KIRBRYN HOLDINGS INC ACT, 1993
VILLAGE OF MERRICKVILLE ACT, 1993
HELLENIC ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF KINGSTON AND DISTRICT ACT, 1993
PARAGON FINANCIAL CORP ACT, 1993
PHILMANSER INVESTMENTS LTD ACT, 1993
BUDGET STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN FONCTION DU BUDGET
ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE
ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO
Report continued from volume A.
1520
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I believe we have consent to do second and third readings of the private bills, starting with the 94th order.
KIRBRYN HOLDINGS INC ACT, 1993
On motion by Mr Conway, on behalf of Mr Sorbara, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr9, An Act to revive Kirbryn Holdings Inc.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
VILLAGE OF MERRICKVILLE ACT, 1993
On motion by Mr Runciman, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Village of Merrickville.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
HELLENIC ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF KINGSTON AND DISTRICT ACT, 1993
On motion by Mr Gary Wilson, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr42, An Act to revive Hellenic Orthodox Community of Kingston.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
PARAGON FINANCIAL CORP ACT, 1993
On motion by Mr Conway, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr54, An Act to revive Paragon Financial Corp.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
PHILMANSER INVESTMENTS LTD ACT, 1993
On motion by Mr Conway, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr55, An Act to revive Philmanser Investments Ltd.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993
On motion by Mr Charlton, on behalf of Mr Marchese, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr80, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
BUDGET STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN FONCTION DU BUDGET
Mr Sutherland moved third reading of Bill 84, An Act to amend certain Acts to eliminate the Commercial Concentration Tax and reduce certain expenditures as referred to in the 1993 Budget / Loi modifiant certaines lois afin d'éliminer l'impôt sur les concentrations commerciales et de réduire certaines dépenses comme le prévoit le budget de 1993.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Mr Speaker, I think we had a very thorough debate at second reading and the points were brought forward -- other than to say that I'm sure everyone will be quite happy with the removal of the commercial concentration tax.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any further debate?
Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'm delighted today to have a little bit of good news, I guess, to finish off this particular session. I must say that I will be supporting Bill 84. I imagine this will be unanimous within this House, and I give the government credit for doing this.
This particular bill was introduced by the Liberal government, actually, in 1989, just four years ago, and it's interesting. I suspect today many of the same members who proudly supported the bill at that particular time, who thought that it was proper to tax businesses, particularly within the GTA, will today stand up and recognize the error of their ways and will rescind the commercial concentration tax, a tax that should never have been introduced in the first instance.
This tax is a tax on large commercial properties, properties of over 200,000 square feet. This tax is a tax on parking facilities within the GTA, the greater Toronto area, which includes Metropolitan Toronto, York, Peel, Durham, Halton, and this tax is a tax on parking garages within the greater Toronto area. It is a tax that raises about $90 million a year from Metropolitan Toronto, and over $100 million -- I think about $120 million or $130 million -- when you include the regions around Metropolitan Toronto.
It is a tax that, when it was implemented by the Liberal government in 1989, it was pointed out by the hotel association of Metropolitan Toronto that this was a bad tax, that this would be crippling to the hotel industry in Metropolitan Toronto, and indeed that's precisely what has happened over the intervening years. The hotel industry in Metropolitan Toronto has suffered as a result of this tax. The vacancy rate has gone up. The cost for tourism in Metropolitan Toronto, which was already high in 1989, has gone up even further, and the hotels have suffered. Their vacancy rate has gone up. There have been bankruptcies within the hotel industry and there has been a great loss of jobs.
This is a tax that was fought by the hotel industry, this is a tax that was fought by all the municipalities, this is a tax that was fought by the Ontario Restaurant Association, a tax that was fought by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, a tax that was fought by quite a large coalition of businesses here within Metropolitan Toronto and within the regions around Metropolitan Toronto, yet it was introduced by the Liberal government in 1989 and has caused a great deal of anguish in the intervening years.
1530
I must say it was introduced in the first instance to raise money for transportation purposes, to improve the infrastructure of transportation within the greater Toronto area. The problem is that when the Liberals introduced this bill, they didn't introduce any mechanism to direct the revenues generated by the commercial concentration tax into transportation infrastructure. As a result, all of the money went into general revenues and none of the money went to fulfil the purpose that the tax was intended for in the first instance.
We have no improvement in public transit to speak of. We have no improvement in the road structure in Durham, in Peel, in York, in Metropolitan Toronto, yet we have had this tax raised, a tax that has caused job losses and a tax that has been a great disincentive to business in Metropolitan Toronto. I'm just delighted that this government has taken this step at this time to rescind the tax that was introduced by the Liberal government in 1989.
Now at the same time -- and I know I only have a couple of minutes to speak here because we're trying to get finished today -- it is a pity that the government has introduced this bill to rescind the commercial concentration tax, which would have sucked out of Metropolitan Toronto about $90 million a year -- and thank heavens it's being rescinded -- but at the same time they're doing that, they're requiring the Metropolitan Toronto School Board to raise taxes from the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto for school purposes and to turn $93 million of those taxes that they have raised from the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto over to the provincial government to be used for any other purpose.
This has come through the social contract. It's a requirement that's been put on the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, and it's a requirement that it's investigating at the present time. I think, hopefully, that they will resist very strongly, because certainly on the one hand the government is giving and on the other hand the government is taking away. Both taxes are most unfair, both the grab through the commercial concentration tax and the grab from the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto through the social contract through the Metropolitan Toronto School Board.
I would hope that since the government is introducing one aspect of fairness, perhaps it might consider the other at the same time and not require the Metropolitan Toronto School Board to turn over that $93 million.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I just wanted to comment briefly on this bill because I think it's a good piece of legislation for the people in the greater Toronto area. It's certainly a regressive, high-handed tax that was implemented by the previous administration on the greater Toronto area. Without a doubt we know full well the economics of the greater Toronto area right now and how it has been hammered to probably a far greater degree than people really understand, particularly outside of Toronto where they that all the money's here and they're all very well off.
Never have we seen vacancies in downtown Toronto commercial buildings like this. It has given rise no doubt to a lot of the complaints about the WCB building its own facility. Why? Because there are so many vacancies in Metropolitan Toronto, particularly in the downtown core. One of the big reasons why this is the case is the commercial concentration tax. It's something that I think was ill-planned and poorly thought out. It has proven to be a weight around the neck of any developer or any landowner in Metropolitan Toronto as far as either developing their property or else finishing a developed property is concerned.
The member from East York, who was the mayor of East York at the time, spoke I remember very clearly in terms that could be very well understood that this was a regressive tax that was going to pound the people in Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area. I'm pleased it's gone.
But I want to put one caveat on that. The tax is removed, with the tire tax, which generated some $155 million in revenue to this government. With their increase in sales tax on insurance, home insurance, and their sales tax on life insurance and car insurance, that's going to generate them nearly three quarters of a billion dollars. So it's a very hollow victory for the people of Metropolitan Toronto and Ontario when a government removes $155 million worth of taxes and discovers three quarters of a billion new dollars that it can extract from the private sector.
Mr David Johnson: I thank the member for Etobicoke West. I think his points, as always, are very well made.
I hope we learn from this exercise with the short-lived commercial concentration tax. Four years ago, the tax was brought in by the Liberal government. I remember the next day listening to the then Treasurer, Bob Nixon, attempting to explain the rationale for the commercial concentration tax and how it would work. There were various commentators on the radio posing questions because they couldn't figure out how it would work. Indeed, history over the past four years is indicating that it was a terrible mistake. It was biased against the people of the greater Toronto area. It didn't pass the test of fairness. It didn't serve the purpose it was implemented for in the first instance. It was a total failure.
What it shows is that there is a point beyond which we cannot tax the people of the province of Ontario any more. There is a point beyond which we cannot tax the businesses within this province. There is a point beyond which we cannot tax individual people, and we have come to that point. Indeed, we have passed that point. When you come to that point and when you pass that point and you continue to tax, then problems occur.
What has occurred as a result of the commercial concentration tax is that it, plus other factors, has caused businesses within the greater Toronto area to suffer losses. Some have gone bankrupt. Jobs have been lost. There have been many instances where the economy has gone underground and, as a result, indeed taxes have been lost. Rather than raising more taxes -- that's caused a great deal of problems, caused a loss in taxation, and it has been a total flop. Thank heaven, we're finally getting rid of it.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oxford has moved third reading of Bill 84. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
1540
EXPENDITURE CONTROL PLAN STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE PLAN DE CONTRÔLE DES DÉPENSES
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 50, An Act to implement the Government's expenditure control plan and, in that connection, to amend the Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act / Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre le Plan de contrôle des dépenses du gouvernement et modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-santé et la Loi sur l'arbitrage des conflits de travail dans les hôpitaux.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): When we last debated this bill, Mr Carr was on the floor, and we did not finish questions and comments. Mr Carr not being here, we will ask for further debate.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm pleased to be able to join this particular debate on an extremely controversial bill in the medical services community and among those who are consumers of medical services in Ontario.
As I begin my brief remarks this afternoon on the bill, it reminds me of reading, in the summer of 1990, some of the newspaper ads that were appearing in the various newspapers across Ontario, and they were put in there by the Ontario Medical Association. I expect in the next 10 or 15 minutes to be able to indicate some of the concerns they have even today, with the present government, and some concerns that I happen to have.
I first of all want to indicate that there has been expressed widely in the medical services community, among those who actually are the medical practitioners from various fields within medicine, a concern that there has not been the kind of consultation they would like to have seen before this bill was presented to the Legislature and before it was voted upon by the Legislature. If there's one recurring theme in terms of the letters that we're receiving, the telephone calls and the public statements that have been made, it is that the consultation process was not sufficient before this bill was presented to the Legislature.
Essentially, this bill comes before us because the government finds itself in a financial crunch. I cannot believe that if we were in boom economic times an NDP government would be presenting to the Legislature a bill which gives it the powers to cut medical services to people in this province.
The member for Durham East, in some remarks yesterday in response to the member for Oakville, indicated that one of the reasons he was involved in politics was to protect the health care system. Indeed, I join him in that. When people ask us whether we would like to serve at the federal or provincial level -- and somehow some people always think the federal level is the senior level of government or the more important level of government -- my view has been that the provincial government provides services which are closest to the people of this province. For that reason, I chose to offer myself for nomination and election to the provincial Legislature, because one of the areas of concern that I had was the area of health care services.
I've always believed that we in this province, in this country, have been in a better position than many other countries in the world, particularly the country next door to us, the United States, in terms of delivering health care to the general population. I've always found it unacceptable -- and it's one of the reasons, probably, that I'm in the Liberal Party as opposed to a party that may not feel this way. I've always strongly believed that health care should be universal, that health care should be provided to people in our province on a cost basis which is borne by taxpayers at large as opposed to penalizing those who happen to be ill enough to become sick, go into the hospital and require the services of medical practitioners.
For this reason, I have been a promoter and supporter of the kind of health care that we've had in this province. We've quarrelled from time to time in this Legislature among the three parties as to some of the details of the health care system, but there's been general support, I believe, in three different governments over the last 15 or 16 years. We've been generally in agreement that the basic health care system that we have is a good health care system and one which is deserving of protection.
So I become very concerned when I have seen some of the proposals for cutting services to people in this province. Without a doubt, and I think everyone has to recognize this, if we were to simply allow the health care system to grow as it could to provide maximum service to everyone -- and when I say "maximum service," the very best of service to everyone in the province -- we would see that it would consume a larger portion of the provincial budget each year.
The last figures I saw indicated that health care represented approximately one third of the expenditure of this province. I found it rather interesting, because I was reading an American magazine which showed -- this would be a couple of years ago now -- the budgets of all of the states in the United States. What I was able to figure out from that was that I looked at it very carefully and noticed that Ontario at the time had the fourth-largest expenditure in all of North America in terms of its total budget, the first being the United States national government, the second the Canadian national government, the third the state of California, and the fourth-largest expenditure in fact was the province of Ontario.
At an initial look at this, one wonders why this could possibly be. Of course, when you give any consideration at all to the health care budget, you recognize that in the United States not much of the cost of health care comes from tax dollars. A good deal of the cost of health care in the United States comes from either private insurance or from individuals who must pay when they require those services.
It seems to me that people in this province over the years have been supportive of a good health care system. It is easy, I suppose, to say that we should cut back in one area or another, that we should freeze expenditures in one area or another until such time as each one of us, or people close to us or friends of ours, are requiring the services of a hospital, of doctors, of nurses, of various people who deliver health care in the province. At that time, we recognize the importance of maintaining a strong and well-financed system. It is my belief that the people of this province would continue to support that.
I become concerned when I see some of the far-reaching implications of Bill 50. It will in effect allow the government to decide what medical services under OHIP are deemed not to be insured and therefore no longer covered by OHIP; that is, the delisting from the OHIP schedule. I think people in the medical care field could be of some assistance in advising in this particular direction, but here we have the government with that particular power.
The government will now have the power to limit the payment allowed for a particular service, depending on the age, specialty or location of a physician. In other words, there will be differential fees applying as a result of this bill. It will limit the amount paid for a service or refuse to pay for a service, by deciding how many times a person may receive a medical service in a given period of time, by deciding how many times a physician may perform a particular service and by deciding how many times a health facility such as a walk-in clinic may perform a certain service. In other words, it will be government bureaucrats who will be able to decide what services OHIP will pay for, how often, in what areas of the province, in what health care facility and by whom.
Such powers will limit a patient's right to receive medical care as we know it today, so if we think this bill doesn't have some significant implications for the province, we would certainly be naïve. The government may make such decisions as to control expenditures, limit the number of physicians practising in Ontario and distribute physicians throughout Ontario according to government plans.
We in our party have indicated that we believe the government must work with the health care community before moving on legislation that will dictate how health care is practised in Ontario. It seems to us that medical practitioners, not bureaucrats and not politicians, are and should be the only ones responsible for medical decisions affecting the people of this province. This is what my concern is about this bill.
I also have a concern that we're seeing a movement into user fees. Whether this can flow from this bill or not, one can anticipate that those user fees can.
I've had debates with individuals over the user fees. I recall, during the last provincial election campaign, one particular group in our community that had set itself up as a watchdog for the taxpayer and interviewed the candidates for the election, I guess to decide which candidates it was going to support. One of the people who was on this panel talked about user fees, or, as he referred to them, deterrent fees. This individual was a rich Tory lawyer, and I anticipated that if this person were sick, this person could afford to pay the additional costs.
It has been my view that deterrent fees deter only the poor, not the rich and the privileged. For this reason, governments must examine very carefully their policies when they introduce copayments and other fees. It is not that there aren't circumstances that exist today, for instance, where there are copayments; it is where we will see some new and additional user fees which are designed to deter people from using the system. In my view, that would simply mean one opportunity for the rich and one opportunity for the poor.
The federal government may have some interesting views on this piece of legislation, because under its legislation, if the province tampers too much with OHIP and with user fees and things of that nature, the federal government has the right to restrict or penalize in some way the provinces for those purposes.
I really had hoped that the government would modify this legislation considerably, that it would first of all withdraw the legislation and go back to talk to the various health care providers and consumers in the province before moving forward, but it is clear that the New Democratic Party, which for years fought in this Legislature not for controlling expenditures but for expanding services and expenditures, is now the party that is taking the point of view that there should be a restriction in those expenditures. I can recall no question in my years in government or in opposition that came from the NDP that asked the government to do less in the field of delivery of medical care, yet that's precisely what this bill is requiring today.
1550
So I hope, as this bill goes to committee and it has representations made from various people, whether in written or oral form, that the government will listen to some of those recommendations that are made, that the government will modify this legislation and that as a result, we will see a bill eventually that will meet with the general approval of medical practitioners and of consumers and of taxpayers in this province.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to comment on the very excellent remarks of my colleague from St Catharines. His commitment to serving his own constituents, as well as the people of Ontario, is well known, and his remarks, as they referred to the development of medicare and to his personal commitment, I think were a very important part of this debate.
I believe that Bill 50 will be a barrier to further reform, that it will not only lead us down the road to two-tier medicine and the American model, as my colleague mentioned, but it will not do something that I think needs to be done and needs to be done rapidly: This bill will do nothing to ensure that the only thing that is cut from the delivery of health services are those services which are wasteful and unnecessary and inefficient.
We know from all of the evidence and research that has been done -- I used to say it was 20%; I agree with the ministers of the day when they say it's as high as 30% that is in total waste within the system -- that we could afford for everyone in this province to have appropriate care: If the only thing eliminated were those services which were wasteful and inappropriate and inefficient, then there would be enough money within the system to provide for that kind of appropriate and needed care for the people of Ontario. This bill does nothing to achieve that. It does not ensure in any way that the changes that will take place within the system will only be those that will respond to what people really need.
The concern I have is that the alienation and the ill will that Bill 50 will generate will set back the cause of the kind of partnership relationship that I believe is necessary to improve our medicare system and make sure that the precious resources are used in a way which will respond to what people really need.
Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'd like to make some closing remarks if there is no further debate. I will be brief. Let me say that I have found this debate on Bill 50 very interesting, in that there seems to be no disagreement on any side of the House about the need both to reform our health care system to keep it accessible, to make sure that taxpayers can continue to afford it, and, at the same time, to change it.
What disagreement there is between us is whether Bill 50 is an appropriate way of trying to achieve some of those objectives. There are very profound differences as to whether that is the case and, beyond that, how in fact we need to change the system to keep it affordable, accessible, accountable and all of those things.
As members will not be surprised to know, I believe Bill 50 is in fact a tool that enables this government to keep its commitment to protect and preserve our health care system. When the member for Oriole says that what we have to do is find a tool that makes sure everyone gets appropriate care, the services they really need, services that are medically necessary, that's what it's all about. In whose opinion? Who defines that? How do we decide what is in fact appropriate, what is in fact medically necessary, what is in fact too much of a service as opposed to sufficient of a service?
Bill 50 does not mean that the Ministry of Health will decide who gets care, what is appropriate care and what is medically necessary. What Bill 50 will allow us to do is to be much more specific in our regulation-making powers under the Health Insurance Act and to clarify the government's ability to prescribe the total amount payable under the health insurance plan for insured services. In 1993-94, we're committed to spending $3.6 billion on insured services.
Bill 50 will allow us to pass regulations on matters that may be agreed upon between ourselves and the Ontario Medical Association, and that is our preferred way of coming to some of these definitions and having some of these discussions. Very importantly, it allows us to expand the medical review committees, it allows us to amend the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act -- and I spoke about that in my opening comments -- and it allows us to ensure that the provisions of existing agreements are not inconsistent with the provisions of the expenditure control plan.
The Ministry of Health has got to be more than merely a writer of cheques. The reforms that have happened in the last two and a half years -- the reform of long-term care, the reform of community mental health, the consultation on drug reform, more equitable access to abortion services, funding for women's centres, my announcement today of a unique centre for the treatment of those with HIV and AIDS, the development of pilot comprehensive health organizations and of birthing centres -- all of that points to the profound changes that we are making in the health system to make it a system that will truly serve the people of this province, as it has in the past, but even more importantly, into the next century and beyond.
I thank the members for this debate. I can assure them that as we go to committee and talk about the details of this legislation, there will be room for change, and there are discussions ongoing all the time with the various stakeholders about changes in the actual wording. I look forward to continuing those debates at another time.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just before we move to the vote on this matter, I believe we have consent among the three parties to, first of all, deem a division because there may not be enough members in the House, and secondly, to limit the bells to five minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is this agreed? Agreed.
Mrs Grier moves second reading of Bill 50. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will 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 1558 to 1603.
The Deputy Speaker: Mrs Grier has moved second reading of Bill 50. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.
Ayes
Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Lessard;
Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Swarbrick, Ward, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.
Nays
Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Drainville, Eddy, Eves, Harnick, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Offer, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.
The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 62; the nays are 36. I declare the motion carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Committee of the whole?
Hon Mrs Grier: Social development.
The Deputy Speaker: So ordered.
1610
REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES
Mrs Grier moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 100, An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 / Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées.
Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I have moved second reading of Bill 100, the Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act. This is an act respecting measures to deal with sexual abuse of patients by regulated health professionals, a very important debate that I regret is going to occur in a fairly short time period but one that I think is very important and that I am delighted we have an opportunity to have before this House rises before the recess, because at this stage of the debate on legislation, we are talking about the principles of the bill, and I think the principles of this particular piece of legislation are non-partisan.
I don't believe there is anybody who believes that sexual abuse of their patients by health professionals is acceptable or that it must not be stopped. There is in addition a very broad consensus in society at large, and agreement among the professions and the public and especially among the consumers and the survivors, that the time for action on this particular issue is now.
I see the reforms contained in Bill 100 as a very important step in making our province a safer place to be, and a safer place indeed it needs to become. It was a 1991 Canada Health Monitor survey commissioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario that revealed that sexual abuse by physicians towards their patients was far more widespread than I think any of us would have thought possible. An analysis of that survey indicates that almost one in 10 women in Ontario has been a victim of sexual harassment or abuse by a physician at least once in her life, and as many as 400,000 women in Ontario may have been sexually humiliated, demeaned or violated.
Three per cent of the 549 women interviewed in the study said they were violated through sexual activities with a doctor during an examination or a consultation. This means that about 120,000 women in Ontario have been affected.
These numbers have been reported by the media before, and I do not raise them again in this forum with any intent to point fingers at physicians. I am using these numbers to paint a picture, because these shocking numbers represent the most graphic illustration of why this legislation is before us.
In all probability, we would not have these numbers if the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario had not set out to uncover them. The college has assumed a vital leadership role in determining the breadth of patient abuse by physicians and in seeking solutions to the problem. So I would like at this time to express my thanks to both the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients chaired by Marilou McPhedran and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which commissioned the task force, to thank them for opening our eyes to the problem of sexual abuse by health professionals, because their work has made us all aware of the problem of people with power or authority who take advantage of patients who trust them.
The victims of this breach of trust have spoken out movingly to us at the Ministry of Health. They have conveyed a tremendous sense of urgency. The Ministry has held forums with victims of sexual abuse by health professionals, and I have received a multitude of letters.
These victims of sexual abuse tell us that their reports often are not believed. They tell us that they themselves don't want to believe that their doctors or any other health professional could abuse them during the course of treatment. They tell us that it is not going to be easy going to a new doctor one day, after having been abused by a different one the day before, and they tell us that it is hard to trust these professionals again.
I want to make it very clear that while there are far too many horror stories, I believe that the vast majority of health professionals are providing sound, trustworthy and nurturing care, but the government has an obligation to provide protection against the minority who do not. That is why we were here: to look out for the interest of the victims, to give them effective recourse, to make health professionals -- and this bill applies to all of the regulated health professions -- aware that if the trust between a patient and a health practitioner is abused, the consequences will be serious.
People seeking health care have the right to expect that the treatment they receive from a health care provider will be proper, not improper, and caring, not damaging.
As we have prepared this legislation, met with the various stakeholders since it was first introduced for first reading, there have been a number of concerns and issues raised with respect to the wording of some of the sections, to the definition and to the mechanisms by which this abuse will be dealt with.
I was going, in my opening remarks, to go into those and to indicate to the House some of the areas of the bill where we recognize that amendments will have to be made. I have shared that information with my critics in the opposition parties, and in the interest of time I won't dwell on it today.
But I do want to acknowledge the work that has been done by the various professional associations and colleges, as well as the representatives of the consumer-survivors, in meeting to discuss together how in fact this bill can be changed so that it can be improved, so that it can do the job we all want it to do in a way that is workable and practical.
I hope that over the summer those discussions will continue so that when we have the committee hearings into this particular piece of legislation we will have perhaps some consensus or some agreement on some areas where amendments might be made, and I'm very optimistic that we can do that.
In the meantime, we are here today to talk about the principles of the bill, principles which, as I said, I believe are generally accepted. That principle is that the sexual abuse of patients is never acceptable and will not be tolerated. Bill 100 takes us some distance in making sure we achieve that zero tolerance.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any questions, any comments? Any further debate?
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): In speaking to Bill 100, I want to trace back a few steps and acknowledge and applaud the route that brought the issue to the Legislature in the first place. That route speaks to how a societal and ethical problem was addressed within one segment of our society, the self-regulating professions, where the implications of the problem were particularly profound and where court decisions and those of a disciplinary body were substantially out of sync.
In 1990, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario made a public commitment to improve the college's complaints and discipline procedures dealing with sexual improprieties. This decision grew out of the college discipline committee's difficulties with successful prosecutions and actions of the court in reducing penalty decisions made by the discipline committee. But there were other issues as well.
The college understood that not only was recognition of the problem within the profession inadequate, but that action needed to be taken to correct that problem. The college itself needed to do a credible job of dealing with complaints of sexual abuse by members of the profession. Its members needed to understand the dimensions of the problem within its discipline. Education and sensitization needed to be done and members needed to understand the problems created by sexual abuse from the perspective of those who had suffered that abuse.
In a step which was forward-looking and controversial at the time, the college itself appointed an external task force to document the extent of the problem and to work with those who had been assaulted and their support organizations to make recommendations for a workable action plan. That action plan was to be based on the assertion that for the public and for the profession there would be a clear understanding that sexual abuse of a patient by a physician would not be tolerated.
The task force was to assess what was needed with respect to changes in internal policies and procedures that the college itself could implement, educational initiatives that should be undertaken with medical students and practising physicians, and with the public, and legal changes which might be needed to deal with the problem. Under the chairmanship of Marilou McPhedran, the task force made 60 recommendations to the college following an extensive examination of the issues through public and private hearings and many hours of consultations.
For many of those who participated in the public hearings or in the private sessions, the declaration of their experiences was painful, and to members of the profession much of the information which came forward was a shocking surprise. One key recommendation was that the college change its ways when dealing with a person who complained of sexual abuse; to train and sensitize staff, council members and prosecutors on how to handle disclosure, inquiries and complaints in an appropriate, empathetic and supportive manner; and to stop blaming the person who was making the complaint.
I believe the college has taken steps to put that recommendation into effect and to provide assistance to a complainant who is coming forward, sometimes at great personal cost.
1620
If things are not perfect yet, considerable strides have been made to ensure that a victim is not revictimized in the complaints process. The college then moved to review the recommendations of the task force, integrate those it could into its own internal operations and to make recommendations to the government for revisions to the Regulated Health Professions Act. In the meantime, the Ontario Medical Association was also at work conducting educational forums and introducing the issue into its publications.
Sexual abuse of patients, however, is not just an issue for the medical community but for all the health professions, and the expectations were that the Ministry of Health would adopt the CPSO recommendations as a template for requirements for all health disciplines. It was a surprise, therefore, to the professions that the interministerial report on the matter and subsequently the legislation we are now debating was substantially different in many respects from the recommendations which had been put forward, and there is enormous concern that the law would as a result be unworkable.
I share that concern and want to underline some of the areas in the current bill that are problematic.
Firstly, the requirement for mandatory reporting of all levels of sexual offence from rude or demeaning remarks or gestures to sexual assault on the same basis by physicians and other health care professionals could itself lead to disrespect for the law and the standards of conduct required by the colleges.
I do not want to be misunderstood. Neither of the extremes of sexual abuse are in any way appropriate, but the initial proposals of the CPSO, which would require an in-discipline reporting when there are reasonable grounds to believe a practitioner has committed an act of sexual transgression or violation, seemed to me to be an approach that would be appreciated and honoured by all members of the profession. Similarly, the penalty provisions proposed by the CPSO were clear and understandable.
The bill as it's before us also requires mandatory reporting on other acts of misconduct, incompetence and incapacity. These issues, which also require a more complete examination, should not in my view be included in this bill, which is designed to be specific to sexual misconduct issues.
The reporting requirements of the bill as we have it now are less than satisfactory in two respects: Firstly, there will be an obligation to report to a college by a health professional who may in fact be treating another health professional for a problem that could have caused the misconduct. Secondly, it's difficult to understand how those who are not regulated by the RHPA would be subject to its provisions. An unregulated practitioner or a facility administrator, by example, would be affected by this bill but not subject to it.
The concept of a survivors' assistance fund to ensure that those who've been abused receive needed treatment is a valuable one. There must be clarification, however, of where OHIP leaves off and the fund begins, of whether there would be per person limits to treatment funding and of how the abuser can be required to shoulder the burden of the costs of therapy that the victim needs.
I know the Minister of Health is prepared to present amendments to the bill, and we welcome those and are prepared to put forward amendments as well. I know we are all looking forward to the public hearings that will, I'm sure, bring forward clarifications of many of the questions we have asked on all sides of the House.
I also want to commend the minister for providing the money for facilitated group discussions which have involved the colleges, the professional associations and the survivors and their support groups. My understanding is that the two sessions which have been held have brought great insight to all the parties with respect to this specific piece of legislation as well as to the broader issues of sexual abuse. I think we will all look forward to the results of that positive dialogue and the possible proposals for amendment which may develop from that particular exercise.
In closing, I again want to acknowledge the leadership role of the self-governing professions in tackling this problem from within, to acknowledge the role of survivors who have had the courage to come forward and speak publicly about their experiences, and to say that there is a recognition that legislation is only one small part of a solution to this problem.
I also want to underline that our party is committed to a bill that is workable for all professions and for all who have been abused. Contrary to an impression that was left by the Minister of Health in estimates committee, we have neither been holding up progress to date nor do we intend to. While the numeric count of incidents of professional misconduct of a sexual nature may be small, even one violation of trust between a patient and a health care provider is one too many.
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few moments on second reading of Bill 100. As members of the public know, it is the bill that deals with the horrendous issue of sexual abuse by health care professionals.
The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party believes that the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients, which was commissioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, has identified a grave problem which warrants an immediate response. I want to commend the government and the minister for coming forward with this legislation, and we do look forward to the committee hearings.
When I first became Health critic some two years ago and had the opportunity to meet with Marilou McPhedran and members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's task force, which was chaired by Marilou, and subsequently read the reports put forth and the recommendations by the task force, I frankly was shocked to learn of the extent of this problem in our society. We were finding, for a while there, on a daily basis people coming forward who alleged to have been, and many certainly were, sexually abused by health care professionals. It's a personal admission by me that I was not aware, and I don't think most legislators were aware, of the extent of the problem out there until the task force reported its findings, and prior to that had its hearings.
My party, the Ontario PC Party, believes that legislative measures must be part of that response to this serious problem. The steps taken to remedy the problems identified in the work of the task force must be firm, timely and sensitive to the needs of those involved. My party has pledged its full commitment to the philosophy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse of patients by doctors and other health professionals.
Since the release of the CPSO's final report on sexual abuse, members of the Ontario PC caucus have supported improvements to both the responsiveness of the college's process and the services for survivors of sexual abuse. Our commitment to the philosophy of zero tolerance is premised on the seven principles established by the CPSO task force, and those seven principles are as follows:
-- Sexual abuse of patients is not acceptable, because it inflicts serious harm.
-- Sexual abuse of a patient is a violation of trust which can create irreparable harm to a patient, who potentially will distrust health professionals in the future, thus hampering his or her recovery.
-- Sexual abuse by health professionals is a blatant abuse of power.
-- Tolerance of sexual abuse by health professionals does great damage to the public's perception of health professionals on the whole.
-- Zero tolerance is the only philosophy consistent with protection of the public, which is the primary task of self-regulating bodies.
-- Zero tolerance also provides a clear standard of acceptable conduct.
-- It clarifies where the appropriate boundaries in a physician-patient relationship are and will result in an awareness of the presence of inappropriate sexual attitudes and behaviour.
Those are the seven principles flowing from the CPSO task force.
The Progressive Conservative caucus has demonstrated its commitment to a philosophy of zero tolerance in a number of ways. When the task force chair, Marilou McPhedran, made a presentation before the standing committee on social development during the Regulated Health Professions Act hearings, she outlined several ways that the legislation could be amended to reflect the theme of zero tolerance.
In response to her suggestions, the government brought forward only, in my opinion, window-dressing sexual abuse amendments to the RHPA. The government members of the standing committee on social development -- and I was representing my party on that committee -- voted against innovative PC amendments designed to help and protect patients from sexual abuse by health professionals.
1630
In developing those amendments some two years ago in dealing with the Regulated Health Professions Act, we worked closely with Marilou McPhedran, and we shared a disappointment at that time that the government voted against those amendments.
Former PC Health critic and my colleague the member for Parry Sound, Ernie Eves, introduced a private member's resolution in November 1991 that endorsed many of the task force's key recommendations. The resolution included a penalty range for sexual impropriety, a new definition of "sexual abuse," and support for the establishment of a survivors' compensation fund.
In regard to the definition of sexual abuse, my party supported the recommendation of the task force which suggested that the regulated health professions code and regulations contain a specific definition of sexual abuse that would consist of two levels: sexual impropriety and sexual violation. In accordance with the task force's recommendations, Mr Eves, my colleague from Parry Sound, argued that all colleges should develop penalty ranges for sexual impropriety which would include reprimands, apologies, fines, temporary suspension of certificate of registration with conditions, or any combination thereof.
For those found guilty of sexual violation, Mr Eves argued that any health professional should have their certificate of registration revoked automatically for five years with stringent conditions for reinstatement of that certificate of registration.
The Ontario PC Party firmly supports the CPSO task force's belief that the strictness of these penalties is appropriate. The Ontario PC Party also supported the task force's recommendations for the Ministry of Health and the Treasurer to establish a survivors' compensation fund. This fund would receive all moneys paid as fines for sexual impropriety or sexual violation.
Again, Ernie Eves then introduced a private member's bill on June 17, 1991. The bill incorporated the guidelines for sexual contact between doctors and former patients contained in the recommendations of the CPSO task force. In addition, Mr Eves's bill on behalf of the PC Party made the penalty provision for sexual abuse mandatory, in keeping with other recommendations of the task force's report.
Through these steps, the PC Party has clearly demonstrated in a tangible way in this House, long before this government acted, its commitment to the philosophy of zero tolerance.
However, we do have some concerns with certain proposals in Bill 100, the legislation we're debating this afternoon. One of these concerns stems from the process with which this legislation has been developed. Specifically, regulated health professional organizations, the professional colleges, feel, or certainly felt, that they were not adequately consulted prior to the introduction of this legislation. They, after all, will be the parties which must implement and enforce most of the provisions of Bill 100.
A piece of legislation that sets out unrealistic or unworkable goals will serve no one. It certainly will not serve the victims of sexual abuse, professionals or the public at large. We all agree that the reform we are attempting to achieve is aimed at remedying a serious problem, and for this reason workability must be in the forefront of our considerations of Bill 100 at the committee stage.
We were pleased to hear that there have been several forums held now in which members of the public have been able to meet and openly discuss some of their concerns with respect to Bill 100. I commend the minister for undertaking that initiative. It is my understanding that these sessions have made some progress in airing problems and allowing groups which approach the issue from different perspectives to hear the concerns of others. It seems to me that these are perhaps the type of meetings that should have taken place prior to the drafting of the legislation. None the less, I am hopeful that this type of dialogue can continue in the next stage of the examination of Bill 100.
We are concerned as well with the CPSO predictions that mandatory reporting of all types of sexual abuse could result in a bureaucratic backlog, resulting in the slowed resolution of serious cases of sexual abuse. They're all serious, but the CPSO does make distinctions.
We appreciate the view of organizations such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Dr Rachel Edney has argued that matters of sexual impropriety would likely be better served through a separate local body, and we will want to explore this option further during committee hearings.
By requiring the professional colleges to deal with matters of sexual impropriety through the same complaints body, the professional colleges fear that their ability to investigate matters involving sexual transgressions and violations and to remove offending physicians will be hampered. A prediction like this of course concerns us and we will be looking to discuss this matter further in the future.
My colleagues and I were pleased to see that the government reconsidered some of its original proposals in Bill 100 and has circulated a list of amendments. For instance, we were glad to see that the government has decided not to require health professionals to report members of other professions suspected of misconduct, incompetence and incapacity. These suggested changes reflect movement on some of the problematic issues with respect to this legislation. However, we do remain concerned that other contentious aspects of the bill remain unchanged.
No doubt, we will have the opportunity to discuss these issues and more at the committee hearings which will be held in the not-too-distant future.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the Ontario PC Party supports the principle of Bill 100 and we certainly will be supporting this legislation at second reading.
I would like also to say that we are very well aware of the serious issues which must be resolved if this legislation is to meet its objectives. I would like to state my commitment as the Ontario PC Health critic, and the commitment of my party, to seeing that those concerns are carefully considered in the upcoming stages of Bill 100's examination.
This is clearly an important piece of legislation that must be handled with due sensitivity and with a clear sense of the principle we are trying to embody in this legislation. I am committed to achieving that end and producing workable legislation that will meet the needs of all Ontarians.
Zero tolerance of sexual abuse is the goal. I and my caucus colleagues have demonstrated since being elected in 1990, and even prior, through legislative initiatives through this House, our commitment to the goal of zero tolerance. We remain committed to that goal and we will continue to work hard to achieve it.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for Simcoe West for his contribution to the debate and invite questions and/or comments. Seeing none, I recognize the Minister of Health for the wrapup on the bill.
Hon Mrs Grier: Let me just say to my colleagues from Halton Centre and Simcoe West how much I support their support for this legislation and for the principle we are debating here today. I acknowledge their constructive comments with respect to areas of the legislation where they feel changes might be made, and say again that I look forward over the coming months to working with the professions and with the interested parties in trying to refine some of those sections and deal with some of the issues that have been raised. But I very much appreciate the sense that on all sides of this House zero tolerance for sexual abuse of patients by professionals is the principle and is the approach.
I hope we will be back to this legislation early in the fall session so that we can complete our debate on it and then proclaim the long-awaited Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act.
1640
The Speaker: Mrs Grier moves second reading of Bill 100. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Hon Mrs Grier: Social development committee.
The Speaker: Agreed.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, just before we proceed to the next order, I believe His Honour awaits royal assent.
His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.
ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE
Hon Henry N.R. Jackman (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present meetings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.
Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:
Bill 4, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'éducation
Bill 32, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail
Bill 34, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Personal Property Security Act in respect of Used Vehicle Information Packages / Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les sûretés mobilières à l'égard des dossiers de renseignements sur les véhicules d'occasion
Bill 38, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect of Sunday Shopping / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des commerces le dimanche
Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands / Loi concernant les îles Algonquin et Ward's et concernant l'administration de la zone résidentielle des îles de Toronto
Bill 84, An Act to amend certain Acts to eliminate the Commercial Concentration Tax and reduce certain expenditures as referred to in the 1993 Budget / Loi modifiant certaines lois afin d'éliminer l'impôt sur les concentrations commerciales et de réduire certaines dépenses comme le prévoit le budget de 1993
Bill 103, An Act to provide firefighters with protection from personal liability and indemnification for legal costs / Loi visant à accorder l'immunité aux pompiers et à les indemniser de leurs frais de justice
Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Loi portant modification du Code de la route
Bill 169, An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la fonction publique et la Loi sur la négociation collective des employés de la Couronne
Bill Pr9, An Act to revive Kirbryn Holdings Inc
Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Village of Merrickville
Bill Pr42, An Act to revive Hellenic Orthodox Community of Kingston
Bill Pr54, An Act to revive Paragon Financial Corp
Bill Pr55, An Act to revive Philmanser Investments Ltd
Bill Pr80, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.
Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur sanctionne ces projets de loi.
His Honour was then pleased to retire.
ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 8, An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos / Loi prévoyant la réglementation des casinos par la création de la Société des casinos de l'Ontario et traitant de certaines autres questions relatives aux casinos.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): By rotation, the opportunity is extended to the third party.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise and to speak briefly with regard to Bill 8. I will be brief, but I want to say that I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on Bill 8, the Ontario Casino Corporation Act.
I have a number of concerns about establishing gambling casinos, including the lack of a credible public consultation process undertaken by the government before it went off half-cocked and announced the pilot project for Windsor; my belief that state-operated casinos are nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; the potential for the growth of crime, and the economic hardship and loss of jobs they will impose on Ontario's racing industry.
Once again, the government has undertaken to bring forward legislation that appears to be dividing Ontarians against each other. Some support the idea of gambling casinos in principle, while others are adamantly opposed. Once again, there does not appear to be any middle ground on this issue. The split occurs in Simcoe East and I'm sure within all ridings in Ontario.
I would like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention some of the letters and petitions related to casino gambling, pro and con, that I've received from constituents in my riding of Simcoe East.
One positive letter that I received was from the Huronia Tourist Association. It said:
"With respect to the concept of casinos as a means of stimulating tourism and thus, via the ripple effects, spurring the overall economy of this province, this association wishes to commend and support your government for this far-sighted and innovative approach. We also commend you for recognizing and stating publicly on March 24 that we in Ontario are competing for tourist dollars with other places."
1650
I have a letter here from the racing industry:
"The racing industry is very concerned with regard to this. Some 50,000 people are involved in jobs within racing. They're on breeding farms and business supply" -- they're associated with the activity of the racetrack. "Many of these jobs will be lost as a result of the decrease in parimutuel betting. In other jurisdictions in Canada and the US, these results have been documented," as you will see by the material that they've enclosed for me, and it's well-documented, that casino gambling does affect the racing industry.
Those letters are from Barrie Raceway Holdings Ltd, signed by Bill Rowe, the president, and another one from the general manager, Mr James Hutchings.
I have presented a number of petitions in this Legislature opposing gambling casinos. They are also opposed to the introduction of video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario. I have many petitions, from Orillia, Oro Station, Udney, from St Paul's United Church in Orillia, people in Coldwater, from the Orillia Christian Reformed Church, from the people from Elmvale, Penetanguishene. The petitions are from all across the riding of Simcoe East opposing casino gambling.
There has been material sent to the Premier of Ontario with opposition to legalized gambling casinos in Ontario. Louise Jerome of Orillia sent a very telling letter with regard to the casinos. She wants the government to abandon the casino gambling "and thus send a message to people of Ontario that there are indeed definite values in our society."
Some of the other letters that I have received with regard to the opposition of legalized gambling casinos in Ontario are many. As I said at the beginning, we had the one from Julian Huften from the Huronia Tourist Association. He was speaking on behalf of his membership. We have the opposition to legalized gambling casinos in Ontario from Harold and Ann Strong, who live in Orillia. We have a letter from Shirley Stewart, 654 Glen Crescent in Orillia. There are many letters and briefs that I have received; from Mr McKendrell, RR 1, Lot 40, Maplewood Parkway in Orillia. We can go on with regard to the letters. It's just overwhelming, the letters; from Robert Oldfield in Orillia. We have hundreds of them here.
In conclusion, I want to simply point out it appears that rather than concentrate on legitimate action to increase business confidence and create an environment that would spur investment in Ontario, the NDP government has decided to roll the dice with Ontario's economic wellbeing. If this government would get its own spending under control, there would be no need to embark on what could prove to be yet another wrong direction for Ontario. It is a sad state of affairs when a government chooses to gamble with our future and that of our children.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Simcoe East for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. Is there further debate on this bill?
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I spoke briefly in the two minutes allotted for responses and questions after the very capable comments by the member for Victoria-Haliburton two days ago, earlier this week. You'll recall that I commended the member for Victoria-Haliburton for his leadership on this issue. I think he made important comments here in the Legislature and has made a number, as you're well aware, of public comments about the direction this government has travelled with so-called casino gambling.
When I spoke briefly earlier this week, I wanted to make it quite clear and I make no apologies for indicating that the member for Victoria-Haliburton and I do not share an absolutely common ground with respect to the issues of casinos.
I tell you that I come from a community, as you well know, Welland-Thorold in the heart of the Niagara Peninsula, where there's a heavy concentration of agricultural activity, much of it supporting and an integral part of the racetrack industry, one of which is in Fort Erie, one of which just underwent a particularly difficult time in its life. Part of the argument very properly advanced on behalf of the Fort Erie Race Track was the fact that it's an integral and very important part of the agricultural industry here in the province of Ontario.
As you well know, the Ontario Jockey Club, although it has become a participant in the bidding process to operate, as it is now, the proposed Windsor casino, has at the same time expressed a great deal of concern, as have other members, especially those with interests in the agricultural community in this province, in the impact of full-scale casino operations on the survival of racetracks.
I have to tell you this: Surely, you have to understand that Bill 8 does not constitute the introduction of gambling to Ontario. I grew up in Crowland, and my experience as a youth in Crowland, what with the backroom card games and dice games and the advent of more than the occasional bookie, demonstrates clearly that there's nothing new about gambling in Ontario. Indeed, I suspect there was many a family that sent its children to university as a result of those very activities.
Like I told you a few days ago, I, unlike some other people, make no pretence about never having been to a racetrack, never having bought a lottery ticket. Indeed, I've had occasion to visit a casino not only in the Canadian context but in the American context. I've heard and I've listened carefully to some of the comments that have been made in support of the proposition, because one of the critiques is that casinos, this type of institutionalized gambling, are but a tax on the poor. Of course, in response to that, there's the comment made, "Well, you see, it's only the rich who go to casinos." I'm sorry, in these difficult times, in recessionary times when people are suffering some of the bleakest futures that Ontarians have ever had to unfortunately look forward to --
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: First of all, there aren't that many rich any more and, secondly, those people who find themselves in the most desperate of positions look, I believe, increasingly to these games of chance, to the prospect of the big win. I know there are $2 bettors at the racetrack, but I also know that there are $100 and $200 and $300 bettors at the racetrack. I tell you, you don't have to go very far to witness some of the misery of the phenomenon, the lure of gambling, the lure of the easy buck, the lure of the fast win, of the big paycheque, and what that has done to more than a few families. I can speak directly about my experience with families in my own communities of Welland and Thorold.
I have some real concerns about the fact that it seems to me, what with the concentrated effort on the part of the provincial government in terms of developing Lottario-style gambling, it's a numbers racket. Why, it wasn't that long ago that the mob was running that in large American cities. As it is now, with the government of Ontario, for some significant period of time and through a succession now of three different political parties constituting the government, what used to be the prerogative of the mob is now very much the prerogative of government. It's certainly well established, and Lotto in Ontario, with great fanfare, talked about the acquisition of some $5 billion just recently. They passed the $5-billion mark -- a lot of money. You're talking about $5 billion that came out of the pockets not entirely of Ontarians but certainly to the largest extent.
The fact is you can't have winners unless you have losers. The reality is there's a lot more losers than there are winners. That's the nature of the game. Most people understand that. But, you see, we have a well-networked and very intensive numbers racket going on in the province of Ontario. I come from a community where bingo and bingo operations, again sanctioned by the provincial government, licensed as they are, bingo operations in the communities that I come from are alive and well. I tell you, those smoky halls are well filled virtually every day of the week, beginning in the early day well into the final shot, the final grab for the brass ring, the midnight game: Midnight Madness, they call it.
1700
There's more than a few charitable organizations and churches in my communities that derive a great deal of dollars for their good works as a result of the bingo games. There are more than a few charitable organizations that derive more than a few dollars from the sale of Nevada tickets, and you're familiar with those. I know you are, Mr Speaker, because once again the province licenses those.
We've got a little bit of a problem when Ray Rempel from the Ontario Head Injury Association comes to me and tells me about the province or the licensing branch putting the squeeze on him and telling him, "No, you can't sell any more Nevada tickets." This is for the Ontario Head Injury Association, which does some of the most creditable and significant work for, obviously, victims of head injuries here in the province of Ontario.
He's done an outstanding job for a number of years now and has struggled along, nickel-and-diming by virtue of the sale of Nevada tickets. He was told, "No, you can't have any more licences for Nevada tickets." You see, the government tells Ray Rempel there's a fear that the gambling dollar is exhausted, and if there are more Nevada ticket licences provided somehow it will diminish and eat into the finite number of gambling dollars, that somehow it will become unproductive.
What bothers me is that I don't understand how Ray Rempel can be told that there's no more supply of gambling dollars in the province of Ontario -- and that's what he was told -- yet the province embarks on this ambitious enterprise.
Yes, I think there is some legitimate concern about what the proposed casino style of operation does to the capacity of charitable organizations, churches and groups like the Thorold Community Activities Group. Once a year they have a Monte Carlo night and, as a result of the volunteer work and the modest level of activity -- you're talking about a $2 limit -- they raise funds that enable them, as a volunteer and charitable non-profit organization, to conduct any number of community activities: sports events, care for younger children, day care centres, education programs in the community of Thorold.
I've got a little bit of fear about what this will mean for the Thorold Community Activities Group which engages in this modest Monte Carlo night, a casino night, once per year. I have some great concern about what wide-open casino gambling will do to that particular organization of hard-working people very committed to their community.
Nobody's quarrelling with the fact the government has simply less and less money to provide by way of grants and funding for these very same sorts of organizations. These organizations are being told to go out there and do more to raise their own money, and they understand it too. I suppose the most frequent refrain they put to this government, that they put to all levels of government, is, "Please, we understand that government has less money to give, but surely you can help us raise the funds, to go out there with hard work and legwork and volunteer labour, that we're prepared to raise on our own," through, again, modest vehicles of bingo, Nevada tickets and the occasional Monte Carlo night.
I'm further bothered by what I believe I can very confidently understand would have been our position were we in opposition and were the earlier government to have proposed wide-open casino gambling, large-scale casino operations, in the province of Ontario.
I was here for about two years as a member of the opposition before this government got elected, when there were only 19 of us, when we, as New Democrats, spoke out against the things we felt were wrong or were badly or poorly conceived and developed, and about things that were contrary to what we had told people we believed in for so, so long.
I recall early on in this process a question I put to the minister about the absence of any New Democratic Party policy on the issue of government casinos. Indeed, there hadn't been any. I understand that there's no policy on the policy books that very specifically says, "There shalt not be casinos in the province of Ontario." But I tell you, you don't have to look too hard to see a clear pattern in terms of the commentary of New Democrats, as recently as the last opposition here in the last Parliament, when the Liberals held power, all the way back through literally generations of New Democrats and CCFers before them, who very properly, in my view, questioned the appropriateness of governments using gambling as a way to generate revenues.
The persistent question is, is that how we do business? Do you rely upon a throw of the dice? I understand that no dice are going to be permitted in Ontario casinos, but do you rely upon the draw of the card or the roll of the wheel or the pull of the handle on the one-armed bandit to generate revenues to provide those things that Ontarians have come to expect and -- rightly so -- deserve because of the fact that this province should be and has the capacity to be a place that provides caring structure and sets of benefits and programs to accommodate people who need the help of their government?
One's drawn to the irresistible conclusion that had the government of 1989 presented this legislation, New Democrats would have led the fight in opposition to it. It's just an irresistible conclusion. I'm strengthened by reading the Hansard comments of colleagues of mine in that modest opposition of 19 members and going back yet further and reading the commentary of such great Ontarians as Mel Swart, among others. I tell you, although we've seen fit to implement very little, if anything -- but to be fair, very little -- of what was contained in our policy platform presented to the public of Ontario in the summer of 1990, a policy platform that, I'm insistent, got New Democrats elected in unprecedented numbers to this Legislature, although somehow we feel capable of abandoning those, it's remarkable that we would feel as comfortable introducing a program that is antithetical to everything that New Democrats and CCFers before them stood for and believed in.
I appreciate that times change; of course times change. I appreciate that the mood of the electorate changes; of course the mood of the electorate changes. But to that end, I got from the library the October 1992 omnibus survey conducted by the government which very specifically polled on the issue, in a very modest way. Again, you know how polling and surveying, depending upon the type of question that's asked, can be skewed. I tell you, even in a survey that does not present to the persons being questioned any of the controversial issues, there is no clear consensus in the province of Ontario for casino gambling.
Let's go one step further, because I've got to tell you this: There are people in Welland and Thorold who think the government's policy about developing casinos is a fine policy. There's no two ways about it. Under ideal circumstances, one could look forward to the committee process, the committee process that I'm told is going to take place after this vote today, a committee of all three parties -- of course, as committees are structured, dominated by government members. But that committee process is going to be travelling about the province, visiting any number of communities, soliciting their views on casinos.
I've got a little bit of problem with that, because it seems to me that all the policies have already been established, as strong or as weak as those policies might be construed. It seems that a location has already been chosen, that a commitment has already been made. I understand that the members for the Windsor area undoubtedly -- again, I'm not saying I would necessarily do what they did if I were a member of a similar community, but I understand their drive to accommodate a community very similar to my own community. I understand that Windsor has been hit by a recession, that Windsor has been impacted by the phenomenon, somewhat declining now, of cross-border shopping; they'll tell you that so is Niagara.
1710
But what bothers me is that in the information sessions it was indicated that the target market for this casino in Windsor is some 100-mile radius around the city of Windsor. By God, that means the city of Detroit. I don't want to downgrade our American friends in Detroit, but I'll tell you, if there were any money left in Detroit the Americans would have got it already.
When you look to the Canadian side, you're talking about communities of laid-off workers, communities of workers who risk the prospect of layoff, communities of farmers who are struggling as a result, among other things, of free trade, just as they are down in the Niagara region; not a whole lot of money.
Look, the bottom line is: Read the travel section of the Toronto Star this weekend. The bottom line is that for $350 you get four days and three nights in Las Vegas, plus Wayne Newton thrown in for another $30 or $40 if you're so inclined. I've got a hard time understanding how the casino that's been proposed is going to generate an influx of tourism to the community of Windsor.
Look, I know the aspirations of a community like Windsor, because my own community has done a great deal of things. The cities of Welland and Thorold have done a great deal to generate as much interest in those communities as they can for the tourist buck.
But you know what's bothersome? It seems to me that if we are going to develop a casino industry, we're not interested in recycling Ontario dollars and in emptying the pockets of hardworking Ontarians or, as often as not, those who would like to be hardworking Ontarians. It seems to me that if there were really an interest here in using legitimized casinos as a means of enhancing the tourist industry, two things would happen: You wouldn't be surveying in the province of Ontario to see what sort of spin you could put on it, because of course the connection, the nexus is made. The nexus is: If you've got a casino, you've got jobs. What could be more marketable than that type of proposition?
Let me put it this way: Nobody is ever going to send kids to university on the types of money you're making running a game of 21 in a casino. Nobody is going to send their children to university or provide for their retirement on the types of incomes that are earned by hardworking people in that very same type and style of tourist industry.
It strikes me as very peculiar that somehow this is linked to jobs; that somehow this is linked to tourism. I simply don't believe that the hard data are there to support it. Once again, what's being proposed isn't in any way, shape or form competitive with casino operations available internationally, available to international tourists in the United States.
It seems to me strange that the surveying that would be done in Ontario would clearly speak to the type of spin -- and the spin ain't too difficult to figure out, because it's simply a matter of linking in people's minds jobs along with casinos -- when there's no clear effort to enhance tourism on an international level. I don't believe any research has been done about what, for instance, Japanese tourists would expect of Ontario casinos or what American tourists would expect of Ontario casinos if indeed those casinos were to bring them to this province and have them stay here and spend their money here and spend overnight here, or indeed a European tourist.
You don't have to be a genius to figure out that these are some of the very same people who are travelling internationally and historically have spent considerable amounts of money in the province of Ontario. In the end, it causes me great concern and some bewilderment why the community of Niagara Falls, which had a strong tourist base already, some 12 million people a year already travelling in and out of Niagara Falls on an annual basis, a hotel infrastructure, a policing network that was accustomed to the demands of a border community with high tourist traffic -- it strikes me as very strange that Niagara Falls wouldn't have been more intimately involved in the development of what some might call a modest proposal, but what I will tell you I believe is a very scary proposal.
Once again, I understand that the argument is going to be made that there are going to be committee hearings. Well, I'm hard-pressed to understand how in three weeks of committee hearings, when people are invited and, because of the nature of committees, one group or one caucus within that committee can and often does exercise control -- there's no secret about that; the Liberals did it while they were in government and unfortunately this government does it while it's in government -- when there can be a very selective process of inviting participants to the committee hearing and they will be permitted a mere 30 minutes in which to make presentations -- well, no, let me correct that, a mere 15 minutes in which to make presentations, leaving a balance of five minutes per caucus for questioning --
I tell you, I believe there's a great deal of expertise and information out there available to this government, and I speak of the assembly as a whole, on the issue of casinos and casino operations. There are undoubtedly people who are advocates of casino operations. It's clear that Donald Trump isn't one of them, because Donald Trump, with his experience in Atlantic City -- remember what happened to Donald Trump? Two casino operations: One was upscale and the other one, although still somewhat more flamboyant than what's proposed in Windsor, was geared towards the low roller, if you will. Well, Donald Trump learned very quickly that casinos that are geared towards the low roller don't make money. The patrons lose their hard-earned dollars, their hard-earned paycheques, and the casinos go broke.
Do you know what my fear is? My fear is that this is but history repeating itself. I suppose I could go back merely to SkyDome, but I'll go back all the way as far as Minaki Lodge. I've got a little bit of a premonition, but I may well be wrong -- I have no doubt that people will point out to me that I was wrong two years hence -- that the casino operators come forward two or three years hence, just as the race track did in Fort Erie and say: "Look, we can't make it this way. There simply isn't an adequate revenue for us to keep this place afloat, and you've got a choice, government. Either cough over more cash" -- and basically you're saying to the taxpayers of Ontario, "Cough over more cash" -- "or you're left holding this white elephant, this Minaki Lodge, this SkyDome of southwestern Ontario."
It bothers me a great deal that there's going to be a committee process, a process of committee hearings, yet the reality is that those committee hearings can in no way substantially impact on the policy that's already been developed, that's been articulated, that's been announced and about which commitments have been made. It's very peculiar, and it's peculiar because we, as New Democrats, fought against that process as hard as any caucus ever could when the Liberals were in power using the very same sort of process and procedures. We found it abominable then. I tell you, we should find it abominable now.
I understand that there's a strong division in the community about whether or not the province should endorse casino-style gambling, and I understand that. I understand there are people who are going to stand up and talk about casinos as being the entryway to a nirvana that none of us has ever experienced before. But I also understand that there are a whole lot of people out there with some very legitimate fears and concerns about what's happening in Ontario right now with respect to the legalization of wide-open casinos, the access of organized crime to those operations and their effect on the communities in which those casinos are located, along with their effect across the province; about the myth of job creation when in fact this type of industry creates minimum-wage jobs. Once again, nobody's ever been able to support their family in any level of decency on the types of incomes you earn in this type of so-called industry.
I've got a real problem about a government that would participate in a process that would chip away at what has been a high-wage economy that has made us a community, as a province, and very central to the country, that has provided standards of living for working women and men in this province that enabled them to buy the consumer goods, pay the taxes that are increasingly demanded of them and participate in their communities in an economic way that's productive and that constitutes nurturing.
Do you know what I'm going to do, Speaker? You know that the standing orders permit me to attend any committee hearing that I wish. I understand that the committee's meeting in several communities and I'm not sure I can be at all of them, but I'm going to exercise my right, recognizing that surely this government wants a wide-open debate, surely this government wants to hear all the sides of the issue, surely this government wouldn't try to shut down dissent or opposition to a policy that is in no way consistent with its policy historically as a party and in no way consistent with -- indeed, as I said, antithetical to -- its commitments to the electorate when it ran for election in 1990.
So I'm going to visit the committee on occasion as it travels about; surely when it goes to Niagara Falls down in the Niagara Peninsula, because I tell you, Niagara Falls says, "Look, we could probably make this work." At the same time as the community in Niagara Falls is eager to participate in this type of regime, I tell you there are a whole lot of residents of that community who have great fear about what this means for the community of Niagara Falls, for the community of Niagara region and indeed for the province of Ontario.
I'm confident -- and I look forward to being able to demonstrate this to you with the record once this is all done and over with -- I am confident that the committee will welcome opposing views. I'm confident that the committee will welcome debate and indeed will do everything it can -- and it can do a great deal, because it can control and regulate its own process -- to make sure that in this instance if Mel Swart appears before this committee, as he did before the committee dealing with auto insurance, that indeed he's given an opportunity without censure, without closure, to address the issues and speak to them, that indeed he's accorded the dignity that any other member of this community is entitled to when they appear in front of a committee. I'm looking forward to that.
I'm looking forward to the non-partisan debate that will undoubtedly flow during clause-by-clause consideration, wherein government members will have listened to the submissions made to them and indeed will acquiesce to reasonable argument in a way that's never been done before -- not by previous governments and, to this point in my experience, not by this government.
I am looking forward to seeing government members agree that the evidence is clear, and I'm looking forward to the committee calling before it leadership not only from within Ontario but leadership with experience in the United States that will speak to some of the horrors that have been imposed upon communities as a result of developing casino regimes.
Let me put it this way, and I'm about to close: If Donald Trump doesn't want to take any stock with it, if Donald Trump has no stake in it and isn't interested and doesn't see it as something that can float, I'll be darned if any of us should. Thank you kindly, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Are there any questions or comments?
Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I want to commend the speaker from Welland-Thorold for his usual insightful and, I might say, somewhat entertaining but very thoughtful presentation.
I couldn't help but be struck, as I watched in my office the member speak, when he said something I thought was so very telling. I repeat what the member said so well on the record. I heard him say that had this bill been introduced in 1989 by the Liberal government or in previous years by the Conservative government, the NDP would have risen to a woman and man, fighting it with everything they had, and perhaps would have fought it with a vigour that was only equalled by the fight that was established in terms of the auto insurance. But we can only speculate about that.
I welcome and look forward to having the member for Welland-Thorold and his predecessor appear with the committee to no doubt make some very, very valuable contributions. I say somewhat unhappily that notwithstanding the fact that my friend the member for Welland-Thorold looks forward to that day, not too long from now, when some of his colleagues will vote their conscience and vote on the basis of principle and what they hear as opposed to what the government tells them to do, I hope you don't hold your breath waiting, my friend, or you'll be indeed in a sorry state.
I look forward to that. I would hope that the proponents would have an opportunity to tell us exactly what it is; that the minister would allow some of the proponents to come -- a suggestion made by the member for Parry Sound -- to put forward some of the concrete suggestions they have so members of the committee have an opportunity to deal with specific items and things that are tangible and concrete and be able to put them to the test of the issues that are raised by people across this province.
I know there will be some controversy and I know there will be divided opinion, and I repeat what I said in my comments of a few nights ago and ask all members on the committee to listen, and listen not only with their ears but indeed with their minds and with their hearts, and listen on the basis of the argument, not on the basis of what is expedient and what they have been urged to do by the leadership of their party.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I did enjoy the comments given by the member for Welland-Thorold. They were as good, I think, as his comments on auto insurance, and they were again well researched. They do you give you insight into what it was like to be in opposition when the Liberals were in power and to have that heady day of being elected government, and it was a heady, brief period of time. I think they played "We ain't got a barrel of money" at their swearing in, and they all talked a big game and so on.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You were there.
Mr Stockwell: No, I wasn't there, but I read it in the paper. It was really curious reading, because here we are, three years later, and there's only one thing the same between that day, when they swore this cabinet in, and today: Their policies have changed, their initiatives have changed, their principles have changed, but they could still sing a very good tune of "I ain't got a barrel of money," because they still don't have a barrel of money. The only way they possibly could fill this barrel up, it appears, is by contravening planks that we would have thought unapproachable in years gone by, and one is the casino.
I enjoyed this conversation. I enjoyed hearing from a government caucus member who's telling us in opposition things we know: that the committee system is fixed, that the people who come into the committee system are invited, and if you're not invited you don't get to say anything. It's really interesting to hear these kinds of comments from a caucus member who is saying: "Gee, the fix was in when the casino was announced. The site was picked, no input, and it's a big rig job."
I'm really interested in hearing that from a caucus member of the government, because we've kind of believed that in the past. Never having concrete fact or evidence before us, we've always had the impression that it has been fixed and rigged, and here we have it today enunciated by not one of us but an upstanding NDP member of this caucus and, might I add, the only socialist left in Ontario, I think, at least in this House, and of course my friend Mr Drainville.
I will say I enjoyed these remarks. It's a shame we only get half an hour, because I could have sat through 17 hours of those debates.
Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I was very impressed by the remarks addressed to the House by the honourable member for Welland-Thorold. One of the things that makes it so difficult to stand up and speak about this particular issue is to realize the very strong tradition that has been in the CCF and the NDP regarding the use of moneys through gambling. It has always been a premise -- at least it used to be a premise for that party, for the CCF and the NDP -- that state-run lotteries and state-run casinos were not acceptable.
1730
Today, we know there is a change. There is a change in society, yes, but there's a bigger change than the change in society: It's the change in the values and the betrayal of principles that we have seen on the part of the New Democratic Party over the last three years. This is nowhere more obvious than in this particular issue, because it's an issue where there was no consultation. The political élite of the government decided among themselves that they would move into this area. They didn't consult with anyone in the caucus, they didn't attempt in any way to try to get people to see that there was a necessity to move in a new direction, at least in their own opinion.
And so it is that we find ourselves here. The honourable member for Welland-Thorold indicated that if this had been done by a Liberal government in 1989 -- well, we have had read into the actual Hansard of this place the remarks by the honourable member, the Minister of Finance, who himself indicated in 1990, four months before the election, how bad this lottery business and the use of such of funds was for the government. Yet we have a casino bill that comes before us that is diametrically opposed to that point of view. Four months before the election: It's a sham.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I stand because I think I need to say a couple of things and to put a couple of things on record.
First of all, I'm going to vote in favour of the bill, not because I disagree with the speaker's idealogy in terms of the social problems that might come along with this, because to a degree I agree with him: There will be some problems that come with it. But I've got to tell you this: I'm not in favour of any government that is hypocritical --
Interjections.
Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't know if you were listening to the debates, but I was, and my friend the member for Downsview clearly described the remarks of the speaker as hypocritical. We've had a long tradition that this is not appropriate and parliamentary, sir. I wish you'd call him to order.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The Speaker was having a great deal of difficulty hearing the member --
Mr Sorbara: I just told you: I heard him. He said "hypocritical." Just rule him out of order.
The Acting Speaker: If the honourable member feels he has said something unparliamentary, please withdraw.
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I heard the member very clearly. He did in fact say that he didn't support governments which were hypocritical. I would add that I think he should withdraw that, because I don't think he should refer to his party or his government as hypocritical.
Mr Mammoliti: Where I think this would be hypocritical is if we don't act and don't necessarily talk about the problems that currently exist out there. If some people were to look around their communities and find the $10,000 bingos and perhaps the amount of rippy tickets that get sold on a regular basis in their community and not say to themselves that a casino is almost the same type of ordeal in terms of gambling and in terms of the addiction that comes with it, that's where a government might be hypocritical. For that reason --
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member's time for questions or comments has ended.
The honourable member for Welland-Thorold has two minutes in response.
Mr Kormos: I'm almost tempted to cede my time to my friend to my right, I suppose in any number of ways, but I treat this time so jealously that I'm not quite prepared to do that.
Look, let's understand that there is clearly a lot of controversy about this. I think there has to be room for wide-open debate. I think there has to be a government that can demonstrate in this instance what an opportunity it is for this government to show Ontarians that government doesn't have to be the way it's always been, to show Ontario that government will consult before it determines its policy, that government indeed will go out to the community, not with a fixed point of view and with a point of view of treating the committee process as some sort of sham, the type of sham that would have made Pravda envious, but recognizing that it is a bona fide opportunity for the public to provide input into policy development.
Now, the "but" here is that it's awfully difficult to understand how that's going to happen in this instance when, as I say, the policy has been made, the policy's been articulated, the site's been chosen and, I dare say, the short list is there for the bidders for the grand hotel if indeed it will ever become that. In view of the history of the bidding for the temporary site, I'm fearful about the course of events that will transpire in the course of approving the ultimate bidder.
I'm particularly fearful of people buying a pig in a poke. I think that indeed what we have here has not been developed with the care that could have been applied to it. What has been developed here carries with it risks that have not been fairly acknowledged by the government, and what we're dealing with here carries with it the potential to leave a blemish, indeed a scar, on this province that will never be eradicated.
The Acting Speaker: I want to thank the honourable member for his participation and his response. Further debate on the second reading of Bill 8?
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity at the end of the month of July to speak on what I consider to be a very significant piece of legislation, a very ironic piece of legislation, being brought in by the NDP government in Ontario.
I want to say from the beginning that I am adamantly opposed to this bill. I have been adamantly opposed to the concept of casino gambling on the scale that the government is talking about throughout my political career. I believe that this bill introduces into this province yet another and an additional opportunity for people to gamble, one which brings along with it a lot of glamour and one which is going to be detrimental to the best interests of this province.
I think most people who have lived a few years, members who sit in this Legislature, have seen people who have been the victims of gambling. These are individuals who have a compulsion to gamble. If we talk about alcohol, we would say they're alcoholics. I guess you'd call them gambleholics or something of that nature in this case.
Mr Sorbara: Compulsive gamblers.
Mr Bradley: Compulsive gamblers, the member for York Centre suggests.
They are individuals who often squander their entire paycheque on some form of gambling. Admittedly, they are a small portion of the population; and thankfully they are a small portion of the population. Nevertheless, to the friends and family of those who are addicted that way, it is very sad indeed.
We have seen people, I'm sure, in our lives who have resorted to embezzlement in the company they work for or the employer they work with, never intending to steal the money for good but simply to get enough money to either pay off the debts or make another bet which will recoup enough money to pay back the money that has been embezzled. We have others who lie, who steal, who hock some of their goods at pawnshops in order to either get money to bet or to pay off gambling debts. That is sad indeed.
I find it regrettable that today, in 1993, there are so many opportunities for people to be gambling. It is not true that if you remove all of the legal opportunities that somehow people will not gamble, but the availability of those opportunities certainly means that more people are going to be gambling.
We introduced in this province, under the Progressive Conservatives in this particular case -- it doesn't matter who was in power, but it was that long ago -- a lottery system. It was a response, I guess, to the Irish Sweepstakes, where people used to purchase those tickets and everyone thought, "Well, the money is going overseas, so let's try to keep some of it here."
It was fairly low-key and it was fairly controlled to begin with. If we look at the situation in 1993, we have virtually every kind of lottery you can think of and we have all kinds of hucksterism on the part of the Ontario Lottery Corp encouraging people to spend as much money on lottery tickets as possible.
I guess I can't be too judgemental -- there may be a lot of people who would be very annoyed with me for doing so -- but I make this observation when I go into the corner store and watch how much money people spend on lottery tickets: I simply can't believe it. I suppose I tend to be somewhat a cautious person in those terms, but the amount of money that people are spending on gambling in this province is quite appalling. I believe that that money, in many cases, could be spent much more productively to enhance our economy and to enhance the quality of life of those individuals.
It is unlikely that these opportunities are going to be removed. I don't know of a party in the House that is committed to shutting down the lotteries. Because what happens is, once you have them, it's extremely difficult to get rid of them. That's one of the arguments I would make against the establishment of the casino in Windsor.
First of all, the bill allows for other casinos to be established, but the government will make the case that we're going to have one casino, a test case, a pilot project in Windsor and that we will judge after that whether there will be more. I think one can conclude indeed that the government intends to establish more, and I believe that once a casino is established in Windsor, it would be very difficult for any subsequent administration to shut that casino down. To speak very realistically, I think that would be the case.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I hope so.
Mr Bradley: I hear the member for Windsor intervening. I can tell him, if it were in St Catharines, I would be fighting it just as vehemently as I am. It has nothing to do with Windsor. I've told the people of St Catharines and the local authorities, if they apply for one, I will be opposing it. I have said this very publicly and the people of St Catharines know it and any promoters in that area know it. In St Catharines or anywhere else in the Niagara Peninsula, I would be as adamantly opposed as I am to this particular bill.
I think the lotteries are going to continue, quite obviously. By the way, I think something most members of the Legislature would not know until they get into government is there's no such thing as a dedicated lottery fund. Everyone thinks, including me, when I went into government, that there is a special fund set aside, that all of the money from Wintario goes into recreational and cultural projects. It doesn't. It all goes into the consolidated revenue fund.
I see the Minister of Labour smiling, because he probably had the same assumption. You get into government and you find out that's where everything goes, the consolidated revenue fund. So there isn't any dedicated fund out there for the money that is derived from gambling, from lotteries in this particular case.
My case against casino gambling then is that it is yet another and a more glamorous opportunity to gamble. Yes, people go to the corner store and they buy lottery tickets. Yes, people go to the racetrack, but at least they have to go to the racetrack and watch horses run around and place their wagers on them. But casino gambling is the most glamorous form of gambling, and I think that's why it is potentially the most dangerous of the gambling opportunities that this government can make available to those who live in this province and those who would visit this province.
I think there is no doubt that organized crime would move in. I know that the chief of police in Windsor is very concerned about this. I was reading an article on July 14 by Jacqueline Smrke in the Windsor Star. It said as follows: "Windsor police chief Jim Adkin says if he doesn't have the police resources he needs to combat crime, the doors of Windsor's casino shouldn't be opened.
"Adkin, addressing members of the Kiwanis club at a luncheon on Tuesday, made it clear to his audience he was opposed to the province's stalling tactics, and to anyone who says the figures he used to illustrate the need for more officers are inflated he says, 'The casino came to the community on the pretence it would remain safe. Until it can be properly policed, it shouldn't exist.'"
Then he goes on: "But given the increased crowds, traffic and patronage at local bars and businesses, Adkin said he needed them three weeks ago so they can be trained. But the chief doesn't want to see his officers pulled from other areas of the community because of the casino. He told the group he was concerned about the crime rates in the US, which indicate crime has risen 351% in the last 30 years, nine times faster than the population growth."
The article goes on to say the following: "The demands of Ontario's social contract are an added complication. City police were recently told by city council to slash $1.2 million from their 1993 budget because the province is cutting Windsor's municipal grants by $10 million. Adkin said earlier the cutbacks may force him to move officers from other various departments.
"'At the present time, the province is looking at pulling out as much as they can and leaving behind as little as they can. That's the business side to it,' he told one Kiwanis member."
We see that the police are concerned and those who have dealt with these circumstances in other jurisdictions are concerned. I look at, for instance, some people who have made comments about this in other areas, where they say, "Legalization of casino gambling would fuel a renaissance of organized crime." That's Robert Fuesel of the Chicago Crime Commission.
Another article which appeared in a series of articles in the Toronto Star went as follows: "Prostitution, muggings, drugs, hotel room theft and house break-ins are some of the crimes that places like Atlantic City have seen increase."
One of the most outspoken critics of incoming casinos is William Jahoda, a former mob overseer of gambling in Chicago. In a May 16, 1992, letter to the Chicago Crime Commission, Jahoda warned, "(Converging on Chicago)...will next be every pimp, burglar, drifter, car thief, booster, arsonist, counterfeiter, dope dealer, con man, hijacker, extortionist and worse." I am not describing the government caucus, but I am describing what this individual believes would happen if we have casino gambling in Ontario.
I also look on the fact that there are other people who have written some interesting things about casino gambling, and I'll get to those in just a moment.
I want to talk about the effect on local charities. Local charities are in a very difficult position in terms of raising funds. They see the competition that is taking place for those dollars. They know how hard it is to raise them in a difficult community. In effect, what's going to happen as a result is that we're going to see them getting less money. They run these little events from time to time. They're small events. The stakes are very low and the opportunities to squander a lot of money are quite absent. But they see this as competition. It'll happen in Windsor; it'll happen in other places.
It will also obviously hurt the horse racing industry. Representations have been made to various members of the Legislature by representatives of the horse racing industry, all of whom are quite concerned that in fact their industry is going to suffer an economic loss from the competition which arises from casino gambling. I think that's rather significant in itself.
I recall that Donald Trump, appearing on a television program on my favourite network, the CBC, on Sunday night on Venture, was interviewed by the interviewer, whose name escapes me right now.
Mr Charles Beer (York North): Robert Scully.
Mr Bradley: Robert Scully, who is very good. He's bilingual and interviews in both languages. Robert Scully interviewed Donald Trump, and I almost fell off my chair when I heard what Donald Trump had to say about casino gambling.
In effect, what Donald Trump said was that he would not recommend it to a community. He talked about the major problems that would arise and he certainly wouldn't want to recommend it in a community in which he lived. Donald Trump is one of the people who would like to run the casino in Windsor, so if he is saying that, you know there are real problems.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I've been listening to the speech of my colleague from St Catharines. Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, this is an extremely important debate. It's an extremely important bill. The member for St Catharines is one of the most informed people in this Legislature, if not the most.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr Sorbara: I would ask you, sir, to advise the members on the government side if they might do him the courtesy --
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It's not a point of order.
1750
Mr Bradley: Continuing my remarks, because I mentioned there were other people who would be involved in this, I would like to mention Pierre Berton. Pierre Berton has long been known as certainly sympathetic to the New Democratic Party, perhaps a member of the New Democratic Party. An eminent social historian, my friend from York Centre tells me we should classify him as. He had the following to say in a July 17 article in the Toronto Star:
"Anyone who has read the Star's recent four-part series on the Ontario government's plans for a casino society, cannot help but be struck by the incredible naïveté of the NDP members of the Legislature.
"Wet behind the ears, but in power as a result of an unexpected provincial landslide, these innocents have swallowed whole the myth of a squeaky-clean cash cow that will help reduce the appalling deficit that threatens to beggar the province.
"Even Gambling Bob, who once declared (in opposition) that legalized gambling was 'a tax on the poor,' has climbed aboard the bandwagon.
"Apparently, the NDP has decided against all evidence that gambling will be squeaky clean in Windsor and will attract hordes of well-heeled American tourists, even though it isn't going to be much fun. No dice, no booze, no Las Vegas glitz. A very Canadian Sodom....
"That's the Canadian way, brought to you by the same wonderful folks who balked at Sunday shopping.
"How long do the sophomores at Queen's Park think all this is going to last? Don't they understand the kind of big-money pressure they're going to face? How long before this government or its successor buckles under?
"Do they really believe there'll be no Las Vegas-type strip in Windsor's future? How long before one casino becomes two casinos, and then three, or four? If one casino brings in $140 million a year, why not a dozen -- and balance the budget?
"These things have a habit of proliferating. When booze was first introduced in Ontario, only three saloons were allowed in Toronto and we were assured that control would be strict. Today there are 3,549; any corner bistro can get a license. When Mafia enforcers beat a local gambler into insensibility in the old Town Tavern, it didn't stop the LLBO from renewing the license of what was clearly a mob hangout. As for lotteries: We started with one; now they're everywhere.
"Even if the $140-million figure is correct, has the government counted the real cost in increased police forces and social services? The Star has documented Atlantic City's experience -- increased prostitution, muggings, loan-sharking, drugs, hotel theft, and house break-ins. And, in spite of all the bright promises when casinos opened, the city looks like 'Dresden after World War II.'
"The good burghers of Windsor are quickly going to discover that gamblers are going to want 'booze, broads,' and what has been called 'an engulfing entertainment experience,' if they are going to be lured across the river.
"With that, of course, comes the mob.
"Marilyn Churley, a real naïf, is the minister of record here, yet she confesses, artlessly, that she's never been in a casino, never gambled, never even bought a lottery ticket, and knows scarcely anything about beautiful downtown Windsor. She was opposed to gambling at the Ex, but now supports this Faustian bargain.
"Does Ms Churley really believe that organized crime can be kept out of the casino business in Canada? Anyone who believes that, as the Duke of Wellington said, will believe anything.
"Oh sure, they're going to check the 'background' of everybody involved with casinos in Ontario. You bet; and the Great Pumpkin rises every Hallowe'en.
"The hotel unions in both Vegas and Atlantic City are mob-controlled. The thugs don't have to own the casinos, all they have to do is control the unions and the services -- laundry, food, and, of course, the slot machines, which they service.
"We know that video poker is mob-controlled. How long before we hear a demand for video lottery terminals in the casino cities of the future?
"The most sickening aspect of this unseemly rush to turn Ontario into a something-for-nothing society, is the stand taken by the Art Gallery of Windsor.
"So eager was the government to get the roulette wheels whirling that it has managed to convince the gallery to turn over its facilities, lock, stock and sculptures, to the casino management.
"What a symbol for the '90s! The little white ball begins to click on the stroke of midnight 1993, while the gallery hustles about trying to find temporary quarters to display some of its paintings.
"Talk about selling your soul for a mess of pottage! Well, at least we know what our priorities are in this province."
The reason I quoted that at length is that Pierre Berton is a very respected writer, a very respected social commentator, and I thought it was worthy of sharing with members of this House his views on this subject.
Now, I want to talk about a couple of other aspects of this. I, along with some members here, met with a Tory MLA from Nova Scotia who was concerned about video lottery terminals, and along with the member for Victoria-Haliburton, discussed the matter in some depth of the gambling problem in Nova Scotia.
This Tory, I believe, was the chair of the PC caucus in Nova Scotia and had left the caucus as a result of this particular initiative on the part of that government. I thought what he talked about was rather revealing in terms of the experience of Nova Scotia, and I could certainly see that happening here.
I was impressed by the report by Howard Hampton, who is now our Minister of Natural Resources, when he was, I think, a legal student, who wrote a report about the damage that casino gambling can cause to any particular society. I agreed with Howard Hampton, as he was known in those days, now the member for Rainy River, Minister of Natural Resources.
I look at the fact that it's very difficult for a member to leave a political party for any particular reason and I look at the fact that the member for Victoria-Haliburton, although he may be discontented with the government for other reasons, actually saw this particular issue as being very significant, because when he ran as a New Democrat and was elected as a New Democrat, he knew that the history of the party, the CCF and then the New Democratic Party, was one which suggested very strongly that the NDP would be opposed to casino gambling. Indeed, I expect that was the main reason he left the government caucus and all the opportunities that arise from being part of a government caucus.
I suspect there are a number of members over there today on the government side who are opposed to casino gambling. I know my friend and long-time colleague Mel Swart, former MLA, as he would call himself, from Welland-Thorold, was adamantly opposed to casino gambling as well. So I hope there will be, among the members of the Legislature on the government side, a rethinking.
I hope, if this does pass -- and the government has the numbers to pass it -- that when the government hears the representations made by various people in committee as the committee travels around the province, it will withdraw the bill and decide that it isn't a good thing for this province and for its people.
The reason we're in this is that the government is desperate for funds, and when it's desperate for funds, when the economy has been mismanaged to the extent it has, governments do desperate things. And it appears to be very attractive. The only argument that has some justification, some would say, is the economic argument: It will be good for the provincial coffers.
I can tell you it's good only as long as you're the only game in town. If we have one in Niagara Falls, I can assure you New York state will permit one right across the border. If we have one in Windsor, it'll be approved in the city of Detroit. If we have one in any border area, you can be assured that the adjacent jurisdiction will also be prepared to initiate another project to compete with it.
The last argument I want to make, because there was a good article by Richard Brennan on July 9, 1993, in the Windsor Star -- I'm not going to quote all the way from it, but I think it's worthy of members to take the time to read this particular article, because it contains a lot of good information.
I want to also look at what Tom Walkom has to say about this. Certainly, I could never define him as a capital-L Liberal or a capital-P PC. I would say that he's a New Democrat of the old style or a CCFer of the old style. He had the following to say about casino gambling:
"Gambling on Casinos a Sign of Desperation.
"What's so very sad about Ontario's decision to introduce casino gambling is a sense of social desperation that lurks behind it. When a government encourages its citizens to gamble in order to produce revenue for its treasury, it is admitting defeat.
"It is saying that society is no longer able in an open and democratic way to tax itself for the services it wants. It is conceding that government has lost the moral authority to convince taxpayers that if they want public goods such as roads and health care they must be willing to pay for them.
"It is saying instead that the only way to pry more money from the electorate is to con it, to appeal to its cupidity rather than to its sense of rational self-interest. So it encourages gambling and takes a hefty cut.
"Gambling is a con. On average, the gambler can't get out what he puts in. Odds are against him. This is how gambling concerns make money.
"Officially, the Windsor casino is a pilot project, but almost certainly there will be more. The government has had requests from Indian reserves and other hard-hit border cities. The pressure is intense."
Indeed, the pressure is intense. But despite that pressure, I want to appeal to the members of the government caucus and to the cabinet to withdraw the bill, to not proceed with it this afternoon, and at the very least, if it's adamantly in favour of moving forward, to ensure that after hearing the good arguments in committee, the government will then withdraw. I will not call it a retreat; I will say it is simply a very wise decision on the part of a government that might be listening.
Mr Stockwell: I just want to say that the comments made by the member for St Catharines were, I thought, rather thoughtful and brought forth the Treasurer who at one point was screaming, "The sky is falling." I had to correct him. It had in fact fallen many months ago. But I want to say that September 6, 1990, was the day the sky fell for most people in the province of Ontario.
It was a good speech and it just outlined the concerns that some people in this province have with respect to this piece of legislation.
Although there are some who would support this kind of endeavour, it seems to me that those people who would have supported this particular motion knew they had no time with this government to have any hope of getting it endorsed or passed into legislation, so I think they're rather shocked to see it.
The very disappointed ones are the ones who would never have thought in a million years that this kind of legislation would come forward. They would think that this government, the NDP government they voted for, would never in a million years have come forward with legislation that allowed casino gambling, considering its past record, considering its attack on the lottery system. Heck, a lottery that costs a buck and you can win a million dollars was "a tax on the poor." That was "a tax on the poor."
I don't know what kind of comments, what kind of slogans they would've come up with in opposition, but it would've been unbelievable. The attack would've been unrelenting from this side of the House if it were a different government introducing this kind of motion.
Mr Speaker, considering it is 6 of the clock, and it's time for us to adjourn this debate, I would do just that: I would simply adjourn the debate.
Mr Drainville: I'm glad to get up and to speak to the remarks that have been made by the honourable member for St Catharines. There's no question that the concerns he raised in his address to the House are concerns that have been raised by people across the province of Ontario.
The honourable member for St Catharines has shown a great interest in the kind of legislation which helps to promote family life. In fact, if we look at the kinds of things he supported in this House -- he was against Bill 38, the Sunday shopping bill -- he has tried to foster the possibility that families can have time together and also have opportunities so they can prosper as families, that the social fabric of the province will continue to be a good social fabric.
Many petitions have been brought before this House. As I indicated the other day, I have brought 15,000 petitions from across Ontario, and I know many members in the House have brought many hundreds and thousands more of petitions. So it is that today, I want to affirm what the honourable member for St Catharines has said. I also want to point out one point that he made in his very good speech, and that is that casino gambling and other forms of gambling -- thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make these remarks.
The Speaker: The government House leader.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I'd like to just take a moment to see whether there's consent to sit past 6 o'clock.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Hon Mr Charlton: Perhaps I can deal with the business for next week before we adjourn.
Interjections.
The Speaker: One thing at a time. First, I will test the House to determine if we may sit past 6 of the clock. Is there unanimous consent to sit beyond 6 of the clock? I heard at least one no and therefore we do not sit beyond 6 of the clock. Is there a business statement?
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On Tuesday, we'd like to resume the debate on Bill 8 and then move to the debate on Bill 26 and the rest of the business for next week will be announced as we go.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It being beyond 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned.
The House adjourned at 1805.