Casino conundrum hinges on money and fairness

Wynne must balance greater revenue from Toronto complex with larger payouts to other casino cities

The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. has made it clear that a downtown Toronto casino is what it wants. But a series of intersecting interests makes the politics of building that casino much more complicated than anticipated.

It boils down to money. Because deals aren’t final, it’s hypothetical money.

Developments this week have made the situation even murkier. On Wednesday, Premier Kathleen Wynne ordered OLG chair Paul Godfrey to come up with a fee system that will treat all municipalities equally.

Toronto had been pushing for a sweeter deal, arguing a casino complex would dwarf smaller stand-alone casinos planned for other communities.

The city wants more money to reflect that. On Thursday, Wynne said a Toronto casino’s revenue would naturally be larger than a casino in a smaller community. It’s a confusing position that’s left many city councillors scratching their heads. One councillor accused Wynne of “flip-flopping.” Another said the premier’s position was “unintelligible” and “obfuscated.” The province says it wants the extra cash that would come from a new casino to help plug its $11.9-billion budget deficit, but every dollar given to the cities is one less that will go to the province. This leaves Wynne with a difficult balancing act: a downtown Toronto casino would bring in the most money for the province, but to get it built, the province might have to give up a bigger share of the proceeds to all cities that get casinos. Toronto city councillors have been fixated on the magic revenue number of $100 million to persuade them to accept a casino. Yet it’s unclear whether even a downtown casino could ever cough up that much cash to the city under the existing sharing formula. Toronto needs either an exception to the formula, or a whole different formula. Municipal politicians from across the province have been prompted to weigh in: those that already have casinos, such as Brantford and Windsor, and those considering the idea, such as Ottawa and Hamilton.

The mayors of these cities made it clear that any new formula would have to be fair for every municipality with a casino.

Adjacent cities such as Mississauga, Vaughan and Markham, which stand to get a casino if Toronto rejects it, have been conspicuously quiet on the issue.

Observers say that Wynne, under pressure across the province and facing the possibility of a spring election, doesn’t want to be seen giving any preference to Toronto.

This week, Wynne sided with the mayors of Brantford and Ottawa, saying any funding deal would have to apply to everyone equally.

“If that means everyone is going to be offered more, so be it. If it means Toronto is going to be offered less, then so be it,” she said.

But giving Toronto less could be a dealbreaker, and giving every city with a casino more would raid the potential benefits to the province that a new casino would bring.

Still, many on council, including Mayor Rob Ford, are adamant that without a sweeter deal, there will be no downtown casino.

“To say that we’re the same as Hamilton or Ottawa is ridiculous,” Ford said. “I think we should (get a better deal), absolutely.”

Council is slated to vote on the issue in May, but there is no firm deadline.