Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

CONTENTS

Tuesday 27 October 1992

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations

Hon Marilyn Churley, minister

Judith Wolfson, deputy minister

Whipple Steinkrauss, assistant deputy minister, business practices division

Domenic Alfieri, assistant deputy minister, Ontario casino project

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

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

*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)

*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)

Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)

Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:

*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: Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)

Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Clerk / Greffier: Decker, Todd

The committee met at 1537 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

The Vice-Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): I would like to call to order this meeting of the standing committee on estimates to review the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and I would like to welcome the minister to her first experience in estimates. Good luck.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Thank you.

Mrs Marland: We will start, of course, in the usual format for the estimates committee, which is an opening statement by the minister and then responding statements by the critic for the official opposition and the critic for the third party.

Hon Ms Churley: Good afternoon, everybody. I see more members of your committee are arriving. I'm pleased to appear before this committee to outline the achievements and plans of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

During my tenure as minister I have seen the ministry undergo significant change in its efforts to meet the challenges of greater public demand for accountability and better customer service in an increasingly complex marketplace.

This marketplace has seen many changes since the Ontario government became active in consumer matters in the late 1960s. The consumer population is much different today. There are more older consumers, more single-parent and two-income families, a high consumer debt load, more and more vulnerable consumers who fall prey to unscrupulous business activity and an increasing need for consumers to be able to act independently to resolve problems without having to rely on government.

Businesses and government have also been transformed in the last quarter century. The expansion of our world markets, technological advances and environmental concerns have significantly influenced the shape of our marketplace. These factors, combined with changing economic times, have made strong protection for Ontario's consumers more important than ever before.

Obviously these changing patterns have created real challenges and the need to develop new ways of doing business. This translates into the need for MCCR to further develop partnerships in support of a fair and vibrant marketplace.

Over the past couple of years, ministry staff have worked closely with consumer, industry and other interest groups to lay the groundwork for enhanced consumer protection. At the same time we continued in our effort to provide opportunities for growth to businesses.

While maintaining an outward focus, MCCR is also concentrating its energies internally. Much of our energy has centred on responding to the government's call for ways to reorganize work, reduce costs, change the workplace, eliminate old approaches and use technology cost-effectively.

I'm pleased to say we have been meeting these expectations at MCCR. In fact, much of the streamlining that is taking place across the Ontario government has already been under way since the mid-1980s, when our ministry started to examine, in some detail, how it does business.

Our work is not going unnoticed. In the November 1991 issue of Chatelaine, MCCR was touted as one of the best companies to work for in Canada. In regard to our work arrangements, the article said, "At the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, 80% of staff are using flexible work options, the highest in the Ontario public sector."

The ministry was recently recognized by the author of the 100 Best Companies to Work for in Canada for innovations which have led to increased employee satisfaction, greater flexibility of work arrangements, faster decision-making and joint ventures with private sector organizations.

MCCR also won prestigious awards from the Institute of Public Administration of Canada in 1990 and 1992 for excellence in management.

A prime example of our innovative approaches was a staff consultation process called Setting Directions for the 90s. The Setting Directions initiative provided ministry staff and clients with an opportunity to identify new and innovative ways to improve the way we do business and keep in touch with the changing needs of our customers.

Through ministry-wide meetings held across the province, we discovered that simplified legislation, better public education and increased access to training and career development opportunities were our staff prime concerns. Several significant projects produced new ideas and practices which will greatly contribute to improving the service we provide to our clients. We will continue to rank our investment in staff development and appropriate technology as top priority.

Staff consultation and Setting Directions were the building blocks that helped lay the foundation for the next step in the ministry's strategic vision.

In view of the challenges of fiscal constraint, the focus has shifted more to operational change -- improvements that will give the ministry and its staff more flexibility, more value for our dollars and prepare us for new and different skills and businesses.

This past spring, the ministry launched the management corporate league project, the umbrella theme for a series of 17 projects that will build on the previous planning exercises and help make our workplace a learning organization. Essentially, this translates into a working environment where continuous change means continuous improvement.

More than 150 people are directly involved in these projects, representing a broad cross-section of the ministry -- bargaining unit, middle management and executives. They will utilize the skills and knowledge of others throughout the ministry.

We've broken these projects into three key strategies. The first strategy is managing our resources effectively and within our budget. This means getting smarter about how we currently manage our financial and human resources and meet our commitments, and how we develop operational tools to manage more efficiently and deal with changes and pressures in the future.

The second of our three strategies takes a look at productivity in today's environment. In this regard, we will be searching for answers to such questions as: How do we improve productivity? How do we get more value for our efforts and resources? Can we use our technology better?

The third strategy, Planning Our Future, will address our long-term goals as a ministry. This involves looking at what businesses we should or shouldn't be involved in, future service strategies to provide both customized and generic services and a continuous learning plan that allows our employees to grow, develop and change. The vision we have for the ministry is to promote a fair, safe and informed marketplace that supports a competitive economy in Ontario. The time for planning is now. The ministry has to be ready for new and different businesses and business skills. MCCR's role can no longer be exclusively limited to regulator, protector or service provider. In today's world we have to expand our perspective. As a ministry, we must pursue a wider range of opportunities leading to new partnerships and different kinds of consultation processes and new kinds of service. We also have to take advantage of available technology to ensure that we attain a high level of customer service which meets the needs and expectations of our very diverse client groups.

The technological innovations that are taking place throughout our ministry are perhaps best demonstrated through the activities of the registration division, which has several of the largest databases in the Ontario government. For example, customers of the division have access to faster and more convenient services now that they are allowed to file information electronically as a result of the proclamation of the Electronic Registration Act last March.

The personal properties security registration system, which provides a public record of personal property pledged as security for financial transactions, was the first ministry program to use this capability. Information in the system is provided primarily by businesses offering loans.

In the past, ministry clients provided information on paper to branch staff, who then entered it on to a computer database. Under the new system, information can now be electronically transmitted into the PPSR database even when the public office is closed for the day.

The branch also implemented electronic searching of its database, giving clients the ability to conduct their own searches from their offices as well. Direct inquiry of the PPSR database accounted for 42% of the searches by September 1992, thereby allowing the branch to reduce resources required for this purpose.

Another important example of the ministry's commitment to providing high-quality customer service was the formation of an important linkage between the private and public sectors to produce a land-related information system for the world market. This strategic alliance between the Ontario government, represented by MCCR, and Real/Data Ontario, a firm representing an array of specialized skills, led to the creation of a new corporation that draws upon the expertise of both partners: Teranet Land Information Services Inc.

Teranet's mandate is twofold: It will automate land registration information province-wide and develop an internationally competitive land information system using Polaris as the catalyst. Polaris, which stands for province of Ontario land registration information system, is an automated property title indexing and mapping system. Property records are computerized to provide those in the land registry business with faster, more accurate information. It's already operating in Woodstock, London, Chatham and Toronto.

As of September 1992, almost 372,000 property records were available to the public in these four locations. Full implementation by the corporation will take eight years. When completed, an estimated four million property records will have been converted from paper to digital form.

A strategic alliance liaison office was also created in June 1991 to ensure that the interests of the Ontario government were promoted through effective and ongoing liaison between MCCR, Real/Data and Teranet.

In keeping with the partnership theme, another new partnership between government, industry and consumers was created in early 1991 to study the concept of coregulation in the real estate industry. I believe regulatory change is needed to address the current realities of the marketplace and a more complex real estate industry. Under coregulation, government would continue to make legislative and generic policy decision, but the real estate industry would assume a greater share of the responsibility for standards setting and policing its members. 1550

The representative working group looking at coregulation is also working on rewriting the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, which was last amended in the 1960s. The advisory committee is comprised of representatives from the Ontario Real Estate Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario arm of the Consumers' Association of Canada, unaffiliated realtors and business brokers and MCCR staff from our policy and legal branches.

I'll make additional comments regarding the importance of consultation and partnership in implementing other important ministry initiatives later in my remarks.

The current public environment and the government's commitment to cost-efficiency in the Ontario public service also led to the consolidation of some of the ministry's land registry offices. There are now 55 registry offices, with at least one in each county, regional municipality and provincial judicial district. The consolidation of land registry offices eliminated the costly duplication of services in some counties, and also provided several million dollars in replacement and renovation expenses to older offices.

There is no doubt that some clients, accustomed to having an additional office in their community, have been inconvenienced by the consolidation. However, for many clients, the land registry integration means that they will not longer have to travel to two or sometimes three locations to complete their research and conclude transactions. Land title researchers, who sometimes had to travel to two land registry offices in the same county, will now find all their records for their county under one roof. In response to concerns over the integration of these offices, I would like to emphasize that the action to restructure these services was a difficult decision, one we did not take lightly. It demonstrates our commitment to serve the taxpayers of Ontario in the most fiscally responsible way possible, while supporting the best interests of the people who rely on land registration information and our own staff.

In an attempt to provide better service to consumers who need to obtain birth, marriage and death certificates, amendments to the Vital Statistics Act were proclaimed by the ministry in January 1991. The changes to the act laid the groundwork for the application of new computer technology that allowed the office of the registrar general to store the registration of births, marriages, deaths and other events more efficiently. The changes also allow the office to operate out of both its new head office in Thunder Bay and from the walk-in centre located in Toronto.

Before the ORG moved to Thunder Bay, more than 10 million documents were converted into a couple of hundred computer optical discs by employees from the Goodwill Industries, a non-profit vocational agency in Toronto. The new system for document storage, known as auto-imaging, eliminates the need for over 8,000 square feet of storage space.

The ministry's relocation of its office of the registrar general to Thunder Bay also provided MCCR with an opportunity to employ modern human resources techniques, especially in the area of workplace design and hiring practices, so that all segments of the local population could benefit equally from the move.

Initially, we had some startup difficulties that produced a situation with rapidly increasing backlogs and significant disruptions to service. Generally, however, these problems have been overcome.

The relocation required: resolution of higher-than-anticipated backlogs transferred to Thunder Bay; the recruitment of almost an entirely new staff; implementation of new, leading-edge imaging technology; organizational restructuring which flattened the organization and provided a structure to facilitate empowerment of working level staff; and staff reduction in anticipation of productivity gains from the new technology. These challenges were complicated by an unexpected workload increase of almost 20%.

Since the move, telephone inquiry lines have also been increased in Toronto and Thunder Bay. As a result, phone calls to the ORG increased from 2,000 per week prior to the relocation in March 1991 to 4,000 per week just a year later. During the same time frame, the ORG saw the number of walk-in customers at its Toronto front counter skyrocket to over 130,000 from 63,000 annually.

In addition, requests for mail services increased by close to 70,000 per year. This means the ORG is now handling, on an annual basis, over 150,000 more customers per year, counting both mail service and walk-in clients.

I'm pleased to report that over the past year continued progress was made in refining technology and work processes, training personnel, improving communications with major stakeholders and better managing client expectations, which helped to significantly improve turnaround times and service levels.

Currently, the ORG is registering births, deaths and marriages two to three weeks from receipt of the documents, servicing requests for routine certificates within two to four weeks and issuing 12,000 certificates weekly, on average.

Not surprisingly, technology is also a major factor in improving program delivery in our technical standards division. Internally, computers are performing a variety of routine clerical tasks, and the first phase of a division-wide system for risk assessment and analysis was recently implemented. Using computers to minimize known and potential hazards enhances the division's international reputation for promoting the highest safety standards in elevating devices, hydrocarbon fuels, pressure vessels and upholstered and stuffed articles.

As part of this ministry's commitment to establishing some of the world's most stringent safety guidelines, the elevating devices branch, working with the Canadian Standards Association, recently completed its review of the B44 elevator safety code and finalized a comprehensive supplement. An important part of this addition relates to maintenance requirements and a standardized logbook for all elevating devices. Significant steps are being taken to further assure the safety of elevator users. These include the retrofit of improved door retainers and equipment helping mechanics to detect faults without endangering the public.

Then there is the review we have been conducting of the Operating Engineers Act to increase safety in Ontario's operating plants, which includes facilities such as boilers, compressor plants and air-conditioning plants. We will be working in consultation with our stakeholders to review the legislation not only for safety purposes but at the same time for strategic economic and competitive reasons. Besides improving the safety of the general public and workers in and around operating plants, proposed amendments to the act would also address recent technological developments in the refrigeration, air-conditioning and compressor industries, would make the act easier to understand and administer and would bring under regulation all operating plants using environmentally damaging substances, including CFCs.

1600

Public safety has been enhanced through the division's fuels safety branch by improved response to fuels incidents, such as propane leaks and natural gas explosions, plus stronger enforcement of laws and codes.

For example, in March, branch staff investigated consumer complaints regarding problems with vehicles breaking down shortly after being refueled. Working together with the ministries of Revenue and the Environment and the Metro Toronto and Ontario Provincial Police forces, branch investigators uncovered evidence that contaminated gasoline was being sold by 17 southern Ontario gasoline filling stations. The stations, along with a gasoline bulk plant, were shut down to allow branch inspectors to check the safety of fuel storage and dispensing equipment and monitor the removal of tainted fuels. The tainted fuel, which contained solvents that could cause deterioration of vehicle seals and gaskets, was removed.

Back on the legislative front, important new legislation introduced by the ministry to better protect consumers and businesses included the new Business Names Act, which was proclaimed in May 1991. All unincorporated businesses operating under names other than their owners' names are now required to have their names registered. Past laws regulating business names of sole proprietorships and partnerships applied only to those in manufacturing, trade or mining. Businesses such as consultants, hairdressers and building contractors were exempt. Under the new act, all are now required to register with MCCR's companies branch. The benefit to the consumer is easier access to information about businesses with which they deal. This type of information is particularly important to people trying to settle disputes. Simplified registration forms were also introduced and a new brochure, Registering Your Business Name in Ontario, was published in English, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Greek and Chinese. The new act was supported by a widespread print advertising campaign to ensure all business owners learned about the new requirements.

The ministry is also taking steps towards modernizing sections of legislation we administer that are out of sync with the areas they govern. This includes outmoded legislation that inadequately protects consumers.

A good example is the new Condominium Corporations Act. The act was recently introduced for first reading and we're proposing significant changes to the current legislation. After remaining untouched for more than a decade, the act needed revision. During that period there was a dramatic increase in condominium construction and ownership; however, adjustments to the act and its regulations have not kept up.

Our proposals aim at achieving four important goals: balancing the power and control of those who live in their units with that of larger investors; diversifying affordable home ownership opportunities for Ontarians; encouraging job creation through new condominium development, and increasing consumer protection.

In an effort to enhance consumer protection, we are recommending clearer and stronger sales disclosure requirements. Condominium buyers have a right to be adequately informed about what they are buying. For example, in pre-sales of unbuilt condominiums, disclosure would be required for the status of all necessary approvals. This will help consumers avoid unpleasant surprises after they have signed agreements. The proposed changes would also protect people who sell condos by making it clear exactly what information they must provide to meet disclosure requirements.

MCCR is also involved in a new government program, in cooperation with the ministries of Revenue and Transportation, to better protect consumers when they buy used vehicles through private sales. A number of problems exist with the private transfer and sale of used vehicles in Ontario. For example, cars used as a security against outstanding loans are sometimes sold to unsuspecting buyers, who may then become responsible for outstanding amounts.

Also, many sales are made by unlicensed dealers or curbsiders who may misrepresent the history and previous uses of the vehicles. A typical curbsider runs an under-the-table business, usually selling more than five vehicles a year. It's estimated there may be as many as 20,000 curbsiders operating in Ontario.

We are hoping to reduce the number of ripoffs in private used car sales with a new set of procedures, some of which were introduced earlier this month and the rest next April.

On October 1, 1992, changes were made regarding the payment of retail sales tax on the private sale of used motor vehicles. Frankly, there are a great number of consumers who are avoiding the proper sales tax on used vehicles, and everyone else has to carry the extra load. Buyers of used vehicles are now required to pay the sales tax on the fair market value at the time of the transfer, which is defined as the greater of the purchase price or the average wholesale value. The average wholesale value is based on the Red Book wholesale value, which can best be described as the average price the dealers pay when buying from each other. There will be an appeal process for consumers who can show their vehicle is valued at less than Red Book price due to damage or heavy use.

On April 1, used car sellers will have to buy a used vehicle information package. These mandatory kits will provide the vehicle's ownership history, any outstanding liens registered against it and the fair market value of the vehicle on which the retail sales tax is based. The seller must give the kit to the buyer. By providing more information about the vehicle, the package will help consumers in making an informed decision.

This past April, the ministry also proclaimed the new Cemeteries Act to reflect the dramatic changes that have taken place in the funeral and cemetery industries since the legislation was last revised in the mid-1950s. The new act contains a variety of consumer protection features, such as a ban on telephone solicitation and door-to-door sales of cemetery lots, services and supplies.

The highly sensitive nature of this subject, and the possibility of ill or recently bereaved peopled being contacted by salespeople placing random calls, make such forms of solicitation undesirable. We're also concerned about the risk of target groups such as seniors being subjected to intensive, high-pressure sales tactics.

The new legislation also improves public safety in cemeteries, requires that all money pre-paid to cemeteries for future services be held in trust, requires full disclosure of contract details to consumers and provides for a 30-day cooling off period during which consumers can cancel contracts with a full refund.

The revised act also protects the dignity of native burial grounds and any artefacts found in them in a manner that respects the customs of first nations people.

Social gaming issues were high profile over the last fiscal year, with a number of groups seeking changes to the licensing of charitable gaming events.

Since charitable gaming was first permitted in Ontario over 20 years ago, it has evolved from church basement bingos to a thriving, multibillion-dollar business. Its unprecedented growth had generated a number of concerns relating to accountability in the charitable gaming marketplace and the need for appropriate regulation of all participants in this industry.

The new Gaming Services Act, introduced for second reading this month, will ensure that charities get the full benefit of the funds they raise.

1610

Provisions under the new act will regulate the activities, services and fees of commercial participants in Ontario's gaming industry and require the registration of those who provide gaming services, supplies and premises in accordance with high standards of honesty, integrity and fiscal responsibility. This framework will pave the way for talks with the first nations relating to control, regulation and administration of gaming activities on their reserves.

I would like to emphasize that the act focuses on the charitable component of gaming in Ontario and indeed is separate from the issue of casino gambling.

On that note, this spring the government approved the establishment of a special project team responsible for the carefully controlled implementation of casinos. The casino project is a corporate initiative of the government, developed in response to communities, particularly border communities, interested in using casinos to assist local economic development and of course to generate new revenues for the provincial treasury. We are committed to strict regulation and control of gaming by the government and are planning this initiative in a prudent manner.

Earlier this month I announced that the Windsor area would be the site of an initial casino pilot project. By starting with a single pilot project, we can make sure that the most effective regulatory and law enforcement systems are put in place. We will develop a made-in-Ontario working model that other communities can watch and learn from.

We are strongly committed to ensuring that the advent of casino gambling does not have an adverse effect on other popular forms of entertainment in Ontario such as horse racing. Ontario Standardbred racing, supervised by the Ontario Racing Commission, has earned its number one ranking in North America, not just in spectators, betting marks, number of raceways and live racing days but in quality.

Its importance to the provincial economy is crucial. Ontario's horse racing and breeding industries provide more than 50,000 jobs, with four out of every five of those jobs in rural communities. The industry's racetracks have an estimated $2.2-billion annual impact.

The horse racing industry, like many others in Ontario, has been particularly hard hit by the recession. Betting is static, attendance has dropped substantially and revenues are down. This government recently introduced a $2.5-million rebate program to increase the viability of racetracks to the benefit of the thousands of women and men in Ontario whose livelihoods depend upon a viable horse racing industry.

The current tax-sharing arrangement, where the province rebates a portion of racetrack tax revenues to stimulate the ongoing development of the horse racing and breeding industries, will continue. Ontario rebated approximately $26 million to the industry last year, based on $80 million in gross racetrack revenues.

As a regulatory industry, MCCR has to be sensitive to the changes occurring in our economy crucial to Ontario's wellbeing. We need to develop policies and programs that will keep our industry clients productive and competitive on a national and international level. The dynamic activity which has occurred through the ministry's liquor programs best exemplifies this commitment.

Last year changes were made to regulations under the Wine Content Act to allow wineries to produce new blends of wine and compete more aggressively in the province's wine market. Wineries can now produce new blends with the increase in imported content. The label of a bottle containing 25% of domestic wine and 75% of imported wine will indicate that it is a blend primarily from the imported wine's country of origin. These changes are consistent with labelling provisions found in the federal Food and Drugs Act.

This more active participation in Ontario's international market is also expected to gradually increase the demand for Ontario grapes and grape products. It can be viewed as a good way to stabilize employment in the industry. With time, it also should create new job opportunities in Ontario wine production and related businesses.

We also joined forces with other provincial ministries, other levels of government and the wine industry to dispel some negative images and myths about Ontario wines. The message we wanted to bring home was that Ontario wines are being recognized for their quality worldwide. In the past couple of years, our domestic wines have won a multitude of prestigious international tasting and sampling competitions. As a result of a highly successful province-wide advertising campaign, Ontarians are becoming more aware of these excellent homegrown wines. A Vintners Quality Alliance designation is now accepted by the wine-drinking public as an assurance of quality and value.

In 1991-92, total Ontario wine sales increased by more than 5% over the previous years. At the same time, four million litres of Ontario wine were sold to other provinces or exported to other countries. That represents more than $7 million in sales. We have proven that we can compete successfully with the best in the world.

Our commitment to a healthy, stable beer industry was demonstrated when we announced the removal of this province's beer interprovincial and international trade barriers. As you are aware, adjustments have been made to Ontario's beer marketing practices in response to a GATT panel decision requiring the provinces to provide improved access for imported beer. Before responding to GATT, however, we announced the dismantling of our own beer interprovincial trade barriers. We viewed the elimination of these barriers as an important first step in changing policies to allow our domestic brewers to make the necessary adjustments to be competitive with foreign producers.

Without barriers to interprovincial trade, Ontario brewers with operations in other provinces will be able to supply their products from out-of-province plants to the Ontario market. They will also be able to supply other provinces with Ontario-brewed beer. Streamlining their operations will enable Ontario brewers to increase their efficiency in a way that maintains production and preserves jobs.

One of our agencies, the LCBO, has also had to make changes to its operation in response to the current realities of the beverage alcohol marketplace. The economic downturn, with its resulting unemployment and reduction in consumer spending, has had a profound impact on the province's retail sector. As a major Ontario retailer, the LCBO has not been immune to the general weakness in consumer spending.

The marketplace pressures created by the recession, combined with other factors such as an increase in cross-border shopping, smuggling and changing attitudes towards the consumption of beverage alcohol, have resulted in the necessity of further reducing the costs of doing business at the LCBO.

Faced with this very difficult set of circumstances, the board recently announced the elimination of a number of surplus positions and the introduction of an optional early retirement program to reduce operating expenses in the face of declining sales. The end result has been a reduction of hours worked by casual staff as opposed to layoffs of large numbers of full-time employees.

You may recall that back in 1987, the Provincial Auditor identified a surplus of staff at the LCBO. Since then, attrition has been used to reduce the staff complement. In addition to the elimination of surplus positions, the LCBO is currently reviewing all aspects of its human resources planning.

1620

Despite these challenges, the LCBO is probably one of the most visible examples of MCCR's efforts to improve customer service. By the end of this year, the LCBO will have upgraded its 116 top-performing stores to provide customers and staff with a more efficient shopping environment. The store improvements will aid the board in its effort to maintain high levels of service and achieve sales targets.

I'd like to point out that the upgrades taking place as part of the LCBO's IMAGE, or Innovate, Merchandise and Generate Enthusiasm program are far from being merely cosmetic. Aside from much-needed repairs and maintenance, the IMAGE program incorporates upgrades such as energy-efficient lighting, security systems, asbestos removal and improved access for disabled customers.

According to LCBO figures, stores upgraded under this program are recording a 3.5% increase in sales over other LCBO outlets so far this year. As a result, the cost of the upgrades will be recovered in less than 18 months, a return that would be the envy of any Ontario retailer. Without these improvements and with the associated increase in sales, there would be an even greater need for further cost-cutting measures at the board.

Innovative programs like IMAGE and other in-house initiatives, aimed at environmental protection and the dangers associated with drinking and driving, are helping the LCBO meet its commitment to being the best customer-focused and profitable retailer of beverage alcohol and related services -- in a socially responsible manner.

Customer service and productivity are also being improved at the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On a point of order, Madam Chair: My understanding is that the minister's preliminary remarks are to last, by custom, at least half an hour, or 30 minutes, and I think we're now approaching 45 minutes, at least by my count. This is being very well read. I guess my question is how much longer the minister anticipates going on. It's a big subject and I think we should be allowing sufficient time for questions and answers.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Tilson, your point is well made. There usually is an agreement that it will be half an hour for each party, as I outlined at the beginning. In fact, in fairness, I don't think I did outline the time; I just outlined the order at the beginning of this meeting. However, if there is agreement for the minister to complete -- she only has six more pages --

Mr Tilson: And how fast she reads them.

The Vice-Chair: -- we can extend the response time.

Hon Ms Churley: Or I can reduce mine. I'm quite willing to reduce my response time to make up for the --

The Vice-Chair: Because you have 15 minutes at the end, or half an hour at the end?

Hon Ms Churley: Thirty minutes. I'll agree to do that.

The Vice-Chair: How about if we agree to do this: that the minister doesn't use the full half-hour that she has to respond to the two critics, so her overall time will balance out to be the same. Is that agreeable?

Mr Tilson: I'm sure you'll handle it, Madam Chair.

Hon Ms Churley: Where was I? Customer service and productivity are also being improved at the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario as a result of a new on-line computer system which encompasses the four main areas of the board: licensing, inspections, hearings and advertising.

Significant reductions in staff time in retrieving information to answer frequent and routine inquiries and in processing applications have resulted. For example, the time to process a new licence application has dropped by half despite staff reductions and budget constraints.

New regulations under the Liquor Licence Act proclaimed in June are also bringing Ontario's liquor licensing policies into the 1990s. The LLBO now has the authorization to permit the sale and service of wine, in addition to beer and coolers, in Ontario stadiums. To be eligible for licensing, stadiums must meet established criteria. They must have permanent and fixed-tiered seating and be home to a professional sports team or to players who hold live sports events on a regular or seasonal basis. The six stadiums that were previously licensed on an ad hoc basis reported few social or enforcement problems relating to alcohol.

The new regulations ensure that these same high standards will continue to be met by newly licensed facilities. In addition, stadiums must ensure there are prominent notices throughout the stadium which promote the responsible use of liquor.

Many of the initiatives I have mentioned were developed in cooperation with our stakeholders. We have benefited greatly from our ongoing dialogue and consultation with consumer experts, the business community, labour representatives and consumers. I'm convinced that consultation and partnership are the key to the future success of ministry initiatives as demands for improved consumer protection and fairness in a rapidly evolving public environment continue to grow.

The importance of this consultation and partnership approach is perhaps best reflected in the development of one of the ministry's most important pieces of consumer protection legislation, the proposed fair marketplace code. The consultation group helping us fine-tune the new code includes representatives from major business and consumer groups: the Ontario chapter of the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Retail Council of Canada and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

This new legislation, which we expect to introduce next year, will comprehensively cover all transactions dealing with goods and services in Ontario for the first time. It will also clearly define standards for an honest and competitive marketplace where both consumers and businesses will better understand their rights and responsibilities. The new code will include the growing service sector of Ontario's economy and recognize the impact of new types of technology, such as telemarketing, that are not covered under the existing legislation.

The bottom line is that the marketplace needs new legislation which will modernize and consolidate outdated consumer legislation into a single, plain language code. As a ministry that deals extensively with the public, we have a clear responsibility to make certain the new code is easily read and understood by everyone. We are exploring ideas for the use of plain language for consumer contracts. If the rules of transactions are easier to understand, I believe fewer disputes will occur and consumer confidence will increase.

Aside from our firm commitment to strong new consumer legislation, we are also going that extra mile to ensure that MCCR maintains its effectiveness as an organization by delivering top-notch customer service, not only to the customers who step up to our counters looking to register a business but to our staff as well. In the years that lie ahead, I'm confident that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations will achieve even greater levels of customer service as we continue to formulate legislation responsive to the dynamics of our modern marketplace.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Minister. Mr Cordiano.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Let me just say how much I appreciated the minister's opening remarks and how fulsome they were, covering a broad range of subjects which are entirely within the scope of this ministry. But let me just comment in my opening remarks starting off with why this ministry is very important and its role is important to Ontarians.

The ministry is one of the most diverse in the government. It's responsible for the administration of 50 pieces of legislation and related regulations which affect 300,000 businesses and almost every citizen in the province, as we have heard from the minister. Your programs affect both businesses and consumers and are intended to promote, as has been stated in the past, a high level of business conduct; establishing standards for public safety -- as the minister has pointed out in a number of items which she mentioned in her opening remarks -- maintaining records pertaining to vital statistics, the office of the registrar general; controlling the use of availability of beverage alcohol; regulating the horse racing industry, and of course the advent of gambling in the province of Ontario.

1630

The clients are varied: consumers, businesses, municipalities, regional governments, financial institutions, the legal profession, the general public and participants in activities directly regulated by the ministry such as boxing, wrestling, racing and charitable gaming. You cover quite a lot of territory, and I attempt to cover you in that territory. The reason I stated all this is because, quite frankly, I think you've gotten lost in the forest somewhere.

Under our Liberal administration, the ministry's stated purpose was quite simple and straightforward: to inform, serve and protect the public, participants, consumers and businesses and to encourage the maintenance of an honest and equitable marketplace -- simple. But as I say, I think you've gotten lost somewhere along the way. I'm almost tempted to rename this ministry and the minister: the Minister of New Government Revenues. That's what this ministry has now become, the cash cow of the government.

There is no area you will leave untouched in your efforts to seek new revenues for the government. Quite frankly, I think it doesn't bode well for consumers in the province. You have indicated today that the long awaited consumer protection legislation will be forthcoming some time next year. I note that the minister has also said, prior to this in discussion in the House, that consumer protection legislation was forthcoming. I'm glad to see that at least we have some kind of an indication as to the time frame, which you've now stated clearly will be some time in 1993. I await that with a great deal of interest, as I'm sure most people do, because, quite honestly, I think the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has not lived up to that side of the equation with respect to consumers.

I'm of the opinion that there is no longer the great consumer protection that was envisaged by previous administrations, both governments at the federal level and the provincial level, going back some 30 years with respect to the consumer and the role the government played in order to ensure that consumers were adequately protected from the marketplace, and to ensure that we had a marketplace which functioned properly. The consumer is an important part of that equation.

I think it's justifiable to ask the minister and to ask this administration how, on the one hand, you protect consumers' interests when in fact you're providing services and raising revenues from those very same consumers. I just don't see that those two rules are compatible, quite frankly. The more this ministry undertakes to raise revenues, the less its interest is with respect to consumers and protection of those consumers. I've seen that. We've seen that over the last number of years. Therefore, I think it's very important for this ministry to bring forward consumer protection legislation quickly, because we've lost that focus. We don't see that any more.

With respect to consultation, there are problems that people have pointed out who find it difficult to consult with this administration in a variety of areas. Perhaps we don't see the extensive consultation that should have taken place. I've pointed this out to the minister in the House. Casino gambling: My God, where was the extensive consultation that was promised? I did not meet very many people out there in the client group who -- charities were consulted, some of the stakeholders, the horse racing industry, but the public wasn't consulted on this, not in the very least. Yet we have a pilot project moving forward and no consultation on a broad base with the public.

I think that doesn't bode well in terms of the actual decision you've made to move forward with legalized gambling. If you wanted the public to be on side with this, then I think it was incumbent upon you to conduct the kind of broad-based consultation that would have made it possible to get support for this initiative, if that's what you really intended.

It's all fine and good to go ahead with a pilot project to better understand the impact that casino gambling will have, but I've got to ask the minister a rhetorical question; I know she'll answer this later on. If the pilot project is a failure and does not meet your expectations -- by the way, we do not know what the standards or the criteria for success will be; you have not indicated what criteria you will use to assess the merits of this project. We're not going to know what "success" means. Should this not meet whatever criteria you've established -- at some point you're going to have to do that; ie, how much revenue you produce -- what then? Do you pull back from this project? Do you stop the train from moving forward? Because that's going to be awfully difficult.

I think it's a foregone conclusion that you have to move forward. That's what concerns me about the approach this government has taken with respect to this decision. They really didn't have a consultation process that allowed people in the province to participate, to really say to themselves: "We've discussed this now with the government, the people we elected. We've had an opportunity to understand what it is that's being proposed and what it is that's going to result in our neighbourhoods. We've heard from the government about the various impacts that will result, because the government shared that information with us."

I've asked the minister repeatedly, and in the House as well: What kind of impact studies do you have available to us? What impact studies have been conducted? You haven't come forward with any of that information. I don't even know if the government has conducted impact studies. I'm quite concerned about that, because this is a decision that I think we will find it difficult to reverse if in fact the experiment does not work.

I know that the people in Windsor, who were very much looking forward to this, want it to work. Therefore, I think we should have had information shared with us about the kinds of impacts and the kinds of revenue-generating potential there were and just what you expect from a pilot project in Windsor. You haven't shared that information with us.

I note that the minister had made some comment to various officials in the city of Windsor, their understanding being that revenue generated from the casino in Windsor will not be shared with the city of Windsor. Some moneys may be forthcoming to offset the cost of additional policing, but you're not planning to share the revenues equitably or with the local community in some other regard. They are, I think, somewhat disillusioned. They had higher expectations than that. I believe they understood there were going to be some revenue-sharing agreements in place. To the best of my knowledge, that is not the case, unless the minister can tell me different. I'm sure she will elaborate on that when she has an opportunity to respond.

As I say, the fact is that this is being driven by the government's desire to raise revenues. I feel -- and this is the only comment I can make at this time -- that we're not going into this with all the cards having been looked at: no pun intended. You either have that information and you haven't shared it with the rest of us -- and that obviously does not produce the kind of cooperation which I think is required here if this is going to work and produce additional revenues and not have the negative consequences which many people have expressed concern about.

1640

In other jurisdictions, those impacts have been well documented. I made comment on those kinds of negative impacts in the Legislature and I think it really is incumbent on you, as the minister, to allay those fears that are out there. Perhaps the people in the city of Windsor are not looking at those with the critical eye other communities may have. But I still say to the minister that it's important, it's absolutely essential, that we look at all the various impacts that can result from the decision you've made, and, I repeat, you have not shared that with us to date.

I want to move on to some other areas with respect to concerns I have. The minister made mention of the office of the registrar general. In my opinion, this has been nothing but a nightmare for most of us who have to deal with that office. I've shared with our colleagues in the House from all parties concern about the level of service at the ORG. I know the minister made mention of her efforts to overcome problems with backlogs etc. I want to ask the minister: How many new staff were allocated to overcome the backlog? I don't recall your making specific numbers available in your comments earlier.

We really want to get to the bottom of this. I think it's a major concern for most people and, quite frankly, I can't believe the numbers you are relating to us with respect to the increases. Are we having a sudden, dramatic demographic shift in the population? Is there something we should know with respect to that? That wasn't quite clear to me. I want some reasonable, rational explanations for what's taking place up there, and to date I haven't been able to get to the bottom of this. I don't think for a moment that simply moving an office from Toronto to Thunder Bay would result in those kinds of terrible inefficiencies we've seen. I would like further, more specific information with respect to that.

I'll be asking more direct questions when we do have the opportunity to ask questions directly, because it impedes the work of most of the members of the Legislature when they can't answer their constituents about why it takes so long to get a birth certificate, why it takes months. I can't respond to the concerns expressed by the children's aid societies across Ontario. As of April, as I pointed out in the Legislature, there were over 600 outstanding requests for verification of live births. Some were dating back as far as a year. The minister knows this. I've mentioned it in the House when I've asked her a question about it, and I just want to emphasize this. This is really quite important to all those people. In fact, 93 adoptions have been held up because of the delays. I think that's completely unacceptable.

In fact, what I'm reading in some of my notes is that people have had to hire lawyers to try and speed up the process. It's costing them enormous amounts of money. For those people who are waiting for adoptions, it's a torturous process, and I don't think they should have to be put through that unnecessary delay -- at least, it's not explainable in any way that is acceptable to me. I don't think we've ever seen this kind of delay in the past, and it needs to be corrected immediately. Minister, I know you referred to a number of things you said you were going to do and will get into further details about this, but I would like to see you really work on this problem, because it is completely unacceptable to me.

The Gaming Services Act was introduced and we're going to be dealing with it. In fact my colleague Mr Tilson had an opportunity to comment on it the other day. Unfortunately I wasn't in the House that day. I look forward to my opportunity to respond to the minister's introductory remarks, but I would like to say that we feel this has been some time in coming. Our party supports this legislation. We want to see it move forward and would simply like to say it's obviously going to help charities because, going back to the whole issue of casino gambling, they're left in limbo. We have no idea what's going to happen to charitable organizations. In fact, I've heard, and rumours abound, that the charities will not be part of the sharing of revenues to result from casino gambling. It was initially thought they would be, and we're now getting word that they're not going to be part of this.

Where does that leave charitable organizations, once we have full-scale casino gambling? Don't you for a moment believe that there will be negative consequences for the charitable organizations that depend so much on the revenues they generate on casino nights throughout the whole province?

It's one thing and it's fine to bring in the Gaming Services Act to streamline the process and to iron out the difficulties and to enhance the opportunities for charities to add additional revenues to their coffers. Some of the changes that are in the Gaming Services Act will see to it that they are not shortchanged, that they will be better served by this act.

But on the other hand, with casino gambling, their sources of revenue are threatened, and you have not indicated, not in the least, what will result from that. I'm quite concerned about the impact on charities. If they're not going to be part of the revenue-sharing program you've agreed on with charitable organizations, then what are they do when their revenues drop off? And I think it's fair to say their revenues will drop off once casino gambling is in place.

1650

It's very important for you to help me understand where the charitable organizations lie, where their future will be in this province with respect to gaming, and what the impact will be on bingo hall operators etc, because that has not been made clear. It's one of those things I have also repeatedly asked for in the House with respect to the kinds of impacts that will result. I can't say "very little information;" no information has been shared with us. I'd like to be charitable -- not to use another pun -- to the minister, but I can't find it in me to do that if I don't get at least one shred of information that helps me go along with the plans you have with respect to the Gaming Services Act.

It's very difficult, on the one hand, to say to people and charitable organizations that have high expectations with respect to this that you're going to improve their chances of revenue generation with the changes that have been implemented in the Gaming Services Act and at the same time bring along casino gambling and virtually reduce their prospects for increases in revenue generation that have been gained through this Gaming Services Act. So I find it terribly distressing to hear repeatedly from charities that they're quite unnerved by all of this and don't know what the future holds for them.

I'd like to also emphasize another initiative, and I think there isn't a person in Ontario I haven't heard from with respect to a $50 filing fee that you've imposed. I know this was an initiative of our government with respect to the new registration mechanism, but it comes at a difficult time for small businesses in particular. Fifty dollars is an additional tax; it's an additional way to generate revenues for this ministry, which, I say, is largely now responsible for seeking ways to increase revenues for the government. It's another mandate that wasn't there before.

But it's a difficult time; I don't have to tell anyone here in this room. Fifty dollars may not seem like a lot of money, but it's an additional tax that is imposed after all the other taxes there. It's just one of those things that I think doesn't do any good for anybody right now, and I'd like to know why the $50. Why not some other way of doing this which did not have to cost this much money? I agree with what we're doing; I just want to know why it costs $50 for each business registration and what costs are associated with that.

I just want to go back to what I think needs to be said. As the Liberal consumer critic I have to make a point of saying this so the minister can understand where I'm coming from. When I talk about the new focus of this ministry, when I talk about the change in the mandate and the urgency with which this ministry seems to be moving forward to generate new revenues for the government, I have to just go back to what took place prior to her arrival and prior to this administration's being elected to office and cite the initiatives that were undertaken so the minister has an appreciation for what I'm saying.

Under our administration, the former Liberal government, we had a number of initiatives referring to these items: amendments to various pieces of legislation to create uniform province-wide standards for the inspection and operation of amusement devices such as go-karts; legislation to ensure the best possible protection for Ontario's travelling public; to facilitate the ministry's dealing with failed or failing companies. These are all things we introduced and I want to put these on the record, obviously, because I think our accomplishments are in stark contrast to what has taken place since. Legislation to increase protection for consumers entering into prepaid contracts with health, fitness, diet, modelling, talent, sports and dance clubs -- in fact, there's a whole list of things, which I'm not going to continue to detail because I know that members are hearing long dissertations from each of us. But I'm so tempted to read them because they're quite long and extensive. The accomplishments of the previous administration with respect to consumers, the initiatives that were undertaken, were long and varied.

I would also like to ask the minister this. We had draft legislation, as an administration, that was sitting on the shelf, and a great deal of consultation took place with respect to the draft legislation under previous ministers. I can't understand why the minister did not move quickly, as one of the first priorities of her ministry, to introduce consumer protection legislation. As I say, there was draft legislation in place. You could have come into office and conducted consultation to change it somewhat, change the focus, but at least brought it forward.

As I say, it's good to hear that you're bringing legislation forward -- at least that's what you say today -- some time in 1993. But I'm not convinced you're going to do it, and that is something that obviously we're going to hold you to. I'm certain that when next year comes -- I know you can't bring forward legislation now; the agenda is so blocked up. But it has got to be a priority and it should have been done at the beginning. There's absolutely no doubt that should have been a priority of your ministry, in fact of your government.

I want to just touch on --

The Vice-Chair: You have two minutes, Mr Cordiano.

Mr Cordiano: Okay. Just to complete my remarks, I'm unable to talk about the LCBO. I noticed that the chairman is here today, and I want to commend the LCBO for some of its efforts to improve efficiency and offer consumers better retailing facilities. But I have concerns with respect to the undercurrent, the views that have been taken by some people that there will be an effort on the part of this administration -- now, these are rumours, but I want to ask the minister if the rumours are true that we're going to move into a new regime where the LCBO is portioned off and sold.

Agency stores we can live with. I think you've changed some of the criteria with respect to those agency stores, but I also think that in doing this you failed, under the regime that certainly will come under Bill 40, to consult with the union. At this time they are quite upset, from reports that I have. They're concerned with the privatization efforts that are going to be undertaken and they have not been consulted. I would caution you to consult with them if you're going to move in that direction. My time has come to an end.

1700

Mr Tilson: My remarks hopefully will be brief. The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, with the exception of the Ministry of Revenue, is the only revenue-generating ministry in Ontario. I think, as we're going through our questions and answers in this exercise, we should keep that in mind.

In the 1991-92 fiscal year the ministry estimated that its revenue from fees would be over $175 million. Its actual revenues were $147 million, so it really fell short by about 16.4%, which is $28.7 million.

For the 1992-93 fiscal year the ministry has estimated its total revenues at $158 million. This is a decrease from the previous year's estimates of $17.7 million or 10%, so the total amount to be voted for the ministry is some 25% less than was voted on for the previous year's estimates.

I know as we flip through the estimates we see the words "fiscal constraints" and I'm sure there'll be other reasons as to -- however, revenues are down, and one of the first questions we'll be asking in all areas is, are services down? Madam Chair, I would like to get into the questions-and-answers portion of this exercise fairly quickly.

The concern we have on the Progressive Conservative side is the policies this government is proceeding with and the effect they're having on this ministry. You look specifically at such areas as Polaris, which was first thought of in the early 1970s -- I think it was 1974 -- but it's quite a different creature now than it was as originally thought of. The original idea of Polaris was to computerize a strange land registry system, and I think we all would support that. But now we have a different system which was thought up by the Liberals and implemented by this minister. The Liberals have this new word "partnership," which is rather a strange thing for a socialist government to get into, to be holding hands with private enterprise in such a venture as this.

As you know, Madam Minister, I've had a great deal of concerns with the accountability of Teranet, the whole control of our information -- when I say "our," I mean the public's information -- and what these unknown people are going to do. I know you're going to say that Real/Data, or whoever it was, released the shares, but we don't know anything. Most of them are held by lawyers, presumably in trust for somebody. So there are a lot of unanswered questions.

The press have had a great deal of difficulty trying to talk about it. It's a very complicated subject to put forward. I know you and Mr Daniels came to the public accounts committee and we spent a day on it. Of course, much of it is shrouded by the privacy legislation, which is a neat trick, but the whole issue is one of accountability and I would like to spend some time on that during this session, as I'm sure you anticipated.

The whole subject of casinos, even the Liberals didn't think up this one; this is one of your creatures. This is something you've thought out. I think you're going to have to tell us how you're going to put forward these policies. What is the effect on the horse racing industry? What is the effect on the charities? How are we going to affect the addiction problems? When we got into the whole subject of lotteries, members on your side, members of your party, stood up when those were introduced and said oh, it was a terrible thing. Your ministry and you particularly, Madam Minister, have been specifically silent on that whole subject.

The registrar general subject of birth certificates which has been moved up north, of course this is something else that was thought up by the Liberals and you've pushed it forward. It's been an absolute disaster. You talk about all the wonderful new computer technology and how it has become more efficient; you're going to have to tell us about that, because it's inexcusable why certificates should take so long to be produced. Why is it more efficient? I can tell you it's not efficient; it's terrible and we're going to have to spend some time on that.

I'm also concerned about the whole subject of security recently -- this came out about a year ago -- where people in the ministry were getting all these birth certificates of dead people for the purposes of illegal immigrants. I understand charges have been laid, and I know you can't talk about that, but you're going to have to spend some time talking about the whole security of it. We have grave concerns about what's going on in the offices of the registrar general.

There is of course the corporate registration fee. Again, that is something else thought up by the Liberals that you're implementing. I don't know why you're doing it now, why you're doing it at this time, when the economy's so terrible and companies are having such a difficult time. In the correspondence that's come into all of our offices -- and I'm sure, members of the committee, it's come in -- people don't understand why you're doing it. I know you've talked about: "Everybody else does it and why can't we do it? We're implementing new computer equipment and therefore we've got to charge." But what a terrible time to do it. How efficient is all this going to be?

A number of stories have come forward of the privatization of LCBO. Mr Brandt is here and we'll have to talk about that. I know it's been denied all over the place, but now is perhaps the time we can talk about that and the layoffs that have been suggested. There have been press stories of staff freebies and other interesting allegations.

On the subject of registry office closings, which we spent some time on last year -- there were a number of hours spent in at least one committee talking about the registry office closings around this province -- you're talking about the efficiency, of how it's become more efficient and how now people don't have to travel to two offices, now they can go to one. You obviously didn't listen to the hearings, because delegations came about the fact that it's going to cost people more to go through that service.

I think we're going to have a series of questions talking about the renovations to new registry offices to allow, for example, for the moving of the Arthur registry office to Guelph. I think that was one of the offices moved. Obviously some expansion has gone on in these newer offices. What does it cost the taxpayer? What is the saving? What is the loss of jobs? What does it cost to train new people? You're going to need new people.

On the used car sales tax subject, I think we should spend some time on that, the bureaucracy that entails. You talk about the appeal process. I can tell you there's a whole group of people out there who are very concerned about selling used cars. One used car might be quite different from another used car, and just picking it out of your Red Book or whatever, your green book, whatever colour your book is, is a very difficult procedure for tax grabs.

I would like to ask some questions specifically on the whole subject of personal property security, the new bill -- I forget the number -- that was passed. You're talking about how the banks now will have more access to this equipment. I guess the difficulty is, what happens to the little guy? Is the little guy going to lose out? What fees are going to result from going to a bank?

Mr Chairman, I don't wish to spend the time that the minister has spent. I believe I've spent less than 10 minutes, between five and 10 minutes, and I would like to use my time in the question and answer period that will follow.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Chairman, I want to indicate to the critic for the third party that he is entitled to his full half-hour and therefore would have a credit of 20 minutes if he doesn't use it at this time, I understand from the clerk.

1710

The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): Well, that is at the pleasure of the Chair, in all likelihood. If that were the pleasure of the Chair at the moment and that was communicated, then let's proceed. But if that's the case, Minister, I understand you have eight minutes of time remaining to you if you wish to use them now; if not, then we will proceed. How would you like to proceed, Minister?

Hon Ms Churley: I wanted to have an opportunity to discuss the process. I don't know how you've done it in other meetings, but before we get into questions, is there is a possibility that we can establish time frames or days for particular divisions? As you can see, everybody is sitting here, in a sense wasting taxpayers' money, waiting for their time to come up. If there's a possibility, can we arrange some kind of process by which some people can go and do other work and come back?

The Chair: That would be helpful. I don't know if the process of examining expenditures of the government is a waste of taxpayers' money; that may not be the view of the Chair.

Hon Ms Churley: That's not what I meant, Mr Chair.

The Chair: I know you didn't. That's why I'm pleased we're able to clarify it.

What I think the minister's asking is, how do we wish to order up our time? If you wish to do that now, the Chair will entertain how you wish to order up your time. If we wish to do that now and that helps the minister, that's fine. How do you wish to proceed? Do you wish to do time allocation or do you wish to do it by specific votes? If there are any special requests for individuals to be here -- to my knowledge, the Chair has not received a written request for any individuals to be here.

Mr Tilson: The difficulty I have in choosing particular areas is that it may well be that if we ask a question in one particular area and then those people are gone, some time later on if we ask further questions in another area, it may result in further questions. It would certainly put us in a very difficult position in properly receiving answers to those questions.

The Chair: Do any other members wish to comment?

Mr Cordiano: It's somewhat difficult, at this point, to try to divide that time up within slots. Perhaps 20-minute intervals where we rotate is probably the way in which committees have always proceeded in estimates. It's difficult for me to make a commitment that on such and such a day I will be here and I will be granted two and a half hours of whatever's remaining, divvying up the time that way. I don't see that we can proceed that way.

The Chair: There are some scheduling matters. I'll clarify it further.

Mrs Marland: As someone who does have questions also of this ministry, and speaking for our colleagues who are not here, I think it's very important that we have flexibility. I respect the fact that the staff are tied up, but that's all part of the process that we have to accept for this worthwhile review of estimates. The whole procedure is accepted. That's a matter of fact, and I hope we will proceed on 20-minute rotations by caucus. We have nine hours. We have, interestingly enough, an hour and a half longer on this ministry than we did on the second-biggest-budget ministry in the government, namely Community and Social Services. I think it's important that we not tie ourselves down to a commitment of which department, which day.

The Chair: I am hearing that in the seven and a half hours remaining, there are two issues. There is the matter of how we rotate, and I sense that you've made a consensus decision about time allocation per caucus, so that's how we'll proceed.

With respect to the matter of the ministry being able to bring certain individuals forward, I must suggest at the outset that the Chair has not received any formal requests for individuals to be here. In fact, the ministry and the minister have asked various people to be here; I wish to thank the minister and her staff for doing that. Some cannot be here because their scheduling requires that they be elsewhere, and frankly, we did not start our estimates on the day we expected, because we were able to complete the previous estimates sooner.

Having said that, the Chair has been advised of certain individuals who will not be available, and I'll share those with you. On October 28, Frank Drea of the Ontario Racing Commission will not be able to be with us. On November 3 and 4, James Breithaupt is unavailable because he has hearings in Ottawa on these dates.

It is helpful to the Chair if members can indicate which members of staff or those schedule 2 agencies and, more particularly, who they wish to hear from. However, if I do not hear of those requests, then we will be bound by their availability, since I have not received any special requests at this time.

Hearing no comment, Minister, is that helpful?

Hon Ms Churley: That's fine.

The Chair: You have your eight minutes now to use as you wish, and then we'll proceed in rotation with Mr Cordiano for a 20-minute segment.

Hon Ms Churley: I would like to start my eight minutes by saying that obviously I can't respond to many of the issues that were brought forth, and I'd like to thank the members for the concerns raised. I look forward to the question period of this process to be able to answer more fully. I'll just address a couple of the issues I think stood out in particular.

As to the comment that this ministry has not been able to see the forest for the trees kind of thing and that we're not doing consumer protection, I really want to clarify that. Since I've been in this ministry, we have been focusing in a number of areas, and I'd like to point them out at this time.

The Gaming Services Act, Bill 26, for instance, is very much consumer protection. It's regulating the sector so that charities and the players are well protected; that is, it's a consumer protection issue.

The condo act: Again, a large part of that act is specifically to protect consumers, because under the old act, as to disclosure, voting rights, all kinds of things, the consumers who live in condos are really not being well served.

The Real Estate and Business Brokers Act review is by its very nature, the fact that we're doing that, helping to protect consumers.

The curbsiders: This bill is very specifically to help protect consumers who are buying used cars. It's well documented that there are consumers who buy cars that have liens against them where they are not given full information and they end up being liable after the fact. Again, that's very much a consumer protection measure.

The fair marketplace code, which I want very much to introduce: We have to have a strong economy in which consumers can feel confident, and in order to do that you need a level playing field. That's why I think the business sector is so involved in the consultation and has been all along.

One of the issues around that, and I've said it before in the House, is that it's true that the Liberal government had produced a draft bill, but the marketplace of today, even since that time, is rapidly changing and we had to look at it again. Obviously, there was a good consultation group in place, and we want to continue that relationship and make sure it's well involved in the process as we make the kinds of changes I believe need to be made. I certainly look forward -- at least the Liberal Party has expressed a keen interest in getting this on the table -- that when it's time to get it on the House agenda, there will be full cooperation in making sure we move through other issues and can get to it. Hopefully, of course, the Tory party will cooperate in that regard too.

Mr Cordiano: They always cooperate.

Hon Ms Churley: They always cooperate, right.

With regard to casinos, there's a lot to say about that, and I'm sure we'll talk about it again later. I want to emphasize that the pilot project is that: It is a pilot project. There's no other jurisdiction we have looked at that is quite like Ontario, and we are going to be working with the people of Windsor so that, in our careful and controlled implementation of this, we will be looking at the impact. That's the very nature of a pilot project and Windsor is well aware that it is part of a pilot project and has agreed to do that. At the same time, in the process of developing the casino, and after it's up and running, we will be looking at establishing criteria by which to judge that casino. We're going to learn a lot from that.

I'm not keeping track of my time here, but I'm sure the Chair is. I'd like to clarify some information about the special filing of corporate information. Ontario is the only jurisdiction where there is no fee for annual filing. Our database is incredibly out of date and it is used by thousands and thousands of businesses every year. Then there is an added cost to those businesses and consumers who have to use this information when it is inaccurate.

1720

I believe, from what we've seen, that it costs businesses more down the road when they're spending staff time searching and trying to verify corporate information when it's extremely out of date. The reality is that it was at one time phased out -- what year was it? 1976 -- the requirement was dropped, and our database is in a terrible mess.

It's unrealistic to expect that the government, the province, can update this database and make it available without charging a fee. We have to cover the costs of doing so. The costs we have looked at in other jurisdictions -- and I'd like to point out again that we are the only jurisdiction not doing so -- are quite compatible with the fees we're charging. I think we're going to find that we will get our database cleaned up, it will be accurate and it will work for businesses. I think it's just going to show that it will aid and help the corporations down the road.

I think that is all I'll say at this point. Perhaps we can move on to questions, where I'm sure I can address more specifically the questions that people want to ask.

The Chair: Very good. Just by way of explanation, I want to apologize for my absence, but I had an appointment in the Speaker's office. Just by way of further explanation, I understand the minister came prepared with a 52-minute address and there was consensus that this would proceed. I wish to --

Mr Tilson: No, there was no consensus.

The Chair: There wasn't? Well, without turning it into a debate, I have instructed the clerk to notify the remaining ministries that our standing orders are very specific. I don't raise this, Minister, to embarrass you in any way.

Hon Ms Churley: I'm not embarrassed.

The Chair: Fine, but I've instructed the clerk to notify the remaining ministries that our standing orders are very specific. Each party is given 30 minutes and there is a right of reply of up to 30 minutes for one individual. We have seen a gradual erosion of this with the last three ministries. A pattern is now evident and my ruling is such that we'll be instructing the balance of the ministries that they will be cut off after 30 minutes.

I just wished to bring up some business, but I've instructed the clerk to proceed on that basis, so if there is any after that which is to be communicated any other way than by official letter -- now, if I may, we've agreed on how we will proceed with the remainder of the time. We will stack our votes till the conclusion, when the committee determines we've completed. I thank the minister for advising us of the absences of those individuals who, in her opinion, were here to be helpful to the process.

Mr Cordiano, we'll give you a 20-minute segment. Is that okay with you, to begin?

Mr Cordiano: Yes. Am I to understand that during that 20 minutes the minister will not respond, or is there a rebuttal allowed?

The Chair: Yes, if you raise a question and ask for a response from the minister or any specific staff, you can either ask for specific staff, who will then come forward and identify themselves for Hansard, or you may ask the minister to get the question from staff, or alternatively you can ask that the minister get the information and bring it forward during estimates, but not at this time. Those are your options.

Mr Cordiano: Okay. I would very much like for the minister to answer some of these questions if she can, or provide information as readily available as it is. If it's not, then obviously provide us with the information at some point in time.

In this segment, I want to get into the pilot project in Windsor and I'm going to be looking for some answers. You've decided to move ahead with this, and as I said earlier in my opening remarks, we have virtually no information about what you intend to do despite the press conference that was held. I don't believe any indication was given about what the cost to establish the project would be and how much has been spent so far with respect to the casino project team. In fact, if you provide those figures, are those figures reflected in the estimates?

Hon Ms Churley: Maybe I should answer your second question first. You wanted to know how much the project team has cost. The details are that as of June 1992, basically the total allocation for the whole project team is $2,507,700. That is correct.

Mr Cordiano: That's for the whole project team?

Hon Ms Churley: Yes.

Mr Cordiano: I shouldn't raise it to this level, but I was tempted to ask if that includes the trip to Las Vegas. I'm sure it does.

Hon Ms Churley: Yes, that would include all the consulting work that is being done by the project team as well as the conference the project team attended at that time.

Mr Cordiano: The reason I raise that is because there's a real purpose behind it. I think it's fair to ask, if you had no intention of moving in the direction of a Las Vegas-style casino, which I think you clearly indicated during your press conference, can you explain to me what the nature of that investigative trip was? What was the intent of the people who were there? Were they to examine the whole gamut of casino gambling? Is that what took place at these conferences?

These experts, so-called, assembled at Las Vegas probably have an expertise in Las Vegas-style gambling, so sure, I'm going to be cynical when I'm asking that question. I think people out there in the province want to know the answer to that, because it comes completely contradictory to what your stated intentions are.

Hon Ms Churley: No, it's not at all a contradiction. There was a global conference held at that time where there were experts from the field ranging, I suppose, from dealing to how to start up to anything in between. It was a conference with experts from all over the world. We have to be able to talk to experts who have some expertise in this area and it's a matter of bringing some of these experts here or, when we can, sending members from our project team to conferences that are taking place. The members who went were able to go to various workshops and meet various consultants and experts in different areas and were able to gather information all at that one event.

I'd like to take the opportunity, however, to introduce Judith Wolfson, who is my deputy. Perhaps she can give you a more fulsome answer on the project team's activity at that time.

1730

Ms Judith Wolfson: Part of the exercise in commencing a project of the magnitude of casinos, and indeed one in which we do not have a wealth of experience at this point, is to put together as much information as we can, as quickly as possible. Clearly, one looks to the jurisdictions which have the greatest expertise in the area. As we well know, Nevada has great expertise indeed. One has to know what the situation is before assessing what a made-in-Ontario model is as opposed to other models.

Our project staff attended a conference on various issues: financial models, operational models, policy issues, policing issues, regulatory functions and really the gamut of issues that one has to address in dealing with a casino implementation, in order to get the knowledge that is available and the expertise available. It will be necessary for us to have that kind of expertise in order to create a made-in-Ontario model that fits our needs.

Mr Cordiano: Can I ask you, then, would there be any of the information that was gleaned from this conference available to the rest of us to make the same kinds of assessments? If they've got information from this conference about the whole variety of impacts -- perhaps I should catalogue them here. We've asked questions of the minister with respect to the impact on policing, the impact on gamblers who will be addicted, the impact on the variety of other social issues that will come up as a result of this, the impact on tourism and the impact just with respect to revenues.

There's a whole list of things which we are very interested in, and we can get into them in just a moment, but I simply ask, will that information be made available to the rest of us, since it would be important to know what those impacts will be, if that information is available?

In addition to that, if in gathering your information it's appropriate to venture off, then in addition to that I'm sure you will be consulting with other experts. I'd like to know who you are consulting with directly at this time and how much money you plan to spend on that.

Hon Ms Churley: There were a lot of questions asked then. First, let me point out and be clear that the work this team is doing will benefit any future casinos, if indeed there are any; it's not just Windsor. Bear in mind that this particular conference we're talking about dealt with operational-type issues. In terms of the consultations that have been done, I'm going to again turn that over to my deputy, who may want to get one of our project team to step in here too.

Ms Wolfson: I think it would be helpful to call assistant deputy minister Whipple Steinkrauss and Domenic Alfieri, who's the assistant deputy minister for the project team, who are sitting right at the end. I think they could assist us with the specifics.

The Chair: Welcome. Perhaps you'd please just introduce yourselves for Hansard's record.

Ms Whipple Steinkrauss: I'm Whipple Steinkrauss, the assistant deputy minister of business practices.

Mr Domenic Alfieri: I'm Domenic Alfieri, the assistant deputy minister of the Ontario casino project.

The Chair: Welcome. Mr Cordiano, they're in your hands.

Mr Cordiano: I simply ask, what outside consultants have been hired by the government? Who are you dealing with in terms of that kind of expertise, which no doubt you're trying to seek out now, if in fact you've made efforts to do that, and what kind of expenditures are we planning here?

Ms Steinkrauss: I'll speak first to the expenditures. I was involved in the earlier stages, and I'm not as involved at the present time. The budget the minister referred to, the $2.5 million, will cover all of those consulting budgets. Very little has been spent yet of that budget as we're just working on gathering a lot of this information now, and as a result spending is not high, but we did budget for that.

The $2.5 million covers salaries, it covers all the preliminary work in terms of gathering information to do cabinet submissions and some of the work subsequent to those cabinet submissions that will need to be done. It is important to make the distinction that the early work done was in preparation for cabinet submissions. Of course, information is privileged information. However, we will be doing a lot of work as part of this pilot project and that information, obviously, will be available as we work on it. Once we're past that cabinet submission phase, we still have another step to go.

Mr Cordiano: Am I to understand then that really what you're going to depend on for information is what you gather in coming out of the pilot project, and that initial preliminary kind of work has not really been done? I've asked the minister, on a variety of occasions, for impact studies. What you're telling me here is that you don't have those.

Ms Steinkrauss: I would say preliminary studies were done. In putting together any cabinet submission, a number of preliminary studies were done. However, there is much more work that will be done, and the decision was taken to go the pilot project route simply because of the very unique situation Ontario is in. For example, if we look at the impact on other sectors, we are the only jurisdiction with a $1-billion-a-year-plus charitable gaming sector, so we can't look at other jurisdictions and say, "What's the impact?" It just isn't there. There's nothing comparable to the Ontario situation.

Mr Cordiano: Do you mean in terms of magnitude or experience?

Ms Steinkrauss: Both. There are very few jurisdictions that have anything comparable at all, and if they do, it's very small-scale. So in fact a lot of the information that's gathered is in a situation where you have one race track and a casino or something like that, which doesn't help us make the kinds of decisions we want to make.

Windsor is very useful because we can look at all those variables and start measuring them as we develop the pilot project and as it proceeds. We looked at and we did get much of the information. We gathered all kinds of reports and we looked at the US and Europe and so on, and they're simply not going to give us valid information that would be suitable for Ontario. That's why we're proceeding with this particular approach.

Mr Cordiano: What you're telling me essentially, Minister, is that you really don't have any impact studies. Impact studies can be conducted without actually having data from the field you're going to have with respect to a pilot project. There are people who conduct impact studies doing just that, projecting what might happen, and that's exactly what I'm asking for.

I don't think it's been made clear here with respect to that kind of study, which is just that: It's a study. It's a projection; it's an estimate of what can happen. It doesn't mean you're going to have actual experience to measure, and that's the distinction I am attempting to draw here, that you're actually moving ahead with an experience rating which will be conducted in a pilot project way. That's vastly different from first conducting impact studies which people do based on a variety of assumptions. It's like simulating what might happen. That's what I'm trying to get at here, and I don't think we have any of that.

Hon Ms Churley: I understand what you're saying. First of all, let me say that when we announced in the budget that we were going to proceed with casinos, we had at that time determined that other jurisdictions in and around Canada were looking at casinos, and certainly that's an impact in itself. Border towns had requested us to look at it, particularly in light of the fact that other jurisdictions are looking at casinos and in light of the fact of cross-border shopping and all those things.

As I said, that is an impact we had to look at very quickly. I don't have to point out to you, because of free trade and because of other issues in this global economy right now, that border towns are hurting. So we made the decision to proceed with casinos, and we undertook a number of activities at that time. We have been discussing, and will continue to discuss, the possible impacts of casinos on groups that could be affected directly or indirectly.

1740

Mr Cordiano: But you see --

Hon Ms Churley: Wait a minute, though. We've talked with numerous groups in the racing industry, as well as with charitable organizations, municipal representatives and law enforcement agencies. We've done that sort of thing and we've conducted a regional assessment of the province based on some criteria such as magnitude of job creation opportunities, the need for economic development kinds of criteria and potential impacts on other forms of gaming. We have done some of that for the cabinet submissions.

Mr Cordiano: In other words, you do have some studies that have been conducted. I'm simply telling you, and I think this is rather reasonable, when someone undertakes to make a major initiative like this occur, you would attempt to find out all the information that could be available, and also you would attempt to project what might occur with the best and most relevant information available. I'm simply saying that in this case it seems as though that was not undertaken and if that's the case, you're relying on the pilot project to give you that information.

I'm saying it's like putting the cart before the horse here, because if you had done impact studies to really give you the kind of information I'm requesting, you would have been able to point to some of those as indications outlining where and how to proceed. I think that would have been much more useful than announcing a pilot project and not having any idea.

It comes back to this: What if this does not succeed? Are you going to pull all that money out of Windsor? Are you going to close the pilot project down and say: "This has been a dismal failure. Where do we go from here?"

I think the people in Windsor are going to be outraged. I don't think there's any pulling back. This is the point I'm trying to make.

Hon Ms Churley: I think in the process of making a decision to go ahead and establish casinos, some preliminary work was done, and we have enough information for us to decide to go ahead and start a pilot project; as we keep saying, careful and controlled implementation. We believe that is, however, what a pilot project is all about.

As my deputy said earlier, in many ways, in the process of gathering information, it is very hard to take all of that information and apply it to Ontario, for numerous reasons. From the information we have in Windsor, we have reason to believe the casino will succeed. We will be establishing it and working closely with that community to assess that in terms of job creation, in terms of it being crime-free, in terms of economic help for that community. Those are the kinds of things we have done and will continue to do. We'll be continuing this.

We've not done any formal studies per se as yet, but we have done extensive research for the purpose of cabinet discussions.

Mr Cordiano: Do you plan to do formal studies with respect to this, or is it just going to depend on once the pilot project is up and running? That will take some time, and then you're going to do your own assessments on that. That will take several years, and we really won't have any kind of information available to the rest of us.

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, I think we'll have to see what happens with Windsor. We will, at some point along the way, soon be establishing criteria and we'll be looking at that to see where we need to go from here.

I think my deputy is anxious to say something here, so I'll turn the floor over to her, if that's okay.

Mr Cordiano: I think we're running out of time, but --

Ms Wolfson: If I can, I'll just ask Mr Alfieri to respond specifically to that.

Mr Alfieri: A very valid question, but given the nature of the pilot, it's necessary to resolve this with our colleagues in the city of Windsor.

The minister and the project team attended a meeting with the mayor and senior officials of the city last week. I and the rest of the senior staff of the project team have already scheduled a meeting with the city administrator and other city officials for this Thursday. We have a 12-item agenda which virtually covers all of the issues that have been raised, all the way from how to communicate and consult on various issues in Windsor to what criteria for evaluation of the project should be established in advance of launching the project, so we will know ahead of time the kind of economic impact, social impact, traffic impact, impact on the industry.

I will be meeting with the president of the racetrack there, because they have concerns, and every study about casinos and racing, for instance, has always been done from the perspective of competition. We have an opportunity there to do one from the perspective of collaboration, and I think we need to sit down with them and see how the two entities can work together, as opposed to competing with each other. So there's a novel way to approach that, and we want to do that.

The potential impact on social agencies, on the police -- the chief of police was at the meeting we attended. There's a special committee dealing exactly with those issues, so all of the issues that you raised are in fact on the agenda. The first meeting is this Thursday, when we hope to agree on our course of action around each of these items and then set up teams to address each of them in a collaborative way.

We have to put in place a casino that is in keeping with the wishes and the aspirations of the province but also of the local municipality. We feel we have to work together with the city to develop the answers to all of the questions, which are valid ones, but we need to move towards the solution in a very methodical way.

Mr Cordiano: You said you're going to consult with local officials on this agenda. Is revenue-sharing going to be part of that consultation process with the local officials? That has emerged as a major concern of local residents and officials in Windsor. Would you be able to clarify that for us, make it clearer for those people in Windsor?

Hon Ms Churley: When we met recently with the mayor and other officials in the area, including the police chief, that was a question that I believe came up later with the press, if I recall correctly, rather than at the table. Obviously it's an issue that would have to be discussed. The government, when it made its announcement, said at the time, and I still accept this as the direction in which we're going, that the town or the city that has the casino will get large spinoff benefits, the hotels, motels.

Mr Cordiano: What about revenue, though?

The Chair: Mr Cordiano, we are moving into Mr Tilson's time. I don't wish to interrupt your excellent questions, but you have run out of time.

Mr Tilson: I'll continue on with the subject. I get the impression -- and my questions are directed to you two -- from what you are saying that the whole concept of this Windsor experiment is almost trial and error, that you have no impact studies, you have no real concept as to which direction you're going. Am I correct?

Mr Alfieri: Yes, we do. The understanding we have is that we're going to establish a casino in Windsor and that the model of management and the model of operation -- the size, the scope and everything else -- has to be done in consultation with the city officials in Windsor because it has to reflect not only what the province wishes to come out of this but also local conditions.

Just to elaborate a little bit, for instance, just on an economic impact study, one could do a general province-wide one or one could sit down with the city officials and discuss about the need to establish baseline information both in operational and implementation decisions, all the way from information on traffic patterns, including border flow, existing hotel capacity, restroom capacity, real estate profiles, to assessment of the current hospitality industry, workforce profile, charitable gaming activity in the area, because there was a concern about the impact of that, existing social services -- can they cope with any potential difficulties emanating from the casino? -- training facilities etc.

So it's not that we don't have an idea as to where we are going. We have a very good idea as to where we are going. There has been an agreement that this will be done not by ourselves in isolation, but that since the casino is supposed to go up in Windsor and it's supposed to be accepted, if you will, in the community, we will be doing this in consultation with Windsor officials and the community in Windsor, all the way from the racetrack to the charitable organizations, the social service facilities, the police etc. So we know where we are going; it's just a question of determining the best way to get there, in consultation with our partners.

Mr Tilson: I understand what you're saying. When there's a gambling casino in place, obviously those are grave concerns. Can you tell me what your initial step will be? How do you intend to implement the Windsor experiment?

1750

Mr Alfieri: I can do it in broad terms today, because I don't want to pre-empt what's going to happen Thursday and subsequently. I think once we sit down and discuss this agenda with -- and I have sent this to Hilary Payne, who's the CEO in Windsor. He's reviewing it this morning; hopefully by this afternoon he will have added any items they wish to discuss. We are going to engage in a round of consultation around the various issues I have addressed. We are going to sit down, for instance, and determine the best way to set up an evaluation mechanism and the criteria for evaluation. We have to talk about the criteria for site selection, all those things.

Mr Tilson: You misunderstand what I'm saying. What type of gambling casino are you suggesting would be put forward in the city of Windsor?

Mr Alfieri: The type in terms of --

Mr Tilson: Who's going to run it? Is it going to be government-run, for a start?

Mr Alfieri: There are three or four options that we will be putting forward to the minister, and I guess subsequently to cabinet, about the various options that are available, ranging all the way from government-owned and government-operated to other models.

Mr Tilson: What other models?

Mr Alfieri: There could be a government-controlled private operation, there could be joint ventures, there could be setting up of a board or commission that regulates the system and another agency that runs the system. There are a variety of models across the world that we will be looking at.

Mr Tilson: In short, at this particular point in time the ministry really has no idea as to the type of gambling casino that's going to be put forward in Windsor.

Mr Alfieri: In terms of management and operational model, we do not have a decision as to which model will apply to Windsor. What we are currently doing is reviewing each of the potential models, determining the pros and cons, discussing with Windsor officials what they would like to see and then going to the minister over the next six to eight weeks with an articulation of all these options and projecting discussion on what we feel should be the preferred option.

Mr Tilson: To continue, when you reach that point will the minister be putting forward a bill or will there be a regulation of an existing statute? This isn't a trick question; this is an easy question.

Hon Ms Churley: I think it has to be an act.

Mr Tilson: My question to you is, do you propose that this will be implemented by a regulation of an existing statute, or will there be a new bill?

Mr Alfieri: I'm answering you with one week's experience on the project. My understanding is that the intent is to come up with a separate bill and not a regulation, that there would be specific legislation to provide for enabling the province to operate and manage casinos.

Mr Tilson: The minister indicated a time frame in her press conference. Can you give us any idea as to what the scheduling will be for that?

Mr Alfieri: I can give you some idea as to when we propose to get to the minister; I can't deal with the cabinet agenda. My feeling is that we should be able to go back to the minister to enable her to go before cabinet with three or four key decisions that would determine the shaping of a bill.

Mr Tilson: I know the shape of the bill. I guess my question is the time frame.

Mr Alfieri: We hope to do that by mid-December, sir.

Mr Tilson: So you will be in a position to recommend the introduction of a bill in December.

Mr Alfieri: To recommend the content.

Mr Tilson: I guess I get back to how you will arrive at that point. There are all kinds of experiments all over North America. So far there appears to have been a junket to Las Vegas, or wherever you were, to Nevada, for a conference to study gambling casinos. Is that the extent? What else have you done? Anybody.

Ms Steinkrauss: If I could speak to that, first of all the staff have consulted extensively with all the other provinces in Canada that have casinos and looked at those models.

Mr Tilson: Could you elaborate on that?

Ms Steinkrauss: BC has casinos, Alberta has casinos, Manitoba has casinos, and they have very different administrative structures and styles of operation and so on. Those have all been looked at. We've also received from --

Mr Tilson: If I could stop you right there, how did you look at them?

Ms Steinkrauss: In each one of them we looked at what sort of regulatory framework they had, what kinds of operational models would be possible under those frameworks and so on. As we're looking at different models of operating casinos, you need different types of frameworks. In some cases you have essentially a permanent casino, with charities meeting -- if you think of something like the CNE, you have a year-round casino with different groups coming and licensing. That's one way of doing it. Another is to have a casino that's directly run by government, as you have in Winnipeg. In British Columbia you have a casino where you have small operations which do not include slots that are operating; they have, I think, about 18 small casinos. They're quite different models. So those are all possibilities. If you had something which had major private sector involvement, you'd need a very complicated regulatory scheme, for example, as in the major US centres.

Mr Tilson: Do you have the reports from the different provinces that you obtained this information from?

Ms Steinkrauss: We have information on the structures that are in place, and that's obviously in the public realm, all of that information. There are also reports available. Mr Tilson: Can you make that available to us?

Ms Steinkrauss: Yes. Of course, that's simply whatever statute they have and whatever structures they have. That information certainly is already --

The Chair: You would make that request through the Chair.

Mr Tilson: Yes, I am. I'll make the request of you, Mr Chairman.

Ms Steinkrauss: Yes. It's public information.

In addition to that, for example, we have a summary of the whole regulatory framework in the United States for its very elaborate scheme. We can learn from all those documents as we develop options for Ontario. It's not as if nothing has been done that's --

Mr Tilson: I guess the concern is that we hear of studies that have been done in the United States specifically surrounding the horse racing industry, lotteries, and how you have a gambling casino running side by side with the horse racing industry and how the horse racing industry has literally collapsed. There are studies available throughout the United States where that has occurred. Do you have those studies?

Ms Steinkrauss: We have some of those. One of the reasons -- again, we're looking at them -- is that there are other jurisdictions where the industry has collapsed with or without the casino being there. It's very difficult to establish the causal relationships between those.

The Chair: First of all, I'd like to advise members that we are being called to the House for a vote. I'd like to thank Ms Steinkrauss and Mr Alfieri for their participation.

This committee stands adjourned until 3:30 tomorrow, October 28, at which point we will recommence. We have six hours and 40 minutes remaining on the estimates for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1758.