L024a - Wed 10 Jun 1998 / Mer 10 Jun 1998 1
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
CONDOMINIUM ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS
PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS
PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS
The House met at 1330.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On behalf of our Liberal caucus, I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event that dates back 418 years and has been celebrated as Portugal National Day since 1880.
The celebration of the national day of Portugal is special and unique in the pages of history. Unlike some dates that commemorate an important political event, such as the Declaration of Independence, or a war or some such thing, on this historic occasion we ask the people of Ontario to join us and all Canadians of Portuguese heritage in the remembrance of a great, world-renowned poet and writer, Luis de Camões. Although he passed away more than 400 years ago, Camões left a living legacy of meaningful poetry of immortal beauty that has not withered with age.
We're all cognizant, of course, and appreciative of the tremendous contributions that our Portuguese friends have made to the development and growth of our province and country, both in economic and cultural fields. Yet, as important as economic contributions are, the attention of Canada and Portugal today, especially of Portuguese children, is focused not on the prosperity and wealth that opportunities in Canada bring but on our democratic system of government, which allows the people in our society of Ontario to celebrate a national hero of their forefathers as a right.
To our Portuguese friends who are today in the gallery - Consul General Montenegro; the president of the alliance, Joe Eustacio; and a member of Parliament from Portugal, Lourdes Lara - I simply say, viva Portugal.
PLACE PROVIDENCE
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Today I want to talk about community leadership and responsibility in bringing together the community leaders who were involved in the negotiations over Place Providence, a senior citizens' place in the town of Hearst.
A new agreement was put in place for Place Providence. The municipalities of Val Coté, Mattice and Hearst each agreed to contribute $15,000 annually to the overall operation budget of $155,000, to be administered by Notre-Dame Hospital. This is because of the cutbacks by this government that have been taking place.
It is indeed very good news for the communities involved, for the actual residents and their families.
I want to congratulate Mayor Jean-Marie Blier of Hearst, Paul Zorzetto of Mattice-Val Coté, and Notre-Dame Hospital head Raymond Lafleur for all the initiative that has been shown.
I would hope that the provincial government would now play a leadership role as well and assist with grants and subsidies to the senior citizens who are going to be using that small home, which is only 12 beds and requires four nurses to maintain the place.
PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): It is my privilege to rise today to speak on the occasion of celebration of Portuguese heritage day.
I'd like to remind the House that I rise not only as the member for Mississauga East but also as a member who speaks today on behalf of over half a million people of Portuguese heritage living in Ontario, people who have made their homes and live in the ridings represented by each and every member of this House.
Statistics Canada ranks Portuguese as the fourth most predominant non-official language spoken in Canada, third in Toronto and third overall in Ontario.
This year the community is celebrating another successful year. This week's celebrations will include a parade through the streets of Toronto, Toronto's third-largest parade, and also a festival in Bellwoods park.
We had a reception today where we had a guest singer, Liz Rodrigues. I'd like to put on Hansard that the members of this House really enjoyed her performance here at Queen's Park.
HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): On May 13 the government's Health Services Restructuring Commission recommended that Cornwall's acute care facilities be consolidated at the Cornwall General Hospital, while the Hotel Dieu serve as a complex continuing care facility.
This recommendation ran contrary to the district health committee's proposal, and has sparked overwhelming concern from thousands of my constituents and the residents of SD&G. Area residents are saying that the recommendations will not result in real savings for our community or improve health care. Instead, they fear they will be forced to raise $5 million for hospital renovations and expansions.
Earlier this week I presented a petition signed by almost 12,000 Cornwall area residents to the Legislative Assembly detailing concerns over the commission's recommendations, and at least two other petitions are being circulated and have been signed by approximately 40,000 residents.
I would also like to present to the House some of the hundreds of letters I received from residents who are concerned about the ruling and the effect it will have on patient care in our area.
Cornwall and area residents feel that health care, health services and even hospital volunteerism are being jeopardized. They ask the Minister of Health to listen to their concerns and not simply pass the buck on this very important issue.
PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm proud and happy to rise today to join with colleagues in recognizing Portugal National Day and to recognize the incredible festivities that have been going on here in Ontario and, I know, in Portugal, and in fact everywhere Portuguese or people of Portuguese descent live and work, because they have much to celebrate. We join in celebrating with them.
It is particularly noteworthy that Portugal National Day also celebrates the day of Camões, a Portuguese poet who himself was an immigrant, a traveller who in many works, but particularly in The Lusiads, dealt with the voyage to India of Portuguese explorer Vasco de Gama.
It's particularly appropriate that a people who have as their attributes hard work, a sense of family, a sense of commitment and a sense of doing better for themselves and their families also see fit to commemorate this important day by praising the poet Camões.
I want to pay tribute and say how privileged I am to count among many of my constituents a large Portuguese Canadian community, people who have come to this country, have literally helped to build this country and now are placed in all places of the community, whether it's in the professions, in the trades, in all spheres, and are contributing in a very real way to building the future that we want for ourselves and our children. Congratulations to them.
SENIORS' MONTH
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to indicate the importance of seniors' issues and to promote the upcoming seniors' seminar to be held in Trenton.
The month of June is Seniors' Month, and to bring greater awareness of the issues that affect seniors I'm holding a seniors' seminar this Friday with my good friend the member for Quinte, Doug Rollins. Seniors from Northumberland and Quinte will have an opportunity to listen to speakers from the community who will be talking about telemarketing fraud, fire and road safety, long-term care and related health issues, the Internet, and the proper use of drugs and medication. Seniors in my riding have told me they want to be informed about the issues that affect them on a daily basis.
I'd like to recognize Mr and Mrs Jim Greavette, from Grafton, who will be watching today's proceedings from the members' gallery. Mr and Mrs Greavette have shown a great interest in seniors' issues in Northumberland and I'm pleased they could join us in the Legislature today.
Through our health care investments, our long-term-care announcements and our fair taxation policies, this government has demonstrated its commitment to seniors in this province.
I encourage all members in this House to do their part to celebrate and recognize the contributions that seniors have made in our communities.
1340
ELECTORAL REFORM
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The people of Ontario should know that if Governor Mike Harris gets his way, the Conservative Party will be able to buy the next election.
The rules governing Ontario elections will be rigged to heavily favour the party and the candidates with the most money, and these new election rules will be bulldozed through the Ontario Legislature by the huge Conservative majority on orders from Mike Harris.
Massive increases in election campaign spending, dramatic increases in the amount of money that corporations and individuals may contribute to political parties and candidates, the exemption of major campaign activities from any spending limits at all, and the elimination of the financial watchdog, the Commission on Election Finances, will ensure that the deck is stacked in favour of the party and the candidates who tailor their policies, legislation and regulations to the wishes of the very wealthy and the most powerful elements in our province.
The influence of big-money interests will be paramount in Mike Harris's Ontario, just as it is in American politics where examples of election contributions buying influence and purchasing power are so numerous.
Mike Harris Conservatives are not satisfied to abuse their power by using taxpayers' dollars to send blatantly partisan propaganda pamphlets to all Ontario households, as they have in recent weeks; now they want to ensure that big money will be king in the Ontario election process.
All who value fairness in the democratic system should demand that Governor Mike Harris withdraw this outrageous piece of legislation in the interests of our fragile democracy.
PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Like my colleague from Dovercourt, I rise today to recognize June 10 as Portugal National Day -
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. It's members' statements now. It's for members. I want to be able to hear them.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members for Etobicoke-Humber and St Catharines, come to order. Thank you. Member for Fort York.
Mr Marchese: Today we celebrate the richness and beauty of Portuguese history, tradition and culture. On this day the 500,000 members of the Ontario Portuguese-Canadian community join together to commemorate the vibrancy and diversity of one of the largest linguistic communities of Ontario.
This year the Portuguese community celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Portuguese-Brazilian studies program at the University of Toronto. To commemorate this momentous occasion, the Portuguese community honoured one of Portugal's past presidents. Hailed by many as a liberator, Mario Soares was conferred an honorary degree by the University of Toronto.
In recognizing the value of Portuguese language education, I also stand to recognize the contribution of the outstanding leadership taken by many Portuguese-Canadian youth. This year also saw the birth of two new youth groups in the Portuguese community. Vox Nova is a group aimed at giving voice to and creating an identity for Luso-Canadian youth. The Luso Cantuna is a Portuguese folklore youth music group. It had its inception on March 14 of this year, at the conclusion of the University of Toronto's Portuguese Students Association cultural week and is the first of its kind in Canada.
The efforts of youth are truly exemplary and worthy of acclaim, for it is the youth who show us that when working together, we're able to cultivate and nourish the vibrancy of Portuguese-Canadian culture for generations to come. In celebration of Portugal National Day, we hear the voices of youth who enliven the future of their community by preserving their past.
RITSON PUBLIC SCHOOL
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I proudly rise today to congratulate Oshawa's Ritson Public School on its 75th birthday. Tomorrow the school will officially celebrate its 75th year with faculty, staff, students, parents, alumni and members of the community.
In Oshawa's earliest days, the people of Oshawa realized the importance of education in the life of our community. Oshawa has experienced consistent growth since the time it was first settled. In 1923, with the coming to Oshawa of General Motors of Canada, our community faced a growing need for educational facilities.
Opening its doors in 1923 to 350 students, the new school was named after one of Oshawa's earliest educators and prominent citizens, John Ritson. John Ritson was the first teacher of a local area school built in 1812 and a Sunday school superintendent. Now, 75 years after it opened, John Ritson's dedication and commitment to the education of Oshawa's youth continue today in the school of his namesake.
Many great students, including my mother and her sisters, have benefited from the education that they received at Ritson Public School. The school's faculty, staff and parents continue to offer high-quality educational opportunities and innovative programs for our students.
I would like to congratulate the principal, David Black, and vice-principal, Frank Cowan, as well as the faculty and staff, for continuing the tradition of commitment to quality education. I call upon this assembly to congratulate the Ritson Public School on its 75th anniversary and invite all alumni to contact and attend tomorrow's celebration.
As well, on this day, Portuguese heritage day, I would like to thank all my Portuguese friends from Oshawa and I would like to say, "Obrigado."
REPORTS BY COMMITTEES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.
Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:
Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the Corporation of the City of Kitchener.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
I declare the report adopted.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg leave to inform the House that today the Clerk received the third report of the standing committee on government agencies.
Pursuant to standing order 105(g)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
CONDOMINIUM ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS
Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 38, An Act to revise the law relating to condominium corporations, to amend the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and to make other related amendments / Projet de loi 38, Loi révisant des lois en ce qui concerne les associations condominiales, modifiant la Loi sur le régime de garanties des logements neufs de l'Ontario et apportant d'autres modifications connexes.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1348 to 1353.
The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Agostino, Dominic Barrett, Toby Bartolucci, Rick Bassett, Isabel Beaubien, Marcel Boushy, Dave Bradley, James J. Brown, Jim Christopherson, David Chudleigh, Ted Churley, Marilyn Cleary, John C. Clement, Tony Cullen, Alex Cunningham, Dianne Curling, Alvin Danford, Harry DeFaria, Carl Doyle, Ed Ecker, Janet Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Froese, Tom Galt, Doug Gerretsen, John Grandmaître, Bernard Gravelle, Michael Grimmett, Bill |
Guzzo, Garry J. Hardeman, Ernie Harnick, Charles Hastings, John Hodgson, Chris Jackson, Cameron Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Jordan, W. Leo Kells, Morley Klees, Frank Kormos, Peter Kwinter, Monte Lalonde, Jean-Marc Lankin, Frances Leach, Al Leadston, Gary L. Lessard, Wayne Marchese, Rosario Marland, Margaret Martel, Shelley Martin, Tony Martiniuk, Gerry McLeod, Lyn Morin, Gilles E. Munro, Julia Murdoch, Bill Newman, Dan O'Toole, John Ouellette, Jerry J. |
Parker, John L. Patten, Richard Phillips, Gerry Preston, Peter Pupatello, Sandra Ramsay, David Rollins, E.J. Douglas Runciman, Robert W. Ruprecht, Tony Sampson, Rob Saunderson, William Shea, Derwyn Sheehan, Frank Silipo, Tony Skarica, Toni Smith, Bruce Snobelen, John Spina, Joseph Sterling, Norman W. Tilson, David Tsubouchi, David H. Turnbull, David Villeneuve, Noble Wettlaufer, Wayne Wildman, Bud Wilson, Jim Witmer, Elizabeth Wood, Bob Wood, Len |
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 89; the nays are 0.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Mr Tsubouchi?
Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Very briefly, the bill was really conceived through a lot of consultation with consumers, condominium owners, the condominium management group and the development industry. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Minister Norm Sterling, who started the process, also Minister Jim Flaherty, who was in charge of the consultations, and last, my parliamentary assistant, Lillian Ross, who assisted in the process as well.
ACCESS TO ADOPTION INFORMATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ACCÈS AUX RENSEIGNEMENTS EN MATIÈRE D'ADOPTION
Mr Cullen moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 39, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act to provide Access to Adoption Information / Projet de loi 39, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil et la Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille de façon à fournir l'accès aux renseignements en matière d'adoption.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): This act would allow access to birth registration and adoption records for adult adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents and other relatives, while implementing a no-contact notice option to protect the privacy of those who wish it. It provides optional counselling, offers access to other information and acknowledges open adoptions. I would like at this time to thank the representatives from the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario who are in the gallery today and the member for Sault Ste Marie, whose bill provided me with the model for this piece of legislation.
MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (HAMILTON-WENTWORTH RESTRUCTURING), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (RESTRUCTURATION DE HAMILTON-WENTWORTH)
Mr Agostino moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 40, An Act to amend the Municipal Act to permit a restructuring of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth / Projet de loi 40, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités pour permettre une restructuration de la municipalité régionale de Hamilton-Wentworth.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Call in the members. It will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1400 to 1405.
The Speaker: All those in favour please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Agostino, Dominic Barrett, Toby Bartolucci, Rick Bassett, Isabel Beaubien, Marcel Bisson, Gilles Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Carroll, Jack Castrilli, Annamarie Christopherson, David Chudleigh, Ted Cleary, John C. Clement, Tony Cullen, Alex Cunningham, Dianne Curling, Alvin Danford, Harry DeFaria, Carl Ecker, Janet Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Froese, Tom Galt, Doug Grandmaître, Bernard |
Gravelle, Michael Grimmett, Bill Guzzo, Garry J. Hardeman, Ernie Harnick, Charles Hodgson, Chris Jackson, Cameron Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Jordan, W. Leo Kennedy, Gerard Klees, Frank Kormos, Peter Kwinter, Monte Lalonde, Jean-Marc Leach, Al Leadston, Gary L. Lessard, Wayne Marland, Margaret Martel, Shelley Martiniuk, Gerry McLeod, Lyn Morin, Gilles E. Munro, Julia Newman, Dan O'Toole, John |
Ouellette, Jerry J. Parker, John L. Patten, Richard Pouliot, Gilles Ramsay, David Rollins, E.J. Douglas Runciman, Robert W. Sampson, Rob Saunderson, William Shea, Derwyn Sheehan, Frank Silipo, Tony Smith, Bruce Snobelen, John Spina, Joseph Sterling, Norman W. Tilson, David Tsubouchi, David H. Turnbull, David Villeneuve, Noble Wettlaufer, Wayne Wildman, Bud Wilson, Jim Witmer, Elizabeth Wood, Bob Wood, Len |
The Speaker: All those opposed please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
|
Doyle, Ed |
Skarica, Toni |
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 78; the nays are 2.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Briefly, what this bill would do is give the opportunity for the minister to appoint a mediator for a three-month period to sit down with the local councils to try to find a reasonable, accepted solution that the councils can buy into in regard to restructuring. Failing that, this bill would then give the option for the appointment of an arbitrator who would come in and recommend a solution to the restructuring situation in Hamilton-Wentworth.
This is imperative for the survival of the region, it is imperative for our tax base, it is imperative for the government to get on with it to ensure that we have restructuring in place to help the taxpayers of Hamilton-Wentworth.
VISITOR
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to inform the members that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Konstantine Dorakovski, acting consul general of the Republic of Macedonia. Welcome.
ORAL QUESTIONS
ELECTORAL REFORM
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Yesterday, once again your government displayed its lack of respect for democracy and the institution in which we enjoy the privilege of rendering service. Yesterday you moved to give fund-raisers and backroom pollsters still more influence on the outcome of an election. Your unilateral, one-sided changes to the Election Finances Act threaten to Americanize our political system. You may not understand this, but democracy is a fragile thing. It might be something that you take for granted on that side of the House, but it's not something we take for granted on this side.
Minister, do you understand that for democracy to work, there has to be a level playing field for all the players? Don't you understand that basic tenet of democracy?
Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The Leader of the Opposition is correct. These changes do create a level playing field; all parties will be subject to the same rules. I realize it's a difficult issue. This legislative chamber has been grappling with this issue since 1991. There was the ad hoc commission set up. There was the selection of the Commission on Election Finances, which made recommendations and had representatives from each of the parties, whose chair was Jack Murray. They deliberated on this for a number of years. We also had the chief electoral officer make recommendations.
I tried to get a consensus with your party as recently as a week ago, and your party refused to negotiate other than if you got your way and our caucus wouldn't have any input. We would have liked to have an agreement. What we've done we think is fair, and we've taken your recommendation on the spending limits.
Mr McGuinty: You should have at least paid attention to the recommendations of the election finances commission. For one thing, they did not recommend their very own demise. Second, when it came to spending limits for parties, their recommendation was no change. I quote: "Spending limits for parties - unchanged." That was their recommendation, and what did you do on that front? You decided, unilaterally and arbitrarily, to increase those limits by 50%. That's $1.35 million extra. On top of that $1.35 million, you've excluded all the spending on polling, research and the leader's tour and travel. There are no limits whatsoever of any kind on those areas. Last year alone, your party, the Progressive Conservative Party, spent over $609,000 on polling and $352,000 on travel, and that's not even in an election year.
My question is this: Given that the election finances commission recommended that there be no change, and understanding that this kind of change is one that benefits the Mike Harris government only, how can you defend this change?
Hon Mr Hodgson: The facts are that there was a need to update and modernize the election finances and the Election Finances Act itself. That has been recognized in this House. It was written to the Speaker by Jack Murray, the chair of the commission, and it said, "If you're going to make these changes, do it in lots of time so that people who are involved in elections have plenty of time to prepare, all parties know the rules and there is a level playing field."
In regard to your question about the election commission, what it recommended was $1.40 per elector per riding. You went out and had a photo op saying that was a seat sale, that that was totally unacceptable. You disagreed with your own party's representatives on the commission. You said: "I don't know. They didn't consult with me." Even though your party put forward two, and the NDP had two - you had five voting members on a seven-member committee.
But you did say publicly: "Look, you've reduced the number of seats to the federal limit. What's wrong with the federal spending limits?" That's what we've done.
Mr McGuinty: My advice to the people of the province is to be very wary when it comes to the government spin on this issue. Here are some of the facts:
You are increasing the spending limits for the central party from $2.7 million to over $4 million. That's $800,000 higher than the federal spending limit. Just for a minute, let's take a look at the minister's own riding, Victoria-Haliburton. Under the current rules, a candidate in the new riding would be allowed to spend $53,000. Under the federal rules, the limit would be $67,000. Under your legislation, the limit will be $75,000, and that is $75,000 for a campaign that is nine days shorter than the federal campaign. You say you have adopted the federal rules; the fact of the matter is you haven't. Why don't you just admit that these changes have been made, not in the public interest but to benefit the Mike Harris government?
Hon Mr Hodgson: We have a party that goes out and publicly says that it wants the federal spending. That works out to 96 cents a voter. That's what we've done. We've taken your recommendations, as you wouldn't sit and do the hard work of negotiating with it. You wanted to play politics with this issue.
The guidelines that presently exist exempt tour and polling. Those are the present rules. That was put into the report that came from the commission as an appendix.
I think we all want to have fair rules. We, as a government, have to be responsible like governments in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and other provinces that have been unable in recent years to get all-party consensus on contentious issues. But I want to reiterate that we're modernizing the rules. There is a savings here of up to $15 million to the taxpayers of this province. This has been studied for years. Your party had representatives on that and the NDP had representatives on it. We're trying to do the proper thing.
LOBBYIST REGISTRATION
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the same minister. You want to change the election rules to put more emphasis on money and on outside paid professionals. You have done more to bring these paid professionals - private consultants, private pollsters, private lobbyists - into the government than any other government in the history of this province. We're seeing more and more problems in your government with issues like conflict of interest, and we're about to see more of them.
I have a very simple question for you. Can you tell me right now how many firms are paying Leslie Noble and Bill King to lobby your government? Can you tell me who those firms are and which ministers they are presently lobbying?
1420
Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I can take the specifics under advisement, but I can tell you that this government has changed the accounting rules to make it so it's more accountable to taxpayers. We've brought in conflict-of-interest guidelines that far surpass anything that has existed in Ontario in the last 10 years and we'll put our record up against when your party was in government any time.
Mr McGuinty: I should be able to get that kind of information instantly and you promised to us, you made a specific promise, that you would do that.
Let's take a look at the budget speech delivered back on May 7, 1996. I'm just going to quote a part of it. It says, "We will also establish procedures to require the registration of all persons and firms who lobby the government" - two years ago.
April 23, 1997, here's a release: "`Lobbying is part of the process of government,' Mr Johnson said. `A public record of lobbyists will ensure that this process is kept open and transparent.'" Johnson was right then and he's right now. Where is the legislation? We should be able to have access to that kind of information instantly.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Neither the Liberals nor the NDP had any -
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As my predecessor promised, we will have legislation. We intend to do that at the earliest opportunity. I might add that your party has had nothing. We recognize the need for it. I know this is a current topic at the federal level these days and the federal Liberals are running into those problems as well. What we have promised is a committed openness and integrity in the relationship with the public and we intend to bring forward legislation to fulfil that commitment.
I want to point out to the member, though, that the new Election Act prohibits donations from charities. I know that was in regard to the Patti Starr affair, and what we've done is make that permanent in the guidelines. That was the recommendation of the commission, to prohibit that kind of contribution. Now that will be enshrined in legislation.
Mr McGuinty: It's important for people to understand the pattern that is emerging here. We've got a government here that is bent on changing the election rules to allow the greater influence of money in the outcome of an election. We have had conflict-of-interest issues raised in this House time after time, and we can't get access to the information we need because we don't have on the books of this province a law which compels lobbyists, people who are paid to influence government, to register themselves, to tell us whom they're working for and to tell us whom they're lobbying.
This government once again has promised explicitly to bring into effect a law that requires lobbyists, people who are paid to influence them, to register themselves so we know who they are, whom they're working for and whom they're lobbying.
My question to you is, when are you going to bring this in? You've broken that promise. We expect you to deliver on it. Why couldn't you introduce that law today?
Hon Mr Hodgson: I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. We need that type of legislation to protect the public's and lobbyists' interests and I know his party will be fully supportive, as they are of other measures that help improve accountability and openness and savings to the taxpayers.
He mentions the election reform act. His own members recommended this. I have a letter from one of his party caucus that outlines the Liberal position. It said they wanted the federal spending. The commission recommended $1.40, the federal spending average is 96 cents, and that's what we've taken. It's your position and now you're criticizing that.
ELECTORAL REFORM
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question to the Chair of Management Board. My question is about you and your big-money friends buying up this province. Your gutting of the Election Finances Act serves you and it serves your big-money friends, but it certainly doesn't serve the public. Voters aren't asking for this. They aren't sending in petitions saying they need to hear more political ads from the Conservative Party. They aren't saying that powerful interest groups should have even more influence because they're the only ones who can afford to fund big campaigns. Can you name one person, one member of the general public, who asked you to double the amount that political parties can spend on campaigns?
Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The commission recommended $1.40 per riding and 40 cents for the party. That's $1.80 in total. Our recommendations come in at $1.56, so it's less than what your two appointees plus the chair, who was a past-president of the NPD, recommended.
Mr Silipo: It's pretty obvious to us and I think to the general public that if you soak the airwaves with your political ads, you gain a tremendous advantage. That's what this bill is all about. We know that and you know that.
I have here a CD that has a song in it which I think would be quite appropriate as your election theme song. It's called "Money," and as the song goes, it says: "Grab the cash with both hands and make a stash." That's what this is about. That's what this bill is about and that's what your actions are about, because in Mike Harris's Ontario, money talks. Minister, tell me this: Who else does jacking up the spending limits help, other than you and your big-money friends in Ontario?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Your party appointed two representatives on the election finances commission and the chair of that seven-man voting commission was Jack Murray. Are you saying he is not a member of the public? They recommended $1.40 per riding and 40 cents for the party. The Liberals said they would support the federal, which is 96 cents on average, and the riding is 60 cents. I think if you add those two totals up, we come in far below what Jack Murray and the election commission recommended.
Mr Silipo: Minister, you know better than anybody else in this House that your bill more than doubles the amount that campaigns can spend each day of the election. It more than doubles it. That's because of your change to the central campaign spending limit and your shortening of the campaign period. You've got to look at those issues too, and not keep going back to the commission.
If you want to keep going back to the commission you should also tell us here very clearly what you know and what we all know, that neither of those two things I've just mentioned were in fact voted on by the commission. If you want to rely on the commission, rely also on what they didn't recommend and you're putting in this legislation, because those things, rather than being an invention of the commission, we know are an invention of the whiz kids in the Premier's office. They know that only the Conservatives can play in that kind of financial league.
I just want to ask you this in conclusion. Under the existing rules, you can already spend $2.6 million. So tell us, Minister, why can't you get by in an election campaign with $2.6 million? Why do you need to change the rules to more than double that spending limit?
Hon Mr Hodgson: I think the NDP recognizes - they recognized this when they were in government - that the Election Finances Act and the Election Act hadn't been changed for 12 years. They've recognized that there is the report sent down from the election finances commission, which had representatives of your party and all parties, and the chief election officer.
The election finances commission's report had an appendix which outlined the exclusions and the included portions in campaign spending. Since 1996, the rules are that the polling and tour are excluded. We are putting that into legislation so that everyone knows the rules and knows what is expected and that it's an even playing field for everyone concerned.
I am not sure why he talks about the shorter writ. Yesterday, your leader insisted that was the end of democracy. I just want to remind the member that in Great Britain where our traditions come from, the minimum period for a writ is 16 days and the maximum is 25 days. We are proposing that the minimum be 28 days like other provinces in Canada.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party, the member for Dovercourt.
Mr Silipo: It's sad enough to see what the government is doing in the election finances area, but it's unfortunately -
The Speaker: I'm on a new question now, so I need to know who it's going to.
Mr Silipo: To Management Board, Speaker, sorry.
The Speaker: Thank you.
1430
LOBBYIST REGISTRATION
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): What we see here is that there is a pattern emerging and the pattern is that all your actions are about your big-money friends buying up Ontario. It's becoming very clear, Minister. We've seen it in the casino scandal and the election finances changes we've just been talking about. Even when the government puts in place a supposedly independent process, what really counts, it seems, is which Conservative insider you know or how much money you pay to whom.
Here's what Dave Johnson, the then Chair of Management Board, said on April 23, 1997, when your government was already under attack for conflict of interest on the casino deals: "We are moving to become the first Canadian province to enact a lobbyist registration law. If the legislation is passed as planned in the fall" - "in the fall" he said then - "this public registry will include a list of all people and firms who are paid to lobby the government. This will allow taxpayers to have open access to information about companies and individuals seeking to influence government decision-making."
If only that were true, Minister. If only you had kept your promise, the stench of payola that surrounds the government's casino dealings would be right out in the open. Instead, what we have is this continuing tide. When are you -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister.
Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The member of the third party brings up the allegations that were made in the Toronto Star and also by the opposition about the involvement of Michael French.
I've requested the Ontario Casino Corp and its lawyers to review the process undertaken in the selection process, specifically to determine whether the strict conflict-of-interest rules that were mandatory were complied with. I've now received that report and I know that I've delivered copies to the leader of your party. Their counsel advises that the process was indeed properly followed and that a conflict of interest did not exist. I quote, "We find that Mr French and Coopers and Lybrand complied with the terms of their contract and with the requirements respecting the conflict of interest."
In addition, cabinet has recommended Ron Barbaro to fill the vacancy of chair of the Ontario Casino Corp, and yesterday the board of the Ontario Casino Corp appointed Ron Barbaro to the position of CEO. I've issued the report, as I said -
The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.
Mr Silipo: I'm glad for that information, even though that wasn't the question I put to the minister. Let me move to another area, another arena, which will be the next arena for free-wheeling backroom rooms nourished by high-paid lobbyists and campaign cash, and that's Ontario Hydro.
The legislation you introduced yesterday doesn't use the word "privatization," but it opens the door for private interests to make hundreds of millions of dollars and put it all in the hands of various committees and regulation. But look at what happens in the real world.
Just recently, when the so-called independent Market Design Committee decided to dilute Ontario Hydro's power over electricity transmission, Ontario Hydro hired - who? - lobbyist Leslie Noble, an architect of the Common Sense Revolution, to get a different decision out of the Premier's office. Listen to this, Minister: The chair of the committee, who happens to be the dean of the Toronto law school, a well-respected individual, wrote a letter at that time saying that hiring Leslie Noble as a lobbyist undermined the integrity of the process.
Minister, if you won't keep your promise to shine the light of public accountability on lobbyists, tell us what steps you will take to stop Leslie Noble and other lobbyists from funnelling billions into -
The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I know the Minister of Energy would be happy to answer this.
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): The honourable member is basing his research on a newspaper article that wasn't factual. As I've said to the press many times, Ontario Hydro doesn't have to hire lobbyists. I meet with Mr Farlinger and Mr Osborne, as has been the tradition of all parties - or at least you guys should have met with Hydro when you were in office, and so should the Liberals or they wouldn't be $32 billion in debt today -
Interjections.
The Speaker: Minister.
Hon Mr Wilson: I see I haven't lost my touch and I still have a profound effect on this House.
As I pointed out to the reporter who was accusing Ontario Hydro of having lobbyists affect decisions of the Market Design Committee, two things: One is that the legislation tabled yesterday followed exactly the recommendations of the Market Design Committee, and in fact Ontario Hydro probably isn't all that happy. But this government wants the jobs, we want the environmental protections, we want the consumer choice and the lower prices that competition will bring. That's the agenda of the government. That's what that legislation reflected yesterday.
Mr Silipo: If only the legislation was about that, but we know that the government's agenda is quite different from that. The connection between laws to bring lobbyists out into the sunshine and your big-money election scheme grows clearer by the day.
Think about this: Leslie Noble is not just selling her political connections, she's not only a cheap author of the 1995 Conservative platform, she's busy helping put together your platform for the next campaign. The message then is pretty clear to big-money campaign contributors about where to go -
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. Member for Dovercourt.
Mr Silipo: I'm glad we're hitting a couple of nerves over there, because the message is pretty clear to big-money campaign contributors about where to go to buy influence in this province.
You know, Minister, what Ontarians think about privatizing Ontario Hydro. They think it's a terrible idea. But you still want to funnel millions of dollars to your friends, so you have legislation that will provide the cover for whatever private dealings you can cook up in the back room.
Over at Ontario Hydro we see a contract for US$250,000 go to your friend Tom Long to recruit a new president with experience in privatization. Is that just a coincidence?
1440
This is the same Hydro that pays Leslie Noble $84,000 to produce "positive outcomes from government." She knows nothing about the power business but she knows how to get positive outcomes on casinos. Who knows where else she's selling her influence. That's why we need legislation.
To whichever minister dares to answer, when is the legislation on conflict of interest going to finally get to this House?
Hon Mr Wilson: Again, I remind the honourable member that the legislation yesterday was fully supported by environmental groups in the province, by the Power Workers Union. We had excellent support from the unionized employees of Hydro and their representatives. At the end of the day, it's been the Power Workers Union that is encouraging the government to move towards private-public partnerships.
This government is trying to increase the value of Ontario Hydro, a company that was badly devalued over the last 10 years, a company that was neglected by government. The best way to do that is the world experience with respect to competition, as it brings lower prices, greater choices for consumers, and it will bring us the environmental protections that people in this province have looked for for some time.
With respect to lobbyists, again the facts are in error. I meet with Mr Farlinger and Mr Osborne every week at a set time, as did my predecessor Norm Sterling, as did my predecessor Brenda Elliott.
The Speaker: Answer, please.
Hon Mr Wilson: Hydro has never been on a better course to improve its state in the economy and indeed to return -
The Speaker: Thank you. New question.
On a point of order, the member for St Catharines.
VISITOR
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not introduce to you the Reform Party candidate in the last federal election in St Catharines, Rob Hesp, who is in the gallery -
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Order. New question, official opposition.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Minister, I want to follow up on this report, a copy of which I received moments before question period began today. The finding in here from the lawyers who are acting for the Ontario Casino Corp was that there was no conflict at the time that the competition was finally decided.
The issue here, you will recall, was whether or not Michael French, who was involved in the running of the competition, was in a position of conflict of interest given that he had had a contractual relationship with the winner that eventually won this competition.
Just so we're very clear, during the course of the time the competition was being designed, during the course of the time the bids were being prepared and submitted, this report tells us that Michael French had a contractual relationship both with the Ontario Casino Corp and with the eventual winner. The law firm said: "Yes, but he wasn't there when the bids were opened. There was no conflict at the time the bids were opened."
I say there is a conflict of interest because he had that relationship at the time that the bids were being prepared and the competition was being -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister.
Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): As I mentioned earlier in response to the allegations that were made in the Toronto Star and again by opposition parties about the involvement of Michael French, who worked for Coopers and Lybrand, I requested the Ontario Casino Corp lawyers to review the process undertaken in the selection process specifically to determine whether the strict conflict-of-interest rules that are mandatory were complied with.
I shared this report with the Leader of the Opposition, as I promised I would do, when I received it from the OCC and their legal counsel.
If he looks in the report and he reads down, it says:
"As you are aware, ensuring the integrity of the selection process was of paramount concern from the earliest stages of the process. In particular, the process was structured so as to ensure that any potential conflicts of interest would be identified and dealt with in the appropriate manner."
In the report, counsel advises that the process was indeed properly followed and that a conflict of interest did not exist. I quote, "We find that Mr French from Coopers and Lybrand complied with the terms of their contract and with the requirements" -
The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.
Mr McGuinty: Look, I understand what their conclusion was. I'm not talking about their conclusion. I'm talking about the facts for a minute.
Again, at the time the competition was being designed and at the time the bids were being prepared and at the time the bids were submitted, it turns out that this guy - and this is admitted in your report - had a contractual relationship with the Ontario Casino Corp and with the eventual winner of the bid. They take a very legalistic approach and they say, "Well, since he had no involvement on the day the bids were opened, there's no position of conflict here, there's no conflict of interest."
The fact is that at the time the competition was designed and during the time when the bids were being prepared and submitted, this guy had a contractual relationship both with the Ontario Casino Corp and with the eventual winner. I call that a conflict of interest. What do you call it?
Hon Mr Hodgson: As a representative of the people of Ontario through the government, I have to go with the facts, and the facts are this: You raised an allegation about Coopers and Lybrand, and I asked the Ontario Casino Corp to work with their lawyers to give a report on the facts. They have come back, and I have shared that report with you, as I said I would.
In addition to that, I think you're aware that we've appointed Ron Barbaro to be the chair and also CEO of the Ontario Casino Corp. He has an outstanding reputation and experience both in the business community and in community involvement through years of good involvement. I've asked him to take a look at this as well. You know the process: Before a contract is signed with the number-one-ranked proponent, if there is to be a contract signed, the OCC has to give that recommendation to me. I've asked him to review it as well.
The Speaker: New question, third party.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): The Chair of Management Board wants to talk about the facts. The facts are that your casino scandal goes far beyond conflict of interest; it goes right to the heart of old-fashioned Tory pork-barrelling. You know full well, or you ought to know, that the Davies Ward report, which you should take little comfort in, doesn't consider at all the significant role of the Latner family, by which you and your party have benefited to the tune of 90 grand over the course of three years, 1995, 1996 and 1997. Notwithstanding that their bid came number three on tourism, and that's what this was supposed to be all about, your political friends ended up number one, having abandoned tourism in Niagara. Why is there no consideration of the role of the Latners and their connections to your Conservative Party in this consideration by Davies Ward?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Here we go again. You're slagging a family that has done business in this province for generations. They did a lot of business when your party was in government. You've had the answer given to you on a number of occasions. But I would like to point out that the bid that was accepted was the number one proposal. It will be good if it's concluded. No deal has been concluded yet. Ron Barbaro will take a look at that. He has an extensive background in business. I can assure you that I'll wait for their advice, but the tourism component will be beneficial to Niagara Falls. All the people, the mayor right through to the BIA, are looking forward to increased tourism and economic development. I think Mr Barbaro is the person to give guidance and leadership to this process. He will, through his board, give a recommendation to me and the government on whether we should sign a contract with the number-one-ranked proponent or not.
Mr Kormos: Your Ontario isn't just open for business, it's for sale, lock, stock and barrel, to the biggest political contributor to the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. You know that there's no consideration whatsoever of the clear political connections involved in the successful bid by Falls Management, notwithstanding that they were rated number three when it came to tourism. Why are you selling out tourism in favour of the big black hole of yet another casino that you, your government and the Latners are going to be profiting from oh so much?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Again, the member of the third party is clearly wrong in all his allegations and all his mudslinging. But I can tell you that I've received a report from the OCC through their lawyers, and I've shared that with the House. We've also appointed Ron Barbaro to take a look at this and to guide the OCC to get ready for the next century.
1450
CHILD CARE
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): My question today is for the Minister without Portfolio for children, the Honourable Margaret Marland. Ontario is once again experiencing a booming economy. We all know that. Our economic policies, tax cuts and sound fiscal management have created an environment of growth and prosperity for all Ontarians.
With this change in outlook, we have also experienced tremendous growth in job creation in the province. In fact, we know that since the throne speech in 1995, 339,000 net new jobs in the private sector have been created in Ontario. I'm proud of that record, but it leads me to the question I have for you today.
As a mother, I know it can be very difficult to balance the job of raising a family with the demands of a career. With hundreds of thousands more parents working, how can we help meet their child care needs? With such strong economic growth, surely corporations might want to get involved in supporting their employees in raising their families.
Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I'd like to thank the member for Bruce for the question. I too am very proud of our economic record. Job creation is not only important for our economy, but especially important to families that are able to work and be productive and self-sufficient members of our society. We know that parents need a variety of child care options and we encourage companies to get involved and help support their employees in this endeavour.
In the recent budget, this government introduced workplace child care tax incentives to support businesses that create additional licensed child care facilities or improve existing facilities for children of working parents. We believe that this incentive program will help create a supportive environment for working families in Ontario. Good news.
Mrs Fisher: All parents need to know that their children are safe and well cared for before they can be productive in the workplace. Surely it would be beneficial to companies to help their staff both at work and in their child care needs. I would like to know more about how an employer can help in this regard. Minister, as you know, the opposition parties are only concerned about criticizing large business help. I understand that small business can participate in this. Will this program service those, other than just large corporations?
Hon Mrs Marland: I'm really happy to respond to this, especially for the member for Algoma, because I know he's really concerned. Our proposed workplace child care tax incentive is designed to work with both large and small companies, both incorporated and unincorporated businesses. This incentive will support companies that create or expand existing onsite child care facilities and businesses that make a contribution to fund the creation or renovation of child care facilities in their communities. This means that business can claim a deduction of up to 30% of the qualifying expenditures, and companies of all sizes will have the opportunity to help their staff meet the needs of their families.
As more and more families continue to benefit from job creation in this great province of Ontario, we want to ensure that supports are available to help parents raise their families and be successful in our great province.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Chair of Management Board. We now have a copy of a report prepared by lawyers for the Ontario Casino Corp. I know what their conclusion is. I want to know what your standards are now and I want to know what you think about this.
Once again it turns out that at the time the competition was being designed, the competition for people who are going to bid on a casino contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars, the guy who was designing the competition was at the same time involved in a contractual relationship, a financial relationship with the eventual winner. This guy was both involved in setting the rules and involved with one of the people who were bidding pursuant to those rules. All I want to know from you is, is that acceptable to you?
Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I provided to you the report you asked for around the allegations around Michael French that were outlined in the Toronto Star and by opposition members. What this report does is answer those very questions. That's why I shared it with you, so you wouldn't stand up and accuse us of covering anything up or hiding anything. We've tried to be as open and as transparent on this process as we can possibly be. That's why, when the allegation was raised, I said it was a new allegation and I would check it out. I've asked the OCC and their lawyers to prepared a report and now I've shared that report with you. They deal with that very question you're asking.
Mr McGuinty: You're trying to take far too much comfort in this written report. It's now in your hands. The issue is not their standards; the issue is, what are your standards? The guy who wrote the rules for the competition was involved with the winner. It's as straightforward as that.
What I want to know, what the people of this province want to know, is not what the lawyers think; they want to know what you as the minister responsible think. Do you think it's acceptable for the guy who wrote the rules to be involved in a contractual relationship with the winner? Is that okay according to your standards?
Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll read from the report to the Leader of the Opposition: "None of these prior engagements related to the Niagara Falls proposals, and all were concluded prior to the opening of bids on April 30, 1997. During the period of the selection process itself, neither Mr French nor any Coopers and Lybrand advisers involved with the assessment of the proposals provided services to any of the participants.
"In summary, we find that Mr French and Coopers and Lybrand complied with the terms of their contract and with the requirements respecting the conflict of interest."
CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, several weeks ago I raised a question in the House about the need for mandated children's mental health services, but today I want to speak to you about a specific situation.
In the Kingston area, children's mental health needs are going without service. A strike at Pathways for Children and Youth is in its seventh week. In those seven weeks, management at Pathways has come to the bargaining table once, a month ago when they were called there by the mediator. There, striking members of OPSEU Local 460 made several concessions on wages and on other issues. Because management did not respond, the mediator suspended talks. All this time, hundreds of children and families have gone without the necessary mental health services.
Have you communicated with the board of directors at Pathways for Children and Youth to ask them to resolve this dispute and make these services available to children and families once more?
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I am sure the member would agree that it would be inappropriate for the ministry to interfere in the collective bargaining process in this case. Our role has been to monitor the care of individuals who would need the services. If there have been specific instances where children are at risk because of this dispute between the management and union, I would be very pleased to get those details and to see what we can do to make sure those children are not put at risk.
1500
Ms Lankin: Of course children are at risk. They've been seven weeks without the services. I would agree with your statement, if it weren't for the fact that there isn't an independent board of directors operating there as an independent employer. Through the restructuring process, you appointed the board of directors. They are not elected by the community, they are not elected by the client families. Their accountability is to you, Minister, and you need to take some responsibility here. During that restructuring process, families were assured that the new board would be more accountable, more accessible, that there would be an elected board. That was over two years ago. The transition has continued and the board has never been elected.
Restructuring children's services has been very high on your agenda, but you've got to realize that the Pathways situation is bound to be repeated across the province unless you send a strong message now that employers must enter into real and meaningful negotiations, reasonable negotiations, with their employees to ensure that the needed services continue.
People in Kingston feel that the board is not accountable to the families, nor the community, only accountable to you because you appointed them. Will you speak to them and resolve this situation so kids and families get their services?
Hon Mrs Ecker: The member is quite right that they're having some difficulties in this community, which the staff in the ministry have been attempting to resolve with this organization. I repeat that I don't think it's appropriate for us to interfere in a union-management dispute in this case. However, the staff of the ministry will continue to work with this organization to ensure that the members of the board are providing the appropriate care and also relating to the community in a way that is acceptable to the ministry.
AIR QUALITY
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday in the House the Honourable Jim Wilson, Minister of Energy, Science and Technology, introduced an important bill with respect to electricity competition in Ontario for the year 2000. I understand there was an important environmental component to the bill.
I know, from my experience on the select committee on nuclear affairs, about concerns raised, not only in Pickering and Darlington in Durham region, surrounding environmental protection as promised in the white paper. Can you tell all members what is in this bill to protect Ontarians from dirty power sources in the US?
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Members of the Legislature should understand that the electricity restructuring bill will be a very important legislative tool for this Minister of the Environment and future ministers of the environment. No other jurisdiction that I'm aware of in North America will be empowered to deal with electricity generation in the same manner. This legislation enables the province to set caps on smog and gas emissions by sector across this province. That is not presently available to the minister or this government.
It also allows the ministry to set emissions performance standards for all generators who sell in Ontario. That would include not only generators within Ontario but generators selling from outside to Ontario. It also requires disclosure with regard -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Supplementary.
Mr O'Toole: All Ontarians thank you for that breathtaking answer. I know many environmentalists from my constituency will be pleased to hear that, but I want assurance from you that this government and you, Minister, will provide strong environmental leadership and protection as competition is introduced into Ontario's electrical market. Can you assure the people of Ontario today?
Hon Mr Sterling: As I said before, I believe this legislation, the commitment by this government in this bill, is probably the most significant commitment towards the improvement of quality of air that this province has ever seen. This bill, as well as including what I said before, will ensure that Ontario Hydro's voluntary commitments, including those for greenhouse emissions, will be lived with. It also requires that an environmental assessment is necessary for those in Ontario who would want to generate electricity in the future, to put them on a level playing field with Ontario Hydro if they should have those in the future.
I mentioned as well that disclosure will be necessary by generators to the consumer so that the consumer can pick electricity choices which are greener than others. In other words, they will have that information in front of them before they make their choice. I believe this is a tremendous piece of legislation. I hope that the members of the Legislature, when we have hearings, will take advantage -
The Speaker: Thank you. New question.
PROPERTY TAXATION
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We're getting many, many calls from mayors and municipal officials about when in the world this government is going to finally get the property tax bill passed. It's costing municipalities over $1 million a day in extra costs, interest costs to borrow money, because you can't get the tax bill passed.
It was last Wednesday when the committee completed the bill, ready for passing. We now are a week later. It's cost another $7 million of tax money for municipalities to cover the costs that they don't have because they can't get their tax bills out.
My question to you is this: Why in the world did it take you seven days to bring the bill from committee to the House and why in the world did you not pass this bill last Thursday and save the taxpayers $7 million?
Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'm advised by the House leader that the time was required to get the amendments printed and the bill printed and back into the House. That's what took the time. We're as anxious an anyone to get this bill out into the public.
We've also advised the municipalities that they will not suffer any hardship as a result of this, that we've taken actions to ensure that any costs they incur as a result of the rolls going out to the public will be taken care of by this government. We're going to take actions with respect to the funds that are made available to the municipalities. We'll advance those moneys to make sure that any interest costs that they incur as a result of the delay in the assessment rolls will be addressed.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Why are you attacking municipalities and municipal taxpayers? You've had four bills now to deal with the same issue and you still haven't got it right. Bill 16 you invoked closure on, and then after we fought for one day of amendments etc and debate, you finally introduced nine government amendments that you didn't say you needed the day before.
Let's just read what the clerks and treasurers are saying about this bill. They say, "The changes made to the bill will not have any positive impact on municipal operations nor will they provide municipalities with relief from flawed legislation."
Let's read another sentence: "Bill 16 risks administrative chaos and has revenue implications that could jeopardize the financial stability of many municipalities."
We are the implementers of municipal legislation. Why don't you listen to these people and talk to them and get it right? Four times you've had it wrong. You're costing the municipalities and the municipal taxpayers money. Why are you constantly attacking the municipal taxpayers?
Hon Mr Leach: I find it absolutely amazing the position of that member across the floor. First they ask that the bill be sent to committee for further debate. They requested that. They asked that it go to committee. So what did we do? We sent it to committee so that the stakeholders could have further input. They then complain that we're delaying the bill. This is incredible. First they ask that it go to committee and then they say that the process has been delayed because it's been there.
With respect to the clerks and treasurers, we've had 17 amendments. Ten of those amendments were brought forward by the clerks and treasurers themselves, so we have taken into consideration their concerns and they were addressed in the amendments. As a matter of fact, I'm going to be speaking to the clerks and treasurers on Monday, where I'm sure I'll have an opportunity to address more of their concerns.
NORTHERN TREATMENT CENTRE
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, if he's around. I know his stuff is still at his desk.
Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I'm right here.
Mr Martin: Minister, are you making plans with the federal Liberal government to close down the Northern Treatment Centre located in Sault Ste Marie?
Hon Mr Flaherty: I thank the honourable member for Sault Ste Marie for his question with respect to the Northern Treatment Centre in Sault Ste Marie. I'm not aware of any plans with respect to that but I'll take it under advisement and report back to the member if he can give me particulars of the suggestion that he's making.
Mr Martin: We have it on good information that you're planning with the federal Liberals to terminate the agreement that keeps the Northern Treatment Centre open. As a matter of fact, we're told that this Friday will be the last day that anybody is transferred to that particular facility.
Do you have any idea what this will mean for the community of Sault Ste Marie? What does it mean for the correctional services system as you close down one of the best treatment centres in the country?
1510
Hon Mr Flaherty: Certainly our goals with respect to treatment centres have been to continue the good work that has been done, particularly with young offenders, and the degree of cooperation we have had in that regard from the federal government has been little or none, including the reduction of funding, despite the success that was seen in projects like Project Turnaround where young offenders have the opportunity to have structure in their lives, where they have the opportunity to increase their literacy skills, where they have educational opportunities during the day. These are much appreciated by many of those who have had the opportunity to participate in that type of innovative project in Ontario. The difficulty, of course, is we have not had the cooperation of the federal government in that important initiative with respect to young offenders in Ontario.
PETITIONS
ELECTORAL REFORM
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): At the time of petitions, I have one addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:
"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris is trying to increase the limit on the amount of money that corporations and individuals are allowed to contribute to political parties and individual candidates in Ontario; and
"Whereas the Harris government plans to introduce legislation to permit political parties and candidates to spend far more money during election campaigns; and
"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris would like to remove certain campaign expenditures such as polling and campaign headquarters equipment from the spending limits placed on political parties and candidates; and
"Whereas the Conservative government is proposing to abolish the Ontario election finances commission, the watchdog agency policing political contributions and expenditures; and
"Whereas the Harris government wishes to shorten the length of provincial election campaigns and to permit expensive media advertising throughout the entire campaign period, thereby favouring the political parties and candidates with the most money; and
"Whereas the changes to the Election Finances Act proposed by Mike Harris will give undue and unacceptable influence to the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our province and will result in the problems that have plagued the American political system, where money plays a central role;
"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to abandon his planned legislation which will permit substantial increases in the amount of money that can be contributed by corporations and individuals to political parties and candidates and the amount of money the political parties and candidates can spend in provincial elections."
I affix my signature, as I am in complete agreement with this petition.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will just wait for a moment. There are too many conversations going on. I can't hear a word.
PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition 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;
"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs;
"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences;
"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral;
"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 the 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'm presenting this on behalf of 14 citizens of the London area at their request.
HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING
Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission recommends two sites, two boards and two administrations for Cornwall and area hospitals; and
"Whereas the HSRC has recognized the dual cultural nature of our area but not the fact that it is also two thirds Catholic in population; and
"Whereas the HSRC recommends the closing of hospital lab services in Cornwall resulting in reduced patient services; and
"Whereas the HSRC recommends building upon a site that has no room for growth beyond the year 2003 and will be unable to meet the community's present and future needs;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to instruct the Health Services Restructuring Commission to consolidate all hospital services at the Hotel Dieu Hospital site, which offers 28 acres of property for present and future development, with one board with representation from the total population served, and one administration."
I present that on behalf of Minister Villeneuve, and I affix my signature with over 5,000 other signatures.
LEGAL AID
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas Paul Bernardo is a convicted murderer and is currently serving a life sentence for the murders of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy;
"Whereas there is concrete evidence in the form of videotape that Mr Bernardo, along with his wife, Karla Homolka, held their victims captive prior to murdering them;
"Whereas despite this concrete evidence the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that Mr Bernardo may secure a publicly funded lawyer to file an appeal of his murder convictions;
"Whereas Ontario taxpayers will therefore pay for Mr Bernardo's lawyer and court appeal;
"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to encourage the federal government to amend the Criminal Code such that Ontario taxpayers are not required to pay legal appeals initiated by convicted felons."
That's signed by 65 people of my community, and I have also signed the petition.
EDUCATION FUNDING
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by approximately 65 residents of the Kitchener-Waterloo area which petitions the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a province-wide referendum on the question of whether Bill 160 should be withdrawn by the government, and I've signed it.
ABORTION
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 273 people:
"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."
ADOPTION
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:
"Whereas the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario brings together various organizations to recommend reform of Ontario adoption law based on honesty, openness and integrity;
"Whereas existing adoption secrecy legislation is outdated and unjust;
"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and these rights are denied to persons affected by secrecy provisions in adoption laws and the Child and Family Services Act and other acts in Ontario;
"Whereas 20% of persons in Ontario are directly or indirectly affected by restricted rights to personal information available to other citizens;
"Whereas the adopted person's right to his or her birth identity is rooted in a basic and fundamental human need;
"Whereas most birth parents did not ask for lifelong confidentiality, it was imposed upon them involuntarily;
"Whereas research shows that not knowing basic personal information has proven harmful to adopted persons, birth parents, adoptive parents and other birth relatives; and
"Whereas research in other countries has shown that unqualified access to information at adoption satisfies the overwhelming majority of the parties involved;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact provisions of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to:
"Permit unrestricted access to full identifying birth information to adopted persons and adult children of adopted persons and unrestricted access to adopted persons' amended birth certificate to birth parents, birth grandparents, siblings and other birth relatives when the adopted person reaches 18;
"Permit unrestricted access to identifying information to adoptive parents of minor children, emancipated minor adoptees, individuals with legal guardianship of an adopted person in special circumstances;
"Allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file notice stating their wish for no contact;
"Replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling;
"Permit access to agency and court files when original statistical information is insufficient for identification and contact with birth relatives; and
"Recognize open adoptions in its legislation."
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I bring to your attention that petitions sometimes are like a speech. It's too long. You should try to summarize your petition as short as possible so that other members also have a chance to deliver their petitions. I ask for your cooperation.
1520
SCHOOL CUSTODIAN
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have a relatively short petition concerning the threat to fire a local janitor because he does not speak French.
"Whereas the local French community and staff at École Sainte-Marie in Simcoe have signed a separate petition in support of Mr Santiago Reyes indicating that they want him to continue to work as a custodian at their school;
"Whereas Mr Reyes has an excellent performance record and should not be discriminated against on the basis of language or in any other way;
"Whereas the undersigned join the local French community's request that any further attempts to involuntarily displace Mr Reyes from his custodial position at École Sainte-Marie in Simcoe be stopped immediately and want him to continue to work as a custodian in that location;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to guarantee to Mr Reyes his right to not be discriminated against on the basis of language."
I agree completely with this petition and hereby sign this petition.
ROAD SAFETY
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition sent to me by the Alliance of Seniors to Protect Canada's Social Programs, Mr Al Gorlick. It has a number of whereases, but I'll read the major ones. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas there is a shortage of police officers and whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on Highway 407; and
"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to utilize red light cameras;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature that the government of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."
In support of this, I add my signature.
ADULT EDUCATION
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have another petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the Legislative Assembly make moneys available to the Toronto Catholic District School Board in order to maintain Msgr Fraser College adult over-21 day school programs."
I've added my signature.
BEAR HUNTING
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition on bear hunting. I'll read the final whereas.
"Animal rights activists have launched a campaign of misinformation and emotional rhetoric to ban bear hunting and end our hunting heritage in Ontario, ignoring the enormous impact this would have on the people of Ontario.
"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:
"That the Ontario government protect our hunting heritage and continue to support all current forms of black bear hunting."
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition here petitioning the Ontario government to repair Highway 11 north, between North Bay and Marten River. I will sign my signature to this.
PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I present this petition 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;
"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral and 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 the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves."
This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I'm pleased to sign my name to this petition.
GOVERNMENT CUTS
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I was given this petition on Monday, during the Day of Action in Kingston, attended by some 10,000 people. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:
"Whereas the cuts imposed on Ontario by Mike Harris and his cabinet target the poorest members of our province and will cause enormous harm to both the working poor and recipients of social assistance; and
"Whereas the cuts in the areas of housing, social services like counselling, community centres and drop-ins, health care, education and municipal funding do not save money in the long run and will lead to high social costs and wasted potential from citizens of Ontario; and
"Whereas abandoning the moral and social responsibility of government will serve to put enormous pressure on cash-strapped municipalities, increase local taxes and will destroy the social fabric in Ontario;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to pressure the Premier and his cabinet to restore funding that has been cut to the citizens of Ontario and to protect the interests of all of its citizens, regardless of economic status."
I've affixed my signature to it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I encourage those who have longer petitions to summarize them. Give a chance to everyone to bring in their petitions.
OPPOSITION DAY
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I move that:
Whereas there have been serious questions raised about impropriety and potential conflict of interest in the process to select the builder and operator of the Niagara Falls permanent casino, and that these questions remain the subject of widespread concern in Ontario; and
Whereas there have been revelations that the winning consortium includes a number of people who have strong ties to the provincial Conservative Party, having worked as lobbyists around the establishment of privately owned and operated casinos, campaigners, fund-raisers and party officials; and
Whereas it has been revealed that Michael French was hired by a Toronto business group that was a partner in the winning bid for the Niagara casino, while at the same time he was retained by the Ontario government to run competitions to select private operators for the Niagara Falls casino and the 44 permanent charity casinos;
Be it therefore resolved that this House believes an independent inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act into the selection process for the construction and operation of the Niagara Falls Casino/Gateway project, including all government discussions and decisions leading up to the selection of Falls Management as the winning bid, will be essential for bringing out the full truth surrounding this case of apparent impropriety on the part of the government of this province.
Speaker, you know that today the government, after receiving it on June 8, released the Davies, Ward and Beck so-called investigation. The Chair of Management Board knows full well that he can take very little comfort in it, because all this report does is focus and raise even more questions about the gross corruption that has permeated the whole process involving the Niagara Falls casino, at great expense, I tell you, to the people of Niagara Falls and the Niagara region.
You know that the casino was tolerable to most people in Niagara only as an integral and essential part of a broader tourism promotional package, the Gateway project. You also know the Chair of Management Board has failed now for the third week to explain how tourism endeavours could have been sold out, were sold out, by the corrupt selection of Falls Management, which ranked third when it came to tourism, yet somehow ended up being the successful bidder for the casino construction and operation. It's a complete abandonment, sellout and betrayal of the tourism future of Niagara, and it creates, as has been noted by so many, simply a huge black hole where visitors to Niagara will spend their money.
1530
I should say, Speaker, that we will be dividing our time as was agreed upon earlier by our respective caucuses.
I'm telling you, there's big bucks involved. You're talking big, big money here. Let me tell you, this government was warned as it embarked on Niagara and on its slot/video lottery terminal exercise and its small-town casino project - 40-plus of them spread across Ontario, the bulk of them being in small-town Ontario, inevitably running seven days a week, 24 hours a day. We're talking big, big money - that this kind of big money inevitably attracts some less than savoury players in the business. That's axiomatic, that's given. You know that. This government has been warned from day one that it has to be vigilant in protecting this exercise, its casino exercise, its video lottery terminal exercise, its slot machine exercise, its small-town gambling casino exercise, those so-called "charity casinos," to protect them from the corruption that's attracted to them, that's drawn to them like flies to -
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): To honey.
Mr Kormos: To honey, I'm told.
The deception began very early in the process. I recall, and you recall this full well, when a legislative committee was called upon to consider Bill 15, the slot machine legislation, the one that was going to put slot machines out there and will put slot machines out there, video lottery terminals - call them what you will - in every neighbourhood, in every community, in every single part of this province. We on the committee prevailed upon the parliamentary assistant, we prevailed upon the government, to make available to that committee a report prepared by the criminal intelligence service of Ontario back in 1995, a report entitled Gambling in Ontario: Current Enforcement Concerns. This is as current a review of the status of gaming in this province, and the concerns that specialists in our Ontario Provincial Police department have, as is available. This government stonewalled, just like it's stonewalling over the issue of the corruption, the blatant, undeniable, straightforward corruption that's inherent.
Let's understand. Davies, Ward were the lawyers for the Ontario Casino Corp. It's a private law firm that relied as much on self-reporting as anything else to draw its very narrow and limited conclusions. They weren't called upon to respond to the most interesting and paramount question of just how it is that Falls Management, ranking number three during the course of selection when it comes to tourism, but interestingly owned in part by the Latner family, who are also in there thick as thieves in the Gaming Venture Group, which has won the bid to run these so-called charity casinos - these are small-town casinos. We understand Windsor. We understand Niagara Falls. We understand Niagara Falls as a tourist destination, and quite frankly, that's why the casino as part of the overall Gateway project was applauded by some.
We know that very much part and parcel of this government's agenda, one that they're committed to because they like the revenues, is to set up gambling halls in every part of small-town Ontario they can find. We're not talking here about tourist dollars or new money. We're talking about emptying the pockets of hardworking women and men, and desperate women and men, for whom Mike Harris' Ontario has been an economic disaster.
So it's oh so interesting, and the question that wasn't even addressed, never mind answered, in this feeble report that the Chair of Management Board responded to in the House today, is that the Latners, very much part and parcel of the third-ranked but successful Falls Management bid in Niagara Falls, are also big time into the casinos that are going to pop up in small-town Ontario to empty the pockets of residents of those towns. It has nothing to do with tourism whatsoever.
It's a very interesting question, because what's undeniable, and not refuted in any way, shape or form by the government, is that the Latners - the observation that we were able to make earlier, Mike Harris the Premier, he wants to talk about Ontario being open for business. Darned right, and it's up for sale to the highest contributor, to the biggest donors to the Conservative Party of Ontario.
We're convinced that what the successful bid by Falls Management is very much about is the fact that Falls Management is owned in part by the Latner family, the Latner family having been oh so generous with the Premier's Conservative Party. We're talking about over 90 grand in political contributions over the course of a mere three years. We're talking about 48 grand spread out over the years 1995-96, and bingo, in 1997 when Niagara Falls comes up for grabs, we're talking about a whopping $41,500 in 1997 alone.
These facts speak for themselves. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on here. The people in Niagara Falls don't need to be sidetracked by this feeble Davies, Ward report, which ignores the reality of what amounts to nothing more than political payoffs and the crassest, Mulroney-style, Tory pork-barrelling this province has ever seen - nothing more and nothing less. It looks like pork-barrelling, it sounds like pork-barrelling, it smells like pork-barrelling, and by God, it's pork-barrelling.
It's the good, old fashioned Tory way of doing business, something Brian Mulroney excelled at when he sold off Canada and something these Tories are perfecting as they're selling off Ontario to their rich friends, their big-money friends, and yes, they're intimate political friends.
The connections to the Mulroney government are there and apparent too. The names are the same. These actors keep popping up through the course of Conservative history in this country, be it in Ottawa doing Mulroney's work, doing his business, or being here at Queen's Park doing the business of Harris and his rich, big-money friends.
Let's get back to the deception that occurred. We prevailed, we implored this government to produce this report from the Ontario Provincial Police. We were prepared to consider it in camera, if need be, if in fact the information was so sensitive that it couldn't be shared with the public, as if concerns about gambling in this province shouldn't be shared with the public. We felt it was critical to the consideration of this government's passion, its mania, for slot machines, that we have access to what the Ontario Provincial Police experts in gambling and organized crime had to say about it.
This government stood steadfast. Come hell or high water, it was going to make sure that elected legislators who were called upon to consider Bill 15 weren't going to have access to some very important information, and they weren't allowed access to that very important information.
We have discovered what is contained in that CISO, Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario, report. You see, one of the lines used by this government is that they have to legalize slot machines and run them to deal with or respond to the phenomenon of illegal gambling. They really ran that spin, they really ran that line.
They were challenged on it. They were told by members of the opposition, by members of the New Democratic Party, by people who appeared in front of the committee, that the real way to address illegal gambling is to give police officers the resources to enforce the legislation, the Criminal Code of Canada. This government said no and it really tried to market its slot machines, its VLTs, as being little more than a response to the phenomenon of illegal gambling, because nobody was going to dispute the fact that there was illegal gambling.
1540
One of the reasons this government was very interested in our not having access to the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario report by the Ontario Provincial Police was that the Ontario Provincial Police made this very distinct observation, and perhaps some of the Tory members who were denied this report as well should take heed, because the Ontario Provincial Police, experts in organized crime and illegal gambling, in this report take special notice of the fact that legalized gambling has never replaced illegal gambling, ever, never, nowhere in the history of legal gambling versus illegal gambling. In fact, it goes further: "Legal gambling complements illegal gambling. Experts indicate that introduction of new legal games bring in new players, a significant number of which yield to the lure of illegal gambling activities to satisfy their interest."
It's exactly the sort of question we were raising with the government as it pursued Bill 15 which, with its numbers and with its backbenchers marching in lockstep, it eventually passed. The reality is that this raises even more concerns about who is really driving the agenda here. We know, once again, that because of the huge numbers involved in gaming, it attracts the least savoury of players. Take a look at the numbers and you will see that in Niagara Falls alone, over the course of not a full year until December 1997, we're talking about $400 million in gross revenues by the Niagara Falls casino, $20 million more than the gross revenues of Windsor. We're talking about half a billion bucks, and that's before we even have a permanent casino location there. No wonder people are prepared to engage in $90,000 payoffs, like the Latner family are, to obtain access to such a lucrative pool of revenues - 90 grand at the end of the day was a rather modest contribution by the Latners, in view of the great rewards they are going to reap by virtue of having been awarded - notwithstanding that their team came third when it comes to tourism -
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: I suggest you go file some income tax returns. Your time would be better spent, friend - the largess of Falls Management ranking third and at the end of the day coming up first; a remarkable bit of political response to a remarkable bit of political payola. The system is corrupt. It has been corrupted by this government, by its political friends and by its big-money partners in what amounts to a total sell-off of the future of tourism in Niagara region.
This government wants to take some comfort in a report that doesn't even begin to consider but merely asks more questions about the political reality of a corrupt government that will accept political contributions to corrupt a process that is far from clean and proper, and I tell you the participants in this process are well aware of it, the community of Niagara is well aware of it and the people in this province are well aware of it.
We've only been able to discover after the fact that this government's argument about legal gambling somehow displacing illegal gambling is totally false, totally fallacious. Again, one has to ask the question. This again leads to our concern about the refusal, the stonewalling by this government in its refusal to consider or to call a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, because in its so-called investigation, by the same lawyers who represent the Ontario Casino Corp, the questions weren't asked. Therefore, the answers weren't given, nor were they even solicited. The questions weren't asked.
We know that gambling of the scale that Niagara Falls is going to entail is going to attract corruption, as it already has, is going to attract the mob, is going to attract organized crime. When you consider and understand that legalized gambling, like casino gambling, and as importantly and perhaps more significantly like video slot machines, spread across small-town Ontario, doesn't displace illegal gambling, it complements it, it introduces people to it, you then have to ask the question as to whether the organized crime players in illegal gambling are the same people who are encouraging legalized gambling here in Ontario. Are they some of the same actors who are endorsing and promoting this government's casino projects, its small-town gambling hall projects and slot machines across this province?
Our very own Ontario Provincial Police identify organized crime and name names in a report that was denied to legislators in this assembly because it was extremely relevant to the propriety of this government's introduction of slot machines across the province and so-called charity gaming halls. It names names and identifies organized crime players who have permeated and run illegal gambling and who stand to benefit very directly from this government's proliferation of gaming and gaming halls across this province.
Let's take a look at the government's most recent announcement to abandon so-called video lottery terminals. They stood up and said: "That's it. We've given up on VLTs. We're just going to use slot machines now." No wonder this government didn't want members of this Legislative Assembly or the public to have access to the CISO report, because let's understand what the Ontario Provincial Police anti-gambling squad says about standalone slot machines, the type that are going to be installed by this government.
The Ontario Provincial Police in this province point out that standalone slot machines, the type that this government proposes to install in communities across this province, are the most corruptible ones. They're the ones with the least integrity. They're the ones that organized crime loves and they're the ones that organized crime will be oh so quick to gets its hands into and, believe me, they will.
We'd better be concerned about what's happening in Niagara. I tell you it's imperative, all the more so today after receiving this so-called report by the very same lawyers who act for the Ontario Casino Corp, retained by this government to report back on corruption within this government. What a sham. What a disgusting coverup. What a disgusting denial of the reality behind the corruption inherent in the Niagara Falls casino bid.
The only way to address it, the only way to seek redress, is to have a full public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act so that witnesses can be called, so that people are required to testify under oath and so that a truly independent party can draw some real conclusions because, I tell you, the only conclusion to be drawn now is that this government has corrupted the process, has become corrupt itself in the course of that process, has permitted itself to be bought off by its big-money friends, and has been bought off by its big-money friends. It has its network of soldiers out there - strong Tory insiders - doing the business of this government and forging those links with the big donors, with the big contributors, with the big-money people who are prepared to pay cash into the coffers of the Conservative Party so that they can have legislation, so that they have casinos, so that they can have policies that serve their profit interests.
This process reeks, it stinks, it's corrupt. We've seen ministers like the Chair of the Management Board reading from the notes given to him, following marching orders - no two ways about it - not understanding that at the end of the day he's going to be hung out to dry. The Premier's not going to want to take the heat. The Premier may be so intimately involved in the corruption that we're talking about, in the corruption that's so apparent to so many, but it remains that at the end of the - he may be. I'm not suggesting that he is.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): No, I don't accept this. Please withdraw.
Mr Kormos: Withdrawn.
The Acting Speaker: I simply do not accept that.
Mr Kormos: Withdrawn.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you.
Mr Kormos: The Premier may be in there like a dirty shirt, but the fact remains that he's not going to take the heat. He'll let his Chair of Management Board fall by the wayside in a New York minute before the Premier will take the heat on this one. Even though the Chair of Management Board - I'm convinced he's not in the back rooms. He's a dupe. He's being hung out to dry here. He's reading the script that's given to him. He's covering a whole lot of other people's backs. He's a mere mouthpiece for the players who are engaging in the backroom action and from whom the corruption just exudes.
Full public inquiry is the only solution to this matter. I would expect that Tory backbenchers would be as eager to participate in that sort of inquiry. One would hope they would be as eager to clear the air as any member of the opposition ever would be. One would hope that they'd want the public to see in a full - and the Chair of Management Board earlier today talked about transparency. Let me tell you, the only thing that's transparent here is that there have been political payoffs and that what should have been losing bidders, Falls Management, have become number one by virtue of the payoffs, as compared to being left in the status of number three.
1550
Let's have a public inquiry. Let's hear from witnesses. Let's have an independent tribunal -
Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): Go outside and say that, Peter.
The Acting Speaker: Minister. The member for York Mills.
Mr Kormos: What are you afraid of? What are you so afraid of that you don't want to see this go to an independent public inquiry? Or are more than a few of you going to be caught with your hands in the cookie jar? Because that's the only motivation for fear on the Conservatives' part that I can contemplate. Public inquiry is the only way to resolve the stench that accompanies this government and casinos and gambling.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I should say at the outset that I'll be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton West and the member for Northumberland.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the opposition day resolution put forward in the name of the member for Welland-Thorold and also to have the opportunity to set the record straight and provide some of the factual background to some of these allegations.
Some of the allegations that are being made are very serious allegations about individuals and they are not being made outside of this chamber; they are being made inside this chamber. I think all the members should recall that that's really the basis on which these charges are being made. They're being made in the chamber and not outside the chamber.
It also gives me the opportunity to speak about the importance of the Niagara Falls Casino/Gateway project, because one almost gets the impression from the speech of the member that the Niagara Falls Casino/Gateway project is not a popular one in that region.
Certainly from the opportunities that I've had to visit the region, and when I was the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism responsible for tourism, I had the opportunity to meet on a number of occasions with people from the Niagara region and discuss the idea of a combined Gateway-casino project. I certainly had the impression from speaking to them that it was a long-awaited opportunity to capture some of the untapped potential that the Niagara Escarpment and the Niagara area had not been able to take advantage of.
A lot of the people who visit the Niagara Falls area go there for actually a very brief period. There are people both in the Niagara region and on behalf of the provincial government who track the length of time that tourists spend in the Niagara region, and particularly in the Niagara Falls region, and many of these travellers are in fact coming to Niagara Falls for the purpose of seeing the falls and seeing some of the other attractions in the area, but they don't always stay for a long period of time. Our government thought that combining the Gateway project with a casino initiative was an ideal way to try to get tourists to stay longer in the area.
Originally the Gateway project was intended to develop the region as a world-class holiday destination and to position the Niagara region as an international tourism gateway to Ontario. It has all along been seen as a combination of private sector tourism development and also a tourism strategy not only for the Niagara area but also for the province.
In February 1996 the decision was made by this government to combine the Gateway project with a casino initiative in order to boost tourism and economic benefits generally in the region.
We know that each year more than 14 million tourists travel to the falls. It is one of the world's most amazing natural attractions, as most Ontarians know. We wanted to make sure that the underdeveloped tourism market in the area and of the province benefited by trying to develop the Gateway project more fully.
One of the people that I was able to discuss this matter with when I was the parliamentary assistant to the minister responsible for tourism was the mayor of Niagara Falls, Mr Wayne Thomson. He's on record as saying that he thinks the combination of a Gateway project and a casino initiative will be of great benefit not only to the city that he's the mayor of but also to the province and particularly the Niagara region beyond the city of Niagara Falls.
Clearly, the idea of a Niagara Falls Casino/Gateway project is to make sure that the tourists who come to that area stay for more than a day trip. We want to have Niagara as a launching point for other destinations in the province.
I know that the people from my area, Muskoka-Georgian Bay, would love to see more people who are visiting Niagara Falls take a trip around the province, perhaps a bus trip or other type of trip, out to see Muskoka and Muskoka-Georgian Bay.
The combined Niagara Falls Casino/Gateway project is the largest single tourism and economic development project in the history of the Niagara region. The objectives of the project, which have been stated very clearly on a public basis not only by our government but also by local interests, are to make a significant and lasting contribution that increases the sustainable economic benefits from tourism in the Niagara region, to act as a catalyst for economic development in the city of Niagara Falls and in the Niagara region and of course to create jobs.
The interim Casino Niagara is already providing many of these benefits. The members from the Niagara region and also municipal representatives from that region will confirm that many of the objects of the Niagara Falls Casino/Gateway project are already in effect, they're already operating as a result of the interim casino. We're sure the full project is going to accomplish even more of those benefits.
In September 1996 the Ontario Casino Corp issued a request for proposals for the Niagara Falls Casino/Gateway project. The corporation coordinated the establishment of an independent selection committee. By the March 1997 deadline, four companies had submitted proposals to bid on the project.
A Toronto newspaper has recently published a number of allegations concerning the integrity of the selection process for the Niagara Falls project. Some of these allegations concern the manner in which the selection process was conducted and also the involvement of the company Coopers and Lybrand. Coopers and Lybrand were in fact advisers to the selection committee. Some of the allegations suggest that Coopers and Lybrand's involvement with third parties is said to have created a conflict of interest. On June 1, 1998, Management Board of Cabinet instructed the Ontario Casino Corp to direct its legal counsel to determine if there were any breaches concerning Coopers and Lybrand's role as advisers to the selection process or with respect to conflict-of-interest requirements.
The objective of the independent selection committee was to choose the highest-quality proposal. It's worth noting that the selection committee undertook a comprehensive and complex evaluation process in which proposals were evaluated as to how they best met the range of criteria as described in the request for proposals. Each proposal was judged on how well it met a host of criteria. Those criteria included the potential for economic development, the quality of the concept, the bidder's ability to finance the project, the calibre of the business plans and management expertise.
The selection processes for the Windsor and Niagara Falls casino operators were basically the same in virtually all respects. Both had selection committees. These committees were assisted by experts in the specific criteria subject areas. Review panels were appointed to approve the selection criteria and selection process before, during and after the committee's work to ensure the selection process was fair and objective.
In the case of the Niagara process, the review panel included deputy ministers of the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Management Board Secretariat.
In both Niagara and Windsor, legal counsel provided advice regarding the process and the bids. Both selection committees were solely responsible for providing selection decisions, while the experts provided information and analysis to the selection committee only.
The basic steps taken throughout each process were the same. These steps included a review of the proposals, oral presentations by proponents to the selection committee and questions of clarification to proponents posed by and received by the committee. following this process in Niagara. In February 1998, the selection committee for the Niagara Falls Casino/Gateway project announced its decision on a preferred proponent. That proponent was Falls Management Co.
1600
For the Niagara Falls project, Falls Management Co has selected the Murray Hill site overlooking the falls. Anyone familiar with the Niagara Falls area would understand the location of the Murray Hill site; it's an ideal location for this kind of development. Falls Management has proposed a 100,000-square-foot casino, a 350-room hotel, extensive meeting and exhibition space, a world-class retail mall and a significant entertainment complex.
In addition, the consortium proposes to build a 12,000-seat amphitheatre and entertainment venue. It also proposes to develop River Country, a major addition to the existing Marineland. The proposal also features a monorail as part of the people-mover system currently being planned by the city of Niagara Falls. People who followed the Niagara Falls council discussions over the past few years will be familiar with the idea of a monorail which has been put forward by a number of parties.
The casino and related development will offer a unique blend of year-round experiences, including family-oriented entertainment and world-class accommodation. These are all the kinds of ideas that I'm sure people in the tourism business in the Niagara region are delighted to hear.
At the time of the announcement of Falls Management Co as the preferred proponent for a Casino/Gateway project in February, it was expected that the casino complex, as conceived, would create more than 5,000 direct jobs. Construction of the casino complex would create approximately 5,000 person-years of employment.
The selection committee chose Falls Management Co because the committee felt that among the bidders it had the highest quality proposal. Should the negotiations between the Ontario Casino Corp and Falls Management prove to be successful, the Falls Management proposal will fulfil the objectives of the Casino/Gateway project. Falls Management Co is led by Hyatt, one of the largest and most successful resort and tourism companies in the world. They have 179 hotels and resorts throughout the world. Currently Hyatt operates seven casinos and is a partner on an eighth casino.
Recently Mayor Wayne Thomson of Niagara Falls told a news conference, "When the casino arrived, it was a boon for the city, where cross-border shopping had devastated the local economy and where some major hotels were three years behind in their taxes."
I'm sure we could come up with many quotes from local representatives who are very confident that the combined gateway and casino project will be of great benefit, not only to Niagara Falls but also to the whole region of Niagara. The interim casino has had valuable economic spinoffs, which include more than 9,000 direct and indirect jobs created throughout the province. It generates an estimated $1.3 billion in new economic activity and new tourists in the province.
But it's not only economic benefits that communities derive from the casinos. When the KPMG study on Casino Windsor was released in December 1995, it was found, to the surprise of many, that it had been a positive social impact on the city of Windsor. The study found that increased crime did not materialize. The report stated, "Many people spoke of a new sense of optimism and a positive spirit in Windsor." In an excited response to this report, the member for Beaches-Woodbine said, "If all reports in the future remained as positive as this one, I think this government - any government - would proceed to have additional casinos."
Communities like Niagara Falls, Windsor and Orillia are enjoying unprecedented levels of economic success. I know Windsor has expressed enthusiasm for the economic benefits of the casinos it plays host to. It's on track to open the permanent casino this summer. Windsor has seen some 3,500 people employed at its two interim casinos. In total the Windsor casino initiative has seen more than 11,000 indirect and direct jobs created.
The project in Niagara Falls will mean thousands of new jobs for that part of the province and make a significant contribution in helping the region achieve its vision as a year-round, world-class tourist destination. Those are my comments for now.
The Acting Speaker: The member for St Catharines.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want -
The Acting Speaker: Hold on, I just want to explain to you. I know that you got up, the member for Hamilton West. You don't have to divide the time. You will have your full time. I'll just go in rotation.
Mr Bradley: If the member for Hamilton West wishes to speak now, if she has another engagement, I'll be happy to let her.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): No.
Mr Bradley: That's fine. I know from time to time members do have something else to go to and I would certainly be prepared to accommodate her.
I want to talk about this resolution in the context of what is going on in this House in the last few days and how it relates to this. I want to, first of all, review what Mr Kormos's resolution says, so that those who might be watching would know what we're debating this afternoon.
Mr Kormos, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, has moved opposition day number 4, which reads as follows:
"Whereas there have been serious questions raised about impropriety and potential conflict of interest in the process to select the builder and operator of the Niagara Falls permanent casino, and that these questions remain the subject of widespread concern in Ontario; and
"Whereas there have been revelations that the winning consortium includes a number of people who have strong ties to the provincial Conservative Party, having worked as lobbyists around the establishment of privately owned and operated casinos, campaigners, fund-raisers and party officials; and
"Whereas it has been revealed that Michael French was hired by a Toronto business group that was a partner in the winning bid for the Niagara casino, while at the same time he was retained by the Ontario government to run competitions to select private operators for the Niagara Falls casino and the 44 permanent charity casinos;
"Be it therefore resolved that this House believes an independent inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act into the selection process for the construction and operation of the Niagara Falls Casino/Gateway project, including all government discussions and decisions leading up to the selection of Falls Management as the winning bid, will be essential for bringing out the full truth surrounding this case of apparent impropriety on the part of the government of this province."
That is the context in which we are speaking this afternoon. There are a lot of items that have been happening in the last few days, or perhaps the last few weeks, which certainly relate to that.
When you're establishing a multimillion-dollar initiative, perhaps we're even into billions of dollars, such as a tourist casino - we're not talking here about the charity casinos, or as I call them, the new Mike Harris gambling halls, that will be imposed on smaller communities across the province and operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, bleeding the local communities of every last discretionary cent that might be around. We're not talking about those, to begin with. We're talking about the Niagara Falls casino or the Windsor casino; in this specific case the Niagara Falls casino.
Where there is a lot of money to be made, where we're talking about casino gambling, it is so very important for a government and its process to be squeaky clean, to avoid even an appearance of political influence being exerted by friends within the Progressive Conservative Party or insider information that somebody might have or mob influence - any one of those things. It's so important to avoid that. To do so, you have to have virtually a perfect process, and we've had less than a perfect process, in my view, in this case.
I want to say, by the way, that no matter who wins, some people who did not win are going to be unhappy. But I think there were a lot of people surprised that the bid that had the most tourist components to it was ranked down there, and the third-ranked bid, in terms of its casino component, was elevated to first place. People are going to ask questions. Because while the proponents in Niagara Falls of the casino as a tourist attraction like it as a tourist attraction, what they want to see are a number of other components. Niagara Falls doesn't want to be just a casino capital; it wants to be a tourist attraction or a tourist capital, if you will.
1610
We have the natural beauty of the falls. The Niagara Parks Commission over the years has done an outstanding job of providing facilities and beauty that are an attraction to people. But Niagara Falls wanted more than the wax museums and a few other attractions. They wanted to get into some quality tourist attractions. So legitimately people are asking the question: Why would the bid which had apparently the best attractions tourist-wise be relegated down the list and the one which didn't have so many, in fact didn't have many that a lot of people thought would be all that helpful, be elevated to first place? Those questions have been out there.
The government chose to have an inquiry but it chose to have the Ontario Casino Corp investigate the Ontario Casino Corp. Whether they do a good job or not, the perception always is, and often the reality is, that the final conclusions an organization investigating itself come to are going to be skewed somewhat, influenced somewhat, by the fact that their neck is on the line. I think what people would have preferred to see was an independent inquiry, an independent look by an outside, objective agency to clear up the cloud that is surrounding the bidding process with the Niagara Falls casino.
I remember I got up a month or six weeks ago in the House and asked about two people who were part of the winning bid who had some problems in the past in terms of their financial dealings. One was a Toronto individual and one was a Buffalo individual. I didn't know whether the accusations or the suggestions were true. What I was concerned about was that when the casino corporation was asked about this they said, "We just had a preliminary look at these individuals." I would think that when you're establishing a major tourist casino which is going to be bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars, you would do a very comprehensive search of each of the people who might be involved in the bidding. That didn't happen. Even someone from the casino operation in Ontario who was asked about it said that really hadn't been done, that it was just a preliminary look. So right away people started to wonder just what was going on. It gets back to the fact that the process has to be squeaky clean for it to work.
I'm worried as well that we're now having the same kind of thing happening with the 44 Mike Harris gambling halls. Those are the so-called charity casinos, where the government is using the charities as a front to justify moving into various areas of the province with these new casinos. The previous NDP speaker, Mr Kormos, may wonder, as I do, how the family caucus, the family values crowd within the Conservative Party, feels about this, because these charity casinos, or Mike Harris gambling halls, are going to be placed in various communities. They're not there to attract tourists, they are there instead to maybe attract the people from just around the area, but they're there to bleed the money out of the community.
Who's the big winner? Mike Harris, the person who said on many occasions he wanted nothing to do with gambling revenues. He said he didn't want them. When he talked about the Windsor casino, he was critical of the NDP government for establishing the casino at Windsor and talked about not wanting what he almost saw as blood money coming from these casinos. Well, he's happy to get it now because he's got to make up the revenue from the income tax cut. That's a tax cut, of course, the 30% tax cut, which benefits the wealthiest people in society the most, because if you're making $300,000 a year and you get a percentage tax cut, you're going to benefit much more than the person making $30,000 a year in terms of the actual dollars you're going to get back. So he had to find the money somewhere to make up for that income tax cut which he was giving before he had balanced the budget. That's the real problem, trying to provide that kind of income tax cut before you balance the budget. So we have these so-called charity casinos out there.
It was interesting to see in so many municipalities that people turned them down. They had a plebiscite, they had a vote locally during the municipal election. They said, "We don't want anything to do with them." This was despite the high pressure coming from the gambling proponents, and many of the people who are proposing these are friends of the government and they want long-term contracts. They want to sign these contracts so that no matter who's in power you're stuck with the contract. If you wanted to get rid of them, you would have to pay millions of dollars to get out of these contracts. They want to make it permanent.
I'm just hoping that the family values crowd within the Conservative caucus comes forward and speaks out during a caucus meeting to say to Mike Harris, "Enough of preying upon the most desperate people in our society, the most vulnerable people in our society, those who are addicted to gambling," and seeing the damage that could be done to the social fabric of the province, to families, by the implementation of the Mike Harris gambling halls, 44 of them operating seven days a week, 24 hours a day in various communities.
We saw some of the cabinet ministers saying to the local municipalities, "Look, if you don't accept this, maybe your charity is not going to get any money." I think the word for that is "coercion."
Mr Kormos: Blackmail.
Mr Bradley: The member suggests "blackmail." I used "coercion" as my choice, to these municipalities.
The second thing they did was - I say this in the context of not trying to be confrontational; listen to the context - bribery, not in the old-fashioned way of thinking in an illegal way, but rather saying to municipalities, "Gee, if you want to operate these slot machines, we're going to dole out some money to the municipality." When they had the old VLTs, the electronic slot machines, they were going to give a pile of money to the municipality, about $200,000. Unfortunately the municipality was desperate because of the downloading.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): What about the illegal ones?
Mr Bradley: The member for Humber asks a very legitimate question, and he's told this by the ministers. They come into the caucus meeting and say, "You know, there are all these illegal machines." I say get the commissioner after them. You've got one of the commissioners beside you. I say you get the crime commissioners and you close them down. That's all you have to do. You have to close them down. I am confident that the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and the crime commission can converge on these illegal operations and close them down and, if necessary, impose jail sentences and huge fines. That's all you have to do. I'm told by members of the government that you're against crime, so I know that you'll be aggressively going after those people.
Instead, what they said is: "There's something happening out there. Why don't we get in the business?" said Mike Harris. That's like saying there are people out there selling crack cocaine, so why wouldn't the government get in that business, or there are people robbing banks, so why doesn't the government rob banks? That's the same logic. It would be silly to suggest the government do either, and I say it's silly to suggest the government should be in the middle of gambling, of preying upon the most vulnerable people in our society.
With the Niagara Falls contract comes up the whole issue of election financing. You see, when you increase the amount of money - this is what this government is doing; they have now put a bill before the House which would allow huge increases in the amount of money that the corporate sector and individuals can contribute to political parties - and a huge increase, a massive increase in the amount of money that can be spent during an election campaign, money becomes all-important in an election campaign.
Think of it this way: If there are people consulting on contracts for casinos and they have contributed the massive amounts that would now be allowed under the new legislation, more and more people are going to be thinking there's a connection between them. There may not be, but more and more people are going to be concerned that there is a connection there.
When you abolish the election finances commission, the watchdog over the spending and contributions to political parties, I'm going to report that to the crime commissioners, because they're taking away -
Mr Kormos: Which one? Curly, Larry or Moe?
Mr Bradley: "Curly, Larry or Moe?" asks the member for Welland-Thorold. I know if I don't repeat it, it won't get into Hansard, so I repeat that to him. I don't know which one, but I would think they would be concerned when you're taking away the watchdog.
1620
Also, there are a lot of campaign activities out there. They may be polling on gambling, for instance. They may be polling on what the public attitude is towards the Niagara Falls casino contract.
They may have push polls. That's a new, devious method which people use in election campaigns south of the border. It would go like this. It would say, "Would you vote for" - who can I pick out here? - "Harry Danford or would you vote for Willy Brown?" we'll say, running against Harry Danford. That's the first question. The answer is whatever it is. Let's say it's Willy Brown, just for argument's sake.
The next question from the push pollster is this: "Would you vote for Willy Brown if you knew that he was soft on crime?" That's the next question you ask. That puts in the mind of the person listening, "Oh, this person must be soft on crime." Or it might be, "Who would you vote for if you thought Harry Danford was retiring?" The implication there is, you're trying to suggest that Harry Danford is going to resign or retire. That's what is called a push poll. I'm not picking on Harry; I just happened to be looking across at him.
None of that would cost anything. They've got all kinds of costs in an election campaign that would no longer come under the jurisdiction of the election finances commission. The sky would be the limit: Spend as much as you want and define it the way you want to.
This benefits the wealthiest people in our society, the wealthiest party. You see, what happens then is that it makes governments perhaps want to cater to the most powerful people, the people with the most wealth in our society, in their policies, their legislation and their regulations because that's where they're going to get the biggest donations. People of very modest income are not in a position to make those donations and the wealthiest in our society are.
The party that has money coming out its ears, the Conservative Party - I've said on many occasions, much to the amusement of my friends from Humber and Chatham-Kent, that it's going to cause a building boom in Ontario. We're going to have to build bigger halls to hold those Conservative fund-raisers, because more and more of the people who are benefiting most from the Conservative policies, the very wealthiest and most powerful people in our society, are going to come for payback time.
You say, "How does this affect this resolution?" The problem is that the more people can contribute, the more influence they will be able to exert on government. That's how it will be perceived at the very least, and it may even be true. That's not healthy for the democratic process.
Tom Long and Leslie Noble and David McFadden and Guy Giorno, and maybe my friend Mr King, who is now departed, all these people, will be saying: "Aren't we smart? We put one over on the opposition. We've rigged the circumstances so that we're in a much better position to win." They think they're being very clever, but even people who support the Conservative government should think about the democratic process and say: "Is it right? Is what we're doing right? Should money play such an important role in our campaigns?"
If you shorten the campaign and you allow massive advertising throughout the campaign, it's like carpet bombing the province with advertising. You have all those ads. Because the government knows when the election is going to be, they are then able to buy up all the good time slots ahead of time and spend all this money, massive amounts of money, on a campaign. That's when questions start to arise about political influence, you know: Did somebody donate, and did that have an influence or did it not have an influence? Those are the questions that get asked.
When you move in this direction, you make the problem worse. I think even some of the non-cabinet members in the government know this to be the case.
Yesterday we saw in the House an opposition which was extremely annoyed and infuriated by what happened. The Hydro bill was the significant bill coming forward. You didn't notice that the Hydro bill, which is a legitimate debate, was going to cause the opposition to be very concerned, very annoyed and very demonstrative, even though it's an important bill.
But when we're dealing with election finances and contributions, it has traditionally been that members in this House, representatives of the three parties in this House, as elected members, get together, discuss possible changes and come forward with legislation. I can't remember an occasion where that hasn't been done by consensus. But in this case the government was bound and determined - somebody was giving the orders to the Chairman of Management Board - to shove this bill through, a bill which very much favours the party with the most money and frankly, secondarily, a government in power, which almost always has a better chance at raising funds than those in opposition. It's not fair, first of all, and it's not healthy for the democratic system.
If the people of this province were to choose sto re-elect the Conservative government, I might not agree with that, but if they did it with a fair playing field out there where money didn't overly influence the election, people just chose as a result of their own thinking and what the government did, I would accept that. That's the democratic process. What I worry about is when the deck is stacked in favour of one group or another, where the government says the sky is the limit on many expenditures, and where corporations and individuals are able to put massively more money into the system and spend more money during a campaign.
When you shorten the campaign as well, it's more difficult for those who use the door-to-door method of campaigning. The door-to-door method is much cheaper, but you get to talk to people, or you go to public meetings or you gather in any kind of public venue, you discuss the issues and people make the choice. Again, that's as it should be. But when it is dominated by television advertising, with what I call hot-button issues being pushed - the dog whistle in some cases. A dog whistle, of course, is a whistle that only the dog can hear, so you blow the whistle and the dog hears that whistle. But oftentimes you use terms, code words, which to some people mean something, and that's the dog whistle out there that you see as part of the electoral process.
The last election, for instance, it was, "Let's reinforce that stereotype about somebody on welfare sitting on their front porch drinking beer while you're working hard." There might well have been some people who did that. The overwhelming majority of people did not want to be on welfare, and it was very unfair to put the foot on their throat, because they're vulnerable to that stereotype. Then they talked about quotas. What they were really saying there was, "It's the people from those other countries coming in to take your job, or your son or daughter's place in the university or community college." That kind of advertising is effective. Listen, I can tell you it's effective. If you ask people, for instance, "Are you opposed to negative advertising in a campaign," they'll say: "I don't like it. Yes, I'm opposed to it." But then you ask, "Does it influence your vote, honestly?" and they will tell you it does.
More and more, public debate in this House, public debate in our constituencies, should play a far greater role than money. Unfortunately, this government is making money the primary factor in an election campaign. So when we get to issues such as the Niagara Falls casino, that is where people begin to wonder. Were there Tory insiders? Were there people who knew people in government? I don't even know if you have to say Tory insiders. Were there people with inside information who had some influence on who was finally chosen? That's a question that lingers out there.
If you have an independent inquiry, as asked for in this resolution, and it comes to the conclusion there wasn't, then I think the public can justifiably say, "We've had an inquiry and there was no hanky-panky and we have to accept that." The opposition and those suspicious would accept that. But when you ask the Ontario Casino Corp to investigate the Ontario Casino Corp, I don't know how much credibility their conclusions are going to have, especially when we see people who have been in government - no matter who's in power, you always have to watch this - working for a minister or something and then they go out and try to be consultants and influence things. They know how to open the doors, and sometimes that's quite legitimate, but how much influence do they have and is it good for the process?
1630
If you talk to people on the street in the Niagara region, they have a sense that's something's wrong and they want to see that kind of independent inquiry, independent investigation. It doesn't have to be a long one. It can be very focused, very straightforward. If they came to that conclusion they'd be delighted, they'd be happy to see that. This government wants to avoid that.
I see the government moving more and more into gambling with the charity casinos. I lament them. I know the sense of excitement that some communities have at the thought of having a casino. Business people are in competition all the time. They're hardworking people and, as some of my friends on the other side have said on many occasions, they often mortgage their houses and put their lives on the line for their business, to take that chance. I'm going to tell you if you get these charity casinos in, people are going to have less money to spend on other things. What will happen is the people will just go to the casino. So if you're running a store, say a retail store, they're going to have less money to spend in that store. If you have a service that you run, some kind of service industry that you run, they'll have less money to spend on that; less money to spend on the family, perhaps less money to spend on restaurants, going out for meals and so on.
I saw some interviews of people in Orillia where Casino Rama is. The business people in Orillia thought that was going to bring a lot of business. They interviewed them and they said, "It hasn't; in fact our business has probably dropped off." They have the buses come into the casino, they play whatever they play at the casino, whatever games are there, and then they take off. That's my concern, that money could be spent productively, could be invested productively in other things.
Then you see people who are committing crimes that they wouldn't otherwise commit. I'm not going to get into names and addresses or anything, but in my own region I have seen people, for instance, who have committed bank robberies - these are people who wouldn't normally be bank robbers - addicted to gambling; people embezzling funds from their place of work, I'm sure thinking they're going to win some time and be able to put those funds back in; people who go home and are miserable because they've lost, and the family violence comes from that; people who simply blow the paycheque at the local casino.
You see, the difference between one, say, in Windsor and Niagara Falls, the tourist casino which is an attraction to many people to a tourist area, people coming from all over, and the local, so-called charity casino, or Mike Harris gambling hall, is that you're really going to get the local people and maybe the surrounding small towns. If you think of your area, Mr Speaker, if they had one in Stratford, it may be that people from Monkton and other small towns around might come into that one.
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: Well, the people in Monkton lose some business. If you've got a few stores in Monkton, perhaps a general store or something, people have less money to spend in it, and there are a lot more problems as a result.
I hope the family values crowd within the government takes up this cause, says that we should stop. I hope that everyone on the government side says: "Let's have an independent inquiry into the Niagara Falls situation. Let's clear the air. Let's see whether the accusations of conflict of interest are valid. Let's see whether there was inside influence. Let's see," as the member for Welland-Thorold says, "if there were political payoffs of some kind or other. Let's have an inquiry to have a look at that."
I'm prepared, as I say in this House, to accept whatever results come from an independent, objective inquiry. I'm not prepared to accept the Ontario Casino Corp investigating the Ontario Casino Corp. I don't think that's the kind of objective evaluation that we would like to have.
I'd like to save some time for my colleague from Agincourt who wishes to speak on this as well.
I would say that the waste of money that we're seeing, that we could see, would be as bad as bad as - and you probably got this at your house, Mr Speaker, at home. This is something put out by the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board, headed by David Lindsay, who used to be, you may recall - although to be fair, it was before you were here - the adviser on media and public relations for the Conservative caucus. He was a Conservative candidate. He was Mike Harris's principal secretary. He sent this pamphlet all over Ontario. Do you know how much this cost? Three quarters of a million dollars. What does it contain? It contains nothing but political propaganda, blatant political propaganda paid for by the people of this province.
Then last week, I got back to St Catharines, I looked in my mailbox and I'd got something else in my mailbox from the Conservative Party; I thought it was from the Conservative Party. I said: "Okay, that's all right. If it's the Conservative Party sending it out, that's quite reasonable." But I find out that it's a political propaganda piece, almost three quarters of a million dollars, paid for by the taxpayers of this province, whether they support the Conservative Party or not. I know that some of my Reform Party people back in St Catharines, who write letters to the editor about government waste, will be writing letters to the editor about this. I'll be looking for them. All this is is Conservative propaganda.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): And you get a mailing list.
Mr Bradley: And you get a mailing list, because it says in here, "Please respond." So you get a mailing list to send out to more people.
The clever people in the Premier's office say, "Hey, we're really smart." And some of the members of caucus say, "This is great stuff." And other members of the caucus say: "Why did we get involved in this? We're the party that's supposed to be saving money. We're the party that believes in integrity in government."
I know my friend Mr Ford was probably saying behind closed doors, "This is a wasteful expenditure." I know he would say that, because that's the kind of person he is. He is a frugal person. He is a person who has spoken out in this House about wanting to save money. So I am confident my friend Mr Ford and his colleagues would be objecting to this. Now Guy Giorno would think this is great. But there it is, Tory propaganda, and this government was going to be different. This is the taxpayers paying.
Mr Ford: I would like to take a comparison of your expenses.
Mr Phillips: Ford doesn't like that thing, I know that.
Mr Bradley: I know he doesn't like it. I thought if the Conservative caucus paid for this out of their caucus fund, or if the Conservative Party paid, well, how could I object? But this is the government of Ontario - all taxpayers - paying.
So I was not surprised when I saw the legislation coming in after to Americanize the political system that we have in Ontario, by, as I refer to him affectionately, Governor Harris, because that's what they do in the United States. They don't call them Premier, they call them Governor. Since we're so Americanized now, I call him Governor. It's not a disparaging remark, it's an affectionate remark - Governor Harris.
I want to share with my colleague from Agincourt just a little bit of time so that he can make some of his points. I urge all members of this Assembly to support the resolution which is on the floor this afternoon. All it does is ask for a totally independent, objective inquiry of the bidding process in Niagara Falls, with those of us in opposition and the public prepared to accept whatever the results are of an independent public inquiry.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate?
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I am pleased to rise and speak in favour of the resolution that's been put forward by Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold. I believe very strongly that there is a need for a public inquiry into the events that have transpired with respect to the selection of the winning proponent for the Niagara casino. There are a number of reasons I support that.
I'm pleased to speak following the member for St Catharines, because he and I think very much alike on this particular issue: our concerns about the expansion of gambling in the province, particularly our concerns about the proliferation of the so-called charity casinos - he calls them the Mike Harris gambling halls - and what it means in terms of a drag on local economies, as opposed to the Windsor or Niagara casinos, which are more tourist destinations.
Let me begin by responding to the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay. I thought he started out to do a pretty good job of describing the importance of the Niagara Gateway project. He outlined some of the goals of that and then went on to talk about how, in 1996, the government decided to combine the casino with the Gateway project.
1640
I want to take a moment and just underscore the importance of the Gateway project itself, because the reason why I have considerable concern about the events that have transpired and the allegations that have been made is because the proponent who won in the end, and that the Ontario Casino Corp is now in the process of negotiating with, has put forward a bid which is the least like the requirements of the joint Gateway and casino operations, or at least, let me say to be fair, the kind of Gateway project that I had envisioned, and I spent a fair bit of time involved in this as Minister of Economic Development and Trade, with my colleague at the time, the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, when the very good, solid work was being done by people within that ministry to bring forward a proposal on the Gateway project.
The member will know that one of the concerns that governments have had with respect to tourism in the Niagara area is that there are thousands and thousands of tourists who come into Niagara, but they stay a couple of hours, on average, and spend $5 to $10, on average - a hot dog, a pop, or something like that - and they're gone.
The whole concept of the Gateway project was twofold. It was to encourage people to come into Niagara Falls to see the wonderful sight of the falls, but to stay in that community, to enjoy other major tourist attractions in that community, as well as - as is underscored by the name, "Gateway project" - for that to become a gateway to other tourism opportunities within the province of Ontario. For example, you spend a day or two in Niagara Falls with the various major attractions that would be afforded as a result of this gateway attraction, and you have the opportunity to also link up and then perhaps do a tour of the winery region or other tourist opportunities within the region and/or within the province. So it becomes a gateway from outside the province into the province, into tourism opportunities. That is the critically important part of this overall proposal.
The concern I have is that the actual proponent with whom the OCC are now negotiating I feel doesn't come close to measuring up to the Gateway side of the proposal. It certainly does on the casino side. I have no specific knowledge to in any way suggest there is a problem with the way in which they would operate or manage a casino. I have no information to have any concerns on that front. But I have a concern when you have a proponent who's involved, like the Hyatt, and other aspects of that group who have, for example, run a major tourism operation and convention centre right across the border from Niagara Falls. Surely this is not to prepare in Niagara Falls some side activities to help Buffalo and other communities in the United States attract tourism and attract conventions there and then they can have the side trip across to Niagara Falls. That would perpetuate the problem we have had, so I am extremely concerned about the fact that the bid that seems to have won is the least like the envisioned combined Gateway project and casino project.
When I then look at who has been involved and I look at the fact - and it is difficult to raise names and talk about people - that someone like Mr Boddington, who was a member of the Conservative Party and a key activist in your campaign, head of the quick response team and head of the transition team and had a lot to do with hiring staff into the ministers' offices, and now he's doing lobbying work, which is okay; there's nothing wrong in that - he knows the routes in. He knows the routes through the political staff and the politicians, and it appears like he has very successfully used them. Again, perhaps that's his job as a lobbyist, but when you're not getting the best result for the province of Ontario, when it appears that those connections have resulted in a bid which doesn't meet the tourism goals of the Gateway project, I become very concerned.
The connections that have been made with Coopers and Lybrand and Mr Boddington and Leslie Noble in their early days of lobbying the government to expand casino operations in the province seemed also to have paid off when it comes to the charity gaming sector.
I hope you will understand by now that the government's proposal to replace the roving charity casinos is nothing like a charity casino any more. In fact, you have lost the ability to come under that provision of the Criminal Code. The casinos that you are setting up in these communities are commercial casinos under the Criminal Code. Those are the ones that the Premier said there would be referendums before he has any more of these. The government and the minister have often said, "These are just small, tiny ones." I'm sorry; that's not true. In Brantford, for example, they're putting two of the proponent bids together and there are going to be seven more gaming tables in the Brantford casino than there will be in the Windsor casino that exist right now. That's not some small neighbourhood roulette game or wheel of fortune or Monte Carlo night, as the government would want us to believe.
Last week a group of concerned citizens, the Ontario Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, came here and added their voices to the call for an independent inquiry. They believe the government has not given the public the correct information with respect to the nature of these charity gaming casinos, that they're in fact commercial gaming casinos, that they will not draw tourism into communities, that they will take money out of the local economies, out of local families, and that they will cause social problems that are inherent in that.
Second, they are concerned that the very group that recommended to the government to proceed with the establishment of these multiple 44 new commercial casinos in the province was the consultants that did the study for them, and guess who that is? Coopers and Lybrand, the same consulting company that has been involved in overseeing the selection process, in overseeing the development of the bid with Mr French, who was part of the group with Leslie Noble and with George Boddington, who did the early-on lobbying to have expanded gambling. I guess they got what they wanted. I guess they were successful. It came through a back door; it came under the cloak of charity casino gambling, which we know it's not, but they got their expanded gambling. So they were influential in that.
We fear they've been influential with respect to these other aspects. When we see the loss of the very important Gateway part of the Gateway-casino project for Niagara, we are sorry for the loss of that tourism potential, not just for Niagara but for the rest of the province, but we also, in looking at the involvement of the people and those names that keep cropping up, see that something looks amiss. The only way this can be cleared up at this point in time is if there is a public inquiry.
It's not just members of the Legislature who are calling for that public inquiry. All sorts of people in the Niagara region who are very concerned about the outcome of this have been very clear they want a public inquiry. Now the Ontario Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, representing people from communities right across this province, have added their voice to the call for a public inquiry. I hope today the members of the government do the right thing and vote in support of this resolution.
Mrs Ross: I'd like to address this issue by talking about the rationale behind the government's strategy with respect to charity gaming. I'd also like to talk about additional security provisions available with permanent charity casinos. I want to begin by outlining for you the problems that existed, our solutions and the response of our stakeholders.
Roving Monte Carlos have proven to be impossible to regulate effectively. They weren't working for charities; they were unregulated, uncontrolled and unsafe. The police had very serious concerns about them.
OPP staff sergeant Joe Fotia, a 30-year veteran of the fight against illegal gambling, describes roving Monte Carlos as "a den of thieves." The solution that we propose and that we are in the process of implementing involves replacing these events with permanent charity casinos. It's a policy that we'll be implementing with the support of communities across the province.
Jeff Wilbee, chair of Charities First Ontario, has said that our charity gaming policies "will go a long way to improve the security, accountability and hopefully the profitability for charities."
Change in this area is long overdue. Previous governments were aware of the problem but did very little about it. Roving Monte Carlo casinos have existed in Ontario for almost a decade. They were first introduced by the Liberal government of David Peterson. In their last full year of operation, there were almost 5,000 Monte Carlo events licensed province-wide by the Alcohol and Gaming Control Commission of Ontario. Most of these events operated for three days, for a total of just less than 15,000 gaming days. Although the business was regulated, there were significant problems, especially around safety. The roving nature of the games made enforcement an almost impossible task. Apart from the significant concerns around security enforcement, charities were complaining about not getting their fair share of the proceeds. It's estimated that 20% of the events either broke even or actually lost money.
1650
In total, roving Monte Carlos were only yielding about $10 million a year for charities. That was in 1996, the best year they ever had. In 1997, that amount dropped to $6 million. Clearly, the roving casinos weren't working, at least not to the benefit of charities which were supposed to reap the rewards.
Charities turned to government for help and we responded and took action. In his 1996 budget, Minister Ernie Eves announced the phasing out of the problematic roving Monte Carlo casinos and their replacement with a network of permanent charity gaming facilities.
In February 1997, we announced that there would be up to 44 sites, some permanent, some part-time or seasonal, and all to be operated by proponents chosen through a fair, open and publicly accountable process. This new system of charity casinos offers greater accountability and security and increased revenue for charities - not just $5 million or $10 million, but as much as $200 million a year.
But while we realize that gambling is a reality in the 1990s, and that it's important to respond to unsafe and unregulated roving casinos, we also realize the social responsibility that must be addressed with gambling. That is why this government has committed $20 million a year for problem gambling, more than every other Canadian jurisdiction combined. The finance minister has also dedicated $7 million to police officers, increasing the complement from six to 35. This increase in complement is to address the illegal gambling problems we have with gaming machines. Already, you can see that the benefits of that investment are reaping some results.
As reported in the Ottawa Citizen in February 1998, the OPP illegal gaming unit seized more than 200 illegal VLTs, mainly in Hawkesbury. In November 1997, as reported in the Cambridge Reporter, police seized more than $200,000 in gambling machines. In April 1998, the OPP illegal gaming unit laid approximately 85 charges against 31 business owners. So we'd be hiding our heads in the sand if we didn't realize there was a problem with illegal gambling.
We've listened, we've responded and we're addressing the concerns of the people we've heard. We've heard that people don't want charity casinos, they don't want VLTs in bars and restaurants, don't want them in residential neighbourhoods, and we've addressed that. We've said there would not be any VLTs; there would only be slot machines. We've said they wouldn't be in residential neighbourhoods and we've addressed that. There will be no VLTs or slot machines in bars or restaurants. We have heard the concerns of the public.
The new system we are addressing has two key goals: increased profits for charities, a fair deal for those charities involved and enhanced regulatory control. Minister Tsubouchi handled the introduction of our proposal leading to the creation of charity casinos. But once we moved away from the introductory aspect, which fell under Minister Tsubouchi's mandate as the regulator of gaming activities in the province, and into an operational or management phase, it made more sense for Management Board Chair Chris Hodgson to assume responsibility as the minister responsible for the business operational aspect of gaming.
We needed to clarify these rules to ensure that our gaming functions were carried out in a logical and appropriate manner. By consolidating our gaming business responsibilities under Minister Hodgson and maintaining regulation under Minister Tsubouchi, we have given our gaming activities a more clearly defined focus. That helps to increase their accountability.
Our government has said all along that municipalities would have the right to decide whether they wanted to host charity casinos or not. We have had expressions of support for our charity gaming policies from communities such as Windsor, Sarnia, Fort Erie, Brantford, Thunder Bay, Prescott, the Chippewas near London, and a number of others.
People in these communities recognize that our charity operations are much more accountable than anything they've seen in the past. They know that their local councils understand their needs and interests better than anyone. They are the ones who must balance local concerns over charity casinos and the charities' very real need for money.
On the regulatory side, we are imposing tough new rules. We will require a complete annual accounting for every single dollar raised through new gaming initiatives and the specific projects and programs they will fund. Under our new proposal, charities will get up to $160 million from table games and $40 million from slot machines. In some cases, this will be more than 30 times as much as they were getting under the old system. One hundred per cent of the net proceeds from table games will go directly to charities. Half will go to the charities sponsoring the events themselves and the other half will be channelled through a reconstituted Trillium Foundation.
An additional $40 million from slot machine proceeds will go to provincial charitable priorities. In both cases, local considerations will be front and centre in the decision-making process. That is how communities want the system to run and we agree with them.
As you can see, our government has developed a charity gaming policy that meets all the important tests. It offers proper regulation and accountability and helps provide much-needed funding, and significantly more of it, to some of our province's hardest-working charitable groups. Charities have told us that our new system addresses their concerns.
We are committed to carrying out the charity gaming policy in consultation with our stakeholders and partners, including municipalities. We want to continue working with everyone involved to build a strong and secure system that provides stable funding to charities while letting consumers engage in this increasingly popular form of entertainment. At the same time, we want to make sure they are safe, carefully regulated and in a controlled environment.
Mr Phillips: I'm glad to join the debate on the resolution calling for a public inquiry into the awarding of the contract of the Niagara casino. I say to the public that this is an extremely important issue. We are absolutely on the edge of a gambling explosion by the Harris government. They are, as the previous speaker acknowledged, about ready to introduce 15,000 slot machines in Ontario, representing an annual loss by the taxpayers of Ontario - they're going to lose in those slot machines, by the government's own calculation, $1 billion.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): How much?
Mr Phillips: One of the members asked, "How much?" The government itself put the numbers out. It will be $1 billion that Ontarians will lose every year in slot machines.
So it is extremely important that we take advantage of this opportunity to examine one of the major contracts that has been awarded on gambling to see if there were improper activities undertaken here and to set in place procedures and processes to avoid it in the future.
I'm not prejudging the outcome, obviously. But I would say, as previous speakers have said, that it is unusual. It looks very much like the bidder who had the preferred bid, the one the local people in Niagara Falls felt would have been clearly preferable to the economy of Niagara Falls, the one they were hoping would have been awarded because it would have made a significant impact on the economy of Niagara Falls - something happened, and it didn't win. The one that was clearly preferred suddenly went from what most people felt would be the logical one to receive the award, to third.
As we get into some of the information now, just filed today, I might add, you can begin to see in what I call this industry that there seems to be the potential for significant conflict. I use the example in the report that was released by the government today.
1700
Based on my reading of the report, it appears that one of the key consultants engaged by the Ontario Casino Corp, one of the key players in it that helped design the bid and helped in the interview process on the bid, was also, at the same time, working for the proponent that ended up winning the bid. We have what appears to me to be a significant potential conflict here, where an individual - and I know nothing about the individual - who was working with the casino corporation was at the same time under contract for the winning bidder, not working on the Niagara bid, I gather, but on bids that this particular individual or company was submitting in other jurisdictions.
Surely we should take advantage of this opportunity to use this as an example, where it appears to many who look at it that there is significant potential for conflict, where it appears that the winning bid was number three in terms of preferred bidders for that area, and so I support the resolution.
Why is it important? Previous speakers have said: "Why are we doing this? To eliminate illegal gambling. That's why we're doing it." Let me just quote from a report done by the law enforcement community in Ontario that looked at this. This is an organization at the most senior level, looking at illegal gambling. Here is what they say: "...legalized gambling has never replaced illegal gambling. In fact, it complements it." The member opposite looks surprised at that. That is a police report. Therefore, if the government believes that legalizing gambling will eliminate illegal gambling, I say the experts say you're wrong. "It complements it," to use their language.
Here we have a huge project awarded, it appears, to a bidder who would have been not the number one preferred bidder for the local community and where it appears, because of the involvement of people in organizations in this, there is the potential for conflict. Surely we owe it to ourselves to have a public airing on this, and the reason is what I started out by saying, that is, here we are - as a matter of fact, we're dealing right now in this Legislature with something called Bill 15, and that's the bill that establishes these 15,000 slot machines, 44 charity casinos.
There will be an explosion in gambling in Ontario, $1 billion a year lost on slot machines, and it's ironic to me that the government that says they are strong believers in people having more money in their pockets for discretionary spending would extract $1 billion from individuals, many of them probably the least able to afford it. The member down here said, "It's for charity." Let me tell you, of the $1 billion lost on slot machines, charity will get $40 million and Mike Harris will get the majority of it. Why? Of course it's to fund the tax cut.
So here we are, just days away from approving Bill 15. For the public, Bill 15 is the bill that changes the lottery corporation, gives it the authority to set up these 15,000 slot machines in the province, and it purports to put in place the reporting mechanism for this. It doesn't do it in a particularly good way, but it purports to.
I can guarantee you that this is a swamp. I was very interested in reading the police report on this because they spell out their very serious concerns about the problems created by gambling, legal and illegal. I repeat the comment in here: "Legalized gambling has never replaced illegal gambling. In fact, it complements it. Experts indicate that introduction of new legal games brings in new players, a significant number of which yield to the lure of illegal gambling activities to satisfy their interest."
So here we are. The police organization that knows the most about this has spelled out in as clear terms as you could imagine that legal gambling does not eliminate illegal gambling. In fact, they point out that as you expand legal gambling, you suck people in and then many of them turn to illegal gambling to satisfy their needs.
Here we are, Harris about to embark on it. It will change Ontario in a dramatic way - at least 15,000 slot machines and the government has indicated more to come. It's not going to charity. If the majority of this were going to charity, there is perhaps some potential defence of it, but of all the money, the billion dollars lost, $40 million will go to charity.
I might add on a personal note that I find it unfortunate that to the charity organizations in Ontario doing terrific work, working hard, with community help and volunteer help trying to provide a better Ontario, the government has now said, "You have to rely on our gambling revenue for your survival." I find it unfortunate. The government has bought what I call moral protection. Frankly, many of the charities are in difficulty now because they absolutely need that revenue, it's not coming in and so they're petitioning local councils to introduce these charity casinos. Why? Because their very existence depends on it now.
I go back to what the police have said, that legal gambling does not eliminate illegal gambling, it simply fuels the interest in gambling that will lead to increased illegal gambling.
This is not in my opinion unrelated to the bill that has been introduced on campaign expenses. The public probably have little understanding of the bill, but it is a blatant, clear, deliberate attempt by Mike Harris to take advantage of the fact that he can raise gobs of money. We in the Liberal Party can't. There's no question of that. We are not the party of big business. The Conservative Party can raise gobs of money.
What happened yesterday was that the government introduced a bill - the tradition of this House is you get all-party agreement when you're going to change something this fundamental - and it will allow all parties to spend, if they have the money, $2 million more during a campaign. Mike Harris can raise that money. He can go to a big-business meeting and raise it. We can't. It is a deliberate, blatant attempt to silence the opposition.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Sure you can.
Mr Phillips: The member says, "Sure you can." I can assure you that big business supports this group, no questions about it. We can't and the public should understand that the face of Ontario politics is changing as we speak. We are without a question of a doubt heading to the Americanization of politics in Ontario. The campaign that Mike Harris ran the last time was designed in the US by the Republican campaign organizers. It modelled the New Jersey campaign. This is just another step to the Americanization of Ontario politics.
I say to the public this will be important, because you are going to change who can run, who will be involved in politics, and $2 million, believe me, is a lot of money for political organizations.
1710
At what we call the riding level, raising the expenditure levels from roughly $40,000 to roughly $70,000 is a lot of money. It is almost impossible for most candidates, other than the Conservative candidates - the Conservative candidates will have no trouble raising money; I understand that. The people in this province who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars got a $500-million tax break from Mike Harris. They've got all sorts of money to give to the Conservative Party. I understand that. The personal income tax cut represented a tax break of $500 million to people making more than a quarter of a million dollars.
You can see the pattern: "We will give a break to the best-off in this province. We will expect them to reward us." Here we are coming up to a campaign where now Mike Harris will have $2 million more to spend and he'll have no trouble raising it. You can get away with it. You've got the majority. You will ram this thing through, I understand that, but it is obscene.
I have some confidence in the basic good judgement of the population of Ontario to recognize it for what it is, and that is a party that is absolutely flush with money. They're lining up to give you money because you've given them tax breaks. I understand that and I understand that it bleeds us dry. If you want to play that game the public will understand it. I look forward to the campaign, where we will expose you for what it is.
The reason I raise it here is that we can see the risks. We now have gone from where almost anyone can run for political office and where local organizations can raise enough money to field a reasonable campaign - that's fundamentally changing and it will now be an organization rich enough to run a campaign, and we will have half the money to spend that you've got.
You may say, "Tough luck, that's just the way it is," but I would say to the public of Ontario, Mike Harris is changing the complexion of politics in the province and now we see the Americanization of politics in Ontario. If the members don't understand that, I despair, because the caucus obviously has bought this. It will end up with you being flush with money.
The reason it's important is that here we are with an example of where a huge contract was awarded under what I think are some real clouds and some of it related probably to campaign donations. It all is fitting together, unfortunately.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): It's a pleasure to rise and speak today in support of the opposition day motion of the member for Welland-Thorold, Peter Kormos, because sometimes the stench gets so thick in this place that what we really need is some fresh air to try and air it out, and that's what this resolution tries to do. The cloud is so thick over what happened at the Niagara casino/Gateway project that I don't think we have a fan big enough to blow that cloud away. But what the member's motion tries to do by calling for an independent inquiry is an attempt to satisfy the public's suspicion about what happened with respect to the Niagara casino.
I heard the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay speak earlier and he tried to relate what happened in the Niagara area casino selection process with what happened in Windsor. I was proud to be part of the New Democratic government that brought casino gambling to the city of Windsor, developed an entirely new industry for Ontario, helped to provide income for the government and stimulate the economy and create jobs. It was a process that we had to start right from scratch. When we did that, we had to make sure we were careful to ensure that there was not only no impropriety but no appearance of impropriety. The difference between what happened in Niagara Falls and what happened in Windsor is that there were no questions whatsoever like the questions that are being raised here today with respect to the bidding process and the selection process for the operators of the casino in Windsor. That is the big difference that we're debating here today.
I had a chance to look through the requests for proposal for the Windsor casino complex and I thought that I'd like to remind people of some of the objectives that were very clearly set out in that request. It was set out was that the proponents bidding on the casino complex were to meet the following objectives: to act as a catalyst for community economy development, to create jobs, to promote the tourism and hospitality industries, to establish a viable new industry in the province and to provide revenues for the province. It also had to revitalize the downtown in Windsor and comply with the city's master plan for the redevelopment of downtown and also work with the Windsor Raceway, a horse racetrack that was located in the city.
I'm proud to say that five years later all of those objectives have been met and have exceeded the expectations we all had back in 1993, when this initiative came forward, when this request was put out, without any of the questions that are being asked about what happened in the selection process of the Niagara casino.
The member also talked about who was going to be on the committee. We had a selection committee that was set up for the Windsor casino as well. The people who were on it were the deputy ministers of consumer and commercial relations; culture, tourism and recreation; economic development and trade; and finance. That selection committee was going to be assisted by experts.
The concern we have with respect to the Niagara casino is that they may have set up a committee - they did engage experts, we know that - but it doesn't seem as though they were there to provide advice or assistance. They appear as though they were actually directing the process right from the get-go. That's something that is quite different from what happened in Windsor.
Something else that was in here - I'm sure the members in the government will say that this is there as well. I would hope it was in the request for proposal for the Niagara casino, although I wasn't able to get it at the library. It's interesting that it wasn't available. I don't know who has a copy of that request for proposal. I'm sure it must be available somewhere. We tried to call the Ontario Casino Corp to try and get a copy of it as well and weren't able to get it.
Something that was interesting was that there's a provision in the Windsor request respecting grounds for disqualification. It says, "Any attempt on the part of proponents or any of their employees, agents, contractors or representatives to contact any of the following persons with respect to this RFP may lead to disqualification." Here's the list of people: any members of the selection committee, any members of the review panel or any expert or other adviser assisting the selection committee, any ministry staff, any members of cabinet or their staff and any members of the Ontario public service. It's a pretty extensive list and it really sets up a process where there cannot be any opportunity for influence by outside lobbyists, experts, paid proponents to try and influence the selection committee process.
We have serious concerns that what we tried to prevent, which we did successfully prevent in Windsor, is what happened in Niagara. There were people in conflict-of-interest positions who were connected to proponents who may have been connected to the Progressive Conservative Party who may have been meeting with persons who were involved in the selection process. This is something that we need an inquiry to try and find out.
1720
As I said, in the Windsor process, there wasn't a scent, there wasn't a whiff of a scandal, nothing. Why is it that people are asking the questions that they're asking about the Niagara casino? There was nothing but praise for the process that was followed in Windsor. There was a good reason that that process was as clean as it was, and that is because it had to be.
When we brought the casino gambling business to Ontario, we had no illusions about what sort of a business we were inviting to come into our province. That was an industry that traditionally had been operated by organized crime in the United States, and it's no surprise why. It was an illegal activity in many provinces and in many states up until quite recently, and it was very lucrative for the criminal element. Organized crime got a lot of money from the gambling business and that certainly wasn't an element that we wanted to bring into Ontario.
The government must ensure that not only were there no conflicts of interest, there was no unlawfulness, there was no illegal activity whatsoever surrounding the selection process in the Niagara casino, and that is why we're calling on this government to have an independent inquiry. It's the right thing to do, and I urge all members - the government members, Liberal members - to support the motion of Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to this resolution that has been put forward by the member for Welland-Thorold, a member of the NDP.
I'm rather disappointed in this resolution, to be quite frank. It's a very weak sort of resolution. They should have been able to come up with something better than an issue that isn't even completed yet, but at least it's a resolution they've put on the books for debate for the day.
I'm sure that all members in the third party can empathize with the government in this current debate. Even though the selection process has been open, has been transparent, it's so easy to make things appear tainted by impropriety. Anyone with a little bit of creativity can trump up a bias scenario, and I give full marks to the member for Welland-Thorold that he has some creativity and was able to trump up this particular bias scenario. This is an attempt, of course, to embarrass the present government. I understand partisan politics and what they're trying to do. Based on the British system, in opposition it's easy to try and go about making things look bad.
I'm certainly surprised at the third party's resolution, particularly in view of the allegations that were levelled at this party when they were in government during the last term. I sincerely hope, I really do, that most of those allegations were unfair. However, they're on the books and they're in Hansard, and I think we should have a look at some of those.
We can look back at the Windsor casino when it was established under the NDP, and I just heard a moment ago the member for Windsor-Riverside saying how squeaky clean it was. First the NDP was criticized, and I think maybe unfairly, for wanting to make gambling Ontario's industrial strategy for the 1990s. It has just about as much chance of succeeding as any other strategy that the NDP would come up with.
Then they were the victims, and I underline victims, of a brown envelope campaign that's leaked to the media. Many of the allegations connected with the Windsor one were not dissimilar to the ones that they're making now. They were in the air regarding the Windsor casino, all in the particular area. The brown envelope in question contained a note from a career public servant who said he was, "upset with the bias being shown in the selection process for the Windsor casino," and he attached documents to prove his point. The documents of the day seemed to substantiate the suspicions of some unsuccessful bidders, that the fix might have been in. I can understand, with any unsuccessful bidder, that they're just a little unhappy like a jilted suitor. They put a lot of effort into it and then they find there's nothing in the end. They are just left high and dry. So they are a bit frustrated.
Some of this civil servant's memo was indeed a bit cryptic, but the conclusions could be drawn without difficulty on the implicit nudges and winks.
What's more interesting, in their inaugural throne speech back in 1990 the NDP promised whistle-blower legislation to protect civil servants who made public information on illegal or unethical behaviour. It was one of the least expensive proposals they had in that throne speech. But lo and behold, when the information about the casino selection process was made public, what did the NDP do? They ordered a police investigation within hours. So much for the protection of the whistle blowers in the civil service. So much for rooting out unethical behaviour.
Hon Mr Turnbull: It was an investigation of the civil service.
Mr Galt: Yes, it was an investigation of the civil service, nothing else.
Instead we were treated to the curious spectacle of a government that came to office promising to open up the process. Instead they were using intimidation to do the reverse, and using the OPP, and I stress the OPP, for their own political purposes.
Now if the NDP were guilty of anything in this casino controversy, it was not just their failure to match words with deeds; it was their extraordinary ability to do exactly the opposite of what they had promised. Our government, of course, has no problem that way. We have made a habit of doing what we said we were going to do. It doesn't matter what streetcar I stand on or where I am on the sidewalk, people keep coming up to me and saying, "I may not quite agree with everything you're doing, but you're doing what you said you were going to do, and we have faith in a government that's like that."
Certainly unlike previous governments, our government has been aboveboard, it's been open and it's been transparent.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm looking for your guidance in regards to the rules on a point of order. Am I correct to assume that a member cannot mislead the House or mislead a statement? Am I correct in that?
The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, I'm not here to participate in question period. It is your position to know the rules and it's mine to judge them. My ruling is, right now, that that is not a point of order.
Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I compliment you on your ruling.
Clearly the third party and the official opposition have been looking for something - they have been looking for anything - for the last three years and two days that has some sort of appearance of impropriety, and they think they're on to something now. It must be very frustrating to them to have a party in government that is just absolutely squeaky clean. It's very frustrating for them and I can empathize with them. After all, when in power, they each had their own problems.
Yes, even the member for Welland-Thorold, the author of this resolution, when he wasn't busy posing as a Sunshine Boy, had problems in his embarrassingly short tenure as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I seem to also recall a certain adviser to the then Minister Kormos who was to root out sexism in, of all things, beer commercials. It seems that he was later revealed to have been a convicted wife-batterer. What's more, the member admitted he was aware of Mr Grimaldi's, his advisor's, background. In fact the member for Welland-Thorold represented him in court when he was charged with wife assault. Imagine. And he was put in charge of rooting out sexism in beer commercials.
The member also stated at the time that he knew a brown envelope campaign was going on in regard to Mr Grimaldi. Sounds much like the Windsor casino deal, doesn't it?
1730
Of course, things got more serious for the NDP when it came to allegations of wrongdoing, when we start talking about Highway 407. Here's a construction boondoggle if I've ever seen one in my life, and I'm drawing a comparison here with a $1-billion -
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's been some time since I posed as a Sunshine Boy. I'd be pleased to do it again, if asked. I want an opportunity to lose 10 pounds first. Thank you kindly.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr Galt: We're talking in comparison here of a $1-million contract, signed, sealed and delivered in secrecy.
Interjection: One billion.
Mr Galt: One billion. Did I say "million"? It was a $1-billion contract, signed, sealed and delivered in secrecy, secrecy that's never been revealed to this day.
Back in April 1994, the papers were filled with reports of -
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm disappointed in the comments vis-à-vis the 407. I was the Minister of Transportation at the time. I signed the contract. It was $928 million. It was the largest contract and job creating project ever undertaken under Transportation Ontario. There was nothing done in secrecy. Both consortiums were supervised by Price Waterhouse. The member is imputing motive. I was the minister vis-à-vis another member. He should put his job on the line. Come up with the proof, my friend.
The Acting Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Mr Galt: Back in April 1994, the papers were absolutely filled with reports that three construction unions involved in a $100,000 fund-raiser, the largest in the Ontario NDP history, had been rewarded an exclusive deal to build the province's first toll road.
A lot of the information I'm making reference to came from Hansard, came from paper clippings at the time. The member can complain if he wants. This is the background of this information.
Less than three months after the fund-raising dinner, the construction companies that signed the six-year, no-strike, no-lockout arrangement with the unions that organized that fund-raiser won the bid to build Highway 407. What a coincidence.
Then one of the bidders that was losing phoned to get some information, some advice.
Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr Speaker -
Mr Galt: Could we have the clock stopped on points of order?
Mr Pouliot: I thank you very kindly, Mr Speaker. Most seriously, I have been in this House for 14 years. If you check the record, I have never accused anyone of being on the take or taking money on the side or from pockets. Those comments are questioning my integrity and the intent of my good character. I'm truly disappointed and I wish they would be withdrawn.
To hide under immunity does not give you the right to impute motive and to conduct character assassinations. That's going beyond the threshold, Mr Speaker: lack of decorum, certainly lack of good manners.
The Acting Speaker: The debate is -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, order.
Mr Galt: Mr Speaker, it's obvious they're calling points of order just to waste and consume my time. They certainly don't have a point at all, and they know that.
As a matter of fact, one of the bidders who didn't win phoned in to ask for advice on negotiating: Could they come in with a no-strike, no-lockout? The ministry told them, "No."
Before the Liberals over there - I notice one sleeping - get too smug, speaking of fund-raisers, does the name Patti Starr ring a bell?
Interjections.
Mr Galt: I kind of thought it might. Maybe we'll talk about her a little later on. After all, I wouldn't want to leave the Liberals out of this interesting discussion.
Back to 407 for a few minutes. After reviewing Hansard from late 1994, I must indeed commend my colleague from York Mills, the Honourable David Turnbull, who was the critic of the day for transportation and is also doing a marvellous job today as the government whip. He had so many eloquent speeches on this whole sordid affair. Even though the NDP only sat for 29 days in their last year in power, my colleague managed to explore the situation in some detail. He wasn't very popular, of course, with the transportation minister of the day. Probably this was the reason why the government of the day only sat for 29 days in that year. They spent taxpayers' money a whole year just to sit in the House for 29 days.
I'm sure these details are very upsetting to the NDP and they don't want to be reminded of them, as we've already found in some of the responses.
The fact that the unions involved in the contract built in an agreement that the union would receive a 4% wage increase the first year, a 4% wage increase the second year, a 5% increase the third year, a 5% increase the fourth year and a 5% increase in the fifth year - a total of 23% increase over five years. This was in recessionary times.
Hon Mr Turnbull: What was the inflation rate in those days?
Mr Galt: Inflation was almost flat, 1% or 2%, but they had written in a 23% increase. Talk about pork-barrelling, which they were talking about earlier. That sure wasn't little bacon bits.
No wonder the union officials were so eager to get people out to the fund-raising dinner that threats were made to some of the development companies. Allegations were made that the unions would make life very difficult if the support was not forthcoming. This dinner was $200 a plate. It's very obvious that they set their sights pretty low. But then, over and above that, when it was finished they had to go and give the money back to some of these people. That's an indication of guilt. They admitted guilt right there. But then they only gave it back to some people, so I'm not sure who was guilty and who wasn't and how they decided that.
At the same time the same union built a non-profit housing development at a price that was significantly higher than what it would normally cost to build that kind of unit. The son-in-law, the union business manager, superintendent earning $60,000, full job with the union, union car, and on it goes.
It's also interesting to note that my colleague from York Mills, the Honourable David Turnbull - he did a tremendous job in digging this stuff up - questioned the government about these alleged improprieties and asked for an investigation. The member for Beaches-Woodbine, who was a cabinet minister herself in the economic development portfolio, refused, calling the allegations "silly partisan nonsense." That's a direct quote.
Is it silly partisan nonsense when the government of the day awards the largest contract in provincial history in secret? Not only that, this project was supposed to be built using private funds. That was the basis of the RFP, the request for proposal, and yet despite all the bragging by Bob Rae, the Premier of the day, that it wouldn't -
Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's reached the point that if I wasn't on shift duty this evening I would call the member a liar.
The Acting Speaker: That is not parliamentary and I won't accept that kind of language. Would you please withdraw.
Mr Pouliot: I will withdraw and kindly substitute "most economical with the truth."
The Acting Speaker: I won't accept a conditional withdrawal. Just "I withdraw" would be fine.
Mr Pouliot: I will withdraw.
Mr Galt: Before the announcement on the successful bidder was made, the government changed its mind and decided to use public money instead. I all along thought it was private money, and it was only when I was in office some time in late 1995 that I actually realized they had used public money and didn't give the other bidders a chance. Can you imagine how many of these companies would have bid on the project if they had only known they could get government backing for the capital outlay? So when the opposition talks about this government acting improperly, it's absolutely ludicrous.
1740
Back in 1952 the government of the day, a Conservative government, established rules for contracts and it worked very well. For 40 years there was no problem. It was open. It was transparent. It had the confidence of the public until the NDP government came along. They signed in secret. They refused to reveal details to the public. The reason, they said, was that the companies didn't want the profiles of their companies exposed to the public. But what really happened was the government of the day established a gag order on all companies that were applying. As a matter of fact, the government of the day made a gag order as part of the RFP. I am sure if you look in the dictionary under "government impropriety," you'll find their picture, the NDP government of 1990 to 1995.
Time is starting to run out so I am not really going to get into the Patti Starr saga, but I would like to point out that there are also some problems a Liberal member is having. It was in the Toronto Sun yesterday. Of course I'm referring to the member for Downsview. It seems the Liberals can't even stay out of trouble when they're not even in government.
Before the members of the opposition get too carried away making all kinds of allegations about this government, I hope it's been instructive to look at some of their own failings as a government. Our process was not done in secret. The integrity of the process was preserved. That is what you would expect from a Conservative government. After all, we brought in a clear, transparent and open tendering process in 1952 that served this province well and had the confidence of the people for more than 40 years.
I just want to wind up with about six or seven points, how this actually operated. There was a selection committee that chose the highest quality proposal and they have entered into negotiations of development and management for a casino tourism project. Each proposal had significant merit, there is no question. The selection committee had a responsibility to ensure that all the criteria would be met of the request for proposal. I understand that the Ontario Casino Corp used a selection procedure for the Niagara Falls project that was very similar to what the NDP used for the Windsor project.
The criteria were basically four points: The first was on economic development, the second was on the concept, the third was on a business plan and the fourth was on management expertise.
The fifth point was that each of these criteria would be evaluated independently by experts. Individual comments in each individual category - they had made no comments relating to the whole project, nor did they rank them. Consequently, this whole process was arm's-length and indeed they kept it that way. I am very proud they did so, that there was no partisan involvement as is being suggested by the opposition.
The Ontario Casino Corp emphasized it was important and must reveal any real or perceived conflict of interest of any of the selection committee members or any of those people providing advice. It was overseen by legal counsel.
Just imagine if the NDP had operated in their five years as this government has been operating. We wouldn't be referring to the lost decade; we'd be referring to a lost half-decade because we could never straighten out the flip-flops of the Liberals. That would always go down in history as a lost half-decade. But the NDP came along and completed it, with the other half-decade. If they had just sort of paid attention to the kind of government we have, we would have only had half a decade that would have been lost.
I appreciate the time to respond to this resolution and I am certainly very opposed to the suggestion of the member for Welland-Thorold on this particular resolution.
Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues from the government side, the members for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, Hamilton West and Northumberland, whose comments have just been made on the record.
In my riding of Durham East, I think the members would probably know very well -
Interjections.
Mr Pouliot: Sleaze.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I can't have that kind of language. The member for Lake Nipigon, would you please withdraw it. I'd like to give you an opportunity of withdrawing.
Mr Pouliot: Chair, I appreciate the courtesy and respect you in your tenure. I will one more time withdraw, in the face of confrontation and untruth.
Mr O'Toole: The member for Cochrane South and his comments should be noted on the record. For the record, I think he characterized himself very well.
The first issue of gambling: I can tell the House that the opposition and the third party can take full responsibility for the existence of gambling in this province of Ontario. Clearly the Windsor casino, Casino Rama and the Great Blue Heron in my riding of Port Perry all have the signature of the previous leader of the NDP government, Bob Rae.
I've seen the contracts that were made by those governments. Much of this wasn't made clear to our constituents at the time it was happening, not to mention the roving charity casinos that were problematic throughout the province, and every member of this House would recognize that. Expansion of Nevada break-open tickets and other lottery activities are here as a result of the two parties on the other side of the House. The people watching today clearly have to recognize that's where we were. Gambling is here. It has been here for years. Bingo and other informal raffles are here.
What's different, for the members watching today, is a simple activity that once again this government is taking the responsibility for, to regulate an existing activity and bring order and management to an activity.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, come to order.
Mr O'Toole: A constituent of mine, Mark Wheatley, as well as a United Church minister, Merv Russell, and others are clearly opposed to the gambling activity. For the record, I have -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, come to order.
Mr O'Toole: What is different in the 1990s is that the egg of gambling was laid in the 1990s by the other side. Our government has raised the awareness of the people of Ontario. Perhaps the opposition are trying to cover the very issue they started.
I believe it's important, to conclude my remarks, that this government is going to regulate an existing industry. We're committed to addressing addiction with commitments of over $20 million and committed to funding charities and directing the resources of this province from gambling to the appropriate areas. It has been a privilege for the government to stand firm and steadfast in the organization of a legitimate, transparent process, whether it's at the Niagara Falls site or indeed gambling throughout the province.
I would ask the opposition - I see the leader, Mr Hampton, is here. I would hope that you would digress from openly criticizing other Ontario citizens for their particular political views and treat this issue as very serious, that the government's initiative is an issue that should be, of course, open to public review, but I question - all the suggestions you made are unsubstantiated and in my view rather critical of the citizens of this province for political reasons. Your motives are questionable. They were questionable in 1990, they were questioned seriously in 1995, and in the future the people of Ontario will give you the final answer.
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have about 10 minutes to deal with a lengthy issue that has many turns and twists to it. Notwithstanding that, I'll do my best to get to the point. The point is this: The Conservative government has chosen to dramatically expand casino gambling in Ontario. It would appear, when one looks at who is involved, that friends of the Conservative Party, advisers to the Conservative Party, financial contributors to the Conservative Party all stand to benefit from the way in which the Conservative Party has organized its venture into casino gaming.
We heard from the then government House leader, Mr Johnson, about a year ago that the government wanted to be absolutely squeaky clean on the issue of the granting of government contracts and with respect to lobbyists. We remember the government House leader standing here and telling us that the government was going to bring forward very stringent conflict-of-interest legislation to guard against anyone taking financial advantage of the public of Ontario as this government proceeded with wholesale privatization. A year later we are still waiting for conflict-of-interest legislation.
1750
We also heard the government House leader say that the government was going to bring forward lobbyist registration legislation so that the public of Ontario would know who was lobbying the Conservative government, whom they were lobbying on behalf of, how much money they were being paid and what the results were of lobbying activities. A year later, after Leslie Noble, who ran the Conservative campaign, has been at the trough, after Bill King, who's the Premier's sidekick, has been at the trough, we still don't have lobbyist registration legislation in Ontario.
Why? What is the government afraid of? Why are they afraid to bring in good, strong conflict-of-interest legislation? Why are they afraid to force the high-paid lobbyists who are making so much money from this government out into the spotlight of public scrutiny? What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of when you try to pass off a document like this as an independent report or an independent investigation?
Many allegations have been raised about how this government has organized to give its political friends and its political contributors a lot of money and a lot of opportunities in terms of the running of casinos. Some of those allegations centre around the activities of Michael French, and even in this report they acknowledge that Michael French not only worked for the government, not only worked for the casino corporation, but he worked for some of the people who are benefiting from the awarding of the Niagara casino contract. In other words, he has been playing both sides of the fence. But they say that because he wasn't there the day tenders were opened, somehow it doesn't matter.
The allegations also centre around the Latner family, and the reason they centre around the Latner family is this: The Latner family has given the Conservative Party in three years over $90,000. Who is it that is going to get -
Hon Mr Turnbull: What did Local 183 give to the NDP?
Mr Hampton: I've struck home with the government whip. He's a bit upset.
What did the Latner family get from the Conservative government for their financial generosity? Their company has received the right to run the Niagara casino. Their company received incredible benefits under changes to health care regulations. Their company, or a company controlled by them, has benefited greatly from the privatization of home care.
Who is involved with the Latner group of companies? Someone named Leslie Noble, the executive director of the Conservative Party's election campaign in the last election and now a paid lobbyist. Who else was involved? Someone named George Boddington, another high-profile figure in the Conservative campaign, and someone named, oh gee, David Noble, who works for the Latner company, Gaming Venture Group.
Does this so-called report deal with any of the interconnections or any of the beneficiaries who are benefiting from this? No, this report doesn't deal with anything like that. This report tries to ignore all those facts. In fact, this report tries to whitewash all those things.
This isn't an investigation. This thing is a joke, and let me tell you how serious a joke it is. What the government did is, they went to the law firm that works for the Ontario Casino Corp and they said, "Send us a report on the Ontario Casino Corp." Now let me see. I write to your lawyer, who has a solicitor-client relationship with you and who is supposed to protect your interests, and I say, "Send me a report." I wonder what kind of report I'm going to get.
Let me put it to you another way. I'm concerned about the activities of Al Capone, so I write to Al Capone's lawyer and I say, "Send me a report on Al Capone." This is Al Capone's lawyer. He is bound by solicitor-client privilege to protect the interests of Al Capone. Surprise, surprise, he sends me a good report. That's what the government has done here. They have written to the lawyers of the Ontario Casino Corp.
Mr Galt: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'm wondering if it's possible for you to have a ruling on some of the comments the leader of the third party is making as they relate to trying to obtain reports when the 407 report is still held in secrecy after -
The Acting Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Mr Hampton: Thank you, Speaker, and it wasn't even a good attempt at wasting time.
The reality is that this government has written to the lawyers for the Ontario Casino Corp, who are bound to protect the interests of the Ontario Casino Corp, and said, "Give us a report." This has no sense of independence, no sense of objectivity, no credibility whatsoever. Frankly, somebody should be hauled up for wasting a lot of paper, because that's what it is.
This is more a whitewash than it could ever be considered any sort of objective, independent investigation of what is going on, but what it says about this government is this: This government thinks it's okay that people who are tightly connected to the Conservative Party go out there and lobby for Conservative financial contributors, and those Conservative financial contributors get the benefit of casino contracts that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. All of that is okay. No matter how much it stinks, no matter how much objectively it may look awful, this government says: "That's okay. This is not a problem." This is the way business will be done in Ontario under a Conservative government.
I think the people of Ontario do not accept it. I think the people of Ontario want to see good conflict-of-interest legislation. I think the people of Ontario want to see strong lobbyist registration legislation. I think the people of Ontario want to know who Michael French was lobbying for, who Leslie Noble is lobbying for, who George Boddington, another Conservative insider, is lobbying for, and I don't think the people of Ontario are going to let this pass. This stinks to high heaven, and no simplistic whitewash -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Mr Kormos has moved opposition day motion number 4. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
All those opposed, say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1802 to 1807.
The Acting Speaker: I would like to remind members that there's nothing wrong with taking your seats 15 or 20 seconds before the clock comes down.
All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Bisson, Gilles Boyd, Marion Bradley, James J. Caplan, David Churley, Marilyn Cleary, John C. Crozier, Bruce Cullen, Alex |
Gerretsen, John Gravelle, Michael Hampton, Howard Kennedy, Gerard Kormos, Peter Lessard, Wayne Marchese, Rosario Martel, Shelley |
Martin, Tony Phillips, Gerry Pouliot, Gilles Pupatello, Sandra Ramsay, David Silipo, Tony Wildman, Bud Wood, Len |
The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
|
Baird, John R. Barrett, Toby Beaubien, Marcel Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Carroll, Jack Cunningham, Dianne Danford, Harry Doyle, Ed Ecker, Janet Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Froese, Tom Galt, Doug |
Gilchrist, Steve Grimmett, Bill Jackson, Cameron Kells, Morley Klees, Frank Leach, Al Leadston, Gary L. Martiniuk, Gerry Munro, Julia Murdoch, Bill Newman, Dan O'Toole, John Ouellette, Jerry J. Parker, John L. Preston, Peter |
Rollins, E.J. Douglas Ross, Lillian Runciman, Robert W. Saunderson, William Sheehan, Frank Skarica, Toni Spina, Joseph Sterling, Norman W. Tilson, David Turnbull, David Villeneuve, Noble Wettlaufer, Wayne Wilson, Jim Witmer, Elizabeth Wood, Bob |
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 24; the nays are 45.
The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
It being well past 6 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 this evening.
The House adjourned at 1811.
Evening meeting reported in volume B.