do not have the ability to attract people from hundreds of miles away to come to their community, but rather simply to attract people from the immediate area and from that immediate community to come to do their gambling at a local casino, which could be operating seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

The people who go in there would be, by and large, people who are desperate, people who are pretty vulnerable to the attraction that gambling provides, people who are addicted to gambling. The average person may not be the kind of person who is going to go to a so-called charity casino that's located in places like Timmins or Kirkland Lake or somewhere like that where you're simply going to get people - I think of Guelph, for instance. I don't really see that people are going to be heading from New York City to Guelph to do some gambling in a charity casino.

I suspect what would happen is the people of Guelph themselves and maybe some of the surrounding villages and towns might spend their money there. I really wonder whether it would be new money that's being spent. I think it's discretionary money that's already being spent in a community. Whether it's at local stores, whether it's at local places that provide services or manufacturing centres, you're taking the discretionary dollars that people have and you're placing them into gambling opportunities which, yes, benefit the government rather immensely in terms of the dollars and cents the government derives from them, but really scratches at the fabric of that community.

I don't expect it in this debate or in this House, but I think it's important for non-cabinet government members to speak to those in the cabinet, to speak to the Premier, to speak to the people who advise the Premier, and explain how this escalation is not good for this province. That's one of the standards we must use: Is it going to benefit the province?

It will benefit the coffers of the province to a certain extent. Will it really benefit the social fabric of this province? I suspect that many people in this Legislature on all sides of the House are very worried that it will not; in fact, that it will have a very detrimental effect.

I look at the fact that fund-raising activities that service organizations are already involved in are being impacted by the government moving into new areas. People used to run bingo halls - and yes, bingo is a form of gambling, no question about that - but they would run their bingo halls and small organizations would have their group that would come out each week and have something to say, have a little bit of a social gathering. Then the provincial government started what was called a province-wide bingo. I don't even know the name of it; that is, I don't know whether it's done by television screen or something like that. Anyway, it is imposed upon the local bingo halls and the province gets a big take out of that. When you talk to the people in service clubs and organizations they say: "Look, we have lost out with some of the activities we had that didn't take in a lot of money, that didn't take a lot of money from individuals in particular. We have lost some of that revenue because the government has in a very big way gotten into gambling and started to hurt our particular businesses."

Now the government moves into charity casinos. Let me say that the charities are simply a front for any government. British Columbia government was caught on this. They were told very firmly by a court in British Columbia, "You're simply using these casinos as a front for the government to derive its revenues."

Why does the government need that revenue? First of all, it is viewed as a painless tax. Everybody out there knows, when you go door to door, when you talk to people in our communities, that nobody likes high taxes. Nobody wants to pay taxes. We would like to get a lot of services, but none of us really wants to pay the taxes. So they see this as a way of making up for tax cuts.

This government has decided it will make a 30% income tax cut before we have a balanced budget, which means the government has to borrow that money in order to give you and me and everyone else in the province a tax cut. Because the government has lost significant potential revenue through that tax cut, the Treasurer and those in the treasury department have said: "We need these funds. We have to derive more funds and the only way it looks like we can get them relatively painlessly is through new gambling initiatives." That's why we're seeing that happen.

I look at the charity casinos, the projected gross revenues including the slot machines at the racetracks: $1.1 billion. That's a lot of money going into gambling. Some $460 million will go to the government. That's 65% of net revenues. If the charity casinos, for instance, are owned and controlled by people outside the province, some of the profits that go to the owners could be going outside the province. I know there are some people in Ontario in the Conservative end of things who are worried about that.

Each charity casino will have 150 slot machines and 40 gambling tables. The government has indicated it will allow more slot machines if there's a local demand. About 5,000 slot machines will be located in provincial racetracks. Charity casinos will accept wagers on tables up to $100. That's an increase from $10 under the so-called Monte Carlo casinos or roving casinos.

The Ontario government will give municipalities $1,500 a year for every slot machine they allow to set up shop. I consider that an incentive, I guess is a nice way of putting it, for local jurisdictions to accept it. They are strapped for funds. I think the government hoped that would be the case. Also, I was very concerned when I saw the government encouraging the casinos to put pressure on local councils and on those who have the powers to approve casinos at the local level.

What we're seeing across this province and across this country and in so many jurisdictions is in fact an escalation in gambling opportunities and the tearing at our fabric.

Donald Trump, who has been involved in casinos before, said in the Miami Herald something rather interesting: "People will spend a tremendous amount of money in casinos, money that they would normally spend on buying a refrigerator or a new car. Local businesses will suffer because they'll lose customer dollars to the casinos." That's a person who is in the business who says that.

Gambling and the Public Interest, a publication that I think is now widely read, says the following:

"Studies suggest higher than average rates of lateness, absenteeism, low productivity and crimes against employers (forgery, embezzlement, fraud etc) among problem gamblers. Community resources are also expended in combating the impact problem gambling has upon family and friends."

It's just study after study, which I think is very, very interesting.

1530

I want to leave some time for some of my colleagues to be able to deal with these, which is why I don't want to get into each one of these studies and quotes. What I want to say to the government through this motion this afternoon is that it's time to call a moratorium on the expansion of gambling opportunities. Where there are problems with existing venues for gambling or existing problems, the government will receive all kinds of support to try to fix those.

We have a situation that exists in Niagara Falls where there were questions in this House today calling into question, even outside of the charity casinos, some problems that have existed. In Niagara Falls I think people wanted to see more tourist activities associated with this tourist casino. It's not a charity casino; it's a tourist destination casino. They wanted to see a lot more of other activities for people to be able to take part in, in their ridings and in this specific case in Niagara Falls, and we haven't seen that happen.

I think we have a problem on our hands but I think there is the beginning of a solution. That solution is to say, "Enough is enough." That solution is to call a moratorium, a halt on the further expansion of gambling activities. There is an opportunity for this province to assume a position of leadership in doing very comprehensive, extensive studies on the impact of gambling right across Ontario. Indeed, I think we would be doing a service to this whole country, to North America and the world if we were to be the leader in that particular direction. Let's take a breather, I'm saying, a long pause from this gambling expansion.

Remember that we are preying upon the vulnerable, upon the addicted, upon the desperate people of our society. We have a responsibility to those. I know some people like to say everyone is on his own or her own, but I think we have a responsibility to those who are vulnerable, to those who are addicted, to those who are desperate not to put before them the temptations which are related to expansions in gambling.

We may benefit in the short run by the revenues which are derived from gambling, but in the long run, as we continue to expand, we continue to tear at the social fabric of this province. We pay far too great a social price for what is revenue coming into the government to replace revenue which is lost through other tax cuts.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Brenda Elliott): Further debate?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): First, I want to indicate how timely this resolution is and I want to thank its mover. I want to say clearly at the outset that Mr Bradley has been very consistent on his position with regard to casinos and casino gambling. When I speak of the timeliness of it, it's timely among other things because of the revelations about the apparent corruption of the process for the development of this new, much-heralded Niagara Falls casino.

You're supposed to back up a little bit. Please understand. I know that a whole lot of folks in my communities of Welland, Thorold and the Niagara region and communities across the province go to casinos. Yes, they've told me about it. Some are winners; most are losers. They understand that as well. A casino is not about winning money; it's about losing money. You can't have winners or else the casinos don't make the incredible profits that they do. I'm hard-pressed to condemn the person, whoever it might be, who finds entertainment by going to a casino and playing the slot machines or playing the roulette wheel.

As a matter of fact, before somebody says, "Jeez, are you speaking in the dark here?" I'll tell you what - on May 1, as a matter of fact, I was down in Niagara region. You know why I was down there? I was down there because it was the Days of Action in St Catharines. Some of my friends came down to Niagara region to march in the streets. That evening we happened to have some of the other members here who entertained in their offices - not entertained but accommodated the Ukrainian interns who were here, the young students from the Ukraine who were here for the second time. Eugene Voloshchenko, who was my intern, accompanied me down to Niagara region, and that evening a couple of constituents and myself took him to Niagara Falls.

It was Friday, May 1. I remember it well. It was a very nice spring, warm, quite frankly a very pleasant evening. One could walk around, and people were in shirtsleeves. Here we were on a Friday night, at what is effectively the beginning of the season, a very pleasant, accommodating day in Niagara Falls. The attendance at the Falls themselves was rather sparse, which was unusual for me, because they're usually a major attraction. I'm talking about the Horseshoe Falls. So we walked along the Falls up to Clifton Hill, which is I suppose the heart of tourism, at least at that one level, in Niagara Falls.

I confess I perhaps don't get to Clifton Hill as often as I should, it being right in my backyard. Usually Clifton Hill is teeming with people on a Friday night, mid-spring, beautiful weather like it was back on May 1, just a few weeks ago. But the streets were bare. I took a look in some of the eating establishments. Oh, there were patrons in them, but they were sparse and few and far between, let me tell you. I thought maybe the season really hadn't started yet. Fine.

I enjoy the relaxed comfort, but also I understand that tourists in the streets visiting the restaurants, going to the attractions - this is part of the heart, the lifeline of Niagara Falls tourism. I don't pretend to know about it from a sophisticated point of view. I've never been a tourist operator. I've spoken with lots of them and I've had a number of situations in which I've had occasion to work with them.

I told young Eugene - because he had heard, of course, about the Niagara Falls casino, as a first-time visitor to the province. I said, "Eugene, would you like to visit the casino?" He said, "Sure." Again, I anticipated that just as the streets and the shops and the restaurants were rather sparsely populated, the casino would be a somewhat relaxed atmosphere. Let me tell you, it would have knocked your socks off, because there were bare, empty streets, empty restaurants, empty tourist shops, but there was a lineup at the casino. When you finally made your way in, there wasn't a machine that wasn't being used.

Again, I don't want to condemn by any stretch of the imagination the folks who were in there doing whatever it is you do in a casino. Well, you gamble. As a matter of fact, as I walked around - and at this point I was just amazed - I realized where all the tourists were: They were in the casino. That's why they weren't in the restaurants; that's why they weren't out on the streets of Clifton Hill, walking up and down, as tourists have done for decades, for generations: They were sitting at the slot machines, just pumping the tokens with a steady rhythm.

Again, more than a few folks were neighbours, friends, folks I know from across the region - more than a few. I had occasion to say hello to them, wish them the best of luck. But the casino was packed. There's no two ways about it: Casinos are an incredibly powerful attraction to people in general. And once again, I've got to confess I do not understand - I'm not disputing that people obtain or get some entertainment value from this. Gosh, I suppose I'd rather see a movie or go bowling or any number of -

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): You bowling?

1540

Mr Kormos: Go bowling. Down in Welland there are half a dozen bowling lanes - not quite that many left. Welland is a big bowling city. My neighbour Rob Wightman is an ardent competitive bowler and travels across - he works over at Stelco when he can work. Of course, unemployment is up in the Niagara region since the Tories got elected. You've got to know that.

These are things that I, in my experience growing up in a community like Welland, associate with entertainment. You go to the arena. You watch a hockey game. I appreciate that's a spectator sport, but what do you expect? You watch a hockey game. You go out to the Welland soccer dome up on Rice Road. You watch a soccer game or, if you're more fit than I am, you play soccer.

I appreciate that there are a whole lot of seniors there and I've got to hope that the seniors are sophisticated and experienced enough that they set themselves a budget for the evening and live by it. I would like to hope that was their style, and I suspect most of them do it. I have no hesitation in telling you that.

Why I raised my admitted amazement about how all the tourist population of Niagara Falls appeared to be concentrated in the casino was to acknowledge what an incredibly powerful draw it is. It's clear there's a whole lot of money to be made running casinos. There's no two ways about it.

Interestingly, Windsor, which attracts fewer gross numbers of patrons, has more money bet per patron than does Niagara Falls. That's just the stats that were released recently. I'd be interested in some explanation of that.

We ought to have learned. Look, there were those of us who opposed casino gambling here in Ontario, and I appreciate that war has been lost. I have no hesitation in saying that battle has been lost. One of the things we expressed concern about was the rationale that casino gambling was somehow an integral tool in local economic development. I regrettably suggest to you that the experience of Windsor and Niagara Falls very much sustains the argument that, no, casinos are not a panacea for an economy that was gutted first by Brian Mulroney's trade deal with Ronald Reagan, and then further by Jean Chrétien's waltz with the Americans, with NAFTA. Casinos certainly aren't the panacea. It's quick jobs; I don't hesitate in acknowledging that.

The government was warned about the corruptibility and corruptiveness of casino gambling. They were told time and time again, and this government assured people who had -

Interjections.

Mr Kormos: Look, if you don't want to hear it from me, there are thousands out there who participated in public hearings, who condemned this government's introduction of electronic slots, video lottery terminals - call them whatever you want. The fact remains that they're the slickest thing since buttered popcorn. The fact remains that these electronic VLTs, yes, are designed very specifically by some very sophisticated operators to be as addictive as any gambling practice ever could be, hence the label "the crack cocaine of gambling."

Remarkably, evidence that was unearthed during the course of this government's committee hearings about high-tech, high-speed electronic slots indicated very clearly that the market - we're not talking about the old one-armed bandit; we're talking about an integration of the fundamental philosophy of the one-armed bandit, but accompanied by all the qualities of the best and fastest and most sophisticated video games, along with an incredibly sophisticated high-tech manipulation of the player - for those types of machines is very much young, and even younger, people.

Some of the same operators who have cultivated a generation of young people whose lives have been Nintendoed are the same people developing these electronic slots that this government, yes, would dearly love to see in every bar, every tavern and every restaurant in every neighbourhood in every municipality in this province. Very sophisticated stuff, scary stuff.

We heard from the racetracks, and one racetrack operator was candid enough - my colleague across the way here would understand - to talk about the level of sophistication of these slots. At racetracks now you can bet your pony without going to a parimutuel person. You put your ticket in the machine, if it's a winning ticket, and you punch in the name or the number of your horse or whatever grey mare happens to be running that day, and you sit there and wait for the results. I think I've got it reasonably correct.

Mr Pouliot: It's always a number.

Mr Kormos: Number of horse and number of race, at a specific track.

The operator of one major racetrack in the province appealed to the committee to implement their VLTs, video lottery terminals, electronic slots, video slots as quickly as possible because the technology is such that they can take horse players, sit them there, let them bet their horse at this video-screened machine, and while the horse is running - you know your little picture-in-picture on the little RCA you've got at home, where you get the second channel down in the lower right-hand corner? From time to time you tire of the parliamentary channel and you might switch on C-SPAN or something. While the race is running in the lower right-hand corner, you can bet the slots at the very same machine without ever getting up to go.

I tell you, that's the level of sophistication. There are big bucks here, incredibly big bucks; big bucks to the extent that corruption becomes almost inevitable. In the instance of this government's handling of the Niagara Falls casino, it appears that corruption has very much become part and parcel of the process.

Recall what you heard earlier today when the leader of the New Democrats, Howard Hampton, in his question to the Premier made reference to some very fine investigative reporting by the Toronto Star that was published over the course of the weekend, and referred to portions of that article that named names, left you in a position where you were forced to draw the irresistible conclusion that there was more than a little bit of backroom jiggery going on in the course of this government's development of casino gambling.

It very much appears that a pretty high-profile gang of Tories and friends of this government did more than a few huddles deep in the bowels of high-priced steakhouses to ensure that this government's best friends had the best crack at ownership of a very, very lucrative business. Once again, the gambling business depends on people losing money. There are no winners. At the end of the day, everybody loses.

1550

We heard about and read on the weekend about this Ontario Gaming Coalition, a small team, ad hoc, that put themselves together to advocate for the expansion of private-profit, corporate-owned gambling casinos; folks like Leslie Noble, no stranger to Premier Harris, I'm sure not necessarily well known by a lot of his caucus because, after all, she was instrumental in writing the Common Sense Revolution and that was very much an inner-circle sort of exercise.

Another member of that group was one Andrzej Kepinski. You read about him a couple of weeks ago and the sad trail he left behind himself, leaving a trail of more than a few disappointed partners. This fellow was instrumental in putting this Falls Management team together. The Falls Management team, let's understand, was the successful bidder. They were the successful bidder.

Understand, there were folks in Niagara Falls, including its mayor, who had acquired some real optimism about the future of Niagara Falls and the Niagara region - and not just in Niagara Falls, of course across the Niagara region, because we all share in the development of meaningful tourism - who applauded the development of the Gateway concept. The one crucial element that every expert has consistently identified as being essential to making Niagara Falls something more than a mere one- or two-hour stop for the tour buses is the development of a significant convention centre. The government knew about that advice because indeed that was part of the package when it called upon bidders, and that was that the casino project include amenities that complement legitimate tourism and that will indeed help spread that tourism economy beyond the walls of Casino Niagara.

Gosh, there was one bidder, the Fallsview group, that proposed as a part of their bid some 19,000 square metres of convention space and indeed were spoken of as being first in the tourism angle - tourism, as compared to mere hard-core, "take the money and run, empty the pockets, siphon and grab them by the ankles, turn them upside down, shake every last nickel and dime out of them" casino operators. The Fallsview group rated first in tourism with their just shy of 19,000-square-metre convention centre. They were out of the picture. It appears they didn't have the connections. It appears they didn't know the right people in the right places. It appears that they may not have been in the dark, smoky back rooms with the right people at the right time.

It looks to me like they tried to do it the legitimate way. It looks to me like Fallsview had a legitimate concern and interest in the overall development of tourism in Niagara Falls and the Niagara region. It looks to me and a whole lot of people down in Niagara today that the Fallsview Group - oh, they understood that a casino was supposed to be an element of this development, but they understood that a casino was about one piece in a bigger tourism development puzzle. What do they get for being rated first? They get the boot by these guys. They're out, they're gone. They didn't know the right people.

Mr Pouliot: They didn't play the game.

Mr Kormos: They didn't play the game. I guess there wasn't enough grease in the wheels. When I talk about the corruption and corruptiveness of this kind of big-money exercise, that's exactly what we're speaking to - the grease.

It becomes even more apparent what's going on here when you note that Hyatt, one of the big players in the successful bidding operator, a member of the Falls Management group, proposed convention space of - oh, what did I say earlier today? - one ninth the square footage, really, quite frankly, a meaningless amount and something that effectively abandons the prospect of a convention centre in the city of Niagara Falls. Hyatt, you see, operates a whole lot of convention space across the river, over in Niagara Falls, New York. They own and operate those operations. Talk about a little bit of a sweetheart package deal here. You get the message, don't you, Speaker? I know you do.

Hyatt is covering its own interests in the United States, you bet your boots they are, at the sacrifice of tourism in Niagara Falls and Niagara, at the expense of small business and would-be working people in Niagara Falls and across the Niagara region and, I have no doubt, perhaps at some modest expense to themselves. You see, this kind of largess doesn't come cheaply. The kind of largess enjoyed by Hyatt, what does it amount to? It basically means that the casino project in Niagara Falls, intended originally by Niagara Falls and proposed by every expert consulted to be part and parcel of a much larger thing, a sports complex, a convention centre - Hyatt somehow, as one of the players, made sure that the successful bid, one they were very much involved in, included minimal convention space. They've got obligations across the river. They have every intention of seeing Niagara Falls, New York, convention space utilized at the expense of the future of tourism in Niagara.

Earlier today I suggested to the minister in charge, the Chair of Management Board, that this whole deal reeks, stinks to high heaven, that it's a thorough betrayal of the people of Niagara Falls and indeed across Niagara region. It's a perfect illustration of how corrupt the casino industry can become when it has partners like this gang sitting in the government benches.

Economic development, my foot. The interests of tourism, give me a break. There's a whole lot of money made here, a whole lot of money to be made. A whole big chunk of it is going to be siphoned off into the United States. Very little of it is going to fall into the pockets of hardworking women and men, many of them unemployed for far longer than any person should ever have to be, because of Mike Harris's policies. Very little of it is going to go into the pockets of those women and men looking for some economic growth in the Niagara region, which has suffered increased unemployment since the election of Mike Harris and the Tories and hasn't seen any of those promised jobs. Oh, never mind that the Premier - how many did he promise? How many did Mike Harris promise?

Mr Pouliot: Some 725,000.

Mr Kormos: He promised 725,000. We're into this a good two and a half years now. How do you like it so far? Those jobs aren't down in Niagara region, where unemployment levels are up, where unemployment among youth is twice that of their parents, where this government imposes user fee on top of user fee, is in the process of shutting down hospital after hospital, shutting down up to 30 schools across Niagara region. They don't get it. They don't understand. This government has been borrowing more and more money, creating more and more deficit, more and more debt, not to finance health care, not to finance education, not to take care of kids or the poorest in our society, but to take care of their richest friends.

1600

This deal in Niagara Falls is oh so consistent with everything these guys have done from day one here at Queen's Park, let me tell you. Beat the hell out of working people, ignore the plight of seniors, impose more and more new user fees, shut down hospitals, shut down schools. By God, when it comes to building a casino with their corporate buddies, they're there, the government's there. Just pull the chain and they'll nod and say all the right things: "The door's open. This is the new Ontario."

The fact is that the abandonment of tourism by this government in Niagara, the abandonment of the convention centre as an integral part of the casino development - let's understand. Look what kind of proposal they accepted from Falls Management, as compared to the Fallsview Group. Falls Management is an American-partnered operation. It's a Toronto-Chicago-Buffalo consortium. Its proposal is for a $411-million casino and that's it, virtually nothing more. The Fallsview Group, which had a far more enlightened view about the role of the casino in Niagara Falls as part of a broader tourism package, including a major convention centre, as I told you, nine times the square footage being offered by Falls Management, and which was prepared to spend $905 million, rated number one when it comes to tourism, somehow they're not in the running.

Maybe they weren't burdened with actors like Andrzej Kepinski and Paul Snyder. Maybe that's why Fallsview didn't get the contract with this government. Kepinski and Snyder were key players in getting Falls Management, the successful bidder, in getting that team together. They're also the ones with the history of failed businesses, bankruptcies and non-payment of taxes. Maybe this government simply prefers to deal with the ilk of those. Maybe there's something about them that -

Mr Pouliot: Makes them comfortable?

Mr Kormos: No, maybe they've got far more in common with this government as defaulting taxpayers, bankrupts and failed business people. Maybe they've got something far more in common with these people than the Fallsview Group - competent, successful people with a vision about the future of Niagara rather than a mere siphoning of as much money as fast as they can, which is what this casino proposal is designed to do, from the tourists that venture into Niagara Falls who are from every single possible targeted residence across the Niagara region, Hamilton, well through beyond the Golden Horseshoe.

This is a sordid, sordid thing this government has got itself involved with. It is one which, quite frankly, takes us back a good 15 or 20 years when this was the norm when it came to doing business. Surely to God there's no place for these types of backroom deals in Ontario in 1998 when so many working people are suffering so much because of so many new burdens placed on them by this government.

Let's take look at it: What's the entry point? How is it done? - just a little bit of a Coles Notes primer on how you do business. What's the starting point? How do you get into the inner circle? I suppose Leslie Noble is as good an entry point as any, a long-time Tory hack player, or perhaps George Boddington. One of his clients is the Latner family, majority owners of Greenwin Properties and Dynacare health labs. Those companies, in 1995 and 1996, donated at least $48,000 to these provincial Conservatives. Maybe that's the entry point. Let's be fair about this. Let's be open so that folks who are listening can understand how it is, what it is and the way it is that you've got to do business with this government. If you know Leslie Noble, if you know Tory lobbyist George Boddington, if you know Toronto lawyer David McFadden, a former Tory party president and MPP back in the 1980s, maybe that's the beginning.

But I think it's more than simply knowing people. I mentioned the $48,000 contributed in 1995-96. You've got to ask yourself, in view of all the high-priced help the Premier surrounds himself with - I know what Mr Murdoch called them, and I'm not going to endorse that. I'm talking about the inner circle. I'm talking about people who make the big bucks. They may not necessarily be directly on the Premier's payroll. From time to time, certain caucus members suffer as a result of this backroom decision-making and resent it. I understand that.

If this is the entry point, you've got to question why it is that the government would buy into a $411-million straight gambling deal when it had offered to it a $905-million broader tourist complex with a major convention centre. It doesn't make common sense, does it? It doesn't make common sense at all. It doesn't make any sense. What it speaks to and what it encourages is the simple question: Is somebody on the take? It's a question to be put. How else could that happen in 1998 in Ontario to the Niagara region, which is suffering as a result of crushing government policies, leaving it with the highest unemployment?

This slot machine regime has every likelihood, probability of becoming as corrupt and corrupted as this rotten deal in Niagara Falls is.

I'm pleased to support this resolution.

1610

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the opposition motion today, put forward on behalf of the Liberal Party by the member for St Catharines.

I thought I would speak briefly on the history of gaming, not only in Ontario but also in Canada. The member for St Catharines spoke for some time about the history of gaming in Canada, since it has been taken over by government, as being done in a careful and cautious manner. Today, I would like to emphasize the care and caution with which our government is proceeding with gaming matters.

If you look back at the history in Canada of gaming, originally there was some gambling and gaming that went on in Canada before governments controlled it, and the great concern was that there was a need for it to be regulated; that it probably couldn't be stopped altogether.

As a person who rarely, if ever, buys even lottery tickets, I understand there is still a good deal of interest in gambling. My understanding is that 85% of the people in Ontario purchase lottery tickets or participate in other forms of gambling, so it's incumbent upon government to make sure that if there is gaming activity, it be done carefully and properly, regulated by government at the time.

In 1985, the federal government amended the Criminal Code to allow the provinces to have total control over lotteries. There are other members in the House who've had the opportunity in previous governments to look at the issue of gaming revenues. In fact, one of them was the member for St Catharines, who in 1990, when he was Minister of the Environment, played a role in Bill 114 being passed. At that time, Bill 114 was passed to add protection of the environment to the list of beneficiaries from lottery revenues in the province. I'm sure we all applaud the fact that if there are to be lotteries, the revenues from them can be used for issues such as protecting the environment; that's certainly a topic of great issue and concern in my riding.

Later in my remarks, and possibly in the remarks of other government members today, you will hear how, if there are expanded revenues from the plan we have for gaming in Ontario, we would like the benefits of that to go to health care. There may be the potential for added revenue to expand our health care in Ontario. It's something I'm sure even the opposition members would support.

In 1992 the NDP government, through an order in council, created the three-day roving Monte Carlo system. That is a system that people in my riding know very little about. My understanding is that it tended to be concentrated mostly in urban areas of the province. This is the very system which became a thorn in the side of some communities, and certainly the police and some charities complained about it as well.

What we wanted to develop, with the recent announcements made by the Chair of Management Board, is a more tightly regulated gaming program in the province. We certainly looked at the comments we heard about the Monte Carlo system. We decided to show some leadership to ensure that communities and charities are protected through a tightly managed and regulated charity gaming system. We didn't put the roving Monte Carlo nights into neighbourhoods throughout the province; that was the doing of the previous NDP government, actually. We weren't the first to bring commercial casinos into the province and we haven't expanded the lottery system either. During the time the Liberals were in government, they introduced a list of games including Pick-3, Encore and Wintario Extra, which were added to the lottery system during the 1980s.

One thing that might be of interest to the mover of the motion is that there is considerable interest in expanding gaming even within the Liberal caucus. I understand that the member for Timiskaming recently indicated publicly that he felt it would be a good idea to have a casino on the Ontario Northland train. In fact, from the quote I've been provided, I understand the member for Timiskaming said: "I believe now is the perfect time to put a casino on the passenger train. It's time to take advantage of our four-season tourism."

So you can see there certainly are pressures around the province and within different political parties to expand gaming. But what we really want to do, rather than expand gaming, is make sure that gaming in the province goes on in a tightly regulated fashion. As the Chair of Management Board has outlined in several recent comments, we want to make sure there is a cautious, safe approach; we want to make sure, with charity casinos, that we replace the 4,900 roving Monte Carlos, which have been virtually impossible to regulate. Our goal is to properly manage and regulate the commercial and charity casinos and to ensure that communities like Niagara Falls, Windsor and Orillia can continue to enjoy the increased number of jobs and the extra dollars from tourism that their regions have experienced. We have learned that through tight control and decisive management of the industry, these goals can be achieved.

I'd like to make a few more remarks just to clarify what the roving Monte Carlos are, because I know a lot of people around the province and in my riding don't really know very much about them. We felt that tighter control and regulations have been long overdue.

There were 15,000 gaming days held under 4,900 licences while the roving Monte Carlos were in place. In Toronto alone, there were more than 300 different locations for these Monte Carlos, and between 1993 and 1997 the Monte Carlo industry had grown over 400%. It seemed that every time you turned around in Toronto, you'd see another sign for one of these Monte Carlos. They were mostly located in hotels, restaurants and other public facilities that were close to schools and residential areas. It was possible for anyone, and sometimes even kids, to enter them unintentionally. This caused parents a considerable amount of worry and it was a great concern for the police.

We weren't the only ones who were distressed by the growth of these Monte Carlo operations. The police forces came to our government and expressed their concern. They said that due to the temporary nature of the Monte Carlos, it was impractical to install state-of-the-art security and surveillance equipment. If you have been to any of the full-time operating casinos in Ontario, you will know that there are very tight security arrangements and surveillance equipment. Right near my riding, of course, is the Rama casino. I have had a briefing on that, and I'm very impressed with the level of security there, the number of cameras and the number of police officers present at all times to make sure that the operation is done properly.

We have heard from some charities as well. These are the organizations that the charity casinos and the former Monte Carlo operations were supposed to help. Organizations like the Canadian Diabetes Association, the Kidney Foundation, the Canadian Cancer Society, the March of Dimes were losing money under the old system that had been brought in by the NDP. Charities like these were eventually driven to criticize and demand changes to the system. Who can blame them? After all their efforts and the expense of advertising and operations, the charities were only getting a nominal fee, an average of $675 a day, when proceeds were 10 times that amount. In 1996 the operations alone consumed $90 million out of $100 million generated, with only $10 million going to charity.

Anyone with common sense could see that the old NDP system just wasn't working. We had two options: We could shut down the roving Monte Carlos completely, leaving charities without any funding, or we could work with the stakeholders to bring about changes and better regulate the system. Many charities were unsupportive of a plan to eliminate the Monte Carlos without a replacement, and concerns about the Monte Carlos were also brought forward by the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling, who had pointed out that the small number of potential problem gamblers were difficult to identify within the Monte Carlo system because there were so many venues to attend and because they were constantly changing in location.

We heard from police, community groups, municipalities and charities, and we agreed with all of them. The system needed fixing. We were grateful they took the time to tell us how we should change it, and they made many recommendations, so the initiative that we introduced on April 9 became a reality largely because of the cooperation of these groups which will benefit from the new system.

Our government was the first to put a comprehensive gaming system in place. What we're trying to ensure is that the consultations with the public and the stakeholders will result in a proper setup, that we have better management and planning of the industry through the creation of a gaming secretariat to help guide the direction of all forms of gaming and measure its impact and through tighter regulation and enforcement, including the creation of the illegal gaming unit, which is a specialized unit with 42 full-time members dedicated to reducing illegal gambling and rerouting the proceeds of these crimes back into the justice system. We're going to do this through the Ontario Lottery Corp. Through several governments, the lottery corporation has gained an excellent reputation for the responsible management of various forms of gaming in the province.

On March 31 we shut down the three-day Monte Carlos. That brought an end to a legacy of disarray and it now gives us the opportunity to implement a tighter regulation and control of the charity gaming program. On April 9 we announced that we would replace Monte Carlos with a small number of fixed-site, well-supervised charity casinos. These charity casinos would not be able to operate without sponsorship from local charities.

1620

They also must be supported by the municipalities. If the municipality says they don't want one, they won't have one. It's that simple. We're not going to try and sell to the municipalities. They're going to make their own decision on this if they want it in the community.

The public told us they didn't want gaming in neighbourhood bars, restaurants or corner stores. We've listened to that. They won't be allowed in residential areas. They will also be safe and secure. Children will not be allowed.

There will be no additional gaming days as a result of the new model than the province had when the roving Monte Carlos were running.

The illegal gaming unit has already been very active. It has levied fines of close to $1 million already. It has laid over 1,000 charges for illegal gaming. It has seized $378,000 in proceeds from criminal activities. Last week, under an operation called Project Storm, the unit successfully raided 22 restaurants and bars; 60 business owners and employees were charged with keeping common gaming houses and 60 video lottery terminals were seized. It's this kind of action that's helping to clean up gaming in Ontario. That allows us to protect communities and charities. Under the new system, charities will have more stable revenues and they will operate in a safer, more secure environment.

We want the public to know exactly where the revenue is going. That's why we're introducing full disclosure and an annual report tabled in the Legislature.

The Ontario chief of police recently sent a letter to our government: "Thank you for taking into consideration the concerns of the policing community in your decisions on charity casinos. We're committed to working in partnership with the government to resolve issues proactively, before they become a problem. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this."

Our new approach to gaming is making itself felt in other areas of the industry as well. Through the new gaming secretariat, we're taking steps to bring tighter control to the commercial casino arena. It's important to remember the support that controlled gaming has received even from Liberal members. The member for Windsor-Walkerville said in 1996, "I support properly planned, properly regulated casinos."

We're pleased to report that local support for the province's commercial casinos has also been overwhelming. Recently, Mayor Wayne Thomson of Niagara Falls told a conference, "When the casino arrived, it was a boon for a city where cross-border shopping had devastated the local economy and where some major hotels were three years behind in their taxes."

In fact, 79% of citizens felt safe walking down the streets compared to 59% before the casino opened. The high visibility of the downtown directed patrol unit and the increased number of pedestrians both contributed to an increased sense of security by the public.

Our goal has been to emphasize these high standards of safety. I'm pleased to say that law enforcement officials in both Windsor and Niagara are reporting low levels of crime. Earlier this month, the Niagara Regional Police stated that "the policing problems commonly associated with gambling - prostitution, drugs and organized crime - didn't materialize."

Before closing, I have to talk about problem gambling. We realize that 98% of the population is able to gamble responsibly, but there will always be those in society in need of help. More than any other government in Ontario, we've committed up to $20 million to dealing with these problems, whether it be through counselling sessions or self-banishment from the facilities.

Each of the casinos has developed programs to deal with problem gambling, including staff who are trained to identify problem gamblers.

Communities like Niagara Falls, Windsor and Orillia are enjoying unprecedented levels of success. I know Windsor has expressed enthusiasm for the economic benefits of the casinos it plays host to.

What I've outlined today is the government's decisive plan of action for bringing about badly needed reform to the gaming industry on all levels. This government has listened and will continue to listen to the stakeholders. We listened to the police, the charities, and to compulsive gaming experts, all of whom were uncomfortable with the status quo of Monte Carlos and illegal gambling in Ontario.

Police tell us that there are up to 20,000 illegal video lottery terminals in Ontario, machines that don't benefit charities, communities or health care. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is responsible for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, has assured us that every effort will be made to find these machines, shut them down and charge their operators. We're making sure that we get this kind of activity out of hotels, halls and restaurants and into a few controlled, well-secured permanent facilities in non-residential areas where children are clearly not permitted.

The responsibility of the government is to ensure that our communities and charities are protected through regulation of the industry, that gaming is conducted in a safe and secure environment and that any revenues generated should benefit all Ontarians. I believe that by closing down Monte Carlos, confiscating illegal VLTs and making well-supervised, secure charity casinos available, we're meeting those responsibilities.

The Acting Speaker (Mr John R. O'Toole): Further debate?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): The quote that we have to read is the one made by one Michael Harris, PC leader, May 17, 1993. This is Michael Harris, who is now the Premier of the province. He said: "As Donald Trump says, `Gaming doesn't come cheap.' I have to agree with a lot of the critics on that. It brings crime, it brings prostitution, it brings a lot of the things that maybe areas didn't have before. There is a big cost to pay."

Here's another quote from Michael Harris. On this one, he's Premier: "I don't want a million dollars a day into the province of Ontario. I don't want the money. I don't want the Ontario government to have it."

It's really disturbing to hear what's been happening, especially in light of this issue, in the last couple of weeks, when this government claims that it has a very sensible, rational, controlled program about this gaming expansion. We can see the situation in Niagara Falls. We have a situation where the government now, it has been revealed - as you know, there's this new mega-casino in Niagara Falls, but it seems that the people who got the contract for this mega-casino were some important members of the ruling Conservative Party: lobbyists, campaign backers and party officials. It also says the winning bidder of this so-called controlled gaming expansion in Niagara Falls, for instance, was actually rated third by government and tourist experts seeking a unique, prestigious, first-class facility.

Are we to have confidence in this government if it's going to continue to expand casinos across Ontario? It's going to put 44 more casinos in Ontario. This is beyond the ones in Niagara Falls, Windsor and Rama. Forty-four more? How can we have confidence when we see this mammoth new casino which is worth, I think, about $1 billion was given to the third-place finisher in the bidding? They said the winning bid even lacks the major convention centre Niagara Falls requires. It wasn't even in the bid. They still got the contract to build this mega-casino in Niagara Falls.

It's obvious that we have to have an independent person or persons look at the awarding of this contract, because if this is the way this government is going to do business, it raises so many questions. They turned down Raymond Moriyama in one of the bids, said he wasn't good enough to design this casino. They picked someone else. Who did they pick? They picked someone who supposedly had a history of bankruptcy. He was part of the winning bid in Niagara Falls. We're supposed to have confidence in this government to bring in another 44 when in Niagara Falls they didn't even accept Raymond Moriyama, said he wasn't good enough, when the third-place-rated company got the award in Niagara Falls, a $1-billion contract? It makes you wonder whether this government really knows what it's doing and how it does things in this gaming industry.

This is a government that prides itself on doing whatever it wants to do, despite the fact that most municipalities in Ontario turned down gambling and casino expansion in the November election. Almost every city and municipality across Ontario said they didn't want gaming and casino expansion. This government is still proceeding with 44 casinos, seven of them in Metro Toronto alone. Everybody in Toronto voted against it; the vast majority voted against the expansion. This government said, "No, we're going to give you seven casinos in Toronto. We're going to give another 44 in total across Ontario," when most municipalities voted against it in a referendum. So why are they still pushing these 44 casinos down the throats of the communities across Ontario? I think this government is hooked on, is addicted to gambling revenues. It is desperate to get these revenues so that it can pay for, obviously, a variety of its tax cuts and whatever other folly they're involved in.

1630

They're refusing to listen to or look at what people have said. Look at their latest announcement of about a month ago when they said: "Oh, by the way, we're not giving you VLTs any more. We're just going to give you the low-tech, one-armed bandits, slot machines, so they're different." It just means you lose a little slower, but they're still going to force slot machines down the throats of most Ontarians. They thought they could fool people by saying: "Oh no, we won't call them VLTs. We're going to call them slot machines."

It's just low-tech, one-armed bandits, but they're still highly addictive gaming machines that do one thing, extract money, because we all know that with people who go into casinos or use slot machines, basically most of them lose. It's a way of extracting hundreds of millions of dollars from Ontarians quickly. This government is addicted to that extraction and refuses to even listen to people who have said, "No, we don't want them." They're saying, "It doesn't matter what you said, we're still going to shove them down your throat."

Then they say: "Oh yeah, we're going to now call them slot machines. They're not VLTs any more." It's like someone said: The VLTs were like the crack cocaine. Now the slot machines are just plain cocaine. It's still addictive, it's still dangerous and it still destroys lives.

Then they said: "Oh, by the way, we're going to give money from gambling and slot machines to health care, so if you support health care, you've got to support our gambling expansion program, you've got to support slot machines." What kind of position do they put ordinary Ontarians in? They said: "Do you want better health care? Well, you have to support our casinos. Do you want better health care? You have to support our slot machines."

This is out-and-out blackmail. That's all it is. In other words, if you care about a better hospital, if you care about emergency departments that work, you have to vote and accept their slot machines and their 44 casinos. This is the lowest of the low any government can do, basically making people make a choice between a rock and a hard place. People don't want gambling expansion, yet now this government says, "If you want it, we're going to give you something good at the end of it." This is not the way you do business in a democratic society. You give people the option, but you don't force them by saying, "If you want health care, you have to have slot machines."

This is not the tradition of this province, yet this government has now linked the two so they can push people towards voting for them, so they can push public opinion. But I don't think the people of Ontario will buy it because the people of Ontario know that this government's trying to bribe them, to blackmail them, saying, "Oh no, these things are good because they're associated with health care."

It's not the right thing to do and it's a government that's hell-bent on doing this no matter what the evidence is. As you know, there was a BC Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that basically said that what the government was doing in gambling expansion, taking money from charities, was contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. This government, despite that ruling in British Columbia, is still proceeding down the same road that the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled was contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

This government didn't even bother to check it out with independent third-party advocates or lawyers to see whether or not their scheme of gambling expansion was contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. They refused to even check this out, to see whether maybe they were violating the Criminal Code of Canada by this gambling expansion program, because, as you know, in British Columbia a judge ruled that this type of inordinate expansion of government into gaming is a violation of the Criminal Code. The judge was very clear on that. He said that the British Columbia system, which is basically the same, where all kinds of money that used to go to charities now goes to government coffers, is a violation of the law of the land.

This government didn't even take the time to consult, as I said, with an independent panel of lawyers or jurists to see whether or not this legislation on gambling expansion also violates the Criminal Code of Canada. They're talking about this is a law-and-order government. This is a government that talks about crime control. They didn't even check to see whether this legislation violates the Criminal Code.

I challenge this government and the crime commissioner sitting right across from me, check to see whether this gambling expansion violates the Criminal Code of Canada. I would like to see a ruling from an independent third party to see whether this expansionary scheme of gambling in 44 casinos across this province is a violation of the law of this land. They have not done this. They have not dared to take it to an independent third party to see whether this is a Criminal Code violation.

Here we have a government that says, "Trust us. We are going slowly and carefully," but we know their whole cover has been blown in Niagara Falls. The whole process in Niagara Falls shows that they don't know what they're doing or they've done things just by talking to the right people. How could a third-place finisher win the contract in Niagara Falls? How could Raymond Moriyama be shut out? How could a convention facility be allowed there when it seems the owner of the bid that won in Ontario comes from Niagara Falls, New York, on the other side? He won part of the bid here in Canada, yet he owns part of the action on the other side of the border. That's why I think we have to slow down and ask for an investigation of the reckless, crazy gambling expansion program that this government has undertaken.

This may be the most incredible part of this whole approach of this government. This is a government that's awash in revenues. They don't need all this money from casinos in every neighbourhood, they don't need these thousands of slot machines, because the economy has been improving. I don't understand why they still push this reckless expansion, and I hope we have a full-blown, independent commission of inquiry into what's happening in Niagara Falls. That will blow the lid off this whole gambling expansion scheme. Let's have a full-blown inquiry.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm happy to have some time to be able to speak on this motion that I support and will begin by quoting someone from Vegas - he's a casino owner, a M. Stupak: "When we put 50 slot machines in, I always consider them 50 more mousetraps. You have to have a mousetrap to catch a mouse." He continues by saying: "You can't disguise this industry. You can have Streisand, but it is what it is. It's our duty," he says, "to extract as much money from the customer as we can and send them home with a smile on their face." That's what it's about. That's what these slot machines, casinos, gambling are all about.

I've got to admit to you that I'm not a gambler of that sort. I will also admit that from time to time I buy a lottery ticket, a 6/49. I do that because, like every other ordinary homo sapiens on this planet, we all want to make a fast buck - it's true - socialists included. It's true, yes. I won't share with you what I would do with my money, but as a socialist I would share my money I think a little better than my friends here on the right and the Tories on the other side. We would redistribute that wealth in a way that is fitting for a socialist. I buy that lottery ticket every now and then, but I have to admit, beyond that I'm not much of a gambler. It's not in me.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Did you ever play bingo in Nanaimo?

Mr Marchese: I used to play bingo when I was a kid.

Mr Conway: In Nanaimo?

Mr Marchese: No, I didn't.

I've been in Edmonton. My nephew was getting married there and they said, "Let's go to the casino there." "What would I do in a casino?" I was saying to myself. But I did accompany some of the family members who wanted to go. There are people who want to go, I admit that. As they went to gamble their money away - just like Mr Stupak says, "We take their money and send them home with a smile" - I sat there having a nice Scotch with some ice, because every now and then I like some ice on that Scotch, and I drank that Scotch, possibly two, and waited for them to lose their few dollars, and then we left.

That's the extent of my gambling experience. I have very little gambling experience. But I do know that if I went to gamble my money, it would be gone. The good thing is that I don't have any money to give away. But if I did, if I were a cabinet minister like some of my friends on the other side and had the few extra dollars, you never know, I might buy a few more 6/49s. A 6/49 is something that's easy to do. You go to the corner store and say: "Give me two of those. Give me a $2 Super 7." I can do that. It's easy. It's not a big strain on my pockets that are not very deep, not as deep as those of some of the Tories on the other side. But that's the extent of my experience.

1640

The experience about casinos or anything of that nature is as follows: Everything is done to keep gamblers from leaving, on the mathematical certainty that over time, because of built-in odds advantages, they will lose. Fresh air is pumped in to keep them from getting fatigued, because you need them healthy so they can keep on spending their money. Lights are especially aimed to keep them on the table and off foreheads, which can drain energy. I have a high forehead. It would hurt me a whole lot.

It is designed so they can suck your money away in no time. You don't even have time to blink in a casino before you realize you've lost a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand, and if you're a big spender, a couple of - we're talking big bucks here. I know it's not just Tories who have got the pecunia to gamble who go there; it's a lot of ordinary folks who go there and get sucked in, while the owners are there slurping at the trough.

This government, through Mike Harris - you've heard some of the quotations from M. Harris when he was there in opposition a couple of years ago - this man, when he was there, said: "No way, José, not when I'm in power. Not when I become the Premier are we going to have an expansion of casinos. No, siree." But Mikey was in some fine cathedral at the time.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker. The Premier; you're quite right. I called him by his first name instead of "the Premier," the appropriate designation. His name is Mike, but he's the Premier in this chamber and you're quite right.

At that time the Premier, Mr Harris, was living in some fine cathedral, but now I guess that cathedral is falling apart and he needs big bucks. He knows, like most others, that the way to make money is to take it away from ordinary people. He knows that in order to finance the income tax cut - my colleague from Welland-Thorold spoke about this - that $5-billion drain a year, he needs money. It's a $5-billion drain a year.

He needs it to give away money to people. He says it's creating jobs. We argue that it's increasing the deficit and the debt. He's borrowing in order to keep the deficit high. He's borrowing so that he can help the top 6% of people in Ontario to make that $2 billion that we want to take away from them. We want to take away two of those billion dollars that go to people earning over $80,000 because we think they don't need it.

But this government can't do that. In order to continue to find money, they have to get into gambling so that these fine family values types of Tories are in the gambling game. These are family values types of Tories saying, "We're going to do it better." These are the same types who are saying - and you know where this money is going to go. It's going to go into the charities, places like the Kidney Foundation of Canada and the March of Dimes. The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay said, "Even the opposition can't argue against that."

They are using charities as a cloak in their plan for the massive expansion of community-based gambling. They use charities, they use organizations that help the people out there whom this government is underfunding, in order to justify the proliferation of gambling in Ontario.

Would you want that kind of malodorous money hanging over your head? I don't believe we should. I really believe that kind of money, in the context that this government is conceiving it, is malodorous.

This government should finance charities and organizations that do good things for the public that is being shut out by them. It should finance those problems by general revenues through an income tax scheme that is fairer than what we've got in place. It is a much fairer way to finance what we in our society believe is important to have, what we believe makes for a more civil society. You can't have gambling be the channel by which we get money to fund these things. We can't do it. I don't believe we can; I don't believe we should. This government is using charities as a way to entice communities to say yes to a casino in their community.

It is also saying, "We will replace VLTs with slot machines." You remember, VLTs are much sharper machines. This is a slurping kind of machine. This is a machine that sucks your money away so quickly that you don't know it's disappeared. They are replacing the VLT not just because they know it has a bad name in the community but because they know this machine is a little more efficient in its ability to take money out of your pocket. So in April they announced, "We are replacing them and installing slot machines only in casinos and racetracks," hoping the communities out there are going to say: "Okay, that's great. This is much better than before." They are saying, like the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay said, "Under the old scheme those poor charities were only going to get 10%, while we're going to increase that percentage by another 10%," to make them feel better, to make them decide that gambling is okay because they're going to get a bigger take of the gambling money.

They're also announcing advanced funding for charities during the transition time until charity casinos are set up. However, it seems to be tied to conditions, including whether or not a municipality approves permanent casinos. We don't know, but if it's tied to that, it is using these fine tools - they're good on tools, these Tories - to try to suck in communities and charities to say yes to casinos in their communities. These are masterful Tories; masterful they are at this game.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): It sounds like bribery to me.

Mr Marchese: Of course it's bribery, but you need to bribe them. If in their communities they've said no already through the referendums they've had, what are you going to do? If you are the fine family values Tory Premier and family values Tories on the other side, you've got to come up with something to bribe the communities, don't you? Of course, because you've got nothing else.

Mr Pouliot: Slurping at the trough.

Mr Marchese: Slurping at the trough. I've got to tell you, there are a whole lot of people smacking their lips at the possibility of getting into this game. The member for Welland-Thorold already made reference to it today: slurping at the trough and some snorking at the trough. There are a whole lot of bucks there. There's a whole lot of money to be made.

But these people say, "Oh, no, we're doing this because we think we can do it better." The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay said there were two options: shutting them down or working with them to improve them. I tell you, we could have worked to improve what we had instead of doing what you people need to do because you need the money. You need to proliferate casinos, not because having more is better but because you need the cash.

1650

We think the options were much more effective - by the way, I heard it from the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay - than to have what is proposed here by this government. What is being proposed here by this government will do the following: It will reinforce those studies that have already been done, and the studies indicate that 6% of gamblers become pathological and that 10% experience frequent financial and/or social problems as a result of gambling. The estimated annual cost to the government per pathological gambler ranges up to $81,000.

Why are people worried? Why are municipal politicians worried? Because with the downloading of social services to the property tax base, to the municipal level, they're going to have to pick up the pathologies that emerge from this expansion of gambling, the problems that emerge from marital breakdowns, substance abuse and the like.

They know that when this government does this - and they have been cutting drastically in areas of need, in areas of social services that are required - and more money is needed, the municipality will not have the necessary dollars to help them out, because of the downloading of things such as housing, child care, welfare, ambulance services, public health. That will become an unbearable cost, and they're saying, "We can't handle any more problems at the local level." Municipalities are particularly worried about this. They have been responding in their communities by and large with a resounding no to these casinos, and it makes a great deal of sense to do this.

Imagine that the only economic development idea this government has is casinos. It's the only thing I've heard from this government other than their ideas that, "We, as a Conservative government, are opening the doors for business; we are creating the climate for big business to come and create jobs." They haven't done anything. The Minister of Finance hasn't done a thing and the Premier hasn't done a thing to create one single job. Jobs have been created because the economy is in a boom, but not because of this income tax money that he is giving back to them and not because of any grand idea that this government has come up with. Their only economic development idea is casinos. What a discovery that is.

Can you imagine going to the public saying, "We can raise about a billion bucks"? They downplay the number of dollars you would make out of this, because you can't tell the public you can make a billion or two, right? You can't do that. This is their economic idea: "We're going to raise approximately $1 billion. Charities are going to like it, communities are going to like it, a whole lot of people out there are going to like it."

What a pitiful government we have whose only economic development idea is this. They have nothing else? Is this government not bankrupt if all they have is this? Maybe the next speaker can enlighten us on this when they speak next. They might have some great economic development ideas that we might have missed as poor Ontarians out there who are not as illustrious as they, not as articulate or as innovative as they. Maybe the next speaker will stand and say to me, "Here are some of the economic ideas we've got."

They don't have any ideas. They don't have any ideas as a Conservative government other than cutting services, cutting government, which is part of the ideology of this Tory government, and the other economic development idea is to give people an income tax cut. These are the ideas. You must admit there's a paucity of thought on the other side, isn't there? How can people think this government is doing anything useful for them when this is all we've got to deal with?

The bill, this new proposal, permits for more slot machines and replaces VLTs. You remember Bill 79 allowed for the licensing of up to 20,000 video lottery terminals. They said: "Obviously, the communities don't like it. We'd better eliminate that and give them more slot machines. That'll do it."

The only thing one can end with is to remind the public that gambling is, as Mr Stupak indicated in his quotation - I'll repeat it: "You can't disguise this industry. You can have Streisand, but it is what it is, and it's our duty to extract as much money from the customer as we can and send them home with a smile on their face."

I tell you, you might make them feel good at the end of that exchange of money over the tables or whatever else they do in those places, but when you lose big bucks, you don't go home with a smile on your face. You go home with a different kind of face because you've got to face yourself and your family, if you're in a relationship, and your children and deal with the devastating loss that brings. I am not for proliferation of gambling. Expansion of gambling is not the answer. It will be the ruin of many people. It will cause much devastation in communities when they have to find money to treat these people who become addicted, and I believe it does not contribute to civil society when the only thing this government has to offer is gambling as an economic development idea.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): It is my privilege this afternoon to take part in today's Liberal opposition motion, brought forward by the member for St Catharines, Mr Bradley. I think it's fair to say that this is a subject of sensitivity to each individual member, and I'm sure a wide degree of opinion will also be expressed in that discussion.

At the outset, it's important to point out that our government is not introducing gambling to Ontario. Gambling, as we all know, has existed for some time. We currently allow bingos, and no one I have heard of has recommended the shutting down of Lottario. I believe any responsible government would want to make sure that gambling is done legally and with proper controls to protect our communities and indeed our children. We can't ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

What our government has sought to do is replace a system of roving Monte Carlo events that charities and police told us were not working. In 1996 there were 15,000 gaming days held under 4,900 licences. That's about the equivalent of 42 Monte Carlo events being held in the province each and every day. These events were taking place anywhere there was a large enough room to hold them. Police were concerned that these events were difficult to secure and to regulate, and they were sometimes set up in neighbourhoods where kids has easy access. We felt it was not a responsible way to do business, and we certainly had to take action.

Charities also had problems with Monte Carlo events. They are expensive to advertise and to operate. As a matter of fact, operations consumed about 90% of the proceeds, leaving charities with approximately $10 million across the province. That being said, many charities have come to rely on Monte Carlo events to raise money, so we could not just eliminate them and deny communities this opportunity without some kind of replacement. When police and charities expressed their concerns about the hard-to-regulate and inefficient Monte Carlo events, we took that seriously as well.

Our government set out to design a system of gaming that would meet both the needs of the charities and the concerns of the police in the communities. We need to provide a controlled, secure and tightly regulated environment for the legal gaming entertainment, where the proceeds will be directed to the areas that will benefit all Ontarians: our communities, our charities, and yes, even our health care.

1700

Our government is committed to listening to people's legitimate concerns about gaming. When concerns were expressed about gaming in neighbourhood bars and restaurants, we listened, and we have announced that gaming will only be allowed at charity casinos and racetracks and certainly not in residential areas, as has already been mentioned earlier this afternoon.

When municipalities expressed concerns about locations, we agreed to respect their decisions on hosting the charity casinos. We recognize that many municipalities have gone on record as not wanting to host one of the charity gaming clubs, and we respect that. It will be up to the municipality whether they want to host a charity gaming club. If they say no, we will accept that decision.

We feel that our plan for charity gaming clubs will be better for all concerned. Charities will be eligible to receive 100% of the net revenue from gaming tables and a percentage from the slot machines. Host municipalities will receive 5% of the gross slot machine revenues to address any increased costs to their municipality. The provincial share from the slot machines will be dedicated to health care, new money on top of our $18.5-billion health budget. As well, 2% of slot-machine revenue will be dedicated to problem gambling.

This new plan will also be more transparent than the system we've seen in the past. We have mandated full disclosure of gaming revenue in the budget, in our public accounts and through an annual report that will be tabled in this Legislature. We have strengthened enforcement to end illegal gambling as well. Currently there are approximately 15,000 to 20,000 illegal VLTs operating in Ontario. As we know, in the past these profits only went to the operators and criminal activity. Not one penny of it goes to charities. The illegal gaming unit run by the Ministry of the Solicitor General has targeted these illegal VLTs and has met with success to this point.

During the transition from Monte Carlo events to charity gaming, we recognize that some charities may face difficulties. To prevent this from happening, we have announced $40 million in advance funding to help charities during this transition period. This money will be recovered if and when the charity gets access to a charity casino.

Our government is committed to ensuring that gambling takes place in a controlled, safe environment, and we have taken steps to ensure that municipalities' decisions on charity gaming are respected and that the needs of charities are also met. The problems of gambling of the past are being controlled by the regulated changes I've just mentioned: only sites that are requested by municipalities, only in areas where adults are allowed, control of the past illegal VLTs, and the proceeds go to charities that benefit all members of our communities, including a portion to provincial health support and dedicated financial support to address problem gambling.

For these reasons, I believe gambling can now take place in a controlled way, and for that reason I will not be supporting today's motion.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate, the member for Scarborough North.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Madam Speaker, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to and support my colleague the member for St Catharines on this opposition day on gambling. I must say first that, from the inception, this member has shown strong leadership in this direction, about the way this government is going about gambling. He told you over and over that it's the crack cocaine of gambling, where it's an addiction, and this government completely ignores it. I want to applaud him for the fact that he has brought this right to the forefront so that this government will have to address this today.

Charity gaming is gambling. The fact is that the nice fancy name you all would give it, close down to the bottom line, it is gambling and it's an addiction. Most of the people who suffer from this addiction, whom you're extracting the funds and money from, are the poor. I would challenge any one of the Conservative members to go out to these casinos and look very carefully at who are the people gambling there. To say now, "We are a part of it; as the government, we're going to make it better," you know, is kind of sad. There's no new money coming in to society in any way. It's disposable income of the poor, who deprive themselves of other things in order to gamble, hoping that the big day comes in.

What is this all about? Why is the government into this? Why does the government want to be a part of this gambling? It brings money to the government. It brings money to the tune of $460 million of all these proceeds that will go to the government coffers. In the meantime, they will then turn around and say, "We'll put some money back for all those who have been addicted to this gambling." All the crime and the policing that will be required to govern this terrible, awful situation is to say, "We've put some money back." But $460 million - that's 65% of the net revenue - that's what it's all about. The same government that went about cutting some of the most important social programs for the most vulnerable in our society then turns around and says, "We want a grab at that money so we can put it back to those people," because they're getting the biggest cut ever.

It is the same Premier or leader that you have today, Mike Harris, who was totally against gambling. There are quotes, and I'm sure my colleagues have quoted many times what he has said. He has even stated that any city that is against gambling and votes against it, he will not put them there. But we have seen the reverse today. It doesn't matter.

One thing I can say about this government, they are consistent. They are very undemocratic about what they do. "It doesn't matter a damn what people will say, we will do it anyhow because we in the government are tough. We don't listen to the people." We see it in every policy they are bringing about. "We are right and everybody else is wrong." Gambling now becomes right for them, even if they had said before that they are against gambling.

I also want in my short time to quote some of the things that I have here, some concerns of some people around. Professor Kindt, business department at the University of Illinois: "For every $1 that gambling revenue brings into the state, it will cost the residents between $3 and $7 in hidden costs."

Therefore, when we think that we are winning, we as a society are losing. We spend more in the creating of prostitution, of drugs, of policing. More money will be put there, but because the government can put their hands on 65% of the net revenue, they don't really care whatsoever. Again, why should they care? Because the people it has the most impact on are the poor, the most vulnerable, the ones who feel: "One of these days, my day will come in. I will put my $50, $200, $2,000, the children's money for milk or the rent into it, because one day the big day will come in that I will win all this."

But the winner in all of this is the government that is reaping 65% of that net revenue. It is so vulgar, so immoral that a government that should be protecting the most vulnerable in our society is exploiting the most vulnerable, and then turns around and says, "What I will do, I will put it back in the charitable organizations because what happens, you then can serve those people in our society." It is the same government that, when people were struggling around to find food in their homes, tells them to buy dented tuna because that's where you should go. But they will still put in casinos and gambling in order to get their worth of the money.

Let me also quote another part of what was said by Robert Goodman, director of the United States Gambling Study that was done: "The average cost to the United States government for every problem gambler in the country is $13,000." If you think about that, the fact is that the cost that we have to spend back on those who are addicted and the cost to manage all of that addiction will be more to us.

But again I understand that. I understand the fact that this government, if it was affecting the wealthy, would not do that. But there is no representation. They would say they're a vested interest who are -

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): You guys gave not one penny to addiction research, Alvin, not one penny. At least we give -

Mr Curling: I can see the minister, who's here today and who's heckling, who was part of all of this, who didn't care very much when he was community and social services minister, didn't care too much about those people, telling them to go and buy dented tuna. No wonder he's shouting today: "Damn the torpedoes. Let's go ahead and get that money and push it there."

1710

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Try to get some facts for a change, Alvin. A couple of facts help once in a while.

Mr Curling: The fact is, it's the government itself that does not care about the poor, does not care about those individuals.

Today, I would hope they would address some of the situations that we have in the Human Rights Commission that have been neglected, the cutting of funds there, the cutting of support for those people who need it most. Not at all. What they need is to balance, to pay down their deficit. It doesn't matter if the debt is huge, it doesn't matter two hoots. "We just have to cut our deficit, no matter how we leave the great legacies to our young people," and the young people here who are pages are watching and saying what happened, they will inherit. Many of you here will go back to school, and you should tell them in your school that this government has created a greater debt for you to pay later on and brags about cutting back on that deficit.

But the debt will be greater on the backs of the poor who basically feel giving them that little - dangling before them that one day it will come true, that they will win. They will not. They are the losers in our society because what it has done is broken up homes. The addiction to gambling is so severe to families. It is a situation where it has broken up families, it has caused people to lose their homes, and then this government says: "It is fine. Let's go out and put it where we can get 65% of that net revenue."

My colleague from St Catharines has told you over and over that this is the wrong way to go, but you are going to surge ahead and decide that we must go in an extensive way to do all you want to get that money because you want to pay down that deficit. Mike Harris, who has emphatically told us that gambling has no place in his government, no place in his role, has today now moved ahead when he sees the dollar signs coming his way and has no care for those who will, as I said, be most destroyed by this terrible direction in which they're going.

As the opposition, we will continue to speak against that kind of an attitude. I want again to applaud my colleague from St Catharines for bringing this forward.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Thank you for bearing with me as I was hobbling to get myself back into this place, Madam Speaker.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the resolution put forward by the member for St Catharines. I was going to say that I have a great deal of respect for him. I was going to say that I know he is a person who works very hard to represent his constituents. I was going to say that I know him to be honest and ethical. I was going to say that he speaks from the heart on this issue, and how conscientious and disciplined he is.

I was going to say that, but when I was doing my research, I noticed that in 1990, when the member for St Catharines was Minister of Environment, Bill 114 was passed, and he added "protection of the environment" to the list of lottery beneficiaries. He didn't object to the revenue from gaming in 1990.

I have to ask, when is gambling not gambling? Is gambling only gambling when it's casino gambling? Is gambling only gambling when it's not bingo or not lotteries? Is gambling bad in itself? I am not a gambler. I don't believe in throwing away my money.

Whether or not I think that gambling is morally reprehensible has absolutely no bearing on what we as a Legislature should be doing. It is not my role, nor is it the role of any member in this House, to pass judgement on what the majority of people in Ontario want to do with their own money. If they consider gambling or gaming as a form of entertainment, then so be it.

Durand Jacobs is a PhD. He's a diplomate in clinical psychology of the American Board of Professional Psychology and a professor of psychiatry at the Loma Linda University School of Medicine in Loma Linda, California. He is vice-president of the National Council on Problem Gambling, a charter member of the board of directors of the California Council on Compulsive Gambling and a contributing editor to several professional journals, including the Journal of Gambling Behavior. He has been involved in treatment, training of professionals, and research on addictive behaviours for 30 years and has served as a consultant and adviser to several provincial government agencies, including the Ontario government-sponsored joint project on problem gambling of the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling, the Addiction Research Foundation and the Donwood Institute. I might add, when he was serving on the Ontario government-sponsored joint project on problem gambling, it wasn't with this government. It was one of our predecessor governments.

Durand Jacobs gave a speech on May 12, 1995, to the Ontario Conference on Problem Gambling. I would like to quote from some of the things he said:

"There are two predisposing conditions that are common to all addictive behaviours: physiological and psychological. The physiological level is seen as chronically hypotensive or hypertensive. These are opposites. The former is underaroused and bored. They need stimulation. The latter is stressed out all the time. They have to find ways to get down. The psychological factor is common to all addicts. Somewhere in their background were feelings of inadequacy, shame, guilt, or rejection by parents.

"People learn to become addicts.... You deliberately learn....

"You can't make an addict. We can do it with rats, but we can't do it with people. You've got to be predisposed before you can become an addict. I can't sit you in a chair and keep pouring alcohol down your throat until you become addicted, and the same is true with gambling and drugs.

"Addiction is not something that happens to us - it is something done by us. It is something that we carefully construct and protect and defend. It is a very deliberate problem-solving action."

1720

He goes on to say: "Prohibition isn't the answer. Tens of thousands of people drown every year and we don't drain the oceans....Where the high point for gambling addiction will be - somewhere between 1% and 2% - remains to be seen." I want to reiterate that - between 1% and 2%.

"That's where it has been holding, and chances are that it will hold in that range. It won't be a whole population becoming addicted to gambling. It just won't happen, any more than it would be a whole population going off into drugs or alcohol. You've got to be predisposed."

The critics of gaming make it sound as if there is a tremendous number of people whose lives will be destroyed by gambling. This government did not introduce gaming to Ontario; it was introduced by the former government. When it was introduced, the members of the NDP government, who are members of the NDP opposition now, supported it, and the members of the Liberal Party generally didn't oppose.

How must it feel to be a Liberal member today? Confusing, I'm sure, to be a member of a party that is politically bankrupt, not to mention probably financially. It must be very difficult as a member of the Liberal Party to explain to constituents how it was their party which had raised taxes 33 times in five years, compared to our government which has cut taxes 36 times in less than three years; compared to our party which has significantly reduced the deficit and is on target to totally eliminate the deficit within another 18 months to two years.

Imagine, if you can, when the member for St Catharines is put into the position on an almost daily basis of trying to make a case against this government's health care spending, trying to tell the people of Ontario that this government has cut health care spending when in fact we have increased health care spending dramatically from the $17.4 billion it was in 1995 to in excess of $18.5 billion in the coming 12 months. Imagine that in the area of gaming an additional half-billion dollars will be taken from the proceeds and added to health care spending, over and above the $18.5 billion already budgeted for in the budget earlier this month.

I have often said in this House and in committee that the Liberals will not answer my queries about how they would have restricted health care spending to $17 billion, as was proposed in the red book. I still wonder that. I'm still not receiving any answers.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): You'll never get one.

Mr Wettlaufer: No, I never will. But maybe, just maybe, if the sun fails to rise and if the moon fails to rise, or if the moon is made of cheese, the member for St Catharines will come into this House and explain it. I hope so but I won't hold my breath.

It must take a tremendous level of mental manipulation to contend with the reality that his party would have cut back health care to $17 billion while our government has increased it to $18.5 billion, and also to know that it was his federal cousins who have cut the health care transfer payments to all the provinces, to Ontario, to the tune of $2.1 billion.

It's very interesting. I was watching the CPaC channel yesterday and I saw the Premier from Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, talking about the cuts in health care to Saskatchewan from the federal government and how the leader of the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan indicated that they knew where there was $1.3 billion in savings that could be achieved in health care in Saskatchewan. I'm sure this is the philosophy the Liberal Party in this province is using when they say that they could have restricted spending to health care in Ontario to $17 billion, that they knew where the waste was.

We believe that a good health care system is important to the people of Ontario, and that is why we would take another half-billion dollars out of gaming revenues and put it into health care.

The budget we have established for health care is the highest in the history of this province, the highest in the history of Ontario. I guess I'm somewhat proud of that. I'm proud of a political party that has formed the government and has recognized that while there have to be changes made to the health care system to ensure it's there for an aging population, changing demographics in our population, at the same time we have to ensure that it's the best health care system money can buy. I am proud of that. I guess I could smile about it, but maybe I won't.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Go ahead, smile.

Mr Wettlaufer: No, I won't.

Mr Gilchrist: The world smiles with you.

Mr Wettlaufer: The world smiles with me if I do? All right, I will.

What's very scary about this motion that has been presented today is that the member for St Catharines says we are trying to force casinos down the throats of municipalities and that we are going to put them in the neighbourhoods. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. The Chair of Management Board has stated more than once that "no" means "no," that if the municipalities don't want the charity gaming casinos, then they don't have to have them. If "no" means "no," then just what part of "no" does the member for St Catharines not understand? The municipalities - let me reiterate this - that have said they do not want charity gaming casinos will not have them, and even those who have them, who want them - why would the member for St Catharines say in his motion that they would be placed in neighbourhoods?

We have been very explicit in saying that they will not be in areas near residences. We have been very explicit in saying that children will not have access to them, that they will be secure places. How explicit can we be before the member for St Catharines finally understands that point?

Mr Young: Fearmongering.

1730

Mr Wettlaufer: It is fearmongering, total fearmongering.

The opposition and the critics talk about the reception that gambling casinos, that gaming clubs might get from the public. Let's just look at something. This was a poll done by Environics Research Group Ltd in 1994 to measure Ontarians' attitudes towards video lottery terminals. It was done in November 1994, and 67% of the Ontario public said that the government should introduce new revenues in areas like lotteries and gaming. At the same time, 58% said that the government should increase taxes on alcohol and tobacco or reduce spending on social services and 42% said that the government should place tolls on highways. Sixty-seven per cent of the Ontario public said that the government should introduce new revenues in areas like lotteries and gaming. Interesting.

The Ontario Restaurant Association and the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association also in November 1994 produced the results of a February 1994 and a November 1994 survey on VLTs. This is the issue that the member for St Catharines was constantly critical about for the past three years. At that time - again, this is two polls - 67% of the population of Ontario said they would support lotteries and gaming as a deficit reduction strategy, and 77% in February 1994 frequently or occasionally played at least one form of gaming. In November 1994 it was 76%, obviously not a measurable difference.

The fact is that the majority of the public of Ontario considers gaming a form of entertainment. Whether or not I like it does not put me in the position of being someone who should tell the public what they should do. I'm just repeating that for emphasis, and I may repeat it again before I'm finished.

The member for St Catharines, and the member for Oakwood as well, said that this government wasn't listening to the people. Not listening to the people? When 67% said they supported it, we're not listening to the people? What absolute nonsense. Over and over again the members of the NDP or the members of the Liberal Party always say that our government isn't listening. If we're not listening, how come we have said to the municipalities, "If you don't want a casino, you don't have to have one"? Isn't that listening? The police have told us about the problems with illegal gaming in the province, and we have here an idea which is aimed at solving the problems with illegal gaming. Is that not listening? I think it is.

The police told us - this is the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, by the way - after we indicated what we were going to do with the charity gaming clubs: "Thank you for taking into consideration the concerns of the policing community in your decisions on charity casinos. We are committed to working in partnership with the government to resolve issues proactively before they become a problem. We look forward to continuing with you on this and other matters as they arise."

We are listening. We are listening to the chiefs of police. We listened to them when they told us there were some 20,000 illegal VLTs in the province. We listened when we heard there was something in the area of $8 billion to perhaps $10 billion, but at a very bare minimum $5 billion, in illegal gaming proceeds in this province.

We listened when the charities told us they were getting $10 million a year. We listened when the police told us that the roving casinos weren't working because the charities were paid third, that it was the operator of the casino who was going to be paid first, and then the location. We listened when the police told us they had no real handle on the numbers or places where roving casinos were setting up. We listened when we heard that six out of seven days of every week in my own region in the past three years there was a roving casino set up - six out of seven days of every week in the past three years a roving casino. There were no controls on the roving casinos. There was no justification as to how much money the roving casino was passing on to the charity.

And we aren't listening? Madam Speaker, I hate to tell you this, but the members of the two opposition parties are the ones who aren't listening. They have their own views and they're going to ram those views down the throats of the general public.

Interjection: They're going to try.

Mr Wettlaufer: Yeah, they're going to try. It isn't going to happen.

We intend to find the illegal gaming machines, we intend to find the illegal gaming locations and we intend to shut them down. But we can only do this through a proper process.

We all know that we had some illegal drinking activity during Prohibition. Historically, everybody knows that.

Mr Pouliot: Demon rum. The great Satan.

Mr Wettlaufer: Demon rum, yes. We all know we had illegal liquor. What did governments do at that time? They decided to legalize drinking and shut down the illegal operations. Through legal controls, governments in North America have been largely successful, and that is exactly what we intend to do here with illegal gaming.

Is the member for St Catharines listening? No, probably not. He's probably carrying on a conversation with some other member in the House, but that's understandable; he never does listen.

Mr Pouliot: But he keeps getting re-elected.

1740

Mr Wettlaufer: The member for Lake Nipigon says he continues to get re-elected, but next time he's going up against one of our very hardworking, conscientious members, the member for St Catharines-Brock, and our member for St Catharines-Brock is going to be the elected member for that area.

It must be very disillusioning, very confusing for the member for St Catharines when he stands up and criticizes this government day after day after day for our policies and yet our policies are becoming more and more popular among the people of the province. It must be very disillusioning for him.

Our entire election platform from three years ago, which was formed as the result of three solid years of travelling around the province soliciting people's views, three solid years, we are carrying out the election platform. It has almost entirely already been done. It is meeting with the satisfaction of the people of Ontario. It is what they wanted. It is what the taxpayers of this province wanted, and we are doing it.

We are enjoying such widespread support now because we told them we would cut taxes to boost the economy. Have we done it? We've cut the taxes. Is the economy booming? Yes, the economy is booming: 341,000 new jobs since we were elected, 265,000 of those in the last 12 months. We are now, once again, the engine driving the Canadian economy. Economists came to the pre-budget hearings and told us that.

Getting back to gaming, even Jean Chrétien, the father of the Liberals, said that he is not a gambler. He's like me; he's not a gambler. But even he is not going to force his views down the throats of the Ontario public. Why would the member for St Catharines want to force his personal views down the throats of the Ontario public? Why would he want to do that when his own federal cousin, Jean Chrétien, has said it is not his role to do so?

We were told to reduce government spending, and we have. We were told to eliminate the deficit, and we've eliminated the deficit, almost. We were told to create a positive business environment, and we've done that. We were told to reduce the overlapping and confusing red tape, which caused so many problems for small business in this province, and we have done that.

My friend and colleague Frank Sheehan, the member for Lincoln, and the other members of the Red Tape Commission have done a tremendous job and should be congratulated for the job they've done on that Red Tape Commission. But it's never enough for the members of the Liberal Party or the NDP Party. I don't understand.

Mr Kormos: N-D-P. The "P" stands for "Party."

Mr Wettlaufer: The NDP. The member for Welland-Thorold has a problem.

In response to my friend and colleague from St Catharines, I want you to know that I do hear you. I hear what all the members of the opposition parties say. Our government hears you. We listen. We listen to your input - when it's valid.

Mr Kormos: There's the qualifier.

Mr Wettlaufer: Of course I qualify it.

It's a tremendous day to be a member of this government. We are going to eliminate the corruption in gaming in this province, and we are going to do that as we have improved the economy.

Mr Conway: I rise to join the debate that was initiated some hours ago by my colleague Mr Bradley from St Catharines, and in so joining the debate I want to support the motion standing in his name.

Gambling, and more particularly state-sponsored gambling, is an issue that is of increasing concern to people across Canada and the United States. It's hard to pick up a newspaper or watch television news in Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New York, California, Oregon, without seeing some community group, some ministerial association, raising concerns about the extent, the qualitative advance, of state-sponsored gambling.

Let me say that we've had for decades, in this jurisdiction, gambling that has been sponsored, after a fashion, by government. When I came here 23 years ago, the Legislature had just, under the very capable leadership of Robert Welch, introduced legislation to create the Ontario Lottery Corp. There were not a few Progressive Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats who felt at that time that that legislation was the beginning of a slippery slope. We've all been in government over the last number of years and to a degree we've all grappled with this problem, not just in Ontario, but as I said a moment ago, in other jurisdictions.

My concern, and that of many of the constituents I represent in the Ottawa Valley, is the qualitative advance in state-sponsored gambling. That's my particular concern. We've now looked at the Ontario budget, 1998, and I was reflecting on this the other night, but I want today in the few moments that are provided me to draw the attention of the House again to the revenue charts contained on page 53 of the Ontario budget papers, 1998. If you look at the income from government enterprises, I will simply look at the revenues from the Ontario Lottery Corp and the Ontario Casino Corp. Those are the two government enterprises that provide the revenue to Her Majesty's provincial government.

In 1994-95, the combined revenues generated to the province from the Ontario Lottery Corp and the Ontario Casino Corp were in that year $947 million. Five years later, according to this budget document tabled a few weeks ago by Mr Eves, that $947 million will grow in this year to $1.755 billion. That is an indication of the extent to which our interest in, and our dependence upon, government-sponsored gambling is growing.

It also raises another question. Government is now not just the principal beneficiary of gambling, but it purports to be the regulator as well. I would say that represents a fundamental and unmanageable conflict of interest. We as a government, we as a Legislature, not just here but in virtually all of the other provinces and states across our part of North America are increasingly dependent. We are addicts. The public purse is increasingly dependent on gambling revenues.

I simply say to the House, that raises a very real question as to whether we should imagine ourselves to be a fair-minded and efficient regulator. I don't believe it is possible to, on the one hand, be dependent to the tune of $1.755 billion this year and imagine, on the other hand, that we can referee that game. The evidence certainly, and particularly in the United States, is that if you look at states like New Jersey, when you get as dependent as we're getting as a government on state-sponsored gambling revenues, we are increasingly conflicted. Our legal and moral authority to be any kind of a regulator is increasingly undermined. I think that conflict of interest is something about which we are going to have to, all of us, give some increasing thought.

1750

It's not just that issue. I totally disagree with the previous speaker, who would have one believe there is no evidence to suggest that there is a growing problem with state-sponsored gambling. I was reading last year a series of articles in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, an incredible series of articles under the headline "Dead Broke: How Gamblers are Killing Themselves, Bankrupting Their Families and Costing Minnesota Millions." It's one of countless analyses that have been done in the United States and Canada. To take it outside of Ontario, we have all heard what has gone on in Nova Scotia, and if you have been to Winnipeg or British Columbia in the last few years, you know only too well the problems there.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): You don't have to holler.

Mr Conway: I am hollering, I guess, because I simply listen to a debate and it says - my good friend the member from Hastings, loyalist to the core, is standing up here and telling us that the government is really going to deal with the problems. Let me tell all of you that you're not going to be able to do it. The evidence everywhere is that when you get this big a player, when you get this dependent, you are not going to be able to do what you say you're going to do. There's no evidence whatsoever. I have talked to police officers, law enforcement officers, and they tell me privately that there were problems, absolutely.

I remember a very colourful story being told to me by an RCMP official about what was going on in North Bay 10 years ago, and I'm sure some of it was going on in my town, but I'm telling you, I do not think that justifies the giant leap forward that we are taking in recent times around this Legislature and so many others.

Let me say something else. As a citizen, I am infuriated at the notion that I am supposed to stand by and endorse this, because according to these self-same budget documents, there's going to be in a full year $480 million worth of in-year revenue to the health department. Let me say as one citizen, I don't want that kind of money if that's what it's going to take to keep me healthy.

I have been around this workplace long enough, and I'm not going to name names, but I'm telling you, I have seen with my own eyes in this very place, involving some very good friends of mine, just how ruinous is this addiction, just how absolutely wretched is this addiction, and I'm telling you, I don't want anybody to tell me that I should rest comfortably down at the Princess Margaret or at the Pembroke General Hospital - God forbid that I should be a patient in the coming days - with the notion that I'm going to be helped and made whole because hundreds of thousands of people are out gaming in state-sponsored establishments.

I've only been to one casino in my life and it happens to have been in Connecticut a few years ago, Foxwoods, which at the time was the largest casino in the eastern half of the United States. I was absolutely appalled, and I'm not here to be unduly moralistic, because I think Brother Wettlaufer made a point that there is certainly an aspect to this that is entertainment.

Again, the data suggest that for people with upper incomes gaming is an entertainment, but the majority of people out there are people with low incomes, and for them gaming is not an entertainment. The evidence is absolutely clear. Gaming for those people is the hope and the prayer, against all reasonable odds, that they're going to hit it rich like that fellow in northern Illinois the other day, US$105 million, in some big jackpot, and for those people, let me tell you, for people of moderate and lower incomes, it's not entertainment.

I reflect on what I saw that afternoon two or three springs ago at Foxwoods. I'm going to tell you I don't want to live in a society that has as a tax and fiscal policy the premeditated measure that we are going to sustain important health and other services with that kind of revenue base.

People talk about tax cuts. If we want health and educational programs, we as a society should be willing to pay for them and we should be willing to offer the province and the country a progressive tax policy. The notion that we are going to be funding health and other services with this most vicious and appalling and regressive method of taxation is positively stupefying. I can't imagine that there are - I know there are many good family-values Conservatives around here, quite frankly in all parties. Do we want that? Is that the legacy we want?

There was a movie about 20 or 25 years ago, They Shoot Horses, Don't They? Does anybody remember it? Remember the God-awful impression of these poor and destitute people in the Depression and they were going out to these week-long or month-long dance-a-thons because that was their only hope and their only prayer of getting enough money to survive? I'm quite prepared to say to my electors that if we want quality health care, we have got to stand in our place and say, "We are going to tax for it and we are going to tax fairly for it."

I say in conclusion, what is wrong with a picture that says we want to reduce supports to the most vulnerable people in our community on the one hand, and on the other hand pick their pockets to the tune of $1 billion to support things like the Trillium Foundation and health funding? That's why I support the Bradley motion.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Bradley has moved opposition day motion number 2. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1757 to 1802.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the members take their seats, please.

Mr Bradley has moved opposition day number 2. All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Ayes

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Conway, Sean G.

Cullen, Alex

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

Morin, Gilles E.

Pouliot, Gilles

Ramsay, David

Silipo, Tony

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Skarica, Toni

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 16; the nays are 50.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

It being now past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 this evening.

The House adjourned at 1805.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

25 mai 1998