Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

CONTENTS

Wednesday 27 August 1997

Ministry of Natural Resources

Hon Chris Hodgson, minister

Mr Ron Vrancart, deputy minister

Ms Gail Beggs, assistant deputy minister, natural resources management division

Ms Patricia Malcomson, assistant deputy minister, corporate services division

Mr Cam Clark, assistant deputy minister, field services division

Mr Larry Douglas, director, corporate affairs branch

Mr Stuart Davidson, solicitor, legal services branch

Mr Paul Gonsalves, solicitor, legal services branch

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr 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 Doug Galt (Northumberland PC)

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Rosemarie Singh

Staff / Personnel

Ms Alison Drummond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1539 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

The Chair (Mr Gerard Kennedy): We have the minister in attendance. Welcome. I understand we have a motion about procedure.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Yes, we do. I seek unanimous consent that the government relinquish its time in rotation and that that time be taken --

The Chair: We'll need a member or somebody who's been properly substituted to make this motion. I apologize for that formality.

Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington): I seek unanimous consent that the government will relinquish its time in rotation and that that time be taken off the total time of the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources, and the vote on the Ministry of Natural Resources be taken at the end of the day.

The Chair: To understand, a motion is being made to stand down some of the government's questioning time to make that possible?

Mr Vankoughnet: I believe all of it.

The Chair: We would need unanimous consent for that. It would allow the opposition parties to have their full questioning time and it would allow the minister not to have to attend a future session. I believe this would take care of all his remaining time. Do we have that consent? That's agreed. With unanimous consent, we can accept it.. We'll proceed with the Liberal Party.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Minister, letters went to your office and there have also been petitions in the Legislature about the new regulations recently established on the yellow perch fishery in eastern Ontario. A number of issues of particular concern to many of the residents of eastern Ontario remain. First, I would like to return to the concern I brought to your attention a few months ago where over 600 people requested that the purchase of any perch under seven inches be made illegal for commercial fishing.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): Thank you very much for the question. I am aware of it. I know you've been working very hard on behalf of your constituents to see this addressed. The ministry is taking steps to address this issue and make sure it's based on sound management principles. Andy Houser is not here, but Gail, you've been involved in this on the periphery. Do you want to answer this question?

Ms Gail Beggs: Sure. I'm going to have to ask you to repeat the question.

Mr Cleary: That the purchase of any yellow perch under seven inches be made illegal for commercial fishermen in eastern Ontario.

Ms Beggs: And you're asking what we've done in response?

Mr Cleary: They're asking if you're going to follow through on that and see that it's made illegal to keep any perch under seven inches for commercial fishing.

Ms Beggs: My name is Gail Beggs, and I'm the ADM with the natural resource management division. Thank you for my time at the mike.

In terms of a request of that nature, I can tell you the process we go through to decide whether that is necessary and then I'll make a commitment on how we'll handle that particular case.

When someone brings to our attention a conservation issue, which I believe is the basis of this request, we will look at all our available data. If we have no data, we will attempt to get data to assess whether there really is a conservation risk. If there is, we'll make proposals to the public about what should be done. One of the strategies this group has suggested is making illegal the catch and sale of perch under that. That would be one of the things we'd request public input on. If there were any other tools that might accomplish the same end, we'd put those out for public consultation to evaluate what the public said and then recommend how we should proceed, and that may indeed be a response such as you've suggested.

Do you have a particular lake or --

Mr Cleary: Yes, the St Lawrence; it's Lake St Francis in eastern Ontario.

Ms Beggs: I know we have enacted some regulations in that area already. I don't know the particular details of this request and where we are in assessing it in the process. We could reply back to you in written form and give you some more information.

Mr Cleary: They have filled my constituency office full, because they said we're not going to have any yellow perch at all if we allow what's going on to continue.

Ms Beggs: If indeed that's the case, we'd share that concern and would want to take some action that would regulate harvest, if indeed there is a conservation issue.

How about, since I don't know the details of that particular piece of geography, we write back where we are in assessing it and what actions we've done already and what we intend to do in the future?

Mr Cleary: Yes. I've got a few more questions on that same issue. They're concerned about the commercial fishing nets being allowed in the water during spawning season, especially in spawning beds. This is written to me: "Hundreds of thousands of eggs are ripped off the bottom and destroyed each time the nets are lifted. Therefore, they requested that you act to keep the nets at least 300 feet outside the spawning beds and the mouth of the creeks that the fish travel up to spawn.

Ms Beggs: Is this also on the St Lawrence River?

Mr Cleary: The same area.

Ms Beggs: Right. It's our practice where there's conservation concern to protect very critical habitat through regulation. Indeed if there is a conservation issue of that nature, we could look at making some changes to regulations in the St Lawrence. What I can't tell you, but I can get back to you, is where we are in the process of evaluating that particular issue, what action we've taken and what action is planned in the future.

Mr Cleary: Three gentlemen by the name of Mr Marvin Plumadore, Angelo Lebano and Gordon McDonald, real sports fishermen, would like to take you or the minister on a tour to show you exactly what they mean.

Ms Beggs: I'd be happy to participate in a tour. We also have a lake manager on Lake Ontario who is responsible for Lake Ontario and the St Lawrence River and is part of the local decision-making process and it would probably be appropriate to have that person and their biologist along.

Mr Cleary: They had another question: "Will you ensure that additional regulations are established, including a seven-inch size limit on any perch and the removal of commercial fishing nets from the water during spawning season?" That was a direct question to me, Minister, so it's going to you.

Hon Mr Hodgson: We will look into that. I don't want to give you an answer that we couldn't live up to later on under further examination, so we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Mr Cleary: They feel that if sports fishing is allowed there, all those closed provincial parks in eastern Ontario might have a chance to open. At one time there was a booming business there and now it's just the commercial fishermen who come in. It's pretty dull.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I can empathize with their concern. It's our intention too to make sure that eastern Ontario is booming and prospering and that lots of tourism comes about as a result of the wise management of Ontario's natural resources by the present government. I appreciate your question.

Mr Cleary: I will change to another: MNR offices. They almost think MNR is non-existent in eastern Ontario since they moved from our area to Kemptville. Many who are involved -- the office is in Kemptville -- just drive their truck to Kemptville, then drive back to do their work, and by then it's about time to go back to Kemptville for quitting time. A lot of them are not very happy. They think the distance is too far.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm sorry to hear that. If they would put it into writing for me, I can address their specific concerns. I know we went through a restructuring where we've gone back to three regions from four and consolidated a number of offices. By doing that we've achieved spending reductions that go towards balancing the budget in Ontario.

Also, we've refocused our business. Our plans were made on what's necessary to function well, to limit ourselves to five core activities and do those things well. If you want to get me the staff names that have specific concerns about their travelling to and from work, I can look into the specifics of that for you.

1550

Mr Cleary: I'd be very glad to do that. I think that your ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture is almost going out of business in our part of Ontario.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Well, I can assure you I've gotten letters, endorsements about the improvements made in the Ministry of Natural Resources. I know it's never easy. When an organization restructures and downsizes, it's hard on the families of the employees and the communities as well. But in the last year or so, I've seen a marked improvement in the morale of the ministry people. They're carrying out their duties. I think everyone in the province should be proud of the level of excellence that they're exhibiting.

As I mentioned earlier in my opening statement, customer service is one of the key areas we're concentrating on this year, to improve the service we deliver to the public, and our staff our fully supportive of that. Around the parks program, Ontario Parks has done a great deal to lift the morale of the staff who work there. The fishing improvements that have been given to me upon recommendation from the advisory board have been well received. Staff feel for the first time in over a decade that they're actually doing useful work again. They're back to being one of the most respected ministries in the province, leading the way for Canada.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: If you want me to get exact quotes, I have met with the conservation officers' association. I might be paraphrasing, but that was very similar to the expressions they expressed to me.

Mr Cleary: You should talk to the 17 who were eliminated and the 11 who were forced to go to Kemptville. They might have a different story. Anyway, that's just what has happened in eastern Ontario. I know that we've got letters and resolutions from municipalities, the township of Charlottenburgh, where the yellow perch is a big issue. They want me to ask you, Minister, will you act and reopen the closed MNR offices? That is directly from them to you.

Hon Mr Hodgson: We have choices obviously. We could go out and purchase a bunch of new buildings, but the money would have to come from someplace. I chose to keep as many staff as necessary to carry out our responsibilities and as a result we closed some buildings, based on a plan that is functional, not based on -- somehow we've got economic development mixed up over time with the Ministry of Natural Resources. There are other ministries that do that.

Our job is to be stewards of the natural resources and to concentrate on our core business, not keeping offices because it made sense 100 years ago to keep an office there, but based on the fact that today we have automobiles and we also have telecommunications systems where people can communicate better than they did when they had to travel by horse and buggy or, in the old days in the fire program, sit on the fire tower and watch for smoke. We have satellites now. We also have aircraft that patrol at night. So there have been improvements in technology that have allowed us to consolidate our head offices, cut down on administration and provide a better service to the public when managing their natural resources.

Change is never easy. I'm not trying to underestimate how deeply held those feelings are that you're hearing from some of your constituents, but I can tell you that there are improvements being made that I think people are generally recognizing now. I think if you went back out and asked them -- we've recently been asking people how their experience has been with the Ministry of Natural Resources recently, and they're very satisfied.

Mr Cleary: This is not necessarily coming from my riding. It's coming from your colleague Noble Villeneuve's riding. They're having a lot of this too, you know.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I understand you two are going to have overlapping ridings in the next election.

Mr Cleary: That's right, but we have to put up with one.

Some time ago I wrote to you on behalf of Resource Stewardship of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry regarding the establishment of a 1-800 service and the closure of the Kemptville tree nursery. With regard to the 1-800 service, you have stated that the team of ministry staff led by Guy Winterton, manager of the enforcement section, was to examine all aspects of your customer service and recommend a course of action for improvement. That was some time ago.

Hon Mr Hodgson: That's right. I want to thank you for bringing that to my attention and tell you that I agree with you. It's suggestions like that that make customer service better in the Ministry of Natural Resources. Mr Winterton has taken a review of that and now we've appointed Peter Allen to head up special projects in this initiative around customer service. The 1-800 number is part of that. Thank you for your advice. We welcome suggestions to improve service from all individuals in Ontario and even from outside.

Mr Cleary: The question was, what is the current status of the 1-800 service? I guess you've partially answered that.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes, I have. Thank you.

Mr Cleary: Mike, he's all yours.

The Chair: Mr Brown, you have approximately five minutes.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'll use the first little bit to talk about stumpage fees. As the minister would know, we have a quota system now in having Ontario lumber move into the American market. Above the quota, suppliers must pay certain fees to sell into the American market. I have a number of producers that have questioned why the stumpage fee that they are being assessed by your ministry reflects the full price, for example $400 per thousand, when the producer, because he pays a $100 tax, for example, is really netting $300 from that shipment of wood into the American market. They fail to understand, and I fail to understand, why the stumpage fee is being assessed on $400 when the net is really $300.

Hon Mr Hodgson: It depends where you sell your wood.

Mr Michael Brown: Obviously.

Hon Mr Hodgson: If you sell your wood in southern Ontario, it's different. First of all I want to tell you that our government was never in favour of the quota. This is a deal that was totally within the federal responsibility and the federal Liberals decided that a quota was better than a countervail action or going to a hearing. I disagreed with that because I felt that benefited BC over Ontario. However, it was within the federal Liberals' power to do that and they chose to do it. They've been responsible for allocating the quota both internationally and internally, inside Ontario.

On the stumpage question, as you are well aware, we offered the opportunity to change the stumpage system for the forest industry. I had a review that lasted about a year. We received input from most people and there was a consensus that they wanted it modified but not abolished. They didn't want to go to a simpler system because they had gotten used to it and they felt the system that was in place was fair. To answer you specifically about the difference between the stumpage on wood that goes across and is sold in the United States, where they pay a quota, and that which is sold in, for example, the southern Ontario market, I'd call upon Larry Douglas to come up and explain to you in detail the intricacies around this issue.

Mr Larry Douglas: There were a number of questions you asked, Mr Brown. One of the questions was, why wouldn't we give credit for the fact that in some cases our companies pay a fee when they ship over quota to the US in the stumpage system?

Mr Michael Brown: Yes.

Mr Douglas: Essentially, that would be in contravention of the agreement and we could be subject to countervail. That would be explicitly not allowed by the agreement that was signed by the two countries.

In terms of shipping into their own market, there was an option provided to the industry for those companies that shipped solely into the Ontario market to use a Toronto base for the price, as opposed to the American base. As far as I know, no company has yet applied for that.

1600

Mr Michael Brown: Would that be because the price is relatively similar?

Mr Douglas: I'm not quite sure. The price bounces up and down over the cycle. It bounces up, particularly as you get to the end of the quarter, because there's an interim quota set under the agreement. You tend to get a bigger gap at that point, but that evens out when you start the next quota.

Mr Michael Brown: But the fact remains that the people are paying stumpage fees on money they don't actually -- that's not the market value of their product. The market value is, in the example I use, $300, not $400.

Mr Douglas: The companies are saying that on a certain percentage that's the case, you're correct. I believe that in the neighbourhood of 95% of the lumber goes to the US without the extra cost. There is a certain element in which they can pay half of the $100 fee for the first percentage and then they would pay the $100 on the final. Essentially the decision is made at the end of the year whether it's worth paying that $100 or not.

But to make the kinds of adjustments you're suggesting --

The Chair: I thank you for your response and ask you to continue, if Mr Brown wishes, the next round. It's now time for the New Democratic Party.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I want to begin my questions today --

The Chair: If I could just intercede, and this won't be on your time, the minister is offering answers to previous questions. He wants to know whether you'd like to make your time available for them now or at some other time.

Ms Martel: If he has them in written form, I'll take them in written form, tabled.

The Chair: Does the ministry only have those in verbal form? Is that correct?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I only have them in verbal form because I brought people here to give details on the questions that were asked yesterday.

The Chair: You prefer to proceed with your questions today?

Ms Martel: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Please proceed.

Ms Martel: I want to begin by asking some questions about the six-pack report that was done between the ministry and the forestry industry. Specifically, is there a public document that has been released by the ministry which outlines the recommendations and the government responses to the recommendations?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll call upon Larry Douglas. Larry's well versed in this and can answer any detailed questions on it. I'm sure you'll have more than just the opening question.

Mr Douglas: There is no public document which involves either the industry's position or the government's position. In fact, I believe both bodies agreed with certain recommendations and disagreed with others.

Ms Martel: Okay, but I have the final report and recommendations, and I'd like to know, of the 44 recommendations that were put forward, how many have been accepted by the ministry?

Mr Douglas: We'd have to go through and do a count for you. I'd say roughly half of them were more or less agreed to and half weren't.

Ms Martel: Okay. I'd like that, because I have some serious concerns around a number of the recommendations. But let me focus on tenure in particular. While I appreciate that Larry is here, Minister, I think this is a political issue, not a bureaucratic issue in terms of the response.

I have a very grave concern about where I see this government heading on tenure, especially with respect to the forestry industry as it is rolling out through Lands for Life and as it's unfolding in this enhanced wood supply agreement which was presented to the provincial forest policy committee on June 26. Specifically, recommendation 40 on tenure says, "Each sustainable forestry licence holder should, as part of its planning process, identify a subset core area from within the tenured land base on which intensive, ecologically sound timber production would be most appropriate. This area should not exceed 60% of the total tenured area."

The recommendation goes on: "Long-term leases built from bilateral agreements between MNR and each company should be signed to ensure that the land identified above," not more than 60% of tenured land, "is tenured to the agreement holder in perpetuity and is strongly resistant to the unpredictable land base erosion problems of previous tenure arrangements."

As I read that, we're talking about a significant crown land base that you are prepared to turn over in perpetuity to forest companies. Am I correct in my reading of this recommendation?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think you're correcting in your reading of it, but I don't think you're correct to say that is government policy.

Ms Martel: Well, whose policy is it?

Hon Mr Hodgson: That was a recommendation that you were reading from, I'm assuming, from the six-pack that was set up as a working group to look at ways to improve forestry in the province.

Ms Martel: Is the government accepting that recommendation, Minister?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I would say no, we haven't accepted that recommendation, unless you know of any perpetual tenure agreements that have been signed in the last six months that I'm not aware of.

Ms Martel: I'm looking at the enhanced wood supply agreement that was supplied by your ministry staff to the provincial policy committee on June 26, which talks about the tenure contract. It says, "The enhanced wood supply agreement is a draft legal document incorporating MNR principles and a six-pack recommendation that allows for this to happen." And it says, "The concept is companies can voluntarily enter into agreements with government where, for a fee yet to be determined, they will be granted compensable tenure on areas of their SFLs falling within forest management designation."

So what is this draft document?

Hon Mr Hodgson: That makes a lot of sense, that document you just read, but I wouldn't say that it's perpetual agreements. What they're saying is that the current status quo of promising more fibre to build new mills is unsustainable and it has been for some time. But if you're going to look at forests in the future and you've allowed for this capacity by previous governments' decisions, then you have to be able to grow more fibre. You have to also identify what Ontario's strengths are and our competitive advantage in a merging world market, and there has to be some planning around that.

The current system of tenure under the FMAs or under the current SFLs for 20 years on a crop that may take 80 years to grow is a little irrational. We should explore ways to make sure we meet all the biodiversity criteria to make sure that our ecosystems are looked after and that forestry is done in a sustainable manner for all our natural resources. But we want to encourage companies or individuals --

Ms Martel: Minister, before you keep going --

Hon Mr Hodgson: -- who want to make an investment in crown land, in forestry, to make sure the communities that earn a living from that are sustainable and to make sure that the forest is sustainable. They are going to have spend more money on silviculture --

Ms Martel: How long are you prepared to provide tenure to forestry companies?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Obviously, that would be negotiated, Shelley. It's a public resource and as a minister responsible for management of that, we would have to negotiate that based on good science and business principles.

Ms Martel: Minister, you're obviously not entering into negotiations without some idea of what the ministry position is. So tell me, what is the ministry looking at in terms of how long they intend to give these intense forestry zones to forestry licence holders?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Currently, it's 20 years and it's reviewed every five years. There would be no changes to that policy. The industry, or people that have tenure, would like it to be in perpetuity, so in between those two positions the negotiations would occur. It was my belief that I would like to see that based on science, based on what makes sense on improving our forests in this province.

Ms Martel: Minister, if I might, there's quite a range between 20 years, which is the current situation, and in perpetuity. The ministry, before it enters into negotiations, has to have some idea of what you're prepared to put on the table. Can you give us the range that you're considering as you put this on the table?

Hon Mr Hodgson: If you'd let me finish, I was mentioning that our position will be based on science and what's best for Ontario forests for today and for future generations, and I'm seeking advice from the forest policy committee on that.

Ms Martel: Where in Ontario now do we have intensive timber production as outlined in the six-pack report?

Hon Mr Hodgson: That's one of the problems under the crown forest sustainability. I think you heard in the committee hearings that we were encouraging companies to meet the minimum standard instead of encouraging them, through their own incentive, to go for the best standard. Right now, to a modified degree, it has happened on what used to be the FMAs, the forest management agreements. In some cases, some companies have been better than others. That's why we want to improve the standards. If we enter into agreements like this, we'll make sure there are tough standards that encourage intensive grow areas, more money to be invested in silviculture by the companies.

1610

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Could I ask a supplementary question?

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr Wildman: Would the minister be prepared to table a short list of those areas currently being managed in an intensive manner so that we might contact the companies, and if the companies wish, they might be able to take us on a tour to demonstrate to us and to anyone who's interested the intensive methods they're using?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The list would probably include areas outside Ontario, because up until now, they've been restricted from doing that.

Mr Wildman: I meant within Ontario.

Hon Mr Hodgson: What we're contemplating are ways to encourage companies to improve the forests to the maximum of their ability.

Mr Wildman: Just a moment ago, there were places in Ontario.

Hon Mr Hodgson: No, I said a modified view would give you an indication. When tenure was first granted back in 1980 to some companies, they were called FMAs, forest management agreements, and companies were responsible for replacing the forest after they harvested, and for planting things. That has been successful in this province.

Mr Wildman: But it's not intensive forestry. I'm very interested --

Hon Mr Hodgson: Intensive grow areas: Is that what you're referring to?

Mr Wildman: I don't know whether you're talking about sustainable yield or whether you're talking about ecological sustainability, but whatever you're talking about, I'd like to go and have a look at it; I'm interested. I'd like to know what companies are doing it, where they are doing it. My impression was that if there were areas of sustained and intense forest management practices in Ontario, they were mostly on private woodlots, very small areas, not in the boreal forest or the St Lawrence forest. I'd like to know where they are. Unless you're talking about the Algonquin Forestry Authority and their area, which I am familiar with, but that's not related to what you were discussing with my colleague.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Bud, you wouldn't allow it to happen when you were minister, so the list would be rather short.

Mr Wildman: We certainly didn't have anything against it happening. As a matter of fact, we moved to try and encourage it and to do the scientific work to make it possible for that kind of forestry to evolve, but --

Hon Mr Hodgson: It's that groundwork that we will be making our future decisions on.

Ms Martel: Minister, if I might, you go much further. You are talking about signing leases with forestry companies that I suspect will go well beyond the 20 years that we currently sign now. Let me tell you, we were lobbied by the same folks from industry for the same thing when we were in government, and they used the same arguments that they couldn't get money for investment etc, none of which was true. It's a totally bogus argument. You only have to look at all the new OSB mills which went into the province when our colleague was minister. All those people were able to get money from Chase Manhattan or whatever based on the current allocation system we have at present. We're buying into an argument that is totally false.

Hon Mr Hodgson: There's never been a problem in Ontario raising money to cut our trees and make a profit on our trees. The problem in Ontario has been to get the money reinvested back into the crown land to replace the forest.

Ms Martel: No, I don't think that's the problem. We've got a trust fund now that's also in place as part of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act --

Hon Mr Hodgson: It limits it; it's to the company's economic advantage to have the minimum contribution instead of the maximum based on a return on a crop that might take 80 years instead of 20.

Ms Martel: What I see happening here through this document, the six-pack document, is that you're trying to unload any number of costs on to industry. Fair enough. In exchange for unloading those costs to industry, you're going to grant them licences that are much, much longer than we have at present.

Hon Mr Hodgson: No.

Ms Martel: My concern today, in your not giving us any idea of how long that it, is that it's worse than I think. Isn't that what's happening? This is the buyoff.

Hon Mr Hodgson: No, it's not.

Ms Martel: For industry to accept all these additional costs, you're going to allow them licences that are much longer than they are now and certainly far longer than they ever should be.

Hon Mr Hodgson: We can play Perry Mason all day, but what's happened is that we've had to set up a process called Lands for Life to balance the competing interests on the land base. A number of mills have been developed that have capacity to use fibre, and communities are dependent upon that economic activity. Many are located in northern ridings. But the forest industry employs about 65,000 people across Ontario and there are a lot of jobs that we want to see continue.

At the same time, we want to complete our parks system. That's a withdrawal of land. We want to give certainty that that happens. We also want to give certainty around remote tourism so that that industry can have some security that can exist beyond the five-year planning of a forest operation.

With all those pressures, we want to throw certainty of tenure into the mix: to our parks being completed; to remote tourism; to local people, that they'll be able to enjoy their crown lands through hunting and fishing or other activities; and the forest companies, which many communities depend on. We want to make sure they're sustainable as well for the long haul and are not subjected to some arbitrary sense.

Your government, as you acknowledged, agreed with the 20-year tenure. We're not debating whether tenure is an issue. We're debating whether it should be 20 years on a crop that might take 80 years or whether it should be in perpetuity. I'm telling you it's someplace in between, based on science, on the advice we've got from the forest policy committees, on the research that was done -- through Mr Wildman's direction and foresight, I might add, that we need better information and research. Those things all play a part on these decisions that will be made in the future.

Ms Martel: Minister, if I might, there's a big gap between 20 years and in perpetuity. We never moved beyond 20 years.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm not in favour of perpetuity either.

Ms Martel: This is a public resource. It should not be allocated to forestry companies for excessive numbers of years. Can you tell me one forestry company that has left this province, left their community high and dry, because they couldn't get a longer tenure licence? One?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I can tell you of hundreds of small operators who have been amalgamated or folded because technology's made it so that one mill can harvest a lot of fibre. There's never been a problem in Ontario with getting people to want to come in and cut our wood. The problem has been to replace the wood so we have forests for the future.

In the past, we kept promising companies, "Just go over the next hill and you can cut up there, you can cut over here." There's never a plan. I'm saying it should be based on science. We're trying, through Lands for Life, to develop a plan that's sustainable, that gives permanence to our parks system, gives permanence to places where people can enjoy remote tourism, gives permanence to people who want to enjoy hunting, fishing or bird-watching on crown land, and gives permanence to the sustainability of the forest industry as well.

If you're opposed to that -- I haven't seen the NDP telling the unions that they don't believe there should be forestry operations in northern Ontario.

Mr Wildman: There you go again. That's what we worried about when --

Hon Mr Hodgson: They want to have security. Hundreds of little operations have gone down.

Mr Wildman: You as minister go to the extreme. That's what scares us about the term "in perpetuity." To suggest that there should only be 20-year tenure is not to suggest that there should not be forestry in Ontario. They're hardly equivalent.

As a matter of fact, in the early 1990s we discovered that the company that predated Avenor had 60-year licences. That might have been related to a minister who used to come from that area.

Mr Michael Brown: Not mentioning any names, but --

Mr Wildman: We suggested that perhaps they should be like everybody else and have 20 years. They did not pick up stakes and say, "We're leaving." The point is, you're saying, I think -- I've tried to piece it together as I've listened to you -- that 20 years may not be adequate. You're also saying that you don't like in perpetuity. So it's somewhere in between. You mentioned 80 years as an example.

Hon Mr Hodgson: No. I said some --

Mr Wildman: Traditionally, foresters in those forests we're talking about in the north talk about mature forest in 100 to 120 years. Am I right in supposing that you're talking about tenure on that magnitude of years, somewhere between 80 and 120 years?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Mr Wildman, we have no plans to change the way it's done now, in that plans are reviewed every five years and have to meet the standards. If they're not doing that, their licence can be yanked, or if they're not using the resource, their licences can be withdrawn. I was merely pointing out -- you mentioned 80 -- that some trees take 80 years to grow.

Mr Wildman: Yes, they do. Some take 120 to be mature; some less. I'm just wondering, in these negotiations will it be set up in such a way that if the company is prepared to invest more in managing the forest and to pay more, they'll get longer time in terms of tenure? Is that the way you're anticipating these negotiations to go?

1620

Hon Mr Hodgson: That's one option we're looking at. As you can appreciate, after being minister, you receive a number of recommendations from different groups and you want to analyse it and make sure that when you do go to the table -- and we think that'll be in the future -- that what we put on the table will be well-thought-out. That's one option, but there could be others.

Ms Martel: You're going to also provide compensation over and above that to people who do have tenure, if there's a change in the licensing structure because a successive government decides that they want to have a park there instead of a forestry operation?

Hon Mr Hodgson: What we want to try to achieve is to complete our parks system. Pretty well most people in Ontario would like to see that happen. They've felt that it's long overdue. If we can give some certainty that we've completed our parks system based on science, they'll be pleased to see that. At the same time, we want to give some certainty to the communities that are dependent on forest industries. That's one option that could be looked at as well. If the NDP is suggesting that as party position, I'd be willing to look at it.

Ms Martel: No, it's in your document. That's why I'm asking.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know. I'm just asking you, if you support that, let us know.

Ms Martel: Why don't you tell us what "compensable tenure" means? Then we'll tell you what we think.

Hon Mr Hodgson: It would mean that if in the future you wanted, for whatever reason, to withdraw that land as fibre for a particular company, they'd get compensated.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Mr Brown, it's now your time.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'd really like to hear the questions he asked yesterday.

The Chair: Mr Brown, before you begin your questions -- this won't be from your time -- the minister has some verbal answers to questions that he was unable to provide before. He wants to know if you'd like them in your time or not.

Mr Michael Brown: I would. I was about to ask some of those questions again, so this might be helpful.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Good. Thank you very much, Mr Brown. Today I will respond to questions raised by members of the standing committee at yesterday's meeting. I'm again joined by my deputy minister, Ron Vrancart, and four assistant deputies.

Mr Michael Brown: Skip that part. Just get to the questions. We love them too, but --

Hon Mr Hodgson: I don't know why you want to be so derisive to my staff when this doesn't cut into your time.

The Chair: Well, it is his time now, Minister.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Fisheries Act: I'll begin with the issues regarding the ministry's decision to withdraw from enforcing certain aspects of the federal Fisheries Act and whether this will affect charges already laid under the act. The specific question was: Can you provide a legal opinion on whether MNR's decision to withdraw from the Fisheries Act has an impact on or might weaken their pursuance of charges that have been filed? I would ask Paul, a lawyer, to come up and --

Mr Michael Brown: I didn't ask that question. Maybe we could just do the ones I asked.

Hon Mr Hodgson: He agreed that he wanted to hear the questions.

The Chair: No, Minister, you and I agreed that you were going to ask each party that asked questions --

Hon Mr Hodgson: Oh, you want your questions.

The Chair: We'll call that a misunderstanding. Mr Brown, I think the deal is that you have some questions that you may have asked and the answers to those may be available. Is that clearer? We'll proceed on that basis.

Hon Mr Hodgson: So I don't have to ask the lawyer to come up at this time.

Just to be clear, it was around Ipperwash; the question was asked to provide copies of letters and reports related to burial grounds. That's a question that was asked by the Liberal Party yesterday.

Mr Michael Brown: Yes.

Hon Mr Hodgson: We've searched our files to the best of our ability and are providing you with a copy of a letter dated August 1937 from the federal Indian Affairs branch to the deputy minister, the Department of Lands and Forests. In light of the ongoing court case and the fact that ministry staff who would assist us in the search are on holidays, we're unable to provide you with further correspondence at this time. However, we will provide you with the relevant correspondence that we are at liberty to release by September 15. We'll do that at this time, if we could hand those out.

The other question you asked yesterday was, does the blockade committee exist? The answer is no, the committee is no longer in existence.

Mr Michael Brown: Could you tell us the date it was dissolved?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I have no idea. It's another process now that's in place, I understand.

Mr Michael Brown: Can you tell us what that is?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Does the legal department know? My deputy minister, Ron Vrancart, will talk to that.

Mr Ron Vrancart: The process that has been put in place since the blockade committee was disbanded is in essence an ad hoc approach to dealing with incidents. In essence, each case is looked at on its own merits, and those ministries which have an interest in that particular situation come together and discuss the issue and how the ministries will respond to coordiante activities.

Mr Michael Brown: In this particular case, which ministries may be involved in this ad hoc committee dealing with Ipperwash?

Mr Vrancart: There is no ad hoc committee dealing with Ipperwash.

Interjection.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, this is Mr Brown's time.

Mr Michael Brown: Do you know what date whatever that committee was called was dissolved?

Mr Vrancart: At the time we were dealing with Ipperwash, the blockade committee was in existence.

Mr Michael Brown: Okay. So the blockade committee was in existence --

Mr Vrancart: At that time. Subsequently it has been disbanded -- in the process now.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm having a little difficulty understanding. Given the fact that the first nations people are still in your park, who's in charge of the negotiations with the first nations? Who is in charge of the dialogue? It obviously involves more than your ministry. Who's coordinating this on behalf of the government? Or is it an AG thing and that's how you're handling it?

Hon Mr Hodgson: That's how I would assume it's being handled. As you know, as soon as the park was occupied, it became a police matter and our ministry hasn't been involved in that directly. We have talked to Chief Tom Bessette, but he's not part of the occupiers of the park.

Mr Michael Brown: I understand that. What you're telling me is that there's no cross-ministerial approach to the Ipperwash situation as it stands today? Given the government's own objective to get the expletive deleted Indians out of the park, and even from the government's perspective that is a total unmitigated failure, you've just said, "Well, we're not going to do anything"?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm not sure as to your question. After the park was occupied, to use an analogy, the MNR phoned the police and the police would deal with it. There was a blockade committee that looked at things, but once the blockade took place, there's a court case on that and we're not allowed to get into those matters. I can just tell you that this no longer exists. That was the answer to your question.

You have other questions you'd like me to answer as well.

Mr Michael Brown: Yes, I probably would.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Was the timber EA yours or was that the NDP's?

Ms Martel: Ours.

Hon Mr Hodgson: That was Shelley's. Moose tags?

Mr Michael Brown: No, I think that came from your guys.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Oh, that came from our guys.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm sorry, I missed that. You're suggesting that we hold moose tags for an election year?

Mr Michael Brown: No, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just saying I understand the issue.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Okay. Did you get a tag this year?

1630

The fish and wildlife special purpose account: I believe that was your question. There are two questions there that relate to the fish and wildlife special purpose account, and the questions were: Can moneys be banked outside of the government to provide for a better return on funds that are to held in the trust for long periods of time? Second, What is the average monthly balance in the SPA?

I asked Patricia Malcolmson, an ADM who knows a great deal about this subject. She'd like to impart some of that information to the committee, or maybe all of it.

Ms Patricia Malcolmson: You asked yesterday, Mr Brown, if special purpose account funds could be deposited outside of government. In the case of this special purpose account, they cannot be deposited outside of government unless there's actually a change in section 5 of the Game and Fish Act. Subsection (2) requires that money received under subsection 5(1): "All fees, fines and royalties paid under the Game and Fish Act be treated as money paid to Ontario for a special purpose." The legislation thus what we call "earmarks" all fish and wildlife revenues through the special purpose account.

You were speaking of the return that you might have on that kind of investment and I believe I mentioned yesterday that the government account at this moment was yielding 2%. In the Globe and Mail this morning, 30-day T-bills, which would be roughly comparable in terms of liquidity and certainty of return -- they're not exactly the same thing -- were running at 2.6%. But what I think you need to know is that a fund like this, when it's operated inside government, is not subject to taxation. Were it operated outside of government and were it not a charitable foundation, it would be subject to tax. As a result, it's not clear that the return outside would necessarily be better, particularly if you took into account whatever amount you might need to pay for the advice that would be required to make that kind of investment.

The second question that you asked was: "What is the average monthly balance in the fish and wildlife special purpose account?" In the fiscal year 1996-97, the monthly balance was $18 million. Thus far this year, the average monthly balance is $15.1 million. Both of those figures include the $9 million that was originally put in the account as seed money. We would anticipate that that average monthly balance would of course go down once the minister receives and acts upon the advice of the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board as to how to make the best use of the original seed money. It depends very much on the choices that are made on the expenditure of that money, where you end up on the balance. But what I've given you are the facts as they stand right now.

Mr Michael Brown: Thank you. I appreciate the answer. I would ask the minister, that's a considerable sum of money that is the average monthly balance and in the fund. One per cent on $18 million is real money. It really is. It makes a substantial difference, or would have made a substantial difference, to the fund if at least the government would pay inside its own account the competitive rates you could get in the market.

Hon Mr Hodgson: That's a good suggestion.

Mr Michael Brown: You have it within your ability to go to cabinet and ask them to pay, because essentially what's happening at the moment is that the government is borrowing that money at 2%. That's a pretty good deal for the government, but I'm not so sure it's a good deal for the hunters and anglers and commercial fishermen who have put their money into the trust fund.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think it's a good suggestion, Mr Brown, and I know you've been very supportive of this special purpose account. If Patricia wants to come back up here and just explain what the tax ramifications might be.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm not saying you have to take it outside. All I'm saying is pay it within the fund at the competitive rate. I'm not suggesting that you take it outside. I'm just saying go outside and find out what a competitive rate would be, because that's real money.

Hon Mr Hodgson: And that's the same return that we have to take into account. Trish, do you want to talk about this? You've probably looked at this in some detail and you can make sure the fishers and anglers and hunters are getting the best return on their dollar.

Ms Malcolmson: I wouldn't want to lead you astray on the example that I gave. That was the nearest comparable thing, in a couple of hours of looking around, to the rate that's being offered by the province. The province's rate is a guaranteed rate.

What I might mention in comparison is that we do have at arm's length from ourselves the forestry trust account, which also invests its money, and you might wish that for comparative purposes. Montreal Trust is managing that account at the moment and the latest figures that were given to me this morning is that they are getting a 3.1% return on that at the moment. I don't have the numbers but they, of course, charge a management and administrative fee for the work that they do, so it would be unclear without doing further research what the net return is. There is clearly a choice to be made, I guess, but those are the facts as we know them at the moment. Clearly the situation might be different if the interest rates were quickly running in the other direction.

Mr Michael Brown: I understand. All I'm saying is that it should be competitive, and the one being used today is probably the lowest possible parameter we could use in terms of funding.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think we're being treated fairly, but we'll certainly run the business case and keep an eye on it.

Mr Michael Brown: I think so, and if there's a problem with the Fish and Game Act, obviously that act is coming up for legislative review and we can no doubt deal with that at that particular time.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I really appreciate the fact that it's being reviewed.

Mr Michael Brown: As the minister and I suppose all of us are aware, resource management issues with the first nations, particularly hunting and fishing, are ongoing in many parts of the province. I would bring his attention to the United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin, who have been hoping to hold some kind of discussion with the minister to resolve some of the issues, particularly hunting in their case, of concern to themselves and others.

I'm just wondering what the ministry's position is on negotiating. As a background, I should say we're all aware there was a court case -- I guess there still is a court case because it's being appealed -- in regard to what is widely known as Operation Rainbow. During that court case, at one of the junctures the judge said, "Some of these issues would be much better negotiated rather than brought before my court." I and others had suggested to the ministry that some of the issues that were being adjudicated would have been far better to have negotiations going on. We weren't suggesting for one moment the negotiations be related to the actual trial but that the issues raised by the trial be discussed with the first nations community. The government chose not to do that.

What is the attitude of the ministry in talking to the people in this situation, the United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin, with regard to those issues?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I appreciate the question, Mr Brown. I too have met with the united chiefs of the Manitoulin area, with the minister in charge of native affairs as well. We had a round table discussion. We also talked after and their staff have had a lot of meetings as well and been out on the site.

Operation Rainbow that you refer to, as you are aware, started back in the late 1980s. I agree with you that you shouldn't interfere with that court process and negotiate around the charges and that.

1640

Mr Michael Brown: It would be inappropriate. I think we all know that.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I also agree with you that outside of the court case and outside of those issues, that where it's practical it should be negotiated, and that's what our staff have been trying to do, to make sure there's a clear understanding of what is allowable and what isn't allowable, to make sure that the first nations' rights and treaty obligations are respected, and also to make sure that Ontario has the ability to manage the natural resources so they're sustained for the next generation.

Given the parameters that the courts have clearly laid out, given that the Manitoulin first nations and our staff are willing to cooperate, I think that'll show fruitful signs.

Mr Michael Brown: So the minister is encouraging the staff to proceed with -- negotiations may not be the proper word, but at least a discussion of the issues.

Hon Mr Hodgson: And that has been taking place this round. I know there have been allegations it hasn't, but I can assure you that it has.

Mr Michael Brown: So we're looking for a resolution of those matters and the ministry's pursuing them with all vigour.

Hon Mr Hodgson: All things in time.

Mr Michael Brown: The issue of section 77 of the environmental assessment timber management has been raised here. I wonder if you could, in the broad sense, indicate the ministry's activities in a proactive way to ensure the compliance with section 77 of the timber management.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Sure I can. I can do better than that, not just in a general sense; I can call Cam Clark to give a detailed response.

Mr Michael Brown: That would be wonderful.

Mr Cam Clark: I'm Cam Clark, the assistant deputy minister for field services division. Thank you for the opportunity.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm sure you'll have more opportunity here shortly.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Do you need unanimous consent to go beyond a minute and a half, Mr Chair?

The Chair: We'll get to the NDP at that time. Please proceed, Mr Clark.

Mr Clark: Just a little background on this. I did have some involvement in the original timber EA hearings and am somewhat aware of the issues that were raised through that process, so I understand the context for term and condition 77. That particular term and condition addressed issues with respect to the provision of opportunities which provide for more equal participation in the benefits of forest management by aboriginal people.

This was an issue that was raised continuously throughout the hearing process, that aboriginal people were not adequately represented in timber management planning, were not adequately represented in the allocation process, and provision was not made to include them in various forms of public participation that would allow them to share in the benefits flowing from forest management.

The scope of term and condition 77 is broad, and I think you can appreciate that. It has presented a considerable challenge to local managers to address the intent, and its application and implementation is determined by a lot of variables that exist at the local level. I point that out because in attempting to respond to T and C 77, the term and condition itself puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of district managers. There's certainly some merit in this, because they do appreciate the local conditions and by and large are in the best position to have established a working relationship not only with the first nations but with the forest industries involved.

The Chair: Mr Clark, I'm going to interrupt you and ask the NDP if they'd like to direct their questions or have you continue your testimony.

Mr Wildman: I would like to pursue this a little, but at the outset of our time, I would say that I appreciate the minister's gathering information to answer questions that were raised yesterday, and this is a matter that was raised yesterday as well. I suspect that Mr Clark has done some late-night note making, or if he didn't do it, he had somebody else do it for him, and he can answer some of the questions that were raised yesterday. But I would really like to find out from the minister and/or the ministry staff your definition of the word "negotiate."

Hon Mr Hodgson: You should probably ask a lawyer that feels well versed in this to come forward.

Mr Wildman: This is a legal matter. You're quite right. Terms and conditions require you to conduct negotiations.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I see that they're volunteering. There's three at the back there.

Mr Wildman: That's the problem when you've got three lawyers. We'll probably get three different definitions.

The Chair: Do all three wish to come forward and give a separate opinion?

Hon Mr Hodgson: You may want to repeat the question, Mr Wildman.

The Chair: Do you want to designate someone to respond?

Mr Wildman: While they're conferring, perhaps I could ask Mr Clark, while the lawyers are defining what "negotiate" means --

Hon Mr Hodgson: Do you have three straws back there that might work?

Mr Wildman: The problem with raising questions on this, Chair, is that there is a court case not directly related but involving all the terms and conditions. I know that the lawyers may say, "Well, we shouldn't talk about this because this is a matter before the courts." I understand that one of the Sierra Clubs and others have gone to court. I'm not trying to interfere in that case, but this is a matter of significant importance to the first nations and to all of the people of Ontario.

I have an understanding of what the word "negotiate" means and I don't see it happening. So I'm wondering what the ministry's understanding is of the word "negotiate." I'd like an answer on that.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know if you come forward Mr Wildman will give you his opinion.

Mr Stuart Davidson: I'm Stuart Davidson. I'm a solicitor with the Ministry of Natural Resources. My difficulty or hesitancy about coming forward was that I'm not the solicitor who's involved in dealing with first nations at first hand. But I am the solicitor who is involved with the managing of crown forest resources. The answer to your question is actually quite simple. There is no special meaning to the word "negotiate" within the context of the terms and conditions of the environmental assessment. It means almost what you would find in a dictionary, which you have there. Usually we prefer the Oxford rather than the Webster. It's a discussion between two parties in order to reach an agreement, which in this case would be to find ways or mechanisms to afford economic opportunities to first nations. I realize that's kind of an abstract idea, which is why I asked Mr Clark to sit by my side because he has examples of the outcome of those discussions on a district-by-district basis.

Mr Wildman: Okay, I would like to hear that. I also know that Mr Clark has some experience in what I understand to be negotiation. I'll just read what Webster's says. I apologize that the clerk wasn't able to get an Oxford. It's "to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise" and "to confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter."

What are the examples of conferring to arrive at a settlement of some matter? What are the examples of conference, discussion and compromise?

1650

The Chair: Mr Clark, did you hear the question?

Mr Clark: I'm sorry, Mr Wildman, could you repeat your question?

Mr Wildman: I just gave a couple of definitions of what Webster's says "negotiate" means. Mr Davidson said you had some examples of this. I'd like to hear specific examples.

Mr Clark: Maybe I should just carry on with some examples here and some of the experience we've had as an organization in attempting to deal with this, because I appreciate the issue you're raising here around negotiation. When we became aware of the term and condition, of course we had to look at that question as well and ask ourselves, in practical terms, at the field level, how we were going to address these concerns, recognizing that at the end of the day we were accountable. We had a number of discussions with district managers around the best way to proceed with this, and we tried to identify the areas where they could have the most impact.

As I pointed out, one of the things we have to recognize when we deal with this is that the responsibility here rests with the district managers; the term and condition speak to them particularly. We responded quite favourably to that because district managers are the people on the front line who deal directly with people in the forest industry and also with native communities, so they are perhaps best able to recognize the unique needs and situations of the communities and the opportunities that are available.

What we have done, and just on a very broad level, is I don't think there's a district in existence within the area of the undertaking where timber management occurs where district managers are not in the process of attempting to deal directly with first nations to explore ways in which they can benefit more directly from timber management.

I think you appreciate that there's a long history here and these situations are extremely difficult to deal with. For example, in all the SFL negotiations we're involved in where there's native communities either adjacent to or found within the context of the area in which SFLs are being renegotiated or negotiated, district managers are making a conscious effort to ensure and have advised the companies in producing their business plans that they have to work directly with first nations to attempt to reach some reasonable accommodation that respects the needs of the communities and provides them with opportunities.

This may be a situation where they're providing them with employment opportunities, contracting to harvest wood. It may involve them in silviculture. I think you're aware of these kinds of things.

Mr Wildman: I also am aware of attempts that have been made that haven't gone anywhere. But if I could raise this matter, Mr Clark hasn't given us any specifics at this point; I understand that he may be getting to them. But if I look at the dictionary where it says "negotiable," it says "capable of being negotiated as transferable from one person to another by being delivered with or without endorsement so that the title passes to the transferee" -- capable of being transferred.

I think that is a pretty good definition of the kinds of negotiations that are going on between the ministry and the private sector with regard to tenure. I don't think that is a good description of what is happening in terms of what Mr Clark just described as opportunities for employment.

The question is, are the first nations on an equal footing with the private companies and the ministry in the negotiations? Do they start from -- okay, we're going to negotiate transfers of tenure, if you want to use the term from the dictionary; I know you wouldn't use that term yourself. Are they on the same level, the same footing in these negotiations between the private sector and the ministry? In other words, are they in from square one?

Mr Clark: I think the term and condition recognized that generally they weren't. I think the substance of the evidence at the hearing was that first nations weren't working on an equal playing field because they were limited in resources, training and the capacity to do the kind of work that currently occurs in forest management. I think the realistic answer, given your knowledge of the situation and most people's, is that they're not playing from the same level.

In recognition of that, we do attempt through these discussions/negotiations to explore ways, realistic ways, that don't necessarily mean turning the whole system inside out, to provide them with real opportunities to build capacity, to get directly involved in forest operations. The way in which we respond is quite variable, and I think you're aware of that, depending on where it is, the experience of the first nations and the capacity of the first nations to work oftentimes with existing industry where we have legal obligations.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know my deputy minister, Ron Vrancart, would like to comment on this as well.

Mr Vrancart: I just wanted to say that in this process there is no allocation of new timber resources taking place here. This is a relicensing of the old FMAs and the old licences.

Mr Wildman: Just to use the Mississauga crown unit north of Blind River as an example, that is not a resource that was allocated previously. It was a crown unit.

Hon Mr Hodgson: No, the people who were getting timber from that before will get timber after this licensing takes place.

Mr Wildman: Negotiations are now on for it to be allocated to companies like E.B. Eddy.

Ms Martel: And independents may or may not be a part of that. Right?

Hon Mr Hodgson: We'll check that out, but we've tried to insist that if the independents were getting wood before, they'll get wood after.

Mr Wildman: That's part of it.

Hon Mr Hodgson: They might have to form another unit.

Mr Wildman: You asked for an example; I gave you an example that does not fit into what Mr Vrancart just said. There are crown units that were not allocated previously that are currently under negotiation for SFLs.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Just for clarification, Mr Wildman, on the Mississauga unit that you mentioned -- just so I can check this out -- you're saying there was no wood that was used by independents or allocated?

Mr Wildman: Not at all; it was a crown unit. They're now negotiating for it to become an SFL.

Hon Mr Hodgson: And what we're doing, as Mr Vrancart stated, is licensing that, and people who received wood prior to this change will receive wood after. You're telling me that's not the case.

Mr Wildman: You can't guarantee that. I'll tell the independents you said that and they'll be very happy.

Hon Mr Hodgson: They might have to form a new unit or get into a unit where they can replace the forest and pay the cost of that, and they look for partners.

Mr Wildman: E.B. Eddy is doing it, not the independents, and that's the problem.

Hon Mr Hodgson: They look for a partner.

Mr Wildman: But the fact is, the North Shore tribal council has indicated interest in that unit which was not previously allocated, so here you're not talking about previously allocated wood, in terms of SFLs or forest management agreements. They are not converting forest management agreements at the Mississauga crown unit into an SFL. This was a crown unit managed by the ministry. So what is the status of the North Shore tribal council in those negotiations, since it was not previously allocated wood under the forest management agreements?

Mr Clark: I can't give you up-to-date information on the specifics of that negotiation.

Mr Wildman: My information is that there have been a couple of contacts but they're not going anywhere, and the private companies like E.B. Eddy and its partners are very frustrated because they'd like to get an SFL.

Ms Martel: If I might, I feel we're putting Cam in an unfair position when it's probably some political direction that's required. We believe the terms and conditions are pretty clear and that the district manager has an obligation not just to tell the forestry company or companies that they should go and talk to first nations. The district manager has an obligation to ensure that the first nations are party to that negotiation and that discussion about how land is going to be dealt with -- party to. We are concerned because we are hearing from first nations that this is not happening. The district manager is telling first nations to go see the company and work something out with the company in question.

1700

Mr Wildman: He's met with them twice.

Ms Martel: As far as we're concerned, the district manager has completely reneged on their obligation under the T and C; hence has the ministry. What we want to see are some concrete examples and some sense that first nations are going to be involved directly as parties in this negotiation with respect to crown land, not as an offshoot or as an aside, but being involved directly so that they do see some benefits. Frankly, our concern with some of these companies is that you can tell them to negotiate with first nations but they're going to do as little as possible, regrettably -- not all, but some. The ministry has a responsibility to deal with that.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Do you have a list of the companies that you feel will do as little as possible and the ones that will be good?

Mr Wildman: Let's deal specifically with the examples since we asked for specific examples. You couldn't give them to us; we gave you one. The fact is that the independents, ironically, in this particular situation are on the side of the first nations, not the big companies. They're scared that if E.B. Eddy and its partners get the allocation, they will be at the "mercy" of the large companies, whereas in the past they negotiated with the ministry on the crown management units. So they are supporting the first nations. They are supporting the North Shore tribal council in this in saying that they all should have equal say in the negotiations. The negotiations should not be first between the ministry and the large companies and then the independents make deals with the companies and the first nations make deals with the companies.

The Chair: I'll give the minister a chance to answer that assertion.

Mr Wildman: I want to assert that Blind River should also have an allocation that they traditionally had off of that crown management unit. They're afraid they may lose it, as the minister knows. They raised that with him.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I want to thank Mr Wildman for raising concerns. I'll look into it, but I also want to tell you that there has been no change in the policy since I became minister from what was in existence when I inherited the office.

Mr Wildman: They didn't go into effect at that time. They were just starting when you came in and this particular negotiation has not proceeded very far. Anyway, I don't want to prolong it.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I can tell you there was no change. We'll take a look at it.

Mr Wildman: I'll go to some other matters. I did raise questions around area charges and the scale just at the end of my intervention yesterday. Is it the case that large companies now, because of the elimination of area charges, will be able to have access and tenure on areas they aren't cutting for long periods of time without having to pay rent?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I appreciate the question, Mr Wildman. To get you a specific answer, I'd like to call Larry Douglas. He knows this issue in quite some detail that I know you would insist upon having.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much, and perhaps Mr Douglas can speak to the question around the scale and the concerns I had with regard to the Wawa district.

Mr Douglas: The area charges have been folded into the stumpage system, so that there is a more direct relationship between what the companies pay and what they cut. I think you had a question -- I wasn't sure, Mr Wildman, whether you were concerned about what effect this would have on moneys going into renewal.

Mr Wildman: No, that was the other matter of the scale.

Mr Douglas: Okay. I'm sorry. The advantage of putting it on volume is that there is a more direct relationship between what the companies harvest and what they pay. With area charges, there wasn't that direct relationship.

Mr Wildman: Can they tie up areas that they aren't harvesting without paying anything?

Mr Douglas: The relationship between the area they paid and the amount they paid through area charges was really quite a small proportion of the amount of money any company would pay. Historically, it was probably something less than 10% of the total charges that went into royalties through stumpage and that. It wasn't an overriding issue and I don't think our experience was that we thought companies would love to pay area charges just to hold the land. It just wasn't worth it.

The other advantage we have --

The Chair: Mr Douglas, I'm sorry I have to interrupt you. Mr Wildman, your time is used up. Mr Brown, would you like him to continue?

Mr Michael Brown: Yes I would.

Mr Douglas: The other advantage is that it allows us to simplify our billing system. When we had a system dealing with area charges and another one dealing with the volume-based stumpage, it was a more complicated system. So it allows us more efficiency and I think it's more businesslike.

Mr Michael Brown: Does this system provide for the same revenue base as the area charge under the old system?

Mr Douglas: Yes. We did the calculations and an equivalent amount of revenue is being brought into the CRF and an equivalent amount of revenue is being sent to the forestry futures trust fund.

Mr Michael Brown: Could we expect, if harvesting increased or whatever, that proportion to decrease in the stumpage so it reflects properly the area charge as it exists; or vice versa, that you increase the area charge if volumes decrease?

Mr Douglas: I think the measure is revenue-neutral. It was based on long-term averages.

Mr Wildman: That's a loaded term these days.

Hon Mr Hodgson: It goes into the base rate, does it not?

Mr Douglas: It has gone into the base rate.

Hon Mr Hodgson: So it's revenue-neutral. It's the base rate, not the residual value end.

Mr Michael Brown: But it now is dependent on volumes, so if the volume changes, the base rate would change. If it was to remain revenue-neutral, you would have to adjust for volume somehow.

Mr Douglas: The harvest levels over the long term are very stable. There are some ups and downs with the economic cycle but it's a small variance.

Mr Michael Brown: And the same amount of money flows to the forestry futures trust as was anticipated?

Mr Douglas: Yes.

Hon Mr Hodgson: You might want to explain the three trusts. There are different trusts.

Mr Michael Brown: I understand, so that's fine. I would like to ask a specific question, though, about the trusts. Is the forestry futures trust operating in the manner the ministry intended? Is the money flowing in the manner the ministry intended?

Mr Douglas: We're very pleased with the way it's working. There's an advisory board that deals with this and it's got two former deans of forestry, one from U of T and one from the Lakehead.

Mr Michael Brown: And they stay in the same room? I know the rivalry between the two schools of forestry.

Mr Douglas: We've found that it has moved along quite well. We're not hearing criticisms of it. The fact that they deal with a lot of proposals in any given year is a credit to them.

Mr Michael Brown: I want to have another go at section 77, just for a minute, and maybe from the outcome side of this. Could you tell me what actual agreements have come to pass in the last year and a half under that section? Just where we've been successful is I guess the question I'm asking.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think we've been quite successful in opening a dialogue with a number of first nations around the terms and conditions of number 77 as stipulated under the act and as legally interpreted by the parties. I'd call upon Cam Clark. Cam, you might want to elaborate on some of the progress that your department has made.

Mr Michael Brown: Specifically, what agreements have been concluded?

Mr Clark: I'm going to reference a number by district to give you an indication of the kind of arrangements we're getting involved in. Nipigon district, for example, has a number of first nation communities. SFL negotiations occurring within this district have included the appropriate first nations communities. In fact, when we licensed the Nakina and Ogoki forests, provisions were written into that agreement that required the companies specifically to get involved, and possibilities for harvesting and silviculture work for the first nations are in the process of being evaluated.

1710

Long Lake Forest Products, as a condition of their licence, must work cooperatively with the crown to provide opportunities to a number of the first nations within that area. The company is to negotiate overlapping agreements, singly or in partnership, for areas to be being harvested under the terms of the forest resource licence on the Ogoki management unit. This is an example where we went through a licensing process which was very rigorous, which I might add was open to everybody, including first nations. In that process there were very specific conditions that the companies had to meet when we put out a request for proposals. The companies chosen were the companies that basically met those conditions in the most satisfactory way. Since that time, we've now been in a situation where, as I say, the company is to negotiate overlapping agreements singly or in partnership. This is a requirement for the forest resource licence on the Ogoki management unit.

This company also has a similar condition with the Aroland First Nation for the Nakina North management unit. The company must also work with native communities to develop the native recruitment, training and employment strategy. This is built into the agreement we reached with that company.

This is a very solid piece of evidence that demonstrates that where the opportunities exist and where the parties can come together, we are able to orchestrate these arrangements, and we feel this is going to be a successful product from that process.

Another area where some interesting developments have occurred in the last little while is in Thunder Bay district, for example. A number of communities there are, and have been, involved in forest management. The Kiaske River Native Development Corp of Gull Bay has extensive experience in forest management within the Thunder Bay district. They are responsible for forest management planning on the Kiaske unit and hold licences. The Kiaske also undertake silviculture activities within their unit. They're involved with Niigaami Enterprises in the planning, road construction and layout of harvesting blocks for their activities on the Spruce River unit as well. The Saugeen First Nation also have an allocation of timber in the Brightsand Forest for the last five years; however, no harvesting has taken place.

Both the Mizhinawea and the Niigaami organizations are represented in the Spruce River Forest local citizens' committee, while the Saugeen First Nation are represented on the Brightsand local citizens' committee. There are a couple of examples there and there are certainly others throughout the area where I think significant progress is being made, both in achieving some degree of involvement of first nations in the planning process, sitting at the table, and also where specific commitments have been made either by way of licensing or contracting of activities on those units. I don't know if you want more examples here.

Mr Michael Brown: No, that's fine, thank you.

I think the minister's comment that he has not changed the way the conversion of crown units to SFLs was contemplated in the legislation, Bill 171, is correct. I remember that one of the causes of concern I expressed over and over again was how we would deal with the situations where a number of people were licensed to cut or had allocations -- directing the wood within certain areas. I remember very clearly the moment in Thunder Bay where Mr Bisson suggested to one of the presenters that what they should do is form a co-op. I think you remember that too, Minister.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes.

Mr Michael Brown: The logger said very calmly, "If you put 20 loggers in a room, you don't have a co-op; you have a fight." This is one of the issues that is difficult.

I've also had some involvement with the independent loggers on the North Shore. Actually, our constituencies overlap. The concern of how this process works itself out is very great. However, we also know that one of the driving factors behind this is the ministry's decision that if nothing comes to pass in terms of how this is done, the ministry will just manage as it has always managed the forests there and the independents will pay the ministry for the management fee. That is an option, but a terribly expensive one, I believe.

Hon Mr Hodgson: It took an amendment to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act to make that an option.

Mr Michael Brown: I understand that, but it's not very attractive. I supported the amendment, by the way.

I have had some discussions on lake management with a number of people. There seems to be a broad concern -- we've heard it from the government side as well as the opposition side -- about the condition of certain species in the fish stock. Perch seems to be one of the great causes of concern. In my own constituency there's a call for a reduction in the limits, both of daily catch and what you may have in your possession, of yellow perch. We're hearing it from all over the province. The biologists seem to indicate that there is certainly a decline, at least at this point a low yellow perch population in the province. I'm wondering if somebody could give us any reasons for that happening.

Hon Mr Hodgson: It varies, Mr Brown, depending on which part of the province you're in. In some areas fishing in other species is up. If you're talking about perch in the Great Lakes system, there could be a number of factors: One is the change in the water clarity affecting the chemical balance; sometimes it's the weather; sometimes it's overfishing. It's hard to generalize; there's a number of factors. It has to be based on good science. There have been studies done by this scientist. There have been studies done by our people. You want to get them together and see if the data are correct and then, from that basis, you can start to make management decisions. It's pretty hard to just generalize and say --

Mr Michael Brown: My information is that generally across the Great Lakes system this particular species is having some difficulty, while -- you're perfectly correct -- other species, whitefish, for example, commercially fished, are very strong; chub is very strong. Commercial fisherman in our area report record catches. The anglers in our part of the world report that bass fishing could never be better.

Hon Mr Hodgson: It was a great summer for bass fishing.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm just wondering. This would be a cause of concern, because it doesn't appear to be something in this particular lake; it seems to be across the ecosystem.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll call upon our professional biologist, Gail Beggs. Gail, could you explain in detailed terms the chemical makeup of the water that the yellow perch have to survive in, and the weather conditions?

Ms Beggs: Gee, it has been many years since I've had to be a professional biologist, but I'll do my best. Perch is one fish species that fluctuates a lot naturally, due to climate changes in particular. Their growth and productivity respond to things like the length of the winter, the temperature in the water system. I haven't heard the same reports you have of declining populations across the Great Lakes. We have heard that observation in some other lakes, and what the biologists have told me is that it's part of a natural cycle in perch populations. Our data in the other lakes -- I can't speak to the Great Lakes -- show no undue influence.

1720

Minister Hodgson is right. In the Great Lakes a number of factors can influence perch abundance, as well as climate. We are seeing tremendous changes in the Great Lakes ecosystems, with cleanups of toxics, the introduction of zebra mussels and the introduction of other species. All these things can impact fish species productivity. In the case of yellow perch, I know we've had concerns in some parts of the Great Lakes about the introduction of white perch. That species has shown some increases. Where they increase, sometimes yellow perch decreases, probably due to competition for the same niche.

More specifically on the Great Lakes, though, we'd be happy to give you our data on the status of perch stocks in the Great Lakes. We work with our American counterparts to assess that, and then we work together with our American counterparts to agree on what would be a fair allocation of the resource and what would be a sustainable allocation over the long term, so we do have good data from the Great Lakes.

Mr Michael Brown: As long as we have a biologist in front of us, and probably it's your bailiwick anyway, could you explain to me and others how the ministry is progressing in its fight with the zebra mussel?

Ms Beggs: The ministry has had a long-standing program. Part of it has been a program where we've funded research; part of it has been a program in partnership with other stakeholders. For example, we've had a partnership with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which has had a zebra mussel hotline where people could phone in and let us know about the distribution of zebra mussels. They have also done a boat wash demonstration to inform the public on how they can help not transfer zebra mussels.

Zebra mussels have become widely distributed after their introduction into the Great Lakes, so they are also in our inland waterways now. They seem to be limited naturally by the calcium content in the waterways. We are noticing in the Great Lakes some decline in population; they seem to peak and then are levelling off. We think they're here to stay in the waterways they're in, and our focus, in partnership with others, is trying to prevent their distribution further.

Successive ministers of natural resources have also written to the federal government on this issue, because while zebra mussels are here, we continue to be worried about the importation of other species through ballast water. My understanding is that as of yet, the federal government has not enacted legislation, although there are voluntary guidelines for ballast water exchange that the shipping industry is trying to abide by.

Mr Michael Brown: The zebra mussel battle seems to have been lost, at least in terms of having it widely dispersed through the Great Lakes system and some of the inland lakes. I understand that is having not necessarily a bad effect everywhere, but it's certainly affecting the ecosystem dramatically. Particularly in the lower lakes, Erie and Ontario, if I understand it, that's affecting the mix of the fish population to some extent. Could you describe that?

Ms Beggs: I hope I am doing an okay job here, because I'm not employed right now as a professional biologist, but what I understand we're observing is that zebra mussels, through their filtering effect, are taking algae out of the watercourse. That in turn takes out some of the nutrients, binds them up in the zebra mussels. It alters the production of the system by doing that; it changes things like water clarity; sunlight can penetrate deeper. It changes the temperature balance. All these things then change the habitat for the fish species present, which means that some fish species respond positively because they may have been constrained by those variables that have changed; others may respond negatively. Zebra mussels aren't the only thing happening to the Great Lakes, and sometimes it's hard to sort out whether the responses are strictly due to zebra mussel introduction in abundance or due to that and a combination of other factors.

The Chair: Another 20 seconds.

Mr Michael Brown: To the minister, I had been contacted by some people concerned with the keeping and training of hunting dogs in compounds. You would be aware of that issue. Could the minister describe what the ministry's view is? I know that the last time we went through the amendments to the fish and wildlife act we had this discussion. There were a number of stakeholders who --

The Chair: Hopefully, Mr Brown, most of the sense of what you'd like to ask has gotten across. We'll have to hold that until next time.

Mr Michael Brown: He will know what I'm talking about anyway.

The Chair: We've given sufficient time on that, unless the immediacy is shared by the NDP, whose turn it now is.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Do you want me to continue it during your time?

Ms Martel: If it doesn't take a long time.

Hon Mr Hodgson: This is a pretty complicated issue.

Ms Martel: Forget it, then.

Mr Michael Brown: We'll catch it on the next go-round.

Ms Martel: Minister, I want to check on the status of some other reports. Yesterday we talked about the annual report on timber management, which I assume you will give us a written response to in terms of where it is.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Shelley, I can hardly hear.

Ms Martel: I want to follow up on some other reports that you have an obligation to table. Under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act you have to table a forest renewal trust fund annual report. Has that been tabled?

Hon Mr Hodgson: You asked questions yesterday on the timber EA and the reports around that as well.

Ms Martel: Yes, but I didn't ask about this one.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Gail Beggs would be more than happy to answer your questions in detail, because I'm sure you'll have some more. Gail, do you want to join us again?

Ms Martel: The first report: Under Bill 171 the ministry has an obligation to table the annual report for the forest renewal trust. I wanted to know if that has been tabled.

Ms Beggs: To the best of my knowledge, we haven't tabled it yet. It is in the process of production and will be tabled soon.

Ms Martel: Are you tabling the 1995-96? We should have two by now, I would think, because the act went into effect April 1, 1995.

Ms Beggs: I don't know what's in production. There are both years. I know it is in production now. I assume at minimum it'll be the 1995-96, but that's my assumption. I don't know the answer directly.

Ms Martel: The second one, which follows, is an annual report for the forestry futures fund, which should have been tabled by now. We're probably missing a year and a half of that one. Again, that's under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Larry, do you want to join us up here? I know you're more than eager to answer this.

Mr Douglas: The first report that you refer to is being produced. There were some complications in the audit that was required by Montreal Trust. They're having trouble with their computer system so that was delayed, but it is being prepared. Those bugs have been ironed out.

I'm not aware of the status of the forestry futures trust fund. I know they've completed their first year of operation, and we're awaiting that report.

Mr Beggs: I think that's in preparation too.

Ms Martel: This is directed to the minister. The act makes it clear that the annual reports are to be tabled. The act has been in effect since April 1, 1995. That's a heck of a long computer delay. I'm not disputing that there might have been, but there's an obligation for you to meet under the act that is not being met.

Let me ask about forest management audits, because they are to be tabled annually. Can you tell me which have been produced under this government?

Mr Douglas: We've gone into independent forest audits. Last year we did four pilots. They've been completed and will soon be available. I don't know exactly when they will be tabled, but they have been completed. This year, there are 10 in process, including the SFLs, including two crown management units and including the Algonquin Forestry Authority. Those are in process.

1730

Ms Martel: When can we expect those audits? I suspect that the last set we saw tabled would have been in 1995.

Mr Douglas: The ones that were done last year should be tabled within the next month or two. The ones that I spoke about, the 10, are just going into the field work, so it would be early next year before that process is completed.

Ms Martel: Under condition 91 of EA act, within the first year of the final approval -- and we have passed that -- MNR was to prepare a brochure which would outline the timber management planning process in simplified form and a glossary of terms. Has that been produced?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Thanks for the question, Shelley. Gail Beggs would like to answer that.

Ms Beggs: I'm pleased to be able to answer directly. In fact, I brought you examples of the English-language one. We also have one in French, and this is one in Cree and Oji-Cree. Mr Wildman, I believe you expressed some interest in the Cree and Oji-Cree.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Gail, do you have copies of those for all the committee members?

Ms Beggs: I don't, but I can arrange to get them.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Okay. You don't want to adjourn till we get those?

The Chair: No, Minister, unless there is unanimous consent. We have a motion to conclude today, so I suspect not.

Ms Martel: No. It would be 1998 before we saw the rest of this.

There was another condition, which I will leave with you, because I asked this in a written question to the minister in August. Condition 4 outlines the committees that have to sit: the local and regional committees, the provincial policy committee and the technical committee. I have asked for specific information about which committees have actually been established and are meeting. I'd like it if you could at least provide the members with the provincial forestry committee and the provincial technical committee. The other ones are regional and local, and that's too much.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know Gail would like to answer.

Ms Beggs: I don't have the names of all the people with me. I can give you, to the best of my recollection -- Ron might be able to help me -- the members of the provincial policy committee.

Ms Martel: You could table the names. I'd like to know the schedule, because they were to start to meet in 1995 too. Actually, the former minister, as I understand it, named the members of the committee. I believe they've only met once since then.

Ms Beggs: The provincial forest policy committee has met twice.

Ms Martel: And the provincial technical committee?

Ms Beggs: They have met once and have a meeting scheduled next month. What you'd like -- I just want to be clear -- is for us to get back to you with the names on both of those committees and meeting dates.

Ms Martel: Yes, if you have a schedule for their meetings. There are some obligations you have around this too and I want to be clear that they're being met. Thanks very much.

Ms Beggs: Are you interested in the response about -- yesterday Mr Wildman asked when we would be publishing the annual report.

Mr Wildman: Yes.

Ms Beggs: I had a discussion with staff this morning, and I'm pleased to say that the annual report will be published by September. It's in draft form now. We're working with --

Mr Wildman: That's 1995-96?

Ms Beggs: That's 1995-96. It's an intensive volume, reporting on all our accomplishments under the timber EA. Because you'd asked about progress with MOEE, I also brought, in addition to the brochures which we've tabled, copies of guidelines that represent progress and responses to particular terms and conditions, policies we've done. Each of these on completion is tabled with the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

In terms of your question on the Environmental Bill of Rights and posting, since that bill came into effect and is applicable to various parts of ministry activities, we have been posting for public consultation on the EBR. What I've shown you today is a combination of things, some of which have been posted; others, like the forest management planning manual, haven't been, but have undergone extensive consultation and are widely available.

Mr Wildman: Could I ask, since by the end of September you're going to have the 1995-96 report, when you anticipate the 1996-97 report?

Ms Beggs: I don't have a date for you, but as soon as possible.

Mr Wildman: The law says it is to be tabled annually.

Ms Beggs: That's right, so it will be tabled by September 1998.

Mr Wildman: So there was sort of a lag time at the beginning and from now on it'll be --

Ms Beggs: From now on they must be annually.

Mr Wildman: I see.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The first one was within the nine years, was it not?

Ms Beggs: The first one must be tabled within the lifespan of the terms and conditions, which I believe is a nine-year approval.

Hon Mr Hodgson: That's right. After that it has to be annual.

Mr Wildman: I would just point out that annual is annual. I know this government has some difficulty with dates: They believe this is the fall and they believe that January's the spring. But "annual" usually starts in January and ends in December, or sometimes it could be a fiscal year starting in April and ending at the end of March. I guess with this one, the first year was 18 months and from now it's going to be annual.

Ms Beggs: It will be annual from now on.

Mr Wildman: I raised a couple of times questions around the scale in the Wawa district.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know Larry Douglas would like to answer that, because he's familiar with this area.

Mr Douglas: We inquired this morning. It would be helpful if you could give us some specific details on this. We will investigate and get back to you, but it would expedite our work if we had some specifics --

Mr Wildman: I've written to the deputy minister, dated August 5, so you have that letter. In that letter I said, "Can you confirm that a member of the Wawa district MNR staff requested a review of the scaling in the district?" In response to that request -- I'm just paraphrasing -- the regional scaling auditor agreed to look into the Wawa situation. I'd like to know the result of the scaling auditor's inquiries. I said: "I've been informed that there are serious reasons for concern about the accuracy of the scales in the Wawa district to the point that private company staffs are disturbed about it. The ministry does not staff the weigh scales and truckers fill out their own slips. As late as last spring, three companies in the area" -- there aren't that many companies in the area, Larry -- "apparently owed enormous sums in crown dues." I point out that these companies, if they're not billed and don't pay, would lose silviculture funding because of inaccuracies in the dues paid for timber cut. That's their concern.

If you dig up the letter -- I'm sure Jane Ireland can find it for you.

Hon Mr Hodgson: We will follow up.

Ms Martel: Minister, I'd like to ask you about Cross Lake. When is the next scheduled appearance for court? I understand the August date was put off because the MOEE lawyer could not attend.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I believe the ministry is to appear on September 11. I could be corrected on that. Can I have confirmation? Is that September 11?

Ms Martel: Still in Haileybury?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes.

Ms Martel: I know you won't respond around the court case; I don't expect you to. I would like to ask you if you can explain to the committee why the road was built without complying with the EA act.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I believe that's the question before the courts, is it not?

Ms Martel: I think the question before the courts is whether or not you're guilty. I don't think there's any question that the road was built. Your ministry went in and barred access to it last fall. It's there. That's clear.

Hon Mr Hodgson: To the three lawyers at the back of the room, am I allowed to comment on this to set the record straight and clarify what Shelley's trying to allude to? Paul, could you come up to the front?

1740

Mr Paul Gonsalves: Paul Gonsalves, prosecution counsel, legal services branch with the Ministry of Natural Resources. I'm not familiar with the particular prosecution entirely, but it would be my advice, given that it is before the court, that the prudent course would be to refrain from answering the question that was posed.

Mr Wildman: With respect, the minister has agreed in the House -- it's in Hansard -- that the road exists. He hasn't denied the road exists.

Hon Mr Hodgson: It's a fact.

Mr Wildman: Exactly; that's what my colleague was saying. It's a fact. We know the road is there. The question that's before the courts is whether, in building the road and authorizing the construction of the road, the ministry complied with the act. We're not asking that. We're asking, what was the impetus to build the road? Who asked for it?

Mr Gonsalves: In fairness, Mr Wildman, the answer to that question may go to the gravity of any offence that the court may find was committed. To that extent, I'm not sure that --

Mr Wildman: I suppose, if you can find yourself important enough issues, you don't have to answer anything.

Ms Martel: Let me try this. The comprehensive planning council, in its report to you, opposed a road access into Cross Lake. They made it very clear this was a difficult decision, but they opposed it. The road is also opposed by the Temagami Lakes Association, the Temagami First Nation and, as I understand it, the community of Temagami itself.

My question to you is, because you are now in the process of trying to do the right process to build the road, why are you trying to put access into an area where everyone who lives there is opposed?

Hon Mr Hodgson: That's not correct. The comprehensive planning council that studied this issue recommended that there be a road.

Mr Gonsalves, should I be talking about this? I'll stand by the fact that the legal counsel for the MNR has stated that I shouldn't be talking about this while it's before the courts. That too is another fact that we've all witnessed here today.

Ms Martel: Can you tell us who supports the road going in there?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I just told you I'm not supposed to be talking about this. You heard it yourself from legal counsel.

Ms Martel: There are a number of questions that could be answered that have nothing to do with the case. Who wants the road to go in there is not relevant to the case. The road is there; you have it now blocked off. You're now going through a process, retroactively, of getting the proper permission to put the road in place. I've just given you the list of people who don't want it there. I'm curious to know, who does want it there? On whose behalf are you trying to put a road in?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I've clarified the record for you. The comprehensive planning council recommended that there be a road. What they talked about was that the access to the lake from that road be up on a hill and you had to walk to it. That discriminates against people with physical disabilities, people in wheelchairs who like to fish, for example. I didn't think that made any sense now in the modern age, where people with disabilities should have access to enjoy the outdoors like other people.

There should have been a proper process followed. That's the question before the courts.

Mr Wildman: So it was advocates for the disabled who requested that the road be built.

Hon Mr Hodgson: You can assume whatever you'd like for that, or maybe we're just aware of their needs in the future.

Ms Martel: Mr Chair, we'll leave that. I think it was the friends of the West Nipissing Access Group and some anglers and hunters out of Mike Harris's riding who wanted it. It's too bad that's who you're catering to.

Minister, let me go back to the issue around tenure. Can you tell me what other jurisdiction provides compensation to forestry companies when land is withdrawn?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know Larry has had quite extensive dealings with this, and he'd be glad to comment on what jurisdictions allow tenure. Tenure is allowed in Ontario. You might want to start with that, Larry.

The Chair: Mr Douglas, I'll tell you as you start that we have two minutes to conclude discussion on this item.

Mr Douglas: There are a variety of tenures across the country. There tends to be --

Hon Mr Hodgson: I wasn't just the country; it was the world as well.

Mr Douglas: The world? Oh, okay.

The Chair: Maybe we'll try the Ontario jurisdiction.

Ms Martel: We don't have it in Ontario. That's why I'm asking.

Mr Douglas: I don't have a comprehensive list of the tenure arrangements and whether there is compensation in each one of those.

Mr Wildman: British Columbia or Alberta.

Mr Douglas: In British Columbia there is a variety of different tenures. There are the tree farm licences. There are also licences associated with the small private.

Ms Martel: Hang on. My question was, what other jurisdictions provide compensation to forestry companies when crown land is withdrawn, for example, to establish a provincial park?

Mr Douglas: I don't know the specifics of whether that exists or not in the other provinces.

Mr Wildman: Can you find out?

Ms Martel: If that doesn't exist, can I ask why Ontario is moving in this direction?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think you asked earlier, and I stated to you that it was an option that could be considered.

Ms Martel: But, Minister, the option is laid out in an MNR paper that was given to the policy committee. Is that MNR's position? Are you prepared to provide compensation to companies, yes or no?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think we want to be flexible, as we enter this process of Lands for Life, to get a land use plan that's going to stand the test of time and give certainty to both the socioeconomic and environmental needs of Ontario well into the future. That's quite consistent with Direction 90s.

The Chair: It is now, for the balance of the time, the Liberal Party till 6 o'clock.

Mr Michael Brown: Dogs.

Hon Mr Hodgson: What about dogs? I like dogs.

Mr Michael Brown: I asked the question. We're talking about hunting dogs and compounds for training them etc.

Hon Mr Hodgson: You mean like trailing and enclosures?

Mr Michael Brown: Yes.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As you know, the first reading of the fish and wildlife bill, which is an improvement over the Fish and Game Act, which hasn't been really substantially altered in 40 years -- it'll improve customer service. We've proposed -- and this will go to second reading if we get concurrence from the other parties, hopefully quicker than later; I know you're supportive of the bill -- to grandfather the enclosures that exist already, that serve a purpose and have a long tradition. If your party has a position on that, I'd be willing to talk to you about it. I'd like to see it.

Mr Cleary: Minister, can you bring us up to date on deer farming?

Mr Michael Brown: Deer farming is quite an issue in regard to --

Hon Mr Hodgson: It is an issue. As you know, the agricultural community would like to see that expanded as an opportunity for their economic wellbeing. The people who are concerned about the wild deer herds are concerned that deer farming poses a threat to disease getting into native populations, affecting their sustainability.

As a result of these two conflicting pressures, we want to do what's the right thing to do, and I think all parties would agree. We're putting people who know something about it to form a group to take a look at all the issues around it and see if there's some way that we can have that industry in the agricultural community, but make sure there are enough safeguards that there's no possibility, or very little possibility, that disease will escape and affect the native populations. That's the challenge before this working group that's in the process of being formed.

Mr Michael Brown: In the proposed fish and wildlife act, there are some amendments that relate to that. I'm not sure I'm clear on how you bring forward a new act when the committee is not going to be, I presume, until after the act is passed.

Hon Mr Hodgson: It would probably be done in the regulations, I would presume. Gail, would you come up and explain the process of the legislation as it goes through first, second and third readings and then regulations that are developed.

Mr Michael Brown: We understand how that works.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm sorry. I misinterpreted the question.

1750

Ms Beggs: Maybe, Mr Brown, I could help a little bit. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act that has had first reading in the House doesn't deal specifically with game farming. Farmed animals are exempt from application of the act.

We are in the process of getting an expert panel to look at the issue of game farming, from the standpoint of both agricultural interests and interests in native wildlife, and developing a set of best management practices that would be endorsed, once they're developed, by the government and then would be put into effect by those who farm game animals so that they would derive economic benefit but native species would be protected through these best management practices. The panel we're proposing will have one independent person, one expert in agricultural matters and one expert in matters related to wildlife.

Mr Michael Brown: I see. One of the interests of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has long been -- their position, if I understood it correctly, would be that there should be an environmental assessment of the impact of farming. I know the agricultural community believes there are great opportunities for Ontario's farmers to move in these areas, to expand their businesses dramatically. Some other provinces have, with some success. We want to move on this relatively quickly, to make some decision in the interests of everybody. This issue has been around for a while now.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I agree with you. Before this bill was introduced at first reading, I assure you, we consulted with the OFAH and other groups. Gail, you might want to go through a list of the groups we consulted with, to assure Mr Brown that we tried to find that consensus to improve on the outdated Game and Fish Act, which hasn't been substantially amended in 40 years. I know you've commented on that before, for the need for that to be changed.

Mr Michael Brown: Oh, we have. We are certainly looking forward to the second reading debate on the act. If you could withdraw 136, we could do this one this afternoon or this evening. You have a very strange agenda, but that's your House leader, not you.

Mr Cleary: Do you have this panel picked yet, these three or four?

Hon Mr Hodgson: They've been picked. I don't know if it's been announced yet. It's very soon. It hasn't been announced yet. The question you asked was, "How quick?" and I said, "Soon."

Mr Cleary: "Soon" doesn't mean very fast with the government, you know.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Sooner than soon.

Mr Michael Brown: The minister would be aware that we're often uncomfortable with the idea that this will be done by regulation rather than --

Hon Mr Hodgson: I realize that. That's why we've got this group together, to get people to know what they're talking about, to look at it and see how we can do this. They'll begin their work -- I don't want to give an exact date, because if you miss it by 12 hours, you're before one of these committees in three or four years because you're not in compliance with what you said. We'll do our best to get that done as expeditiously as possible.

Mr Cleary: When are we going to know who these people are? Did you say there are three of them?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Soon we'll make the announcement, and I think you'll be pleased that we have the right people to make the right decisions for game farming in Ontario.

Mr Michael Brown: Have you consulted with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and --

Hon Mr Hodgson: Extensively.

Mr Michael Brown: -- the farming community and the various organizations within that?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes, the Christian Farmers. We've worked with OMAFRA on this as well, Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Mr Michael Brown: I'd like to thank the minister and the staff for coming and repeat my appreciation of how the ministry staff in my own constituency are quite helpful and always very professional in my day-to-day workings on behalf of my constituents. They're particularly good, dedicated folks.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'd like to thank you and Mr Cleary on behalf of the MNR for your questions and your advice.

The Chair: Ms Martel, there are still a couple of minutes. Is there anything further?

Ms Martel: I'd like to ask that the responses that were prepared for yesterday be tabled or sent to Mr Wildman and me.

Mr Michael Brown: We would appreciate that also.

Ms Martel: Could they be tabled with the committee?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I gave them verbally from the staff today, pretty well. Is there any particular question you had in mind, which you asked yesterday that wasn't answered?

The Chair: Traditionally, questions that can't be answered at the time are brought forward and provided in written form, if we could have that convention observed.

Hon Mr Hodgson: If there was a question that wasn't answered today we'll table that answer.

Ms Martel: I apologize to ministry staff, because I know this will take some work, but I am very much interested in the recommendations that came out of the six-pack report. I know there are 44, but I would like to know which the ministry is working on. If you can give me the numbers, I can cross-reference them against my own package, and I'll know from there which ones I would like some further information on.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll see if I'm at liberty to do that. I can tell you that was a very useful exercise, to get industry and government to discuss ways we can manage Ontario's natural resources in a better way. We'll get back to you if I'm at liberty to do that.

Ms Martel: I can see from some of the changes in stumpage, for example, that some of the recommendations appear to have been incorporated. The dropping of area charges and changes around forestry futures fund were all part of the recommendations made.

Hon Mr Hodgson: There's no doubt, Shelley, that a lot of the advice was good advice, and we accepted it because it made good sense.

Ms Martel: If I could get those, that would be helpful.

I would also ask you if you can at some point table with the committee -- I raised concerns about this yesterday -- a ministry response with respect to the renegotiation of the fire agreements between the ministry and the municipalities. I left with you today the case of one of the communities, and the other one is on Hansard. I would like to know specifically what is included in the $1.50 charge per hectare. Is that an average of firefighting costs? How was that arrived at? Second, I'd like to know if on different classifications of land you could actually have a different fee. Fire protection for the ministry will be different in some municipalities, depending on whether those municipalities are agricultural, where they are located in the arboreal forest etc. If you're looking at different classification, that would be helpful.

Hon Mr Hodgson: We'll get back to you on that. I appreciate your bringing that up as well. It's very important.

The Chair: You will respond?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes, I'll respond to Shelley on that.

The Chair: Thank you. On behalf of the committee, I thank the minister and his staff for the significant resources they brought to bear today.

I bring the committee to the vote which flows from the unanimous agreement we started today with.

With regard to the Ministry of Natural Resources, shall vote 2101 through vote 2104 carry? All those in favour? Any opposed? I declare that carried.

Shall the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources carry? I declare that carried.

Shall I report the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources to the House? All in favour. Thank you very much.

We are adjourned for today.

The committee adjourned at 1759.