CONTENTS
Tuesday 1 October 1996
Alcohol, Gaming and Charity Funding Public Interest Act, 1996, Bill 75, Mr Sterling /
Loi de 1996 régissant les alcools, les jeux et le financement des organismes de bienfaisance
dans l'intérêt public, projet de loi 75, M. Sterling
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford PC)
*Mrs MarionBoyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North / -Nord L)
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
*Mr TimHudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC)
Mr FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC)
*Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Mr BudWildman (Algoma ND)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Ramsay
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L) for Mr Chiarelli
Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC) for Mr Tilson
Mr GaryFox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings /
Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC) for Mr Parker
Mr JohnHastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC) for Mr Doyle
Mr GerardKennedy (York South / -Sud L) for Mr Conway
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND) for Mr Wildman
Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC) for Mr Klees
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr Christopher Wernham, legislative counsel
J-1491
The committee met at 1532 in room 228.
ALCOHOL, GAMING AND CHARITY FUNDING PUBLIC INTEREST ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉGISSANT LES ALCOOLS, LES JEUX ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE DANS L'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC
Consideration of Bill 75, An Act to regulate alcohol and gaming in the public interest, to fund charities through the responsible management of video lotteries and to amend certain statutes related to liquor and gaming / Projet de loi 75, Loi réglementant les alcools et les jeux dans l'intérêt public, prévoyant le financement des organismes de bienfaisance grâce à la gestion responsable des loteries vidéo et modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait aux alcools et aux jeux.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. As the first order of business, we have a reply to the request of Mr Crozier from the Minister of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services regarding the report Gambling in Ontario: Current Enforcement Concerns. Mr Fred Peters, assistant deputy minister, makes it clear in his letter that he feels this report is not a matter that should be public. Is there any comment in regard to that before we proceed where we left off yesterday?
If not, we are dealing with item 6, being a proposed amendment by Mr Crozier. There was no vote on that motion and Mr Crozier has the floor.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I will be brief. I pretty well summarized my feelings yesterday. Although I did, during my comments, bring up the fact that I felt there would be pressure in the future to expand on the proposed 20,000 VLTs in the province of Ontario, I draw your attention, by coincidence I guess, to a Toronto Star report of September 28. The headline says "Added Lottery Terminals Sought." You will see by this that the Star has a report, a position paper that was prepared by the Ontario Horse Racing Industry Association, that says, "Without the additional machines, money currently bet on racing will be `cannibalized,' and lost to video lottery gaming." They're suggesting that rather than the 3,500 machines originally granted, they want 7,310, which puts the number available for permanent charitable casinos and the general licensed establishment industry below 13,000. It just emphasizes the point I made yesterday, that this is only the beginning. I think we're on that proverbial slippery slope.
You will note too that they use the word "cannibalized." We questioned those in the horse racing industry at considerable length as to what the cannibalization would be. They are now suggesting that it will be significant. The paper also says that the 10% commission that the province is willing to pay won't be enough and that it should be 25%. It just goes to prove the point that these VLTs, as insidious as some of us believe them to be, if the pressure is given in to, will just proliferate even more in the province and be worse than we had envisioned.
For that reason, I urge the committee to support the resolution that "No video lottery scheme shall operate on or through video lottery terminals located in a bar or restaurant."
The Chair: Are there any further comments or questions in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, I will call the question. Shall the amendment carry?
Mr Crozier: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier.
Nays
Flaherty, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
We are proceeding to what we for convenience call amendment number 7. The clerk has suggested that in view of the defeat of item 5 moved by Mr Crozier, 7 would probably be out of order. Is there any discussion in regard to that type of ruling before I give my ruling?
Mr Crozier: Perhaps if I'd been vocal at all on number 5, we would have had a chance with number 7, but I understand that this amendment is now not in order.
The Chair: I so rule it as out of order. We're proceeding to item number 8.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I move that subsection 6(2.1) of the bill, section 8.0.1 of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2.1) The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Location of video lottery terminals
"8.0.1(1) No video lottery shall operate on or through video lottery terminals located at premises other than racetracks, casinos, including permanent charity casinos, and bingo halls.
"Municipal approval required
"(2) No video lottery shall operate on or through video lottery terminals located at a racetrack, a casino, including a permanent charity casino, or a bingo hall unless the council of the municipality in which the racetrack, casino, permanent charity casino or bingo hall is located has approved the introduction of video lottery terminals in the municipality.
"Municipal authority to limit numbers and to regulate
"(3) Where the council of a municipality has approved the introduction of video lottery terminals in the municipality, the council may by bylaw establish the total number of video lottery terminals that may be located in the municipality and may otherwise regulate video lottery terminals in the municipality."
The amendment is obviously in response to the request that local governments be in a position to limit the proliferation of video lottery terminals. A number of presenters indicated that they felt it was an important function of local government to protect local communities from the imposition of these machines when they have authority to limit liquor licensing and that sort of thing. It's the same kind of argument that we would see coming forward from local municipalities around controlling through licensing the various gaming activities that go on in those municipalities.
1540
Mr Crozier: I support this resolution. Over 40 municipalities, without much prompting, have already indicated that they simply don't want video lottery terminals placed in them. I talked earlier about how the pressure to have video lottery terminals throughout the province would be great. This would help relieve that pressure and would help the government, if it sees fit, to keep the maximum number at 20,000. This is the local option. I can't imagine that anyone on this committee, or in the Legislature for that matter, would not support a local option on many issues, certainly when it comes to video lottery terminals. The Premier has said that when it comes to casinos there will not be casinos placed in municipalities unless a referendum is held. This amendment falls right in line with that thinking and this is one case where I could even suggest that I agree with the government wanting a local option when it comes to gambling.
The Chair: Is there any further comment or questions in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, I will put the question.
Mr Crozier: Recorded vote.
The Chair: We will call recorded votes unless otherwise specified. All those in favour of the motion?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier.
NAYS
Flaherty, Fox, Hastings, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment fails. We are proceeding to item 9, which is an amendment proposed by the third party.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection, which I believe, in view of the defeat of the previous one, would now be (2.1):
"(2.1) The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Video lottery terminals, credit cards
"8.0.2(1) No video lottery terminal shall be equipped so as to permit a person to play a video lottery directly by means of a credit card.
"Automated teller machines
"(2) No premises where there are video lottery terminals shall have automated teller machines located on the premises.
"Warning
"(3) A video lottery terminal shall indicate in a conspicuous place on the terminal that gaming may be addictive."
This obviously is an effort to deal with the many issues that were raised by people around the concern of those who become addicted to gambling having easy access to credit beyond what they can afford. It is an effort to try and control in a responsible way the use of video lottery terminals. Being mindful, as we ought to be, of the concerns that have been expressed by the compulsive gamblers' foundation and others that the addiction to gambling, particularly with the use of these machines, poses a very serious social problem to a lot of people, this would be an effort to control the use of credit and the use of access to automated tellers to discourage the overuse of these machines by those who are unable to afford the kinds of dollars they are spending.
Mr Crozier: I would like to support this amendment as well. If anyone watched the CBC news last night, you would have seen an example of how quickly money can be spent on these video slot machines. It showed an example in the west where an individual went in and dropped over $100 in loonies into this machine in no time flat, walked out, was asked if he was concerned about being becoming addicted to the machines. He said he thinks about it. It would appear as though there was at least a mild addiction because he said he would be back next week to do the same thing again.
When you start allowing the use of credit cards, or at least if you're not opposed to the use of credit cards, it's a whole different world when it isn't money that's in your hand or in your pocket. If you can't carry enough money around, I guess you're limited in the amount you can spend, but when it's only limited by your credit card, I think this is one of those cases where again if we're going to have these little devices all over the province, we should do what we can to limit the harm. I think allowing the use of credit cards is just unacceptable.
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): Briefly, to reply, and not comment on the merit or lack of merit of the substance of the proposed amendment, but to say again that this legislation, Bill 75, establishes a framework and does not deal with implementation questions, which this amendment would deal with.
Mrs Boyd: That's exactly why the proposal is to put it in the legislation, so that it cannot be put off to regulation-making, which, as we know from sad experience with this government, happens without any warning or consultation and is suddenly gazetted and we find ourselves with regulations covering legislation when we've been assured in the Legislature we didn't have to worry about those details because they would be coming along later as part of an implementation plan.
I suggest that we believe very strongly that the government would be acting only responsibly to add this to the legislation.
Mr Flaherty: Not to prolong the debate but to repeat again that there is to be further consultation with respect to implementation with the public, and I'm sure that issues such as those addressed in this amendment will be addressed by many people during the course of that further consultation.
Mr Crozier: But if how we've treated the first seven or eight amendments that have been proposed to this legislation so far is any indication of the degree to which you'll listen to consultation, I'm not comforted by your remarks.
Mrs Boyd: I would say the same thing. We already know people will address this. They addressed it in the consultations that happened in front of the committee. This is of deep concern to people, the fact that credit would be available instantly to those who might become addicted to this form of gambling. We don't anticipate, if you're unwilling to respond now, when you have heard those concerns again and again, that any further consultation would make any difference.
You're not committing yourself to supporting these kinds of moves if you hear this kind of concern. All you're saying is, "We'll go out and consult." I think increasingly the public in Ontario is becoming very well aware that consultation means going through a form of supposed consultation with the people and when we come to clause-by-clause, nothing changes.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion before I put the question? If not, shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier.
NAYS
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
We are now proceeding to item 10, which is a proposed amendment by the third party.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection, and again it would be (2.1) since the previous ones were defeated:
"(2.1) The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Prohibition
"8.0.3 No person shall advertise or promote in any way the playing of video lotteries."
Mr Speaker, we have a long history of having restrictions upon the advertising of other addictive substances like alcohol and tobacco. It is only fitting that we ought to have a prohibition on the advertising of these very addictive machines.
1550
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Boyd. I'm a Chairman. I'm one of the few of our caucus who isn't running for Speaker.
Mrs Boyd: I beg your pardon, Mr Chair. We have enough people with ambitions in the room.
The Chair: The motion has been made. Is there any further discussion? If not, I put the question. All those in favour?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier.
NAYS
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
We are now proceeding to item number 11, which is a motion by the third party.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection, again (2.1):
"(2.1) The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Payment of revenues from video lotteries, problem gambling strategy
"At least 2% of all revenues obtained through video lotteries shall be used for the operation of programs that provide assistance to persons with gaming-related problems."
In view of the representations that have been made about the highly addictive nature of this particular form of gambling, although there certainly has been some commitment by the government around increased support for addictive gambling treatment, we suggest that it would be appropriate for this kind of commitment, 2% of all the revenues, to be put into this area.
If we listen to the experts, both our own Canadian experts from the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling and certainly those who are experienced in other jurisdictions where video lottery terminals have been in use over a period of time, problem gambling can be an expected result, a much more highly problematic result with this particular easy form of gambling than it is with some of the other forms of gambling with which we're more familiar. So we suggest that at least 2% of the revenues obtained from an activity that we know is addictive ought to go towards treatment.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion before I call the question? If not, I call the question. Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier.
NAYS
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
We are now proceeding to item 12, which is a proposed amendment by the third party.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Payment of revenues from video lotteries
"At least 2% of all revenues obtained through video lotteries shall be used for the enforcement of laws relating to gaming and the prevention of illegal gaming in Ontario."
Again, this responds to the kinds of concerns around the illegal activity that may accompany the use of these machines. We know that in other jurisdictions there has been an increase in that kind of activity and that there is a cost to all of this in terms of the enforcement of gaming provisions and other illegal activities that may surround it. Unfortunately, we are not able to enter into the record the report Gambling in Ontario: Current Enforcement Concerns, which outlines some of the very strong concerns that the police community has about the introduction of these video lottery terminals, and I think it is appropriate for us to reassure law enforcement officers that they will have the resources they need in order to maintain the current enforcement of laws relating to gaming.
Mr Crozier: Chair, I'd like to echo those feelings and emphasize that it is no secret to any of us that the law enforcement agencies in the province of Ontario could use the support of part of the revenues from these video lottery schemes. This is new money, albeit if we look back at the budget, I understand why the government has become addicted to gambling. They simply need the revenues, and I'm not so sure that they're in a position to share any more of the revenues than they have already indicated that they would do.
But I am sure from comments that have been made publicly -- and I expect we will hear more in the very near future when it comes to the concerns of the enforcement agencies in the province -- would support the need for this kind of funding.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion or questions in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, I'll call the question. Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier.
Nays
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
We are now proceeding to item 13, which is a proposed amendment by the third party.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2.4) The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Payment of revenues from video lotteries to municipalities
"At least 10 per cent of all revenues obtained through video lottery terminals located in a municipality shall be paid to the municipality in which the video lottery terminals are located."
The purpose of this was to be a motion that would fit with the municipal local control over video lottery terminals, that if they were to be in charge of controlling that, they would need some of that revenue in order to enforce their own provisions.
Mr Crozier: I support this amendment as well. It would not surprise me, though, and I don't want to be too presumptuous, that this will not pass, but then that would reinforce the government's position that it doesn't like to give local municipalities the option on anything unless it's something they're taking money away from rather than giving them money for.
Certainly I think back to the promise by the Premier during the campaign that the city of Windsor would receive 10% of the profits from Casino Windsor, which I'm sure they haven't seen one penny of yet. So unless this kind of amendment is adopted, anything the government might say that would suggest that it would share anything with municipalities again might not give these municipalities much comfort.
Mr Flaherty: Very briefly, as the government which preceded our government did with casinos, so it is the policy with respect to video lotteries, that is, there is no sharing of revenues directly with the municipalities. The gaming policy in the province is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and provincial law, as it is with alcohol.
Mrs Boyd: Mr Chair, I would just reiterate that this motion was made because we had already put forward a motion that municipalities should have some control over video lottery terminals, given the nature of these particular devices. That's quite different from the issue of the casino, quite different because they're scattered throughout our neighbourhoods in every little corner store or corner facility throughout the whole municipality, a very different issue from a concentrated gaming facility which is controlled in a very different kind of way.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, I put the question. Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier.
Nays
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: We are now dealing with item 14, which is a proposed amendment of the third party.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2.4) The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Payment of revenues from video lotteries to charities
"At least 10 per cent of all revenues obtained through video lotteries shall be paid to charities operating in Ontario."
This is directed at the concern which we've heard expressed on many occasions that this whole procedure is simply to be a cash cow for the government general revenues and not for charities themselves and that the legislation itself ought to specify at least a minimum amount which charities can expect to have, particularly given the strength of the submissions to us that were made by service clubs and other groups who see video lottery terminals as cutting into the revenues they have been able to obtain through bingos, through Nevada tickets, that sort of thing.
1600
Mr Crozier: I'll be supporting this amendment. It is enough to say that part of the title of the act is to fund charities through the responsible management of video lotteries, and I think it would be prudent, then, to at least guarantee all the charities in the province 10% of these revenues.
Mr Flaherty: There has been an indication throughout the hearings with respect to the funds to go to charities, which was raised in fact in the budget statement. One of the implementation questions that's going to be very important in the consultations that take place is, which charities or which organizations, whether or not they call themselves charities, are going to be eligible for sharing? I think using the word "charities" in the legislation now would be premature, given that this is a very important question that needs to be the subject of consultation with charities and groups in the province.
Mrs Boyd: As will be very clear from subsequent amendments of ours, we also are concerned about how it would be determined which charities were to obtain the revenues. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that there is a definition of "charity" as it exists under the various laws administered by the public trustee and guardian of the province and that he need not be so precious about the use of the word. I think there are hundreds of charities that are seen to operate as charities and have applied for the tax status that enables them to give tax receipts and so on. There are many ways to determine that.
Our concern here is that unless there's at least a built-in minimum that we would see actually flow to these charities, there is a great scepticism out there in the world, as we've heard expressed, about where these revenues would go. I can certainly tell you that those of us with experience in government know just how deep that maw is of the finance department when it sees revenues that get deposited into the general revenue fund and they have no requirement to pay out.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion or questions before I put the question? If not, all those in favour?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier.
Nays
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
We are now proceeding to item 15, being a proposed amendment of the third party.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Charity committees
"The corporation shall establish in such regions as it designates charity committees responsible for reviewing the manner in which revenues from video lotteries are distributed to Ontario charities."
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there continues to be public input into the decisions around these revenues, particularly given the nature of these machines and the likelihood that dollars will be flowing from families within communities in a way that has never been seen before. It is important for there to be some local control over what charitable organizations within a community are seen as being appropriate for the receipt of those funds.
Mr Flaherty: The model suggested by this amendment is certainly one possible model. No doubt there are other models to be considered in the further consultations to take place with the public concerning implementation.
The Chair: If there's no further discussion, I shall put the question. All those in favour of the proposed amendment?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier.
Nays
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The proposed amendment is defeated.
Our next matter is item 16, being a proposed amendment of the third party.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Charity Funding Review Board
"8.0.6(1) There is hereby established the Charity Funding Review Board to be composed of at least five members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
"Purpose
"(2) The purpose of the review board is to review decisions relating to the amounts of funding allocated to specific charities out of revenues from video lotteries.
"Application
"(3) Any charity that is dissatisfied with the amount of funding allocated to it may apply to the review board for a reconsideration of the amount.
"Procedure
"(4) The review board may establish its own practice and procedures with respect to hearings before it and may decide whether there will be an oral hearing or a hearing by means of written submissions.
"Powers of review board
"(5) On a hearing, the review board may confirm or modify the amount of funding allocated to a charity.
"Decision final
"(6) A decision of the review board is final and binding."
The purpose of this motion is to set up an oversight over the allocation of funds from the revenues of video lotteries to ensure that there is a due process whereby charitable organizations which are dissatisfied with the way in which allocations are made -- and now that the government has rejected the idea of local committees, we have no idea how those allocations will be made. We believe it is very important that if the government is insisting on putting these machines in and insisting on not giving any notion of how these decisions are going to be made, at least the people of Ontario ought to be aware that there will be due process and there will be some means for them to appeal a decision.
Mr Crozier: I'll be supporting this motion. Again, I will point to the title of the bill, and that is "to fund charities through the responsible management of video lotteries." I think this fits right in with the title of the bill, that this would be part and parcel of responsible management of video lotteries and the funds that are derived from them.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion or questions? All those in favour of the amendment?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier.
Nays
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The proposed amendment is defeated. We are now proceeding to item 17, being a proposed amendment of the third party.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 8.3 of the Ontario Lottery Corp, as set out in subsection 6(4) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Review of video lotteries
"8.3(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint a person to undertake a continuous review of video lotteries from the date of their implementation in Ontario.
"Duty of appointee
"(2) The person appointed under subsection (1) shall, in carrying out the review,
"(a) monitor public interest in and public reaction to existing and potential features of video lotteries; and
"(b) examine the social, economic, health, justice and environmental impact of video lotteries on the people of Ontario.
"Report
"(3) The person appointed shall make a report annually to the minister, and the minister shall, within 30 days of receiving the report, lay it before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, before the Clerk."
1610
The purpose of this is to ensure that the kind of monitoring that is necessary is carried out, that this monitoring is carried out by someone who is at arm's length of the government and is not a bureaucrat within the government or a bureaucrat within the Ontario Lottery Corp, but in fact is someone who is appointed with responsibility for monitoring the public interest around these issues, not the interest of the government, not the interests of video lottery terminal operators or manufacturers or repairers, but in fact the public interest, the general public of Ontario. This is best accomplished through a Lieutenant Governor in Council appointment.
Mr Flaherty: Bill 75 does provide for the creation of a new section 8.3 in the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, providing that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint a person to undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions of this act relating to video lotteries five years after the implementation of video lotteries throughout Ontario.
Mrs Boyd: The purpose of this motion is to replace that section of the bill with a section that insists on ongoing monitoring, that says there will be yearly reports. This will be a much more vigorous monitoring of the effects than is anticipated under the bill. Five years down the line, getting a report from someone is not going to be helpful if the kinds of social consequences that we have heard speculated about during the time we've been in committee on this bill and the kind of social effects that have been observed in other jurisdictions -- if there is not somebody doing that ongoing monitoring as we go along, it will be very difficult for us to determine what the effect has actually been.
Mr Flaherty: I appreciate the views expressed by the honourable member and I don't want to leave the impression that the program would not be monitored on an ongoing basis. All government programs should be monitored on an ongoing basis. The government is committed particularly with respect to video lotteries to a controlled, phased introduction of video lotteries in the province, and that commitment has been repeated often in addition to the statutory provision for a review. The statutory provision does not prohibit the government from having the review earlier than five years if that were deemed to be necessary.
Mrs Boyd: Just as a final point, one assumes that the monitoring the government is talking about would be in- house to the Ontario Lottery Commission or indeed to the ministry in charge of the Ontario Lottery Corp. The issue here is having someone who owes nothing to any of those interest groups but is charged specifically to monitor the public interest and not the self-interest of many of those groups.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion before I put the question? If not, all those in favour?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier.
Nays
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated. We are now proceeding to a proposed amendment by the opposition.
Mr Crozier: I move that subsection 6(4) of the bill, subsection 8.3(2) of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, be amended:
"Same
"(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint a person to undertake a review of video lotteries before extending their implementation to any class of premises other than the class or classes of premises in which video lottery terminals may be located when video lotteries are first introduced."
Mrs Boyd: Obviously I'll be supporting this, because this is very much in keeping with the amendment that we wish to put. In other words, we believe this review is necessary before an extension of these machines, not at the end of a five-year period.
The Chair: Are there any further questions or comment before I put the question? If not, all those in favour of the amendment?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier.
Nays
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated. Next we have item 18a, which is no doubt the most inventive amendment before our committee during this hearing.
Mr Crozier: That's an interesting comment by a chairman who is supposed to be neutral.
The Chair: I meant it as a compliment. I didn't mean it --
Mr Crozier: Oh, good, okay. As long as you're on the record that way.
The Chair: It is an inventive proposal.
Mr Crozier: I'll take that in the vein in which the Chair has given it.
The Chair: I meant it that way.
Mr Crozier: Thanks for the support, or could I -- no, I can't interpret too much into that, can I?
I move that section 9 of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, as set out in subsection 6(5) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Guarantee
"(3) Despite subsection (2), where a charity operating in Ontario demonstrates that it has less net revenue in any year following the introduction of video lotteries in Ontario, the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall pay to the charity from the proceeds from video lotteries an amount equal to the charity's shortfall in revenue."
Chair, this may be inventive, but it's a result of a number of charities appearing before us, being concerned as to the effect that video lotteries will have on their net revenue and their concern with the view that they will be reduced, and time and time again the government assuring these charities that they needn't worry. So this would be a case of the government putting their money where their mouth is, to coin an old phrase.
Mr Flaherty: This amendment would have the effect of guaranteeing charities in Ontario their current level of net revenues in perpetuity, which is inventive but preposterous.
Mr Crozier: In the event that this is preposterous, at least it raises the question that the government continually assured charities that they would not suffer by the introduction of video lottery terminals. So I invite the government in that case, if this is preposterous, to amend this amendment to something that would be more acceptable and yet would give some assurance to those charities in writing that the government means what they say, and that is, that charities would not suffer by the introduction of video lottery terminals.
The Chair: I didn't understand Mr Flaherty to say "preposterous." Did you?
Mr Flaherty: Yes, I did. The reason I said that is there could be many reasons why a charity's revenue would go down -- lack of fund-raising efforts and all kinds of reasons why a charity could have less revenue in a given year than in a preceding year. That might well have nothing to do with the introduction of video lotteries in the province.
Having said that, I understand the concern being raised by Mr Crozier, because he and I sat through all the hearings and I understand the concerns that some charities have, particularly with respect to the revenues garnered from break-open tickets in local communities, many of the service clubs -- and I'm a service club member involved in that. It is an important issue which needs to be addressed, again I say, in the implementation consultation and not in the framework situation with which we are dealing in Bill 75.
Mr Crozier: Chair, just one more remark. To understand it, and I think we all understand their concern, what I suggest is that there's a big difference between understanding and being willing to do something about it.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion or questions in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, I'll put the question. All those in favour?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier.
Nays
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Shall section 6 of the act pass?
Ayes
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
Nays
Boyd, Crozier.
The Chair: The section passes.
There are no proposed amendments to sections 7 and 8, and I'll therefore ask, shall sections 7 and 8 of the act pass as unamended?
Ayes
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
Nays
Boyd, Crozier.
The Chair: I understand there is an amendment to the long title of the bill.
Mr Flaherty: I move that the English version of the long title to the bill be amended by striking out "liquor" in the last line and substituting "alcohol."
Mrs Boyd: I'm not necessarily opposed to this, I'm just curious as to why we would do that, given that most laws in this province that deal with the statutory control of liquor use the terminology "liquor." It's rather unusual to suddenly begin substituting the word "alcohol." I'd be very interested in knowing why we are doing this, given that we have a Liquor Control Board and a Liquor Licensing Board. Liquor is the word that is used in all other statutes, why are we using alcohol in this one?
Mr Flaherty: One of the purposes of Bill 75 is to create the new Alcohol and Gaming Commission incorporating the Liquor Licensing Board of Ontario and regulatory functions from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. The amending of the title of the act will be consistent with the name of the new commission, which is the Alcohol and Gaming Commission.
The Chair: Don't we have our Liquor Control Board still remaining?
Mr Flaherty: Yes, we still have a Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Did I say something indicating that we wouldn't?
The Chair: No, no. You haven't changed the name of that board?
Mr Flaherty: No.
Mrs Boyd: They're just planning to sell it, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Are there any further comments or discussion in regard to the amendment altering the long name of the bill? If not, all those in favour of the amendment?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier, Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The amendment has carried.
All those in favour of the long title of the bill as amended?
Ayes
Boyd, Crozier, Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
The Chair: The title is carried. Now, the question is: Shall Bill 75, as amended, carry? Ayes
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
Nays
Boyd, Crozier.
The Chair: Lastly, shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House?
Ayes
Flaherty, Fox, Guzzo, Hastings, Hudak, Leadston, Rollins.
Nays
Boyd, Crozier.
The Chair: It is ordered that the Chair report Bill 75, as amended, to the House.
I believe, unless there's anything further, that concludes consideration of the act. I thank everybody for their participation in this matter. The committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1624.