CONTENTS
Monday 18 November 1991
Electronic Registration Act (Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations Statutes), 1991, Bill 126 / Loi de 1991 sur l'enregistrement électronique dans le cadre de lois relevant du ministère de la Consommation et du Commerce, projet de loi 126
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP)
Vice-Chair: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich NDP)
Huget, Bob (Sarnia NDP)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury NDP)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North NDP)
Substitutions:
Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L) for Mr Ramsay
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC) for Mr Jordan
Clerk: Brown, Harold
Clerk pro tem: Manikel, Tannis
Staff:
Filion, Sibylle, Legislative Counsel
Klein, Susan, Legislative Counsel
Luski, Lorraine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1538 in committee room 1.
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION ACT (MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS STATUTES), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ENREGISTREMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE DANS LE CADRE DE LOIS RELEVANT DU MINISTÈRE DE LA CONSOMMATION ET DU COMMERCE
Consideration of Bill 126, An Act authorizing the Filing of Information in an Electronic Format under Statutes administered by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations/Projet de loi 126, Loi autorisant le dépôt de renseignements au moyen d'un support électronique dans le cadre de lois dont l'application est confiée au ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce.
The Chair: We are dealing with Bill 126. We will first hear from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is gracing us with her presence.
Hon Ms Churley: I actually do not have a lot to say at the beginning. I am sure there are some questions. I think the intent of this bill was actually made very clear in the House. It is more of a housekeeping bill than anything else. There is really nothing very complicated about it. I have various staff people, though, to help me if you have any technical or other questions I do not know the answers to. As I informed you in the House, it is basically the purpose of this act to authorize the ministry to accept information in electronic format. All that will do hopefully is provide faster and more efficient service, and more accurate as well.
I assume what you want to do today is go through this clause by clause.
The Chair: The bill is going to be dealt with on a clause-by-clause basis, but if there are any introductory remarks, we would be pleased to hear them.
Hon Ms Churley: Those are my introductory remarks.
The Chair: Are there any other persons wishing to make introductory remarks?
Mr Tilson: I am pleased to appear before this committee for the first time.
The Chair: It is nice to have you here for the first time.
Mr Tilson: As you all know, all three parties supported the general intent of this bill, and I think we do. Anything that can make the system run smoother, we support. Our concern is as to the overall effect of this bill. I will be interested in hearing the minister speak on what other acts this is going to cover, because it does refer to other pieces of legislation in the bill.
This bill, at least the philosophical part of it, is quite similar to the amendment to the Registry Act in 1984, the introduction of Polaris, which is basically the computerization of the land registry system.
Certain facts appear to have come to light which you as the former minister are aware of, and which I, quite frankly, would like to find out about. I believe, Mr Chair -- and quite frankly, I have difficulty looking at you because you are a main participant in this, which is fine. I am sure you will use your usual unbiased --
The Chair: Looking at me? I did my best to groom and be attired.
Mr Tilson: You look beautiful. I am not challenging the beauty of the Chair.
The Chair: Bless you.
Mr Cordiano: I think you can take a picture today. You can pose for one.
Mr Tilson: Absolutely.
Mr Tilson: It is quite obvious what I am trying to do from my presentations made on second hearing. The issue is that I would like the minister to talk about whether this is one of the bills or one of the pieces of legislation that is going to be under this new company called Teranet, which we cannot find anything about. If it is not, I trust there will be agreed-upon amendments to be put forward to this bill to ensure that it will not. If it is, we need to look more at who is going to be running the personal property security system in Ontario. Is it going to be the province? Is it going to be Teranet? Is it going to be another company similar to Teranet or Real Data, whoever we are speaking of?
I have some proposed amendments that I would like the committee to consider at the appropriate time. I also have a motion that I would like the Chair to entertain at the appropriate time. I have made copies of the motion which the clerk could distribute. The intent of the motion, very briefly, is that I believe this matter should go to public hearings, not because we are opposed to the computerization of the personal property security system, but because we are very concerned as to whether it will lead to what I believe is the uncertainty of Polaris.
The Chair: Because Mr Cordiano wanted to make introductory remarks, I will ask Ms Churley to respond to your queries and to any others after those persons have spoken, subject to your wishing otherwise.
Mr Cordiano: I want to make a couple of brief remarks. While it is always good to have the public understand and assess the value or merits of a bill, I do not know that we should go much further than today with this item. I would be prepared to do that if all members of the committee wish to do that. I think we can deal with this bill, which is largely to provide for access to the ministry with respect to information and electronifying that information. They are all good things that need to be done by the ministry, and I would like to see this bill completed and get on with the important work that the minister must do. I pointed out in comments in the House that there are many, many other pressing issues before the ministry which I would like to see the minister undertake.
If there are any concerns with this bill, we need to ensure that there is access, and security to that access must be maintained by the ministry. The way information is going to flow provides the opportunity for breaches of security. I think that is a concern we have. If the ministry had foreseen some of these possible breaches, then I think there would be no problem.
Following on that is the question of what might happen economically and financially with respect to creditors and priority ratings within the financial and economic information that would be filed with the ministry. Creditors might lose their priority rating if there is a technical breakdown. I think it is one of those very important items which must not be overlooked and can be overlooked very easily.
Those are the only two concerns I have, and I would like to get on with the rest of the bill, if we could.
The Chair: I wonder if the staff people might come up to the microphones, because they may well be able to participate in the responses to these comments. Are there any further introductory comments before we call upon the minister and her staff?
Mr Waters: I would just like to remind the Chair of an agreement that was made at the last meeting we held with regard to Bill 126. It was agreed upon unanimously by everyone from all parties that this bill would be dealt with in committee today and that it would be finished today so that we could get on with the next bill.
The Chair: That having been said and that being an accurate statement, as far as I am concerned, of what transpired at the last meeting, that does not prohibit Mr Tilson from making motions. They will have to be dealt with, however, during the course of this afternoon.
Ms Churley, do you want to respond? Perhaps you could have your staff help us by telling us who they are and indicate which of them are going to help you participate in your response.
Hon Ms Churley: Okay. Would you just introduce yourselves.
Ms Gillespie: I am Gillian Gillespie. I am with the strategic alliance liaison office.
Mr Barrows: Joe Barrows. I am a lawyer with the ministry and I can assist with the clause-by-clause aspects of the bill.
Mr Preager: My name is Peter Preager. I am deputy director of the personal property security registration branch.
Mr Binsell: I am Ron Binsell. I am director in the information technology division and I can help with any information technology questions.
The Chair: Good. Ms Churley, please, if you could address the comments made by Mr Tilson and by Mr Cordiano.
Hon Ms Churley: Sure. If I missed any of the points that were made, please feel free to jump in and help me. I will just establish a few facts that I think are important and will help the committee in determining this bill.
First of all, I would like to say that I know anything to do with technology can be confusing. Also, the whole issue around security and privacy is one that I share with members. I think it is something that we should always bring up and think about when we are doing anything with databases that deal with personal information about people.
Having said that, I would like to add that Teranet and Polaris are not connected to this in any way. I think that is a really important point to make. I know Mr Tilson has a lot of questions on that particular subject and in fact has written me a letter asking a number of questions which we are working on responding to right now. There are answers for all of those questions forthcoming. Polaris -- and if people do not quite understand this and want more information, I am sure I can get help from the staff -- is the automation of the land registration and mapping system, Ontario, for searching, for inquiring. That is it in a nutshell.
Bill 126 will provide users with an alternative and potentially faster method of filing information that we already get. People will now have the choice. They can continue, and a lot of people will continue, to file using paper. But there are some people who are ready to start filing in this manner and are in fact quite anxious to get on with this. There are several financial institutions right now that are quite anxiously waiting to do this and ready to do it. In fact it is the consumers who will suffer if we extend this for too long, because it is going to help them get the information faster.
This is already a public database, and that is a very important point to remember. There is no change in that. This is a one-way system where information flows in, just as it does now. Information flows to us via paper, and the difference now is that the institutions will file via electronic means, or some of them will, instead of using paper. In terms of security, this system is already open to the public via the paper so there is no real change. That is really the only change.
I want to really stress that there is no relationship between Polaris or Teranet and this particular bill. If anybody would like to follow up on that and clarify some of the points that were made, please do so.
Joe, do you have anything to add? I think there was a question raised over here on priority rating and creditors. Do you have any comment on that point?
1550
Mr Barrows: As you have indicated, this particular database is already computerized and has been since 1976. There is no change in that regard. The only change is the availability of a new method of putting information on that public database which has been public since 1976. The nature and extent of the information being put into the database is not changing in any way. The only thing that is being changed is the mode of conveying that information to the ministry database.
The issue of priority, that is, the relative standing of competing interests, is not really significantly affected by this. What I did hear from Mr Cordiano were two areas of concern, one being the issue of the security of the information in the database. I think his concern is the safeguarding of the integrity of that information. Can that information be altered or manipulated by someone having the new access that is going to be provided? The second issue I heard from him was, what is it going to cost the ministry to make this new service available?
On the security issue particularly, we will focus on the personal property registration branch, because that is the first ministry program area which will have the technological capability to make this new access available. I will ask Mr Preager to describe briefly the technological safeguards which will be in place. Mr Preager can talk about the issue of costs too. But in a nutshell, those big users of the system who choose to take advantage of this new capability will incur the cost of doing so. There will be no costs to the ministry at all.
Mr Preager: To talk briefly about the security aspect of it, the best thing I can equate it to is --
Mr Tilson: Before we deal with this, are we going to have an opportunity to ask these people questions at the end of each presentation?
The Chair: I will make sure there is as full a discussion of these things as possible.
Mr Tilson: I am sure you will, sir. I am just trying to find out when you are going to do that.
The Chair: Please, there is an answer being made now to the initial issues. I am going to invite you and Mr Cordiano to respond and ask for further clarification once these people have finished their responses.
Mr Preager: To continue, the security aspect of it is covered by the software we run at the data centres. The best thing to equate it to is going to a bank to use your instant teller machine. You have your own security password number that you punch in. It is known only to you and is unique to you. The manipulation of data is virtually impossible via that method. The way the system works is that information is added to the system and kept in a historical file. Nothing is changed around. In the current system today everything is added via paper. The only thing we are doing right at this point is changing the mechanics of how we get that information into the system. We are doing exactly the same thing that we have done since 1976. The only difference is that we are using a different vehicle to get it, through that particular database.
The Chair: Are there any further comments?
Mr Tilson: Perhaps we could start off with the people who have been silent. Ms Gillespie, why are you here? What is your input on this bill?
Ms Gillespie: I think I am here only because of the initial issue of whether Bill 126 had any link to Polaris. It does not. As the minister said, Bill 126 deals with personal property and the Polaris issue is dealt with under land registration.
Mr Tilson: The difficulty I have with what you are saying is that Polaris was introduced very innocently as well. We have an arrangement with Teranet made by the previous Liberal government and a contract which was signed by the Chair of this committee, all -- if I listen to them on television at least -- very innocently. It appeared to be very innocent. There was no mention of this type of system when the amendment to the Registry Act was introduced in 1984. In fact, I think it was only two sections. It is all very innocent. You are saying today, Ms Gillespie, that the personal property security system is not like Polaris. But if I read the sections, there is no question that it could. Is that correct?
Ms Gillespie: That Bill 126 could do what?
Mr Tilson: It could be part of the Teranet octopus.
Ms Gillespie: I do not read Bill 126 in that way. It is quite a separate issue. It is dealing with personal property.
Mr Tilson: I am quite aware of the difference between real and personal property. What I am not aware of is the assurance that it will not become part of Teranet. I pick on Teranet because that is the only name I know. There might be another company out there that deals with this sort of thing. Is there anything in this legislation that precludes the Teranet octopus from occurring?
Ms Gillespie: I think the minister wants to respond first.
Mr Tilson: I would like hear from you.
Ms Gillespie: From my perspective, Teranet is concerned with land-related information. That is its area of specialty and what it is designed to do. It is not designed to get involved in implementing other areas of public policy.
Mr Tilson: But for all we know, there is something in this unknown agreement that Mr Kormos has signed that enables Teranet to operate the personal property security system.
1600
Ms Gillespie: There is nothing in any agreement --
Mr Tilson: Have you seen the agreement?
Ms Gillespie: The set of agreements? Yes.
Mr Tilson: Have you seen the set of agreements? I am interested to know there is a set. I thought there was one. But is there a set involving Teranet or Real Data?
Ms Gillespie: There is nothing in the agreements discussing personal property. It is exclusively linked to land registration.
Mr Tilson: Are there sections in the agreements that make it possible for Teranet or Data to operate other areas of the government where information is required?
Ms Gillespie: No, there are no provisions for that.
Mr Tilson: Perhaps the question to the appropriate minister would be, to assure us of that, could you produce that agreement, or set of agreements, as it appears now?
Hon Ms Churley: Yes, as I have already said in the House -- and we are working on your questions for you -- there is some information that we must get, or you must get, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We are working on that and I am sure you are as well.
Mr Tilson: You are sitting as a member of this committee, Minister, and I am asking you --
The Chair: One moment, Mr Tilson. Please, when you ask somebody a question, let them give their full answer. That is so horribly important.
Hon Ms Churley: Just let me say, as has been clarified, no. First of all, this is an enabling bill, right? You understand that.
Mr Tilson: No, I do not understand that, otherwise we would not be here. It is my fear that it is not an enabling bill.
Hon Ms Churley: Bill 126 is.
Mr Tilson: What assurance --
Hon Ms Churley: It is written into it. You will come to it in one of the clauses, that when each act or branch is ready to use the capability, it has to go through regulation in cabinet. Having said that, even if Teranet were in any way connected, you are suggesting --
Mr Tilson: Teranet went through cabinet.
Hon Ms Churley: Mr Tilson, I have not finished answering your question.
The Chair: One moment, Minister, please. The people who work for Hansard are undoubtedly underpaid, overworked and have one heck of a time dismantling these conversations when we overlap. I know it is hard. I appreciate that oft-times it is hard to create that little gap in time that is necessary, but if all of us out of courtesy to Hansard -- perhaps not so much to each other, more out of courtesy to the Hansard people and the people who work the keyboards up here -- would wait until the other person has stopped before we speak, their job will be easier.
Hon Ms Churley: Even under Teranet and the agreement, it is a 50-50 partnership that the agreement states very clearly -- and it is very important to understand this -- continues to own, under that agreement, the land registration and the land titles data; so even under that agreement right now and what it is doing in surveying and mapping, the government remains in complete control over that, including the fee structure. That is part of the agreement.
I come back again -- and I think it has been answered by the staff and myself -- there is no connection; we are talking about two different things here. We are talking about apples and oranges. This will not be included in Teranet. It is making a government service that we already offer a bit more efficient and keeping up to date with technology that is there, the same system and the same checks and balances that already remain within that system. But even within Teranet in the agreement within that other situation, we retain complete, 100% control over fee structures and land registration anyway.
Mr Tilson: All that is very fine, and you know perfectly well that this Teranet system was created by the Liberal government, the Liberal cabinet. It never came to the House. We never heard about it. The first I heard about it was on the TV show where I saw the Chairman of this committee saying he had signed something that was made and cooked by the previous government. What is to prevent a similar sort of arrangement being made with this system? What guarantee can you give me?
Hon Ms Churley: First of all, and I have said this to you before, there are some really serious inaccuracies, and a letter has been written to that TV show. It is unfortunate that some of the scare tactics that were used in that TV show have in fact alarmed you in such a way. What I can tell you is what I have already said, that there is no connection. There is no desire, no reason, to use that system in Teranet. It has nothing to do with it.
What I think would be helpful to me and to the committee, I am sure, so that we can get to it -- because I think we need to get on with this bill -- is if you would clarify succinctly just what makes you think, besides big allegations that something weird happened with Polaris, that maybe now there is some secret plan to get this into the same system. That in fact is the wrong premise. You are operating from a premise that Teranet is some big, weird, secret deal that we are keeping a secret. It is true that it started under the Liberals, but this deal, because the scope of it was so large, was well scrutinized by this government, and I mean well scrutinized. Due diligence was done. We feel very satisfied that it is a very good deal.
Any information that does not apply to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act has been made public. It can be made public to you again. Packages have gone out, and as I already said, you should be able to get more information under the freedom of information stuff.
There is a third party here and, Mr Tilson, you know as well as I do how the law works around that. They have to give permission to give certain information. That is the way it works. But there is no big secret deal here beyond the kind of information that all businesses have the right to contain in certain situations. There is no secret deal. It is no big scary thing. It is out there for the public. The whole system of calling for tenders was done over a very lengthy period of time. That kind of information is easily and readily available and will be made available to you.
As I said, there was complete scrutiny. Mr Kormos was involved in it earlier, and when I came into the ministry, cabinet was involved in the scrutiny. We had inside and outside examinations done of this deal, and it is mostly all there for the public. As I said, you can continue to apply under freedom of information.
I am not being as succinct as I should be now. Let me ask you again if you could be very succinct about why you think this bill could become part of Teranet.
Mr Tilson: Because you will not tell me anything. You will not produce the contract. I hear smatterings from the staff; I hear smatterings from you; I heard smatterings from the former minister when he was on television. I do not know. I am trying to find out. I fear you will sign this over to another Teranet. It may be a good thing for a Teranet operation to operate, whether it is a personal property system or whether it is a real property system. It may be a good thing, but we do not know anything. You have not told us. We have guaranteed profits that have been mentioned in the contract. We do not know what that means. We do not know a lot of things. You have not once refuted the allegations that have been made on that television program, and I find that alarming.
What is a title? What does "registry system" mean? These are all very difficult terms to talk about and very boring in many respects, but we are talking about the issue of privacy. What is going to be on the floppy disc? What is going to be there? You ask me to explain myself. I sat in the House on second reading and gave a very lengthy speech on my concerns. You have note of that.
I have written you a very succinct letter with a number of questions which may or may not be asked today and which I trust you will give me answers to in due course. They are all very relevant questions. I would like to make them available to the committee if necessary. It was a letter that relates more to the land registry system than to Bill 126, but I have no assurance of any sort that Bill 126 is not related to Polaris or to Teranet. I have you saying something, I have the staff saying something, but I have no legal statement.
If you start flipping through Bill 126, just look at some of the terminology there, whether they are related acts. What does all that mean? Does that relate to the land registry system? Are we going to have Polaris or Teranet having charge of our marriage certificates, our death certificates and everything else we do? You can shake your head, but you are not giving me or the public any guarantee. You are not producing the contract. You are not telling us a thing. With all due respect, whether it is you or the former minister or anyone else standing up there and saying "Trust me," it is not enough for a government minister to say that.
Hon Ms Churley: Mr Chair, could I ask one of my staff to clarify this so we can get going on the bill?
1610
The Chair: Does one of the staff want to respond to that last comment? I am not cutting off Mr Tilson, but I am going then to Mr Waters so he can participate, then Ms Murdock and, if need be, back to Mr Tilson if he wants to ask more.
Mr Barrows: I indicated earlier that I am a lawyer with the ministry. Perhaps I should elaborate on that. My responsibility in my current assignment is to provide legal advice to the personal property security registration branch. I ended up involved in this bill because while that particular branch is the first ministry program area that is capable of making available this type of filing of information, it was considered desirable -- you will see from the first six sections of the act that we did so on a ministry-wide enabling basis. Section 7 of the bill deals specifically with the Personal Property Security Act and the program that runs out of that area.
If it would assist Mr Tilson in any way, my involvement was to put this enabling act together. As has been stated before, the sole purpose was to provide a different mode or method of making information available to the ministry in a different way. It was never the intention from the beginning, nor is there in my opinion anything in this bill or in the proper use of the regulation-making authority under the bill, which addresses or permits the ministry to pass control of information in its databases to anywhere else. That was never contemplated, and in my view that is not there. The focus of the bill is the one the minister referred to in her earlier remarks.
Mr Waters: I was just going to ask if we could try to stay on topic with the bill, not some what ifs and whereases and something that is not even talked about in the bill. We have dedicated one afternoon. and so far we have taken up one third of the time allotted on what ifs and whereases on things that have nothing to do with this bill.
Ms S. Murdock: My question is to Mr Preager. You talked about a personal security code similar to the kind we use with our bank cards. I am just wondering how that would work.
Mr Preager: Anybody who has access to submit information to the branch would have to put in computer software his own personal identification and password on the information to get into the database, so it uniquely identifies the authorized person to go ahead and submit the data. These data will be submitted by the person who is authorized by the ministry to conduct business with us in that manner. The codes are unique to each individual. It is protected like a password. I equate it to the personal identification number in a bank teller machine. It is unique to the individual. Nobody else knows it. There are security reports that tell when the information is put in the system, so there are all the audit trails in place that are necessary to ensure security.
Ms S. Murdock: So it is like a bank or a credit bureau, that kind of thing?
Mr Preager: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: You would have a person designated, and the person would have the number, not the establishment?
Mr Preager: No, the establishment would have the number. The basic premise is that the information is already in the bank's computer system. Essentially what they do is cut a magnetic tape, similar to these floppy discs that are there today. The information to get that tape into our system will be controlled by the access codes that are on that tape, unique to that particular establishment. So you are not authorizing 300 people to submit the data this way. This is just information that has been accumulated from the bank together and will be put into the system, in the same way as they do it today. They submit 1,000 pieces of paper to us. It comes in by courier today and we sit there and rekey the whole thing. The same principle applies, except it comes through a tape.
Ms S. Murdock: You hear all these stories about credit bureaus and so on where your information is wrong, and trying to get that changed and so on. Is that where the requirement for certification is going to be? I do not know if you can answer that question or not, but would the information be certified before it goes into the data banks? That is what I am asking.
Mr Preager: The information is not certified before it goes in, as it is not today. It is just submitted information, the same way.
The Chair: The researcher has asked me to pose this question to you. Is this bill dealing merely with the filing of information and not the retrieval of information? She wants that clarification.
Mr Preager: That is correct.
The Chair: The bill merely facilitates the filing of information and not the retrieval.
Mr Preager: That is correct.
Mr Waters: What happens if there is an error? Let's say whoever is inputting this material in his own computer terminal -- let's say it is a bank -- and makes an error when inputting it, who is responsible and who is liable if there are any problems?
Mr Barrows: Today all information is made available in paper document form. The private sector users who fill out those forms make mistakes today. They are responsible for those mistakes, say, if they are putting incorrect information on to our public database.
Again, the basic responsibility that rests with them will not change when we introduce a new mode of getting the information in. The responsibility for the information they put in will continue to be with them, the registrants, the persons putting the information in.
Mr Waters: Will there be a hard copy of it kept anywhere, if you know what I am getting at?
Mr Preager: This information is filed with the ministry and, as a result, what is known as a verification notice will end up going back to the registrants either in paper format or electronic format so they know exactly what has been entered on the file. That is similar to the procedure we use today.
The Chair: I would ask people to note that at 5:30 we are commencing clause-by-clause voting regardless of the status of any other matters before the committee at that time. I mention that because, Mr Tilson, the floor goes to you. You have a motion dealing on an overall basis with Bill 126. You move that at whichever point you feel is most appropriate, but you have the floor.
Mr Tilson: If you are putting me on notice that if I do not do it now I will not do it, I will do it.
I am concerned about any agreement that has been made, because obviously there are some substantial questions just starting to surface -- mistakes. There are a number of questions I would like to ask. However, if the committee is restricting me in doing that, because the motion is important, Mr Chair, I have distributed copies to the clerk which I assume have been passed to the members.
The Chair: The clerk is distributing it now. Nobody is restricting you in any way, shape or form. We are following the guidelines the committee, including the representatives of your caucus, unanimously agreed to as part of that unanimous decision-making.
Mr Tilson: I do not know anything about that, Mr Chair.
The Chair: I do, Mr Tilson, and the fact is that this committee, with representation from your caucus, unanimously set those guidelines for this meeting.
Mr Tilson: It was not a recorded vote. I do not know whether it was unanimous or not.
The Chair: I am telling you it was, sir.
Mr Tilson: I looked at the minutes and it is not a recorded vote.
The Chair: You should check the record. That is why Hansard is there.
1620
Mr Tilson: I did check the record, Mr Chair, and it is not a recorded vote. You check the record.
The Chair: Mr Tilson moves that the committee, in its discussion of Bill 126 and prior to filing its report, seek the input of interested members of the public, through public hearings, and that these hearings consist of one full regular meeting of the committee.
Mr Tilson: The rationale of that of course is that the Vice-Chair has made some comments that some of the questions I have been raising are not relevant to these proceedings. I think it is quite apparent in the record that they are relevant to the proceedings because of the unanswered questions of the minister and the staff on the possibility that the personal property security system, this information that is being fed into the computer, could be made available to other sources, such as a Teranet type of company.
There is no guarantee in Bill 126 that precludes that. We have had no production of any feasibility study as to how this system is going to work. I was going to ask that question. If a feasibility study has been prepared, I hope I could see it. I am fairly confident there was not a feasibility study done of the Polaris system. I would like to think the emphasis of the hearings would be on the subject of privacy, not on the adequacy of the electronic system of recording things, although issues may be raised such as the question that was raised on accuracy, certification and all kinds of things that could be asked beyond the issue of privacy.
These are very important questions and I believe members of the public could come forward and make a presentation to this committee so that the committee could study it, whether it be on the whole subject of tendering -- if indeed this does go to a company such as Teranet -- the whole subject of the economic aspect of it and the whole subject of what jobs are going to be lost, if indeed any are going to be lost.
There may be a large number of areas from the whole subject of privacy, and representatives from various organizations could make presentations to us on that subject. That is the general intent of the motion. I hope the committee would support it.
The Chair: Any further debate on the motion?
Mr Cordiano: I just want to make one comment. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the intent of this meeting was to have those public hearings. Perhaps, if it was agreed to before, we could have had the public come before the committee during this meeting, but I guess that was not possible. Here we are dealing with this matter in this format.
I am baffled why we would not want to do that in one meeting and proceed on that basis, although I do not think we should spend that much time with this bill. I do not agree or concur with my colleague Mr Tilson with respect to some of his concerns and the extent of those concerns, but I do think that if it had been agreed we were going to have public hearings, then we could have made some moves towards that goal of having people come before the committee if that was so desired. But I did not take part in those discussions on the subcommittee, so I do not know how that went.
Mr Waters: Unless my memory is totally incorrect, my understanding of what went on at the last meeting, when we decided to do this today, was that we would have discussions. I believe it was Mr Tilson who wanted to have some time to make a statement on something and this was to allow for that amount of time, and then we would go into clause-by-clause. There was no discussion at all about having people from the public come in to discuss this bill. It was strictly because Mr Tilson had a few concerns he wanted to raise, and that was why all three parties agreed it would take up one afternoon including the clause-by-clause, and then the bill would be reported back.
The Chair: I remind people what Mrs Cunningham said on behalf of her caucus. I am referring to the preliminary transcript of proceedings on Wednesday, November 6, 1991, page 1600-2, where Mrs Cunningham says:
"It would be the intention of my caucus colleague, Mr Tilson, that on the issue of Bill 126 he have an opportunity to question the minister and the department. The questions are already on record and he wants an opportunity to get his answers, which were not clearly stated in the House during the debate, and that is the specific reason for having it referred to committee. I have discussed this issue, just after I talked to Mr Waters, with the government House leader and he has agreed -- and I am sure you already knew that -- that one day would be sufficient, if that is what we wanted and that is what we thought we would get, and I would appreciate it very much if, in fact, the direction of Mr Waters could be followed, and that is that the bill proceed after that one day of hearing. I would appreciate that."
Mr Tilson, do you want to reply to arguments made.
Mr Tilson: Mr Chair, I would like to reply to your interjection at this stage. It was agreed that one day would be spent enabling me and other members of the committee to question the minister and her staff on the aspects of this bill and any other related matters, but I do not think there was ever any agreement not to have public hearings and not to get into those areas. I do not think that was ever agreed to. Again, quite clearly, there is no recorded vote on this. I do not want to get into the technicalities. We are wasting our time as far as proceeding on other matters is concerned.
The Chair: Speaking to your motion, do you want to reply to either Mr Cordiano or Mr Waters?
Mr Tilson: The motion is quite clear. There are still a number of unanswered questions. I understand both the Liberal members and the members of the government party wanting to keep this issue quiet because it must be very embarrassing. This matter surfaced from the Liberal cabinet and was supposed to have been processed prior to your coming along. You came along and agreed to it.
Mr Cordiano: We can get on with the motion now. I have heard enough. I think there was, on my part, some due diligence to try and comply with Mr Tilson's initiative to have public hearings. I could go along with that. But this nonsense of imputing motives -- whether I want to get on with this because we have something to hide is nonsense.
The Chair: I appreciate your effort to call the question. However, Mr Tilson had the floor. I came along in 1952 to everybody's dismay and the comments do not bother me at all. Mr Tilson, carry on please.
Mr Tilson: Again, the emphasis of these hearings would be with respect to the whole process of how Teranet came into existence. Clearly there is the possibility that Teranet or a company similar to that could take over this system or other systems. That possibility is there, because we have no assurance either in Bill 126 or any other piece of legislation that the cabinet just at its whim could not create a similar type of system that occurred with Polaris. That is a matter of record. We have no legal statement in the Legislature, no legal bill in the Legislature that precludes that from happening. On the issue of privacy, there are many people who would like to come forward to discuss the whole issue of the tendering process, because there may not be plans now, but on the face of the bill there is no question that this type of information could be taken over by private interests.
What is the tendering process going to be? If it is like the tendering process of how Teranet came to be or Polaris came to be, I have some serious concerns. There are members of the public who could make contributions to this committee in assisting us in making its report to the House.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. All those in favour of Mr Tilson's motion, please indicate.
Mr Tilson: Recorded vote, Mr Chair.
The committee divided on Mr Tilson's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 2
Arnott, Tilson.
Nays -- 8
Cleary, Cordiano, Dadamo, Klopp, Murdock, S., Offer, Waters, Wood.
The Chair: Any further questions of either the ministry or staff?
1630
Mr Tilson: I would like to ask the minister, did you have a feasibility study completed on the operation of this system?
Hon Ms Churley: I am not quite sure what you mean in this context of a feasibility study. I am sure somebody can inform you what was done.
Mr Preager: I can respond to that. There was no feasibility study done for this particular type of simple technology transfer.
Mr Tilson: This is simple and Polaris is simple. There was no feasibility study done with respect to the Polaris system as well.
Mr Binsell: Could I help clarify what this issue is? It is around how the ministry receives information. Right now the ministry receives a bundle of paper. The banks bundle the paper up, give it to a courier and send it to the ministry. If this bill is approved, the banks will put the information on a tape, the tape will be sent to the ministry and the ministry will read that tape into its database.
Mr Tilson: I am quite aware of that. Again, I ask about feasibility on the issue of costs and feasibility on the issue of loss of jobs. You are quite right. Normally this could be done in any number of areas. It could be done by mail; it could be done any number of ways. For example, you talked about how banks or large law firms or other large financial institutions would have these pieces of equipment, but presumably there are other pieces of equipment to be made available for the rest of us who cannot afford those pieces of equipment. Presumably they would be conducted at registry offices around the province. Are there plans for that? Is there a feasibility study on that?
Mr Preager: There has been no feasibility study done on this particular type of access. This is a customer service enhancement we are trying to provide to get information into the ministry's database.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Klopp, and then we will go back to Mr Tilson if he has further questions.
Mr Klopp: Just on that, the reason you did not need to do a feasibility study with this particular program is that you knew it was going to be more efficient and less costly, so there was no need to hire a consultant and all that stuff and that is why you did that, in a nutshell.
Mr Preager: That is a fair assessment. There has been no technological impediment. By doing this it was deemed to be a good customer service initiative, faster turnaround to the public, so we did not go ahead and secure any of the consultants to do that.
Mr Klopp: Any time we can save consultants' fees it is a good idea. I heard it said by somebody in the House today and I am all for that.
Hon Ms Churley: It has been said there is no cost to the government. I think Paul Klopp was basically making that point. Let's be clear on the private thing, which, I really want to tell you again, I take seriously. But I want to make it clear that this is already a public database, that anybody can search right now and Bill 126 does not change that. I think we always have to be vigilant but there is no change in this public database.
Mr Tilson: How can you assure me of that, that it will not go somewhere else?
Hon Ms Churley: I have assured you in every way I can. This is the way it is done now. All we are bringing here today is a change in how we file things. We are not coming in here today with any new legislation or something new that will change that. In fact, if something is changed in that way, it will come before the House. It will have to be a change in legislation. We are not proposing that today; we are just talking about changing the way of filing information.
Mr Tilson: Minister, you cannot assure me. That is why we are here. You cannot assure me. That is my fear.
Hon Ms Churley: But I have assured you. There is no change in legislation.
Mr Tilson: My question has to do with the issue of cost. You say there is no cost. Are there any plans by the government, or at least the ministry, to put the machines -- that is my simple form, but that is not what you call them -- in places like registry offices or where members of the general public could send material to the central bank? If not, why not?
Mr Preager: At the present time we are exploring different types of technologies. That is not one of them because the way of getting data there, if you look at the straight mechanics of it, will be more cumbersome to do in that way. From a corporate perspective -- Ron Binsell may want to talk a little about that -- essentially we do not have any plans to put terminals in registry offices to facilitate the filing of PPSR data.
Mr Tilson: Why are you giving an advantage to banks and large law firms or other institutions that can afford these pieces of equipment, and not to the average person that wants to register, for example, a lien against an automobile?
Mr Preager: The facility of the system itself will facilitate that particular technology. If I understood your question correctly, you asked if we had any plans at the present time. We do not have any plans at the present time to do that. However, the system will facilitate information coming in in an electronic format from not just the large institutions, but also the law firms, the credit unions or anybody else who would be using that information. It does facilitate that.
Mr Tilson: If an automobile is purchased by an individual from another individual and there is no financing -- there might be a loan back from the vendor -- how is that vendor going to register his or her lien if he or she chooses to register a lien?
Mr Preager: If there is no financing involved in the transaction between the cars --
Mr Tilson: No, there is financing involved. I sell a car to you and you do not have enough money. Therefore, I register a lien against you. I can do that. I can fill out one of the funny forms and ship it down to Toronto now, under what you are talking about, and I have a lien against your car. Under the system that you are creating, I have to go to a financial institution. How do I do that? Do I use the old system or do I go to a bank or a law firm?
Mr Preager: You can do either one. You can do it either way.
The Chair: This has been central to the questions of Mr Tilson. I appreciate your trying to be succinct in your response. Please elaborate so that we understand what you are speaking of, or perhaps illustrate with examples.
Mr Preager: As I understand your question, in the example you gave, right now you can register it on paper through a registry office or through the mail. You can send it to our head office. We in turn transcribe that data into the database. Under the new system, you can still do it that way or a bank or a small institution can do it either electronically or on paper, whatever they choose. It is not to say that all institutions will take advantage of this.
Mr Tilson: Are you not creating a system that is going to help only the large banks, financial institutions and law firms? What about the little guy? Why can he not go to a registry office or some other central location and make his or her registration?
Mr Preager: They can today.
Mr Tilson: I am not talking about today.
Mr Preager: They can in the future. They can tomorrow. They can in fact go ahead and register a piece of paper through a registry office. A small, little person can do that.
Mr Tilson: I appreciate what I can do today. I am talking about what I can do under Bill 126. I realize you are saying I still have the same choice. I as an individual would like to use the fast, efficient, accurate system you are trying to create, which is why we are all providing accolades as to how wonderful it is. But I cannot do that, because I have to use the old system as an individual. I am not the wealthy banker or the wealthy law firm.
The Chair: One moment: The researcher now wants to know, does the ministry envision people availing themselves of the facilities at their credit union, for instance, if their credit union is disposed to do that? Does the ministry anticipate maintaining consumer access to the de facto or the existing kiosks or telephone sets in registry offices? Would this new program supplement that for, let's say, high-volume users?
1640
Mr Preager: We have designed the system to accommodate the large users and the small users, the whole spectrum of users. To talk about the individual person, if we get around to putting terminals in a registry office that will be available for the public, they will be able to do that registration through a terminal. We are not there yet. The system is designed to have that flexibility. When we look at the large users or the small users, the man on the street so to speak, it will facilitate both.
Mr Tilson: You are now getting to what I am talking about. The words "getting around" -- when you get around, if indeed you do get around, to putting government terminals in registry offices or any other place the public has access to, what is that going to cost? Have you given estimates as to what that is going to cost the taxpayer to implement such a system around Ontario?
Mr Preager: The costs are to be borne by the users of the system, not the Ontario government or the taxpayer.
Mr Tilson: What will it cost the users of the system?
Mr Preager: It will cost them the cost of the telecommunications line, plus their hardware that they need to access this.
Mr Tilson: Sir, you know perfectly well I am talking about the equipment you are talking about getting around to installing in registry offices or other such public places. You must have an estimate. I cannot believe you have not at least talked about what it could cost to put such a piece of equipment in every registry office around Ontario so that the large banks and the large law firms will not be given a commercial advantage over the little guy.
Mr Preager: We have not been considering putting the terminals in the registry office per se. What we are talking about is taking a law firm or a small institution and having a terminal in that particular office. We have not analysed the cost of doing it in the registry office. We have looked at it from the perspective of putting them in private offices in the commercial business world. If it goes in those particular offices, those costs are picked up by the users of the system, be it a large institution or a small institution.
Mr Tilson: We are now getting to the issue I asked us to hear, because we are talking about another choice. I can go to a bank or I can go to a large law firm. Are you providing guidelines? Are there any restrictions on what these large banks or law firms can charge the individual who wants to come in and use this system you are providing?
Mr Binsell: The cost to use the system at the moment is $6 per inquiry.
Mr Tilson: Sir, I am aware of what the cost is. I am talking about Bill 126 and the equipment the large banks and large law firms and other financial institutions will have. They will certainly be charging a fee for individuals off the street to come and use that equipment.
Mr Binsell: They do not need any additional equipment.
Mr Tilson: Are you telling me they are not going to have any computer system to feed in? How in the world is it going to be fed into the system?
Mr Binsell: They do not need any additional equipment to do that.
Mr Tilson: They already have these terminals now?
Mr Binsell: Yes.
Mr Tilson: Do the law firms all have it?
Mr Binsell: Most law firms have equipment that could do this.
Mr Tilson: All right. For those law firms that do not and want to purchase it, that will be a cost which they will pass on to the consumer. Have you studied that issue?
Mr Binsell: It is a cost the law firm would --
Mr Tilson: They are not going to do it out of the goodness of their heart, I can assure you.
Mr Binsell: But there is an efficiency in their doing that, because then they do not have to have their staff go down to an office to do the registration. They could do it through the computer terminal if they so desire.
Mr Tilson: I appreciate that, but we are now talking about how you indicated to me that another option for the little guy is to go into the large law firm or the large bank. Why would the large law firm or the large bank allow the individual to do that without charging a fee? Again, I am getting back to the cost to the consumer and the cost to the taxpayer, and you are not providing me with that information. If you are planning on getting into this area, I would like to hear where you are going on that, if you have, indeed, any plans at all.
Mr Binsell: One of the general directions of the ministry is to provide people with options. That is one of the things this will do. It would allow the banks to provide the information as they always have, or it would allow them the option of providing a computer tape to the ministry to do their registration. So a general direction is to provide options to people.
The Chair: Let me ask again, because the questions are significant. Perhaps one question that is begged is, does the province have any jurisdiction over fees charged by federally chartered institutions?
Mr Preager: The banks charge their own fees for registration.
The Chair: Are they regulated by the federal government?
Mr Barrows: Yes, they are.
If I might add a different perspective to it, as I indicated earlier, the personal property registration branch is the first program area to be close to offering this capability. I do not think the future will be available to us all at once. We are starting, of course, with the big users.
The area of computer technology, in my limited experience, is one where everything is changing every day. Costs are changing. Capabilities are changing. Exactly what might be available in registry offices or lawyers' offices or indeed even people's homes in five years or 10 years is really quite unknown. What we are doing is gearing up, and this is just an enabling procedure, to make available whatever the changing technology can make available to anyone who wants to use ministry program areas. As I said, we are starting here with the big users and, yes, it is the large financial institutions because they are the ones, initially, most interested in making use of it.
At the other end of that, there is another public interest in the sense that the registrations they make, in the majority of cases, concern individuals, members of the public who are arranging consumer borrowings or whatever for personal purposes. If the financial institutions, through this new capability, can make whatever services they provide to members of the public available more quickly, I think there is a benefit to what I will call the general public through the banks being able to provide this service in a more expeditious manner.
Mr Waters: On what Mr Tilson was talking about, it is my understanding now that every registry office already has a computer or a terminal or whatever to input this into their files. Would they not have it already?
Mr Preager: No, they do not. None of the input from the file, the actual gathering of information, is done through the registry offices. Today and in the future they will continue to receive the forms submitted to them by the public. They send those forms to our head office where we in turn key them into the system. There is no capability for data collection in the registry offices today.
Mr Waters: What we would have to add, in order to allow access, would be a keyboard, a means of inputting, which is of minimal cost in this day of technology. I would assume that when the system is up and running and you could move to that, it could not be that just the first people off the street would have access. Once again each individual would have to have an access code. You might go to a central terminal, but each individual would have an access code in order to get into the system --
Mr Preager: That is correct.
Mr Waters: -- to input it, and it is not something that you say offhand, "We're not going to do it." It is something that is down the road as the system becomes more user-friendly.
1650
Mr Preager: Yes. We have not explored it to that degree from the registry offices per se, because if the forms received in the registry offices were keyed by government staff in our registry office, it would be just the same as keying them in a central location. We are just transferring the workload out to the field. The aspect of having them keyed directly by the individual who wanted to go ahead and submit the form electronically himself would have to be controlled through the access codes and all the audit trails accordingly.
Mr Waters: Yes. I would not necessarily think that it would have to be at a registry office. Registry offices are not in every community.
Mr Preager: Right. In fact, it would be preferable if they were elsewhere than in the registry offices to get that broader distribution of access.
Mr Waters: Okay, I just wanted to see if you were looking down the road.
Mr Tilson: Just to carry on with that line of questioning -- again, Mr Chair, I would like comments from the minister, perhaps, on this -- this is the very reason why I am expressing my concerns. You have stated that Teranet will not be involved in this system. You say that now, and whether that is going to come in the future, we will wait and see. But what you have said is that the banks and private institutions are. The banks may or may not be regulated by the feds, and I understand that. Maybe the Law Society of Upper Canada regulates the large legal firms.
I do not know what other people can have these machines. That is not really quite clear. I suppose it will ultimately come in your regulations, and I would like to hear more of that. But it is that concern, of the private individual, whether it be Teranet or a large bank or a large law firm, obtaining information or equipment and charging what they will to the individual, the small guy, because that is exactly what has gone on in the United States.
There are areas where private companies have taken a service that is normally provided by the government. I am not arguing the fact; you are probably aware of my philosophy. That is great; they can probably run the system more efficiently than the government can. That is not the point. The point is, what can they charge? Can they charge the limit to the little guy, which is what is happening in the United States? What do we have in your legislation, in Bill 126, that precludes the banks and the large firms or others from doing that?
Hon Ms Churley: The cost of the search right now, I understand, is about $6. As has been stated, this is going to actually eliminate a step in the process of filing, and in fact for the bigger institutions it makes sense to go that way. I think that is one of the reasons or the major reason why they are interested in this setup. It cuts out one of the steps they already have to take. So ultimately it should become cheaper for them to perform this service.
In terms of the charges, I would have to turn to the staff on that because I do not know. I think it has already been answered, actually. You gave a long speech at the same time you asked the question, and I lost track a little bit. It is true; you did. You do that sometimes. Can you repeat just the question part again? Was it to do with what we as a government can do to make sure that, for the users who will be using these institutions, the institutions will keep the cost down? How can we make sure? They are not doing it now.
Mr Tilson: Let's say this bill passes -- I hope it does pass, although I can assure you that, if not in this committee, at some other forum I will be submitting some amendments -- and a private individual wants to register a lien against an automobile that he has sold to somebody else. He has a choice. He can do it instantly by going to a bank or a law firm or someone else and have it registered on the machine, or he can mail it and it will be registered in due course.
Say he chooses to go into the bank, for whatever reason. Maybe it is a very expensive car or maybe there is a lot of security. The bank may or may not charge $6. I have not heard anything about what the bank is going to charge. I am quite aware of what it costs to register a lien now. What I am not aware of is what the bank will charge (a) for registering it and (b) for walking into the institution to use its equipment.
Mr Preager: I can make some comment on that so that we have some perspective of what this is all about. Of those that register, 98% are financial institutions that have entered into a security agreement with the people buying the car. The average person on the street, I would submit, is not the one who would register. If he were to register, he would not go to a bank unless a bank had decided to act as an agent for registrations. The banks that register with us are registering their own interest in the financial arrangement with their customers. I do not foresee anybody going into a bank to register a lien. It would be the bank that is registering the lien on the car it might sell.
The Chair: Fair enough. Mr Tilson, you seem to be moving from the matter of a person wishing to use the conduit of the bank to register his or her own lien to the matter of a person who, let's say, borrows from a bank and the bank uses its own facility, its own conduit, for registering its own lien. Your concern is about restrictions on fees that it can charge back to that borrower.
Mr Tilson: I am not getting anywhere with the previous issue, so I am now getting into --
The Chair: I want to know if that is what you are asking about now.
Mr Tilson: The current issue I am getting at is exactly that. If I go into a bank, what is to preclude the bank from charging me any fee, any amount that it wishes, say $100?
The Chair: I trust part of that means, are there any restrictions now on what the bank can charge back even though it need only pay the $6 registration fee?
Mr Tilson: Maybe we should not use the bank. There may be restrictions in federal legislation that preclude them from doing that. I do not know anything about that subject. Let's pick XYZ company. It has a machine. It qualifies under Bill 126. Is there anything to preclude that company from charging $125 to register?
Mr Preager: I will speak to that question in a second. If we talk about the banks, the banks currently charge their clients an out-of-pocket expense which is the same registration fee they charge us. I stand to be corrected by my colleague Joe Barrows here, but I believe there is nothing that will preclude them charging anything more or anything less. I think the banks are governed by the federal Bank Act. If we talk about other institutions such as a credit union -- it has to be a financial institution.
Mr Tilson: Law firms cannot use it?
Mr Preager: Law firms register on behalf of banks as agents.
Mr Tilson: What about used car dealerships? If they could do the same thing, they would do it all the time.
Mr Preager: If they are registering because there is a financial arrangement if they are a financial institution; I do not know what the practice is for used car dealers in particular.
Mr Tilson: There is nothing to preclude the used car dealer from adding that on to the cost of the car. "You can't pay me your money so I'm going to put a big lien on your car and I'm going to charge you a fee for doing that."
Mr Preager: As there is not today.
Mr Tilson: Again, I am not looking at today. I am looking at what you are creating under Bill 126.
Mr Preager: There is no change.
The Chair: The minister wanted to respond. We will get back to you, Mr Tilson.
Hon Ms Churley: I want to clarify that answer. There is no change. If somebody wants to act as an agent for somebody right now, he or she can charge whatever he or she wants. That is the situation. That is what has been said here. There is absolutely no change in that. We come back to the fact that we are giving people more of a choice, but there is no change in what an agent can charge now or what the agent can charge next month under this system.
1700
Mr Tilson: I will abandon this line of questioning of the minister or staff, and ask several questions. I am sure you have my letter to the minister and I am looking specifically at questions 16, 18 and 20. Dealing with question 16, I do not think members of the committee have this so I will read the question: "Under section 6 of the bill the Lieutenant Governor in Council has the power, through regulation to designate other acts to which this shall apply. Why is this being done through the regulations, and not within the Legislature?" This is a question perhaps to the minister.
Hon Ms Churley: Which question are you asking? I am sorry, I was distracted.
Mr Tilson: Question 16.
Hon Ms Churley: Okay. The information that is filed in an electronic format will be provided by, and its accuracy will be the responsibility of, the registrant, in the same way that the completion of paper documents is the responsibility of a registrant who files under the existing system. People filing information retain financial liability for damage caused by any errors in that information. I think I am giving you the wrong answer, am I not?
Mr Tilson: You certainly are, but it is a lovely answer.
Hon Ms Churley: Actually it is a good answer for the next question. I have been working diligently on all of your questions and I am sorry I got distracted. You had asked question 16, right?
Mr Tilson: Yes.
Hon Ms Churley: The bill is enabling and it is ministry-wide in nature. I think I answered this question before as well. Designating acts under section 6 is a mechanism which will ensure that only those program areas which have the technological capabilities will be authorized to accept information filed in this format at this time. Such administrative matters are traditionally the subject of regulations. As to the ones it gives enabling legislation to now, we have one section that is ready to come under the system. What it means is that as other ministries or other departments within a ministry come forward and say they are capable, we want to look at each to make sure that it is in fact ready and capable and that the kinds of safeguards we are building in are all in place.
Mr Tilson: I understand what you have just said. My question is not on the merits of it. My question is, why are you averse to -- maybe you are not or maybe you do not understand my question -- having this done in the Legislature as opposed to regulations?
Hon Ms Churley: You mean, each time to go through --
Mr Tilson: Each time the ministry comes forward with something that it wants to do this sort of thing on, it would be a very simple matter to put a bill in the House to have it changed to computerize that system.
Hon Ms Churley: Again I am going to defer to the staff on it. Perhaps I should do that before I give what I think my reason is.
Mr Barrows: We did give consideration to this. It is not a black and white situation. This ministry is very diverse in its programs and has over 50 statutes which it administers in a variety of different program areas. Some of those areas are more advanced in a technological sense than others.
We put together this general enabling legislation so that we would have the ministry-wide capability so that if a particular program area is geared up for it, it can proceed. Of those many statutes which the minister administers, certain of them may or may not require specific amendment so that they can receive information in an electronic format. As you can see from section 7 of this bill, the Personal Property Security Act does require amendment and is in effect before the Legislature now as section 7 of this bill. Many of the other acts administered by the ministry will also probably require specific amendment because of the manner in which they are worded now. Some will not.
Mr Tilson: Section 6 says you can simply do this by regulation. You do not have to come back.
Mr Barrows: Subsection 6(1) empowers the Lieutenant Governor simply by regulation to designate acts to which this act applies. It would in my view be wrong and inappropriate for the ministry legal staff to allow designation of an act here and purport to permit information to be accepted in this way, if in so doing it conflicted directly with a specific provision in an act in a program area we were looking to go to. This is something that would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as the program areas evolve in their technological capability.
Hon Ms Churley: I did say I had an answer to this and that I wanted the staff to answer, but my feeling on this and my understanding is that it is an administrative issue and that most administrative issues are dealt with by regulation, not legislation. If we had every administrative-type issue coming before the Legislature when we have a lot of very important business to get on with, it would really tie things up, and this is clearly administrative.
Mr Tilson: I will bet if I asked you what acts this applies to right now, or what acts it could apply to, you would not know. It may well be that in some cases they are administrative, but you do not know. My question to you is, should a government be delegating this sort of information to cabinet? After all, next time around, you may not be in government. You may be delegating this information or this power to a government which will never have to report back to the Legislature. In some cases it may be quite appropriate to make an administrative decision, but in other cases it may not be appropriate, for any number of reasons. I do not know why, because I do not even know what the acts are. Mention has been made of a potential 50 acts. I do not even know what those could be.
Hon Ms Churley: I could rhyme them all off for you by now, but I do not think you want to hear them today.
Mr Tilson: You could give me some examples.
Hon Ms Churley: The Bread Sales Act.
Mr Tilson: The Bread Sales Act?
Hon Ms Churley: The Condominium Act. There are a lot of acts in this ministry. You are quite right. But again, what I would come back to --
Mr Tilson: Well, let's talk on it.
Hon Ms Churley: Given the information you were given today -- that this is administrative, a filing system -- I think the issues you raised have been well answered and well covered around your fears about that. There are other acts that should be ready to come under this, and it is a benefit to the consumer. It changes nothing in the existing legislation, other than giving people a choice of two ways to file. There is nothing really more complicated about this. That is why it is administrative and why it should not have to take up a lot of time in the Legislature.
Mr Tilson: I quite concur with the philosophy of making the system run smoother. You can say over and over that my fears have been laid, and they have not. They are still there, because you will not produce the Teranet contract. Heaven knows what it has. I do not know whether it relates to these 50 statutes or not. It may be appropriate that all the items with respect to the Condominium Act be computerized, or it may not. I submit, with due respect to you, Minister, that the government is irresponsible in delegating the matter to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That is why we have a Legislature, to discuss those sorts of things.
However, you have given me an answer that you think is appropriate, that you do not appear to be prepared to bend on. Perhaps I could proceed with another question.
1710
The second question is question 18, which I know all the staff members and the minister have. For the other members of the committee I will read it: "On second reading, you stated that this bill would in future be extended to other areas administered by your ministry. What are your intentions in this regard?" It is similar to the last question I asked.
Hon Ms Churley: Yes, it is.
Mr Tilson: Can you tell us now what those statutes are? I am quite patient. If you wish to list 50 statutes, I would like to hear those.
Hon Ms Churley: In fact, it would be very interesting to you if I did. There is also the Upholstered and Stuffed Articles Act, I believe, but I am not going to do that now. We do not know yet which ones will be ready to come on to this system in the immediate future. Some are more prepared technologically than others, but the ministry has consulted with representatives from the major users, the banks and trust companies, in terms of personal property security registration, the one that is going to come into the system now. That is the first ministry program we will be providing, but no, I cannot tell you today which acts will be coming on to the system next.
Mr Tilson: Will you undertake to produce to me and other members of the committee the list of the pieces of legislation that you intend to bring on immediately prior to this bill returning to committee of the whole?
Hon Ms Churley: No, I cannot commit to doing that today because I have no such list of which ones will be coming on in the near future. I am assuming that ministry staff can provide some information about the ones they see as likely to come on stream next, but I cannot provide you with that list. I am quite anxious to get on with this new system, because there are people ready to use it. As I have already stated, these will come up over time, but to my knowledge there is no other act ready to come on right now.
Mr Tilson: You said that before, that the consumer is going to suffer if this legislation is delayed any further. Who is going to suffer?
Hon Ms Churley: Part of the problem now is that the system is all paper-oriented, and this computerization actually takes a step out for the filing of this information, so it speeds things up for the consumer.
Mr Tilson: For the banks.
Hon Ms Churley: It speeds it up for the bank, but therefore it speeds it up for the consumer.
Mr Tilson: With respect to speeding it up for others, it does not. Unless you have that equipment, it does not speed it up.
Hon Ms Churley: We are getting back to that circle we went through before. I think that was really explained, the type of people who use the system.
Mr Tilson: I backed off because I was getting nowhere. There are other areas I would like to question you on. Question 15, which I will read for the other members of the committee: "How are `authorized users' to be defined under the regulations to Bill 126, as provided for under subsection 5(2), and what provisions have been made to protect against either access by unauthorized users, or improper access by authorized users?"
Hon Ms Churley: Joe, could you answer that question?
Mr Barrows: Subsection 5(2) of the bill concerns the authorization of persons who can use the system. The persons specified in that subsection in practical terms would be program heads or persons responsible for the operation of various programs within the ministry. Failing such persons, the minister will determine who has the capability to file information in electronic format.
Mr Tilson: If I could stop you right there, how are you going to do that?
Mr Barrows: This will vary from program area to program area, depending --
Mr Tilson: Pick any one and tell me how you are going to stop that.
Mr Barrows: Stop?
Mr Tilson: Yes.
Mr Barrows: I am sorry, sir, I do not understand. Stop what?
Mr Tilson: I am emphasizing access by unauthorized users. How are you going to stop the unauthorized user from having access?
Mr Barrows: We are really back, then, to the security issue that we addressed very early in today's session and which Mr Preager addressed from the point of view of the technological safeguards that are in place to ensure that users can only input new information and cannot manipulate or alter existing information in the ministry database. Mr Preager can address those safeguards again, if you would like him to.
Mr Tilson: I guess my concern is the whole issue of computer fraud and people doing funny things to computers that I do not even understand. We are now getting into a greater technological age, as all three parties have agreed. I get back to the question Mr Waters pursued too: the issue of error, the issue of safeguards, the issue that people can get this information and do strange things. I can assure you if that occurred, the government would be named as a party to it, because it had set up the system.
Mr Barrows: In response to that, if I could begin in a very general way by getting back to the basic thrust of the bill, that is simply making available another mode or method of getting information in. Regarding your concern about alteration or manipulation of data or, say, the filing of false and vexatious data, that could be done today by a person filling out a piece of paper with totally inaccurate or untrue or malicious content.
Mr Tilson: I am not asking about today. I am talking about the system you are setting up under Bill 126. In the system you are setting up under Bill 126, that could happen and could create a liability towards the government, because it is the government that indeed has created this system under Bill 126.
Mr Barrows: No, sir, the system already exists. All we are creating is a new mode for getting information into that system. Now I will ask either Mr Preager or Mr Binsell to give you --
The Chair: One at a time, please.
Mr Barrows: What I was going to do was to hand it over to one of these gentlemen to give you the details of the technological safeguards. I have been assured that all of the technological safeguards available have been built into the system that we are beginning with in the personal property registration branch.
Mr Tilson: The minister has given me all kinds of assurances on that, so what are some more? Okay, that would be great, please.
Mr Preager: Again, just to reiterate -- and I defer to Ron to add something to this -- without getting into a lot of technological details, you can equate the security needed for this system with the security for a bank. How sure are you that nobody is going to go in and mess around with your bank account? The technology exists today, and the security is there to address electronic dealings with data.
Mr Tilson: If that happened, I would sue the bank. If, through its system, the bank enables that to happen, I would sue it, and you would too.
Mr Preager: I am not disputing that. Without getting into a detailed technical explanation, which I am not in a position to give, all I am saying is that the security that does exist is in fact addressing the concerns as well as anybody can, and you cannot go in there and manipulate data.
The other thing I should point out too is that the system does not go in and change data. It adds it to the historical file all the time. So you are not going in there and changing anything.
Mr Tilson: Mr Chair, with respect, that is exactly the area I am getting into. You are now designating certain people as authorized users, and because of that you may be creating a liability for this government because you are creating a system -- I do not want to hear about the existing system; I am quite aware of what the existing system is. I am talking about the new system you are creating and the potential liabilities of unauthorized users or, as the question indicates, of improper access by authorized users. That is another issue, the improper access by authorized users.
Mr Preager: Do you want to add anything to that?
1720
Mr Binsell: The same security procedures apply to this system as apply to most of the other major systems in the government. This system resides on the large computer that is run, along with the majority of other systems in the government, by the Ministry of Government Services. The same security protections exist for this system.
Mr Tilson: Mr Chair, I see you are watching the clock. I will not pursue that question any further. I am getting nowhere on that question. I will ask a question, specifically question 19, of the minister again. I will read it: "What guarantees are provided that agreement has not been made with Teranet-Real Data for the private sale of the information collected" with respect to Bill 126 information?
Hon Ms Churley: That is part of the questions you sent to my office in your letter?
Mr Tilson: That is the question. I just read it to you, yes.
Hon Ms Churley: First, as I have already stated, even within Teranet right now the government maintains 100% control over the land registry database and also over the fee base.
Mr Tilson: How do I know that?
Hon Ms Churley: Because it is in the agreement.
Mr Tilson: How can I see the agreement? Tell me.
Hon Ms Churley: We have --
Mr Tilson: Trust me.
The Chair: One at a time. It has to be that way.
Hon Ms Churley: We have set up a meeting, plus there are all kinds of documents available already. Various aspects of the agreement are available to you. I assure you that is a major part this government made very sure was in the agreement, because we believe those data have to be retained by the government. It is part of the agreement.
Mr Tilson: Minister, if you will make that agreement available to me when I meet with you, and I can make it available to the public, that will just be wonderful. But I suspect you will say: "Here, have a peek at it. Don't tell anybody else." I can assure you that is not good enough. I want to be able to see that agreement and I want to be able to review it with others, members of the public, to determine the answer to question 19, which I have just read to you.
Hon Ms Churley: As I have assured you, I am happy to make anything available to you if I can do so legally. The only information I will withhold from you is information that, through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, I would not be allowed to release to you legally without your going through the proper process. That has already been told to you.
Mr Tilson: Let's stop right there. Why did you do that? Why did you enter into an agreement of this magnitude that precludes me from seeing it?
Hon Ms Churley: As I was starting to say before you interrupted, we are meeting soon on this, but I have to say that many of the allegations you have raised in the House and here today are in fact not true. I want to use the appropriate place to discuss those with you. It was not appropriate in the House. When we were discussing this bill, you hoped I would answer some of those questions and then you talked out the clock, at which time I was happy to go into detail. Question period in the House, you know --
Mr Tilson: That is unfair. I am not talking out the clock at all. I am asking you reasonable questions, but you are not providing me any answers for them; none.
Mr Huget: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I wonder if we could return to some sense of decorum in this committee. I understand Mr Tilson has some serious questions, but I also understand that out of common courtesy and common practice in this committee we let a response complete itself before asking another question. I ask you to help that process.
The Chair: Your point is well made and it repeats one I have tried to make several times already this afternoon. It is perhaps appropriate at this point to indicate that we are now six minutes from 5:30. If there are any amendments people want considered during the course of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, I am looking forward to those amendments being moved prior to 5:30 so that they can be considered. Otherwise we will deal with what we have at 5:30.
Mr Tilson: If that is the case, I will make the proposed amendments. It is unfortunate I cannot go through the series of questions I have. The committee is not allowing me the time to do that. But whatever the rules are, Mr Chair, I always abide by them.
The Chair: You have one up on me, Mr Tilson.
Mr Tilson: I will place the committee on notice of some amendments I would like to put forward. I will read them to get them on the record in advance of 5:30.
I move that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"1. In this act,
"`designated' means designated by statute;
"`file' means to file, to register, to submit, to deposit, to make an application or to otherwise make available."
The second amendment has to do with section 5.1.
I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"5.1 No database used for the storage of information in an electronic format shall be managed by any person or association other than the ministry."
I move that subsection 6(1) of the bill be struck out.
I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"6.1(1) No information stored on a database shall be released to the public unless the information has been verified in the manner prescribed by regulation.
"(2) The ministry shall establish an insurance fund to compensate losses resulting from the release of information that was not verified in the prescribed manner.
"(3) Compensation under subsection (2) shall be in the prescribed amount."
Mr Cordiano: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, was it agreed that we could have copies of the amendments?
The Chair: We are doing our best.
Mr Tilson: I am trying to beat the clock. I will be pleased to make them available.
I move that subsection 6(2) of the bill be amended by adding the following clauses:
"(g) prescribing the manner in which information stored on a database shall be verified for the purposes of subsection 6.1(1);
"(h) governing the payment of compensation for the purposes of section 6.1, including prescribing the amount of compensation for the purposes of subsection 6.1(3)."
I do have copies of the amendments.
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to any of the amendments in the time remaining?
1730
Mr Tilson: Yes. There is one more amendment.
I move that subsection 6(2) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:
"(f) governing the circumstances under which information stored on the database is released and prescribing the persons to whom it may be released."
Dealing first with the first amendment, the rationale, the current section 1 says:
"In this act, `file' means to file, to register, to submit, to deposit, to make an application or to otherwise make available."
I believe the later amendments I am proposing -- and this of course is proposed on the understanding that the subsequent amendment carries, and I know I have the undivided attention of the committee on this. Because what I would be proposing in the subsequent amendment is that we remove the ability of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations designating other acts in this bill, it is therefore necessary to provide a definition of "designated" which would appear throughout the act, because that would not be there if the subsequent amendment carries.
Under this amendment, "designated" now means the government would have to bring in new statutes to which the act would apply. This is tied in with the subsequent amendment. That is the intent of the amendment.
The Chair: Unfortunately, it is 5:31 and I have to now move to consideration of the amendments and the sections of the bill. Shall the amendment striking out section 1 of the bill -- ?
Mr Tilson: Hopefully, we will have a chance to debate this.
The Chair: No, the agreement was that at 5:30 pm we commence with consideration of clause-by-clause and amendments as made, which is why I wanted you to present your amendments without debate. That is what we are commencing to do now.
Mr Tilson: I did not make any such agreement.
The Chair: Your party did on your behalf. I appreciate the difficulty you find yourself in. I say that with sincerity, but the fact remains -- and this is one of the difficulties -- you were not here last time the committee met. Ms Cunningham was here and spoke on behalf of the caucus.
In view of what you have raised, Mr Waters, do you want to say something quickly, please?
Mr Waters: Yes, as quickly as possible. In view of these very late amendments, would it be agreeable to all parties if we took five minutes to read them over so we have these things straight in our minds?
The Chair: Is there consent in that regard? Agreed. Okay, five minutes.
The committee recessed at 1733.
1741
The Chair: We are now dealing with this bill clause by clause and amendment by amendment.
On section 1:
I will deal with Mr Tilson's amendment to section 1 striking out section 1 and substituting as was indicated. I take it from the committee that, subject to there being any comment made now, the committee is waiving the need to read each of these sections, the committee having before it Bill 126 as printed and the amendments as put on the record by Mr Tilson.
There being no dissent, the committee is unanimously waiving the reading of any of these amendments or subsections or clauses or any portions of the bill. Shall Mr Tilson's first amendment, dealing with section 1, carry?
Motion negatived.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 5:
The Chair: Shall section 5 of the bill carry?
Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I believe I put an amendment forward.
The Chair: No, you have created a new section, section 5.1, which would succeed all of section 5 in the event that your amendment were to carry.
Mr Tilson: Thank you.
Section 5 agreed to.
The Chair: We are dealing now with Mr Tilson's motion creating a new section, section 5.1. Shall section 5.1, being the motion by Mr Tilson amending the bill, carry?
Mr Tilson: Recorded vote, Mr Chair.
The committee divided on Mr Tilson's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 1
Tilson.
Nays -- 8
Cleary, Cordiano, Dadamo, Huget, Klopp, Murdock, S., Waters, Wood.
On section 6:
The Chair: Shall Mr Tilson's motion, in effect striking out subsection 6(1), carry?
Motion negatived.
The Chair: Shall Mr Tilson's motion which would amend subsection 6(2) of the bill by adding clause (f) carry?
Motion negatived.
The Chair: Mr Tilson further moves an amendment to subsection 6(2) of the bill by adding clauses (g) and (h). Shall that motion amending subsection 6(2) carry?
Mr Tilson: Recorded vote.
The committee divided on Mr Tilson's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 1
Tilson.
Nays -- 8
Cleary, Cordiano, Dadamo, Huget, Klopp, Murdock, Waters, Wood.
Section 6 agreed to.
The Chair: Mr Tilson moves an amendment to the bill by the creation of section 6.1. Shall Mr Tilson's motion providing for an amendment to the bill by the creation of 6.1 carry?
Mr Tilson: Recorded vote.
The committee divided on Mr Tilson's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 1
Tilson.
Nays -- 8
Cleary, Cordiano, Dadamo, Huget, Klopp, Murdock S., Waters, Wood.
Mr Tilson: The same old gang.
Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
The Chair: Shall the preamble immediately preceding section 1 of the bill carry?
Ms S. Murdock: The explanatory notes?
The Chair: No.
Ms S. Murdock: I do not see a preamble.
The Chair: "Her Majesty, by and with...."
Mr Tilson: Oh, "Her Majesty," of course.
Mr Cordiano: That is the preamble to every bill.
The Chair: Shall it carry?
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
The committee divided on whether the bill, as printed, should be reported to the House, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 8
Cleary, Cordiano, Dadamo, Huget, Klopp, Murdock S., Waters, Wood.
Nays -- 1
Tilson.
The Chair: I thank you very much. It has been a wonderful afternoon. I have enjoyed it and I have enjoyed the co-operation of committee members and appreciate the participation of staff and of the minister, Ms Churley.
Ms S. Murdock: Is the report that was on our desks when we came in today, the standing committee report under standing order 123 on service delivery, going to be reported to the House?
The Chair: It has been.
Ms S. Murdock: It was today? I did not hear this.
The Chair: Perhaps I should not have been so sotto voce when I did it.
Ms S. Murdock: I guess not. You usually are not. I am surprised.
The Chair: I will try to come out of my shell and do better next time. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1748.