Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

CONTENTS

Wednesday 20 August 1997

Ministry of Natural Resources

Hon Chris Hodgson, minister

Mr Ron Vrancart, deputy minister

Mr Larry Douglas, director, corporate affairs branch

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président

Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)

Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Rosemarie Singh

Staff / Personnel

Ms Alison Drummond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1550 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

The Vice-Chair (Mr Rick Bartolucci): I'd like to call the meeting to order and to welcome everyone to the standing committee on estimates.

Before we begin the study of the Ministry of Natural Resources and because we have several people in the audience -- and, Minister, you might want to know the Premier didn't even bring this many staff with him, so we congratulate you on bringing most of the MNR staff with you -- I'd like to introduce the people from the Legislative Assembly who do so much good work and never get recognized. The clerk is Rosemarie Singh, the research officer is Alison Drummond, and our person from Hansard today is Maureen Murphy.

We want to welcome you, Minister, to the estimates committee. The procedure is, for anyone who doesn't know, the minister has half an hour for an opening statement, the official opposition half an hour, the third party half an hour, and then right of reply to the government side. The government side can do it or the minister can do it. Knowing the rules of the game, we now turn it over to the minister. Welcome.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): Thank you very much. Mr Chairman and members of the standing committee, it is my pleasure to present the budget estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources for the fiscal year 1997-98. I'd just like to point out first that this isn't the whole staff of the MNR that has joined us, but I'm very appreciative of the senior staff who have chosen to be here today.

Today I will report on the MNR's recent accomplishments and tell you about our goals and priorities for the coming year. I will review the ministry's business plan and explain how we're implementing that plan to get the best results. I'm confident my presentation will confirm for the committee members that natural resource management in this province has been substantially improved under the present government. I'm proud of what we've achieved since taking office in June 1995, and I'm proud that the future of Ontario's natural resources, and of the communities that rely on those resources, looks decidedly better today than it did two years ago.

Last year in particular was one of much action and many accomplishments at MNR. Let me just list a few.

We streamlined ministry operations and implemented a new business plan.

We introduced a land use planning program called Lands for Life, which will provide much-needed changes to the way we designate uses of crown land.

We formally launched Ontario Parks, which will protect our world-renowned parks system while encouraging a more businesslike approach to park management. Ontario Parks' special purpose account ensures that every dollar raised in park revenues remains within the parks system.

We established a new business relationship with the forest industry in which industry, not the taxpayer, will pick up more of the costs of keeping our forests healthy, sustainable and productive.

We created a special purpose account to ensure that all fees, royalties and fines collected under the Game and Fish Act will be earmarked for MNR fish and wildlife management and conservation efforts. I would like the committee members to note that other governments promised to set up this account and then turned around and said it couldn't be done. We promised to do it, and we did it.

We established the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board to advise me on how to reinvest the money in the special purpose account.

We introduced the conservation land tax incentive program, a streamlined tax system that will encourage eligible landowners to maintain the natural resource values of their property.

We reintroduced the managed forest tax rebate program to help promote sound environmental practices in the management of private woodlots.

We maintained our position as a world leader in rabies control.

We took a government-wide leadership role in the management of land-related information, which will result in improvements in integration, accessibility and affordability of all land-related data. Land information describes important features such as property boundaries, natural resource information, geology and soils. This information is valuable both to the public and private sectors, and will enable significant business growth in the province of Ontario.

In keeping with the government's red tape initiative, we revamped or consolidated more than a dozen pieces of legislation and eliminated numerous unnecessary regulations.

As I said, these are just a few of our accomplishments. I'll have more to say about these and other achievements during my remarks today.

The ministry has also been able to make substantial contributions to the government's overall goals and priorities without compromising our commitment to the long-term health of our natural resources.

For example, during the 1996-97 fiscal year we helped to reduce the cost and size of government by reducing the ministry's operating budget by $89.8 million and reducing staff by 2,100 positions. We removed barriers to growth and job creation by undertaking a red tape review of all ministry regulatory mechanisms and by developing key partnerships. We got good value for money for taxpayers by establishing a fish and wildlife special purpose account, implementing the Ontario Parks business model, developing better accountability methods, consolidating our offices and streamlining the organization.

Before I go further, there are two items I'd like to bring to your attention.

First, you will notice from the material provided that the estimates are organized according to the ministry's four divisions. In addition, the estimate funding levels are also grouped according to our five core businesses, a departure from how previous MNR estimates have been presented. This departure reflects the importance we place on working according to core businesses. I will have more to say about that shortly.

Second, I think it's important to note that we developed and put in place a new business plan and subsequent reorganization at the same time that the ministry was experiencing major reductions in budget and staff. I'm happy to acknowledge that our success in meeting this challenge was due in large part to the professionalism of the people who work at the Ministry of Natural Resources and their commitment to managing Ontario's natural resources in the best possible way.

This year, 1997-98, is the second fiscal year in which MNR will operate according to a business plan. As you know, one of this government's first tasks after taking office was to have each ministry prepare a business plan. The introduction of annual business plans provides our shareholders, the taxpayers, for the first time with a chance to review the objectives of the government and see for themselves how well those objectives are being met.

The starting position for our plan was the ministry's established commitment to achieving sustainable development of Ontario's natural resources. The 1996-97 business plan reconfirmed that commitment and focused mainly on establishing five core businesses and reorganizing the ministry accordingly. Together, our core businesses reflect the diversity of the ministry's legislative mandate, programs and client base, as well as the important role the government plays in managing natural resources. Our core businesses are as follows.

Natural resource management: ensuring Ontario's forest, fish and wildlife resources are managed sustainably to provide for environmental, social and economic benefits.

Crown land management: ensuring the sustainable use of Ontario's crown lands, waters and non-renewable resources.

Public safety and enforcement: ensuring protection of life, property and natural resources from natural disasters such as forest fires, flood and erosion, and protecting Ontario's natural resources by ensuring compliance with the law.

Parks and protected areas: providing protection of provincially significant natural, cultural, and recreational areas in a system of provincial parks and protected areas.

Geographic information: providing for the creation of, maintenance and access to geographic information about provincial lands, waters, natural resources and infrastructure.

Within these five areas, we've concentrated ministry efforts on the following activities: establishing policy, setting clear standards, planning and allocating resources, managing operations, monitoring the health of our natural resources and conducting enforcement and audits.

1600

MNR was reorganized in 1996-97 to better focus on its core businesses. Structurally, the ministry has gone to three regions from four by dividing the old central region and creating an enlarged northeast region and new south-central region.

Our new organization still has four divisions, each led by an assistant deputy minister, but we refocused our activities within each. The new divisions are natural resource management, field services, science and information resources and corporate services. Within these divisions, at the branch level, we chose new names to make it easier for people to understand who does what as well as where to go to get a particular service. For example, we now have a forest management branch and a fish and wildlife branch.

Through restructuring, we've improved efficiency, streamlined operations and eliminated waste and duplication. We've made sure the MNR continues to be highly decentralized, with a strong emphasis on front-line delivery and service to the public. As well, we've been careful to retain a strong community presence, especially in rural and northern Ontario.

Let me describe some of the other features and principles of the new MNR. We're maintaining a strong emphasis on business planning in order to monitor costs, increase efficiency and focus financial and human resources on our priorities. We're ensuring effective service to the public and looking for ways to be even more responsive to customers' needs. We're operating in a more accountable manner to meet the requirements of our business plan, which emphasizes accountability and reporting. We're pursuing new ways of providing services through partnerships and innovative business relationships and by encouraging community involvement.

With the new ministry structure up and running, our year two business plan directs the ministry's efforts primarily to three priorities. They are fish and wildlife management, land use planning, and customer service. I would like to talk about each of these priorities in some detail, looking at what we've done and where we're going.

The fish and wildlife program, our first priority, provides for the conservation, protection, and rehabilitation of Ontario's fish and wildlife populations and their habitats.

With more than seven million people taking part in fish-and-wildlife-related activities in Ontario each year, we can all recognize how important good management of these resources is to the environmental, social and economic wellbeing of the province.

The figures speak for themselves. Recreational fishing and wildlife activities are the basis for approximately $4.4 billion in expenditures annually. As well, Ontario has one of the largest freshwater commercial fisheries in the world, with a landed value of fish caught of more than $40 million.

Wildlife hunting and viewing and recreational fishing provide the equivalent of about 103,000 full-time jobs annually in this province. An additional 20,000 people are employed directly or indirectly by Ontario's commercial fishing and trapping industries.

Earlier this summer, I had the pleasure of introducing the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act for first reading in the Legislature. The new act will replace the Game and Fish Act, which I am sure you will agree is unwieldy and seriously outdated. The new act fulfils the government's promise to better manage fish and wildlife resources and reinforces our commitment to conservation efforts both here at home and internationally. It includes measures to toughen fish and wildlife enforcement provisions, increase protection of a wider range of species and provide better client service.

I'm very pleased that the new act provides special protection for species such as the northern flying squirrel, the osprey and the giant swallowtail butterfly, as well as for some game species. For example, it will be illegal to intentionally interfere with black bear in dens or to damage dens, and black bear will be added to the list of those species which may not be hunted while the animal is swimming.

The new act also gives our conservation officers greater enforcement powers and better reflects the intrinsic value of fish and wildlife resources. The fine for commercial offences, for example, will increase to a maximum of $100,000 and/or imprisonment of up to two years. To help prevent Ontario from being used as a base for illegal trade activities, the act prohibits possession of wildlife, invertebrates or fish that were illegally taken in or from another jurisdiction.

We've also made sure the new act is easy to read, easy to use and easy to understand, attributes not normally associated with legislation or legislators, as anyone in the public will tell you. That's the case, and we want to change that.

In addition to the measures contained in the proposed Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, we've taken a number of other steps to make our fish and wildlife program stronger and more effective. For example, the proposed act contains the toughest enforcement regulations and penalties we've ever had in this province. But as some of you have been quick to point out, it's only as good as our ability to enforce it. That's why, before I presented the act for first reading, we made sure the ministry has that ability.

We've held the line on the number of conservation officers in Ontario, maintaining the number of badges at 281. In fact, the number of conservation officers is one of the few things in the ministry that has not changed.

We've increased our intelligence-gathering and investigative capacity and capability at all levels: district, region and province. We're putting more emphasis on highly effective specialized officers such as flying conservation officers.

We've restructured both geographically and functionally to better balance our field conservation officers among the districts and to focus more closely on major resource abusers. We've hired enforcement supervisors for each district to whom the conservation officers now report. We're moving ahead with high-technology communication packages in the CO vehicles and the provincial coordination centre, which provides direct support to officers in the field.

We've purchased 50 new, fully equipped trucks in the past year, bringing our fleet to 155. We've retrofitted 40 existing trucks and aim to replace 50 older trucks with new units over the next two years.

We've had great success with moose, deer, black bear and, more recently, wild turkey decoys in apprehending violators in areas where we know illegal hunting is taking place. I would like to note that local outdoor clubs are generously supporting this effort by purchasing and donating decoys for use by conservation officers.

I think it's clear that effective enforcement in all areas of MNR responsibility is one of our core businesses. It's also a priority that has my personal commitment and support.

Other actions we've taken to enhance our fish and wildlife program include establishing the special purpose account that I mentioned earlier and creating the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board, two accomplishments of which I'm particularly proud.

The revenues going into the special purpose account are expected to average about $43 million annually. Every penny of those revenues will go towards our goal of healthy and abundant fish and wildlife resources.

The Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board was set up in 1996 and is made up of 11 individuals who are clearly committed to the wise management of our resources. I've already received and acted on dozens of excellent recommendations from the board on how to reinvest the money collected in the special purpose account. Based on the success of the first year, I was glad to recently reappoint each of the board members for a second term. I look forward to continuing to benefit from their good advice.

Just a few of the recommendations we've acted on include providing greater funding to allow for the purchase of new CO vehicles and the retrofitting of older trucks; putting a stronger focus on marketing our fish and wildlife programs, with an emphasis on communications and customer service; establishing the Take a Kid Fishing Week to give our young people an awareness of both the fun of fishing and the importance of maintaining our fisheries resource; implementing compulsory pre-purchase of a deer licence to enter the antlerless deer draw; reviewing how to improve fisheries management in central Ontario; and restoring coho salmon stocking in Lake Ontario.

The board also recommended revitalizing the popular and long-standing community fisheries and wildlife involvement programs, known as CFIP and CWIP. We took their advice and made a commitment to increase the funding for these programs to a record $1 million this year. Once we made the decision to increase funding for CFIP and CWIP, it didn't take long to get things rolling. Already this year 488 projects have been allocated, for the full $1 million.

Groups receiving funding in 1997 include tourist outfitters, fish and game clubs, schools, first nations, service clubs, senior citizens' groups, lake groups, cottagers' associations and community organizations. Projects include creating spawning beds for fish, building nesting structures for birds and turning school yards into more natural environments. To give their efforts a further boost, I've set a ministry target to have at least five CFIP and CWIP projects in place in each MNR district by 1998.

I strongly support CFIP and CWIP because they are grass-roots initiatives. Participants in these programs are motivated by love of the outdoors and respect for the environment. They are also motivated by the same reasons we've made fish and wildlife management a priority for MNR: recognition of the benefits we all gain from good management of these resources.

1610

Our second priority for 1997-98, as outlined in the business plan, is land use planning. When we took office two years ago, it was clear that Ontario badly needed a comprehensive plan for managing crown land. There was increasing competition and conflict over the use of crown land and no strategy for resolving those conflicts. Battles over land use decisions were causing costly delays. The dispute resolution process was backlogged. Resource users were uncertain about the future. We've decided to do something about this situation without wasting any time. Our agenda was ambitious but we knew it was necessary and doable.

Today, we have a plan in Ontario for deciding how resources will be divided among users, a plan for deciding what areas need to be left alone and what areas are suitable for economic development, a plan to integrate protection with use. The plan is called Lands for Life, a ground-breaking initiative that will ensure Ontario's crown lands, waters and non-renewable resources will remain abundant, healthy and productive for our benefit and for the benefit of future generations.

Until Lands for Life, Ontario had a cumbersome and expensive process for resource-use decisions that only determined possibly acceptable uses. Now we have a process to determine the best use of our crown lands and waters. Through this process we will clearly identify the resource and the land base requirements for forestry, natural heritage, resource-based tourism, fish and wildlife and other activities.

Through Lands for Life, MNR will continue to protect important landscapes and wildlife habitat by establishing new parks and protected areas; identify opportunities for careful use of our natural resources; address current environmental concerns in a scientifically sound manner; provide greater certainty for resource users; and reduce costly conflict among user groups about activities on crown land.

Here's how it works. We've divided Ontario's crown land into three broad regions -- boreal east, boreal west and Great Lakes-St Lawrence. Each region is represented by a round table, which includes environmentalists, aboriginal peoples, tourism operators, recreational users and forest industry and mining interests. We will look to the round tables for recommendations on areas for protection, resource-user and recreation needs, basic conditions for compatible use, and targets and indicators to determine the long-term health of the resources. We've already begun this process. In June I announced the appointment of 40 representatives to the three round tables.

Between now and the end of the year, the round table members will study their respective regions, share information among themselves and with MNR staff, and invite the public, including people who live in southern Ontario, to provide information and comments on proposals for crown land protection and resource development. I'm expecting their final recommendations to be presented to me by mid-1998.

By setting up round tables, the people most affected will have a say in what can and cannot take place on crown land. By bringing all the players to the table, we will help settle conflicts quickly and fairly.

We designed Lands for Life to include three separate initiatives. They are the Nature's Best action plan, which will lead to the completion of our provincial parks and protected areas system; the resource-based tourism policy, which will allocate land and resources for tourism; and the sustainable forest management strategies, which will provide long-term certainty and encourage investment.

I am also committed to ensuring that fish and wildlife habitat and values are fully recognized in the Lands for Life process. Our aim is to improve opportunities for access to our fish and wildlife resources, while keeping those resources healthy and abundant.

Nature's Best is our plan to protect Ontario's wilderness values, landscapes and natural features for future generations. It is our commitment to complete a park system and protected areas that together will represent the full diversity of the province's natural features.

We're not starting from scratch. We're fortunate that the province has been setting aside lands and waters for protection for more than 100 years. Today, our system of 272 provincial parks and conservation reserves is a priceless public trust. To give you an idea of the magnitude of our parks system, we currently have 15 million acres of parkland in Ontario, compared to 9.5 million acres in agricultural use.

With Nature's Best, we will build on what we have by continuing to establish new parks and conservation reserves. We will seek out partners to work with us in protecting these areas. We will maintain the health of our ecosystems, provide protection for wildlife habitat and ensure that we can all continue to enjoy outdoor recreational activities.

The public will be involved in decisions about whether and how areas will be protected as part of the Lands for Life planning process. Identifying, protecting and managing parks and protected areas takes time and requires the consideration of many viewpoints. To achieve our protection goals, it's important for governments and agencies, conservation groups, industry, scientists, private landowners and individuals to work together.

We will encourage the establishment and management of protected areas on public and private lands through cooperation and partnerships with organizations such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada. Partnerships are essential in protecting sensitive lands in southern Ontario in particular, where almost all the land base is privately owned.

The Niagara Escarpment is a good example of where such cooperation is needed. Our government is committed to the continued protection of the unique features of the escarpment. For this reason, MNR, which already manages the province's largest system of parks and protected areas, now has responsibility for the Niagara Escarpment Commission. As part of the Lands for Life planning process, we are consulting with key client and stakeholder groups of the commission to build consensus for the protection and use of the escarpment.

The second component of Lands for Life is a resource-based tourism policy for northern Ontario. We know people come from all over the world to hunt, fish, camp, canoe, hike, snowmobile and view wildlife in Ontario. We understand the economic importance of tourism to the province, and we've worked with many industries and groups to develop this tourism policy. The policy recognizes the need for the resource-based tourism industry to have long-term certainty of access to crown lands. When tourist operators know what resources they will have access to over the long term, they will be better able to plan and invest in their businesses. The results will be stronger, economically diverse communities and more jobs.

The policy also takes into account the environmental value of our natural resources and requires that tourist operators take care of the land they use. The result will be a healthy land base and a more supportive climate for the tourism industry.

The third component of Lands for Life is sustainable forest management strategies. Lands for Life gives the forest industry more secure access to timber, allowing it to make additional long-term investments in forest renewal. The increased investment will also help the forest industry stay competitive in a global market and provide long-term jobs in local communities.

In return for more certain access to wood, industry will have to meet the tough standards to keep Ontario's forests healthy. Forest industries will be required to meet these standards through effective and diligent monitoring and audits. Our goal is to help strengthen forest industry competitiveness, while promoting better forest protection and management.

Together, the components of Lands for Life -- Nature's Best, resource-based tourism, sustainable forestry strategies, and fish and wildlife access -- give us the tools we need to balance long-term protection and careful use of our crown lands and waters.

Our third priority for 1997-98 is excellence in customer service. Good customer service is a fundamental commitment of the ministry to its clients and to the public. MNR has a tradition of quality customer service, and our staff continue to uphold a strong customer service ethic and workstyle, and we think we can make it better. A recent survey told us we have made some progress, that there is a high degree of customer satisfaction with our services, particularly regarding the willingness of MNR staff to meet customers' needs and their helpfulness in this regard.

We know we're doing a good job but, with all the changes that have taken place in the ministry, we also know it's time to reassess the way we deliver service. Our clients expect the best from us. Anglers and hunters expect a top-quality fish and wildlife program. Park visitors demand a quality experience. Our forestry, tourism and aggregates customers count on sound advice.

MNR is committed to strengthening its links to traditional clients as well as initiating new relationships. Our challenge is twofold: We must understand and meet our clients' needs and make sure the public knows and understands the business, services and products we provide.

We must also provide ministry staff and service agents with clear standards and expectations for services and service delivery. To achieve these goals, we will examine our capacity to provide service where it is most needed, and we will equip staff with the professional skills, scientific knowledge and technical abilities they need to serve the public in the best possible way.

A key first step in our efforts to improve customer service has been the MNR's red tape exercise. Nothing frustrates people more than unnecessary or cumbersome bureaucratic regulations and processes. Improving public services was one of the main goals of this initiative.

1620

The changes we've made to date and those we intend to make in our red tape bill will make a big difference. We're proposing to revamp 17 pieces of legislation. Several acts will be consolidated into simpler, more focused legislation. Unnecessary regulations have and will continue to be eliminated. Here are a few examples of what is in MNR's red tape bill:

We will streamline forestry legislation by reducing 11 acts to five.

We will clarify the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, guaranteeing the protection of more than $11 million annually for forest renewal.

We will make changes to the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, streamlining the approval process for building and repairing dams while also giving the ministry the power to issue a stop-work order to protect public health and safety.

We will revise the Conservation Authorities Act, getting the province out of the way of local decision-making while still ensuring the provincial interest in flood control is met.

Many of our red tape changes are administrative and will not alter our ability to manage our natural resources in an environmentally sound manner. They simply make government work better. Better government is what our business planning process is all about. We're implementing our business plan through two main strategies: expanding and strengthening partnerships and obtaining a fair return for providing services and access to public resources.

For many years, the ministry has moved towards a model of shared-resource stewardship in the belief that some functions traditionally carried out by MNR may be more effectively delivered by others. We're stepping up this process. One reason is that we have less money to spend as a ministry. We also believe it's important to get more people involved in resources. This will make for better resource management in this province.

We know that shared stewardship, in the form of partnerships or innovative business arrangements, will become increasingly important as more operational activities of the ministry are carried out by others. We already greatly benefit from highly successful partnerships with organizations such as Ducks Unlimited -- this is the first provincial government or government of any sort in North America to sign a perpetual agreement with Ducks Unlimited Canada -- Wildlife Habitat Canada, with which we recently signed a partnership, and the Nature Conservancy, which we signed a partnership with last year.

Some of the ways in which MNR is encouraging greater shared responsibility include:

Seeking out new or expanding existing partnerships with public agencies, volunteer organizations and interested individuals. I've already mentioned our plans to expand the CFIP and CWIP programs.

Establishing a broad range of business arrangements, joint ventures and service agreements with clients and resource industries.

Providing forums such as advisory boards, round tables, stewardship councils and technical committees at provincial, regional and local levels to ensure the highest level of public input goes into decision-making on resource issues.

Encouraging and promoting sustainable use of our resources on private land, while respecting private property rights. An example is the new conservation land tax incentive program.

Our second strategy involves getting a fair return to taxpayers for resources and services based on their fair and appropriate value. Ontario's natural resources provide a wide variety of benefits to individuals and communities. Increasingly, people are becoming aware of not only the direct economic benefits of natural resources, but also their indirect social and environmental benefits.

Placing a value on natural resources to ensure a fair return to taxpayers requires identifying all those benefits -- environmental, social and economic -- and determining their worth to society. This allows us to establish priorities and objectives for land and resource use and set prices for resource development. Placing an appropriate value on resources also encourages their efficient allocation and use, supports efforts to protect limited resources and promotes conservation.

While placing a value on our natural resources, we also need to look at all the social and environmental costs of development. Prices charged for resources should provide a fair return to the public and reflect the benefits received and the potential lost opportunity for alternative uses of the resource.

The Vice-Chair: Minister, I'm going to have to stop you there, because your half-hour --

Hon Mr Hodgson: I was just getting warmed up.

The Vice-Chair: You may have a chance to continue your reading exercise at the end, when you have the right of reply.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: We'll go to the official opposition.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr Chair, just to be helpful to the minister, I know this works in a rotation system. We would be pleased to allow the minister to finish his statement now, provided that time is taken from their next rotation. I think that would be suitable.

Interjection: How much time is it?

Mr Michael Brown: The next time you'll have half an hour.

The Vice-Chair: Agreed? Continue, Minister.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Setting the value of our resources is an ongoing and challenging task. Public involvement is necessary to determine the value that society wishes to place on our natural resources, who benefits from those resources, when the benefits occur, who should pay and what is a fair price. One of things we did to set the stage for ensuring that taxpayers get a fair deal in the management of natural resources was to pass the new Aggregate and Petroleum Resources Act. The aggregate, petroleum and brine industries now have increased responsibilities. They're expected to do more in exchange for access to our natural resources.

The new Aggregate Resources Trust will look after annual licence fees while also administering funds for the rehabilitation of abandoned pits and quarries. A similar Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Trust will help fund industry research and support academic institutions. Bill 52 established tough new standards for these industries while ensuring that our resources are managed for the long term and with less negative impact on the public.

So far today I've shown you how MNR has refocused and reorganized, resulting in a more efficient and effective organization. I've talked about the ministry's priorities for this fiscal year as well as our long-term goals. I've outlined our business plan and the strategies for implementing it and I've described many of our accomplishments.

Before I conclude, I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about two other ministry programs in which we've made significant advances over the past two years. One is our success in modernizing and improving the ministry's ability to fight forest fires and protect northern communities. In fact, far fewer hectares burned in 1997 than in previous years despite the high number of fires, showing that our focus on initial attack is working.

We've just gone through two of the worst fire seasons on record and our firefighters have done a tremendous job. To quote from a letter I received last month from a cottagers association near the fire known as Timmins 12: "Your staff's expertise and professionalism were very evident in the area of our personal safety and protecting our property. We are very fortunate to have such a fine group of men and women looking after us."

In the past two years, we've taken a number of steps to improve our firefighting capabilities. This includes acquiring new technology such as an advanced computer support system and an enhanced aircraft maintenance information system. We've also implemented a daily cost-tracking system and increased our ability to analyse required levels of protection. Improved technology has allowed us to move crews quickly to areas of extreme fire hazard and not to wait for the fire to come to them.

This season we're benefiting from some exciting new technology developed by the MNR. These talented and innovative engineers have designed water-bombing floats for the ministry's Twin Otter aircraft, permitting the planes to operate from either land or water. We plan to market this latest forest firefighting tool nationally and internationally. There are hundreds of Twin Otters around the world and many could be converted to waterbombers using our float system. We believe we'll be able to produce revenue for the province by selling this expertise. We're also looking into offering our own Twin Otter water-bombing services to other countries during the winter months and marketing our expertise that way.

We're also doing all we can to improve the safety and comfort of our crews on the fire line. This spring we awarded the Victorian Order of Nurses a contract to provide front-line health and medical services at large fire sites. As well, we awarded contracts to four private companies to provide support services for base camps for large fires. Awarding these contracts to the private sector means improved health care and base camp services and allows MNR forest firefighters to concentrate on fighting fires.

This season we have put in place an improved system for reporting forest fires. Every year, most reports of forest fires come from the general public. A new toll-free phone number is providing callers with direct access to the MNR's regional fire response centre.

I was also pleased this past spring to announce a more efficient and cost-effective approach to hiring extra forest firefighting crews. The ministry chose six companies to provide up to 120 five-person crews of trained forest firefighters. These crews can be brought in to fight fires on short notice to supplement our regular crews. The creation of this supplementary firefighting force will mean more flexibility for the ministry in fighting forest fires and will create additional employment opportunities in the province. In particular, we've been able to significantly increase the number of local people involved in forest firefighting.

Another success story I'd like to highlight is our new parks organization. Our provincial parks attract 8.5 million visitors a year to this province and contribute about $1 billion annually to the provincial tourist economy. The people of Ontario know they have one of the finest parks systems in the world. Ontario Parks aims to make it even better.

1630

In the year since we announced Ontario Parks, the organization has made significant progress. In the first season of operation as a new business model, no operating parks were closed and revenues were up 14%. By setting up a special purpose account, we've ensured that for the first time every dollar raised in park revenues remains within the parks system to be used for continuing improvements.

We've added seven new parks and expanded seven existing parks, giving us a total now of 272 provincial parks. We'll continue to add new parks as part of our Lands for Life commitment to complete the parks system.

Customer service improvements include increasing the number of serviced sites and additional new campgrounds and comfort stations in selected parks. We've improved the campsite reservation system, adding more telephone lines in some parks as well as more computers, and we've made the Parks Guide more informative and easier to use.

We're also offering and making sure that more people know about our parks. One of the goals is to bring more visitors to Ontario and to visit our parks from around the world. In the last year, we've launched a website on the Internet, increased our marketing efforts and created a new logo for Ontario Parks.

We're using radio and newspaper advertising campaigns and participating in events such as Canada Parks Day, to get the message out that our parks have something for everyone and make great family vacation destinations.

The website lets online visitors from around the world explore what our parks have to offer and learn more about Ontario's natural and cultural heritage. In its first year of operation, the website received more than 81,000 visits.

The new green-and-blue logo, which I unveiled last month, signals our renewed commitment to the long-term protection and management of our parks. The logo will be gradually introduced on merchandise, signs, staff uniforms, publications and vehicles.

The people of Ontario have a strong emotional attachment to their provincial parks. They associate parks with the rich natural diversity of the province and with the best of outdoor activities: canoeing, fishing, camping, hiking or just discovering Ontario's extraordinary scenery and wildlife.

Based on what we've achieved to date, I'm confident that Ontario Parks will keep our parks system among the best in the world, managed by an organization of committed people.

There are obviously many more ministry programs and achievements that I could bring to your attention, and if time permitted, I probably would. I'm happy to address these with the committee members in the time allotted during these estimates if they're brought up. I'm also joined today by my deputy, Ron Vrancart, and the assistant deputy ministers, who will be more than glad to answer any of your questions throughout these hearings.

At this time, Mr Chair, I'd like to turn the proceedings back to you.

The Vice-Chair: Thanks very much, Minister. We'll now move to the official opposition. You have half an hour to respond, Mr Brown.

Mr Michael Brown: I'd first like to thank the minister for coming and to indicate to the ministry staff the high esteem we hold for the people in the ministry who have done a great job for Ontario over the years, certainly not just the ones here in Toronto, but I know the ones in Sudbury, Espanola and Blind River in particular that I deal with on a regular basis are professionals who are very helpful to both me and my constituents.

I wonder, Mr Chair, though, if instead of making an opening statement I could just go directly to asking the ministry some questions. Is that appropriate? I guess it is.

The Vice-Chair: It's my understanding that you have the 30 minutes. You can ask the questions, but the minister is not obligated to answer the questions in the first 30 minutes. Maybe we'll ask the minister. Minister, will you be answering the questions he asks?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm interested in hearing Mike's 30-minute address on how resources have gotten better.

Mr Michael Brown: I can do that, if that's what you would prefer.

Hon Mr Hodgson: It doesn't matter, Mike. Have you got some questions?

Mr Michael Brown: I'd rather go to the questions. I think we'd get a lot farther that way.

The Vice-Chair: I think the minister has agreed that he would answer the questions, Mr Brown, so go ahead.

Mr Michael Brown: You talked in your statement about the priceless natural resource of our provincial parks, and that's where I'm going to start with my first question. I would like to ask the minister on what date Ipperwash Provincial Park reopened?

Hon Mr Hodgson: In the last fiscal year?

Mr Michael Brown: Yes.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I believe the park hasn't opened as yet.

Mr Michael Brown: So it is closed.

Hon Mr Hodgson: It's still occupied, I understand.

Mr Michael Brown: That would mean that this park has now been closed for two years?

Hon Mr Hodgson: It hasn't run for two years, since September 1995.

Mr Michael Brown: Could I speak with the minister then about the events that would be involved in the closure of that provincial park? I was wondering if you could indicate to us what role the ministry personnel had at the park. I understand it was closed at the time the occupation took place, but when they became aware that there were first nations people in the park.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I would have to defer that to one of the parks staff precisely. Les Kobayashi was the manager there and from our office's point of view when we were made aware of it, our first concern was the safety of the parks staff. I don't know, Ron, if you want to answer this.

Mr Ron Vrancart: I think I might be able to be of some assistance. In the summer of 1995 a group known as the Stony Pointers took occupation of Camp Ipperwash, which is the Department of National Defence's property right next door to the provincial park, and they have continued to occupy that site until this very day. My recollection of the events is that the natives moved from Camp Ipperwash into Ipperwash Provincial Park next door on the Monday evening of Labour Day in 1995, which I believe was September 4.

Mr Michael Brown: From the ministry's point of view, was it totally unanticipated that this occurrence might happen, notwithstanding that everyone was aware there were first nations people on the adjoining military base?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I believe there's going to be a court case on this or the matter is before the court and I'm sure, Mike, that information can be gotten precisely.

It was well known to us that there was a breakaway group from the event, Chief Tom Bessette, the recognized chief of the first nations community down there. There was a dissident group that had some problems with the federal government that I believe the federal Liberals were trying to deal with around the military base, and there was something about an environmental cleanup of the site that was being negotiated, which consultant would go in. They were negotiating or having some problems with this dissident breakaway group, and details around the Ipperwash park I believe were documented in the courts.

Mr Michael Brown: I guess the federal government has its responsibilities. My question, though, relates to, given the fact that there was a group of first nations people occupying the military base, obviously the ministry should -- well, maybe not obviously. If the ministry had some thoughts that perhaps the occupation could have been broadened, there must have been some -- I guess what I'm asking is, did MNR have a communication with the federal government or with the Stony Pointers on an ongoing basis or at some kind of level before the occupation actually took place?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I don't know the details on that, Mike. That was a couple of years ago. But we can stand that question down and get back to you on it. I don't want to say something and find out there was a reference between parks staff. A lot of the staff at that park are members of the first nations community. We can check it out for you. I'll just defer the question.

Mr Michael Brown: That's fair enough. The question then would arise, when did the MNR -- you can defer all of these, but I would appreciate some kind of an answer. I don't think it's just a matter of --

Hon Mr Hodgson: It was a couple of years ago.

Mr Michael Brown: This is the first time we've had estimates, to be fair.

The Vice-Chair: Just one second. Is it a vote?

Mr Michael Brown: We must go to a vote, Mr Chair.

The Vice-Chair: We'll recess until the vote is over. I think it's a five-minute bell. Am I correct in that?

Mr Michael Brown: Yes.

The Vice-Chair: Let's defer and we'll come back after the vote.

The committee recessed from 1638 to 1704.

The Acting Chair (Mr John C. Cleary): I guess we're all set to start again. There are members from all caucuses here and the official opposition has 25 minutes left.

Mr Michael Brown: I believe we were talking about the closed provincial park at Ipperwash. Perhaps the ministry could indicate how much in lost revenue that might cost the parks system per year?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Based on 1996, approximately $208,000 in potential revenue or permanent sales were lost to the crown because of the park's closure and a projected $238,000 will be lost in the current 1997 operating season. Those are estimates on what the revenue side would be.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm just trying to think about where exactly I was in my questioning when we went upstairs for the vote, but I think I was wondering when we broke if the ministry had any indication that this occupation might happen or it was conceivable that this may happen, given that the Stony Pointers were occupying the adjacent federal facility.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think as you're probably aware, and as I alluded to before but we've checked since we had the break, the matter is still before the courts and I'm not, as you can understand, at liberty to comment when there are still outstanding matters before the court. That is what I've been advised by our legal counsel.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm wondering how any of the information that I'm asking for is sensitive at all to the court decision. I would not expect you to answer something that might jeopardize any kind of court, but I fail to understand how any of what I'm asking has any relevance to that in particular.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Just to be safe, you might want to read into the record for the next 25 minutes all the questions you have and then we can get back to you with people who are qualified in the law to see if that would have an impact or not.

Mr Michael Brown: All right. Let me just ask you, the ministry obviously has a policy on incidents that might involve either crown land or provincial parks that you were entrusted as a ministry in right of the people of Ontario to supervise and to work. We're all aware that similar incidents have occurred on crown lands in Ontario before. I just wonder if someone in the ministry could indicate to me what the standard operating policy would be in a general sense when this type of occurrence, an occupation or a blockade by first nations people or anyone else for that matter, might occur.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll note that, Mike, and at the end of all your questions I'll try and get back to you on it. If you want to ask all your questions around that, then we can mark them down. You've got half an hour, then we've got seven and a half hours total. I believe there's about five hours of question and answer, so this is your first half-hour. If you want to just read all the questions, then I can get back to you again.

1710

Mr Michael Brown: As you might appreciate, this line of questioning sometimes flows from the answers one might get. You sometimes pursue an area that is of absolutely no value to the public or anyone else because you don't know what the answer might be, but if that's what you want to do, we'll do it that way.

We would like to know when exactly the employees of the park became aware that there was an occupation of a closed park; if any initial dialogue occurred with the people who were occupying the park; whether in that dialogue it was indicated to them that there was a conceivable burial ground on the site and -- this is what makes it difficult because we don't even know if the dialogue took place -- after that dialogue, who they notified in the ministry -- I assume they would notify a superior of some shape or description; when it was brought to the deputy minister's attention and when it was brought to the minister's attention; what the resulting actions of the minister and the deputy minister were at that point. I understand there is a protocol at that level that kicks in. Perhaps you could describe that and your ministry's involvement in it. I think your ministry, as you would agree, has the primary responsibility for the land, and that's what this is about. Also within your ministry, and I didn't notice it being spoken of at all in your statement, is a unit that does negotiate with first nations people. I would like you to describe what involvement they would have had. You also have a number of highly experienced people in the ministry who are good negotiators, often very good at opening dialogues with first nations people.

I guess that's where we'll start. It's very difficult for me, when I don't get any answers, to be able to pursue that but if the minister would undertake at the next meeting of the committee to bring the responses back, there may be other questions -- I'm sure there will be other questions that will flow from that so that we might understand what steps were involved.

I think there are a number of concerns here. This is a public policy management failure of huge proportion, never been seen in the province before, and it's on your watch. What has transpired here is the death of a first nations person, the first time ever, I believe, but at least in the last 100 years in Ontario. We have an OPP officer who has been convicted of a crime at this point. We have a park that is closed. There's no indication from your ministry that there are any negotiations going on at this point to try to reopen that park. If so, we would like to know about those negotiations. Probably it is the most significant event that has happened since your government assumed the responsibilities it presently has, so these are very serious questions.

I'll leave it at that. I have a number of other things to talk about and we'll come back to doing that if you can give me some commitment that you will at our meeting -- I believe it would be next Tuesday -- to respond in a manner that is useful. Do I have that commitment?

Hon Mr Hodgson: We'll take it under advisement, Mike, and see what we can answer on Tuesday.

Mr Michael Brown: Okay. From this I will go back and I would be somewhat interested in this particularly well done statement by the ministry. I really have to applaud the spin doctors for their absolute magical use of jargon and words to talk about a ministry that has 2,100 fewer employees today -- about half the budget -- and that many people, at least in my part of the world, would say, has abdicated responsibility after responsibility in the care of Ontario's natural resources.

We first would like to talk about the trust fund that has been set up for fish and wildlife. I believe, if I can find the right page here in the estimates, there is a graph or a table of that. You raise approximately $43 million -- I'm looking for the page here, schedule 9. Is the correct figure that you're estimating that there will be $37 million accruing to that fund this year? And the total amount spent on fish and wildlife, I believe, Minister, far exceeds that number. Am I correct?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes, you're correct on that, Mike.

Mr Michael Brown: It's in the neighbourhood, looking back -- if somebody could help me with this -- I believe it's about $53 million. Anyway, it far exceeds it and it is about the level that has been spent in this province for quite a number of years. It's pretty much a flat line so I guess I should congratulate you for at least protecting the fish and wildlife budget where it is.

My concern, and it has been expressed to me by a number of people, is that the trust account which receives the licence fees and royalties etc does vary in the amount of money it takes in. In certain years, about every three years, there's an abnormal surge of funds into that because of the way the system works. Am I correct in that? You can expect the year the outdoors card renewals come up that there will be substantially more money flow to the fund in that given year? Is that a correct assumption?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes, I would think that's correct, Mike, because most people renew on a three-year basis, so you've got a large amount of money but there are carryover provisions and interest on that account inside the trust accounts.

Mr Michael Brown: Right. What I'm concerned with then is in the year where we get this reasonably large increase in the amount of money that comes to the trust account, will that be offset by the $16 million or $17 million that is provided for by the province in that year? I'm talking about the difference between what is provided for in licence fees etc and the total amount that is spent on fish and wildlife. I'm asking you whether that remains constant. Will you reduce the difference in the year the licence fees provide you with far more revenue?

Hon Mr Hodgson: No, we won't. We're trying to grow this program of fish and wildlife. It's a priority for the ministry. This is one of the improvements that people are generally very, very pleased about because it gives some certainty. They know where their dollars are going. I remember when they brought in the conservation fishing licence fee, that was back in the 1980s, I believe, under the provincial Liberal Party, and they told people who hunt and fish: "Don't worry. This money is going to all be used in a special purpose account that you'll be able to track and see that it's spent on fish and wildlife purposes." That didn't happen, and under the NDP it was stated that it was impossible to happen.

What we've done is set up a trust account. All that money goes into this special purpose account. There's some money that was there before, and I want to thank you for the compliment of maintaining that budget even though the province is $100 billion in debt and we had to find some fiscal savings. We kept that money, and there will always be a portion that is spent by the Ontario taxpayers on fish and wildlife in natural resources.

1720

Mr Michael Brown: What I'm asking is, is that going to be a constant amount?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes, that's our intention, to keep that as a constant amount, to grow through participation in other measures -- the trust fund -- and enhance the fish and wildlife program. I found that people generally want to see more stocking and more rehabilitation, more fishing and hunting opportunities. To do that, they say: "We're not opposed to paying for our licence fee. We use the resource, we enjoy it, and we want to see it there for the next generation." They're willing to pay, as long as they know the money's being used that way. To go along with that, we've set up an advisory board, and their advice, along with the dollars, will be tabled in the Legislature for public accountability.

Mr Michael Brown: You are aware, of course -- you made some other snide remarks about a Liberal government -- that there was a committee that oversaw the account which just got severed and that spending on fish and wildlife was at least as much as it is today.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes.

Mr Michael Brown: That committee was disbanded. You would have some difficulty convincing any accountant that there is any more money being spent today than there was in those years.

I'm having a little difficulty. You're telling me that the bump in the licence fees will stay in the trust account, to be averaged over the next two years, I take it.

Hon Mr Hodgson: That's right, and we get interest on that account as well. This year I think we're at the lower end, at about $37 million; we average about $43 million, we project. So treasury -- we've worked out an agreement and we're setting up this trust account. In years to come, when you get that bump, the money stays there and you get the interest on it.

Mr Michael Brown: In the trust account?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes. It encourages our managers to have a longer-range outlook on planning. It's not reinforcing the attitude that you spend it or lose it. I know you'd agree, Mike -- I've sat on committee with you and I've heard you speak before -- that we need good resource management planning, not just the typical, "Wait until February and spend your budget, otherwise you won't get it next year at estimates." This is a special purpose account and it carries over from year to year. It should encourage excellence.

Mr Michael Brown: My point, though, is that the special purpose account is still about 70% of what you spend on this particular category.

Hon Mr Hodgson: And you're worried that the government will withdraw the other funding as the revenue increases on the licence fees.

Mr Michael Brown: That's right.

Hon Mr Hodgson: That's not our intent. In the estimates, we want to hold the line on what comes on top of the licence fees and then grow the program.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm sure the people of Ontario will be happy with that answer. I am.

Hon Mr Hodgson: They are.

Mr Michael Brown: Could you tell me how the money is invested?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I can let Ron do that. Do you know how the money's invested, who looks after it? It's the Ministry of Finance that invests the money.

Mr Michael Brown: The Ministry of Finance does that, but separately from their other -- could you tell me what kind of return they might get on their investment?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I can find that out for you, Mike.

Mr Michael Brown: Okay.

Shifting gears a little, I'm concerned also that you don't say a heck of a lot about the forest industry in this particular statement. You make a few statements. The costs to forest producers in the province of Ontario have increased dramatically. I've heard numbers, that the expense they pay either through stumpage or other fees is at least a 300% increase. Yet when I look at the chart on page 68 I see that the revenues are relatively flat for non-taxation revenue.

How could it be that you project in 1997-98 something less than $250 million in royalties when there has been such a substantial increase in the payments for stumpage and crown area fees and others that the industry pays? How is it that that's not reflected in the revenues? A substantial amount of that money goes to the forest renewal trust. Is that the answer about why it doesn't appear in the general revenue, non-taxation revenue part of this chart?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I can get you a precise answer, but first, as a general observation, some of the comments you might be picking up are that we are asking the forest industry to do more of the actual work of making sure the forest is there in the future. They make a profit on it. A lot of the costs they're talking about are silviculture costs that they're going to have to pick up that the ministry used to do.

Mr Michael Brown: But that comes back out of the trust.

Hon Mr Hodgson: But what you're talking about on the royalties on page 68 is an estimate based on the market prices for the products.

Mr Michael Brown: But I fail to understand how in 1988-89, they would be just something less than, I suspect, $200 million, yet with huge increases in stumpage and huge increases in other non-taxation costs to these companies and individuals -- so the trust funds are not included here?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I can have Larry Douglas come up and explain to you in detail, Mike, if you'd like.

Mr Michael Brown: That might be helpful.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Larry, would you like to come up and explain the trust funds in chart 68?

Mr Larry Douglas: The information that's shown on page 69 is moneys that go to consolidated revenue. They are not moneys that go to the trust funds. I think the simple answer to your question is that for 1997-98, the prices for pulp and paper newsprint are lower. Yes, the base rate went up, but it's more than cancelled out by the reduction in residual value because of the market going down for those two commodities.

Mr Michael Brown: The trusts would have kicked in in 1995-96. Is that the year that we would expect to start to see trust money accrue to the trusts?

Mr Douglas: Yes.

Mr Michael Brown: Approximately how much money would accrue to the trusts in each of these years? I know it comes in and goes out.

Mr Douglas: The money that goes to the trust funds is quite constant. For forest renewal, there's a peg rate for the various kinds of species. It was originally $6 a cubic metre per conifer. That was a provincial average that's been corrected this year to vary a little from management unit to management unit because it costs more in some than in others, but it's basically the same.

There are also moneys that go to the forestry futures trust fund. That has been increased somewhat this year. There was a schedule to increase it over time. Originally, there was $11 million. I believe it's been increased. At this point I can't tell you exactly what the number is, but we can get it for you.

Mr Michael Brown: What I'm interested in is, from industry's point of view, how much are they paying for now? I find this chart a little bit not helpful, in that before, up to about 1995, a lot of this money was expended by the Ministry of Natural Resources itself in silviculture and forest management activities, by the ministry itself. Now that's not being spent by the ministry itself. It's now just kind of gravy for earning.

I think it would be more helpful to understand -- these charts would look quite different, because the ministry's budget has lost about this amount of money since 1995. I may not be making myself very clear here. There's a substantial change to the way the system works in total, because the forest companies pay into the trust funds and then draw it back out of the trust funds to do silviculture. That didn't exist before. The ministry did much of that work out of their general budget before; not all, but most of it. Now we're in a situation where the amount paid to government is just revenue. It's plain, ordinary revenue going to consolidated revenue, where before it was actually spent on the forest. Would that be fair to say?

1730

Mr Douglas: It wasn't dedicated before.

Mr Michael Brown: I know it wasn't dedicated, but there was at one time a rough relationship between the amount the ministry took in and expended in terms of the forest. It was rough but it was about right.

Well, I'm happy. I understand. I have another question about that, though, in terms of royalties --

The Acting Chair: Excuse me, but your time is up. Before the gentleman leaves I would like you to state your name and your title for Hansard.

Mr Douglas: I'm Larry Douglas, director of corporate affairs.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. Now it's the New Democratic Party's turn.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Thank you to the minister, the deputy, the ADMs and other staff who are here and all of those in the background who are not here but had to take the time to put together both the estimates and the notes the minister referred to. I understand the amount of work that goes into preparation for estimates, and I appreciate the time that was taken to make both the book and the notes available to us and to be here today to answer questions.

Like my colleague from the Liberal Party, I'm going to make only a very short statement with respect to the comments made by the minister, and then I want to ask questions.

Clearly the cuts this ministry has sustained are very significant and, I would argue, very severe. In terms of staff alone, my understanding is that this ministry has taken the biggest hit in the number of staff that have been lost in relationship to any other ministry. I find that very difficult to accept, given the very important role that MNR staff have to play in terms of protecting our natural resources.

Contrary to your statement in the package you provided today, Minister, I firmly believe that the cuts both in terms of staff -- 2,100 to date -- and in terms of the budget cut of $89 million for 1996-97 alone, in fact do compromise the ability of the ministry to protect our natural resources, be they fish, wildlife, aggregate or forestry. I also believe that kind of cut in staff significantly compromises the ability of the staff to deliver quality customer services to people across this province.

I need only look at some of the things that have been happening or will happen to support that. You've got a court challenge the ministry is involved in right now, brought by a number of environmental groups, concerning whether the ministry has the capacity to meet the terms and conditions of the class timber EA. We await now a decision of the court, because that court case has been heard but there has been no ruling yet, as I understand.

You have the incident today, which I raised and which I will get back to, with respect to federal fisheries and your decision not to enforce that. I firmly believe that a part of the reason behind that is because you don't have the staff available to enforce it.

I am very concerned that although you have put forward a Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act which you hope will protect our resources, the fact again will be that you do not have enough staff on the ground to ensure that's going to happen.

My colleague Bud Wildman, when he joins us next week, will talk to you about his concerns, for example, about the ministry's most recent decision to contract out dealing with nuisance bears. Again, I think that has everything to do with the fact that you don't have enough staff on the ground.

The other point I want to raise is that you said on page 4 that you've been careful to retain a strong community presence, especially in rural and northern Ontario. I have to take exception to that comment. I go back even a year ago to the staff layoffs that took place mid-May 1996 and remind you of the significant hit that communities in northern Ontario took with respect to the reduction in MNR staff in those communities, especially with respect to the number of staff who were laid off in relation to the population in those communities: Atikokan, six staff out of a population of 3,800; Blind River, 15 staff out of a population of 3,900; Chapleau, seven, population 2,900; Cochrane, 22 out of a population of 4,000; Dryden, six out of a population of a little over 6,000; Espanola, 18 out of a population of 5,300; Fort Frances, five out of a population of 8,600; Geraldton, 10 out of a population of 2,400; Hearst, eight out of a population of 5,900; Kapuskasing, 11 out of a population of 10,000; Kenora, 27 out of a population of 9,500; Kirkland Lake, 15 out of a population of 10,000.

The list goes on and on. My recollection of our numbers on this is that between 45% to 55% of the staff who were lost was lost out of northern Ontario, despite the fact that we have a little less than 10% of the population. In those communities, where government jobs, particularly MNR jobs, were terribly important, you, by your cuts, have really devastated any number of those communities, not only in terms of the ability of the staff to protect resources in those areas but in terms of the economic viability of those communities. I take exception to the comment that you have continued a strong community presence in rural and northern Ontario because I just do not believe it to be the case.

I want to turn to two MNR issues that I had the pleasure of dealing with today. The first revolves around the issue I raised with you in question period. I come back to this issue because I was not satisfied with the answer you provided; second, I am not convinced that you understand clearly the serious ramifications or consequences of the decision you've made.

Briefly, as I stated in the House, you have a colleague that your own staff has charged with two violations under the federal Fisheries Act. On August 12 that was reported in the paper. Two days later, your deputy, under your instruction, sent a memo out to all ministry staff and said the following: "MNR will no longer provide fish habitat mitigation advice on behalf of DFO" -- that's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. "MNR will not review or provide site-specific advice on the fish habitat impacts of projects involving work in and around the water beyond the requirements of applicable legislation. MNR will also withdraw enforcement support for the fish habitat sections of the federal Fisheries Act."

As I understand it, this was posted on the environmental registry on Monday. There is 30-day notice period in which there won't be a change to how you operate, but after that I assume your instruction to staff not to enforce this will go into effect.

I have a couple of questions. Can you provide me with information with respect to what kinds of negotiations were going on with the federal government to try and establish a formal process before this action was taken? I'd like to know the number of meetings and I'd like to know who was involved and how recent they were to your decision to take this action. Can you respond or can the deputy respond?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Sure. I can help you out there, Shelley. Ten years ago, Ontario went into an informal interim agreement. We've been doing the federal government's job, basically. It's under their jurisdiction, under their act. Unlike the provincial Game and Fish Act, there's no requirement in the Fisheries Act for officers to enforce all of the Fisheries Act all of the time.

It's a question of fairness. This has been brought up and discussed at the Ministry of Natural Resources conference the last number of years. Eight months ago, last fall out at Canmore, the provincial ministers and the federal minister discussed this, and we said either the federal government can do it all or -- their throne speech had indicated they were interested in working out new, permanent arrangements to devolve it to the provinces. We said we would have six months to get a final agreement.

Our staff tried to work with the federal government. They, for a variety of reasons, wouldn't discuss it with us. It's well past the six-month deadline. We wrote letters to the federal minister at the time outlining our concern that the deadline was approaching. Two months after the deadline we felt it was necessary to say: "It is the federal government's jurisdiction. If they don't want to make an agreement with us, a permanent agreement, it's time to let them look after it."

1740

Our conservation officers, whom you mentioned today in the House, will still be out in the field. If there are relevant charges to be laid under our Game and Fish Act, they will do so. We're still trying to work this out with the federal government. We're hoping they'll sit down and discuss it. We'll probably inform them of any major violations we see but we won't do anything on it. They can do it, because it's their jurisdiction.

They've worked out agreements with other provinces. We don't understand why they don't want to work out an agreement with Ontario. Maybe you have some insight on why the federal government doesn't want to deal with Ontario, but we fail to understand their reasoning for it. We can only conclude that they want to have total control over their piece of legislation in all aspects, including enforcement.

Ms Martel: I'd be the last one to presume to know what the federal government is thinking about. I can tell you, though, that in the five years we were there, when this informal agreement was in place, we never took the step of determining that we would not have our conservation officers enforce the federal Fisheries Act. Clearly, there will be a significant impact on fish habitat if there is no one out there protecting fish habitat.

My concern is the signal you send to people by having this memo go out to staff and having it made public that it's a free-for-all now for anyone who wants to do anything. The memo clearly says that MNR will also withdraw enforcement support for the fish habitat sections of federal fisheries.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The federal government can enforce their own act. They do it in other provinces. There are some provinces where they pay the province to enforce it. But as to Ontario, for some reason, they've said, "We don't want to work out an agreement with you on that."

Ms Martel: They don't have the staff in place to enforce it. MNR staff --

Hon Mr Hodgson: They do in other provinces.

Ms Martel: Right now, as we stand, with 30 days left before your folks decide not to enforce this any more, the federal government does not have any staff on the ground anywhere in this province to enforce it. In the last eight to 10 years that I'm aware of, we have done that.

I'm not opposed to trying to have some kind of negotiation around cost-sharing. What I am opposed to is the actions you will take which in my view will have a consequence of having a free-for-all out there for anyone who wants to do anything, with no regard for fish habitat. Surely you must be concerned about this. The federal government, despite what you say, is not in the position to hire staff and have them on the ground enforcing this 30 days from now.

Hon Mr Hodgson: We're hoping they'll work out a permanent agreement with us around this issue. It has been eight months. I think we've been more than patient. They seem to have priorities in other provinces, and we understand that, but we think that Ontario contributes a majority of the money. We have a number of issues, right from the sea lamprey program -- certainly around that funding, that's a federal agreement that really affects Ontario waters.

We think there's an obligation which we can work with the federal government around, but if they won't return phone calls or sit down with us over eight months, we think there's a problem. Clearly they want to just control it themselves. That's fine. We're not trying to do a power grab here. If they want to completely have jurisdiction and enforcement over it, that's fine. But our first choice, what we've tried for eight months, is to bring the federal government to the table and get a permanent agreement.

Ms Martel: I'd like a copy --

Hon Mr Hodgson: It went on for five years. You mentioned that you're aware of the problem.

Ms Martel: No, no. I said over the five years, we never made a decision that we would not protect fish habitat. That's the difference. We as a government made a decision that despite whatever was happening around negotiations or lack thereof with the federal government, we were not going to take the step of putting Ontario's natural resources and fish habitat at risk. It seems to me that's the decision you're clearly making.

Hon Mr Hodgson: We live in a country that has different levels of government. If it's clearly their responsibility and their authority to do it, there's a duplication there that is unnecessary. It's their responsibility. We care about Ontario's natural resources. In fact, we've done a lot of things to improve it, and we've got community groups involved. The federal government says it's concerned about habitat. It's their legislation. Surely they can either hire people, as you say they need to, or they can pick up the phone and say, "Let's work together to figure out how we can sort this out."

Ms Martel: I don't view this is a constitutional issue, try as you might to spin it that way. I think what you're doing is putting the fish resources at risk, and I'm terribly worried about that. I would like to receive from the deputy a listing of, over the eight months the minister refers to, the contacts that were made by the provincial MNR to the federal government with respect to trying to get this sorted out.

The second issue I want to raise -- I have a concern about what will happen 30 days from now. Perhaps you can answer what's going to happen 30 days from now if the federal government refuses to sit down at the table, what you intend to do then.

Second, I'm really concerned about the position you are putting your own conservation staff in. It's my understanding that your conservation staff, who would be designated by the federal government as fishery officers, have an obligation to uphold the law, much like a police officer would. My view would be that your telling them not to enforce the law puts them in an untenable position.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I can get legal counsel; otherwise, it would just be my word against yours. But clearly that's been explained to the association of conservation officers. They're well aware of what the legal obligations are. Ron, would you like to explain to Shelley the way the act reads? We'll find out if we can get a legal opinion for you.

Mr Vrancart: Fundamentally, the difference here is that our conservation officers have a legal obligation to enforce all of the provisions of the province's Game and Fish Act. However, they do not have a similar legal obligation to enforce all the provisions of the federal Fisheries Act. They clearly have to enforce the Ontario fishing regulations which are passed under the federal Fisheries Act; those regulations mainly deal with seasons, catch and possession limits.

Ms Martel: The order in council that I have here -- granted, it's dated some time ago, but it's not clear to me that this hasn't changed. It says: "On the recommendation of the Ministry of Fisheries and Environment, pursuant to subsection 5(4) of the Fisheries Act...is pleased hereby to designate conservation officers appointed pursuant to subsection 7(1) of the Game and Fish Act of Ontario as fishery officers under the Fisheries Act while serving in the department of natural resources in the province of Ontario," and that, second, after those people are designated, they are under some obligation to enforce the provisions of the federal act.

Mr Vrancart: I'm going to have to take a look at that order in council and look at those specific sections which aren't immediately familiar to me.

Ms Martel: The other reference I would use, and perhaps you can have your legal staff check this, has reference to the Criminal Code. Under the reference to the Criminal Code, it has "peace officer," which includes, subsection (e), "a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that act, and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act."

As a peace officer, they obviously have the ability to arrest, to do a search, to seize etc, and they have some specific obligations around that.

I continue to feel, obviously, that they do have some very specific obligations. My concern is that the position you put them in by releasing a memo, which your deputy released on your behalf, to tell them, "Thirty days from now, cease and desist from undertaking your obligation," puts them into a serious legal position as well. I assume they have some liabilities that they assume personally if they don't enforce the law.

Mr Vrancart: I can assure you that we checked with our legal department before sending out that memo to staff, and the legal advice we have is that they are not legally obliged to enforce those provisions of the federal Fisheries Act.

Ms Martel: Can I get a copy of the legal interpretation? I'm assuming that would include which portions of the federal Fisheries Act they are not obliged to monitor and enforce.

1750

Mr Vrancart: I'm not sure we have something in writing, but we will have something in writing for you.

Ms Martel: I'd appreciate knowing specifically which provisions they are not obligated to undertake now, and also a list of the various attempts made by Ontario's ministry to work with the federal government over the last six months: the requests for meetings, who they were with, and the number of unreturned phone calls that the minister talked about.

Minister, I think we need to go back to this question one more time: Thirty days from now if the federal government says to you, "We don't feel like negotiating," and your staff do not enforce this, what will you do to deal with protection of fish habitat?

Hon Mr Hodgson: It's my belief that the federal government shares our concern and commitment to protecting fish habitat and that within the next 30 days we'll reach an amicable agreement that's to the benefit of the natural resources of Ontario. They have 101 members, Shelley, and I think they care about Ontario. It's just that it hasn't been a priority. I'm sure in the next 30 days it will be.

Mr Michael Brown: How much money do you want?

Hon Mr Hodgson: We think what's fair and what has happened in other provinces. We just want to be treated fairly.

Mr Michael Brown: How much money do you want?

The Acting Chair: Ms Martel is doing the questioning at the moment.

Ms Martel: I'd be curious about what kind of position you've put on the table.

Hon Mr Hodgson: They're together again, dictating the questions.

Mr Michael Brown: I used to help you out.

Ms Martel: Minister, I'd be curious to know what your position is with respect to the cost-sharing. Do you have a figure you've asked the feds for that they've refused to provide? What would that be in relation to the other provinces where there has been some agreement, as you've suggested?

Hon Mr Hodgson: We think if we can sit down and discuss it, we can reach a fair and equitable agreement or an arrangement that will benefit the natural resource management in Ontario.

Ms Martel: Can you or the deputy give us some indication of what that cost might be in other provinces and what the arrangement is?

Hon Mr Hodgson: We can get that for you.

Ms Martel: I would appreciate that.

Hon Mr Hodgson: In some provinces the federal government does it 100% on their own, in other provinces it's slightly different, and in some provinces they have agreements that there is compensation for it. We'll get that for you.

Ms Martel: Does the federal government collect revenues itself in any of those other provinces on any other aspects of the fishery, through tags, licences, fees etc?

Hon Mr Hodgson: We can get you the revenues that come from Ontario as well. By far, it's one of the largest contributors, through the stamp program and other programs in which the federal government receives revenues from the people of Ontario, outside of the general taxation from Ontario. We're not talking about that issue. We're just talking about the money that's collected from stamps that the federal government gets. Are you familiar with the stamp program?

Ms Martel: No, I'm not.

Hon Mr Hodgson: If you go out and buy a duck licence or if you want to buy a stamp, that money goes for conservation purposes. There are a number of programs like that through which substantial sums of money are raised in Ontario. We can get you information around that as well.

Ms Martel: Thank you.

Let me raise a second issue that we dealt with earlier this morning. I was at the government agencies committee dealing with your appointments to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I don't think anyone else except Mike was in the room for this, but I must tell you, Minister, when I raised the appointment of Mr Norman Seabrook with you in the Leg on June 23, I did so because I was terribly concerned about his appointment for two reasons: first, because of the apparent conflict of interest I feel he has; and second, because from all his public statements for years gone by, it is clear he is not supportive of the Niagara Escarpment Commission as a commission, the act which the commission operates under, the plan, which is a development plan in place on the escarpment, nor for that matter was he supportive of the UNESCO designation of the escarpment as a world biosphere.

I have to tell you, this morning in the committee, when he was questioned, Mr Seabrook, your appointment, reinforced all of that and more by his own comments. He was asked very specifically whether he supported the UNESCO designation and he said he could not respond to that. I believe it's fundamental for someone who is going to be on the Niagara Escarpment Commission to support that designation. He was asked about his various comments about wanting the commission disbanded etc and did not have a good answer.

At the end of the day, one of your own committee members asked for unanimous consent to defer this appointment. I think that was done because frankly it was so appalling that even your own folks didn't know what to do.

I want to ask you, will you withdraw the appointment of Mr Seabrook to the commission? It was absolutely clear after today's meeting that he does not support the commission, does not support the act, nor does he support the UNESCO designation.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I want to thank you for the question in the House as well, because I think it's important that people realize that there are 17 commissioners, that we have appointed a balanced group, and we have an appointments committee that has reviewed some of those 17. I've clearly stated that we're in support of the act, the plan, the commission, that we think the Niagara Escarpment is worth protecting and preserving. In fact, we want to improve how it operates. We think it can do more to garner public approval by better customer service.

There were a lot of local people in primarily rural parts of the Niagara Escarpment who felt that the commission in its customer service was high-handed and didn't respect their viewpoints or didn't give them the time of day or listen to their views. They were so frustrated with that that they said things that people sitting back and removed from it would interpret as, "Well, they don't care about it." I can tell you, there are a lot of local people who care deeply about the beauty of that region. They were just frustrated at the antics of how the commission operated, and they might have said some things.

I'm told that all our committee appointments believe in the act, believe in the plan and believe in the commission. As you mentioned, Mr Seabrook this morning mentioned he couldn't comment on the UN biosphere because he didn't have a lot of information. But that was designated back in 1990. The commission will be dealing with the act and the plan and trying to do the right thing in preserving the natural things that are best about Ontario around the escarpment.

I'm glad to see that the committee process is working. That's what it's there for. If people want more information, need time to discuss it, I would think you'd want us to take the time to get it right, that you wouldn't want to subvert the will of the House or the democratic process and steamroll decisions and ask that they be made or circumvent the committee process. These members on the committee have asked for a bit more time to analyse and to discuss among themselves and then make a reasoned vote next week. I want to thank you for that.

Ms Martel: If I might, Minister, your committee members actually moved for him to be nominated; that did happen. But when we got into the discussion of whether he should be nominated, after 40 minutes it was clear that he was such an embarrassment, frankly, and would be such an embarrassment as a member that even your own members couldn't bring themselves to support that appointment at the end of the day and asked for a deferral.

Mr Seabrook will not provide a balance to the commission. He will not lead to improved operations of the commission.

Hon Mr Hodgson: You're trying to put words in the other committee members' mouths.

Ms Martel: No, I don't think so.

Hon Mr Hodgson: They're capable of expressing their own opinions. They asked for a bit more time.

Ms Martel: Minister, you are the one who put the appointment forward, so of course any number of your own committee members will look to you for some advice. I am telling you as clearly as I can that this is not a person who is an appropriate appointee for this position. He does not support the commission. He does not support the act. The fact that he could not say whether he even supported the UNESCO designation and still wants to be a commissioner I think is unacceptable. I am urging you to do yourself a favour.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I am told he supports --

The Acting Chair: One at a time, please.

Ms Martel: Do yourself a favour and have this appointment withdrawn, because it will not do you any good. It will not be to your credit to have him continue, especially after the comments he made in committee today.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Shelley, I appreciate that and I'll take a look at it, but I'm told he supports the plan and supports the act and supports the commission. I'll review the transcript from today.

The Acting Chair: Members of the committee, it's 6 o'clock. According to the time, the New Democratic Party has two minutes left when we come back next Tuesday.

The committee adjourned at 1758.