CONTENTS
17 November 1992
Ministry of Natural Resources
Hon Bud Wildman, minister
George Tough, deputy minister
D. John Valley, assistant deputy minister, forest industry action group
David Balsillie, assistant deputy minister, policy division
John F. Goodman, assistant deputy minister, corporate services division
Ray A. Riley, assistant deputy minister, operations
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)
*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Bisson, Giles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)
*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)
O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Sorbara
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Mr Ferguson
*McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC) for Mr Carr
*Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Mr Perruzza
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND) for Mr O'Connor
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Decker, Todd
The committee met at 1542 in committee room 2.
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The Chair (Mr Cam Jackson): I'd like to call to order the standing committee on estimates to reconvene the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources. We have three hours and 40 minutes remaining. When we last left off, I believe the NDP was completing a series of questions. So, may I ask, Mr Minister, do you have any responses to some of the questions previously tabled?
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): Yes, Mr Chair.
The Chair: The clerk will be more than pleased to hand those out.
Hon Mr Wildman: We have a number of responses to questions of various committee members that were raised in the last debate on the estimates, and I'd be happy to table them. If the clerk is distributing them, if other members have questions on these items or other issues they'd like clarification on -- I could go through them all but I think it's probably as useful just to table them, if that's according to your wishes.
Also, we are distributing a copy of a letter that I think all members of the House have received with regard to Bill 162. There were some questions about the amendment to the Game and Fish Act in the last estimates and the letter has been distributed, coincidentally, to all members of the House from myself, encouraging members to impress upon their various House leaders the importance of proceeding with Bill 162, as I think all members of the House would like to see this moved forward.
I'd be interested in finding out from my friends in the opposition what their views are, whether they'd like to proceed to second reading on Bill 162. Then perhaps we could move from there to a committee that might hold hearings on the various issues that have been raised by various groups across the province on some aspects of the bill. But I'd like to hear their views on it.
The Chair: It would be refreshing and worthwhile to take these matters out of the House leaders' hands, even for a brief few moments.
I read with interest one of the paragraphs that talked about birds of prey. I thought it was a paragraph about question period. Anyway, we appreciate receiving the response from the staff. I understand they've worked very hard to assemble these responses, and the critics and all members of the committee will have an opportunity to peruse them during the course of the remaining time for estimates. So, if there's agreement, I would --
Hon Mr Wildman: Excuse me, Mr Chair. Just on one matter, I would like to clarify and highlight the issue with regard to the outdoors card.
The Chair: Who asked you the question?
Hon Mr Wildman: That was M. Bisson.
The Chair: Fine. When it comes around in the sequence, I'm sure Mr Bisson, by his attendance, will appreciate very much hearing your response. Mr Brown, please proceed.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Thank you, Mr Jackson. Just in regard to what the minister was speaking about with regard to Bill 162, our position is that we would be happy to see it move forward at the earliest possible date. As I said in my opening remarks, our only proviso is we want an assurance of public hearings on the various issues.
Hon Mr Wildman: It's a complex bill and we would certainly be in favour of having various aspects of it debated before the committee. So it would be helpful, I think, if we were to move in that regard.
Mr Brown: Who needs House leaders, Mr Chair?
Hon Mr Wildman: Well, maybe we should all be encouraging our House leaders in that regard. I will certainly be doing so.
The Chair: Minister, if I could encourage you to go through the Chair, I wouldn't want Hansard to miss any of your kind gesture at the moment.
Mr Brown: Mr Chair, could I just inquire as to how we are proceeding this afternoon and dividing the time?
The Chair: We were just going to allocate 20- or 25-minute blocks. When you were comfortable with a break you'd let the Chair know, and we'll be responsible for making sure the time is divided equally.
Mr Brown: Fine, thank you. Boy, we're obliging today.
I guess the first question that I wish to pursue is the issue of forestry, the issue of reforestation, the issue of planting on crown lands. You've indicated that there's about a drop of 30 million in the number of trees being planted on crown land and also that the tending has dropped dramatically on crown land.
We are of the opinion that this is exactly the wrong direction to be proceeding in at this particular time. Not only do Ontario's forests need those trees; also, people in northern Ontario, where most of the trees are planted, need the jobs. It seems to us that you are creating a larger backlog in the amount of land that needs forest regeneration. You're creating an environmental deficit, and at the same time an economic deficit, for the people in northern Ontario.
In view of the fact that the ministry has cut back operations -- I think your figures show by about 6%, the operating budget, which is where this money would come from -- and in view of the fact that the employees of the ministry, in total, received about an 11% increase in salary and benefits this year, we're questioning the priorities.
Perhaps the minister could explain to us the reason that we are moving away from the reforestation of Ontario's crown forests at a time when it seems to me it would be wise for the crown to be increasing the activity.
Hon Mr Wildman: If I could, Mr Chair, I think Mr Brown has raised a very important point. I would just point out a couple of things, though. I indicated the arboreal audit is going to be published very soon, so we'll have another update, and this will be the first report of an on-the-ground audit and will give us some idea of where we're at with the reforestation and silviculture in northern Ontario.
1550
But I would just point out that at least since the Kennedy report in 1947-48, whether industry or government has had the first-line responsibility for regeneration, we have in fact had, I guess, what my friend refers to as an environmental deficit with every government. I take his view very seriously. We've moved from the industry being responsible to the government, back to the industry and so on, and now we have the FMA programs.
With the initiation of the FMA programs there was an increase in the expenditures with regard to seedlings. We did not see a concomitant increase in expenditures with regard to tending. While there was some increase in expenditures during the boom years in the mid-1980s, we did not see an appropriate amount that would have met the need even at that time. And of course we face an even more difficult situation than the previous government in that we are facing the need to respond at a time when the government revenues are down substantially and we're seeing serious cuts.
So my friend is correct. I just lament the fact that we were not able in the boom years, when there were all kinds of revenues coming in in the mid-1980s, to meet the obligations we should have. The fact is that this year we will be expending approximately $212 to $213 million on forest management programs. Of this total, about $110 million is for silviculture; about $57 million is for crown and private lands, both, and $53 million is for the FMAs. The balance of the $213 million is allocated in the following way: We have $19 million for sustainable forestry and research, planning for inventory, and for monitoring the performance in the forestry is the balance.
I would certainly agree with my friend that we should have increased expenditures, particularly in the areas related to alternative forms of forest management and sustainable forestry, tending and ensuring that the areas that are naturally regenerating are regenerating well and that those areas that are artificially regenerated, whether through planting or aerial seeding, whatever, are tended properly. But we do face a very serious economic situation. I listened to the debate in the House today, as I have from days ongoing, and heard the demands on the opposition side that we ensure we do not increase the deficit. I think all of us recognize that all ministries, including MNR, have to respond to that.
Mr Brown: Well, Minister, I couldn't agree more that we need to respond to the fiscal situation in the province. What I'm saying here is that it seems strange to us on this side that forestry is the area that seems to be taking the greatest amount of cuts in the ministry.
Hon Mr Wildman: I think you have to recognize that about a third of our budget is for forestry. It is the single largest portion of the MNR budget, as you'd expect it would be. If you actually have to find savings in the Ministry of Natural Resources, it is very difficult not to affect the forestry program.
Having said that, I would like the deputy minister to respond, if that's acceptable, Mr Chair, to the question with regard to what Mr Brown has referred to as an 11% increase in expenditures in regard to salaries in the ministry.
Mr George Tough: There was an increase in the amount dedicated to salary changes. About 4% of the total 11% was for salary awards through the bargaining unit and other changes. The other changes, that is, 7% of the 11%, were for other factors. We can provide further detail on that, but by no means all or even the majority of it was for salary awards.
We had changes in our programs. We converted, as you remember, about 950 people and there was an additional amount provided to us by the central agencies to fund that effort. That goes into our salary expenditure. It was not expected we fund that internally. So that's there and we can provide further details, but a very small proportion of the total increase was for salary awards.
Hon Mr Wildman: If I could add, Mr Chair, I think we have to look very carefully at the revenues we have that relate specifically to forestry in the provincial government. The revenue is approximately $73 million compared to our expenditure with regard to forest management of about $213 million. Of the $73 million, $58 million comes from stumpage fees, about $10 million from charges under the crown timber licences, including the forest management agreements, and then there are miscellaneous charges and revenues that contribute to the rest of the $73 million.
If my friend believes we are not spending enough, and I would agree with him on that, I wonder if he would agree that we should be increasing stumpage at a time when the industry is experiencing serious difficulty. I'd be prepared to pursue that if he thinks we should.
The Chair: As a discussion.
Mr Brown: That's an interesting comment, but in terms of the forest which we are, I think, primarily concerned about, the forest is the one that's carrying the deficit here. If the minister, as he seems to have suggested, might increase royalties, decreasing the amount spent is essentially the same thing, whether you increase price or reduce services provided, and it ends up that the forest is one that loses here. That's my concern.
As far at the 11% goes, the deputy has indicated that this was funded from outside sources and yet your total budget is down 1%. I have difficulty understanding that comment.
Hon Mr Wildman: We attempted to explain that last time. We can go over it again, if you wish.
Mr Brown: All I'm saying, Mr Minister, is that the budget is down 1%. If it came from outside sources, that may very well be, but your budget would then be down even farther than 1%.
Hon Mr Wildman: Our budget is down, as I said last time, closer to the neighbourhood of 10% if you don't count the outside sources the deputy was referring to. That's true of about 14 ministries across government, including MNR, in order to meet the obligations we have to try to control the deficit.
Mr Brown: I would then come back to the issue of what the minister intends to do in this coming fiscal year. We have the tree seedling growers whom I have met with on a number of occasions, most recently, I believe, in Thunder Bay. They are very concerned. They're an industry that has grown, and rather rapidly, in the period from about 1985 through 1990, but perhaps before that. They are very concerned about their ongoing operations. Could the minister assure me that the contracts will be let in the immediate future?
Hon Mr Wildman: We recognize that decisions with regard to the coming year have to be made soon so the nursery producers, seedling producers and contractors have some idea of what's coming and can make their plans accordingly. We will be entering into discussions with all areas of the industry in the next few weeks to make clear what options are open to all of us in order to meet our obligations and to properly manage the forests in the future. I think it's important for us to recognize that whatever decisions are made with regard to seedlings, we're talking about trees that will be planted two years hence, not in the coming year.
1600
Mr Brown: Yes. Nevertheless, will Operation Tree Plant continue this year?
Hon Mr Wildman: We haven't made decisions in that regard at this point. It was not intended to be an ongoing operation but it was a very successful one, and it certainly was a tribute to the commitment to greening the province on the part of the general public and the municipalities and volunteer organizations that we were able to in fact plant essentially the same number of seedlings as we had planted the previous year when we had budgeted something like $30 million less.
Mr Brown: In the event that this program does not go forward, then it seems to me that we would be contracting, between the crown nurseries and the private nurseries, about 30 million less trees than the year before.
Hon Mr Wildman: We haven't made those final decisions. We will be pursuing every option available to us to maximize not just seedling production but our silviculture program, both carried out by the private sector and by the ministry, through whatever new approaches and innovative approaches can be arrived at. We will be having those discussions with our partners over the next few weeks.
Mr Brown: I'm concerned about the minister's comments at the last meeting that seemed to indicate there would not be any herbicide spraying in the coming year. Is that correct?
Hon Mr Wildman: Well, no, I didn't say for the coming year; I was talking about the previous year in our operations. We will have to review the effects and how it relates to sustainable forestry and the need to have proper vegetation management. What I said in my remarks last time was that the decision to control the spray program or to cut the spray program would not harm forests over a one-year period.
Mr Brown: We've had some people at least contact me --
Hon Mr Wildman: I just want to clarify this: We're dealing with -- sorry.
The Chair: Minister, please.
Hon Mr Wildman: Well, I think the member is using the word "herbicide" when he means "pesticide."
Mr Brown: No, I'm not. I'm talking about the control of vegetation in the forests, so I think the term was correct.
Hon Mr Wildman: All right.
Mr Brown: So you have made no decisions about vegetation control, whether it's spraying or otherwise, for the coming year.
Hon Mr Wildman: We haven't made a decision to discontinue herbicide spraying.
Mr Brown: So this is not an "environmental" issue but rather an economic issue?
Hon Mr Wildman: Well, it's both.
Mr Brown: Okay. Would private contractors or companies be permitted to do this on their own?
Hon Mr Wildman: As you know, the timber management plans are arrived at through discussion and negotiation, the decisions on crown management units are made directly by our foresters and technicians and the forest management agreement holders develop their work plans in conjunction with the ministry. That's how the decisions are arrived at.
I don't think it's fair to say that there will be unilateral decision-making. It is our responsibility as a ministry to ensure that we monitor and make certain that the forests are managed in an environmentally sustainable manner and in a way that will provide for the sustainability of the industry.
Mr Brown: The question I'm trying to get at is, is this an environmental issue or an economic one?
Hon Mr Wildman: I said it's both.
Mr Brown: I know you said it's both, but if you are going to permit private people to do it, if they so choose, then it seems to me it's a straight economic issue, it's not an environmental issue, if you follow my line of thinking.
Hon Mr Wildman: I follow your line of thinking; I just think your premise is incorrect.
Mr Brown: Being?
Hon Mr Wildman: I didn't say that we would allow anyone to do what he chooses, which is what you're suggesting I've been saying.
Mr Brown: I'm not saying absolutely as they choose, but in regard to ministry guidelines.
Hon Mr Wildman: Yes, of course in regard to ministry guidelines, and the ministry guidelines will be developed in regard to the financial situation and environmental considerations -- both.
Mr Brown: You indicated when we were discussing these issues the other day that when we are talking about gypsy moth control, which is a different issue --
Hon Mr Wildman: Pesticide.
Mr Brown: -- yes, that municipalities and others -- I guess municipalities; I don't know who else is involved -- would be involved to do this on their own and fund it?
Hon Mr Wildman: Yes. Last year we entered into agreements with municipalities where we would enable them to carry out the program, if they so chose to do, and made provision for coverage of, I guess, insurance and liability. If you'd like the details of how that worked and how many counties or municipalities were involved, the staff can give you that information.
Mr Brown: No, I don't think that's necessary. Some of it is in the actual estimates. But again that would not be an environmental issue; it's an economic issue.
Hon Mr Wildman: That decision for the ministry I think is both again. Obviously, we had a fiscal problem, but we had to look at the decision on gypsy moth spraying as to what its benefits were with regard to the environment. Keep in mind that the gypsy moth in most cases does not threaten the health of the forest in the sense that it kills trees. In most cases, a gypsy moth is largely an aesthetic problem. It defoliates the trees and makes them look very ugly, particularly for people who are in cottage country. But unless the tree is under significant stress for other reasons, the gypsy moth by itself does not usually kill the tree.
We made the decision for fiscal reasons, but it was also because of the environmental issues we felt that continuing to spend money on gypsy moth spraying when we were having difficulty funding other very important aspects of the forestry program did not make sense on an environmental basis. So it's both. But we also facilitated those communities that wanted to continue the program for aesthetic reasons to be able to do so.
Mr Brown: I still don't think I quite understand that. If it's an environmental issue and you don't think it should be sprayed, it doesn't matter who pays for it. It's a straight economic issue, in my view. That's what you're saying.
Hon Mr Wildman: Essentially what I said is that environmentally we could not justify continuing the spray program in regard to our sustainable forestry initiative when there were moneys we could be spending on other parts of the sustainable forestry program. We couldn't justify it either fiscally or environmentally.
Mr Brown: I would take from that then it shouldn't be done, but we'll move on.
Hon Mr Wildman: We don't think it needs to be done for environmental reasons. It's not that it shouldn't be done. We don't think it needs to be done for the health of the forests. For aesthetic reasons, to try to prevent defoliation, however, you could make very good arguments for saying it should be done.
1610
Mr Brown: To speak of the other spraying program which would be in regard to budworm, whether it's jack pine or whatever, one of the things that you seem to believe -- or the ministry seems to believe, I guess, not you personally but your research staff -- is that there isn't a significant problem.
I've had some contact with the forest industry over the last couple of days and it indicates that you are probably correct, but it has great concern in specific areas -- and this is in northern Ontario -- that if an infestation does break out, there will not be the kinds of controls we need. As you know and I think your people would verify, these infestations tend to spread very, very quickly and are in some ways not terribly predictable. Can we be assured that if spraying is needed to control certain areas it will be done, as if it were firefighting, which is really the same issue as preserving our forest?
Hon Mr Wildman: If I can respond, I'll defer to members of staff on the scientific arguments. I'm not sure that it's completely unpredictable. Perhaps it is more unpredictable in jack pine than in spruce, but I think that our scientists, with the experience that they've had over the years and the cycles that they've seen, can indeed predict. Of course there are certain sites where you might have a situation that you didn't expect, and we have to respond to that.
I would say generally, though, in terms of spraying, whether it's pesticides or herbicides, I will be quite clear in saying that I indeed have a bias. My bias is not to use chemicals if we can avoid it, but there are alternatives. There are organic controls, the use of Bt. I guess it was the Conservative government, the current leader of the third party when he was minister for a short time, who made a decision that chemicals would not be used, that Bt would be used in this province. That was continued by the Liberal government and we support that.
There also is a great deal of research going on as part of our sustainable forestry initiative on looking at other alternatives for controlling both vegetation and pests, and there's no question there needs to be more research. But I think it's generally conceded by scientists in the field, whether they be federal or from other provinces or from the United States, that the initiatives we've put forward and have initiated as a result of our sustainable forestry have put Ontario in the lead in North America in this research. As a result of that, we are attracting very well-known and very highly qualified scientists from the United States to our staff.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): It's nice to be here today and to be part of the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources.
As our party's spokesperson, I'm very pleased to say to the minister that the staff has been very cooperative and I think the Ministry of Natural Resources has an excellent field staff and overall staff. I want to thank them for the cooperation that I have received from them.
A handout was given out today with some of the questions in regard to the discussion that's in Hansard. I haven't had time to review it, but what I'd like to do is to ask several questions on the record. I believe tomorrow we'll be meeting for a short period of time and perhaps the staff could have some answers for me at that time.
Regarding the question that you mentioned earlier on, Mr Minister, with regard to Bill 162, there are a couple of areas there that I would just relate to in my remarks, but I think that second reading and a week or so in committee -- there are only a couple of areas that I think are of any major concern -- and I'd be pleased to proceed with that bill.
First, I want to talk about -- and maybe I'll do it now -- a couple of letters I have. They're an overview of what some of the people are asking and writing about.
I have a letter written to you on October 19, and it says:
"Would you please reconsider the decision cutting by over half the $11,000-per-man annual allowance to conservation officers, thereby getting them back in the fields and forests.
"During the '70s and early '80s, thousands of Ontario hunters bought deer licences which the decimated herd numbers just couldn't fulfil. For the past several years the herd numbers have rebounded but many citizens fear they will be adversely affected by the lack of COs in the field at the present time due to the rampant poaching.
"It just doesn't seem realistic to pay COs $50,000 per year to sit in offices doing work that $20,000-a-year secretaries could be doing. The day I called the local office an aggregates officer was answering the phone.
"I realize your government faces financial pressures but believe the $1.5-million saving here is seriously putting wildlife welfare in jeopardy and will negatively impact future generations. Let's get our COs and foresters out of the offices and back in the fields where they belong."
That's signed by Glen Runions. You probably remember getting a copy of that letter. I have another one here. It's from Perkinsfield.
"Dear Mr McLean:
"I would like you to inquire on my behalf why the Ministry of Natural Resources has not received the orders in council from Parliament authorizing payment for the managed forest tax subsidies program. They cannot send out the payment application form until this has been done.
"I have been part of this program since 1986. The trees were planted on my property in 1987 in addition to the trees we have. I have received a tax rebate every year since, usually in the following spring. In 1991 this occurred in July. I have been told by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs subsidy branch managed forest conservation land program...that this may not occur for another two months. We may not get this rebate until 1993 for 1991 taxes. My rebate is almost equal to one tax instalment and that is what I use it for.
"Any help you can be would be greatly appreciated.
"Jeanette Pollard."
I've had phone calls to my office, Mr Minister, with regard to some of the same concerns that other people have raised with regard to the late payments and being able to get their rebate for conservation land.
In the minister's opening remarks -- and I've reviewed Hansard -- he mentioned that 158 million trees were planted in Ontario this year. How many seedlings does the minister anticipate will be planted in 1993? It's a question. Will the decision to cut back on seedlings last year affect this year's decision in any way? Will there be more seedlings as a result?
Apparently, some 30 million trees were planted by volunteers, private land owners and municipalities. If I recall, last winter the minister announced that 35 million seedlings were available for planting. What happened to the seedlings which were not planted?
The Tree Seedling Growers' Association and some northern Ontario municipalities have promoted the idea that the ministry should ensure that a certain number of trees are planted every year. A number frequently mentioned is 165 million. Does the minister agree we should establish a minimum level and assure it is met?
The seedling growers have also promoted the idea of a silviculture trust fund where the money from stumping fees and licences would be directed into a fund which would subsequently be used for forest regeneration programs. Does the minister agree with this concept?
On a similar issue, the ministry has announced rent increases for recreational lots and crown lands and a $6 outdoor card for hunters and anglers. That was discussed widely in the previous day's hearing. This is a comment, really, not a question. It could be a question, but I think this issue should be emphasized. We realize the government is continually looking at ways to generate more revenue for the province. The Treasurer stated this on a number of occasions. Our concern is that effective sectors are not getting this money back. For example, will the money generated from outdoor cards be used for fisheries enhancement and enforcement? Some will probably say, "Probably not."
1620
Hon Mr Wildman: Just for producing the card.
The Chair: Just for the record, I think that's a questionable comment.
Mr McLean: That's right, since the money is directed to general revenue and eventually ends up elsewhere.
You've talked about the gypsy moth program in the Hansard and you've talked about it today. But the minister in his opening remarks remarked that the cancellation of the spring program for spruce and jack pine budworm "is not expected" to affect the health of the forests.
Hon Mr Wildman: For one year.
Mr McLean: The use of the term "not expected" is interesting. When do you expect to know for certain what effects your decision to cancel these spraying programs on northern and southern forests will have?
The Chair: Mr McLean, could you guide the Chair here? Did you want to lay out a series of questions?
Mr McLean: That's exactly what I'd intended.
The Chair: And then when you're ready, you'll ask the minister to respond?
Mr McLean: That's right. I indicated I wanted to lay the questions out today so that the ministry could get an answer back tomorrow.
The Chair: Very good. Thank you.
Mr McLean: Last November the minister announced the formation of the forest industry action group. John Valley was appointed as assistant deputy minister and given the responsibility for directing the group. Mr Valley was asked to draft an action plan for the industry. Could the minister provide an update on that plan? Has it been forwarded to you for consideration and review?
Our caucus has spoken with a number of industry associations over the past year, and the major issues facing large industry in this province -- and I would certainly include forestry in this category -- are labour law reform, hydro rates and taxation. Last November, when the minister announced the formation of the action group in the Legislature, I asked if the group would be looking at all issues of competitiveness for the forest industry. Certainly affordable power rates are important to maintain and encourage investment. Could the ministry tell us how these issues might fit into the mandate of that action group?
There appears to be a general opinion that the Canadian forestry industry, and that includes Ontario, is somewhat behind the rest of the world in technology development and research. What is the minister's assessment of Ontario forestry's efforts in resource and development, and what can the government do to assist?
Two weeks ago, at estimates for the Ministry of the Environment, the Minister of the Environment discussed the issue of banning the use of chlorine in pulp and paper operations. This is an initiative which has caused a considerable degree of concern in the paper industry. They argue it could cost some $800 million to convert their facilities. Has the Ministry of the Environment had any discussions with Natural Resources regarding a proposed ban on chlorine? What is the ministry's position on this initiative?
Hon Mr Wildman: Intense and intimate discussions.
Mr McLean: Good. Last June the minister circulated a number of fact sheets to all MPPs regarding proposed amendments to the Ontario Game and Fish Act. The sheet on game farming notes that the Ministry of Natural Resources is consulting with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food on effects of the proposed new legislation. Could the minister please inform us what the main issues of discussion have been with your counterpart on the proposed changes? Would the minister please state briefly what OMAF is saying to your ministry about game farming and the impact Bill 162 will have on this industry?
As you're aware, my colleague Noble Villeneuve, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, has introduced a resolution calling on the government to introduce a deer farms act. We're wondering, would the minister support this proposal? It will be an interesting reply that I get to that very short question.
I briefly discussed the conservation land tax rebate with that letter. It indicates that over the past two years our caucus members have received a number of letters regarding the ministry's conservation land tax reduction program. There was a concern that the rebate would be reduced to 75% from its present level of 100%. We have been informed recently that the rebate will remain at 100% for the 1992 taxation year.
Hon Mr Wildman: I win some things.
Mr McLean: The question conservation authorities want to ask -- and I'd like to forward this to the minister -- is, what will happen to the program in 1993 and beyond?
Vote 2902-2 has mentioned that a review is being initiated and will be initiated on the Conservation Authorities Act to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the authorities by clarifying their roles and responsibilities. We want the minister to explain what has been developed in this area.
Could the minister please summarize the comments received during the recent public consultation and proposed amendments to the Trees Act? When is new legislation anticipated?
The ministry's relocation: Can the minister give us an estimated date when all relocations to Haileybury and Peterborough will be complete? I have a press release from October 2 which states that the new building in Peterborough will be open in 1995. Will the move be complete by that time? When will the Haileybury move be completed?
I'm asking these questions because it appears that relocation efforts of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food have not been quite so smooth. Three years ago we were told a number of jobs would be in Guelph in 1992. Now, come 1992, these positions are still in Toronto and the minister is now talking about 1994 relocation dates. I hope this ministry can complete the move far more effectively than that one.
Hon Mr Wildman: We'd be happy to advise our colleagues in the OMAF on how they could improve their move.
Mr McLean: Thank you. Can the minister supply an estimate of how many jobs will be available in the new communities? The press release from October 2 notes, "A limited number of jobs will be advertised locally after they have been made available to surplus government employees." I realize it may be early to supply any numbers, because no one is certain how many present employees will choose not to go, but does the minister have a number they are looking at for new jobs in Haileybury and Peterborough?
Finally, the forestry audit: In the minister's opening remarks, he stated that the audit of the northern Ontario boreal forest will be received later this fall. When the minister announced the audit in April 1991, he stated that the report would be forwarded to the minister by March 31, 1992. What is the reason for the delay in this report being forwarded?
Hon Mr Wildman: Weather.
Mr McLean: Weather. It wasn't good for deer hunting either.
When the minister made the announcement on April 18, he also stated that the audit committee would have a budget of $1.5 million. Has this figure been expanded because of delays in the submission of the report?
Agreement with Algonquins of Golden Lake: We were somewhat surprised by the release of the new interim agreement on October 13, 1992. I thought the minister had a commitment to an open process of consultation with all affected parties. What consultations were conducted with interests outside the Algonquin band?
Some of the other questions I have are with regard to conservation authorities. The Ballinger report: I want to know, is the minister going to proceed in any way at all with amalgamations?
Hon Mr Wildman: I can respond to that. The Ballinger report has gone the way of Ballinger.
Mr McLean: One-termer. That's a great answer.
The other questions I want to find out about are with regard to tree planting in the north, seedlings, the seed growers there. There has been a concern. I think I read a news release you had out very recently -- maybe it came from them -- that indicated that by the end of the year they would know what agreement was going to be made, if any. There is a concern there. I'd like to know if those commitments are going to be fulfilled. I'm sure they will be, but I'd like to know to what extent so they'll still stay in business.
Moose tags has been an area we've all got lots of calls on. I would like to know the amount of increase in tags, if any, or decrease. I still get phone calls from people who thought they were in the pool and weren't, from people who thought they had to have five in a party or have a lodge or a camp. I'd like some idea of how that has worked out this year so that I can let some of my colleagues know about that.
The other thing I want to discuss briefly is with regard to the documents concerning the Ministry of Natural Resources-Municipal Affairs tender designated under the Planning Act, whereby technical guidelines for the administration of a policy -- conservation authorities have been advised that the policy will be designated by 1993. Is that the wetlands policy? I'd like a little more of a detailed description of the policy that we're going to be dealing with there with regard to the public purview of it.
1630
On the Public Accounts of Ontario, I have a couple of questions with regard to some of the expenses that are in that public accounts book. When we look at page 206 in Public Accounts 1991-92: T.R. Isherwood, $28,739; Mr F. Kennedy, $38,086. Are they for plane travel, accommodation? I'd like a breakdown on some of those, a couple, just to indicate that the taxpayers' money is being spent in an appropriate and proper fashion. I'm sure it is, but I think when you see a figure like that the people want to know what it is.
The Airlane Motor Hotel -- I presume that's in Thunder Bay -- $57,000; Avis Rent-A-Car, $204,448. The question I have is, is that tendered or do you use one company only? Is it tendered for, wherever you travel, those vehicles are made available?
On page 210 of the public accounts we can get into some very large figures, millions of dollars of contracts with regard to consulting, Marshall Macklin Monaghan, $1.966 million. Would that be an appropriate figure, $1,966,986? I think the public might like to know just about where that almost $2 million was spent in consulting fees.
Hon Mr Wildman: Just to clarify that, that's for mapping. That's the mapping program.
Mr McLean: That's what we'd like an answer to.
Hon Mr Wildman: Maps are kind of important in the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Mr McLean: I presume that people who want to get a map there pay for it too, don't they?
Hon Mr Wildman: I would hope so.
Mr McLean: Yes, because I have, so I imagine everybody else will.
Hon Mr Wildman: We have to do the mapping to get the maps.
Mr McLean: That's right. I know about how it's done.
Valhalla Inn, $90,000 -- that's a lot of money in a year -- and the Fairlane. Are they used regularly by ministry staff? Is that the reason for that?
Hon Mr Wildman: I suspect that's the Valhalla Inn in Thunder Bay, which is right close to the airport and is also convenient. So if there are meetings in Thunder Bay that the members of staff go to Thunder Bay for, they use the Valhalla Inn or the Airlane because they're close to the airport to make it convenient to getting out of town early the next morning so they can be back in Toronto for 9 o'clock to do their work.
Mr McLean: I guess the reason I asked the question was because there is another hotel across from the Fairlane and I didn't see it in here. I'm wondering why two of them got all the business, and the third one -- it used to be the Red Oak Inn, I believe --
Hon Mr Wildman: I'm not sure why. As a matter of fact, I went on ministry business to Thunder Bay a few weeks ago and I stayed at the Red Oak Inn. I don't know whether there's any preference. The Valhalla is closer to the airport, but not that much closer.
Mr McLean: No, and the Fairlane is across the street from the Red Oak, the question being, what's fair for one is fair for the other.
Hon Mr Wildman: After all, it is the "Fair lane."
Mr McLean: "Fair lane," that's right. I would like some of the questions to those expenses looked into.
The other question I have is with regard to some of the recommendations in the royal commission. It recommends:
"That the province, in consultation with conservation authorities, municipalities and non-government organizations:
"Recognize ecosystem-based watershed management and conservation as a primary role of conservation authorities and amend section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act to give them regulatory powers consistent with this role;
"Examine ways to assist cooperative initiatives among conservation authorities and provincial government agencies; and
"Revise the basis for appointing members to conservation authorities so that more representatives of local non-government environmental/conservation groups are included, while strong municipal representation is maintained.
"The commission further recommends that municipalities work with RAP teams and conservation authorities to integrate remedial action plans and watershed strategies into land use planning and development approval process."
I'd like the feeling of the ministry. Are some of those recommendations going to be made and how strongly are they going to made?
Recommendation 43 on page 204 of the Regeneration booklet:
"The royal commission recommends that the province give high priority to introducing a legislative package as follows:
"Amendments to the relevant sections of the Conservation Authorities Act to clarify the mandate of conservation authorities to undertake environmental protection and recreation activities related to greenways;
"Amendments to the Planning Act to require that, in the case of development, valleylands, wetlands, and other significant natural environments be dedicated to a public agency, or protected in private hands through such permanent mechanisms as conservation easements."
The question is, are you going to proceed along and put the conservation authorities in with an environmental protection and recreation area, and if so, when are you going to do it and how soon do you plan on doing it? I think there are some of those questions.
I have another one here that I've pretty well covered with regard to the conservation authorities. I have to say, Mr Minister, that in the some 16 years that I was involved in conservation, I think the Ministry of Natural Resources gets a great bargain with the use of those authorities. My estimation is that they've been great for Ontario and great for stream bank erosion and conservation. I remember when we were buying the Minesing Swamp wetlands, and Charles Sourile was head of the Nature Conservancy of Canada. They were buying land there for $50 and $100 an acre. Preserving that for all time, I think, is very important.
Those are some of the questions I have at this time, and I would appreciate if you would respond some more.
The Acting Chair (Mr Len Wood) : Thank you, Mr McLean. There's about four minutes --
Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, I'll attempt to answer these questions if possible, and then we will be happy to provide information to the member. I appreciate the --
Mr McLean: That's why I asked. I knew once you got us talking, you wouldn't get us to shut up.
Hon Mr Wildman: Well, I'm happy to listen to all members. I appreciate the comments about the staff and your commitment to Bill 162.
In regard to the conservation officers and funding, I think it's important to put this in the context of the reorganization of the ministry and to recognize that we are taking a team approach to ecosystem management -- and compliance is integrated into that -- and to recognize that the role of the conservation officer as an enforcement officer is very important, and that will be maintained, but also the conservation officers will be playing a greater role as part of the overall team management.
We are facing fiscal constraints, as are all parts of the ministry. My friend from Manitoulin was critical, I think for good reason, about the need to spend more in forestry. Obviously, if we make our commitment, which is very important, and maintain our commitment to forestry, then other branches of the ministry also have to face constraint.
There was misunderstanding in regard to the suggestion that there would not be any overtime for conservation officers. We are committed to the protection of wildlife and we will in fact be responding to emergencies. I made a commitment that at least half or up to half of the conservation officers' complement will be working on statutory holidays between now and the end of the fiscal year, and we'll make every effort to make it possible for conservation officers to carry out their duties as they should.
We can provide next time the information the member has asked for with regard to the managed forest tax rebates and conservation land tax. I would just say in regard to his remarks about the conservation authorities that we fully agree with his assessment of the partnership between the conservation authorities and the ministry. It's essentially a partnership between us and the municipal sector to ensure that we have proper conservation, and we agree fully that ecosystem watershed management should be a central role for the conservation authorities.
1640
As a matter of fact, as the member will probably know, the Ballinger report has indeed gone the way of all flesh and it has been replaced by the work that has been done by the liaison committee, chaired by myself and with representatives of AMO and the Conservation Authorities Association, where we reached a consensus on core program and watershed management. Flood and erosion control is a central top priority as a result of that consensus.
There was also consensus on amalgamations, that they would not be forced and that while we would encourage them they would not be forced, and a consensus on appointments. I agree with the member's assessment that we should have as many non-governmental appointments representing both the municipalities and the provincial government as possible.
As to the wetlands management that he talked about, of course he will know that in June we announced the wetlands policy statement under section 3 of the Planning Act and that the municipalities will now be responsible for implementing the policy statement and for having regard to proper protection of class 1, 2 and 3 wetlands under the Planning Act.
That is the approach we are taking, and so far it has met with a great deal of support from all sectors: the municipal sector, the environmental sector and the private sector. If we find, though, that other measures have to be taken to properly preserve and protect wetlands in this province, we will take those measures in future.
I think we can give the information the member has asked for with regard to relocation and the numbers of jobs next time and we'll table that.
The member raised questions about the boreal audit. I indicated that weather was the main reason for the extension of the time. The weather did not cooperate with us, either last year or this year particularly, in carrying out that work. The audit will be tabled very soon, and I think it will give us significant information and point us in certain directions with regard to natural regeneration and artificial regeneration, silviculture in general, in the boreal forest.
With regard to the suggestion of a silvicultural trust fund, I'd be interested in hearing further proposals in this regard, but I would point out to the member that I pointed out the figures earlier. We are spending well above what we receive in revenue. I don't want to trumpet this too loudly, because our American trade friends may be listening, but you know that one of the reasons for the countervail action in the United States is that the American government and the American industry do not believe we are indeed receiving enough revenue through stumpage and other charges.
We don't accept that view but it is certainly correct that we spend substantially more, so the suggestion or the inference in your remarks that somehow there's all kinds of revenue coming in from our forestry sector that is going into other expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund is just incorrect. We're spending a lot more than we get.
You characterized the crown lot leases as rent increases that I had announced. I understand why you might characterize it that way -- I was in your role at one time myself -- but I think it would be more fair to characterize it as a moderation in increases that were already committed by the previous government. In fact some of those increases would be as high as 300%, based on market value and reassessment, and we have moderated that downward to 15% or $100, whichever is the greater, in each year until we reach market value.
In fact there are a lot of crown lot leaseholders in northern Ontario who are getting a credit because we have lowered the amount that they were going to be charged or were already being charged on the basis of the increases announced by the previous government. As a matter of fact, a number of them will be paying substantially less this year than they did last year because of that credit.
Mr McLean: I have a further question I wanted to get into before you get completed.
The Chair: Mr McLean, your round completed itself at 20 to, and the minister's been using up his government's time for five minutes, so I would like very much to move to the government's time.
Mr McLean: How much time was I allowed?
The Chair: It was 25 minutes.
Mr McLean: You're right on in your timing.
The Chair: I'm afraid so.
Hon Mr Wildman: Can I, Mr Chair --
The Chair: No, you can't, Minister. I'm going to recognize Mr Lessard. If you want to use up your caucus time, that's fine.
Hon Mr Wildman: I just wanted to ask if it would be appropriate, and I hope my caucus colleagues would accept this, if the assistant deputy minister for the forestry industry action group, John Valley, who cannot be here tomorrow, could in fact respond to the questions raised by my friend about that activity of the ministry very briefly, because it's very important, before we go to questions from the government members.
Mr Valley has been significantly involved in bringing government and labour together and has indeed been dealing with questions of competitiveness in the industry and questions of new technology and affordable power rates. Cogen is a very important aspect in northern Ontario to lowering costs for the paper industry. I'd like Mr Valley to bring us up to date on his activities and the activities of the ministry in this regard.
Mr McLean: Mr Chairman, if I can just put this on the record when they're going to review the rest of it, I have just one final question. It has to do --
The Chair: Don't say it's your final question, Mr McLean. I may hold you to that.
Mr McLean: I mean in this round.
The Chair: Oh, okay.
Mr McLean: Are the costs that you collect in licensing fees all going back into conservation, fishing and restocking?
Hon Mr Wildman: If I could just respond --
The Chair: No, Minister, I'm sorry. We have a process to follow and I'm going to try and attempt to get this thing back on rail. I have a speakers' list and I have a committee that has charged me with the responsibility of moving this around fairly to each caucus. I have a speakers' list with Mr Lessard and Ms Haeck.
Hon Mr Wildman: Well --
The Chair: Excuse me, Minister. I have to have their permission in order to proceed to hear from one of your staff members. If I have their permission, then fine, but it's the Chair's ruling that we're biting into their time in order to do it. Mr McLean asked to simply put a question on the record for staff to respond to at a later date. If the minister wishes to use that time, he should check with his colleagues and we'd be more than pleased to use their time to do it.
My question is to Ms Haeck and Mr Lessard. Do you wish to yield some of your time now and hear from the individual the minister would like to call forward at this time?
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Yes.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): It's fine with me.
The Chair: Very good. Please introduce yourself for the record and respond to the invitation of the minister to respond to whatever the question was that got us all into this in the first place.
Hon Mr Wildman: I think the last question was on fishing licences, which of course this assistant deputy minister has absolutely nothing to do with.
Mr John Valley: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. My name is John Valley. I'm the assistant deputy minister, forest industry action group, and I appreciate the indulgence of the committee to let me respond at this time.
Mr McLean raised the question of the general conditions of the industry, the progress of the work of the group to date and some questions around specific issues. Would those three areas satisfy you if we explored those?
Relative to, first of all, the condition of the industry, as one who grew up in the industry and who worked for a number of years at a senior level, I can tell you that this is without doubt the most challenging time this industry has ever seen across North America and central Canada in particular.
We are facing a situation where the Ontario industry is coming to grips with an erosion of position that has occurred over several years. It has occurred, frankly, through the course of several administrations of government, a number of generations of management and a number of generations of union leadership. When you compare the relative cost position of the Ontario industry against its principal competitors, whether you're talking about pulp, paper products, solid wood products or panels, on a number of fronts we've seen an erosion of position to the point where we are truly in a difficult competitive position.
1650
To that end we have been working with three principal thrusts. The first one would be to work with other government agencies and with specific companies on site-specific issues, where there's a facility that is in significant difficulty and, frankly on the optimistic side, we have also been working closely on a number of situations where there are development opportunities, opportunities to take advantage of underutilized or unutilized fibre bases that exist in the province.
The second thrust would be to play, I guess, the role of devil's advocate and perhaps frank counsellor within the government on existing and proposed government policy, most particularly that related to certain issues in the energy area that the minister referenced and also, as the minister referred to, an intimate and intense consultation on the MISA debate. I can't refer to the intimacy but I can refer to the intensity of the consultation, and I can tell you that there has been a very candid, forthright debate on the various factors associated with that particular policy reform.
With regard to the action plan, this is kind of a venture into the unknown in that we are bringing together the three principal influencing forces on the industry: big government, big labour and big management. They are not groups that have historically come together with ease or historically have come together with common focus.
The process over the last 10 months -- somehow it seems a lot longer than that some days -- has had its share of frustrations, but I also believe that process in terms of bringing the combined resources of those three forces to bear on the competitiveness questions and the relationship questions, I think, in the long term is going to provide some benefit to the industry and will result in two things: one, a strategy which I believe we will have available generally on schedule around mid-year next year and, two, an industry that will be more competitive and better positioned because of some new working relationships that will develop.
Mr McLean: Thank you.
Mr Valley: Very good.
Mr Lessard: Mr Minister, in your opening remarks you talked about a lot of the programs that are being undertaken by the Ministry of Natural Resources that have to do with the protection of forests and trees, which happens to be an area of interest for me. You talked about sustainable forestry, reforestation and the private woodlands strategy, and those are all very good initiatives.
However, my riding of Windsor-Walkerville, which is located in Essex county, has tree coverage of about 2% to 3%, so is not very well endowed with forest cover, and we're really fighting to maintain natural resources on a tree-by-tree basis in my riding. We're not talking about forests or woodlots there.
One of my constituents by the name of Bruno Sfalcin has been trying to propagate endangered species of Carolinian trees in my riding, so he's involved in a personal way as far as saving endangered species of trees on a tree-by-tree basis there. There was an article about him in the Windsor Star a couple of weeks ago and he made reference to a natural habitat restoration program that seems to indicate to him some prospect of hope in the initiatives that he's undertaking.
That isn't something that you referred to in your opening remarks and I wanted to ask you about that program because he seems to think that we should be undertaking these initiatives as well, as opposed to planting certain types of trees in rows that are only for the purposes of creating planks and two-by-fours and basically tree farms, not really involved in restoring a natural habitat.
Hon Mr Wildman: That's very commendable and very important obviously. I would think, coming from your part of the province, Mr Lessard, you would be very much in favour of the proposed changes to the Trees Act.
Mr Lessard: Definitely.
Hon Mr Wildman: The Carolinian forest is very important to this province, particularly to your part of the province, and of course it has been of significance to us in terms of trying to preserve the Rondeau Carolinian forest against our four-legged friends.
But with regard specifically to the gentleman you mentioned and the program you mentioned, perhaps it would be better if we were to respond next time around. I don't know whether you can be at the -- when it would be, Mr Chair. Tomorrow?
Mr Lessard: I'll be here tomorrow.
The Chair: Are there no staff members present today who can assist with responding to this question, Minister?
Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Balsillie, the assistant deputy minister, could respond if you wish.
The Chair: Welcome, Mr Balsillie.
Mr David Balsillie: I'm not specifically familiar with the particular project. I'm not sure whether you have it entirely correct, but there is a project called Renew which has to do with rehabilitation of habitats for rare, threatened and endangered species, which is a multiparticipant activity with the federal government, provincial government, municipalities etc, as well as interest groups. Rare, threatened and endangered species include not only animals but plants in the Carolinian forest that you're talking about in southwestern Ontario.
They are items which we are looking at in that kind of light, in terms of making sure that those are protected, and they may be protected either under activities which we're undertaking related to rare, threatened and endangered species or under the endangered spaces program which will respond to the World Wildlife Fund's challenge to protect very specific wildlife or natural heritage features, which should be protected because they're under pressure in all the 65 ecodistricts across this province. We're aware of those types of programs. We are involved in them, so we are looking at rehabilitating some of those areas.
Mr Lessard: One of the problems that Mr Sfalcin has is he has been doing this in his backyard and he's running out of space himself. The other concern he has is trying to collect and maintain seeds, because he can't plant them all in his yard, and until such time as we do find spaces to do that, are we involved in trying to maintain seed banks of endangered trees like black gums or other types of Carolinian trees?
Mr Balsillie: That I'm not familiar with, whether we're actually collecting and saving the seeds. We do have a tree seed program. I can look into that and report back with regard to it. If you have a copy of a letter from this individual, then we'd be pleased to follow up.
Mr Lessard: Okay. Thanks.
Ms Haeck: I will register my support for the Trees Act right here and now, because, if I may take just a minute to explain, not too long ago a church in Niagara-on-the-Lake decided to clean up the cemetery next to the church and cut down some trees that were over 100 years old, and I can assure you that didn't go over well with a number of the people in the congregation.
Interjection.
Ms Haeck: Well, they didn't have much chance to voice their opinion any more, but definitely the living made sure they were heard and they were looking to the Trees Act as a means of providing them with the tools to save those trees.
But I'd like to actually turn to a page in the estimates book, page 30, and it's a local issue and one that is not a big-dollar item by any means, but it relates to the Owl Rehabilitation Research Foundation, which is not in my riding but in Lincoln riding.
I count as one of my acquaintances someone who in fact works there but also has an interest in wildlife in total, so I am concerned to see that they have been cut as far as their allocation is concerned, and I'm wondering what programs we are going to be initiating to assist wildlife in general, understanding that this one is not on the funding list this time.
1700
Hon Mr Wildman: I'm not sure if one of the members of staff here could speak to that.
The Chair: Do we have any takers?
Hon Mr Wildman: If not, we can get the response for Ms Haeck for tomorrow.
Ms Haeck: I'd appreciate that, since I do get questions on this as well and there is a local concern. This has been a high-profile group in the area and it's covered nationally as well as internationally. Wildlife of this variety, raptors in general, are of concern.
Hon Mr Wildman: Yes. Ms McKeever was a member of the Wildlife Working Group that looked at the possibility and made recommendations for the development of a new wildlife act for Ontario. Bill 162, the Ontario Game and Fish Amendment Act, is a step towards that, and that's why I was hoping we could get agreement to move forward with it. But the work that Ms McKeever has done is of great value and we appreciate it very much. We'll get the information for you.
Ms Haeck: I think our time's probably almost over.
The Chair: No, I have Mr Wood on the list.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Yes, just briefly, and I won't ask you a number of questions like Mr McLean did. I'll ask you one at a time. But he's going to get them in writing.
Interjection.
Mr Wood: You want the answers?
Hon Mr Wildman: Yes, I was hoping you'd give us the answers on the moose tags.
Mr Wood: Yes, well, what I'm concerned about is that we hear a lot of stories out there as to all the money that is being raked in as far as fishing licences and game farming are concerned, and I'm just wondering, Minister, if you have a breakdown on the amount of money that is brought in as far as the sale of fishing licences is concerned and the amount of money that is spent on that, as well as on game farming in Ontario, the revenue that comes in and the amount of money that's spent.
Hon Mr Wildman: Okay. I'll deal with the two of them separately. Mr McLean also raised this concern with regard to the resident sports fishing licence. As we indicated last time, we spend significantly more on fisheries rehabilitation than we receive in revenue from the sale of the fishing licences, but the sale of the fishing licences has been quite lucrative. In 1991-92 and in the previous year, the revenue was $11.5 million and the expenditures in both of those years were over $50 million. So you can see that we are spending approximately five times what we receive.
The estimate for 1992-93 is $16.5 million. The reason for the significant increase, as we indicated last time, is that we are offering a three-year licence. We anticipate that if a large number of anglers purchase a three-year licence, there will be an increase in revenue for next year, but of course there will be a concomitant decline in revenue for the two subsequent years. Our estimate for expenditures for next year will be again approximately $56 million. So, maintaining the ratio, we're spending almost $40 million more on the fisheries program than we receive in revenue to the consolidated revenue fund.
Mr McLean: What's the figure for 1992-93?
Hon Mr Wildman: Fifty-six.
Mr McLean: The sales of licences.
Hon Mr Wildman: The sales, we estimate, 1992-93, will be $16.5 million. The reason for the revenue increase is the fact that we will be offering a three-year licence, and we're guesstimating how many people will purchase and what that will mean.
The other question you raised was with regard to game farming. My friend from Simcoe also raised that issue and I think he wanted to know if I was in favour of the private member's bill introduced by his colleague from the united counties. I would say that we have had discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food with regard to this issue and we are close to finalizing an approach which we will be informing the House about. We have been consulting widely with our client groups, both ministries, about this.
We have expressed in our ministry serious concerns about the farming of native species, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has been advocating on behalf of the possibility of diversifying agriculture, livestock production, by the introduction of game species. We're working out an accord that will respond to both concerns.
We are anticipating that there may in fact be legislation developed that will respond to this aspect of the issue from the farm community while we proceed with Bill 162. I'm sure the deer farm act proposed by Mr Villeneuve will be very useful to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food in the development of his legislation.
Mr Wood: Thank you. I believe I've run out of time.
The Chair: Yes, you have.
Mr McLean: On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: Tomorrow, I wanted to raise the issue with regard to Tiny Beach.
The Chair: What's the privilege here?
Mr McLean: The privilege is, can I have somebody here from the ministry? It will be a legal opinion. Can I have somebody here from the ministry to address that?
Hon Mr Wildman: We would be happy to have someone here who will respond to the questions, keeping in mind that we have to be very careful to ensure that matters that are discussed here do not in any way impinge upon litigation.
The Chair: Thank you for serving notice of your interest in those staff members. If there are any other requests, they should come forward now while the ministry is here.
Mr Brown: The other day I asked that the ministry include the numbers from the anti-recession package. If they are here, I didn't see them. I would appreciate if those could be provided to us.
Hon Mr Wildman: We're sorry if we missed that. We'll provide that.
The Chair: Who is your number cruncher who is looking at the anti-recession package?
Hon Mr Wildman: The assistant deputy minister, John Goodman, would be happy to crunch for us.
The Chair: Welcome, Mr Goodman.
Mr John F. Goodman: There is no anti-recession money in this.
Hon Mr Wildman: No, my friend from Gore Bay is referring to --
Mr Brown: Kagawong.
Hon Mr Wildman: Kagawong. Sorry. He is referring to the moneys we received from the $700-million anti-recession package previously.
Mr Goodman: Yes, and that was in previous years.
Hon Mr Wildman: Yes. We should be able to give that information.
Mr Goodman: I'd like to be very accurate when I do that, Mr Chair, so that we can provide that answer to the member.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Minister, I have a question about the gravel extraction levy and the municipal share thereof. I believe it's been in operation for two years now and there's been a delay in the payment of the municipal share to the municipalities because of computer programs or problems in records from the gravel companies or something.
I know there's been a delay and I wonder if that's been resolved or can be resolved so that the payment is made sooner. I think the municipalities fear that they're financing the province rather than their own municipalities. It is a large sum in the case of some of them. I can leave the question with you if you like. No problem.
Hon Mr Wildman: This was an issue that was raised in the Legislature last year. There was a delay because of the changes that had taken place and trying to get them in place. We'd be happy to provide the member with the information tomorrow as to what is being done to try to ensure that we can get it out in a more timely fashion to the municipalities.
1710
Mr Eddy: Fine. I know it will come up again if the matter isn't resolved, and I hoped it was.
The other day I left with you an inquiry about a future provincial park, and I notice you have a report in here, in answer to a question, that all park programs or park plans have been completed. I'm not sure of the status. I gave the wrong name. I said Komoko, and it should be Kilworth, I believe.
Hon Mr Wildman: I just want to clarify, Mr Chair --
Mr Eddy: Oh, was I misreading?
Hon Mr Wildman: Yes. We aren't saying that all park plans are completed. As a matter of fact, I think somewhere in the neighbourhood of 97 management plans have been completed, leaving 163 in various stages of development that are ongoing. Those parks are being managed on an interim basis. Their plans have not been completed.
Mr Eddy: So there'll be a priority list of some kind that you're working on for the balance.
Hon Mr Wildman: I think priority list is the wrong way to describe it. Various park plans are being worked on by staff and they're at various stages of consultation and completion. The specific question you raise about the plan for the proposed park, if you can give us the name, we'll get the information.
Mr Eddy: I used the name Komoko the other day, but I should have said Kilworth. I think Kilworth is the correct name. Is that correct?
The other part I wanted to inquire about is a day-use park with no facilities that is located west of Dunnville and east of Kerrs Point. It's a concern. I believe it's operated by the management from Rock Point Provincial Park. That's my understanding, but I'll leave that with you.
One of the other matters is the hunting and fishing agreement with the Six Nations first nation. I know there's been a bit of a problem. Do we see a solution to that in the near future? Is that progressing?
Hon Mr Wildman: I want to say also that I appreciate my friend's support in this regard and his concern for the need to have proper management and a development agreement. For that matter, most of the municipal leaders in the area have also been very supportive.
As you know, it is very complex -- my friend would know better than I -- dealing with the people of Six Nations, which is the largest aboriginal community in Canada. As with all or most of the communities of the Iroquois confederacy, you have two different governments: You have the traditional government, the Haudenosaunee, and also the elected government under the Indian Act.
The previous elected government had agreed that the Haudenosaunee, the traditional people, would act as the negotiators for a hunting agreement with the Ministry of Natural Resources. With the resignation of Chief Montour and his replacement by Chief Williams, there was some uncertainty as to whether or not that agreement was remaining in place.
There has been progress in the negotiations with the Haudenosaunee. It is quite a change, actually, for them to be negotiating with us, because traditionally they have taken the position that they do not recognize the jurisdiction of the provincial government at all. Their relationship is with the federal crown.
There has been progress but it has been difficult. I understand the question of the elected council's acceptance of the approach has been clarified and Chief Williams has indicated that he is prepared to proceed as was being done before.
The big area of concern right now is that we are having some disagreement, shall we say, or continued discussion about what the traditional area is for the Haudenosaunee, for the people of Six Nations. Some would take the position that they should be able to hunt and exercise their rights anywhere in Ontario. We take the position that their traditional land use area has to be defined but that it is generally west of Burlington. That's a matter that is open to further discussion, and we expect that there will be further negotiations in that regard, but I'll keep you posted on the developments. I know this is very important to the municipalities, to the anglers and hunters and to the federation of agriculture in the area.
Mr Eddy: It sounds like progress.
The final point I had was the matter of the famous tow path along the Grand River, and I guess the question there is simply -- and I realize the problems regarding that particular matter as well -- is that particular matter being negotiated or is that federal or is it a combination of provincial and federal? I know we had a meeting on this some time ago.
Hon Mr Wildman: Actually, I hope to be having another meeting with the municipal leaders down in Brantford. I think we're trying to find a time in my schedule. When we have done that, we'll notify you and make sure you know well in advance so that you can be in attendance.
Mr Eddy: I appreciate it.
Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciated the position taken by the municipal leaders and their understanding of the complexities of this problem. The problem is, as you say, is it provincial or federal? I guess it's both, and that's where we run into the difficulty, because historically the federal Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Justice have taken the position that they will not negotiate pre-Confederation claims, and this long pre-dates 1867.
Mr Eddy: Yes.
Hon Mr Wildman: If there is to be a settlement, the province will be involved; we will have to be involved. But at this point, the federal government has indicated that it is prepared to review its long-standing policy of not dealing with pre-Confederation claims. Mr Siddon made a statement to that effect some months ago, but it has not at this point been clarified as to what exactly that means and what resources the federal Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Justice will put into actually responding to a significant number of pre-Confederation claims, most of which are in eastern Canada and in Ontario. I hope to have some more information on this when we meet with the municipal leaders in the next few weeks.
Mr Eddy: I look forward to the meeting. Thank you for the invitation.
Mr Brown: I take it from your comments to Mr McLean concerning conservation officers that their availability is now similar to what it was in the previous fiscal year.
Hon Mr Wildman: The budget for the conservation officers is different in each district, since the decisions are made on the basis of the team management approach I was talking about in the various districts. It's hard to generalize, but there are constraints, and that generality is correct. The only general province-wide directive was that discretion should be shown in authorizing overtime; in other words, we will respond to emergencies. But there are constraints, and there are constraints in the use of vehicles and so on that towards the end of the fiscal year last year were a problem, and we have attempted to deal with that.
There are other possibilities. If there isn't to be as much overtime as there has been in the past during this constraint period, there is obviously the option of having an eight-hour shift at another time during the 24 hours that make up the day. There's no particular reason, in my view, for conservation officers only to work from 9 am till 4 in the afternoon. It would be quite appropriate, particularly in spawning season, fishing season and hunting season in particular areas, to have a flexible approach and have those eight hours straight time, with consideration taken into account for the change in hours from 4 pm to 12 midnight or from 10 pm to later in the morning. Those are options that we should be looking at, and I think we've got to be flexible in order to meet our obligation to protect wildlife and to ensure that the regulations are adhered to.
Hunting at night: Hunting is an unsafe practice, in our view, and it's something that we are determined to deal with in meeting our obligations to public safety as well as conservation.
1720
Mr Brown: I understand that your colleague the Minister of Government Services is looking at procurement policies relating to paper. Unfortunately, I left my note in my office so I can't recall exactly what they'd be, if it was 50% recycled, and I'm not sure what the other half was. I'm sure you will know. I'm just wondering, given the fact that apparently that product is not produced anywhere in Ontario at this time, what representations you've made to the Minister of Government Services on that particular issue.
Hon Mr Wildman: I'd like to get some comments from the staff in this regard, but I just want to make one comment -- and I hope Mr Valley will accept my view -- that one of the roles of government, whether it be the provincial government or the federal government or governments in the United States, is to help to create a market for a product. If there is a market for a product, my free-enterprise friends tell me that market niche will be met by entrepreneurs and companies who wish to take advantage of that market. I don't know whether Mr Valley wants to comment, or Mr Goodman or Mr Tough.
The Chair: You do this at great risk, advising an NDP minister about the merits of the private sector. Give it a whirl.
Hon Mr Wildman: It was my decision to hire this guy away from Boise Cascade.
Mr Valley: Discretion being the better part of Valley, I will refrain from comment.
Mr Brown, you raised a question of procurement policies. I'm aware of one procurement debate in the industry where the industry has in fact made representations, and we'll be discussing that with Mr Wildman and Mr Tough. That related to more on the question of chlorine-free paper. I was not aware of the recycle issue, but again, with that knowledge --
Mr Brown: I'm sorry, I forgot my note.
Hon Mr Wildman: We in our own ministry have a commitment to go to recycled. My deputy minister reminds me that commitment is also coupled with a commitment to buy Canadian, for obvious reasons in this ministry, but what we are identifying with a number of initiatives taken particularly in the United States with regard to governments there wanting to purchase recycled product is that there are more and more products coming on to the market. We are in a very difficult economic period for the industry. In terms of reinvestment, it's difficult, but an industry that wants to do well in this particular economic situation is going to attempt, I'm sure, to identify new areas that it can sell its product in.
One of the things that was raised earlier was the question of chlorine-free paper. I'm told by some people in the industry that whatever governments do because of demands in various jurisdictions around the world for chlorine-free paper, there is a great deal of research being done by some companies in order to be able to lower the amount of chlorine used in the process. I'm told by my free-enterprise friends this is how the market works.
Mr Valley: I can also say that there are three specific sites in the province, two of which we're working with fairly closely, where successful repositioning of the mills could leave them in a position where they might take advantage of a recycle sheet of that characteristic with 50%-plus content. I think the industry has a growing sensitivity not just to the environmental pressures but also, frankly, to some of the cost advantages the urban forest confers.
Mr Brown: Thank you.
Mr McLean: The figures that you give, Minister, with regard to the fishing licensing revenues: What are the revenues from the other licences, such as deer and moose licensing fees? I believe that expenditure is probably included, part of that ministry, isn't it, the $50 million that you give and the $56 million?
Hon Mr Wildman: No. I would like some clarification. Mr Riley, the assistant deputy minister of operations, could give us some assistance in this regard, but the $50 million-plus that I referred to is for the fisheries program. Some of it -- I'm not certain; maybe, Ray, you can clarify -- is going to compliance. I suppose Mr McLean might argue that compliance doesn't just deal with fisheries, it also deals with game and fish and wildlife and other regulations, but certainly by far the majority of those funds, the $50 million-plus, is for fisheries.
Mr Ray Riley: The expenditures are around $56 million, and that is primarily a fisheries expenditure. There may be a CO who codes his time one afternoon, when it's split half between tagging fish and the other half between chasing partridge, to one or the other, but that $56 million is essentially a fisheries charge.
The $16.1 million, I think it was, that Mr Wildman mentioned before in terms of this year's projected revenue around fish licences is resident only, and if you total resident and non-resident, it comes up to roughly $30.5 million. In total licence fees in the fisheries area that the province collects, the revenue is about $56 million.
Hon Mr Wildman: And if the member wanted the other fees that we charge, in terms of bear management we get $375,000; commercial fishing, $154,000 in 1992 we anticipate; and the parks fees are about $15 million.
Mr McLean: Are they in the estimates?
Hon Mr Wildman: Yes, page 68 in your estimates.
If you add them all up, it's about $55 million that we receive in all of the various -- fishing, hunting, parks, and aggregates fees as well, which are approximately $2 million, a little less than $2 million. They work out to $54.525 million, and we're spending more than that on fisheries alone.
Mr McLean: How many fish hatcheries closed down and what did you save by closing them down?
Mr Riley: I believe there were three closed and the number, unfortunately, escapes me right now. I would guess in around the $1 million range.
Hon Mr Wildman: We had that last time around. We can bring it for tomorrow.
Mr McLean: What's going to be your saving as of 1993 with regard to the closing of the four nurseries?
Mr Riley: About $4.5 million.
Hon Mr Wildman: Yes, we gave that last time as well.
Mr McLean: The other question I have is, what is the amount raised -- is it in here? -- with regard to -- you've got your fishing and hunting licences, $25 million.
Hon Mr Wildman: Fishing and hunting, yes, almost $25.5 million.
Mr McLean: That's counting moose and deer.
Hon Mr Wildman: Yes, and small game and birds.
Mr McLean: Can you give me an update on Algonquin Park? There was a lot of discussion with regard to that at the time, and you've now negotiated a new agreement. What numbers of moose and deer have been taken out of the park, and have there been any repercussions in that regard?
1730
Hon Mr Wildman: We had those figures last time and we can get them for you again. The agreement was, I believe, for 100 moose and 175 deer -- I believe that was the agreement -- and they took substantially less than that. I stand to be corrected, but I think it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 47 moose and 34 deer. So it was certainly evident that the monitoring worked and it was proved that the Algonquins were not out to rape the resource. As a matter of fact, they didn't take what they could have taken according to the agreement. It worked very well. There was good monitoring. There were only a couple of instances of abuse, which, as I understand it, were both reported to the ministry by the chief and council.
We negotiated a new interim agreement and we consulted with all the interested parties prior to ratifying that and, frankly, we did not get a lot of response this time around to the consultation. There was a great deal of controversy with the negotiation of the first interim agreement, but there was very little this time. I understand that the ad hoc committee has expressed some concern just recently, but that was subsequent to the whole process. When we first approached them during the period before it was ratified, they did not raise substantial concerns.
Mr McLean: Did anybody know that negotiations were going on?
Hon Mr Wildman: Yes, they did. They all knew.
Mr McLean: I never knew.
Hon Mr Wildman: As a matter of fact, one person who is on the ad hoc committee is on the monitoring committee that is set up by the ministry. It's an independent committee and it is not a ministry committee, and they monitored the previous agreement and agreed that it had indeed worked and that the Algonquins had lived up to their obligations.
We specifically contacted all the interested parties and asked them for their comments and, as I said, there was very little controversy. The ad hoc committee, I understand from the press, has put out the comment that we should not be interpreting the Sparrow decision by the Supreme Court as a basis for the exercise of aboriginal rights in Algonquin Park.
As a layman and not a lawyer, I would also point out that there are other decisions that are of significance in this area, such as the Sioui decision, which is, as you know, Mr McLean, a Supreme Court decision in which the court found that Hurons had the right to hunt in a provincial park in Quebec.
Mr McLean: Okay, black bear management: Have you cut back on licensing for outriggers with regard to the availability of being able to get black bear licences? I'm talking about northern Ontario.
Hon Mr Wildman: No, we haven't, not to my knowledge at all. I don't know whether --
Mr McLean: My understanding was that they had.
Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Riley may be able to comment.
Mr Riley: Was the question relative to black bear licences, Mr McLean?
Mr McLean: Yes. Have you cut back on --
Mr Riley: To resident hunters?
Mr McLean: No, to outfitters, the availability to outfitters to be able to have licensing so that they could have people come and hunt black bear.
Mr Riley: The only thing that would have occurred in the last year or so would have been a restriction on the opening of new bear management areas until we got some of the niceties squared away in some of the areas bordering the far north.
Hon Mr Wildman: We were negotiating or finalizing black bear management, and in that period there might not have been an expansion, but we weren't cutting back.
Mr McLean: That's fine. The next question I have is with regard to commercial fishing. Has there been an increase in the number of allotments for tonnage that they can take, or has there been any cutback with regard to the amount of tonnage that they can take?
Hon Mr Wildman: The decisions that are made are not made on a province-wide basis; they're made on the basis of lake management plans that are developed by the biologists in the particular areas. There have not been significant increases, although there have been some species increases. In particular in Lake Erie there have indeed been cutbacks in yellow perch because of the perceived decline in age classes that has indicated that the yellow perch stocks in Lake Erie are under pressure.
Currently, we are in a dispute with the state of Ohio. Ohio is arguing for even more significant cutbacks than we've made. We have made those cutbacks, which are indeed significant and have affected the industry substantially, on the basis of what we understand the stocks to be and in an attempt to not have a precipitous cut in the allocations. We may in fact be going to an arbitration process with Ohio to resolve the dispute, although right now we're attempting through discussion to try and resolve this difference of opinion.
Mr McLean: So the bottom line is that there has been no decrease in the amount of licensing tonnage that Ontario commercial fishermen are allowed to take.
Hon Mr Wildman: No, that's not correct. That's not what I said at all. I said, indeed, in some areas there have been. In yellow perch on Lake Erie there's a significant cut.
Mr McLean: That's the question I wanted to find out: Were there significant cuts or not?
Hon Mr Wildman: It depends on the lake. There are some areas where some species have seen an increase -- I wouldn't say significant increases, generally, but there have been some increases -- but it depends on the lake and the body of water. If you have a specific body of water you'd like comments --
Mr McLean: Yes, Lake Simcoe is one of the greatest sports fishing lakes in Ontario, and very seldom do you get any whitefish there any more. I'm wondering what restocking has taken place there to rehabilitate that lake.
Hon Mr Wildman: Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about commercial fishing before.
Mr McLean: I was. You answered that. But now my question is with regard to Lake Simcoe, with regard to sports fishermen.
Hon Mr Wildman: The emphasis in terms of our fisheries program has been towards rehabilitation of fish habitat as opposed to substantial increases in fish stocking. We are still involved in some fish stocking programs, but the percentage of fingerlings that reach maturity and reproduce after stocking is substantially less than the percentage of native fish in a body of water.
We have generally taken the view that if we can rehabilitate fish habitat, improve water quality, and thus improve the native stocks, it is probably a more efficient way and a more environmentally acceptable way to rehabilitate the fish stocks.
I don't know whether we have anyone here who can speak specifically to stocking programs in whitefish in Lake Simcoe, but we'll have that information for you tomorrow.
Mr McLean: Thank you. The other question I have is with regard to the aggregates bill. How many new approvals have been given to open pits since you became minister in the province of Ontario aggregates?
Hon Mr Wildman: I don't have the total number, but we'll try and get that, over the last two years, how many open pits --
Mr McLean: I'm talking about new ones.
Hon Mr Wildman: If you're talking about aggregates, you're talking about open pits. I don't know of any underground mining of aggregate.
Mr McLean: The other question I have is a follow-up with regard to that. Since the aggregates bill has come in, within a lot of municipalities there have been private pit owners who have been made to put on a master plan to get approval from the ministry once again, which they had years ago, but now they're asked to do it all over again.
Hon Mr Wildman: Yes, that's right.
Mr McLean: There's been a lot of that. Have they had a problem getting approvals, a lot of them? I mean, I have no idea. I'm curious to know. Have there been a lot of pits rehabilitated and closed down because of the new aggregates act?
1740
Hon Mr Wildman: There have been a substantial number, but there is also a tremendous demand for aggregate in this province, and where there is a resource, there are ongoing operations. There have also been applications for expansion of aggregate operations, obviously.
Yes, there have been a number of closures where the operator has met his obligations under the act. Frankly, we would like to see -- and I told the aggregate producers this the last time I met them and spoke to them, that there's a tremendous fund they could access if more of them took advantage of the opportunity to close out and obtain the funds. I know in this current market situation many of those operators could in fact benefit from the program. We'll attempt to get you some of those figures.
Mr McLean: Speaking about the fund, when does the ministry get its money and when does the ministry pay back to the local municipalities what they're owed?
Hon Mr Wildman: That question was raised by my friend, and we've said we'd get that information for you tomorrow.
Mr McLean: Okay. The licensing for sports fishermen out of province: To me, it looks like it's about $10 million that's raised by out-of-province sports fishing. What is the fee for an out-of-province sports fisherman's licence?
Hon Mr Wildman: Ray, can you help us with that?
The Chair: Please have a seat and introduce yourself for the record again.
Mr Riley: Ray Riley, assistant deputy minister of operations.
Hon Mr Wildman: Are you suggesting, Al, that we should be increasing the non-resident fishing fee?
Mr McLean: No, I'm not. I'm just curious. I know what some other provinces charge and it's a substantial amount. I'm just curious.
Hon Mr Wildman: Before Ray comments, I recognize, and I'm sure all of us here recognize the significant importance, particularly in some parts of the north, the northwest, of the tourist industry and the outfitting industry. While we are determined to provide a fishing experience for anglers from our province, we also recognize that we hope we can remain competitive in the tourist industry. One of the main components of that industry in northern Ontario is the wilderness experience and the angling experience, particularly in remote lakes.
Mr McLean: Eighty-five dollars, is it?
Mr Riley: The non-resident seasonal licence for 1993 is proposed at $45. We're introducing next year a non-resident conservation licence which comes in at half price at $22.50. It allows the non-resident to take fish in Ontario but not to keep anywhere near as many as he could if he bought the full seasonal licence. It varies by species; it may be two bass and one pickerel, given the circumstances.
Hon Mr Wildman: That's in comparison to, of course, the $15 for a resident, and the full conservation licence for a resident is $7.50, a significant difference. You're talking about three times as much. We hope the conservation licence will encourage catch and release and conservation of the resource.
Mr McLean: Okay. Thank you. The final question for this round is the leased and rental crown lands. There's great concern with regard to that. There are some areas where they're putting lines and expanding, and some people's camp that they've had for 50 years is all of sudden being -- they say it's got to be now torn down because it's within 100 feet of the line that's drawn. That's just out of Whitney and it's a camp that I happen to go to for moose hunting. Anyhow, the concern has been raised with regard to the increased fees for those camps. It wasn't long ago they were $100, and now they're about $340. That's one aspect.
The other aspect is, people who own property, have a cottage in Algonquin Park, are now saying: "Well, my fees are going to double now. What do I do?"
Hon Mr Wildman: Well, I did speak to that earlier. The government policy -- and it has been the government policy, I think, for many years -- has been to charge a fee based on the market value, and the benchmark has been 10% of market value. There was a reassessment of those lots in the 1980s and if we had based the leases on those reassessments, as was proposed by the previous government, you would have seen increases of anywhere from 300% to 600% in one year. I reviewed that after I became minister and decided that it was unfair, particularly in the current economic situation where many people are experiencing economic difficulties, to see that kind of percentage increase.
We reviewed it and came to the conclusion that a more equitable approach would be to have an upward limit of 15% -- down from about 300% -- or $100, whichever was greater, and that those increases would continue until we reached market value and that the process would be reviewed in five years. This doesn't apply, though, if the lease changes hands. The new leaseholder would pay the 10% of the market value.
It could be argued we should have chosen a lower figure, but we chose that figure keeping in mind that it was going to be reviewed in another five years. That's the reason we came up with that figure.
The Chair: Mr Lessard.
Mr Lessard: Mr Minister, one of the things I did during constituency week last week was meet with the general manager, Ken Smith, and representatives from the Essex Region Conservation Authority. One of the things they wanted to discuss was funding of conservation authorities, of course, and you might want to address that. But as Mr McLean has suggested, it was their strong belief that the services provided by conservation authorities were a great bargain. In fact, they felt that was the most efficient service delivery organization to the environment.
One of the issues they mentioned was the overlap of services between the Ministry of Natural Resources and conservation authorities and they mentioned things like plan approval, tree planting and biological review. I know my colleague the member for Essex-Kent probably has a better idea of where those overlaps might take place, but one of the suggestions they thought might be worth considering was to have Natural Resources staff actually work in the conservation authority office so that they could work together. They would avoid the overlap and in fact be able to avoid maybe differences of opinion so that they weren't both performing the same service.
I wonder if you could address the funding issue, for one, and the possibility of more cooperation between Natural Resources and conservation authorities.
Hon Mr Wildman: Yes. I said earlier that we agree that it is a bargain. It's a very important partnership. Last year we completed some months of work on the liaison committee that I described earlier -- I won't go over that again -- but we faced a very serious fiscal situation.
We had arrived at a formula for funding which was a consensus for southern Ontario and for northern Ontario, but the ministry was faced with a significant fiscal problem. We had to cut our expenditures by about 10%, so we also felt that our partners should share in that, and their funding was cut by about 10% as well, although I did mention the other day that to try to alleviate that problem we got permission from treasury board to allow a transfer of approximately $3 million across the province to conservation authorities from their capital budget to their operating budget. That has been confirmed to be an ongoing transfer.
The suggestions you've made are interesting. In the current economic situation we're going to have to look at new, innovative ways of meeting our obligations for both the core mandate and other activities of the conservation authorities. We will be discussing with our partners what the funding levels will be this coming year and what new approaches might be taken. We may have to move on from the liaison committee's consensus to new approaches. Questions of secondments may be something we could look at, how we could avoid duplication. Those are all things we would be interested in pursuing, particularly in southern Ontario.
In northern Ontario, of course, as my colleague from Kapuskasing would testify, there are only -- what? -- four or five conservation authorities, and they are concentrated around large urban centres. The rest of the areas -- small towns, unorganized townships, crown lands -- are areas managed by the ministry.
1750
Mr Lessard: It kind of ties in with the whole disentanglement exercise that I know we're trying to undertake with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs as well, so I appreciate the fact that you're prepared to look into those things. Thanks.
Ms Haeck: I do want to echo some of the concerns that my colleague Mr Lessard has raised around the conservation authority. I haven't met with them recently, but I know that obviously funding is a big issue for them as well. I know that one of the streams coming off the Niagara Escarpment, running through a built-up area, does in fact, shall we say, eat away at a number of people's -- erosion is rather substantial. I'm wondering, are there specific moneys dedicated strictly for this, sort of in an urban context? While I know this wasn't the highest priority, in fact for some of these neighbourhoods it ends up being an issue. Saying "You'll have to do it next year," doesn't necessarily answer the question.
Hon Mr Wildman: Historically, flood and erosion control has been a very high priority for the conservation authorities. That's why, in 1946, they were first established, essentially. During the liaison committee's work, we identified flood and erosion control as a top priority for the core mandate.
The process is that the individual conservation authorities identify the projects, particularly capital projects, that they want to carry out, and they set their priorities. They submit that to the ministry, and we get all kinds of proposals into the ministry from the conservation authorities. Then we have to look at them and we rank them on the basis of their arguments on the need and our understanding of the need across the province on the basis of the total fiscal package and have discussions with them on their priorities and the priorities we're setting. We then approve a number of projects on the basis of the rankings that are finalized. Not all of the projects are approved, obviously. That's the process and how it works.
I know that David Balsillie, the assistant deputy minister, would like to add something to that.
Mr Balsillie: What happened in the past two years in terms of our negotiations with the conservation authorities is that we have increased the amount of capital available to each of the conservation authorities. Part of the fund is called the local priorities funding. That has allowed them even more flexibility in ranking some of their own smaller projects, if this is a smaller project of bank restoration.
There's the large list of the provincial priorities and then they have funding of their own which they can set to their own local priorities. As I say, if it's a big project, it goes on our list provincially; if it's a smaller project, it goes on local priorities funding.
Hon Mr Wildman: The other two things I want to say are that some conservation authorities, with MNR approval, are able to divest of some of their properties or assets. We have agreements where they can retain the revenue, and they can then build up a fund for their own uses. The big problem, though, for many conservation authorities is not so much the capital expenditures, but once you've developed your capital infrastructure, there's your operating cost. New capital projects add to the operating cost, and that's a concern to the municipalities, which have to pay a levy as well. That's why we moved the moneys from capital to operating, to try to alleviate some of those problems that conservation authorities were facing.
Ms Haeck: If I can ask one, small question additionally, the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority runs an area called the Ball's Falls Conservation Area, a conservation park, basically. As part of that, there are a number of structures that are of heritage value. It's a very pleasant place to have a picnic. People get married in the church there on a regular basis as well because it is a very pleasant location.
The buildings are apparently suffering the usual thing that happens with buildings of heritage value. Obviously, I'm going to put a pitch in as far as maintaining heritage is concerned, because it's one of my favourite issues. I'm just wondering how much the ministry is seriously considering being able to assist in something that obviously has some, not only conservation value but historical value for the region.
Hon Mr Wildman: Of course, we have a sister ministry, the Ministry of Culture and Communications, that is involved with the Ontario Heritage Act. We are involved in the discussions around the development of that legislation. But a specific project would go through the process. I doubt Mr Balsillie can comment on the specific project. We'll try to get you some information if there's been an application from the local conservation authority for restoration or preservation of that.
Ms Haeck: I'd appreciate that, because I know it's played a considerably --
Hon Mr Wildman: If we can't get it by tomorrow, we'll get it to you.
Ms Haeck: I have patience; these buildings have been around for a while. But definitely there is a concern locally that they are crumbling and they need some assistance.
The Chair: Wonderful.
Mr Brown: Mr Chair, I have some questions that I think maybe it would be best to file now.
The Chair: If you file them through the clerk, then we'll have a copy, and then we'll give those to the ministry staff.
Mr Brown: Some of them may have been answered, but of course they were prepared before we actually arrived.
The Chair: Are there any other questions from committee members? If not, une autre page. Hon Mr Wildman: If I could add one comment just briefly, Mr Chair, before you hit the gavel, in regard to the outdoors card, I just want to make one short comment. The $6 fee that is being raised for that is not new revenue to the ministry in the sense that it is additional revenue. That $6 fee will simply cover the cost of the production of the card and its distribution. There is no net revenue to the province from the $6 fee.
The Chair: This committee stands adjourned until tomorrow, at which point we will complete our estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources, and we will start on time because we're slated to commence the estimates of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. This committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1800.