Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

CONTENTS

Tuesday 3 November 1992

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations

Hon Marilyn Churley, minister

Judith Wolfson, deputy minister

Whipple Steinkrauss, assistant deputy minister, business practices division

Eleanor Meslin, assistant deputy minister, corporate services division

Art Daniels, assistant deputy minister, registration division

Domenic Alfieri, assistant deputy minister, Ontario casino project

Frank Drea, chair, Ontario Racing Commission

John Walter, assistant deputy minister, technical standards division

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)

*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)

*Bisson, Giles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)

*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)

Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)

*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)

Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)

Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:

*Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L) for Mr Sorbara

*Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr O'Connor

*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Mr Ferguson

*Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Mr Perruzza

*In attendance / présents

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes: Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Clerk / Greffier: Decker, Todd

The committee met at 1531 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): I'd like to call to order the standing committee on estimates. We've reconvened to complete the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. According to our clerk, we have four hours and 25 minutes remaining, but as previously indicated, there may be some agreement that we may be able to complete our estimates today.

When we were last together, Mr Cordiano had the floor. I'm going to recognize Mr Tilson in this rotation. However, I should acknowledge that the minister has tabled a response to one of Mr Tilson's questions, and the clerk has circulated that. Mr Tilson, it was your question, so I'll leave it at that and hand you the floor.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): While that's being distributed, I would like to ask one question on the relocation of the head office, but I have a couple of other questions on the Windsor gambling casino issue, perhaps to Ms Wolfson. It has to do with the project team. The native liaison position on that team is vacant. Can you tell me, will that position be filled, and when?

Ms Judith Wolfson: I think it would help me if Mr Alfieri and Ms Steinkrauss assisted, since they are more directly involved with the staffing of it, Mr Tilson. I couldn't help you exactly with who is in which position at this point in time.

Mr Tilson: There is a form that we received -- somehow I got it -- that indicated the makeup of the project team, and that position, at that time at least, was vacant. Maybe it's filled now.

Ms Wolfson: Perhaps Ms Steinkrauss and Mr Alfieri can assist us with the specific staffing.

The Chair: They have been introduced. Welcome, and please respond accordingly.

Ms Whipple Steinkrauss: If I can respond to that, I do not believe it's been filled, unless it's been filled very recently. There's been an effort to fill that, and I think discussions have taken place with individuals, but at the present time no one has accepted the position, so we're continuing to pursue filling it.

Mr Tilson: Why are you offering that position to the native peoples for that particular experiment?

Ms Steinkrauss: Quite simply because the native community has expressed an interest in this initiative. We will have to carry on discussions with them, and we would need such a person to do that.

Mr Tilson: Will you be offering a similar position to someone from the racing industry, which has also expressed an interest in the business?

Ms Steinkrauss: There were no plans to do that, no.

Mr Tilson: Why would they be treated any differently than the native peoples?

Ms Steinkrauss: Since our own ministry has a long-standing regulatory responsibility and liaison role with that industry, we already have people in our policy shop who work with the racing industry on an ongoing basis.

Mr Tilson: How does your project team intend to communicate with the racing industry on this specific project?

Ms Steinkrauss: It would be through our own policy liaison people in the policy branch of the ministry, and certainly on a day-to-day basis there have been a number of interpersonal contacts with the staff at the commission as well. But we do have a policy liaison function.

Mr Tilson: In any event, the native position hasn't been filled, notwithstanding that they will be having their own gambling casinos on their reserves?

Ms Steinkrauss: Certainly discussions have taken place with native persons. The position is not yet filled. I can't speak beyond what kind of participation they'll have in this project at this time.

Mr Tilson: Thank you. I have no other questions on that subject.

Perhaps we could turn to the response to the relocation of the head office. I thank you very much for the written statement you've prepared. I don't know who prepared it. Ms Wolfson?

Ms Wolfson: Our staff.

Mr Tilson: Yourself? It appears that this plan will not be proceeded with in the coming year because of the lease extension.

Ms Wolfson: So I understand. Correct. I think the best person would be Eleanor Meslin, our assistant deputy minister of corporate services, who indeed has already been introduced.

The Chair: Welcome, Ms Meslin.

Ms Eleanor Meslin: Thank you. In terms of this particular relocation, it's not taking place only because we have been able to extend our lease in the current location until the new location is ready for occupancy in 1994.

Mr Tilson: There's an interesting statement in this response the ministry put out. As it turned out, "The lease was extended and the funds will be applied to other urgent pressures within the ministry." What does that mean?

Ms Meslin: Well, because of our constraints, we've had to cut back on a number of things, particularly in some cases buying particular equipment.

Mr Tilson: Why would those --

Ms Meslin: We have utilized it.

Mr Tilson: Why would that equipment not be in the estimates in the first place?

Ms Meslin: Well, it would have been in the estimates. Then from the time of the estimates until this time, we had another constraint and we had to cut back on a number of purchases, which we have put aside in the hope that if we had extra money, we would be able to go ahead with those purchases. This was that extra money and we have been able to go ahead with some.

Mr Tilson: What are the purchases that you have planned for?

Ms Meslin: One of our major branches, the human resources branch, has had no computers at all, and we had been trying to purchase desktop computers for them for a while. We have now been able to purchase several of those to get them set up.

Mr Tilson: This amount that was set up was originally $220,000?

Ms Meslin: Yes, that's correct.

Mr Tilson: So that's going to go into desktop computers? Anything else?

Ms Meslin: Some of it will go into desktop computers.

Mr Tilson: Yes.

Ms Meslin: I don't have exact figures here today about how the rest of it will have been spent.

Mr Tilson: I wonder if you could file with the committee a breakdown of what you propose to do with the $220,000.

Ms Meslin: Yes, certainly. Be glad to.

Mr Tilson: And when could we have that available?

Ms Meslin: This week.

Mr Tilson: Thank you.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask some questions on registry offices. I suppose I should ask Mr Daniels and Ms Wolfson.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes, Mr Daniels is the expert here.

Mr Tilson: Is he the expert on registry offices?

The Chair: Mr Daniels, please introduce yourself for the record and proceed.

Mr Art Daniels: My name's Art Daniels, assistant deputy minister, registration division.

Mr Tilson: This is all dealt with in, what, page 56 of the estimates, the subject of registry office closings? Where is that?

Mr Daniels: The registry office closings would be under the registration division section. It's vote 905.

Mr Tilson: I think it's page 56. I just want to make sure I have the right section.

Mr Daniels: Yes, you do.

Mr Tilson: You recall, I'm sure, that there were a number of registry offices that were closed and consolidated with other offices throughout this province, which created a great deal of political difficulty, I'm sure, for the ministry. At that time the minister made comments that there would be substantial savings.

Now that the consolidations have taken place, I would like you to provide me with some written statements, and also to comment. I can just tell you one office that I'm familiar with, and that is the closing of the land registry office in Arthur and the moving of that to, I believe, Guelph. I know there would be some substantial renovations required to Guelph, which is already cramped for space. I would like you to comment on the renovation costs generally and then undertake to provide the committee with a statement as to all of the renovation costs throughout the province, but specifically, because that's the one office I have some knowledge about, the Guelph office.

Mr Daniels: Minister, do you want to take the general question? I can provide the details.

Mr Tilson: Your choice.

1540

Hon Ms Churley: Go ahead.

Mr Daniels: First of all, in terms of savings across the province of Ontario, the ministry, in consolidating its land registry offices, is following up on a number of recommendations over the years. In fact, I brought a 1976 document recommending that we consolidate our land registry offices in terms of their volume, their size, the investment in capital, the buildings and the staff, and that it would be best to consolidate and offer these services in a more --

Mr Tilson: I'm aware that this was discussed in the past, and of course I think the Conservative government changed its mind as a result of pressures that were put forward by the public, and that decision was reversed.

Mr Daniels: Yes, but as a result --

Mr Tilson: I'm interested specifically in the costs.

Mr Daniels: Okay. The savings to the ministry at the time were related to manpower and were close to $1 million. This would be the reduction of the senior positions, the land registrar in each of those 10 offices. That job was deleted, and our major accounts were close to $800,000 in salary and wage savings. The rest of the savings --

Mr Tilson: If we could just stop there, Mr Daniels, what would happen to the land registrar in Arthur?

Mr Daniels: The land registrar in Arthur went to a vacant position of land registrar in Walkerton.

Mr Tilson: Yes?

Mr Daniels: The money was already there in Walkerton for a land registrar; therefore, we would save the full cost of the land registrar in Arthur.

Mr Tilson: And the remaining staff?

Mr Daniels: The remaining staff in the Arthur office transferred to Guelph.

Mr Tilson: And they are currently working in Guelph?

Mr Daniels: They work in Guelph.

Mr Tilson: And the cost of closing the land registry office in Arthur?

Mr Daniels: The cost of closing the land registration offices -- and I brought a list with me and I can answer it -- I think the saving, just to put it in context, for salary and wages is an ongoing saving. That money accrues to us every year, ad infinitum. The cost of the capital improvement is a one-time cost met last year, and I brought the list of the costs. If you'll give me two seconds and I'll be able to read them all into the record.

Mr Tilson: Just while you're looking for that, who owned the registry office in Arthur? Was that rented or did the government own that building?

Mr Daniels: The land registry office in Arthur would be leased from the county, as opposed to a government --

Mr Tilson: The county owned that?

Mr Daniels: Yes. Regarding the cost of consolidating the land registry offices -- and I'll go through them all and start with the lowest cost and move to the most expensive -- the cost of consolidating Glencoe and London was zero. No physical costs were related to the closing of the Glencoe office and the retrofitting of the London land registry office.

Mr Tilson: No, but there'll be a cost of moving, surely.

Mr Daniels: Just the cost of moving, but this is in terms of capital improvement, leasehold improvement.

Mr Tilson: All right. Yes.

Mr Daniels: The cost for closing the Bowmanville office and moving into Whitby, again no cost whatsoever in terms of physical costs.

Mr Tilson: You have all this set forth in a statement, do you, Mr Daniels?

Mr Daniels: Yes, right here.

Mr Tilson: I think it would be useful, rather than your itemizing that in detail and reading it into the statement, that you simply make the statement available to us.

Mr Daniels: Sure. I think the important thing is that they're one-time costs and the largest cost -- most of them were zero, some of them were $1,000, some were $2,000 -- was in Kitchener for $33,000, and that was bringing the Cambridge office to the Kitchener office, but the costs display out very insignificantly.

Mr Tilson: You can produce that and then we can look at that, but I would like to stick strictly with Arthur and Guelph for the moment because, as I say, I'm not familiar with the other offices. I've been in some of them.

The Arthur office then, would you have to terminate a lease, pay off the county of Wellington for a lease, or how would you do that?

Mr Daniels: Again, this would be through Government Services, which is our landlord, and it would arrange leases. Where it's a government-owned building, they are the landlord; where it's a leased building, they would negotiate the lease.

Mr Tilson: Are you privy to that information?

Mr Daniels: No, I am not.

Mr Tilson: So we don't know the cost of winding up certain facilities.

Mr Daniels: We would know the costs related to our investment in the Guelph office to make it available, the books and stuff that are transferred.

Mr Tilson: All right. You don't have that?

Mr Daniels: No.

Mr Tilson: Can you get that information for us?

Mr Daniels: I would think that comes from another ministry. I could attempt to get it.

Mr Tilson: Could you?

Mr Daniels: Sure.

Hon Ms Churley: If I might, I can check with MGS and try to provide that information for you.

Mr Tilson: Thank you. The issue with respect to Guelph, there would have been some reconstruction costs in Guelph?

Mr Daniels: Yes. The cost of reconstruction in Guelph -- and this is the one figure too -- is in the $22,000 range; $22,300 to be exact, a one-time expenditure.

Mr Tilson: I hope so.

Mr Daniels: Yes. Compared to the $800,000 salary and wage savings for ever, as opposed to a one-time --

Mr Tilson: Eight hundred thousand dollars, what do you mean by that?

Mr Daniels: Through all the closures --

Mr Tilson: Oh yes, I understand.

Mr Daniels: It saved us $800,000.

Mr Tilson: That may or may not be the case, although you're still paying those employees.

Mr Daniels: No, we're not paying them at all. They're in positions that were vacant. Let's take the example of Arthur, where the land registrar transfers to a vacant job in Walkerton, where the salary is there. That means the salary in Arthur is turned over to constraint. As you can see in our estimates, our salary and wage account was constrained by that $800,000.

Mr Tilson: How many staff were there in Arthur who were moved to Guelph?

Mr Daniels: One other.

Mr Tilson: Were there any people who were simply laid off?

Mr Daniels: No people were laid off in the entire exercise across the province. All staff were placed.

Mr Tilson: As a result of the move to Guelph, did Guelph have to retain the services of other employees?

Mr Daniels: No. Because our salaries were constrained, we had to live within our salary allocation, so no additional staff were hired across the province. In fact, as part of our salary and wage constraint, we basically eliminated the majority of our contract employees in order to live within our salary and wage account.

Mr Tilson: If that's the case, I guess my concern is that if the staffing has been cut back, will the service at the various registry offices be as efficient as it was in the past?

Mr Daniels: Absolutely. In the present state, I think we've been a very responsible employer. Throughout the mid-1980s the process of land registration increased in Ontario to almost approaching two million transfers. That began to decline in the late 1980s. As it declined -- it has declined to about 1.5 million from two million -- we began to reduce our staff. In fact, the land registration staff in Ontario has been reduced by close to 300 positions, all by attrition, redeployment and placement of people.

Mr Tilson: Madam Minister, I hope this position is correct, that the service will be as good as it was, because clearly, in the recession people are not buying and selling houses the way they were. The services that are required in registry offices are way down. I hope when this housing market changes -- I'm sure it will, perhaps when some of your policies change -- the service that is being provided in these registry offices will be able to cope as well as it could in the past. I don't know whether you have any comment on that.

Hon Ms Churley: Yes. I think this is a case where we can say that working efficiently with less resources is something I'd like to commend Mr Daniels for being able to achieve. As I said before, it wasn't an easy decision to make, but this government didn't shy away from making tough decisions. It's a decision that had to be made and we believe it's working out quite well. It is saving the government, and therefore the taxpayers of Ontario, money.

There are some benefits to this as well. For instance, in some cases title searchers no longer have the inconvenience of having to go to two different registry offices and sometimes the sheriff's office all in one day to find the records for their county.

Mr Tilson: I can tell you that's not correct, because the people in the Arthur area, having been able to travel to Arthur in the past, now have to travel a considerable distance to Guelph, where they didn't have to travel that distance in the past. We've been through that in one of the committees and you know perfectly well that the people in the legal community, the land-surveying community and the real estate community simply are saying that their costs and ultimately the consumers' costs will be substantially higher because of the additional cost the people who use these services are now being put to.

Hon Ms Churley: What I'm saying is that obviously that is not true in all cases. Cambridge and Kitchener are an example where it is a convenience. The goal here was to meet our government's commitment to cost efficiencies in the public sector and also to make the provision of services more equitable across the province. As you know, there are some counties that always have had only one. I recognize what you're saying, that there are some inconveniences caused for some people, but on the whole, it has made the system more equitable and cost-efficient. Overall, I think it was a very positive move for the government to have made.

1550

Mr Tilson: Madam Minister, with respect to the registration, vote item 905, as Mr Daniels has indicated, cuts have been made across the board. At the same time, revenue expectations are down by close to $12 million over the previous year, but they're only slightly less than the actual revenues of the year before. The drop in the revenue I'm sure is affected. Is that the sole reason for the drop in revenue, because of the economy, or are there other reasons why the drop in the revenue has occurred?

Hon Ms Churley: It is because of the economy, the recession. That is the reason.

Mr Tilson: Mr Daniels, I'd like to pursue -- as you know, I have a topic that I've dealt with you in the past on, and that's Teranet.

Hon Ms Churley: We remember.

Mr Tilson: I'm sure you do. We have asked you questions on that subject in the past. The ministry has, and I guess my question is to either Mr Daniels or the minister, allocated $12 million to Polaris, the joint venture project.

Mr Daniels: This year, yes, correct.

Mr Tilson: Yes. Is that currently the province's equity in Teranet?

Mr Daniels: That's the equity for this year.

Mr Tilson: What's the total equity for --

Mr Daniels: The total equity for the government over the life of the agreement will be $29 million.

Mr Tilson: What is it now?

Mr Daniels: How much equity have we placed in it already?

Mr Tilson: Yes.

Mr Daniels: At the closing of the agreements, both the partners, Real/Data Ontario Inc and the government, placed $5 million into the equity fund. That's the first requirement. The rest of the equity flows at the call of the board.

Mr Tilson: The difficulty I have, I guess, is the subject of how you figure all this out, because there's obviously certain information that isn't revealed to the public because of the private nature of Real/Data participating in this venture. All of the financial information has been severed from the RDO-ministry shareholders' agreement, so we don't know the aggregate value of the shares, nor do we know the future cost of additional financing.

Mr Daniels: The government's funds -- that you do know. I said our equity investment would be $29 million. That's the cap. That's as far as we go.

Mr Tilson: What are the terms under which the financing will be advanced?

Mr Daniels: It's based on a cash flow at the determination of the Teranet board. As they need the money to invest in research and development, to invest in implementation, to invest in new product development, they will call from both partners equally to invest --

Mr Tilson: But how will we know that? All details have been severed from article 3.02 of the agreement. How will we know that?

Mr Daniels: I think you can see some of it here. It comes in our estimates as an equity amount of money, and it will come in and go out so you will know we're investing, in any given year, X number of millions of dollars. You can then know, because you have the agreement, that the other side has to put an equal share in. You know that if we put five in, they're going to put five in. If we put four in, they'll put four in. If we put 10 in, they put 10 in.

Mr Tilson: I understand the philosophy of partnership agreements, but since all this stuff has been severed out of the agreement, we don't know. You won't let us look at it.

Mr Daniels: No. I think what's in the agreements is a lot of information about equity, about equal sharing. I recall that the last time I was before public accounts I tabled all the mandatories, then I looked at all those mandatories. In agreements provided through the freedom of information, all those mandatories are there for the public to see that the government's investment is protected. It owns the data. It controls the fees. It controls new products. All its mandatories are in place and are there for the public to see. When you look at the agreements, and there are hundreds of pages of them, very little has been severed.

Mr Tilson: As I understand it, the province intends to recoup its investment in this venture --

Mr Daniels: More than recoup its investment. I think in --

Mr Tilson: Just let me finish. I understand the province intends to recoup its investment from the venture in the form of dividends. That's how it will ultimately do it.

Mr Daniels: There are dividends, but more importantly, there are royalties involved in the data itself. So it's dividends, royalties and profits.

Mr Tilson: How will we know what the dividends are?

Mr Daniels: They'll be flowing to the consolidated revenue fund. I think they would be visible.

Mr Tilson: How will we find out what they are? How will we know? We won't be able to see the financial picture of this corporation because it's a private company.

Mr Daniels: Not the flow back into government; that's not confidential. That's in the public domain. What remains commercial is commercial investment in a commercial venture, where they're talking about a new product or an overseas investment or bidding on a contract in another country. We can't reveal that because then the other countries or the other bidders will know. So all we're protecting is that commercial side of the business.

Freedom of information and privacy is a balance, and here's what we're talking about. We've got lots of freedom of information. In fact, through the freedom of information, in the majority of those agreements almost an insignificant part is severed. On the balance, it's the commercial side that allows this corporation -- and it's a business corporation, under the Business Corporations Act -- to compete. It has to compete in the world market, in the Canadian market, in the US market, and it can't operate like a government.

Government goes into partnership with the private sector in a joint venture like this so it can be businesslike and not have to reveal itself totally to its other provinces and other countries.

When we go overseas, we're bidding against other countries much like ourselves, like the states in Australia. I think South Australia has invested quite a bit of money in its land system and is like us in a joint venture in a world market. I can't reveal my business plan and my strategy to the Australian government, nor would it reveal its plan to me.

Mr Tilson: Mr Daniels, we're talking about taxpayers' money, and the accountability simply is not the same as it is with anything else. It comes to a point, Mr Daniels, when you can't tell us, because of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a substantial amount of financial details about this corporation, and, hence, the taxpayer of the province of Ontario will not be able to know many of those details.

Mr Daniels: The taxpayer of the province of Ontario knows a lot of the details.

Mr Tilson: Why do they know a lot? That's what I say.

Mr Daniels: They know that $29 million is invested, and it's capped.

Hon Ms Churley: I think I should jump in here. Mr Daniels is bound by all the statutes of Ontario and by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and I think you're well aware of that, Mr Tilson.

Mr Tilson: Talking about the agreement, the payment of dividends is subject to a number of limitations, including a reinvestment provision, although the net income to be allocated isn't known, since it wasn't disclosed. Isn't that correct?

Mr Daniels: I think I said that the net was $29 million; that's the capped amount. Just to put it in context, the government originally, in 1987, set aside $112 million over 15 years to automate the land registration system, as recommended by the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which said we should automate the system. The government agreed in 1971 that we'd automate the system. The government agreed in 1987 to fund that automation to the tune of $112 million over 15 years. The government then sought a partnership, which reduced that cost from $112 to a capped $29 million, saving the taxpayers close to $80 million in investment to get an automated land registry system. At the same time, that investment will net revenues and net new products and net world markets and more profitability for the taxpayer. So the taxpayer has already saved close to $80 million.

Mr Tilson: But we don't know the retained earnings level, because it was never disclosed. We don't know that.

Mr Daniels: I'm just saying that the retained earnings --

Mr Tilson: I know what you said. I'm just telling you that there's a whole slew of facts that we don't know.

Mr Daniels: As the new products and the sales grow, then the profits go to both parties, 50%.

1600

Mr Tilson: The ministry is now making a substantial investment from something that was normally a guaranteed money earner for this province. We seem to have lost control of it. My question to you is, when will the province recover its investment in Teranet?

Mr Daniels: The government continues to get and will always, every year, get its royalties for its fees.

Mr Tilson: When will they start?

Mr Daniels: They constantly flow, right now. Our actual fees over last year increased, not as expected, but that's the revenue, that's the real property revenue that comes to us, $25 per registration, X number of dollars for a first application. All these things generate revenue. In the mandatories, the government's revenue is guaranteed as part of the agreement. The government revenue comes back through royalties. But I also think I should add that the government gets back its original investment of $19 million in the sixth year of the agreement, through an initial issuing of shares, because we put money in to create Woodstock and we developed the project.

In the agreement, we also ensured that the government not only recovers its money and its fees; it also recovers its initial investment. It's quite a good deal, I think, if you look at it from all points of view. You're getting your original investment, you're keeping your revenue flow and you're creating new products and new services to the public which will generate additional revenue, and you're embarking on a world marketing of land information.

Mr Tilson: Madam Minister, I think it's a terrible deal, however.

Hon Ms Churley: I'd like to respond to that, because it's been made very clear that we had to make an investment. That's been clear since the 1970s. We had to make an investment in land registration. We chose partnership. It was looked at by all three governments, as you know --

Mr Tilson: Wait a minute. That's not correct.

Hon Ms Churley: -- as a more cost-effective way to achieve that goal.

Mr Tilson: Just a minute. You're reading a statement that's false, Madam Minister. The statement that came from 1974 -- when the proposal of Polaris, which was a good proposal -- is quite a different proposal than what we have now, completely different, and you know that.

Hon Ms Churley: But what I'm --

Mr Tilson: Don't start saying that all three governments agreed to this proposal.

Hon Ms Churley: That's not what I said. What I said was that we all agreed there had to be an investment in land registration. I'm sorry you misunderstood me.

Mr Tilson: No. We talked about the computerization of the land registry office, but I don't want to get into your statements. I want to ask Mr Daniels some questions.

The Acting Chair (Mr Wayne Lessard): Excuse me, if I could interrupt: When I spoke to the Chair, he indicated that he was going to switch to Mr Cordiano at about the top of the hour. We can come back to your questioning after Mr Cordiano is finished his half-hour segment.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Not to change the subject, but I think we'll move on to --

Hon Ms Churley: Casinos?

Mr Cordiano: Yes. I want to spend a little bit of time to clarify a few things on casinos. Let's deal with this first; let's deal with what's going to happen on native reserves with respect to casinos, Madam Minister. You made mention in the press yesterday, I think -- I forget where the article was -- of the fact that you're in negotiations with native bands. Your efforts are now aimed at getting agreements with various native bands in government to government negotiations, if you will.

I don't know what that means, the implications of that. Perhaps you could shed some light on just what the details are and the way you plan to proceed, because that's an area we haven't received too much information on. I am very interested in the way you plan to proceed.

Hon Ms Churley: The issue around native gaming is certainly not new, in the sense that native bands have been operating, as have all other communities, as you know, in charitable gaming for some time. We're in negotiations, starting the process of talking, at this point, band to band or government to band on --

Mr Cordiano: We're talking about, if I may, not charitable gaming; we're talking about full-fledged casinos.

Hon Ms Churley: That's right.

Mr Cordiano: That's what I want you to clarify for us.

Hon Ms Churley: That's what I'm starting to clarify. We have, as I was saying, been negotiating with bands on charitable gaming. We recognize the inherent right that first nations have in gaming activities and we are negotiating with them on that basis. To date, obviously casinos -- I'm sure this can be clarified further -- come up in these talks. But we have not at this point initiated a process to deal entirely with the whole question of casinos.

It's new in the gaming marketplace, but certainly we will be putting in place a process so that we can have those kinds of negotiations and conversations and see where we go from here. What I'd like to do to help you actually, if it's okay, is to turn it over to my deputy, who might be able to give you a little more detailed answer.

Mr Cordiano: Before you do that I want to get an indication of what your thinking is behind the kinds of negotiations you're going to have. We understand you're going to talk about the possibility of casino gambling on native reserves. But what does that imply? Does that imply initially that you're going to allow this to be run completely and entirely separately, that it will be run by the native bands individually on each reserve? Is the intention here that the government will play no role whatsoever in what takes place on the reserve with respect to these casinos?

Hon Ms Churley: No. I will turn it over in a minute, but let me say that, as you know, the issue of casino gambling is, and you've said it yourself, separate from the issue of charitable gaming. There is the Criminal Code, which everybody has to adhere to, and any discussions around casino gambling with first nations reserves will be talked about in that context. Therefore, obviously there has to be a different kind of framework developed.

Mr Cordiano: You need legislation to do that. I understand that.

Hon Ms Churley: Exactly, and a different kind of framework because of that. Perhaps Judith Wolfson can --

Mr Cordiano: That's not really what I'm getting at, though. We all understand that you have to draft legislation which would permit this to take place. The whole thrust of my question really surrounds what you're doing with native peoples, which in a sense falls in line with the thinking behind native self-government, which is fine. The revenues that will be generated from that are what I'm interested in.

Hon Ms Churley: You're interested in the revenues.

Mr Cordiano: You're allowing native groups to generate their revenues entirely 100% for their purposes? Is that what I'm to understand is going to flow from this as a result of negotiations you are attempting to have? Is that a premise under which negotiations are taking place?

Hon Ms Churley: Perhaps at this point, Ms Wolfson --

Ms Wolfson: Mr Cordiano, indeed there are a number of decisions that will have to be made by the cabinet and the minister to clearly deal with those political decisions. However, charitable gaming and casino gambling are economic development tools. We will be working very closely with the native communities to look at how it can benefit the communities and the province generally. We've talked about that.

One of the reasons that we have in our casino project people who are having discussions with the native communities is exactly that, to look at the kind of possibilities there are for these casinos and the wishes and desires of the native communities. Then cabinet will be in a position to make its decision on how the economic development will be assisted through charitable gaming and casino gambling.

Mr Cordiano: In light of all that, what I would like to ascertain from this is, if you're going to proceed on this basis, and obviously you're making a decision to grant the green light to proceed, again I have to ask, have you done any preliminary work to determine the implications that this may have -- economic impacts, social impacts? I can go through the whole litany again.

Ms Wolfson: Sure.

Mr Cordiano: Are you contemplating a pilot project for natives on the reserve, for casinos on the reserve? Is there something like a Windsor model that you're going to attempt on a reserve, in cooperation and in agreement, of course, with native groups?

1610

Hon Ms Churley: That's exactly it. We haven't got anything in place yet to be able to answer that question because the actual negotiations and even the framework have not been developed yet. So I can't answer that question today. Perhaps Judith would want to add to that.

Ms Wolfson: With respect to the beginning part of your question, which is, "What kind of work are we or will be doing?" part of our plan is to look at those issues. Mr Alfieri perhaps can assist us in the kind of work we will be doing and the discussions that are taking place specifically on those issues.

Mr Domenic Alfieri: There's one basic process which has been going on for some time and there is negotiating with first nation communities around gaming on reserves and gaming in the context of bingos, Monte Carlo nights or whatever -- those things which are currently allowed by law. That happens in all of Ontario and that happens there. So there has been dialogue between Mr Chalmers and other people to assist him and certain first nations around a regulatory framework for that in the context of self-government etc.

More recently, the issue of casinos has come up in the sense that an announcement has been made that the decision has been made to proceed with casinos, to have a pilot project in Windsor. In the context of the dialogue that is going on between some of the staff and first nations, the question of casinos and first nations is also coming up, and I understand it's been raised in a couple of instances, but no decisions have been made.

We are currently dialoguing with them in the same context that we are talking to the racing commissions, the Ontario Jockey Club and a variety of other groups. Their expressions of interest have to be put forth and listened to, but that is an ancillary process to the main one currently, which is negotiations around the regulatory framework for gaming outside of the casinos for which there is no legislation at present. But there are many things that can go on and are currently going on and that dialogue, as I said, is going on.

To the extent to which certain first nations may express an interest in a Windsor-type casino, they would have to discuss that with us. Policy decisions in respect of that have not yet been made. We are currently at the embryonic stages of discussions for that.

Mr Cordiano: If you can help me along in this process, what kind of time frame are we looking at with respect to having this in place some time in the future? Are you contemplating a long time frame here for discussions and negotiations? Do you attempt to do this on an individual basis with each first nation? What's your game plan for this?

Hon Ms Churley: If you're okay with this, Mr Chair, I'll jump in here.

The Acting Chair: Go ahead, Minister.

Hon Ms Churley: I think it's appropriate that I answer it because in the final analysis, it's up to cabinet to make those kinds of decisions.

The difficulty in answering your question around a time frame comes back to the fact that this is quite a new initiative. As I said earlier, we haven't got the framework in place, particularly relating to casinos as opposed to charitable gaming, so for me to be able to say today that we have a time frame, particularly relating to casinos, is impossible because that framework isn't in place and cabinet hasn't even had anything before them to make decisions on yet.

Mr Cordiano: Then let me try this. Given that you have a certain latitude with respect to time, would it not be wise to conduct some preliminary studies to answer some of the questions I've been asking? If you haven't got those studies currently under way, would it not be wise to attempt to do some of that with respect to this whole question with first nations and what the impact might be?

The other thing I wanted to ask about was the implications for charities. It's obvious now that you have no intention of sharing with the charitable organizations any of the revenues that will flow from casino gambling. I think you made that clear both in this committee and in the House last week when I asked that question of you. It's very, very clear that the impact on charitable organizations, at least at first glance, is going to be negative. It's going to have a very disastrous effect on their ability to raise revenues.

Furthermore, what will the impact be, once you move ahead and have casino gambling, for first nations? Will those casino establishments be prevented from attracting business from outside the reserve? That's going to have a further deleterious effect on the ability of charitable organizations to raise funds in the way they normally have.

These are all negative impacts on charitable organizations, which I don't think has been factored into this equation.

Hon Ms Churley: Just to answer a couple of your questions, going back to the first nations issue, it's still too early to talk about some of the ramifications that you're bringing up. We again have to discuss that in more detail with the first nations.

In terms of the charitable organizations, there are a couple of things around that. There is a comprehensive consultation list of people, particularly now, in and around Windsor, who will be consulted on this. The pilot project itself is going to tell us a lot but also the consultations we'll be going through over the next short while. We still have to establish the parameters of the consultations and the roles and responsibilities of, and the relationships between, Windsor area officials and the project team regarding these consultations. A lot of work is going on and will still have to be done.

But in terms of your question around the impact on charities, we are already engaged in some of the work you're talking about. Studies will be done, consultations will take place, and we will find a way to work together, as we are with the horse racing industry, on some of the concerns that have been raised.

Mr Cordiano: Charitable organizations want to work with you, but it was their understanding that they would share in the revenues that will be produced by casino gambling. I think that was made clear to you by charitable organizations, and I think that what you made clear the other day was that they're not going to share in revenues that will be generated by casino gambling.

I think it's incumbent upon you, Minister, to make that clear. It's incumbent upon this administration to tell us and tell those charitable organizations what the future holds. I don't think we can leave them hanging this way. I think it's having a very serious, negative impact. Morale is declining among volunteers of those charitable organizations. These are serious questions that I think need to be answered for those groups who have a very real stake.

Hon Ms Churley: I think I can't be any clearer about the revenue sharing, and I have been very clear. To be fair, we never committed to revenue sharing.

Mr Cordiano: But they were left with that impression, a very definite impression. I have to make this clear: They bought into the consultation process because their understanding was that there would be room for them in sharing some of those revenues.

Hon Ms Churley: I'm sure that when they first heard about a casino project or the possibility of casinos, they expressed an interest in being involved and, if possible, sharing revenues. I think it's fair to say that not sharing the revenues will not mean that they won't want to be involved and be consulted about the impact they may feel it will have on them. I'm sure they're still very interested in being consulted, and we will do that.

The final decisions on all of this won't be made really until after the pilot project is up and running.

Mr Cordiano: I know, but that's why we're discussing it now.

Hon Ms Churley: At this point, that's partly why we have the pilot project. I've made it very clear that the decision to date around this pilot project is that we will not be sharing the revenues beyond the government. 1620

Mr Cordiano: It's a terrible decision, in my opinion, because if the government had no intention of sharing those revenues, then I think discussion should centre on things other than the casino in Windsor or the pilot project. I don't think there's really a role for these groups to play, as much as the local groups that are affected perhaps.

But in terms of what future role there is for these groups, how the decision taken to have casino gambling affects their revenues, we have no information on that and neither do these groups. I think you could help them by at least assisting in doing some impact studies for them in terms of the disastrous negative effects this will have on their revenue-producing abilities and help them along in the process. I don't see any of that here. I think it's quite clear that you have no intention of doing that.

Hon Ms Churley: I'll respond, even though I don't think it was quite a question. I think it's important to say that Bill 26, the new Gaming Services Act, is going to go a long way in terms of helping charities. You're aware of that bill, of course, and I think generally supportive.

Mr Cordiano: Yes, but it's a moot point at this point, because really what you're doing is destroying the ability of charitable organizations to do what they've done, with the kind of success they've had, in raising revenues because there hasn't been real competition. When casino gambling comes into being in full force, you're just eating from the same pie. You're taking away the ability of these charitable organizations to raise that kind of revenue.

You cannot deny there's going to be a decline in revenue-generating ability on the part of these charitable organizations. If you do deny that, then I'd like to see some studies which indicate that's not going to be the case or that you've done some work to show these groups will not be seriously damaged by this decision.

Hon Ms Churley: What we have to bear in mind and keep in perspective is that we're talking at this time about one pilot project in Windsor, where, as you know, the people of Windsor are very enthusiastic and very supportive of having a casino in their community.

Mr Cordiano: Minister, take it a little bit beyond that.

Hon Ms Churley: But this is what we're talking about here. Right now is one pilot project in one community. We, at the end of the day, will be assessing many things. We will be consulting with and working with all the stakeholders, including charities and the horse racing industry, in the process of developing that casino. That casino will be up and running in a while. We will then be assessing and making further decisions, based on what we find out. But bear in mind that the people of Windsor and other people in Ontario are looking --

Mr Cordiano: That's unfortunate, I must say. It's really unfortunate, because the kind of impact that will result for charitable organizations is going to be devastating, and I'm not hearing from you or any of your officials that you really understand what's going to happen; or worse than that, you really don't care.

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Cordiano, let's keep this in perspective. The charities have been competing for a number of years in this province, with the horse racing industry, for instance, and lotteries.

And we care. Of course the government cares about charities. We know that doing something that will hurt charities is ultimately going to come back to the government anyway.

What you're doing here is conjecture. You've got an opinion and you're saying that's doomsday. That's the way you see it. We're trying to assess this in a very controlled way. That's the position we're taking: implementation in a controlled and careful way. Our conjecture at this point, from the work we've already done, is that starting slowly and carefully with one pilot project -- which is one of the reasons we decided to move slowly, carefully and cautiously -- it gives us an opportunity to assess the whole thing.

Of course I care and of course we're listening to charities, but I believe we're going to find out a lot from this pilot project and I also believe that charities won't be shut out by this. Mr Cordiano: What do you mean they won't be shut out? Can you clarify?

Hon Ms Churley: They will continue to operate. There's all kinds of information that we do have already: There are people who go and bet on horses; there are people who like to go and play bingo games; there are people who like to go and buy lotteries. We're talking about one very controlled casino in one location. That's it.

Mr Cordiano: Let's look at an impact study which was conducted by Price Waterhouse on the impact of casino gambling on the horse racing industry in Ontario. I believe it was estimated from their study that the negative impact would range from 20% to 37% decline in revenues, a decline in wagering. Let's see. From 1991 figures, the actual dollar amounts you're talking about are from $217 million to $401 million. This would translate into between 9,500 and 18,500 jobs in the industry. That's what the report says. The impact would be quite serious on the horse racing industry. I'm sure you're familiar with that report. How do you answer that?

Hon Ms Churley: The study you cited was one study; there are of course many studies. I think it would be helpful at this point, if the Chair permits, to ask Mr Frank Drea, the chair of the Ontario Racing Commission, who probably is a bit more knowledgeable about this than I am, than anybody, if he could --

The Acting Chair: Mr Drea, would you like to come forward? Maybe you'd like to have the question repeated.

Mr Cordiano: I want to know, with respect to the Price Waterhouse study --

Mr Frank Drea: We don't accept that. They never talked to us. That's a report that's based on total saturation of the province by casinos. It's also a report that does not reflect the expansion of the racing industry, which has only begun to take place. If everything was as before April 30, then the report might have some validity. Things aren't the same since April 30 of this year.

Mr Cordiano: Things aren't the same since April 30. Would you like to bring me up to date as to what you mean by that with respect to horse racing in Ontario, in light of casino gambling?

Mr Drea: I'm sure you're aware that on page 14 of the budget the racing commission and the racing industry were directed to expand the industry. The government took off all the restrictions that have been there for a half-century. Now then, that makes racing extremely competitive. We have already begun massive --

Mr Cordiano: Sorry. When does it make it competitive? Right now or in the future?

Mr Drea: No, right now. I said as of April 30. You see, the restrictions on racing had the horse racing industry confined to 24 locations in the province. They may have been racetracks, but they were confined there. You could not bet anywhere else. The government took that off.

The government gave specific directions to do two things: to maximize the capacity of the existing tracks. They were going, with the exception of Greenwood, at about 20% to 25% of capacity. By the use of simulcasting back and forth, the government set a goal of 75%. That's already begun to take place.

Woodbine Racetrack, for instance, which is the flagship track, operated 135 afternoons and one evening in a year, out of 720 units, 360 twice. We now have Woodbine changed into a year-round track. It is offering standardbred betting five nights a week the whole year, which was totally impossible before April 30. Woodbine is now betting on Fort Erie. As a matter of fact, the last two days of the Fort Erie meet, Fort Erie went over $1 million for the first time, because it was able to harness Toronto betting. That would have been impossible before April 20.

Mr Cordiano: Okay, so let me ask you this. You're beginning to paint the picture that the industry will be sheltered from the impact, or at least, as of this day, without the advent of casino gambling, things are going quite well for the industry. With the changes that the government has implemented, it's allowed you to operate far more effectively.

1630

Mr Drea: Yes.

Mr Cordiano: Could you share with me, if you do have these figures from April 30, what impact that's had on revenues? I don't think I have figures that would be interim figures from that time, unless you can point them out to me in the estimates.

Mr Drea: If you o look at the start of the racing season this year -- of the real racing season, that is, once the good weather comes, where the handles increase -- they forecast a downturn of 10% to 15%. We will end the year on the upside, probably by about 2%.

Mr Cordiano: That's great.

Mr Drea: Could I give you some examples? For instance, last Saturday, on Breeders' Cup day, the total betting in the province on those races was about $6.25 million. Only $2.3 million of that came from Greenwood, where at least there was some live racing. Woodbine bet over $2 million without a horse. Fort Erie, going head to head against freebies in Buffalo -- 47 offtrack shops, no charge -- did a third of a million dollars, which amazed everybody; you had to cross the bridge, pay twice.

Certainly there is a great optimism about horse racing in this province and not just from the people in this province. I can show you clippings from the United States.

The Chair: We call them pollsters.

Mr Cordiano: Can I just finish this off?

The Chair: If you can, because we've come to the end of your --

Mr Cordiano: Five more minutes, because I don't want to go back to Mr Drea at some point. I just want to complete this section.

The Chair: All right. If you'd like to complete your questions of Mr Drea, then the Chair will be pleased to --

Mr Cordiano: You paint a nice picture of the industry as of today.

Mr Drea: It's an accurate one.

Mr Cordiano: Great. I have no doubt that the industry will continue to succeed, given things as they are, but I'm talking about what's going to happen in the future. Perhaps you have some studies which would indicate and satisfy my concerns that your industry will be impacted by the advent of casino gambling once there's a proliferation of casinos throughout the province. You could help me understand that, because our indications are that there will be a downturn in wagering, there'll be a decline, and it will affect your industry to some extent. Help me to understand that.

Mr Drea: I think it's best phrased by saying they would have an impact, because our wagering's going to be so high. Because of the decisions of April 30, we're going to double horse racing wagering to over $2 billion, So you really can't measure by dollars, if you follow. Of course, with the introduction of casinos there will be an impact. It depends upon what kind of casino you put in, where you put it, and so forth.

What I'm trying to say to you is that because the racing industry has been freed up to compete, we are in a position to compete provided there is a level playing field, and that's what we want to see out of the studies. In fairness, there was a statement made here the other day that the project committee had never consulted with the racing commission. That's not correct.

Mr Cordiano: I don't think I made that --

Mr Drea: Well, the impression was left; I don't think it was you. Mr Chalmers consulted informally with me some time ago. We gave him lots of data. Half the stuff they're using came from us. We told him: "Look, if you haven't got a plan and you're only looking around, let's not waste each other's time. When you have something, you come back, and we'll look at it from the perspective of the racing industry and give you the views." That's all.

Mr Cordiano: So you are, at this time, shall we say somewhat happy with what's going to move forward and the impact that will have? Or would you like to see further evaluations of the impact, or do you have information you could provide me with in terms of the impact this will have on the industry? Because it's not clear to me.

Mr Drea: What will have?

Mr Cordiano: Casino gambling. Other jurisdictions have had this occur. Manitoba, for example: You see a negative impact on Manitoba after casino gambling was introduced. They probably didn't have all the changes occur --

Mr Drea: That's exactly the point. There's no place that has had the changes that has casino gambling. That's why we're so very interested in the form of the casino gambling that's going to emerge from the study. There's an assumption out there that I know what's going on.

Mr Cordiano: Do you have some idea?

Mr Drea: I have no idea of what they're doing. We want to look at their report; we want to see where they intend to locate them.

Let's talk about Windsor for a minute. On the basis of a pilot project, we've already begun to compete. Within two weeks the power shovel will go in the ground for the largest teletheatre west of New York City. It will be more than 20,000 square feet. We're going to give you racetrack betting that is unknown in all of North America. As a matter of fact, to be very blunt about it, future horse racing in Illinois will probably be decided in Windsor. As you know, there's a great struggle on there on virtually the same issue.

We are now allowed to do things like giving you four racetracks simultaneously for betting. We are now allowed, and the machines will be there pretty soon so we can do it, to do a common pool or actual track betting with the United States, which hasn't been there.

Winter racing: When the thoroughbred season here is down from December 10 to St Patrick's Day because of weather, we are now in a position to give you Florida, Santa Anita, Turf Paradise in Arizona or anything you want and put it on the screen, and virtually give you track odds. So that changes things. That's all I'm saying.

Mr Cordiano: So your expectations are that this will generate enough revenues to offset any negative impact, decline in wagering, from casino gambling, if there is going to be any negative impact.

Mr Drea: I still think there will be an impact, but it will not be the 40% that people talk about.

Mr Cordiano: That's what I want to know.

The Chair: How are we doing, Mr Cordiano? Are we just about done there?

Mr Cordiano: Yes, that's fine. Thank you.

The Chair: Very good. No, please don't leave, Mr Drea. Were there some questions? I'd like to move the rotation over to the Conservatives.

Mr Tilson: Mrs Marland has some questions.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My questions are not of Mr Drea.

The Chair: Are there any further questions to Mr Drea from any committee members? I'll entertain one brief question, but it must be brief, from the government side.

Mr Tilson: Wait a minute. My understanding --

The Chair: You'll get all your time, Mr Tilson. Out of respect for Mr Drea, while he's sitting there, I'm going to entertain one brief question. If there is one brief question -- yes, Mr Tilson? Is that a point of order or is that just a pen?

Mr Tilson: My understanding is that the government has no more time.

The Chair: I will have five minutes to spare if I'm not called to the House before 5:55. I've said there would be one brief question, which I'm losing the window on while we're discussing it. It has to be a brief question for Mr Drea.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Yes, it's a very brief question.

Mr Drea, you comment so far about what is happening in Fort Erie. I represent St Catharines-Brock, so I am living and working in the peninsula and I am interested in your comments as to what you're forecasting for Fort Erie. Is there a longer study you've done, to be able to suggest, say, the safety of 4,500 jobs in Fort Erie? Obviously that's a major concern for that community, to make sure that track is there for a while.

1640

Mr Drea: I think a year ago I was the only person who said it would be here this year.

Ms Haeck: I think you're right.

Mr Drea: I'll try to make this extremely short. Fort Erie has now changed very dramatically. Fort Erie is now not a summer racetrack with 101 afternoons. Just last Tuesday, when you were opening your estimates, Fort Erie went to a year-round track. We bring in simulcast harness races, first for five nights and then seven nights a week, 52 weeks of the year. That will keep it open. Fort Erie is now going to be able to sell races to Windsor, which is the Detroit market, in its live season, as well as back to Toronto. Those are two huge markets. We would hopefully bring in Flamborough Downs to Fort Erie, which would do things in the Hamilton market.

Fort Erie right now is a $55-million-a-year, in handle, track. Fort Erie next year will be somewhere around $105 million or $110 million; it'll be open 52 weeks of the year. So Fort Erie is here to stay. It'll probably become the most lucrative medium-sized racetrack in North America on either side of the border.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Drea. It's always appreciated to have you visit us and return to the Legislature. Things really haven't changed that much since you were last a member.

Mr Drea: Mr Chair, it's a lot nicer now than it used to be.

Hon Ms Churley: Thank you, Mr Drea.

Mr Drea: You don't meet at night, and there are other considerations.

Mr Tilson: I was going to say you've been out too long.

The Chair: You had the privilege of being a cabinet minister in a Conservative government. I rest my case. Thank you, Mr Drea. Mrs Marland?

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, while we're on the subject of cabinet ministers in former Conservative governments, I don't actually have any questions for the chair of the Ontario liquor licence board --

Mr Tilson: Liquor control board.

Mrs Marland: Liquor control board, sorry. You can tell I'm a heavy user; I don't even know the name of it.

I am aware of the progress, in some of the comments that have been made by that board, in terms of the amount of money it is making with its new approach to promotion, particularly of the wine industry. I know members who represent those areas must be very thankful on behalf of their constituents. I'm simply thankful, on behalf of Ontario, that we are apparently experiencing the kind of leadership we are now with the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. In this kind of market, it's amazing that that kind of percentage of increase in sales in anything has happened. Personally, I'm very proud of it.

The Chair: Two more testimonials and Mr Brandt may consider a comeback, so I encourage you to stop the testimonials.

Mrs Marland: My question is going to be very fast, because the critic has a lot of other important questions too. The question is about the Operating Engineers Act, so if you can pull up whoever is going to answer that question, I'll read it out.

One part of the Operating Engineers Act deals with the attended operation of high-pressure equipment. Unfortunately, this section inhibits the use of ozone-friendly, CFC-free refrigeration equipment, because their operation requires a stationary engineer. As someone who's been a very strong advocate for the environment for a long time, I can appreciate the importance of this question.

Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America that still has this type of legislation in place. Refrigeration machines are in service, unattended, elsewhere throughout Canada and the USA.

I know that passing a bill is lengthy. There is a faster solution to our present situation through a regulation change, and apparently this regulation change is also ready. I understand that Marilyn Churley is the chairperson of the regulations committee. I would like to ask the minister, or through the minister to her staff, whether we're going to get this regulation changed quickly so that the environment can be protected and have the benefits of the change; also so that the province can have some economic advantages to building owners who are presently postponing capital expenditures they need to make to replace existing CFC chillers until they find out the outcome of the Operating Engineers Act. Obviously, if this would create jobs in the replacement of some of these refrigeration machines, that would be an advantage too. I understand it was on the agenda before, but it has fallen off the agenda in the last session.

Hon Ms Churley: That's a very good question, Mrs Marland. First of all, for the record let me correct you. I'm not the Chair of the legislation and regulations committee; I am the Vice-Chair.

However, the issue you've raised is really a very important one to me, and it's one that I have raised in the ministry because it's been a concern of mine. What we are doing now is preparing an interim regulation under the Operating Engineers Act that will help the air conditioning and refrigeration industry. If you'd like some more information on that, more of the details, I can pass it over to Mr Walter.

Mrs Marland: I don't need the details. I just want to know when the regulation change is coming, when I can respond to my constituents, who want to see the benefit to the environment in this province.

Hon Ms Churley: I obviously can't give you a date today, but as I said, it's been a concern of mine for some time. It will be coming very soon. The legislative agenda is very full right now, as you know, in terms of the --

Mrs Marland: No, but are you going to do it by regulation or legislation?

Hon Ms Churley: Yes, it will be by regulation. What I'm saying is that because the legislative agenda is very full, I have to go and will be going through the regulation route. I will be doing that very soon. I can't give you a date, but it will be soon.

Mrs Marland: So you're saying the regulation has to go through that committee?

Hon Ms Churley: I'm sorry, through the regulations and legislative committee? Yes, it will have to go through that committee yet.

Mrs Marland: As a regulatory change.

Hon Ms Churley: Yes.

The Chair: Bills have priority in that process, which I think is what the minister has implied. So when a bill's passed in the House, it gets first priority. That's what's implicit in that.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Unanimous consent.

Hon Ms Churley: Can I write that down and get you to sign it?

Mrs Marland: Because it's an environmental issue, would you be willing to take it to the committee if there was unanimous consent of all parties?

Hon Ms Churley: I'm certainly very pleased to have that kind of offer put forward, and certainly, if we can get that kind of consent, I will look very seriously at the possibility of doing that. It's a big help to me to know that might be possible.

Mrs Marland: If I have the commitment from you, I'll take it to our House leader.

Hon Ms Churley: Great, thank you.

Mrs Marland: Thank you. That's the end of my question, Mr Chair.

Mr Tilson: I have a question to the minister, which I guess you'd call a joint gambling-casino-and-Teranet question.

Hon Ms Churley: Only you could put those two together, Mr Tilson.

Mr Tilson: Madam Minister, as you know, I'm not pleased with the current development of the Teranet principles, simply because of the lack of accountability to the public, to the taxpayer. What I fear is, when I hear the words "partnership" and "joint ventures," specifically in the gambling casino issue, that a similar joint venture there is possibly one of your considerations.

I know, for example, the Minister of Agriculture and Food was off in London, I believe, or England somewhere, talking to some people there about gambling casinos, as one of his many other items that he was speaking about. I know that members of your staff have been speaking to people from Atlantic City. So obviously one of your considerations, and I hope it isn't, is a joint venture partnership in the gambling casino proposal.

My fear is this lack of accountability. Having said that, would you be prepared to recommend to your government that a policy of full disclosure be established as a condition of any joint venture partnership, whether it be in the Teranet type of joint venture partnership, whether it be in the casino gambling joint venture partnership or whether it be in anything else, whether in your ministry or any other type of ministry?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, any casino would be governed by legislation, and an act, as you know, would come before the House to deal with accountability. If I follow your question properly, that's exactly the process that would happen.

1650

Mr Tilson: No, my question is, if there's a joint venture in anything, whether it be a Teranet type of proposal or whether it be in the gambling casino experiment in Windsor or any other type of experiment, would you be prepared to establish a policy of full disclosure as a condition of any joint venture partnership, because you don't do that now with the Teranet proposal, simply because of the privacy legislation?

Hon Ms Churley: In terms of Teranet, I believe that the agreement we have in that partnership -- you know you and I disagree on this and there was a previous discussion about this -- is that the government has disclosed as much as it can in terms of working with a partner in the private sector. In the case of casinos --

Mr Tilson: You wouldn't disclose the names of the shareholders. They were disclosed by Real/Data, I believe.

Hon Ms Churley: It was commercially sensitive information.

Mr Tilson: I don't care what kind. The whole purpose of my question is that if the government is going to get into these joint venture partnerships, whether it be in gambling or whether it be in registration developments, I believe there should be full disclosure. I believe the taxpayer of Ontario should know exactly who it's doing business with and exactly what the financial details are of that joint venture.

The way you are going now, specifically with Teranet, we don't know that information, so my question to you for the third time is, would you be prepared to recommend to your Premier or the cabinet, or would you be prepared to even establish a policy in your own ministry, that your government would not enter into any form of joint venture agreement unless there was an understanding with those people that there would be full disclosure?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, again, let me correct something you said. RDO has a responsibility to disclose its shareholders and it did that. The casino --

Mr Tilson: Yes, but you wouldn't do it.

Hon Ms Churley: The casino: It depends on the type of partnership in question, which of course hasn't been determined yet, and we are going to be looking and are looking at operational models right now. But the commercially sensitive information must be kept confidential under certain circumstances. I can't give you a blanket statement today, yes or no. I certainly agree with you in principle about the need to disclose everything that's possible to the taxpayers and to our constituents, but in terms of a partnership, the government, like any other body in a partnership, has certain responsibilities under freedom of information and in terms of sensitive information. But in principle I agree with your statement, and of course we'll do everything we can --

Mr Tilson: You agree in principle, but will you be prepared to recommend it or will you do it in your own ministry? Will you say now that you will not enter into any contracts with anyone, whether it be in gambling casinos or whether it be the Real/Data type of partnership or any type of joint venture partnership activity, without insisting that in regard to the partnership agreement the government of Ontario signs with these people full disclosure be made?

Hon Ms Churley: As I said, it depends on the type of partnership. No, I can't make that kind of commitment today.

Mr Tilson: It's regrettable.

I'd like to proceed with a couple of more questions to Mr Daniels.

The Chair: Welcome back, Mr Daniels.

Mr Tilson: Mr Daniels, article 4.12 of the agreement states that preferred-contractor status has been given to RDO consortium members. My question to you is whether, currently or to date, any RDO consortium members have been awarded contracts by Teranet and, if so, who and what are they?

Mr Daniels: Part of the consortium agreement and part of the partnership are the managing partners, and that's where the electronic data service is. Systems House, Peat Marwick, Land Data -- all those companies were managing partners. Part of their joining the consortium was to become preferred subcontractors, but that preferred subcontractor agreement is on an equitable and fair market basis. They can't be competitive. It's like any vendor --

Mr Tilson: So they've cornered the market, essentially, with respect to --

Mr Daniels: But it has to be a fair business approach. It can't be that kind of monopoly where they would have advantage or overbid. It has to be a good, sound business decision.

Mr Tilson: Because of this preferred subcontractor status, can you tell me what opportunities are available to firms and individuals not connected with RDO?

Mr Daniels: There will still be opportunities. Let's take the mapping area, because that's one of the largest consortium groups. In the mapping area, Teranet continues to subcontract with other than land information contractors who are part of the consortium.

Mr Tilson: Isn't the flaw of that, Mr Daniels, that the RDO general managers, the surveyors, will have insider information? They'll know what the bids are. They can beat them because of their insider information.

Mr Daniels: They're partners on a board, but the board of Teranet, which is part government and private sector plus five neutral members, makes sure that the business choices of the board are in the best interests of all board members, and that includes the government. That means we have to make sure that any choice of a vendor is fair, and this, I think, is quite reasonable and it's quite easily monitored by the board and the members of the board who represent the government. There are some examples of land information --

Mr Tilson: Let's talk about Brampton, talk about the subcontracts in Brampton for a minute. The RDO general managers will know what any proposed tendering will be in Brampton.

Mr Daniels: The RDO members who are on the Teranet board will know, but the bids will be presented by the president of the Teranet company, and it's his responsibility to be sure that everything's fair and upright.

Mr Tilson: What guarantee can the taxpayers of the province of Ontario have that the process will be fair, because there's no question -- I don't care what you say -- that the Teranet managers, essentially the representatives from RDO, will know what those bids are before anyone else does.

Mr Daniels: No, they won't know the bids. The president of Teranet will know the bids, and his staff, who are employees of Teranet, and they will make a good business decision. It's protected by that, and the fact that the board is equal ensures that the bids will always be given on a fair and equitable basis. But part of the investment by those land surveyors was to have at least the preferential subcontracting, as long as it's on a fair market situation. That's in the agreement. It has to be fair market.

Mr Tilson: As established by the general managers of RDO.

Mr Daniels: No, as established by the board of directors of Teranet.

Mr Tilson: All right. You're right. As established by the board of directors of Teranet, who in fact are these same people.

Mr Daniels: No, they're not. As I said, there are four government appointees and there are five neutral appointees. RDO has only four of the 12 board members.

Mr Tilson: I'm not talking about voting, Mr Daniels; I'm simply saying that inside information's going to be available to these people.

Mr Daniels: But that's how the business operates.

1700

The Chair: Gentlemen, I am sorry, but the Chair is going to exercise his prerogative and make a brief statement.

I respect, Mr Tilson, your right to use your time as you see fit, but we are dwelling extensively on an area which is on the fringe of the responsibilities of this committee and its mandate. Now, I can only hope to guide you, that perhaps we could move into some of the additional areas within the estimates -- that is only a suggestion from the Chair at this point -- but I felt impelled to make that comment. Please proceed.

Mr Tilson: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I'd like to refer to article 4.13 of the agreement, which commits the government to assist the company in obtaining work from other government ministries and other levels of government. Can you tell the committee whether anything has been done by the ministry in this regard and specifically what work, if any, the company has obtained as a result of the ministry's efforts?

Mr Daniels: First of all, I think there's a key word there: assist. No other government, no other provincial ministry, no municipality is bound by the agreement. It's totally up to them to choose.

What MCCR would do as partners in this agreement would be to say what advantages it would be for another ministry to join up with us and share information or data that would improve the land information data base, but they're under no obligation by law, by the agreement or anything. They can choose to join up or not, but it's up to us. I think that agreement allows us to go in and talk to those ministries and to present to them what Teranet is, what it can accomplish, what it would mean and what advantage it would be to the customer. So we're in a sense introducing them. We introduce the product, we introduce the program, but we don't force the issue and we don't require any other ministry to join up.

Mr Tilson: Can you tell us what other work has been done by other ministries to date?

Mr Daniels: None so far.

Mr Tilson: None? Are there any plans?

Mr Daniels: We've been talking to the Ministry of Revenue, but that's about it.

Mr Tilson: With respect to?

Mr Daniels: They have maps. Part of the building of a fabric of a map -- it makes it easier for you to look at other maps, to look at metes and bounds and to see if you have to remap that area. If somebody else has already mapped it -- supposing MTO has mapped it, Agriculture and Food has mapped it, or revenue assessment has mapped it or even the city or municipality has mapped it -- we would go into partnership rather than rebuild the base maps. That's the kind of partnership we're talking about, not to redo what government has already done once but to build upon it.

Mr Tilson: I have one other question, Mr Daniels, with respect to the registry office consolidations. Remember that?

Mr Daniels: Yes.

Mr Tilson: Can you tell us how those offices have become more efficient?

Mr Daniels: First of all, I think when you're talking about efficiencies -- I meant to bring them; I think I have them in my briefcase -- I had a number of letters from solicitors and barristers in the city of Peterborough. The Peterborough lawyers sit in sort of a corner of Ontario where their land information records, even though they're part of Peterborough county -- this would be Cavan township and the city of Millbrook -- were housed down in Port Hope. They were really pleased to see those documents returned to Peterborough county.

I'm a personal example. When I was buying a piece of cottage property in the village of Trent River and I hired a Peterborough lawyer, I found out he had to go all the way down to Colborne to register that property and yet I was in Peterborough county or nearby.

Mr Tilson: But now the lawyers from Arthur have to go all the way to Guelph.

Mr Daniels: The lawyers from Arthur go to Guelph, but then what about the lawyers from Guelph? They don't have to go to Arthur.

Mr Tilson: It's chicken and egg, Mr Daniels. It's been a pleasure asking you questions this afternoon.

Mr Daniels: No. I think --

Mr Tilson: I'm going to move on to another area.

Mrs Marland: Speaking as a lawyer.

Mr Tilson: I'd like to talk to the minister and her staff with respect to this $50 fee now being charged with respect to corporations. I'd like to spend a few moments with that.

Mrs Marland: You're asking that for all of us.

Mr Tilson: Yes. Can you tell us how many companies were not filing to date, prior to this regulation coming forward?

Hon Ms Churley: I think I'll ask Mr Daniels to answer that.

Mr Tilson: You handle that, too?

Mr Daniels: Yes.

Mr Tilson: I thought I was going to get rid of you.

The Chair: You were inches from a clean getaway.

Mrs Marland: He's really quite a nice person.

Mr Daniels: I think we both are.

Anyway, that's a very, very good question and that was the main reason for us to upgrade our database. In 1987, we did a study on the information in our company's database. It was a manual database. In 1976, we made a decision not to ask for an annual return or an update, but by 1986-87, when we looked at the data, it was 60% out of date, 60% wrong. That's very important when you realize that every day thousands of people -- each year 350,000 people -- come in either by mail or letter or in person to search those records. They believe they are accurate data and it's 60% wrong.

Mr Tilson: Mr Daniels, prior to the $50 fee being introduced, can you tell us how many companies were not making these filings?

Mr Daniels: The non-compliance was close to 60%.

Mr Tilson: As a result of that 60% not making their filings, what happened then?

Mr Daniels: Well, this is the very important part. If those 300,000 to 400,000 people -- it climbs in the good years. In a non-recession, it climbs to almost 450,000 people who search those files, and it has to be up to date. I think we have a responsibility to the public and to other businesses. By the way, most searches are business to business; not individual consumers but other businesses.

Mr Tilson: Mr Daniels, my question was, at that time when the filings weren't made, prior to the $50 fee being implemented, what would happen?

Mr Daniels: They would be getting information that would not be current and would not be accurate and they may be making business decisions that were not correct.

Mr Tilson: What do you mean? They'd just proceed. Their records would be up to date, but what would the ministry do as far as those companies that didn't make those filings were concerned?

Mr Daniels: We have a compliance unit. If somebody was non-compliant, we would get hold of them and say, "You've got to update your filing." But that's a lot of effort for a non-compliance of 60%. We would only know about non-compliance if somebody searched and found that things were really out of whack, like the officers weren't up to date, the address was wrong, the company had been dissolved or the company had been amalgamated. So many things can happen to a business, and if it's not kept up to date, you or I, who are looking to --

Mr Tilson: I understand that.

Hon Ms Churley: But Mr Tilson, the reality is that we'd only find out if people complained and told us. It's a real problem having inaccurate information there.

Mr Tilson: So now, because the $50 isn't paid, you'll know. Is that what your answer is?

Mr Daniels: Because the fee will ensure that the filing is up to date.

Mr Tilson: But how will you know? So they don't make their $50 payment. So what? Why would you know now with the payment of the $50 any more than you would know before the implementation of the $50 fee?

Mr Daniels: Because we will send a mailing over the next while to over 500,000 corporations. Because they're out of date, we know that many of those corporations have long ago dissolved.

Mr Tilson: I'm aware of that, and if that was discovered, all you would simply do is revoke their charter. That's all you'd do.

Mr Daniels: That's right.

Mr Tilson: I'm trying to get to the rationale of the $50 other than what the minister said in the House, which I don't --

Hon Ms Churley: Ontario is the only jurisdiction in the country --

Mr Tilson: Oh, I know. I've heard that.

Hon Ms Churley: This is important. Ontario is the only jurisdiction in the country where there's no fee for annual filing. A problem has been created because Ontario hasn't been doing this. It costs businesses money when they're getting wrong information. It's a fairly serious problem that's been building up over time, which we have corrected.

The Chair: Mr Tilson, you have the floor. I'm sorry.

Mr Tilson: I'm sorry?

The Chair: I was apologizing to you. You have the floor.

Mr Tilson: I know that. I know I have the floor.

Mr Daniels, my question would be, are you able to provide us now with the complete list of fees charged by the ministry for incorporation, which would include the initial corporation fees? I guess what I'm looking at is the overall revenue that is received by the ministry each year for incorporation fees, any other fees such as this $50 fee, your anticipated revenue that you're going to receive presumably, which is anticipated in these estimates, and any other fees. Are you able to provide that for us?

Mr Daniels: Sure. I don't have the actual fee schedules with me, but I could provide you the fee schedules. As you can see, the revenue is in the estimates book, as those fees generate revenue.

1710

Mr Tilson: I guess what I'm looking down for is a breakdown for this year --

Mr Daniels: Yes, by fee and what that fee generates.

Mr Tilson: -- last year, your anticipated amount for the coming year.

Mr Daniels: Absolutely. Every fee would show that fee and what kind of workload that fee would generate.

Mr Tilson: What revenue that would generate: Are you able to tell us what amount of revenue you anticipate will be generated from the $50 fee?

Mr Daniels: A net of operating of $8 million.

The Chair: What's the gross, Mr Daniels?

Mr Daniels: Ten million dollars.

The Chair: And this goes into general revenues?

Mr Daniels: It goes into consolidated revenue. All our revenues accumulate to the consolidated revenue fund.

The Chair: They're not dedicated revenues to your department?

Mr Daniels: Not at all.

Mr Tilson: This letter that goes out to corporations is rather confrontational.

Mrs Marland: Very; it's threatening.

Mr Tilson: Perhaps my question is unfair to you, perhaps the question should be more to the minister. The letter, Madam Minister, is very confrontational, and I'm sure many members of the House from all sides have received comments with respect to this letter, that they find it very confrontational, very threatening.

Aside from whether the $50 fee is good or bad -- and I happen to think at this particular time it's not a good policy -- can you tone down this letter if you're sending this out on a regular basis? For example, "Failure to provide this information correctly within the time allotted can have serious consequences;" for example, "You may not be able to enforce your legal rights in court."

Mrs Marland: It's threatening, during a recession.

Mr Tilson: It's very tough.

Hon Ms Churley: I understand that particular letter you're quoting from was changed. Some of that language was taken out. I can get further clarification on that from Mr Daniels or from my staff here. The letter itself, the point that we needed to get across, because this has been inefficient for a number of years and businesses have been lax in filing -- we wanted to indicate as strongly as possible that this was unacceptable. I guess the choice of words was reflective of that.

As I said, and we can confirm this, I think the language was toned down somewhat. But none the less, the letter is still fairly strong in that we need to get a message across that this is serious and that we have to get our file up to date.

Mr Tilson: Can you send me a copy of your most recent letter, Madam Minister?

Hon Ms Churley: Certainly; we can do that. We don't have it here today, do we?

Mr Daniels: I don't have it.

Mr Tilson: I understand.

Mr Daniels: I can tell you that when we were drafting that letter, just to let you know that it doesn't come out of the blue and it doesn't come out of a lack of consultation, we have a frequent-user committee in the companies branch. As we were developing the business information system, what's called ONBIS, we took to them the kind of correspondence we would send out around the filing and said, "What kinds of words should we be saying in these letters?"

This would include organizations like the chamber of commerce, the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. These people all sat around and looked at various drafts of that letter. What they asked us to do in drafting these kinds of letters was, in plain language, to translate the obligations. This is very difficult.

If you look at the Corporations Information Act, and if I just quoted that section about the fact that you couldn't pursue your legal rights, it's a very convoluted non-English way of putting it. We tried to come up with a plain language way of saying: "Please keep this corporate filing up to date; it's a requirement under law. And if you don't, there are certain things that happen to your corporation."

In this act there are all sorts of things, like it's a $25,000 fine, it's a legal -- if we quoted the section of the Corporations Information Act, then you would be really wondering; you know, it would be quite -- the long list of penalties and obligations. But we took it and boiled it down to small, plain language. We had our legal staff work on this to take government corporate language that lawyers would understand. In fact, lawyers helped us form this -- lawyers from the CBAO and lawyers from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce -- to come up with something plain. It's plain, and some people saw it as threatening, but it's clear.

Mr Tilson: I expect the letter was written by a lawyer.

Mr Daniels: Yes, it was.

The Chair: I can see where the $2 million of your operating costs went, into mostly drafting the letter.

Mr Daniels: Drafting the plain-language letter, yes.

Mr Tilson: Mr Daniels, when you're preparing the breakdown of fees, I would like your statement to include the total revenues, current, past and anticipated, from each fee. Is that possible?

Mr Daniels: Yes, that's for sure. That's the way our fees break out anyway. We do this all the time. We look at our fees and our revenues.

Mr Tilson: You can make that available to us next week.

Mr Daniels: Yes.

The Chair: I think I'd like to shift to Mr Cordiano, if that's convenient to you.

Mr Tilson: If I could just finish off on this one area, although probably Mr Daniels will resurface again, I suppose.

Interjection: We hope.

Mr Daniels: We've been doing this all year, I think.

Mr Tilson: With the $50 registration fee, can you tell us specifically how the system will become more efficient?

Mr Daniels: The database will absolutely be current. We'll know who the boards of directors are, who the officers are, where the addresses of the companies are.

Mr Tilson: You should know that before, though.

Mr Daniels: No, we don't.

Mr Tilson: Sure. If they didn't file their return each year, you'd strike them off the list.

Mr Daniels: No, no. Right now there are almost 600,000 companies out there; we expect only 300,000 are really active.

Mr Tilson: No, but if you didn't file a return, you could strike them off the list, whether there's a fee or not.

Mr Daniels: Coming in the future, you mean?

Mr Tilson: Yes.

Mr Daniels: No, there has to be a period of time, because it's hard to revive a company. We wouldn't be that arbitrary, because of the complexities of revival. Although I know a lot of law firms would have those companies that have dissolved waiting and not file or anything and would wait until the company was dissolved.

Mr Tilson: You're briefing the minister very well, Mr Daniels. Thank you very much.

Interjection: Take that as a compliment.

Hon Ms Churley: I will take that as a compliment. Thank you, Mr Daniels.

Mr Cordiano: I'd like to direct your attention away from casino gambling. I think we've covered that enough. Besides, we're running out of time. I'd like to cover it some more, but I have to get on to some other matters here.

Hon Ms Churley: We'll have time in the House.

Mr Cordiano: Let's talk about the fuels safety branch. I don't know if there's anyone here. I see there is.

Ms Wolfson: There is Mr Walter, our assistant deputy minister available.

Mr Cordiano: I think it's fair to say that in regard to this area we've seen really quite inadequate regulations surrounding petroleum tanks. What's occurred as a result is a number of accidents across the province, incidents in Huntsville, Hillsburgh, Timmins and as recently as back in August 1991 in Ancaster, where there was an evacuation of six homes. I recall that. What happened in Ancaster was that there was a suspected source in a nearby service station. An inspection of that storage station had not been carried out for at least six or seven years. I wonder what's happening in that area, because it's of great concern with respect to the safety of drinking water and the kind of contamination that could result from the leaching that occurs from these tanks.

In 1983 this province passed regulations requiring that old, unprotected steel tanks be replaced by January 1, 1991, and then, rather than enforcing that, you extended the deadline indefinitely, I believe, unless you can give me indications otherwise. I don't have that information in front of me. I'd like to ask, how many inspectors are there for the province? How many of the existing tanks out there have not been inspected within the last five years?

1720

Hon Ms Churley: I think you've already met Mr John Walter, who is the assistant deputy minister of the technical standards division. He can answer some of the more technical questions. Certainly, the issue you brought up around the leaking underground storage tanks is one that I have addressed, and we are working on regulations at this time. Again, I'm glad you raised that, because it's an important environmental issue. Perhaps Mr Walter can give you more details on that and also your other questions.

Mr Cordiano: Yes, I'd like him to answer. With respect to the deadline, you've extended that deadline. Are you bringing in new regulations to deal with that?

Hon Ms Churley: We'll let John explain the circumstances around that issue.

The Chair: Welcome, Mr Walter.

Mr John Walter: The initial change regarding those tanks was that any tank installed prior to May 1, 1974, was required to be upgraded or removed by January 1, 1991. I guess we were approached in the division by people in the industry mostly because of the economic climate; by forcing some stations to immediately change, remove or upgrade the tank, they quite frankly would have gone out of business. They asked us to give them a little more time to complete that upgrading. We extended the time period to January 1, 1992, and in fact the program has now been completed for some time. So all of those tanks prior to 1974 either have been removed or have been upgraded to meet the standards.

Mr Cordiano: So that's all completed now?

Mr Walter: Yes, sir.

Mr Cordiano: How many inspectors are in the field to inspect tanks on a regular basis? What does your inspections program look like now?

Mr Walter: I'm unable to tell you how many are in the field to look at those tanks, because that branch looks after all the fuel safety areas. We're doing natural gas, petroleum, a number of areas, so I couldn't give you a breakdown that of the 33 of them, there are four doing these kinds of tanks. This is part of their regular duty.

Mr Cordiano: What you are suggesting to me is that you've brought everything up to date with respect to upgrades that were required.

Mr Walter: Yes.

Mr Cordiano: And that Ontario is, as of today, not threatened by any potential leakages from old tanks?

Mr Walter: We're not threatened by any potential leakages from tanks installed prior to May 1, 1974. There may be some deterioration since that time, but it was the tanks prior to 1974 that we were mostly concerned with. We're fairly certain the equipment that is there now is safe.

Mr Cordiano: That's why I asked, for example, what kind of inspection program was in place, in order to ensure that this level of safety is going to continue and to give people assurance and confidence that this level of safety will be maintained in the future. Are you carrying out regular inspections? Is there a program in place for that?

Mr Walter: We presently meet the standards set by the gasoline handling code, which is a national code dealing with gasoline across Canada. We are in the process of meeting the standards of that code and in fact are upgrading the code. The minister herself has requested within the last couple of months that my division particularly focus on this area, and we are presently proposing a regulation change to bring Ontario in line with the most recent gasoline handling code.

What that new code will do is that we will continue to monitor the double-wall underground tanks and the piping associated with those tanks. We will be asking that existing upgraded underground tank systems installed after 1974 will be further upgraded by December 31, 1995. So we're going to continue to look at that next group, the ones we have not already dealt with.

Mr Cordiano: So there are potentially difficult groups of tanks throughout the province that you can easily identify and you're working on?

Mr Walter: Yes, and if I could continue, there are other things under that code, underground storage tanks and associated piping, used for bulk plants and used oil, installed prior to 1974, that again will be required to be updated by 1995. We will have improved inventory control provisions for all facilities and, finally, all aboveground tanks in excess of 5,000 litres capacity will be diked. This is a change that can be put through the gasoline handling code, it's a change that can go through by regulation change, and we would hope to have that in place in the fairly near future.

Mr Cordiano: Do you have a record of how many spills or leaks there have been over the last number of years and what the cost of cleanup was for each of those leaks?

Mr Walter: I don't have those with me. Obviously, we will only have those that were reported, so I can't tell you that we know of all of them. I do not have that information with me. I can get that for you.

Mr Cordiano: You're telling me there were incidents where there were leaks or spills and we weren't aware of them, or the ministry wasn't aware of them?

Mr Walter: I'm saying to you that we are fairly certain that the information we have is accurate, but we would not know of everything if someone did not report that.

Mr Cordiano: What do you mean, "someone did not report that"?

Mr Walter: If there was a spill on someone's farm someplace, they would be required to report that under the law.

Mr Cordiano: Yes.

Mr Walter: If they did not, we would not have that information, obviously. That's my point.

Mr Cordiano: I see.

Hon Ms Churley: Can I add to that just to make it clearer? There are a lot of old tanks -- and that's what we're referring to -- that we need to get at, and some of those are on farms. They were installed a long time ago and that's why it would be impossible for a small spill in an isolated location -- if we're not told, we're not told, and that's something that we are, of course, concerned about, and we want to deal with those old tanks.

Mr Cordiano: Well, it is a serious matter with respect to the contamination of groundwater, and we just want to make sure there is a program in place to continue follow-up inspections throughout the province in difficult spots. Obviously, you're going to do that and we'll have to come back to this and make sure there is a program in place. We want to see that that does occur.

Hon Ms Churley: It's a concern. Just to reassure you, as Mr Walter said, that is a personal concern of mine and I requested that there be some more work done in this area. I'm very glad you asked that question today.

Mr Cordiano: Okay. Well, we're agreeing on some things. I want to move on, and I would imagine, Mr Walter, that technical standards is yours so we'll continue with questions in this regard with respect to elevating devices.

I want to know why, on page 42 in the explanatory notes, the ministry is providing funding for Hydro inspectors approved by treasury board for pressure vessel safety. I'm sure you have a ready answer for that.

Hon Ms Churley: Oh, absolutely. I'll let Mr Walter answer that.

Mr Walter: That's not elevating devices.

Mr Cordiano: No. I want to get on to elevating devices -- that was the main focus -- but I want to start off with why it is that you're funding Hydro inspectors for pressure vessel safety. Why is it that this ministry is funding that? It's just curious to me why that's occurring.

1730

Mr Walter: That's a misnomer, perhaps. It doesn't say that we're funding the Hydro inspectors. It says that Ontario Hydro was funding inspectors for us.

Ontario Hydro had embarked on a project to revitalize some of the steam plants it used to generate hydro. Over the last 18 months, they've particularly focused on some plants like the Lakeshore plant in Mississauga.

The pressure vessels safety branch is a branch that ensures, under the Boilers and Pressure Vessels Act, that any kind of equipment in the production of steam is produced to an international standard.

In the refurbishing of these plants that Ontario Hydro was responsible for, it would need to be upgrading equipment, it would need to be doing welding, it would need to change the kinds of equipment it had. It is the staff in that branch that would go in to ensure that those were made to that international standard.

We particularly requested funding from cabinet. Because we had to go in partway through the year, we asked for some additional funding so we could hire three inspectors. Ontario Hydro was paying us the revenue for those inspectors so that we could get on with the work it wanted to do.

Mr Cordiano: Fair enough. How much time do we have, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: We've got about 11 minutes.

Mr Cordiano: Let's deal with this very critical area with respect to the program for elevating devices. There have been two increases in licensing fees this year. I believe there's been an increase -- this is from the figures in the estimates -- with respect to handicapped lifting devices. Actually, there's been a quadrupling of that fee, from $50 to $250. Do you not think that's quite a steep increase in one fell swoop, Minister? If you're going to have increases of that nature and all of the licensing fees and revenues generated from that, there should be some consideration for increases in inspections.

I know my colleague the member for Ottawa West talked about shortages and asked you a question in the House some time ago with respect to a shortage of inspectors in Ottawa. He pointed out the very real dangers that exist with the lack of inspectors out there to do the very necessary inspections over the next while; he brought up what amounts to a real shortage of inspections over the last number of years.

What have you done, what steps have you taken, to overcome those inadequacies? Give me some information with respect to how you offset the fact that you've increased fees and you haven't really increased inspections, at least not the last time we got any information on this.

Hon Ms Churley: Let me address one of your first questions on the disabled elevators. Quite simply, the issue around that is that the fees haven't kept pace over the years at all, and that the disabled elevators cost more to construct and install. We believe that the fees we now charge are compatible with the work that goes into the construction, inspections and the installation inspections.

This issue was raised a number of times in the House, and I did describe, in the short amount of time we have in question period, some of the things we were doing. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for Mr Walter to give you a little more information about how we're coping with the huge number of elevators and devices we have in the province since the construction boom.

The Chair: Mr Cordiano, you have about four minutes left. Just to assist you, if you had a series of additional questions you wanted to place on the record at this time, I would like to share that with you; if not, then Mr Walter can proceed and respond to your questions here.

Mr Cordiano: Actually, I'd like to conclude this in the time I have, but I also have some written questions which I'd like to submit at the end of my time. They're a little more detailed, so we'll get more precise information.

The Chair: You can do that when you've completed your comments. Please proceed.

Mr Walter: There are 33,000 elevators in Ontario. Because of continued constraints in those areas, we have not hired more elevator inspectors; you're aware of that. There are two ways we're dealing with it. The first problem was that we could not, during the boom times of construction, hire inspectors to begin with, because they were making more money in the industry than we were prepared to pay them.

So some two years ago we initiated an elevator inspector trainee program. The first three graduates of that program will be finished early next year, probably January or February. In placing them, we're looking especially towards Ottawa and Thunder Bay, obviously, where they're vacant. We have six other inspector trainees who will probably complete the program some time early in 1994; it depends on the individual involved. We'll be putting nine more inspectors into the field in the next 18 months.

The second way we're trying to focus the present resources is that we're implementing a system called Index, which applies to the whole division but, within elevating devices branch, particularly records all the installations out there: tells us the kind of equipment, the age of the equipment, the last time it was inspected, the maintenance program and that kind of thing.

What we'll be using that Index system for is to tell us where there are problems. We will build up a history of what is occurring in the industry. We will then be able to focus the number of inspectors we have on the areas where they actually need to go and do those inspections. We've got an unofficial way of doing that now. We know that in some of the big buildings in downtown Toronto that are owned by large firms and have high-paying clients, those elevators are maintained spectacularly well, but that's fairly unofficial. We need to have something that's much more fine-tuned.

There are three parts to that system. We're doing the third release of it right now, and we hope to have that fairly well implemented by May or June of next year. We will have a certain amount of data in that and we will start to build up some history. Those are the two ways we're addressing that issue.

Mr Cordiano: At the present time, you're satisfied that safety is not being compromised through the lack of inspections?

Mr Walter: I don't believe safety is being compromised, because of the redundant kind of equipment on elevators. The equipment is there to ensure that people who are using them are safe. There may be some inconvenience if elevators aren't serviced as they need to be, but our prime mandate is safety of elevator equipment, not serviceability.

Mr Cordiano: That's fine, thank you.

The Chair: Mr Cordiano, do you wish to formally put on the record a series of questions, not reading into the record, but officially handing them to the clerk, and then they'll form part of these estimates?

Mr Cordiano: Yes, I'd like to do that.

The Chair: The ministry responses, it goes without saying, will go through the clerk, who will make sure they're distributed to all committee members. Thank you very much, Mr Walter.

Mr Tilson: I have a number of questions which I'd like to table. I don't have them in writing; perhaps I could read them into the record.

The questions have to do with Bill 26. It's essentially a letter I wrote to the minister on September 14, which I've also read in the House. I'm still awaiting an answer. The questions with respect to that new legislation are as follows.

First, what requirements are placed on both the municipality and the charitable and religious organizations in applying for a licence? What about Nevada tickets: Who can apply for and sell them? What about sports lotteries? Can any charitable or sports association run one of these now under this bill? As this bill has not yet received royal assent, are there requirements for licensing under it to take effect at this time?

Second, what is the result of the consultation in the second draft? Will you be introducing these amendments as a bill in the Legislature, or will they merely be regulations to Bill 26? If so, when can we expect it to be introduced? Will we, as legislators, get an opportunity to debate these proposals, as I have a number of concerns regarding them? What guidelines are the municipalities and organizations to use in the meantime?

The third question is, when can we expect this order in council to be introduced, and what are the municipalities to do in the interim?

1740

Other questions have to do with the entertainment standards branch. Specifically, I would like to know the number of people who are members of the casino project staff who are from other ministries. Are their salaries paid by their respective ministries? If the head of the entertainment branch, who I understand is Mr John Chalmers, who is heading up the policy and native issues section in the casino project, who is responsible for the introduction of the charitable gaming legislation?

I would like to receive some information about Mr Alfieri, who has made presentations to this committee and who has been hired for the casino project. I would like to know what his qualifications are to proceed on this.

The Chair: By that, Mr Tilson, do you mean the basis on which the decision was made in order to contract him to do these services for the government?

Mr Tilson: I'd like to know what Mr Alfieri's qualifications are. With respect to adult videos, which is an area Mrs Marland expressed some concerns with, is the ministry discussing with the federal government regarding the definition of "pornography" under the Criminal Code? I'd like to know what discussions they're entering into, and what attempts have been made to reconcile the guidelines of the Ontario Film Review Board with the Criminal Code. I would like to know why Robert Payne's contract was not renewed as chair of the board. I would like to know what steps the minister has taken to ensure that the decisions of the film review board do reflect social norms as expressed in the Criminal Code. I would like to know what the minister thinks about the proliferation of adult video stores and the types of films distributed in them. What plans does she have to deal with this issue?

My question to the minister is also with respect to the registrar general's office. I'd like to ask a series of questions now. Can she tell us the cost of the move to Thunder Bay?

Ms Wolfson: Mr Daniels again would be the appropriate person.

Hon Ms Churley: We have to get Mr Daniels again.

The Chair: Welcome back, Mr Daniels. Some of us have missed you, actually.

Mr Tilson: I feel I know you very well.

Mr Daniels: I think this has been stated in the House a number of times. As to the relocation to Thunder Bay, the registrar general employed 157 public servants here in Toronto; they were all offered an opportunity to relocate to Thunder Bay and unfortunately only six chose to go, leaving us a lot of job opportunities in Thunder Bay. But also that reduced our cost. Obviously the high cost of relocation is the relocation of people from Toronto to Thunder Bay, so the costs of relocation were quite minimal. Total costs to the ministry are in the area of $3 million in terms of removal costs, training costs, overlapping appointments etc.

Mr Tilson: Included in that would be the training program. Can you provide us, in due course, with a breakdown of that?

Mr Daniels: Sure. In fact, we have a very detailed breakdown. In fact, I want to put a commercial in here, if I can.

Mr Tilson: Please do.

Mr Daniels: By providing those opportunities in Thunder Bay, I just want everybody to know that we went out of our way to be an equity employer, not just on a margin: 20% of the staff are native Canadians, another 20% of the staff are physically disabled and 40% of the staff are single parents off welfare. That means that 80% of the working population of that office were on social assistance. We've saved the taxpayers close to $1 million per annum in off-welfare costs.

We've taken a lot of heat about other things about the RG, but there are some really wonderful things about the relocation: the employment of native people, the employment of disabled people, the employment of people who didn't have a stake in the community. I know it's a commercial. I always feel bad that we're hammered by it.

I just want to add to that commercial. Now they've learned their job. Since last year, none of these people have left. They've all stayed with it, they've learned their jobs. It took them a time. The service times today -- I just thought I'd check today -- to register an event once we receive it is five days. The service time to deal with a birth or death or marriage certificate -- and you know how horrific it was last summer -- is now down to eight days.

Mr Tilson: That's the question. I don't know about Mr Cordiano, but certainly in my office we're still receiving complaints of lengthy delays. I guess that's the real question. It's fine to talk about all these wonderful things, but the other issue is the efficiency.

Mr Daniels: And the efficiency is back. It took time --

Mr Tilson: I can only tell you that that's not what we're hearing from our offices.

The Chair: Mr Daniels, would it be appropriate for Mr Tilson to bring these concerns to your office?

Mr Daniels: In fact, that's what we should do. I just want to say that there are individual cases that will fall through the cracks and there are areas that are still backlogged in change of name.

The Chair: And if I may ask, if you're going to submit the response to Mr Tilson, which will be circulated to the committee, if you would include what happened to the staff in Toronto which did not --

Mr Daniels: All were placed. There were no layoffs; we found a job for everybody.

Mr Tilson: Where did they go?

The Chair: Can we get that in detail?

Mr Daniels: Sure, I can tell you where everybody went. It was good news on that side, too.

Mr Tilson: Do you deal with condominiums, Mr Daniels?

Mr Daniels: I deal with condominiums, but not on the policy.

Mr Tilson: In that case, I'd like to ask a question on condominiums. Mr Chairman, perhaps to the minister: I'd like you, Madam Minister, to talk about what your procedure in timing is with respect to Bill 81. I know there's been substantial amendments; 100 or 200 amendments have been proposed. What's your proposal with that bill?

Hon Ms Churley: As you know, we introduced the bill for first reading, and after extensive consultation with all of the stakeholders and after the first reading, we then continued to work with the stakeholders. We invited them to get them involved, because this bill hasn't been changed in some time and we know that once a new bill is introduced and passed it's around for a while, so we feel it's very important that all the stakeholders have a say now in the amendments and where it goes from here.

I'm hoping we can have it on the agenda for second and third reading as soon as possible. As you know, the legislative agenda is full now, but I think it's a very important bill that the condominium community is quite interested in seeing us move on, despite the fact that they've asked us to make several changes -- a lot of minor ones, but some more significant changes. The overriding concern now is that we do get on with it.

Mr Tilson: I guess that's what I'm looking at, what your plans are. I suppose you have to discuss things with Mr Cooke; I understand that. I have received a number of concerns from individuals as to what your plans are. Are you going to be continuing consultations, or when can we tell them you will be proceeding with this?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, my answer's about the same. It's the House leader's decision, and of course it involves negotiations with the House leaders from the other two parties. I hear, I think quite loudly, that there's general support from both caucuses across the floor, and I'm hoping very much that we can come to an agreement to move ahead quickly. But you know as well as I do that I can't snap my fingers and get something on the agenda, but with cooperation and support from all members of the House, I'm sure we can get it on very soon.

Mr Tilson: The amendments that have been suggested are substantial. Would you be proceeding with those amendments or the bill as is?

Hon Ms Churley: We will be proceeding with some of those amendments. That was a commitment we made, that --

Mr Tilson: There are some 100 to 200 or more amendments. Would you be proceeding with all of those?

Hon Ms Churley: We don't know at this point how many we'll be proceeding with. I don't believe we'll be proceeding with all of them, but we have to assess at this point. The staff are now in fact working on lots of very positive and interesting responses that we got back from our consultation.

Mr Tilson: Okay. Mr Chairman, how much time do I have?

The Chair: You can take another five or six minutes. When we're called to the House, I need approximately a minute and a half to complete our votes.

Mr Tilson: The next set of questions returns to the elevating devices. My question is to anyone, Madam Minister, yourself or Mr Walter. Can you tell me how many inspectors there are now, and last year and the year before?

Mr Walter: I can tell you that there are 33 now. I'm sorry, I can't tell you the year before or the year before that. I've only been on the job this past year.

Mr Tilson: Can you undertake to get that to us, last year and the year before? Can you tell me whether they have increased or dropped or stayed about the same?

Mr Walter: It's stayed about the same, it's certainly not increased.

Mr Tilson: It may have dropped?

Mr Walter: It may have dropped one or two, yes, sir.

Mr Tilson: Can you tell me why?

Mr Walter: Staff retiring.

Mr Tilson: Can you tell me how often every elevator is inspected?

Mr Walter: At the present time, our inspection is running -- if every elevator, it would be maybe as long as five years.

Mr Tilson: Is this sufficient?

Mr Walter: I think it is sufficient, as I said earlier, to provide safety, yes.

Mr Tilson: How many accidents have there been involving faulty elevators in the province over the last three years?

Mr Walter: There have been three serious situations since going back to about 1989. There have been deaths in those situations.

Mr Tilson: I don't have that information now. Can you undertake to provide the number of all accidents involving faulty elevators in each of the last three years?

Mr Walter: I can undertake that. I'd just like to clarify your term of "faulty." "Faulty," you're seeming to suggest, is an equipment failure. A number of those accidents occurred because of the maintenance people doing something to cause a failure, and those people have been dealt with by the courts. There have been some situations where a mechanic has used jumper cables to bypass certain safety equipment. So I don't want you to feel that it is faulty elevator equipment, but I can give you whatever figures you would like.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Walter. I apologize for interrupting, but unless I complete the votes now, we won't be able to complete these estimates.

Given that the time allocated by consent has been completed for the estimates, shall vote 901 be carried? All in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

Shall vote 902 be carried? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

Shall vote 903 carry? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

Shall vote 904 carry? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried. Shall vote 905 carry? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

Shall vote 906 carry? All those in favour? Those opposed? Carried.

Shall the 1992-93 estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations be reported to the House? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

This standing committee on estimates stands adjourned until following routine proceedings on November 4, at which time we will commence the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The committee adjourned at 1754.