Wednesday 8 September 1993

Ontario Casino Corporation Act, 1993, Bill 8


*Chair / Président: Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/

Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND)

*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)

Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L)

*Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)

Cousens, W. Donald (Markham PC)

Jamison, Norm (Norfolk ND)

*Kwinter, Monte (Wilson Heights L)

*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)

*Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND)

North, Peter (Elgin ND)

*Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND) for Mr Wiseman

Eves, Ernie L. (Parry Sound PC) for Mr Cousens

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Jamison

McClelland, Carman (Brampton North/-Nord L) for Mrs Caplan

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations:

Korey, Audrey, counsel, casino project

Cooper, Jerry, director, legal services

Mundy, Jim, project team officer, casino project

Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia

Staff / Personnel:

Murray, Paul, research officer, Legislative Research Service

Wood, Michael, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1014 in the Huron Room, Macdonald Block, Toronto.


Consideration 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 Chair (Mr Paul Johnson): Today we are immediately moving into clause-by-clause on Bill 8. Does anyone at this time have any comments?

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Just out of courtesy, I'd like to advise you and the clerk that I do have another draft amendment, which would be numbered subsection 13(3). I have it in draft form. I'll provide that for you as soon as possible. I only have it in hand-written form at the present time.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): In regard to our amendment to subsection 19(1.1), we're rewording that amendment. We'll have that to you shortly as well.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm just curious. If this is going to be a crown agency, will it be schedule 1, 2, 3 or 4?

Ms Audrey Korey: I'm Audrey Korey, counsel to the casino project. Subject to what Management Board decides, as it's their ultimate decision, we envisage the crown corporation as a schedule 2 agency by reason of its commercial nature.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I understand that the Liberals have a preamble motion that actually would have to be dealt with first because it would come before section 1 of the bill.

I've been advised by the clerk, and I'll share this information with the committee members, that with regard to a preamble -- and this is from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms -- it says, "Where the bill, as introduced, does not contain a preamble, it is not competent for the committee to introduce one." That's section 705 of Beauchesne's.

I guess that doesn't mean that at any time, if it's agreed to by the committee, it couldn't be, but I just wanted to mention that.

Mr McClelland: Mr Chairman, we have in front of us a preamble proposed by the official opposition.

After discussion with the parliamentary assistant, he has agreed to accept part of it. I want to say for the record that what we feel is the substantive portion of it, if you will, the meat of the preamble contained in 3(i) and (ii), is not acceptable to the parliamentary assistant. Notwithstanding that, I suppose a piece of the pie is better than none, but I want to put on the record that we really feel the substance and the teeth of the preamble, the substantive element of it, is being rejected by the government.

Notwithstanding that, I'm prepared, with the indulgence of the committee members and you, Mr Chairman, to read into the record the preamble that we propose. I don't want to presume, but I think the parliamentary assistant will respond accordingly and indicate the portion that is not acceptable and his reasons for that. I believe we have agreement with the third party at least to go that far.

In terms of the preamble, I move that the following preamble be added to the bill:

"The following are the purposes of this act:

"1. to enhance the economic development of certain regions of the province,

"2. to generate revenues for the province and for its cities, regions and municipalities,

"3. to ensure that any measures taken in accordance with these principles are undertaken for the public good and in the best interests of the public, and that

"(i) the best interests of the public shall always prevail over financial, monetary or revenue considerations,

"(ii) any casinos operated pursuant to this act shall pay all costs associated with their operation, including, but not limited to, the full costs of policing, treatment for pathological gamblers and credit counselling."

That is the amendment as we would submit it.

Mr Duignan: What we kind of agreed to yesterday was in fact, and again I would read, "1. to enhance the economic development of certain regions of the province," and again, bearing on what happened afterwards, to say, "to generate revenues for the province," and "3. to ensure any measures taken in accordance with these principles are undertaken for the public good and in the best interests of the public." Full stop. That would be the portion that we would be prepared to accept.

The Chair: Mr Duignan, you will have to read --

Mr Duignan: The whole thing?

The Chair: No, no, Mr Duignan. You'll have to read it as an amendment to the amendment, and read only that part which you wish to remain.

Mr Duignan: Being new to this process, I appreciate the direction.

I move that the following preamble be added to the bill:

"The following are the purposes of this act:

"1. to enhance the economic development of certain regions of the province,

"2. to generate revenues for the province,

"3. to ensure that any measures taken in accordance with these principles are undertaken for the public good and in the best interests of the public."


Mr McClelland: I just want to reiterate the point I made in my introductory comments, Mr Chairman. It seems to me and to certain of my colleagues in opposition that it's all well and good to make some esoteric statements, but if you don't add any substance to it in terms of the intent in the remedial provisions or remedial concept behind the preamble and the fact that we're looking for some sort of balance and a sense of security in terms of the social implications, that the removal of 3(i) and (ii) render the preamble -- I won't say non-effectual, but certainly water it down to a point where one wonders if it has any real meaning.

Having said that, I'll accept the position, regrettably, of the parliamentary assistant and the government. I don't know if I can say anything more other than it seems to me what you're doing is sort of giving with one hand and taking away with the other, and at the end of the day, the preamble is rendered meaningless. But so be it. That's the decision of the government.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): We would agree to the amendment because, as Carman said, it's better than nothing. But I would like to point out that one of the things that we've been saying, and I think both opposition parties have said this throughout the hearings, was that the reason this was done was to generate revenue, and by taking out "for the province and..." -- of course, a lot of regions and municipalities think they're going to benefit. By taking that portion out, it reinforces that the government does not care about the revenues to cities, regions and municipalities, only its own revenue, and it's a little ironic that that portion it wants to take out.

Finally, the other portion, 3(i), that they want to take out is something that I think is very simple: "the best interests of the public shall always prevail over financial, monetary or revenue considerations." I think, if I'm not mistaken, I've heard the government say that in the statements, but when it comes to entrenching it in the bill, it doesn't want to do it. I say this in a non-partisan sense: When politicians don't want to put something in, it's because they don't necessarily believe in it, no matter what happens with the rhetoric.

The final portion again: "any casinos operated pursuant to this act shall pay all costs associated with their operation, including, but not limited to, the full costs of policing...." As you know, we're in a major disagreement on the cost of policing over Windsor. This, I think, would settle the issue. I think we've heard from the parliamentary assistant on numerous occasions -- I could almost repeat it verbatim -- that they will pay all the costs of policing when they can agree to it. This just entrenches it in the bill and makes what the parliamentary assistant I know has said on numerous occasions throughout the hearing a part of the bill. So when you say it in the hearings and then want to take it out in the preamble, it makes somebody very suspicious that the government doesn't really fully intend, notwithstanding the assurances, to pay the full cost of policing.

So I guess the bottom line is that the preamble will be better than nothing, but I think the full motion would have been something that I would rather have supported, and I would support the full Liberal motion. Failing that, we'll go to our second-best, which would be the government's option.

Mr Duignan: Just on a couple of points, we have stated -- Mr Carr's quite correct -- that we will pay any policing costs that are necessary for the operation of the casino project in Windsor.

Also, too, the whole question of dealing with problem gamblers etc will be dealt with in another manner, but it's also unfair to simply ask the casino project to pay for the full costs in relation to problem gamblers when this situation has existed for many years, before even the thought of a casino ever came to Ontario. Why have the casino pay for the full cost when indeed the other forms of gambling in this province also should be prepared to pay some of the costs for the prevention, education and treatment of this particular problem?

Mr Carr: One last point, Mr Chairman. I think it's quite right that if the government were to come out with a very clear statement, something that would be binding on it -- I think the point's well taken that casinos shouldn't bear the full responsibility for all the gambling, but I would submit to you that this gambling is taking it one step further, where we're going to need a tremendous increase.

I understand what the government's saying, that the casinos shouldn't pay all the costs, but with not having anything entrenched in legislation, the fear is that it will be a nice statement that it's going to deal with the gamblers and the counselling but that it won't get done. I know the parliamentary assistant probably can announce it today, and the government surely will. If at some other point they were prepared to announce a program or funding or something they were going to do, through whatever ministry, then I think the people of this province would feel much better.

We'll take the parliamentary assistant at his word that there will be something coming later, that the government will deal with the whole issue of gambling addiction and credit counselling and so on. We in the opposition would just like to see it entrenched because there is no other means of doing that right now, but again we will take the parliamentary assistant at his word, and I'm sure somewhere down the road some ministry will make an announcement on that. We'd just feel a little safer if it was in the legislation.

Mr Duignan: In regard to 3(i), "the best interests of the public," as you know, we will be establishing a committee to monitor the social, economic and law enforcement impacts of the Windsor region, and it will of course make recommendations to the minister and to the corporation as well, so that aspect is being looked at by the establishment of an independent committee.

Mr Carr: Then what is the problem with entrenching? If you're going to be doing it, why wouldn't you like to see it in the legislation? I know you're going to be doing it through the committee and we're going to get to that amendment. If we're doing it anyway, why can't we have that in there, which is a further assurance? Is there any legal reason? If you're going to do it anyway, why can't we put it in? I don't know if you have an answer.

Mr Duignan: I don't particularly have an answer, except that we feel it's better addressed in dealing with a particular section that deals with that issue rather than a general statement of principle.

The Chair: Presently, the amendment, as amended, deletes all the words following "province" in paragraph 2 and all the words following "public" in paragraph 3 of the preamble.

Shall the amended amendment, now called the preamble, carry? Carried.

I've just been clarified by the clerk with regard to procedure. We have two votes to take place here. We have to vote on the amendment to the amendment, and then we have to vote on the amendment as amended.

Shall the amendment to the amendment carry? Agreed.

Shall the amendment, as amended, carry? Agreed.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Mr Chairman, I don't think that's right. I think what you have to do is you've got to vote on the amendment, and the amendment obviously did not carry because it was amended, and then you've got a vote on the amendment to the amendment.

Mr Duignan: I think you vote on the amendment to the amendment first and if the amendment to the amendment carries, then I think that alters the original amendment.


Mr Kwinter: Then I'm saying, why did we have two votes?

The Chair: Procedurally, I believe we have to deal with the amendment to the amendment first, and then the amendment, as it is amended, second, which is what we just did. As I heard, the committee agreed that the amendment to the amendment would carry and then the amendment, as amended, likewise would carry.

Mr Kwinter: If you vote for the amendment to the amendment, then you voted for it. Why are you voting for it a second time?

The Chair: Because, as I understand it, that's part of the procedure. I'm under advisement, as you know, Mr Kwinter, to the clerk. You have to deal with the amendment to the amendment first and agree to that; otherwise, you haven't got an amended amendment to deal with. I hope you don't ask me to repeat that. Are you okay with that, Mr Kwinter?

Mr Kwinter: I've just been advised by counsel that I was correct; your counsel, not my counsel.

The Chair: Mr Michael Wood, legislative counsel, would like to make a comment with regard to the preamble, which we are almost finished with.

Mr Michael Wood: I make this comment simply because it concerns drafting style. A preamble is usually a means whereby certain facts are recited or certain agreements are recited, and it's my opinion that this would be more properly structured as a purpose section of the bill, which would be inserted as 1.1 following the definitions and would read, "The purposes of this act are a, b, c." There would not be any change in the wording.

Mr McClelland: I'd be happy to take counsel's direction on that, to tidy it up from a drafter's point of view. Whatever amendments are necessarily moved, I'll leave it in the good hands of the parliamentary assistant. We'll support it.

The Chair: That advice by legislative counsel is appreciated. It appears that it's agreeable to the members of the committee. Is there anyone who has any objection to that? Seeing none, then what we've called the preamble will be inserted in the bill where it's appropriate, at the beginning of the bill.

Mr Carr: I know we've got a couple of lawyers here who are consulting before we go ahead. The government agrees with that as well?

Mr Duignan: Yes.

Mr Carr: Okay, I just wanted to make sure.

The Chair: We haven't voted to put it in as 1.1 of the bill, but we did have unanimous consent, so that's on the record.

Now we will proceed to section 1 of the bill. Is there any discussion?

Mr Duignan: We have an amendment on subsection 1(2); that's an addition to the section.

I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:


"(2) The minister responsible for the administration of this act shall not be the minister responsible for the administration of the Gaming Control Act, 1992."

We've always said all along that it was the intention of our government that the minister responsible for the corporation would indeed be different from the minister responsible for the commission. We wanted to enshrine that in the legislation.

Mr Kwinter: I have a couple of comments. First, I personally don't think section 1 is the appropriate place to be discussing this particular part, because it doesn't follow on what you're talking about. You're talking about the act, you're talking about "casino," "corporation," "game of chance." It would seem to me that, given the specifics of this particular motion or the intent, it probably should be a section by itself.

The other thing is that I have a little difficulty with a negative proposal. I would be a lot happier saying, "The minister responsible for the administration of this act shall be..." and name that person, rather than who it shouldn't be. By saying who it shouldn't be, that leaves it wide open to be anybody who walks in off the street.

It would seem to me that if you're proposing an act to regulate a specific activity and there's a minister who is going to be responsible, that should be determined by the government before the act is passed so that we know who it is, not who it isn't. It just seems to me to be a strange way of writing legislation, saying that the minister shall not be this person but not saying who it should be. There are lots of things you say it can't be, but that's not what we're interested in. We want to know, who is the minister responsible for this act, not who isn't responsible. I wouldn't mind hearing from the parliamentary assistant about that.

Mr Duignan: Again, Mr Kwinter, this addition to this particular part of the act makes it very clear. It was always our intention that it would be a different minister. All this simply does is make it clear that it will be a different minister responsible for the administration of the act from the minister responsible for the administration of the Gaming Control Act. What minister that is hasn't been determined yet. The Lieutenant Governor in Council appoints ministers under the Executive Council Act, and we were simply following that procedure.

Mr Kwinter: It would seem to me that the government has had ample opportunity to decide that it's going ahead with a particular initiative. Bill 8 has not come sort of in a brown envelope: We've known about it for some time, we've had hearings, the government has looked at it. You would think that at this time in the evolution of this particular initiative, they would have determined who is going to be looking after it. It would seem to me the proper place in the bill to say, "This is the minister responsible." Let me give you an example. Once this bill is passed and someone from another jurisdiction, someone who, for whatever reason, has reason to look at this particular initiative and wants to know who the minister responsible is, if they go to the act, they can't find out who is responsible. All they can find out is who it isn't, but they can't find who it is.

That determination is going to have to be made. It doesn't require rocket scientists to figure out how to do it. The Premier and his policy and priorities committee just have to have it as an agenda item and say, "Who do we think should properly look after this?" and the decision is made. Once that decision is made, it should be put into the act that this is the minister responsible, so that the general public or anybody who has an interest in this will know who the minister is who is responsible for this particular legislation. I just think it's bad form not to have that in there, to have something saying, "This is who it isn't," but not who it is.

Mr Duignan: Maybe I'll refer the question to Mr Jerry Cooper, legal services to the ministry.

Mr Jerry Cooper: If I could assist, the principle we're trying to enshrine, as Mr Duignan said, is to ensure that the responsibilities of the two acts lie with different ministries. It really wouldn't matter if we said right now and specified who the minister responsible for the administration of the Ontario Casino Corporation Act would be, because it is open under the Executive Council Act for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to transfer responsibilities for acts to any minister at any time, and that has been done from time to time. It wouldn't give the certainty that Mr Kwinter mentioned.

Mr Kwinter: I take your point, Mr Cooper. The concern I have is that the wording of this particular amendment, as I say, has a negative or a reverse-onus implication. I would be a lot happier if the wording was amended to spell out that the administration of the Gaming Control Act and the administration of the Ontario Casino Corporation Act shall be the responsibility of two different ministers so that it is spelled out and we know exactly what it's saying.


In my reading of this, I get the feeling that it tells you it's not going to be this guy, but it doesn't say anything else about it, whereas I'd be a little happier if it was on a positive thing saying that these two acts, by nature of this particular piece of legislation, provide that two separate ministries will be responsible for the adminstration. That would certainly, I think, give a more positive slant to it.

Mr Duignan: I suggest we stand down this amendment till we explore that possibility, Mr Kwinter.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point, I share some of Mr Kwinter's concerns. I think it definitely should be a separate section of the bill. Section 1 is called the definitions section and I think it should have its own section. I would agree that if the government would agree to relook at this section, I think it could be put in a much more positive light than it is currently drafted in.

Mr Duignan: Legislative counsel has a suggestion.

Mr Michael Wood: Yes, it would be possible to reword this. Maybe you would want to take some time first to discuss this before you propose a wording.

Mr Duignan: We are quite willing to stand it down at this point and come back to it at a later point.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Chairman, I didn't hear a comment about my first suggestion, that this be made a separate item of the bill and that I don't think it's appropriate to have it where it is.

Mr Duignan: We have no problem with that either.

Mr Carr: Just for clarification to the members of the committee -- and I appreciate the parliamentary assistant will stand this down, so I don't want to belabour the point -- maybe you could just give us the couple of ministries you're looking at. Is it the Finance ministry? Is it to do with Culture, Tourism and Recreation; Economic Development and Trade; financial institutions? It would be helpful, I think, for the members to know: Even if you can narrow it down to two or three ministries, what are you looking at right now? Which ministries do you propose to put it under?

Mr Duignan: That's a bit of a loaded question. Not being the Lieutenant Governor in Council, it's hard for me to make that determination at this time.

Mr Carr: What would you recommend to the cabinet when they ask you what you think? In other words, you don't really know?

Mr Duignan: I think the preamble certainly gives some direction. Again, speaking from a very, very personal point of view and not from any other point of view, I would suspect maybe the Ministry of Finance.

The Chair: Before we proceed, I'd like to know at this point in time if the parliamentary assistant could advise the Chair as to where this amendment might be placed in the bill. If it's going to be placed somewhere else in the bill, then we can proceed with section 1. If your plan is to continue to place it in section 1, then we have to stand all of section 1 down at this time.

Mr Duignan: We have no problem making this a different section of the bill. To save time, why don't we stand down section 1 till we get this sorted out?

The Chair: Okay, very good.

Section 2 of the bill: Any discussion on section 2?

Mr Duignan: Very briefly, Mr Chairman, section 2 basically establishes the corporation to conduct and manage casinos and makes it an agent of the province. That's basically the function of section 2 of the bill: establishing the corporation.

The Chair: Shall section 2 of the bill carry? Agreed.

Section 3: Mr Duignan, you had some comments?

Mr Duignan: Normally corporations which are owned 100% by the crown do not have share capital. Instead of shareholders they have members of boards of directors of the corporation. This particular section has standard provisions relating to crown corporations and the remuneration expenses are basically in accordance with the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It will set the remuneration of the members of the board of directors.

Mr Phillips: I think we have an amendment here, if I'm not mistaken.

The Chair: As a matter of fact, you do. I apologize for that. There's a Liberal motion.

Mr Phillips: I move that section 3(1) of the bill be amended by adding the words "including representatives of the council of each city, municipality or region in which a casino is located, as required by the regulations made under this act."

I think we all understand and appreciate that for the individual communities that will be receiving a casino it's going to have a fairly major impact on them. There's always a concern in any municipality that in something this significant they would want to have an opportunity for fairly ongoing and direct input. It isn't as if this is going to be a province-wide thing; this is going to be five or six or seven of these things located in specific communities. I think it's a way to ensure that the local community feels it has ongoing input into it to minimize the potential problems and to ensure that that voice is heard quite directly as opposed to, I think, the ongoing concern that we hear right around the province that Queen's Park thinks it knows best.

Mr Duignan: Again, not being the Lieutenant Governor in Council, I have no idea who will be appointed to the board of directors of the corporation, but I would suspect that most probably it would be a local member appointed from the Windsor area. Also, the concerns raised by Mr Phillips are being addressed in amendments under section 6(5) of the act, which will establish an independent committee to monitor the various aspects of the community and make recommendations both to the corporation and to the minister.

Mr Eves: Is it the intention that there be one representative from each municipal council?

Mr Phillips: Yes.

Mr Eves: I'm prepared to support that amendment. It's not contrary to the intent of section 3, which says that there shall be not fewer than five, as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may from time to time determine, and I don't see any problem with every municipality that happens to have a casino now or in the future having one representative on the corporation.

I do take the parliamentary assistant's point that the government is attempting to address this by way of an advisory committee, which was asked for by several representatives from Windsor. However, several also directly asked -- I believe the mayor and I believe Councillor Duncan, to name two -- not only for the city of Windsor but for any other municipalities where there may be a casino in the future, that they be allowed to have a representative on the corporation board. I would be supportive of that amendment.


Mr Carr: I think the parliamentary assistant makes a point that the Lieutenant Governor may appoint somebody from the local municipality. This just says that they have to. As the people who are responsible for legislating this piece of legislation, I think it would be not unreasonable to expect that somebody from the municipality or the region sit on the corporation.

All this is doing is putting into the bill what the government says it intends to do anyway. When you don't want to do it, it lets people suspect that maybe it isn't going to happen. So I can't see why the government wouldn't support this motion.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Could the parliamentary assistant tell me whether every community that has a racetrack has a member on the Ontario Racing Commission?

Mr Duignan: The simple answer to that is no.

Mr McClelland: Accepting in good faith your statement on the intent of the government, the inclusion of an amendment of this nature would implicitly indicate that a municipality would have some input as to who that individual be, as opposed to a decision of cabinet. It wouldn't necessarily indicate that, but I think it might be implicit that the city would be consulted.

I suppose your response would be that the city will be consulted in any event. I think Mr Carr has made the point that it adds legislative assurance to the statements made by yourself on behalf of the government.

The Chair: Mr Duignan, any comment?

Mr Duignan: No comment.

The Chair: Shall the Liberal amendment carry? The amendment is lost.

Mr McClelland: Can I have a recorded vote on that, please, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr McClelland: Thanks kindly.

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): All those in favour?


Carr, Eves, Kwinter, McClelland, Phillips.

Clerk of the Committee: All those opposed?


Duignan, Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, Sutherland.

Clerk of the Committee: Tie vote.

The Chair: The amendment's lost.

Mr McClelland: The pressure's on. You earned your $9,000 a year for it, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: I get nothing for this job, Mr McClelland, let me tell you. It's most appreciated that the committee members understand the difficulty that the Chair has with the circumstances under which he is Chairman of the committee.

Shall section 3 carry? Carried.

Mr McClelland: I don't want to stir up the pigeons, so to speak, Mr Chairman, but the parliamentary assistant is a member of this committee, is he?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr McClelland: He's been substituted on?

The Chair: Yes, he has. He was substituted.

Mr McClelland: Thanks very much.

The Chair: But thank you for inquiring.

Mr McClelland: No, I appreciate that.

Mr Eves: We are going to have Mr Drainville in here to vote.

Mr Sutherland: He can't. He has to officially resign today if the writ is dropped, doesn't he?

The Chair: Order. Any discussion on section 4?

Mr Duignan: We have no amendments to section 4. Section 4 sets out the objects of the corporation. Basically, that is to conduct and manage games of chance. The corporation must direct any casino operator as its agent in all but the everyday running of the casino.

Also, the corporation, under (b), must comply with all the rules as set out in the legislation; in (c), the objective here is to provide for casino operations, which could be through its own employees or providing for an outside operator. The objective of clause (d) is to provide for the operation of other businesses in the casino complex, which are a hotel, restaurant or entertainment facility or even gaming supply services. Basically, what this section does is to establish the objects of the corporation.

Mr Phillips: I'm sure this was asked earlier and my apologies, but just so I understand down the road the role of this corporation, if I'm in the business of supplying wheels and cards and that sort of thing, and I may be supplying some to casinos and some to non-casinos, does my business come under the purview of the corporation?

Mr Duignan: I didn't quite get the question.

Mr Phillips: Under clause 4(d) the corporation can conduct and manage casinos, but also I presume can run businesses that provide wheels and any other game of chance both to casinos and to non-casinos, is that right? Maybe this was already answered in earlier sessions.

Mr Duignan: What you're saying is that the crown corporation, under clause 4(d), could in fact operate the hotel, entertainment facilities and supply services as well to the casino.

Mr Phillips: I assume that this corporation has a pretty wide mandate. Under "casinos," the definition is "games of chance." Then under clause (d), it could operate quite a wide-ranging set of businesses, I gather.

Mr Duignan: Yes, which it considers reasonably related to the operation of a casino.

Mr Phillips: Okay. So we shouldn't be surprised if the corporation got into businesses that dealt with the casinos and other non-casino businesses.

Mr Duignan: It wouldn't be reasonably related to operating a casino.

Mr Kwinter: On the same point: The reasonableness has to deal with "related to a casino," not that they have to be reasonable in their operations. For example, there's a whole range of services, and some of them illegal, that could be perceived to be reasonably related to a casino operation. Under this section, it provides that the corporation may get into that kind of business.

Mr Duignan: Section 4 states "reasonably related to operating a casino."

Mr Kwinter: Yes, but the point I'm making is that they're not saying they have to be reasonable in their approach; it has to be reasonably related. That means that all kinds of things that could be reasonably related are covered, but it doesn't state that the corporation has to be reasonable in its approach. This is my point.

Mr Phillips: I'm trying to get a feeling of five years from now, when the corporation is up and running, what its scope of business will be, and if I'm on the board of directors of this corporation, what businesses this permits me to get into. I presume that some of the people who came before us who provide gaming devices to casinos and non-casinos, that's the kind of business this corporation could presumably get into.


Mr Duignan: Again, Mr Phillips, the corporation will not be in the business of supplying services to charitable casinos. The act does say "reasonably related" to operation of "a casino, including any business that offers goods or services to persons who play games of chance in a casino." The corporation's not going to get into the business of doing supplies to casinos.

Mr Phillips: Say that again.

Mr Duignan: Casinos are defined in section 1 of the act, "`Casino' means a place which is kept for the purpose of playing games of chance."

Mr Phillips: I understand that.

Mr Duignan: Games of chance are defined later in the bill.

Mr Kwinter: Let me give an example. Under the provisions of clause (d) of this section, it is possible for the corporation to get involved with the manufacturing of slot machines, and I don't think anybody would think that was not a reasonable service to provide to a casino. The minute it gets involved in the manufacturing of slot machines and a lot of things like that, you then expand what I think is the scope of this particular act and the scope of this particular corporation.

That is where the concern is. Let's put it in the words of the act: "operation of any business that it considers reasonably related to operating a casino." That could be everything from providing food services outside, for providing all of these things; it's open-ended. That is the point: the reasonableness does not pertain to the reasonableness of the corporation, it pertains to what could be considered related to operating a casino.

Is that the intent, that this corporation is open-ended to get involved in all of these other activities, or is it not? Is it to be limited to the regulation of the casino? That is the point we're discussing.

Ms Korey: With regard to Mr Kwinter's concern, I understand the concern as being that the corporation could get into a business that would have it supplying things outside of the casino that we're talking about, the type of casino that we're talking about here in these hearings. I might point out, though, as Mr Duignan has already pointed out, that "casino" means a place which is kept for the purpose of playing a game of chance or games of chance; "game of chance" is further defined to mean "a lottery scheme conducted and managed by the Ontario Casino Corporation on behalf of the government of Ontario under the authority of paragraph 207(1)(a) of the Criminal Code," which allows governments to conduct and manage lottery schemes.

In that case, when you look at 4(d) and tie it into the game of chance that we're talking about as defined and you tie into the word "casino," it seems to me that it would not be possible for the corporation to supply slot machines to some other casinos in the United States, for example. It could, however, supply to itself with respect to any business that it considers reasonably related to operating the type of casino we're talking about as defined in this act.

Mr Kwinter: I may have a different concern than some of my colleagues; I am not as concerned about the problem of having the casino corporation servicing other types of charity casinos or things at that point. My concern is that it would seem that under the structure that is contemplated by the government, the government or the corporation effectively is going to be the regulator and the owner of the facility and a proponent is going to come forward and is going to operate it.

With the provisions of clause 4(d) there is the opportunity for this corporation to get involved in things that have nothing to do with the actual operation of the casino but are related to it. Again, I'm talking about the slot machines. I'm using that as an example, a general example and not a specific example.

Where my concern comes from is that if in their wisdom they decide to get involved in a slot machine manufacturing facility, that opens up a whole new area of concern, because what happens if this facility loses hundreds, thousands or millions of dollars? And somehow or other, under the provisions of this act, no one has to give them any approval because it says that they are entitled under this clause "to provide for the operation of any business that it considers reasonably related to operating a casino."

My concern is that because of its open-endedness, we could have a corporation embarking on some commercial ventures that may be totally putting the citizens of Ontario at risk or may have no basis other than that at the time it seemed like a good idea. That's my concern.

Mr Duignan: I note your concern, Mr Kwinter, but under subsection 6(1) of the act, under direction from the Lieutenant Governor in Council, basically the government can tell the corporation what to do or what not to do. Again, yes, under clause 4(d) it provides for the operation either directly by the corporation or through outside operators of other businesses, so it doesn't necessarily mean by the corporation itself.

Mr Kwinter: It's a matter of interpretation. I assume that you're using as your authority subsection 6(1).

Mr Duignan: Yes.

Mr Kwinter: It would seem to me that is a one-way street. The provision says, "The corporation shall comply with any directions given to it by the Lieutenant Governor in Council," which means that if the Lieutenant Governor in Council decides whatever it is that's going to happen, the corporation shall adhere to that particular directive. It does not say that the corporation must get approval for every act that it enters into without the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, because under clause 4(d), it gives the corporation permission "to provide for the operation of any business that it considers reasonably related to operating a casino." I don't see subsection 6(1) making that particular provision subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Mr Duignan: Again, under subsection 6(1), if the cabinet feels that it's not reasonably related to the operation of the casino, then the government can tell the corporation not to do it.

Mr Kwinter: Again you're going on the assumption that the corporation is going to have to get approval for everything that it does under its mandate. The purpose of this act is that it's giving some latitude on what it can do, and it says it can "provide for the operation of any business that it considers reasonably related to operating a casino." It doesn't say that it has to go back to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and say: "We think this is reasonable. Do you agree?" They're going to do it, and the only thing that's going to happen is that if it's brought to the attention afterwards, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may want to remedy what they consider to be something that the corporation has done under its mandate, and that is my concern.

Mr Duignan: Using your example, that the corporation could decide to go in and build slot machines, I think that would be considered not reasonably related and the Lieutenant Governor in Council, through the government, can say no, plus --

Ms Korey: Can I add to that?

Mr Duignan: Yes.

Ms Korey: As Mr Kwinter knows, there's always a memorandum of understanding between the ministry and any of its agencies. This section provides for flexibility in the corporation, which is necessary in the business world, as every businessman knows. You cannot legislate reasonableness either, because people are going to be unreasonable. If the board of directors is not going to act in the best interests of the corporation, contrary to law, you can't legislate that it should. You can only use whatever legal means are possible to reprimand them for doing so if they do so. In the memorandum of understanding certain things will be set out, the parameters of what the agency should be doing, while still allowing a proper business flexibility, as you would in any business that you hope will thrive.


Mr Kwinter: I don't want to belabour the point, but I think it's absolutely critical. The legislative counsel has described reasonableness, and I think we're talking about two different reasonablenesses, if I could use that term. The provision under clause 4(d) doesn't say that the corporation shall be reasonable in its approach to business; it is saying that it has the ability to conduct business and enter into things that can be reasonably attributed to the casino, which is totally different. This is the point I'm making. There is no onus on the corporation to be reasonable. All they have to do is to decide that whatever venture they're getting into is reasonably associated with casinos, and if you don't think slot machines can be reasonably associated with casinos, what are we talking about? That's what it's all about. How can you possibly say it isn't reasonable for the corporation to get involved in slot machines? What could be more closely allied to a casino than a slot machine?

Mr Duignan: It's not quite what I said. I said getting into the business of manufacturing slot machines.

Mr Kwinter: Well, I'm sorry. It says "to provide for the operation of any business that it considers reasonably related to operating a casino." That's what the provision says. I'm sorry, but that is the interpretation I take from it, and I don't agree with the interpretation that has been given.

Mr Phillips: One of our concerns is that we are as a province now embarked full steam ahead on gambling, and we have some concerns about where that's going to lead in terms of liability for the public.

I don't think there's any doubt that if you were on the board of directors of this corporation and you read (d) you'd say: "Let's get into some related businesses. We're going to buy all these slot machines or all these gambling tables or all these various devices. Let's get into the business of manufacturing them ourselves." I would interpret that as almost encouraging the corporation to get into it, and if that's what we intend, then we leave (d) in. If what we intend is for the corporation to essentially manage the casino, we take (d) out and we minimize the risk that, 5 or 10 years from now, this corporation has several white elephants on its hands, things that looked like a good venture "for the operation of any business that it considers reasonably related to operating a casino." That's why we've got concerns about (d) leading the corporation into a series of related businesses that I don't think were intended but that are inevitable if we leave (d) in.

Mr Eves: I concur wholeheartedly with both Mr Phillips and Mr Kwinter. It depends on what our intent is. I don't think there's any doubt that the way 4(d) is worded, if the corporation so chose, it could interpret that section to allow it to get into almost any business that was even, as it says here, "reasonably related" to a casino or "offering goods or services to persons who play games of chance in a casino." The possibilities there are almost endless.

Mr Carr: A question to the parliamentary assistant: This would apply to restaurants; I know it's come up, but I forget the answer. Is it the intention of the corporation to run the restaurant or contract it out? What's happening with the restaurant?

Mr Duignan: To provide for its operation.

Mr Carr: So they can contract it out or can open it. Essentially, this clause allows them to do things like that, to open a bar and a restaurant --

Mr Duignan: A dry cleaning business, sell T-shirts etc, a shoe-shine shop.

The Chair: Any further discussion on section 4?

Mr Phillips: I'm not sure how we'd deal with this, Mr Chair, but I suggest split the vote and provide us an opportunity to vote separately on (d). I guess we vote against (d), we delete (d).

The Chair: Let me do it this way, and I hope this is appropriate. From what I've heard through the discussion, can we deal with clauses 4(a), (b) and (c) of the bill first?

Mr Kwinter: Mr Chairman, what I might suggest is that I could move an amendment suggesting that section 4 be approved as presented, with the removal of clause (d); then we can vote on that and that would solve the problem either for or against it. I move that clause (d) be removed from section 4.

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? All those opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 4 of the bill carry? Carried.

Fortunately, we took about 15 or 20 minutes on section 4 of the bill, which was about the amount of time the clerk needed to organize some documents she wants to distribute. We will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 1116 to 1123.

The Chair: Order. You have received a new package of amendments from the clerk. They are to be inserted among your other amendments as we proceed through the bill; we'll certainly remind you of them when we get there.

We are now dealing with section 5 of the bill. Mr Duignan, you would like to comment on section 5, I'm sure. This is not the amendment; we're going to deal with just section 5 of the bill first.

Mr Duignan: Section 5 of the bill contains standard provisions found in the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, which governs for-profit Ontario businesses and the powers of the corporation.

The Chair: Any discussion on section 5? I might add, just to clarify for the committee members, that we do have some amendments, a government motion and a PC motion that are labelled section 5.1 and section 5.2. When we get to that point in the bill we'll deal with them, but right now we're just dealing with section 5.

Shall section 5 carry? Carried.

Mr Duignan has a government motion.

Mr Duignan: It deals with a new section, 5.1.

I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Location of casinos

"5.1(1) The corporation shall not provide for the operation of a casino in a municipality unless the council of the municipality has passed a resolution approving the operation of the casino.

"Public meeting

"(2) The council of a municipality shall not vote on a resolution to approve the operation of a casino until,

"(a) it held at least one meeting that was open to the public and at which it presented the proposed resolution; and

"(b) at least seven days have passed since all meetings were held.


"(3) The council of the municipality shall give at least fifteen days notice of a meeting,

"(a) in the prescribed manner in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality; and

"(b) in any other manner that is prescribed.


"(4) All persons who attend the meeting shall be afforded an opportunity to make representations in respect of the proposed resolution.


"(5) Despite anything in this section, the corporation may provide for the operation of a casino in the casino area within the meaning of section 19 or in the interim casino area within the meaning of section 19.1."

The purpose of this new section is to legislate the government's commitment not to put a casino anywhere where the community does not fully support one. This section provides for a municipal resolution before a casino can be located in a municipality. Prior to voting on such a resolution, there must be a public meeting at which anyone present can and should be heard. Time limits are set by the legislation between notice of that meeting and the meeting itself and between the meeting and the council vote.

The Windsor interim casino and the Windsor casino are specifically exempted from the requirements of this section. Although there is a Windsor council resolution and there was extensive community consultation, the exact mechanism described in the legislation was not followed, because basically at that point it was not prescribed as it is in the legislation right now under the proposed amendment.

Mr McClelland: I don't want to appear to be too, too controversial with my friend the parliamentary assistant, but again I have to say simply the amendment as moved by government is nothing more than fluff. If you're talking about people having a sense of participatory democracy, I'd say to the parliamentary assistant and the government, you've got to give them some handles to really make it count. For a government whose leader has touted the reform of participatory democracy and most recently in Charlottetown spoke with great enthusiasm about people having direct input, I find this to actually belie that rhetoric, quite frankly.

In short, I don't think it means anything in the final analysis. Effectively you're saying that in a two-week time frame, local municipalities will have a special council meeting. There would be a lot of people, quite frankly, who would tell you, whether it be a government at any level, municipal council, provincial or federal -- I use by way of example this process. People would say they don't really have a whole lot of confidence in the committee process in terms of the decisions that are ultimately made as being resultant of the input by people on the street, so to speak.

In short, I'm not going to be supporting this. I will hold my fire, I guess, for alternate amendment 1 of section 5.2 that the Conservative Party has put forward, which I think really gives credibility and some substance to the rhetoric of the parliamentary assistant with respect to people having a say and a clear and definitive indication of the wishes of the population of any community.


Mr Eves: I know what the government's trying to do. They're trying to get the municipality involved. But I would prefer to see it be done by way of municipal referendum, and I have an amendment -- I think the number is 5.2, which may be subject to change later on -- which we'll come upon in a few minutes.

As Mr McClelland said, this is almost asking the municipality to go through the motions. Having one meeting where a municipality gets 15 days' notice and the public is invited to attend, I mean, big deal. I would think that the public is invited to attend any municipal council meeting of any municipality that I've been associated with, and to go through this charade of saying you're having public consultation with one meeting, I think that's what it is: It is a bit of a charade. If you really wanted to have meaningful participation by a municipality, you should allow the municipality to have a plebiscite or a referendum on the issue.

Mr Sutherland: I support the amendment. I think that's the way our system works. Everyone elects representatives to make decisions on their behalf. Remember, our system of representation, both at a local level and quite frankly at a provincial level, is a trusteeship system rather than a delegate system. You elect people to make the decisions on your behalf. If you're not happy with those decisions, you have the opportunity to make your judgement come election time. Elected people are elected to make those types of decisions.

I'm really surprised that the third party is talking about forcing a referendum on municipalities. Their leader was just in my riding, met with local municipalities and talked to the press about, "Oh, there's too many regulations hindering municipalities from doing things." And what do they want to do? They want to put what they feel is another hindrance in it.

I think this is a good amendment.

Mr Carr: Put a question on the ballot. You tick a box. Yes or no, I want casinos. That's regulation?

Mr Sutherland: What about the cost?

Mr Carr: There's no cost to putting that. You're having a municipal election anyway.

Mr Duignan: I agree with what Mr Sutherland has to say, but first of all, we're not talking about one meeting. What this amendment is talking about is that you have to hold at least one. It doesn't say it's just one -- it's at least one. It can be two, three or four. And don't forget, the municipality always has the option of putting a question on the ballot. They have the right to do that right now.

You know what? This will be great. What input, for example, did the public have on the SkyDome or Minaki Lodge or some of the other situations the province got itself into in past years? The public didn't have any input in those. What we are doing here is giving public input into a very important question, and if the municipality so chooses, it has the option of putting it on a ballot itself.

Mr Carr: Just to the point Mr Sutherland made, I know governments do change their opinion. They run on opposing Sunday shopping and then introduce it; they run on public auto insurance and then don't introduce; against casinos and then introduce it. So I understand that some governments, which will remain nameless, change their mind.

What we're calling for, very simply, is that you're going to have a municipal election next year, I guess it is, anyway. It's one question on the ballot. As far as more regulations, all you do is check, "Yes, I'm in favour of casinos" or "No." So it isn't more regulations.

The point I wanted to make was the exception of the Windsor casino. I know the Windsor council has passed a resolution, but if you're going to do this, why exclude them? I think it was done early in the mandate before they knew exactly what they were getting. Whether that will change council, I suspect it probably won't, but it will allow for an opportunity for people to see the interim casino as it has now been laid out a lot more clearly. If you're saying it's okay for other municipalities, and if they're assured that Windsor is going to pass it and it has overwhelming support, then why couldn't you not exclude the interim casino and make Windsor comply with the section, which would simply be calling a meeting and then having another resolution where the public will know now this is the interim casino? More of the details are out.

So my question to the parliamentary assistant is, if this is acceptable to the people of Windsor and it's not a great deal, as the other members have argued, in terms of setting up to do, why wouldn't you allow the people of Windsor to have their say on the interim casino in the meetings as you propose in section 5.1 for other communities? Is it a time constraint? Windsor can certainly do that before the time it's open. The question I'm asking is, why is the interim casino excluded?

Mr Duignan: There are a number of reasons. First there's the timing, but also the fact that the Windsor city council has already passed a resolution and extensive community consultation has gone on.

Mr Carr: When was that? Do you know the date? That was way back. Maybe Wayne would know.

Mr Duignan: There was more than one. I understand there were several. That's about a year ago.

Mr Carr: Before all the details were out.

Mr Duignan: There was also extensive community consultation in the Windsor area as well, and it's continuing, it's ongoing. You spent a week in Windsor. You heard from numerous delegations that came before this committee, and there were basically just two negative briefs against the Windsor casino.

Mr Carr: That's my concern. I think the mayor said he has overwhelming support for the resolution. If that's the case, you're not going to lose the vote. Why won't you allow, now that the details are out -- you said it was last October before any of the details came out. We were getting details as the committee went along on what was happening. The people didn't understand exactly what the interim casino was going to be like. Now they do. They have as many facts as they're going to have. The mayor thinks it would pass council.

Setting up one of the meetings as is proposed in section 5.1 is not that big a deal timewise. They could do that within a short period of time, have the input, pass the resolution and then it would be very clear.

My concern is, you say to other municipalities, "You're allowed to do this," but in Windsor's case you say, "We had a resolution a year ago before all the facts were out." If the people of Windsor are sure that it's going to pass, then why have this exception? I don't think there's much doubt it probably would pass, so why aren't the people of Windsor able to voice their concern now that all the facts are out?

Mr Duignan: Again, Mr Carr, I think the people of Windsor have voiced their concerns and continue to voice their concerns over the last 12 or 18 months through their elected representatives in the city on city council as well as to their elected representatives at the provincial level and the fact that the corporation has had many extensive consultations with the people in Windsor, plus the fact of timing. We're well into this process right now, Mr Carr.

The Chair: I regret that I have to interject at this time and inform the committee that we should stand down this government motion section 5.1 at least until we have dealt with section 19.1, because it's presumptuous of us to assume that 19.1 will be a part of the bill. So we will defer government motion section 5.1 until we have passed section 19.1 of the bill.

Therefore, we should proceed now to PC motion section 5.1. I understand there's an alternate to that section should it not be successful, but I'll start with Mr Eves and ask him to read his motion.

Mr Eves: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Location of casinos

"5.1 The corporation shall not provide for the operation of a casino in any location other than in the casino area within the meaning of section 19."

The purpose of this amendment simply is to prevent any government in the future in the province of Ontario from adding additional casino sites without coming back to the Legislature. If the government knows where it wants to extend casino sites now, it would have the choice or option of changing the definition of "casino area" under section 19 of the act. If it doesn't, the simple purpose of this amendment is that before any future casino can be introduced into the province, the provincial government's going to have to come back to the Legislature to have that approved.


Mr Carr: The point that we heard from the parliamentary assistant -- I think I can repeat it verbatim -- is saying that the government has no plans to operate another casino at this time. Notwithstanding that, and I know the parliamentary assistant believes that, but what often happens is cabinets have a way of, for want of a better term, pulling the rug out from under parliamentary assistants and changing their minds on them.

Mr Eves: By that time Noel will be in cabinet.

Mr Carr: By that time he'll be in cabinet fighting as the minister. All this says is if you really mean that and if the interim casino is truly just a test, as you've continually said, again I say it was almost -- I don't want to use the word "nauseating" to hear it, saying it was a test when a lot of people believe it is not. All this motion is saying is that we don't trust you; put your words in writing.

Notwithstanding the fact that we like you, we still would like to see it in there, and if you really believe this is just an interim casino and that you are going to test it and look at all the problems out there that have been enunciated, then it would have to come back to the Legislature so the elected people of this province would be able to make their decision. All we're saying is what you said for three weeks in the hearings: Put it in writing and come back to the Legislature at the end of the day for its approval. Obviously, I'll be supporting it.

Mr Duignan: Obviously, we won't be supporting this amendment, Mr Carr. We trust ourselves and I think we have faith in ourselves. I'll state it again --

Mr Carr: We got burned on Sunday shopping and public auto insurance. We're sort of a little leery.

Mr Duignan: -- the Windsor casino is an interim casino and the government has no plans to expand beyond Windsor at this time. I'm going to bring a recording and keep on playing it.

Mr Sutherland: Point of order, Mr Chair: Given that this motion also makes reference to the meaning of section 19 --

The Chair: No, Mr Sutherland, if I could just interject right away and say that section 19 is in the bill. Section 19.1 is an amendment that we're going to have to deal with.

Mr Sutherland: Okay, sorry. Thank you.

Mr Kwinter: I was going to talk to the same concern. I have no problem with the amendment as proposed by the third party. I have some problem with it referring to section 19 at this particular point in the bill. Everything prior to section 19 is of a general nature that will apply to all casinos, whenever they're established. Section 19 deals specifically with Windsor.

It would seem to me that the intent of the amendment is to provide that once an establishment has been determined and the geographic boundary of that establishment has been determined, it cannot be expanded without the approval of the Legislature or without amending the bill. It would seem to me that to have it at section 5.1 and referring to section 19 deals only with Windsor, and I don't think that was the intent.

Mr Eves: No, you're quite correct. I would certainly entertain any amendment that you or anybody might want to make to effect that purpose. The purpose basically is that there is no other section in the bill, as it exists now, that provides for location of a casino anywhere in the province of Ontario. Section 19 was the only section I could find in the bill that talked about where a casino is going to be situate, because obviously that's the only one the government's decided on to date.

The purpose of the amendment or the section is to make sure that no further casino locations are adopted without legislative approval. Perhaps leg counsel would have some advice for us on that.

Mr Michael Wood: Your interpretation of the motion is quite correct. As it now stands, no further approval is required in order for the casino corporation to operate a casino in the casino area. If it is your intent to remove that capacity, you could amend the motion, which would place a restriction on the corporation providing for the operation of the casino in any location and require legislative approval to set out the actual locations.

Mr Eves: Does the amendment, the way it's drafted, achieve the ultimate purpose that we're trying to achieve, though, if somewhat perhaps not as clean as we would like it?

Mr Michael Wood: The amendment, as it is drafted, does allow for the operation of a casino in the casino area and only in the casino area.

Mr Eves: So in effect it would have the effect I'm looking for: There couldn't be a casino anywhere in the province, other than as defined in section 19 of the bill, which is Windsor, obviously.

Mr Michael Wood: That is correct.

Mr Eves: I'll leave it the way it is then. It may not be as clean as I would like, but it does effect the purpose that I want.

Mr Michael Wood: The reason the motion was drafted to insert the provision in 5.1 is that it deals with the powers of the corporation, whereas section 19 sets out the powers of the city of Windsor.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Chairman, just so that I can clarify it in my mind, and if Mr Eves would be of some help to me: It's my interpretation of this added amendment -- it's an addition to 5.1 -- that notwithstanding that we are only dealing with one casino in Windsor, and that is provided for under section 19, the intent of this additional amendment is to restrict the location of casinos to that area originally designated as the area for a casino. If there is to be any expansion of that area, in Windsor or any other location where a casino will eventually be established, once that area has been determined, that will be the only place that a casino can go. If it's to be expanded outside of that area, then there would be a provision that it must come back to the Legislature for approval. Is that not your intent?

Mr Eves: Yes.

The Chair: Is it clear then, the intent of this motion? It is to the Chair, I think.

Shall the motion moved by Mr Eves on section 5.1 carry? The motion is lost.

Mr Eves: Could we have a recorded vote?


Carr, Eves, Kwinter, McClelland, Phillips.


Duignan, Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, Sutherland.

Clerk of the Committee: Tie vote.

The Chair: The motion is lost.

We return to the alternate motion, which is a PC motion, on section 5.1.

Mr Eves: Mr Chair, before I read the motion, I'm going to change the wording of clause (d), as I get there, to read "the assembly has approved the report" as opposed to "the standing committee has approved the report."

I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Location of casinos

"5.1 The corporation shall not provide for the operation of a casino in any location other than in the casino area within the meaning of section 19 until,

"(a) the corporation has completed a report on the economic and social consequences of the operation of the casino in the casino area within the meaning of that section during its first two years of operation;

"(b) the minister responsible for the adminstration of this act has laid the report before the assembly within six months following the end of the first two years of the casino's operation if the assembly is in session, or if not, at the beginning of the next session;

"(c) the assembly has referred the report to a standing committee of the assembly;

"(d) the assembly has approved the report."

The purpose of this amendment is somewhat similar to the one that was just defeated, although not as abrupt. This really provides that there won't be any further casinos until the initial one has been in operation for two years and that within six months a report has to be filed and tabled in the Legislature by the minister responsible for the act, and the assembly has the opportunity to approve or not approve that report. In other words, if the first casino is a success and there are really none of the economic and social problems that some have predicted may happen, I suppose the assembly won't have any problem approving such a report. If, on the other hand, there are some problems, I presume the assembly would not so approve.

Mr Carr: These are similar to the comments I made last time. It's just that the government has said there are no plans for another casino. If that's really the case and they aren't proceeding down the road, then I would think there would be no objection to this. If in fact there are plans to open other casinos because of pressure from people in the Sault and Howard Moscoe in Toronto and other things, then I would hope that the government would come clean and say, "Yes, we are going to proceed before the interim casino is looked at."

All this does is make you live up to the words that we've heard for the last three weeks, that there are no other plans. If the government truly believes that, I don't think there would be any reason it wouldn't support this. If in fact this is a test case where we're going to look at it, then I think all members of the assembly should have a chance to vote on it before we proceed with any casinos past Windsor. It will allow them the opportunity to see what has happened in Windsor before the decision is made.


Mr Phillips: I have sympathy for the amendment. My concern is frankly with what I think would be two and a half years from the opening of the Windsor casino to a decision on any expansion, and I'm not sure that I'd want to be tied to that length of time for the evaluation. There may be other ways of evaluating the situation using other North American examples. While I have some sympathy for the intent of it, I have a problem with the length of time between the opening of the Windsor one and any possible expansion.

Mr Duignan: Then we will have to change our slogan, Carman, from "Five in 1995" to "Five in 2005."

Mr McClelland: I don't know how much you're committed to printing at this point in time, Mr Duignan, but I wouldn't want you to have to scrap your lawn signs for 1995.

Mr Duignan: We can't support this motion. Again, it's too restrictive. The fact is, we have an independent committee being set up under section 6 that will monitor the social, economic and law enforcement impacts of the casino in the Windsor area. I think that's sufficient and covers this particular section 5.1 and the proposed amendment.

Mr Eves: I have looked at the proposed amendment to section 6. The only comment I would make on that is, it is an advisory committee only; it's not empowered to do anything. Again, in a vein similar to the last amendment, we would seek approval of the Legislative Assembly as opposed to just advice from an advisory committee which really has no ability to make decisions that are binding, just has the ability to recommend to the government.

Mr Sutherland: I'd go back to the lottery corporation. My sense is that the lottery corporation act was set up so the lottery corporation could operate. Each time the corporation decided to establish a new lottery, it did not have to come back for legislative approval.

Mr Eves: It probably should have. We don't want to repeat that mistake. I wouldn't want to see you repeat it, Kimble.

Mr Sutherland: We're not in the business of repeating Tory mistakes.

Mr Carr: You make enough of your own.

Mr Eves: I don't think you need any help there.

Mr McClelland: You're doing a fine job all by yourselves.

Mr Kwinter: The member seems to be using the lottery corporation as his example. There's another --

Mr Duignan: You could've used the SkyDome.

Mr Kwinter: No. There's another corporation that has a totally different history, that is, the liquor licence board and the liquor control board. The casino is more in line with that. It is a decision that, rightly or wrongly, people have a very strong opinion about. To this day, every time a liquor location is opened, there's a public notice and people have a chance to object to it. Certainly there are areas in this province that still, by referendum, keep liquor out.

I think it's important to understand that this is not quite the same. As I say, I'm not trying to argue the merits or not; it's just that casinos have taken on an aura of being something that people feel, not only in Ontario but in lots of other jurisdictions, they require a referendum on. I'm just trying to be helpful in suggesting that to use the lotteries as your example, it may be more akin to liquor legislation.

The Chair: Shall the PC motion to section 5.1 carry? The motion is lost.

Mr Eves: Can we have a recorded vote?


Carr, Eves.


Duignan, Kwinter, Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, McClelland, Phillips, Sutherland.

The Chair: The motion is defeated. That brings us to the PC motion on section 5.2. Mr Eves.

Mr Eves: I have this motion and an alternative motion should this one not pass, for some amazing reason. Basically, this section of the bill would provide for a province-wide referendum. I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Referendum required

"5.2(1) The corporation shall not provide for the operation of a casino in any location until the operation of casinos has been approved in a province-wide referendum.

"Chief election officer

"(2) The chief election officer shall be the chief election officer for the referendum.


"(3) The question put on the referendum ballot shall be in English and French as follows: May gambling casinos be operated under the OCC Act?" I suppose if you wanted me to I could spell out the act in its full name.

"Conduct of referendum

"(4) The chief election officer shall conduct the referendum in the manner set out in the regulations made under this act."

The purpose of this motion obviously is to require a province-wide referendum to be held prior to the establishment of any casinos in the province of Ontario.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Eves. I just want to remind the committee members that the clock on the wall is a few minutes slow, and it's almost noon. If we are to start debate on this, the Chair may forget some of the debate that has taken place.

Maybe at this point in time we should recess until 2, and then we can continue with discussion and debate on section 5.2. All right. We're recessed until 2 pm this afternoon.

The committee recessed from 1159 to 1427.

The Chair: The standing committee will come to order. Just prior to the noon-hour, we were dealing with PC motion section 5.2, which had been moved by Mr Eves with an explanation, and I believe Mr Kwinter was first up to respond to that motion.

Mr Kwinter: Do we have another meeting going on over there? None of those people -- the parliamentary assistant --

The Chair: Order. The committee has come to order.

Mr Duignan: What are we waiting for, Mr Chair?

The Chair: We were waiting for you, Mr Duignan.

Mr Kwinter: Just so I understand where we are, we are addressing the PC amendment, section 5.2, is that correct?

The Chair: That's right, the first one. There is an alternate.

Mr Kwinter: If I could recommend a friendly amendment to the proposer, the question says, "May gambling casinos be operated under the OCC Act?" That is an information statement, and the answer is obviously yes, that's what the act provides for, that there can be gambling. I don't think that was the intent. I think the intent was an expression of opinion, which would be, "Are you in favour of gambling casinos operating under the OCC Act?" I would suggest that, regardless of the outcome of this amendment, at least the question be stated in that way. I don't know whether the proposer has any objection to that.

Mr Eves: No, I have no problem with that.

Mr Kwinter: Do you know what I'm saying? It says "may." That's a question of yes, it may, because that's what the act provides for.

The Chair: Mr Kwinter, are you proposing an amendment to this motion?

Mr Kwinter: The reason I'm hesitating is that I haven't had a chance, really, depending on which one it is -- I have no problem with it, but I just want to make sure that, regardless of whether it is approved or not approved, the right question is being asked. I think everybody is agreed, because this is not a question. It's asking a question, "Is it possible for this to happen," not asking people, "Do you want it to happen?" I'm suggesting that it should say, "Are you in favour of gambling casinos being operated under the Ontario Casino Corporation Act?"

The Chair: I understand that, but in order to change this motion, there needs to be --

Mr Eves: I would be happy to change the wording if it would assist, Mr Chair. Under subsection (3), "The question put on the referendum ballot shall be in English and French as follows: Are you in favour of gambling casinos being operated under the OCC Act?"

The Chair: Before we continue, is it understood that Mr Eves withdrew his motion and resubmitted it with the changes as indicated?

Mr Eves: That's fine.

Mr McClelland: I wanted to indicate to my third-party friends particularly that I will not be supporting this amendment, simply because I favour very strongly their alternate amendment to section 5.2. Just for the record, Mr Eves and Mr Carr, I'm not so much taking issue with this particular amendment; rather, we'll be speaking in favour of your alternate amendment. I feel, for a variety of reasons, that it's more acceptable and certainly more appealing to our caucus.

Mr Carr: The reason it's province-wide is that the feeling is that the effects, whether good or bad, are going to be province-wide, so it was our intention to have a province-wide referendum; failing that, local ones, as you'll see in the next amendment. I believe that something as important as this could be put on the ballot and have a province-wide decision.

Mr Sutherland: Mr Carr just said the effects are going to be province-wide, whether it's in Windsor or wherever. Could he explain to the committee how he thinks the casino in Windsor is going to impact the people, say, in Ottawa, or in Picton, for that matter?

Mr Carr: Because you're going to take the revenue; that's why you're doing this, and that's going to impact. The reason you're doing this is revenue-generated. Since the province is going to get all the money coming out of this, presumably we all benefit when it goes into general revenue. That's what I meant. And I was thinking not just in terms of the benefits with regard to the revenue, but also the side-effects. As you know, if we have a compulsive gambler in Windsor, as an example, he may be living in Toronto and going down there to gamble.

The effects, whether they be good, bad or indifferent, will be province-wide. I think it's an issue that's important enough that it could be put on a province-wide referendum, because when you put the casino in Windsor, you're still going to have people, as the intention is, who travel from Toronto and London and all over the province to go to the casino. I think that's the intent, that it isn't just there for the people of Windsor or the Americans. That's why I think something of this nature should be province-wide.

Mr Duignan: We can't support this amendment. Without getting into the debate of whether this is suitable under parliamentary democracy or not, the question we then should be asking is, are people in favour of gambling on horse racing, of gambling in the lottos or gambling on bingo? The compulsory gambling association which appeared in front of this committee a week or so ago stated that there are somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 compulsive gamblers already in the province, and we don't have a casino. Therefore, are we to determine that this referendum should be broadened to also include other forms of gambling in this province? Why are we singling out casinos?

Mr Eves: Why? Because we're talking about Bill 8, which is the casino bill. The other ones, rightly or wrongly, are already accomplished facts.

We also feel fairly strongly that the only public statements on record about casino gambling prior to the last election, by both the Premier of the province and by the Deputy Premier and Treasurer of the province, were against casino gambling. I'm not suggesting for a moment that that's the only issue or even a major issue upon which the New Democratic Party was elected to power, but the reality is and the facts are that prior to that election the Premier was certainly definitely on record as being against casino gambling and so was the Treasurer of the province. When a government significantly changes its direction -- governments, I suppose, are entitled to do that from time to time, but when they do that, perhaps they should ask the people of Ontario what they think about this 180-degree reversal of form by the leaders of the current government.

Also, I've heard the argument used that referendums or plebiscites are not part of parliamentary democracy. Then why did we go through the very expensive and time-consuming exercise of having a referendum Canada-wide, as I recall, wholeheartedly endorsed by this government and this Premier, and by myself, I might add, on the Charlottetown accord? Was that all just an exercise in futility? Did we spend months and years and millions of dollars on something that you now say has no place in our parliamentary democracy? It seems to me that referendums are good when it suits our political purpose, but when it doesn't suit our political purpose, they ain't good and they ain't part of our system. That's what I seem to be hearing from the government.

Mr Duignan: No, that's not what you're hearing from the government. There's a big difference between a constitution of a country and a bill of a provincial government. Why didn't the Tory government in Ottawa have a referendum on the GST, a referendum on free trade or a referendum on NAFTA? Why single this out?

Mr Carr: They ran on both those issues.

Mr Duignan: Or indeed on the whole question of separate school funding in this province not many years back? There wasn't a referendum there either.

Mr Carr: Free trade was the biggest issue in 1988. What do you think the big issue was? Where were you? They said, "We want free trade" --

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Fighting against it, Gary.

Mr Carr: What do you think the election campaign in 1988 was?

Mrs Mathyssen: What was the one in 1984, Gary?

Mr Duignan: Remember the separate school funding? Remember how the Tories did that round-about, 180 degrees?

Mr Kwinter: Much has been made about the issue of why casino gambling and why not lotteries and horse racing and all of these other things that were not taken to a referendum. I don't have the answer, but I do know this: that in virtually every jurisdiction in North America when casino gambling has been introduced, it has been controversial and in most cases has been settled by a referendum.

I don't want to argue why it should have been, but I'm sure you'll know that we heard in the state of Michigan they had a referendum four times and it was defeated narrowly in all of them. I happen to have a place in Florida; they've had seven different referenda on casino gambling. Many other jurisdictions have put it to a vote, for whatever reason. The simple observation is that in the minds of Ontarians and in the minds, obviously, of people in North America, there is a difference.

I don't want to argue the merits of what is the subtle difference between charity gambling and casino gambling. There is a perception, both positive and negative, that when casino gambling has come, it is going to change for ever the face of the community that it's in. I don't want to debate whether that's true or not, but there is that perception.

As a result, without arguing the merits of casino gambling or not, I think it's a valid concern. As politicians, surely you know that there are many arguments that are debated in which the facts have got nothing to do with the argument. There is a perception out there that there's a problem, and you've got to fight the perception. You can't wage that battle trying to fight the reality, because you'll lose it every time. What you have to do is that there's a perception out there, and again I don't want to defend the perception, that casino gambling is somehow different.


It's exactly the same perception that if you have a glass of whisky, it is more socially condemning than a glass of beer, even though they may have exactly the same alcohol content, or a glass of wine. That is a perception that is out there, and the spirit alcohol industry has been spending hundred of thousands if not millions of dollars trying to convey the impression that a drink is a drink is a drink.

Without arguing the merits of it, I'm saying that with casino gambling there is a perception out there that once it comes, it's going to have a social, economic and psychological impact on the residents of that area and that they would seem to feel that they should have some say as to whether or not they have to be subjected to it.

Mr Duignan: Again, I remind the members of committee there was no referendum in British Columbia, there was no referendum in Alberta, there was no referendum in Saskatchewan, there was no referendum in Manitoba and certainly no referendum, or even going to this extent, in Quebec, and those provinces are held by governments of all three stripes.

The Chair: Shall PC motion section 5.2 carry?

Mr Kwinter: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Are we talking about the original one or the alternate one?

The Chair: We're talking about the original one at this point in time.

Mr Duignan: We withdrew that one.

The Chair: We will deal with the alternate --

Mr Duignan: We withdrew that one.

The Chair: Yes, but there's another 5.2 that we're going to deal with very shortly.

Clerk of the Committee: Oh, is that what you're asking as opposed to the alternate?

The Chair: Do you want to clarify, Mr Kwinter?

Mr Kwinter: I have two proposals in front of me. One of them is 5.2 and the other one is alternate number 1 of 5.2.

The Chair: That's right, and this is the 5.2. This is not the alternate we're dealing with at this point in time. This is the original 5.2.

Mr Kwinter: It calls for a province-wide referendum.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Kwinter: That's all I wanted a clarification on.

The Chair: Sorry that it wasn't done more simply. We're going to vote on this PC motion on section 5.2 that deals with a province-wide referendum. All those in favour? Opposed? That motion is lost.

Mr Carr: Was that a recorded vote?

The Chair: No, that wasn't a recorded vote. Are you asking for a recorded vote?

Mr Eves: Yes, we'd like a recorded vote on this. That one and this one, please.

Mr Carr: I know you know who we are, but --

The Chair: All those in favour?

Mr Eves: Forget it. I wouldn't want to upset Carman.

The Chair: This is one of the most cordial committees I've ever worked on.

Mr Carr: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I don't know if it would be appropriate at this time to ask for this, but in light of this motion being defeated, I was wondering if it would be possible to get from the parliamentary assistant or the government any polling that they've done on the casino issue. Would it be appropriate to ask at this time if they could provide it since we're not going to have a referendum, assuming now they've done polling to see what the numbers add up to? Would it be possible to get it from the parliamentary assistant or the government?

Mr Duignan: Let me get back to the committee with an answer on that.

The Chair: That bring us to the alternate PC motion called section 5.2. Mr Eves.

Mr Eves: I'm going to slightly amend the wording of the motion as I read it.

I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Referendum required

"5.2(1) The corporation shall not provide for the operation of a casino in any location until the operation of said casino has been approved by a referendum of the municipality in which the casino is to be located.

"Chief election officer

"(2) The chief election officer shall be the chief election officer for the referendum.


"(3) The question put on the referendum ballot shall be in English and French as follows:

"Are you in favour of gambling casinos being operated under the OCC act?

"Conduct of referendum

"The chief election officer shall conduct the referendum in the manner set out in the regulations made under this act."

I think we've pretty well debated, maybe to death, the issue of referendum. As Mr Carr has stated, we would have preferred that it be a province-wide referendum, but having failed in that request, certainly the next-best thing would be that the public in a municipality in which any particular casino is to be located have the right to express their opinion, either pro or con, about casino gambling in their municipality.

As Mr Kwinter, I think, has rightly pointed out, in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in North America where this has been adopted, or turned down for that matter, there have been plebiscites or referendums seeking the public's opinion as to whether or not they were in favour or not in favour of having gambling casinos introduced into their municipal jurisdiction. I take the comments of the parliamentary assistant that that has not been the case in Canada in some other provinces.

I would also point out that there is quite a difference in what sort of casino there is in some other provinces. For example, in the province of Manitoba there is one casino, and one casino only. It's fully operated by the province of Manitoba and it's on a fairly small scale, if I might say so. That's no more similar to the one in Windsor than the Atlantic City one, and, as I'm told time and time again by the minister, the parliamentary assistant and members of the government, "You can't talk about Atlantic City when you're talking about Windsor because they're two different things."

With all due respect, if that's the case, it's two totally different things between the Fort Garry, provinceoperated, small, dinky casino in the city of Winnipeg and the grandiose scheme that the province of Ontario is planning for a private operator to run in the city of Windsor, no doubt soon to be expanded into maybe four, five or six other municipal jurisdictions within the province. I think they're two totally different things.

However, be that as it may, the basic issue here is whether you're in favour of providing people in their local municipality with the right to determine whether they want gambling casinos or not, and I think that it would behoove us to do that.

Mr McClelland: I think anything that could be said about the advisability of referendums has been said. I can only echo and add my support to the comments made by my two third-party friends and Mr Kwinter on this issue.

We are particularly in favour of the municipal option for one overwhelming reason, and I suppose a couple of secondary reasons. You will remember, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, that as we travelled from place to place around the province, there was a different vision. By way of example, those in Ottawa who are behind the idea of a casino, particularly merchants and people involved in the development industry, and perhaps more important the elected officials, have an entirely different vision, an entirely different concept in mind than do similar individuals in Windsor.

Similarly, I would say that those in Niagara express some particularly, if you will, parochial views, and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense. Each community has their own distinct features and expectations, has an idea of how they would like to run it, where they would like to run it and some of the bells and whistles that they would like to see with their project.

Having said that, I think that given the difference in visions and concepts from city to city or municipality to municipality, it makes a great deal of sense from a practical point of view to allow them to pass judgement on a particular concept as articulated by proponents and city officials.

Without taking anything away from the concept of the original section 5.2 moved by Mr Eves, I think it is less efficient less telling than the alternate 5.2, which adds the local flavour to the question to be put.

For all the reasons said before and with that particular qualification of our reasons for supporting the local option, I can only say that we wholeheartedly support that; indeed not only wholeheartedly support it but think it expresses the sentiment of so many people, indeed proponents.

I recall hearing from the mayor of Sault Ste Marie and the mayor of Niagara Falls, to name but two, that they would be pleased to go ahead with a referendum. In fact they had the confidence that they were on the right track and in a sense said, "We're prepared to, if you will, raise the windsock and see which way the wind is really blowing and either confirm or qualify our perception of where our community is."


I think the other thing that would serve people well is that it would allow them an opportunity to really canvass, and I don't say this in a judgemental sense of those that have jumped on the bandwagon, a very thoughtful analysis of the benefits that would be brought to the community.

There would be a sense of sitting back and saying, "Okay, we have to really walk this one through," rather than that sense I think we experienced everywhere we went of, "We better get on board, we better jump on this bandwagon before it passes us by." I think it provides an opportunity for reasoned, well-thought-out debate at the local level by opponents, proponents and those who are somewhat ambivalent, who take an attitude of, "Wait and see, show me the facts, let me make a determination based on the data brought forward." For those reasons, I'd be very much in favour.

Our party would not only be in favour, we would urge strongly the consideration of a referendum for all locales, specifically those that have not yet been determined from a time frame point of view, if indeed the government is consistent with what it has stated as far as its plans of having a monitoring time period with the advent of the Windsor casino. The 1994 municipal election would allow that to be put on the ballot and also allow it to be a campaign issue at the local level.

I think from the practical reasons set out earlier and the differences from place to place across the province, different makeup of communities, different visions, and from the time frame, from the critical path point of view, you have ample time to do it, given the option of a ballot question for 1994. It could only serve, it seems to me, each community well, serve local leadership well to deal with the question, perhaps in the final analysis serve those of us who sit in the provincial House well to give us the confidence, the assurance that we have in fact listened to the people.

Let me say on a more general note that the more I talk to people in my community, indeed as I travel across the province, there's a real sense that people want to participate on issues that are of concern to them. It wasn't too, too long ago that we used to vote on issues of wet and dry counties, if you recall, and I think it's the same kind of issue.

As Mr Kwinter has so well said, there's an awful lot of emotion out there. There's an awful lot of perception in allowing a referendum to proceed. You cut through a lot of the rhetoric, you cut through a lot of the emotion, but more important, you allow people to take ownership and responsibility directly. They have an opportunity to really get their shoulder to the wheel, for or against, or on a wait-and-see, and to ferret out the facts and the implications for each community.

We very, very strongly support -- and let the record show very clearly that the Liberal caucus feels that this perhaps is pivotal in terms of either our support or our opposition to Bill 8. I would say quite frankly in the absence of this, I think that our caucus, our party, would be very hard pressed to support the legislation.

We feel that very clearly the government has stated quite candidly and appropriately the intent of the legislation as being permissive in nature. Our party believes very strongly that there is a changing reality in the way we do the business of politics in the province, that the time for direct citizen participation has come on issues of this nature, and we see this as a pivotal issue. I want to indicate that we had an amendment that was not quite exact but very, very similar and feel that without this, we'll be hard pressed to support the legislation.

Mr Sutherland: It's very interesting listening to Mr McClelland talk about what he called the local option of the referendum, but in supporting the amendment put forward by Mr Eves, he isn't giving them any option.

He further went on to talk about the diversity across the province, different views, different ideas in different communities, and maybe different communities have different ideas on how they should make decisions about what activities go on in their communities. There is the local option right now.

There's nothing preventing any community from holding a referendum right now on the question of a casino, if they want to put it on the ballot in 1994, or after that, if they wanted to hold a referendum at that time, so I don't think you can talk about the local option, I don't think you can go along and talk about all the diversity in the province and different ideas and views, and then come along and impose upon every municipality, "You've got to have a referendum to decide that."

If there is a groundswell of support in a local community asking the municipal council to have a referendum, then fair enough. Those people who are elected have to be accountable to their constituents when it comes to election time, and they will be held accountable if they don't hold the referendum. But in the meantime, they still have that option. Not every community will want to make that decision in the same way. They should be able to retain that flexibility, the flexibility they now have, by having a real local option, not a perceived local option by saying, "Yes, you must have a referendum."

Mr Carr: The problem I have, and I'll make the case: We were just down in Niagara Falls and, as you know, the mayor came in and said that council supports it and most of the people are in favour of it. As we all know, there were a lot of people watching in the audience who were opposed to it who all wore yellow. I sit back and say, in this particular case, if you were to take the number of people in the audience, it was probably opposed. If you took the number of people who came forward, I think most were in favour. I think only two groups were opposed.

You look at it and say, "Do the people in that area want casinos?" I think having the local option, having it on the referendum -- and it won't be on. The municipality won't put it on because they want it. The mayor came before us and he thinks, I think probably rightly so, he has the support of the population. I don't think any elected official would do something that he knows would be unpopular and against most of the people's wishes. I just think this will be a definite decision that no one can argue with, and it would allow the people of Niagara Falls to say yes. I don't think either side, either pro or con for casinos, could argue if a referendum was held and it was left up to the people. Then we wouldn't have the dilemma that we do now, saying, "Do the people in Niagara Falls want it?"

I know when we heard the debate down there, the government said, "We want to proceed slowly. There is enough time to put it on the next municipal ballot and decide it once and for all in most of these areas," and so I think it can be done and I would hope that the government would look at it.

Failing that, as I mentioned in the point of order, I would hope that we might be able to get some type of polling that the government has done, and in particular -- I did mention this when I did my point of order and I know the parliamentary assistant is looking at it -- if there are any regional breakdowns, because most of the polling that is done is done on a regional basis, whether it's southwestern Ontario or whatever. I think the best way to get a clear indication is through a referendum when people actually go out and check the ballot. Failing that, I think it would be helpful to members of this committee if the government would table the polling that I know it has done on this issue with the regional breakdown. We'll look forward to it. I hope it will be the referendum, because I quite frankly trust that more than polling. But in the interest of helping deliberations with this bill, if there was any polling, I think it would be helpful.

Mr Kwinter: Just a matter in the drafting: In the event that this amendment should pass, I really feel that the question should have the Ontario Casino Corporation Act spelled out, because if that question was ever asked, it would have no meaning to anybody other than the people who have been sitting at this committee.

Mr Eves: Absolutely.

Mr Phillips: Just to speak in favour of the motion, the overwhelming message I get from all of the hearings we've had is that this is like a gold rush. People are just blinded by this stuff. Frankly, I see it even here in the committee. I see it in the people who are working on it. I see it in response to questions we ask. It's like nothing I've ever seen before. This is going to be a goose that will lay golden eggs for ever.


It's just a concept that people have now embraced: "Golly, 20,000 people a day coming here. We'll be rich." I don't think communities have had to articulate what they are going to get their community into. Let's face it, this is not like anything minor. When you talk about 20,000 people a day coming into a community, a $250-million new facility, theoretically a couple of thousand jobs, all of these things fundamentally change the character, both good and bad, of a community.

I think the referendum would force the advocates, and there will be strong advocates, many with, obviously, huge vested interests, to spell out to the community what they have in mind for the community. Right now, frankly, it's difficult for anybody in the community to stand up, as we've seen, and argue against it because, as I say, "This thing is going to throw off jobs and money and we'll all be rich."

As I say, this isn't any small measure in a community; this is a fundamental change. If a community is going to be swept up in that fundamental change, I think the people who are planning it have an obligation to take it publicly, defend it publicly and give people an opportunity to comment on the new community, because they will live in a different community the day after the thing opens than the day before the thing opens. There's no doubt about that, particularly communities where it's going to be the major, the number one employer in the community. So that's the reason I support it. It's not like a small matter; this is fundamental.

Mr Sutherland: In response to that point, I'd come back and look at, for example, some of the projections that Mr Henning has put forward for the theme park or whatever he wants to build in Niagara Falls. I believe the Ghermezian brothers were talking about building another West Edmonton Mall-like complex in Niagara Falls at one point. For that type of economic activity, which could bring in 10,000 people a day, should they have to have a referendum on that as well? That may change the fabric of the community if 10,000 or 12,000 people are coming in a day to visit a facility like that. Where do you draw the line on what type of economic activity there should be a referendum held on which may significantly change the fabric of the community?

Mr Eves: I just wanted to clarify the wording of the question in subsection (3). I take Mr Kwinter's suggestion: "Are you in favour of gambling casinos being operated under the Ontario Casino Corporation Act?"

The Chair: Shall PC motion alternate 1 carry?

Mr McClelland: Could this be a recorded vote? Rather than go through the motions twice, I thought I'd advise you we'll be asking.

The Chair: A recorded vote on the PC motion, section 5.2. All those in favour?


Carr, Eves, Kwinter, McClelland, Phillips.

The Chair: All those opposed?


Duignan, Martin, Lessard, Mathyssen, Sutherland.

The Chair: The motion is lost.

Interjection: What's the score so far?

Mr Eves: We're batting a thousand.

The Chair: That brings us to the PC motion, section 5.3.

Mr Eves: I'm withdrawing our proposed amendments to sections 5.3 and 5.4. You can speed right along to section 6.

The Chair: I should bring it to the attention of the committee that the Liberal motion and the PC motion are basically the same for 6.3.

Mr Kwinter: In light of the PCs withdrawing their proposed amendments 5.3 and 5.4, could I ask a question of the parliamentary assistant? Considering that for all intents and purposes proponents are going to be tendering on the operation of this casino -- they have been given a request for proposal and nine of them will be making a proposal and one of them will be accepted. Once that is accepted in the normal course of events, like any other tender, will the terms of that proposal be made public?

Mr Duignan: Yes.

Mr Kwinter: So all of the terms and conditions that will be entered into by the government with the proponent will be made public?

Mr Duignan: Not the contract, but the proposal.

Mr Kwinter: Can you explain the difference?

Mr Duignan: To the extent that is permissible under the law, we would be more than pleased to make it public. There could be portions of the contract subject to the freedom of information act pertaining to financial information, for example, of the proponent. Those parts of the contract which are permissible under the law, we would be more than pleased to make public.

The Chair: The next section we're going to deal with -- it was brought to our attention by Mr Eves -- is a PC motion labelled section 6.1. It should actually be 6(1).


Mr Eves: Basically, all I'm doing is being consistent -- perhaps it's a housekeeping amendment more than anything -- but similar to subsection 5(1), which starts off with the words, "Except as limited by this act."

I move that subsection 6(1) of the bill be amended to read as follows:

"Except as limited by this act the corporation shall comply with any directions given to it by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

That's being consistent with what is in subsection 5(1) of the act, and I understood from the parliamentary assistant yesterday that the government would find that amendment to be in order.

Mr Duignan: The amendment is in order and is quite agreeable to us.

Mr Eves: You've got to vote for us now, Kimble.

Mr McClelland: I want to note that it breaks up Mr Eves's perfect game, and I do have some concerns about that. It was his first in a long and illustrious career.

The Chair: If there's no further serious debate, all those in favour PC motion subsection 6(1)? All those opposed? It looks like it's unanimous.

That brings us to a PC motion and a Liberal motion, which are identical, so I guess as the Liberals are the official opposition we'll allow them -- actually, we have to deal with both motions but they are the same. Maybe we could have an agreement to deal with one or the other so that we don't duplicate --

Mr Eves: I would be quite happy to deal with the Liberal motion and withdraw ours.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Eves. Liberal motion, subsection 6(3).

Mr McClelland: With respect to subsection 6(3), I move that subsection 6(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "nineteen" in the second line and substituting "twenty-one."

The Chair: Can you read that exactly as it's going in, Mr McClelland, please, just so there's no discrepancy between the motion as presented and how it will be recorded.

Mr McClelland: I move that subsection 6(3) of the bill be amended by striking out the word "nineteen" and replacing it with the word "twenty-one."

Mr McClelland: We heard particularly from the city of Windsor, from both the mayor and representatives of council and the police chief, among others, their concern with respect to the traffic that will be coming over from Detroit. I want to offset that at the outset by saying that Dr Ron Ianni made what I would consider to be a very well-reasoned, philosophical defence of the position of keeping the age of majority as it is currently embodied in the legislation as the effective age. Far be it from me to question the wisdom and judgement of somebody of his stature. However, I want to add to the debate that I actually had outside of these doors with Dr Ianni that he hadn't taken into consideration, quite frankly, the concerns of the chief that there would be a particular draw, if you will, from the Detroit market.

As you know, the projections are that there will be some 12,000 visitors a day and it is hoped that as many as 80% of that number will be drawn from the US side of the border. The age of majority or the drinking age in that jurisdiction is 21. There is clearly a tie-in, if you will, with the sense of accepting responsibility and education and, I suppose, a package of societal values that goes along with that. It has been suggested in response that we could have an education program to ensure that those who are of a younger age, ie, 19, 20 years of age, would be given some opportunity to be educated in terms of their responsibility.

The experience of the chief of police and the women and men who serve under his leadership has been that they encounter a disproportionate number of calls and difficulty resulting from the 19-to-21 age group -- I'll say it clearly and I'll say it candidly -- coming over from the United States. Their reasoning or their feeling is that this is in large measure, if you will, that the cork is in the bottle and they come over and it sort of pops wide open when they get over to Windsor because they don't have the experience or the opportunity to engage in social drinking and the responsibilities that go along with it in their own jurisdiction, and sort of a pent-up desire and a pent-up need is realized in Windsor, with some downside consequences.

I can't, quite frankly, in good conscience question the judgement of the chief of police and his officers. Likewise, the mayor who sits on the police services commission has supported the chief in that regard. It seems to me that you have a very particular problem that has been identified, with the locale being Windsor, the huge market, some of the problems, without getting into a sociological dissertation or discussion, of Detroit being imported into Windsor. We are now going to add to that and effectively go out and advertise, trying to bring people in. If a problem already exists, I think that a reasonable and perhaps the only conclusion can be that the problem will be exacerbated by the fact that we'll be bringing in huge additional numbers that would include that particular population, that demographic.

The police chief says very clearly that it has proven to be a problem for him. I think that in the interests of the city, in the interests of the residents there, the merchants who are in support of the police, we have an obligation to provide him with as little downside effect to deal with as is reasonably possible. I do not think it would put in jeopardy the project; I do not think there would be such a negative impact on the flow, both in terms of cash and population, that it would offset the viability of the project.

Quite frankly, if one looks at it from a cost-benefit risk, it seems to me that the potential cost has been laid out fairly clearly in a fairly reasoned fashion by the chief of police and other officials in the city of Windsor. I can't add to what he's said. Most members of the committee heard it, were present or it's certainly available on the record. I can only say that in response to that, I think we have an obligation to do what we can to offset the problems that the chief feels will be there. That's the rationale for changing the age to 21.

Mr Kwinter: I'd also like to speak in favour of this amendment. I apologize to the committee. I had an article that appeared in this week's Business Week. Interestingly and coincidentally, one of them deals with casino gambling and the other one deals with the city of Niagara Falls. I had them duplicated and I rushed out of my office at noon today and didn't bring them, but I'll share them with you tomorrow.

The article is by a Nobel laureate. He has an interesting hypothesis about why casinos should be supported. But the interesting thing -- there are a few interesting things in it -- he talks about the profile of the typical casino visitor. They are traditionally middle-aged and older. Casino gambling is not an activity that is particularly attractive to very young people.

When you consider that most of the proposed casino sites we're dealing with are at border communities and most of the targeted market is in the United States, it would seem to me that you're going to skew the profile of the typical attendees at a casino by the fact that what is going to be driving them to the casino isn't so much the casino; it's the fact that they can go and drink. I think it's just going to complicate a situation that's going to have enough complications of its own.


If you had a market you knew was being aimed primarily at people in Ontario, I would say there should be no real problem. But when you recognize where your market is and the fact that, for whatever reason, in the United States the drinking age is 21 and in Ontario it is 19 -- that in itself has already created some problems for some border communities -- it could only be exacerbated when you have another incentive and another attraction, where some people who may not even think about it will say, "Oh, well, we can go over there and we can do these things." I think it's an alcohol-related restriction, as opposed to a gambling-related restriction.

It would be interesting to know if any of the research people can tell me if the age restriction in casinos in the United States is 21. You may be able to go in, as we found out in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan; you can work serving drinks in the casino at 18; you can do all those things. You just can't drink and you probably just can't gamble for the same reason, but it's all alcohol-related. I don't think it's so much gambling-related.

I just feel that without the restriction, you're going to just, as I said, exacerbate a situation that's already there. I know that some will argue the situation is already there. Anybody who wants to, from the United States, can come across the border and drink and they do it. All you're doing is adding one more reason why they should be doing it and compounding a problem that has already been identified, certainly in Windsor, and I predict the same thing would happen in Niagara Falls, Sault Ste Marie and anywhere else where they're going to be dependent on that cross-border patronage.

Mr Eves: I would like to support this amendment. First, I think Mr McClelland has indicated the city of Windsor -- the many witnesses that appeared before us in Windsor, including of course the mayor and the chief of police -- asked that this change in the age be made from 19 to 21. I think that it is incumbent upon us to acquiesce to their request.

I think Mr Kwinter makes a good point. I think that in most jurisdictions where they have casino gambling in the United States, you will find that the age limit is 21. That may be because the age of majority in that particular state is 21. I haven't really looked into that. However, we do have an unusual --

Mr Duignan: The problem is that the drinking age is 21 too.

Mr Eves: I'm reading from a copy of the letter that was sent to the parliamentary assistant by Mr Alfieri with respect to this issue.

We already have some anomalies in our system. For example, you can't drink in the province of Ontario until you're 19, but when you're 18 you can serve liquor. Surely that is a similar situation to the fact that is raised in this letter about, how could you deal in blackjack if you're 19 or 21 if the age limit for the casino is 21? Well, how can you serve liquor in a licensed establishment if you're 18 when the age for drinking is 19? Obviously, the province found its way around that when it wanted to. Surely the province can find its way around this if it wants to.

I think there has been a fairly decent case made, by the chief of police in the city of Windsor and by others, for seriously considering the age restriction or limitation of 21. If the government is not satisfied that that request is an appropriate one, I'd like to know what research or documentation it has to substantiate its argument that it's quite appropriate to leave it at 19.

I just think that here we have a municipality that, as the government points out, has wholeheartedly endorsed the idea of a casino, wants a casino in its boundaries, has made a very specific request by numerous witnesses, including none less than the mayor and the chief of police, that the age restriction be 21, and here we are saying: "We know what's better for you than you do. Too bad. Thank you very much for your advice but we're going to leave the age at 19." I just don't think that's appropriate.

Mr Carr: On some of the other amendments that will be coming forward you're going to hear the rationale behind it as being that the city and the mayor of Windsor want it. It's interesting the government picks out the ones it wants and justifies it when it chooses to, and then when the mayor and the police chief want this substantial amendment it chooses to ignore it.

I know Carman and I spent some time going out when we were in Windsor and had some discussions with one of the police officers who was out and about. She told us that they do in fact have a problem with the 19-to-20-year-olds drinking, and that a lot of the problems are the Americans coming over who can drink between 19 to 21 years of age and creating a lot of problems in the city of Windsor now with the Americans coming across.

I believe, and maybe the parliamentary assistant will speak to this, the reason they're leaving this as 19 is they want those Americans to come over. They say 12,000 a day, of which 80% will be Americans. I think they don't care if 19-year-olds come over and lose a lot of money if they're Americans between 19 and 21 if they're going to spend money and drink. I don't think they see the downside in some of the problems that will be created in terms of crime. That is the high population age group for crime. Already in Windsor the police we spoke to on an informal basis say that the Americans coming over are creating problems there with the drinking and the fighting at night at the various bars.

I think the government sees the numbers coming over. They know they're going to be spending a high proportion, like they do right now, buying the liquor and the beer. I think they don't care. As long as they get them over spending the money in the casinos, I think they don't care; otherwise, I suspect they probably would have followed the advice of the mayor of Windsor, who wants this.

I think this is going to be the key age group where you're going to have trouble; you already do in the city of Windsor with this group coming across. If you include them as being allowed to gamble, I think it's going to be the single age group where you're going to have problems.

The chief of police, in front of this committee, talked about the problems with those people in the age group; it wasn't just us talking to the police informally. But I think, by refusing this, the only thing one could deduce is that the government doesn't care. If the Americans are 19 and they come over and want to spend their money, they are going to take it because they see that as a big bulk of where they're going to get the revenue. This whole thing, as I've said all along, has been driven by revenue. Hopefully, the government will change its mind and listen to the mayor and the police chief.

Mr McClelland: I want to anticipate one of the arguments, quite frankly, and try to dispel it right up front. We'll be told, I suspect, by the parliamentary assistant -- he may not have said this but he certainly had this discussion privately, not in the confidential sense but just off the record -- that the opinion rendered to the project team is that to change the age from 19 to 21 would require a defensible rationale.

By way of example, it was suggested that the so-called Offer report, a report of a committee of the Legislative Assembly that travelled, I believe, in 1985-86 and rendered a report to the Legislative Assembly, resulted in the changing of the drinking age from 18 to 19. The rationale was that report provided us with some substantive information and an apology, to use the word in its strictest classical sense, for changing the age.


If you'll bear with me in terms of walking this through the logic, we now have a situation where the Legislative Assembly has gone to a particular jurisdiction, has done specifically and precisely on a local level what the so-called Offer report did province-wide in 1985-86. Now we're faced with this dilemma, it seems to me from a logical point of view that we need a rationale.

Surely, the testimony brought before this committee is exactly the same kind of rationale that legally justified -- we're not talking about a political opinion or a decision -- that gave legal justification for changing the age from 18 to 19. I think one would be very hard pressed to defy or to offset that conclusion.

If it was the opinion of legal counsel that a report of the Legislative Assembly justified changing the drinking age, surely it follows that the professional testimony given to this committee would be sufficient rationale to change the age for a specific locale and a specific operation.

If somehow that isn't the case, I'd be interested in hearing it from the parliamentary assistant, because he can't, it seems to me, depend on your rationale being the hearings of a legislative committee on one hand and say, "We don't have any rationale to do it in this case," when in fact the expert testimony and I will take a leap or qualify, in my own mind, the chief as an expert who provided, I think, the best evidence that we could have heard with respect to this issue in the city of Windsor.

So it seems to me that the argument that may be brought forward and I want to deal with up front must be that I think you have the rationale. You have it from a professional law enforcement officer; you have it from people in the city. I just can't, quite frankly, accept the government's argument that there is no defensible rationale for changing the age.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): As has been indicated, this was a suggestion that was made by the chief of police for the city of Windsor, Chief Adkin, and he was supported in that recommendation by the mayor, by some business people in the city, by the chamber of commerce, by the convention and visitors bureau and by the Cleary Convention Centre as well. It's also a recommendation that was made early on by the city of Windsor casino convention centre committee in its report of May 1992, so it's been fairly consistent in the city of Windsor.

The chief speaks from a great deal of experience and I've shared some of that experience as well. I've gone out with the police in the city of Windsor on a Saturday night and travelled around with them and I've seen the sorts of problems that are caused by young people who come over to Windsor and consume too many alcoholic beverages and, for whatever reason, decide to beat each other up in parking lots. I don't understand the basis for that sort of activity or why people find that entertaining, but that's what happens in the city of Windsor.

I know that the chief's interests are only with respect to public safety and the wellbeing of citizens in the city of Windsor, and although I know that this isn't really an issue that's going to have a significant adverse impact on public safety in the city of Windsor, it is something that causes a disturbance on a regular basis to have young people come over to Windsor and consume alcoholic beverages and get in trouble.

As has been said in other jurisdictions, the drinking age is 21 and there must be some good reasons, I would assume, for that age to have been chosen. I know that if we were to suggest that the age be 21 instead of 19, there is the possibility of there being a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we may not be able to defend that challenge.

However, I know that the chief is only concerned about, as I said, the public safety and wellbeing of the citizens of the city of Windsor, and he's also indicated that he feels, in order to maintain that, he needs a certain number of police officers in the city to do that.

Up until this point, we know that there hasn't been an agreement as to the number of people that the police chief feels that he does require in order to that. I'd feel a lot more comfortable dealing with this amendment if I felt that the chief and the government had come to some agreement with respect to the number of people he may require to maintain public safety and the wellbeing of people in the city of Windsor. I would ask that we defer consideration of this section.

The Chair: Mr Duignan, I believe, wanted to complete this round of discussion with a comment. Mr Duignan, Mr Lessard has suggested that this motion be stood down. I wasn't sure if you'd heard that.

Mr Duignan: I wasn't aware of that. Given the fact that Mr Lessard wants to stand this motion down, I will stand it down and use my arguments at a later point.

Clerk of the Committee: It's a Liberal motion. It's not his motion.

The Chair: It's a Liberal motion.

Mr Duignan: Oh, it's a Liberal motion. I'm sorry.

Mr Phillips: You're against it.

Mr Duignan: I'll make a couple of comments. First, we're in sympathy with the police chief and the mayor of Windsor and the problems they're having with the 19- and 20-year-olds from Detroit. Monte hit it on the head when he said it's alcohol-related. Don't forget that we will be serving alcohol in the casino, but not on the gaming floor. In fact, people will be able to go to a casino to get a drink, but not be able to gamble under this proposed amendment.

So that doesn't mean necessarily that disturbances will stop. They still will be able to get a drink; they won't be able to gamble.

Mr Eves made reference to the fact that I had sent him a copy of a letter I had received from the assistant deputy minister on the whole question of the 21-year-olds, and I would like to read a couple of paragraphs from this particular letter, which makes a good argument on the fact that we feel that this would not stand a challenge under the Charter of Rights. Let's begin at the third chapter, which states:

"The charter guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination on the basis of age. The age of majority is 18. There are many laws which draw distinctions on this basis of age. Currently in Ontario the age of 16 is set for driving and withdrawing from parental care. The age of 18 is required for voting, contracting and for gambling outside of casinos, and a higher age of 19 has been set for drinking alcohol.

"When the drinking age was raised from 18 to 19," I think reference was made to "the Offer committee toured the province and consulted widely with a whole range of interested parties. The drinking age was at that point raised to 19, based on extensive data that justified the action."

If the opposition can provide us with extensive data that would justify moving the gambling age from 19 to 21, we would be prepared to hand it over to our constitutional lawyers to review. But the decision to move the drinking age from 18 to 19 was based on extensive data around that question.

"We also believe that any departure from the age of majority applied in other contexts has to be justified by the government as being reasonable. This justification requires evidence to support the government's stated objective.

"In addition, certain jobs in a casino require that the employees, in effect, play games of chance as agents of the house. This includes blackjack dealers, baccarat dealers and other table games. If individuals under 21 are not permitted to gamble in a casino, this would also exclude 19- and 20-year-olds from these jobs.

"In order to justify drawing the line at age 21, the government would have to demonstrate that 19- and 20-year-olds, while mature enough to do everything else including gambling at racetracks, bingos, charitable casinos and lotteries, are not mature enough to gamble at casinos. In the absence of such evidence, there is real likelihood that a higher age limit would not be justified under the charter."

If the opposition could provide extensive data as is provided under the Offer report, we would certainly be most willing to give that to our constitutional lawyers to review. We feel at this time there isn't substantial evidence to move the gambling age from 19 to 21.


Mr Sutherland: If anything, just to support what the parliamentary assistant has said, the comments from Mr Kwinter from the articles he's going to distribute would be evidence against that fact, that the majority of people who go to gamble are not young people, they're not in that 19-to-21 age bracket. While I understand the chief of police has concerns about that, that's fair enough, the issue of policing has to be dealt with. But to say it can't be, to potentially deny those under 21 jobs at the casino when youth unemployment is so high, to deny, to say: "Yes, you can go to a racetrack and gamble. When you're 18, you can buy a lottery ticket, but you can't go to the casino gambling" -- the reason you can't is that you've got to be 19, of course, because alcohol is involved there; alcohol is not involved in the other types of gambling activities.

If anything, the evidence would suggest that there isn't going to be a lot of young people coming over who are going to come over for the purposes of gambling. They still may come over and go to the bars and do their drinking and the other activities they've been doing now because of the differential in the drinking age, but I'm sure the marketing information would imply that the 19-to-21-year-olds are not the major target and this casino is not relying on 19-to-21-year-olds to survive.

Mr Kwinter: I'd like to respond to the last comments and the comments of the parliamentary assistant. It's precisely because of the profile of the average casino-goer that I think there is a problem. The Offer report happened to be initiated during my tenure as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Steven Offer was my parliamentary assistant and I gave him the mandate to go out and examine that issue.

You probably will know that we also had an initiative for beer and wine in the corner store, and the big argument was: "How can you be selling beer and wine in the corner store when youngsters are working in the stores stocking shelves? They won't be able to work there," which is patently absurd. Just because you're selling a product doesn't mean you have to be of age to use it. You don't get contaminated because there are bottles or cans on the shelves. As a result, that was an argument that was put forward, but it had no validity.

You'll remember, those of you who visited the casino in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, that people under the age of 21 were permitted to work in the casino. They could work; they just couldn't participate. They could do all of the things: They could act as a dealer, they could do everything they wanted to do; they just couldn't gamble.

So what happens is we have a situation where that is not an issue. It doesn't restrict anybody from any kind of labour. The problem we have is that we've heard several people say they are not really targeting the Ontario taxpayer. They are not trying to remove from the Ontario taxpayer their hard-earned dollars; they're trying to earn revenues from the tourist dollar.

My concern, and obviously the concern of the chief of police of Windsor and the chamber of commerce and the other six or seven different groups that endorse age 21, is that there will not be any great hardship imposed on anybody other than resolving a problem. For those citizens of Windsor who are under the age of 21 and can't go into the casino, that will not be a severe hardship, because the demographics and the profile of the casino-goer shows they're not a major target group.

My concern, and I'm sure the concern of the police chief and the others, is not so much the casino per se, but the fact that the casino will become a high-profile locale or venue and it will attract more of the people who are creating the problems for the citizens of Windsor and, by extension, the would-be people in Niagara Falls or Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan. I would suggest, contrary to what was suggested by the parliamentary assistant, that the total premises of the casino be off limits to those who are under the age of 21 and not have a situation where you go in there to drink but you couldn't gamble, the idea being that you're going to have the problem. I think everybody recognizes the problem; all they're trying to do is contain the problem. By having this high-profile venue, it's going to attract more people who might not come but would be attracted by the mere fact there is this new facility. It would seem to me that to not honour this particular request of the citizens of Windsor is doing them an injustice and is something that I think we're going to have a very difficult time justifying.

I don't think there's a legal impediment to do it. We've already heard from the parliamentary assistant, who read out all of the situations where there are different age restrictions for different facilities. I don't think it's going to create a serious hardship on the operation of the casino, but I do think it's going to solve an irritant and a problem that the people in Windsor and, by extension, the people in these other border communities, will be dealing with. I think it's something that has come through loud and clear to members of this committee. If there was one unifying message we got it's that you should change the age to 21, and we should do all we can to accommodate that.

The Chair: Mr Duignan has indicated Mr Jim Mundy, ministry staff, would like to make a comment.

Mr Jim Mundy: In the interests of informed debate, I guess, the amendment would have the effect of having the bill read, "The corporation shall not permit individuals under 21 years of age to play games of chance in a casino." It would not bar them from admittance to the casino complex. It would not bar them from admittance to the bar, the hotel or any of the other facilities, save and except the gaming floor.

I'd also like to point out that in order to serve alcohol, you don't need to drink with the customer. In order to deal blackjack or baccarat, you must gamble with the customer; you are gambling. It is in fact the case that if this amendment were to pass, there are certain jobs within the casino, on the gaming floor, which you would have to be 21 in order to have, in order to get the job, in order to perform the duties.

Mr Kwinter: Without getting involved in the semantics and getting into a great discussion, the definition of "gambling" is not necessarily playing a particular game. The definition of "gambling" is when you play to win or lose. When you are dealing, you are not winning or losing. You are winning or losing in the game sense, but the employee has nothing to lose. They are hired to play the game. The only person who can win or lose is the player who's playing with them. That employee is not gambling, he is providing a service, and whether the player wins or loses is not impacting on him one bit. He has nothing to gain, nothing to lose. He may lose his job if he's a lousy dealer, but he is not gambling. The only person who is gambling is the person who is playing against him. This person is participating in a game but is not gambling and there is a subtle difference.

Mr Mundy: If you're playing blackjack, you're gambling against the house and the dealer is the agent of the house. The house can win and the house can lose, and you can win and you can lose.

Mr Kwinter: If I play blackjack with you and there's no money changing hands -- and this was the whole point that whatever his name was, the guy in Ottawa, was saying. As long as he doesn't take a rakeoff, he is not gambling; he's playing.

Ms Korey: Mr Turmel.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Turmel, right. What I'm saying to you is that when you are an employee playing a game of blackjack, you are not gambling because you've got nothing at risk. You're not winning, you're not losing; you're just playing a game. It's no different than, to use the corollary, you selling somebody a lottery ticket. You are not gambling; you're just selling a lottery ticket. If you're dealing a hand and you have nothing at stake personally, you're not gambling; you're just providing a service. The only person who's gambling is the person playing with you who may win or lose, and that is the difference.

Mr Mundy: The house may win or lose as well and you are its agent.

Mr Kwinter: It's a very subtle distinction. It's the same thing as, again, when I was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, we had a real problem with putting the onus, with someone who comes into a bar and gets drunk. Are you, as the bartender, liable for that person getting drunk or not? Well, in some cases you are. As a server you have to be able to recognize when that person has exceeded the limit, but until that person exceeds the limit, you are not participating in getting somebody drunk.

It's very much the same thing. You can be 16, 17, 18 and pour drinks without falling afoul of the Liquor Control Board or the Liquor Licence Board. It's exactly the same thing. The only time you have a problem, as I say, is if it can be proven that you knowingly allowed this person to get drunk. We've had cases like that where someone has gone out, had an accident and the dispenser has been charged. I would love to get a legal definition as to whether or not dealers in a facility where they're being paid to deal are legally gambling.


Mr Eves: Yes, I would agree with Mr Kwinter. I don't think there's a dealer anywhere in a casino in any jurisdiction that would consider himself a player or a gambler. That's a job; they are a dealer; they're dealing on behalf of the house or the casino; they are an agent or an employee for the house, but they aren't gambling.

Gambling, to me, means that you're a player and you're sitting there to win or lose your money. The dealer's certainly not playing with his or her money. They're playing with the house's money, and if you asked 100 dealers, I don't think one would consider themselves a player or that they are gambling. They have a job, and that's dealing cards at the blackjack table. However, I'm sure we could take care of that, if need be, by definition or legislation as well.

However, on to the larger issue. The parliamentary assistant mentioned, "Well, if the opposition, or other people, the people of Windsor who have expressed an opinion that they want the age limit to be 21, provide us with the overwhelming argument and the statistics and the facts, we'd be happy to look at it." I think it's incumbent upon the government to do that research and investigate that issue, the same as Mr Offer did when he was the parliamentary assistant in a previous government. I think it should be incumbent upon the government, with its resources, to look further into this issue.

The overwhelming majority of witnesses who appeared before us in Windsor, including the mayor and the chief of police, among others, indicated that it's strongly their preference that the age limit be set at 21 as opposed to 19. I think the viewpoint that Mr Lessard was putting forth earlier was that he was listening to his constituents, which indeed each and every one of us is elected to do.

I understand the government's reluctance but I really feel it's incumbent upon the government to look into this issue more thoroughly, as indeed Mr Offer did with respect to the drinking age in the province of Ontario. I would say to the parliamentary assistant, surely that's your role. That's the role of government.

Mr McClelland: I just want to say, in this case, particularly with regard to some of the comments made by Mr Lessard, I think it's incumbent on us to err on the side of caution and to be very circumspect about the decision on this particular matter.

Mr Phillips: Isn't the matter, I think, fairly simple? We are attempting to work cooperatively with partners. and the clear partner in this is the city of Windsor. They've indicated in all their research they have a strong recommendation to us that the age be 21. As Mr Eves said, that to me is the weight of the evidence we have before us. Why would we want to go against the wishes of the group charged with the prime responsibility of setting the climate for this thing by telling them they have to allow 19-year-olds to play when they say, "Based on our knowledge of our drawing area and, after all, 80% of the people who come here are going to be Americans, our strong recommendation is that it be 21"? Why would we not listen to them and let that happen?

Mrs Mathyssen: At the risk of entering into a hair-splitting contest, I have some concerns about this whole issue about providing proof. I'd like to say, in reference to what Mr Eves said, that if you're gambling with someone's else's money you're not really gambling, that flies in the face of the logic in regard to lottery tickets and underage children not being allowed to purchase lottery tickets. You could use the argument, "If I give my child money to play lottery tickets, it's not that child's money; they're not really gambling."

The logic is becoming very, very convoluted here. I can see that there's going to be some quite significant problems in terms of providing that body of proof that's required in order to withstand a charter challenge. I merely wanted to add that particular two cents to the gambling pot.

Mr Sutherland: I wasn't at the hearings in Windsor because I was, along with Mr Phillips, dealing with the capital corporations act here in Toronto that week during the hearings, but no one has brought up any substantial evidence to support the fact that the main market of this 80% Americans are 19-to-21-year-olds. The evidence that Mr Kwinter is going to present to us is that the vast majority of people who go to casinos aren't 19-to-21-year-olds, so the major portion of the market is not going to be there; therefore, you're not going to have a significant increase in 19-to-21-year-olds coming over.

The chief has obviously left this sense with the committee and the other people there that, "Yes, we have a problem with 19-to-21-year-olds coming over who are coming over and drinking." They're concerned about that problem, but I don't see how the problem with drinking because their legal age is different is going to automatically relate to the casino, when obviously the 80% Americans are clearly not 19-to-21-year-olds. In the information Mr Kwinter is going to provide us with, they're not the market for people who go to casinos, period.

The Chair: Shall Liberal motion subsection 6(3)? Seeing none, shall the motion carry?

Mr McClelland: A recorded vote, please.

The Chair: All those in favour of Liberal motion subsection 6(3)?


Carr, Eves, Kwinter, McClelland, Phillips.

The Chair: All those opposed?


Duignan, Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, Sutherland.

The Chair: The motion is lost.

Next is the new, improved version, the Liberal motion to section 6.

Mr Kwinter: One has been withdrawn. The PC motion has been withdrawn. We've already read into the record and discussed Liberal motion subsection 6(3), and we voted on that. We are now dealing with what?

Clerk of the Committee: It was handed out this afternoon.

The Chair: It looks like a government motion, but it's now called a Liberal motion and there's an addition to the bottom of it.

Mr Kwinter: Oh, 6(5), okay.

The Chair: Yes, 6(5), 6(6), 6(7) and 6(8).

Mr McClelland: Mr Chairman, if I might be of some assistance --

The Chair: I'd appreciate that.

Mr McClelland: The Liberal amendment originally proposed under 16.1 has effectively, or for the most part, been incorporated by the government amendment as put forward under subsection 6(5), 6(6), 6(7) and 6(8). The parliamentary assistant -- I say this in all candour -- graciously suggested that it be moved by the Liberal opposition inasmuch as I suppose it was largely a product of our original amendment, 16.1.

I might add by way of explanation that there'll be a portion of this numbered subsection 6(9), which the government will reject, that I would like to put on the record, and then deal with those in series.


I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:


"(5) In each municipality in which a casino operates under this act, the corporation shall establish an independent committee in accordance with the regulations made under this act.

"Members of committee

"(6) Each committee for a municipality shall include a member of the police services board of the municipality.

"Powers of committee

"(7) Each committee shall have the power to monitor the social, economic and law enforcement consequences of the operation of casinos in the municipality and to make recommendations to the corporation and to the minister responsible for the administration of this act."

I'll read this, if I could interject parenthetically, a bit more slowly because I'm not sure it's in front of everybody; this is the handwritten portion:


"(8) The corporation shall pay the reasonable costs of each committee if the corporation has approved such costs before the committee incurs such costs."

Subsection (9), and I indicated that this is where there will be some division:

"(9) Any law enforcement costs, as determined by the committee, incurred by a municipality in which a casino is operated under this act shall be borne in full by the province of Ontario."

That concludes the reading of the amendment. Given the discussion that's taken place, I think it would certainly be appropriate to discuss them at the pleasure of each member, but I suspect there'll be difference in voting on subsections (5), (6), (7) and (8) as opposed to subsection (9).

The Chair: We will deal with the Liberal motion, subsections 6(5), (6), (7), (8) and (9). We will open the floor with any opening comments and discussions with regard to this.

Mr McClelland: I'll be very brief, if I may add something for the discussion. I think the purpose for it is fairly self-evident. We heard from a variety of people, obviously people who are opposed, that they have some grave concerns with respect to the social and economic impact. By way of example, and only by way of example, I think many members would agree that perhaps not the best but one of the better-presented briefs was from the Social Planning Council of Niagara Falls, which effectively said that there are a whole lot of questions out there that need to be answered. I take nothing away from other people, I might add, other briefs that were presented that raised a number of questions. There were others, including representatives from the University of Windsor, I believe, who said that it would be wise, in their view, to set up a mechanism whereby there should be a measurement of the impact on the community that hosts the casino.

I want to indicate again, for the record, that I asked and some of my colleagues asked if in fact such a study, by extrapolating data from other jurisdictions, had been undertaken by the government, and the government said it had not.

Quite frankly, I think this is a little bit late. Effectively, the intent of these amendments is to set up a committee, and much of this work should be done prior to launching the project. But in the absence of that report having been done, notwithstanding the fact that the government has said it has plans to undertake such an analysis, I think it's incumbent on the government and indeed everybody associated with this to take a very hard, objective look in terms of the impact on the community, to measure the costs as well as the benefits.

Although I do not pretend for one minute that a committee will be able to nail down each and every impact, both on individuals and the community at large, I think it will be able to give a very comprehensive review of the impact on the city of Windsor and subsequently for other communities so that the government can respond appropriately to the issues that are raised through that process.

I want to thank the parliamentary assistant for his indulgence, but notwithstanding his acceptance of our amendment that was 16.1, I feel strongly about the new subsection, subsection (9), which I have indicated speaks for itself. In the absence of some resolution that I think Mr Lessard referred to with respect to policing costs, we have to have -- God forbid I should use this phrase -- a fail-safe mechanism for the city of Windsor to not be hitting its local taxpayer with policing costs that in all probability will result.

I might add, particularly in light of the fact that I think that we unwisely, foolishly defeated the previous amendment with respect to the age, that I think there will be some costs; they may in fact be amplified as a result of that. Time will tell. I suspect that the committee will in fact look at the age as one of the issues.

As I said, I think the subsections are self-explanatory. Some of my colleagues may want to add further to that.

Mr Eves: We support the amendment by Mr McClelland. First and foremost, several witnesses, especially President Ianni of Windsor, indicated that the community requested we have such an advisory committee. I would peronally prefer, and in fact I will be introducing several smaller amendments, that there be some obligatory provision in such an amendment that the casino would have to pay for social, economic costs, if any, and law enforcement costs.

We are told by the government: "Oh, don't worry about it. In the deal we're negotiating with the casino, costs will be picked up. They'll be paid for law enforcement etc etc. We'll do something about the social ills of compulsive gambling." But they don't want any of this enshrined in legislation so that they have to do it, and I think it should be, quite frankly.

However, despite the fact that the amendment doesn't go as far as I would like to see it go, I will certainly be very supportive of the amendment that Mr McClelland is putting forward and I will also be supporting his subsection (9) with respect to law enforcement costs, because I think it's important that that be enshrined in legislation, as indeed some of the other social and economic costs be as well.

Mr Duignan: I'm going to move an amendment to the amendment deleting the entire subsection 6(9).

The Acting Chair (Mr Kimble Sutherland): Mr Duignan is going to move an amendment to the amendment, and that is to delete subsection 6(9), so now we'll be discussing the amendment to the amendment.

Mr Duignan: We're very supportive of subsections 6(5), (6), (7) and (8), but we're not supportive of (9) because we feel that the committee could end up with more powers than the Legislative Assembly in relation to spending money on enforcement costs.

As we have said over the course of these hearings, we will provide all the necessary police forces that are proven necessary for the operation of a casino, and the negotiations are still continuing at this point with the city of Windsor and the police services board.


Mr Phillips: We're now dealing with the amendment, so I'll speak against the amendment; therefore, I'm obviously speaking in favour of including the police in the funding area.

I'll go back to the point I made earlier, that so many communities are so intent on getting their own casino, that this is going to be the solution to all their problems, and the province I think is planning to take about $850 million a year in revenue out of this source. I think one way we will ensure that we are monitoring this thing properly and recognizing the true implications is by ensuring that some of the added costs that will inevitably be put on communities are highlighted and quantified for ourselves and the public.

Consequently, I think that as the casinos take root, subsection 6(9), as my colleague moved, has two advantages for us. One is that it provides a measure of assurance for those communities that are going to embark on casinos in the future and responds to concerns that people would have that they will not be taking on brand-new, significant cost. Secondly, it will ensure all of us that we monitor the incremental activities that are required by our police forces in dealing with the casinos. I don't see any downside to including it and I see two significant upsides to it, so I'll be voting against the amendment designed to eliminate this and voting for, ultimately, subsection 6(9) as moved by my colleague.

Mr Lessard: The problem I see with subsection 6(9) is that it doesn't make any reference to any incremental costs. It just says that if a committee determines it should be the case that a municipality's law enforcement costs should be covered by the province, then it can call on the province to pay for those costs, whatever they might be. I understand the reason for that amendment, but I don't think it does what's being said. It's not covering increased costs. It really exposes the province to a huge bill.

Mr McClelland: You're absolutely right. Mr Lessard raises a good point. Let me say that I apologize. It was just sloppy transcribing from 16. When I read it into the record it should say, "Any law enforcement costs, as determined by the committee, incurred by a municipality as a result of the operation of a casino in which a casino is operated." It's redundant, but obviously what I was trying to do was piece together part of an amendment that is, you'll see, subsequently typed up, and I apologize for that. But you're quite right, and I thank you for that. That in fact clearly was the intent, and it should relate back to costs associated and resultant strictly from the operation of the casino as determined by the committee. I want to thank you, Mr Lessard, and others who pointed that out.

The Chair: Shall the amendment to the amendment carry? All those in favour?

Mr Eves: What are they voting on?

The Chair: The amendment to the amendment.

All those opposed? You can't vote, Bill.

Mr Eves: I think Bill is replacing Mr North. I think he has a document here that says he's his sub.

Mr Sutherland: Does that mean he's coming to our side? Is that what he said?

Mr McClelland: If you want him.

Mr Eves: Have we got a deal for you.

The Chair: I guess it means Mr North went somewhere else. Mr McClelland has asked for a recorded vote.

Mr McClelland: Yes, please, on the amendment to the amendment.


Duignan, Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, Sutherland.


Carr, Eves, Kwinter, McClelland, Phillips.

The Chair: The amendment to the amendment is lost.

We continue with the section 6 motion which includes (5), (6), (7) and (8). Any discussion?

Mr Sutherland: I'd like to move a 10-minute recess, please.

Mr McClelland: What is the intent of the Chair with respect to adjournment this evening?

The Chair: We were planning on 5 o'clock.

The committee recessed from 1615 to 1634.

The Chair: Order. We're dealing with a Liberal motion section 6, including (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9). Shall the motion carry? All those in favour?

Mr McClelland: Recorded vote, Mr Chair.


Carr, Eves, Kwinter, McClelland, Phillips.


Duignan, Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, Sutherland.

The Chair: The motion is lost.

Shall section 6, as amended, carry?

Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, are there any further amendments to section 6?

The Chair: Not as far as I know, Mr Sutherland.

Mr Sutherland: I'm sorry. I had two more that were circulated that made reference to section 6.

Clerk of the Committee: Those were the government's amendments, and it's not going to move those.

Mr Duignan: I can move the government motion, subsection 6(5).

I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Advisory committees

"(5) The corporation shall establish a community advisory committee in each municipality in which the corporation provides for the operation of a casino."

The Chair: I apologize. There obviously are other amendments to section 6. An explanation, Mr Duignan?

Mr Duignan: I think we've gone through the various explanations on the Liberal motion.

Mr McClelland: I guess, simply put, I find it unusual that you're setting up an advisory committee when you voted against an amendment that sets up an advisory committee, that sets out the purpose of it and indicates the rationale for it; not in detail, but sets some guidelines and a framework under which that committee operates.

What you've done here in subsection (5) as amended now is you've set up a community advisory committee. It doesn't say why. It doesn't say what it does. It doesn't delineate the terms of reference in any way, shape or form. It doesn't cover the costs. It doesn't say how it's going to be set up, what kind of representation; it does not have inclusion of law enforcement representation, there's no necessary inclusion of municipal representation, and so on. It's just quite frankly absurd that you have a situation where you set up a committee after having just defeated an amendment that sets up a committee and articulates the purpose of the committee. It's totally absurd and quite frankly is indicative of much the way this legislation has evolved from day one.

Mr Eves: I share Mr McClelland's frustration. I think that he put forward a very decent amendment that was indeed accepted by the government for the most part. They didn't happen to like subsection (9), which required the government to pay any increased law enforcement costs as a result of the operation of a casino. Now we find the government voting against Mr McClelland's amendment and yet introducing an amendment of its own that virtually does the same thing in a much more general way, establishing a community advisory committee.

On a point of order and perhaps clarification for tomorrow: I don't think it will affect the rest of the committee's deliberations today, now that Mr Phillips has left the committee for the day, but I noted that the Chair indeed voted against the amendment to the amendment on Mr McClelland's amendment to section 6, specifically with respect to subsection (9). I didn't really know whether the Chair did that because the Chair was upholding the status quo, ie, not changing the legislation, or whether the Chair just decided on this particular item the Chair wanted to vote in that appropriate fashion.

I understand that the standing orders do not make any requirements as to how the Chair should vote, but I wondered what advice the clerk of the committee or the Chair could give us, if there are any further tie votes, especially with respect to a future government amendment, that would require the Chair to vote in a tie vote, about whether the Chair would be upholding the status quo or whether the Chair will be voting on each issue as the Chair deems fit.

The Chair: Let the Chair deal with the two things you've raised, Mr Eves. Let me say very directly that although the words I said were clear with regard to the Liberal motion, subsection 6(9), what indeed I meant when I said it was lost was that it would be deleted from the Liberal motion. Now, unfortunately, what I said has a certain and specific meaning in the committee and was recorded as so. That was not the intention of what I said. It is regretful that happened, but it did. We immediately went into a recess and I know there was a flurry of activity around here trying to deal with my faux pas, which has caused some consternation from the government members.


One could perceive that I voted that way because of maintaining status quo, but that indeed was not the case. It was a statement I made that was made erroneously and, however that may be dealt with, clearly it was deemed to have been a certain and specific thing that I said, and that was that the amendment was lost. It's not what I meant. What I meant was that the amendment was, in my mind, to be deleted from the motion. Unfortunately, that's not what I said. Certainly, if we had unanimous consent to revisit that motion, we could deal with it in the way that I meant, but I don't know if we in fact have that unanimous consent from the committee members.

In order to be consistent, and the Chair certainly would like to be consistent, and in order to be non-partisan, and the Chair certainly would like to be that, it would be expected, of course, that the Chair would vote to maintain the status quo of the bill. However, if the members of the committee should agree by majority that amendments from whichever caucus presented are acceptable and therefore the onus does not become the onus of the Chair to cast the deciding vote, then that does not become a problem for the Chair, and I think that's clear.

I just want to say again that it was an error in a word, indeed, that caused us to have that recess and caused the whole motion to be defeated, Mr Eves. That may not seem to be appropriate, but certainly if in the interest of presenting the Liberal motion in its much more detailed fashion with regard to committees, you want to revisit that, it will be at the unanimous consent of the committee; otherwise, I guess it will be brought up at committee of the whole.

Mr Duignan: I certainly would be willing to withdraw the motion I just moved if we had unanimous consent to go back and deal with the Liberal motion dealing with sections 6 through 8.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Chairman, is it my understanding that the parliamentary assistant is prepared to withdraw his motion, which is subsection 6(5), the government motion, and that as long as subsection (9) of section 6 is deleted and there is unanimous consent, there is agreement that the Liberal motion, as amended, with the deletion of subsection (9), would get the support of people? Is that my understanding?

Mr Duignan: That's correct, yes.

Mr Kwinter: Is there unanimous support?

Mr Duignan: Agreed.

Mr McClelland: So what do we do? Go through the motions again?

Mr Kwinter: I move that section 6, subsections (5), (6), (7) and (8), be approved.

The Chair: That's agreed; unanimously, apparently. The Chair wants to thank all the committee members for taking that problem into consideration. Let me tell you, the Chair will be much more careful in the words that he chooses.

In order to make this official, we want clarification for the record. Mr Wood, you have a comment?

Mr Michael Wood: Yes. I just would like to recommend that the committee clarify the wording of subsection (8) of the motion, because on the copy that was distributed, it read with the word "them" twice in the second line of subsection (8), but the version as read by Mr McClelland said "such costs."

Mr McClelland: It seems to me that "such costs" is more specific. It's clearer. I'm in the hands of counsel. You are, if I can use the word, the expert in terms of language. It seems to me "such costs" is more definitive and appropriate, but I leave that in your hands and would solicit your comment on that, sir.

Mr Michael Wood: My own recommendation would be to leave it as I drafted, with "them," because it is shorter. I think it is really clear as to what is meant by "them." "Such" is a word that we try to avoid in legislation if possible. It can be very easily overworked.

Mr McClelland: Thank you. I accept that advice.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I would suggest that "such" and "them" are in exactly the same category. If you think that "such" is a problem, I think that "them" is a problem, and I would like to see something a little more definitive.

Mr Eves: Could you simply reiterate the words: "the corporation has approved the reasonable costs before the committee incurs the reasonable costs," or "the costs"?

Mr Michael Wood: There are several alternatives which I think all say the same thing.

Mr Eves: Well, "the costs" would be sufficient.

Mr Michael Wood: "The costs" would be acceptable; "them" and "such costs" all say the same thing.

Mr McClelland: If we have some consensus that the language reading "the costs" is more acceptable to all concerned, I would be happy to move an amendment to the language such that it will result in the amendment reading, "The corporation shall pay the reasonable costs of each committee if the corporation has approved the costs before the committee incurs the costs."

Mr Eves: We're sinking faster than John Olerud.

The Chair: Now that it's been clarified, we have to vote on the Liberal motion, section 6, subsections (5), (6), (7) and (8), with the new language. All those in favour? Opposed? None. It's carried unanimously.

Shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.

We are now dealing with section 7. Any discussion? All those in favour of section 7? Carried.

Section 8 of the bill: Any discussion?


Mr Duignan: This is standard provisions bylaws.

The Chair: All in favour of section 8? Carried.

Section 9 of the bill.

Mr McClelland: I have a question; I'm not sure what other questions might be forthcoming. I'm wondering if project counsel or research staff might indicate the purpose, rationale, for section 9(1) and, for clarification, outline sections 132 and 136 of the Business Corporations Act -- effectively, if you could explain them, if I could ask for some background information indicating why the Corporations Act and the Corporations Information Act don't apply, if you could help me. I profess that I do not have specific knowledge of the rationale behind that.

Ms Korey: In order to assist you, Mr McClelland, the Corporations and the Corporations Information Act are acts of general application where anyone who starts a corporation, for example, has to have certain filings in the business registry office type of thing. They seldom apply to statutory corporations, mainly because things are much more public in statutory corporations anyhow so you don't have to have a mechanism whereby the public can access these things. That's subsection 9(1).

Subsection (2): Sections 132 and 136 of the Business Corporations Act deal with conflict of interest and also what actions directors can be indemnified for and what actions they can't be indemnified for in Ontario. We imported them from the Business Corporations Act. We felt that directors of the corporation should be held to the same standards as other directors in this province.

Mr McClelland: Thank you. I think there are some other questions also.

Mr Kwinter: I'm not entirely satisfied with the explanation on subsection 9(1), that the Corporations Act and the Corporations Information Act do not apply to the corporation. If in effect all of the provisions of the Corporations Act and the Corporations Information Act will be covered, just by virtue of the fact that this is effectively a crown corporation, I don't see where the problem is, other than the nuisance of another filing.

The implication I get when I look at this, and I have to admit that I was not familiar with these particular acts and how they applied, was that there is a certain exemption by this corporation, that it applies to everybody else but it's not going to apply to this corporation, when in fact the explanation of the legislative counsel is that it does apply, the information is available, but because it's already available, "We're not going to make it available under these two particular acts." Could I have some clarification on that?

Ms Korey: I think the Corporations Act actually does more than just do filings, but in statutory corporations that are established by specific legislation, acts of general application do not apply, not just in the terms of filing. I use the terms of filing as an example of the type of thing that most people are familiar with with respect to those kinds of acts. It was thought that everything that needs to be set out with respect to a specific act is set out in the statute. You can go to that statute and it is a code of behaviour for that corporation, if you like. To import other acts of general application that have nothing to do with this act I think has been the tendency in statutory corporations -- certainly in the statutes I've seen.

The Chair: Shall section 9 carry? Carried.

Shall section 10 of the bill carry? Carried.

Shall section 11 carry?

Mr Kwinter: This is something that's just come up and it relates to what we were talking about in subsection 9(2). Under section 11, it states, "No action or other proceeding for damages may be instituted against any member of the corporation or person appointed to the service of the corporation for any act done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of the person's duty or for any alleged neglect or default in the execution in good faith of the person's duty."

This goes to the heart of very much what is a major issue in the roles of directors of corporations, in that in the past directors have always tried to shield themselves from any liability for their actions. In recent times, this was found to be unsatisfactory and the role of directors saying, "I just went to meetings, I acted in good faith, I had no idea what the officers were doing, and I have no responsibility," there is now a very definite responsibility of directors for the errors and omissions of their corporations. This provides that as long as they're dealing in good faith, they are exempt from any repercussions when, in fact, regardless of whether they are dealing in good faith, if they are dealing incompetently, notwithstanding that it's in good faith, they are liable.

To suggest that the officers, directors and employees of this particular corporation can be excluded from that particular responsibility that accrues to every director of every corporation in Ontario I think is unacceptable.

There has to be an onus on the people involved that goes beyond good faith. It has to deal with responsibility and competence, and taking on responsibility. That is provided for under the Business Corporations Act and again by excluding it, it takes away a common protection that every director is obliged to in Ontario.

You should also know that this has created some problems because there are some directors who are not prepared to take on directorships unless they get directors' insurance or they get some indemnification from their possible liability for decisions that they have taken. It has nothing to do with whether they've done them in good faith; it has do with whether they've done them competently or in the best interests of the shareholders, taxpayers or whoever they represent.

Mr Duignan: Very briefly, as I understand it, this is a usual clause. They are acting public servants who act in good faith and assume a liability for their actions.

Ms Korey: I realize that in private corporations this has been a hot issue recently, the issue of directors' liability. In this particular case, under 6(1) you will recall that the corporation shall comply with any directions given to it by cabinet. The board of directors is the directing mind and will of the corporation and it has to comply with the directions given to it by cabinet. This is found in many statutes, the no-personal-liability, the intention being that in fact it's the crown that gets sued for torts and not the person acting in good faith.

I would say they have to be done in good faith. It's an act done in good faith, and in terms of environmental liability, for example, where this has really come up in the private sector, it seems to me that this wouldn't be a problem for this particular corporation.


Mr Kwinter: In subsection 6(1), I think it was --

Ms Korey: "Comply with any directions."

Mr Kwinter: Yes. "The corporation shall comply with any directions given to it by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." That again presupposes that the corporation is going to get approval for everything that it does from the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which is not the case. All subsection 6(1) says is that if the Lieutenant Governor in Council gives you a direction, you are obligated to follow that direction. It doesn't work the other way. The corporation will have the ability to do lots of things without getting approval to do it. The only thing that 6(1) says is that if the Lieutenant Governor in Council directs you to do something, you must do it.

The other comment that I might make is that legislative counsel says that in statutory corporations it's quite common for there to be no liability, and I would suggest that is because in most cases there's a history of just repeating it. But she also has admitted that a hot item today is directors' liability. It would seem to me, at the very least, that if you want to protect the directors of this corporation but without relieving them of the obligation that any other director has to be responsible and to be competent -- and when I talk about competent, there's a legal definition for it: What would a normal person expect the level of competency to be?

If you wanted to in some way insulate them, then I would suggest, in the same way that a director, if he has any kind of business acumen, would not serve on any board of directors unless he's been assured that there's some indemnification to protect him, that the government take on the responsibility and state that the government shall -- as long as the employee was dealing in good faith and if they want to take the risk of whether he's competent or not -- indemnify anybody who has a claim against that board. Otherwise, by statute, you are removing from general citizens an obligation that everybody has, and that is to get redress if they think that this corporation has not acted properly.

Mr Duignan: I just point out that this particular section does not just deal with the directors of the corporation but all employees of the corporation; not just the directors.

Mr Kwinter: Directors and employees?

Mr Duignan: Yes, and employees.

Mr Kwinter: What you're really saying by this is that you are, by statute, removing the rights of people to get redress against the actions of the directors or employees if their only defence is that they acted in good faith.

Mr Duignan: Jerry, did you want to elaborate?

Mr Jerry Cooper: Again, Jerry Cooper, legal branch at MCCR.

This does not remove anyone's right of redress. It makes the crown liable for any action taken by a member of the board of the corporation or for any employee of the corporation whom someone has a grievance with and wants to sue. This type of provision makes the crown liable rather than the individuals.

I can say, from experience in MCCR, in those statutes where we don't have this type of provision, litigators take a very scattergun approach and they sue and name everybody in the lawsuits. It causes a great deal of added stress to those individuals named just because they happened to see a report, file a report, do whatever.

This just says: "Sue the crown. We'll sort things out from there." The crown is liable for the actions of the members of the board and the employees, and that's the purpose of subsection (2), to impose crown liability.

Mr Kwinter: There is no question in my mind that in any lawsuit, any litigator is going to go after everybody and go after the guy who's got the deepest pockets to make sure that they are included. My wife used to go hysterical when I was the minister and someone would turn up at my door with a lawsuit, where they were suing me as the minister for something.

Mr Jerry Cooper: I've accepted statements naming you.

Mr Kwinter: I know. There would be a bailiff at the door who would present a document, and she'd say, "Oh my God, they're suing you for millions of dollars," whatever it is. I'd say: "Forget it. Don't worry about it. I'm just being sued because I'm the minister, but in fact they're going after the crown." I had not the slightest discomfort but my wife was never convinced. She was convinced that I was going down the tubes.

The thing is that a sophisticated litigator will know that, but my concern is that someone who has a grievance with an employee or a director of this particular corporation, who is trying to act as his own lawyer -- which means he's got a fool for a client -- will go out and see this and feel that he is stopped from taking any action because of the provisions of this act. It would seem to me that there should be a clarification that there is liability. It may be by the crown, and I suggested that, that as long as it is understood that if you want to indemnify employees and directors to make sure -- that's almost a given that that is the case, because anyone who is going to sue is going to eventually wind up suing the crown. That is my concern, particularly in light of the attention that has been given to directors' liability.

Mr Jerry Cooper: I appreciate that, but I think subsection (2) does exactly what you said where it says, "Subsection (1) does not relieve the crown of liability in respect of a tort committed by a person mentioned in subsection (1)." Therefore, you go to the crown and the crown deals with the issue and the responsibility for the competence and the actions of the people on the commission and its employees rests with the crown.

Mr McClelland: I want to try and link two things. You indicate that it's standard fare, if you will.

Mr Jerry Cooper: It's common. It's not in every statute. I speak from experience where it isn't in the statute.

Mr McClelland: Inasmuch as it's common, to use your language, sir, would you if possible offer comment with respect to the provisions of clause 4(d) wherein it provides the corporation the object of entering into reasonably related businesses. I'm not going on a fishing trip, I'm just wondering if there's something there that would set this statute apart from the common exemption inasmuch as the objects of the corporation are perhaps broader and more inclusive in terms of business enterprise in light of clause 4(d). I'm wondering if there's any relevance at all to the commonality, if I can use that word. Is it common for crown corporations to have a provision such as 4(d), and to the extent that that's not particularly unusual, is there the usual exemption as set out in section 11?

Mr Jerry Cooper: My involvement with the casino project is peripheral, although I did participate in the drafting of the legislation with counsel from the casino project. Clause 4(d) would be specific to this bill, but frequently, I think, when you're establishing agencies and boards and looking at the duties, their powers and the potential business, we frame the powers in a fairly broad sense. For example, in the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which Mr Kwinter mentioned before, the powers are fairly broad and they're framed that way.

I don't necessarily see the relationship between 4(d) and 11. The main purpose of 11 is to discourage what I call the scattergun approach and having specific individuals named in lawsuits.

I can say that our inspectors, investigators and technicians, when they're named, they're not as sanguine about it as Mr Kwinter. They're really quite unnerved by the experience. Even though we say, "We'll look after it, your name will be removed," and their names are always removed down the line, for a period of time they see their name being sued for $25 million because an elevator went down or something. That's what that's for.


Mr Eves: Okay, but I think the point that Mr McClelland is making is that we had quite a lengthy discussion -- maybe you were here, maybe you weren't, I can't recall -- on 4(d) and what businesses the corporation may or may not enter into.

For example, I think Mr Kwinter suggested when we talked about that section that the corporation may enter into a business or create a business to manufacture slot machines; that was one that was suggested by somebody anyway. What happens if the corporation did that? They set up this business, and that business is in contravention of some environmental law, polluting of some sort. What you're saying is that an employee or director of this corporation, because it's a crown corporation, those individual directors would not be responsible. If it was a private company manufacturing slot machines, they would be responsible.

Mr Jerry Cooper: No, sir. You're talking something like environmental legislation or anything that involves a provincial offence or a criminal offence. We're talking civil liability here.

Mr Eves: Say a lawsuit then. If I was a member of the board of directors of ABC Co, a private company producing slot machines, and I'm polluting a watercourse or river or stream, whatever, and somebody sues me downstream, I'm personally liable if I'm a director of a private company doing that, right, or could be?

Mr Jerry Cooper: If you were in the position of suing someone, who would you rather have as a defendant, an individual or the crown?

Mr Eves: It depends who's responsible, and as Mr Kwinter said, who has deep pockets. You'd probably sue everybody.

Mr Jerry Cooper: You'd sue the corporation of the crown, likely.

Mr Eves: Yes, but in a private company you'd sue everybody, would you not? In a private company, if you were chairman of the board, you'd be personally responsible, in all probability.

Mr Jerry Cooper: But in this case, we do have --

Mr Eves: In this case you would not be.

Mr Jerry Cooper: We just say, "Sue the crown."

Mr Eves: Yes, but the point I'm trying to make is --

Mr Jerry Cooper: I hear what you're saying.

Mr Eves: -- there are two standards here. If you're on the board of directors of a crown corporation, you're not personally responsible if you're polluting a watercourse, but if you're on the board of directors of a private company polluting a watercourse, you're personally responsible.

Mr Jerry Cooper: We distinguish between civil and criminal liability.

Mr Eves: I understand that, but I'm talking about a civil suit now. So there are two standards: If you're in a crown corporation, you can't be sued civilly for something like that if you're on the board, but if you're in a private corporation, you can be. That's what we're talking about, isn't it?

Ms Korey: Just to add to Jerry's comment, though, in a private corporation, one of the reasons that you're going to sue every Tom, Dick and Harry is that you don't know where you're going to get your money. That corporation may be a shell corporation with no money whatsoever and the chairman may be a rich guy who didn't happen to put his house in his wife's name. So in that case, you do sue everybody.

In this case, you are offering redress that is far beyond redress that a person has in a private corporation. You're offering redress from the crown. If in fact it's found by a court that the person was liable, then the crown is liable.

Mr Sutherland: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I don't want to end this debate. Could I just ask what time the committee is sitting to or whether it was formally set out in the motion or not?

The Chair: We hadn't established a time officially, although a number of members thought we were going to adjourn at 5. We can adjourn at any time.

Mr Kwinter: We can continue this tomorrow, and the next day.

Mr Duignan: On that point, Mr Chair, if I can, considering that yesterday we lost about three hours of clause-by-clause, and we've still got about 30 sections to get through in this bill, I was wondering, if possible, if we could sit an hour earlier in the morning and cut lunchtime down by one hour tomorrow as well, with a hope of getting through the remaining 30 sections or something of this bill.

Clerk of the Committee: That means we start at 9?

Mr Duignan: Starting at 9.

The Chair: It's something we can certainly discuss for a minute here. We also have been legislated to sit on Friday if that's necessary, if we choose to.

Mr McClelland: I'd be happy to accommodate in any way. I'd just indicate that I cannot be here tomorrow at 9. I'll be hard pressed to make it by 10, but I'll be as flexible as necessary and accommodate in any way I can over lunch.

Mr Eves: I agree. If you want to shorten lunch, that would be fine, and then we'll see where we're at by 5 or 6 tomorrow. If we have to sit later, we'll sit later. If we have to sit Friday, we'll sit Friday.

The Chair: Okay. We'll see how the day goes. I want to let everyone know that we do have legislative approval to sit on Friday, should that be necessary.

Mr Eves: Lucky us.

Mr McClelland: I guess we could start Friday at 8 o'clock so we can get out of here early.

The Chair: How long do we want for lunch tomorrow? Just one hour?

Mr Duignan: One hour.

The Chair: Is that fine? Okay. Starting at 10 and recessing at noon till 1? Okay. This committee is adjourned until 10 am tomorrow morning.

The committee adjourned at 1716.