CROWN FOREST SUSTAINABILITY ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA DURABILITÉ DES FORÊTS DE LA COURONNE
CONTENTS
Wednesday 14 September 1994
Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994, Bill 171, Mr Hampton / Loi de 1994 sur la durabilité des forêts
de la Couronne, projet de loi 171, M. Hampton
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
*Chair / Président: Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
*Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
Johnson, David (Don Mills PC)
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND)
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND) for Mr White
Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC) for Mr Arnott
Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND) for Mr Mammoliti
Hodgson, Chris (Victoria-Haliburton PC) for Mr David Johnson
Jamison, Norm (Norfolk ND) for Mr Mills
Miclash, Frank (Kenora L) for Mr Sorbara
Morin, Gilles E. (Carleton East/-Est L) for Mr Grandmaître
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND) for Mr Wessenger
Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND) for Mr Morrow
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Wood, Len, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources
Clerk / Greffier: Carrozza, Franco
Staff / Personnel: Beecroft, Doug, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1018 in committee room 2.
CROWN FOREST SUSTAINABILITY ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA DURABILITÉ DES FORÊTS DE LA COURONNE
Consideration of Bill 171, An Act to revise the Crown Timber Act to provide for the sustainability of Crown Forests in Ontario / Projet de loi 171, Loi révisant la Loi sur le bois de la Couronne en vue de prévoir la durabilité des forêts de la Couronne en Ontario.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Hans Daigeler): We're continuing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 171. Before we adjourned yesterday, there was a call for a 20-minute recess, which has expired. We're now voting on section 2, as amended.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr Chair, could this be recorded?
The Vice-Chair: A recorded vote. All those in favour of section 2, as amended?
Ayes
Bisson, Dadamo, Duignan, Jamison, Waters, Wood.
Nays
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: The motion is carried.
With regard to sections 3, 4, 5 and 6, are there any amendments? I don't have any amendments.
Mr Brown: We may have some questions, though.
The Vice-Chair: You have some questions.
Mr Brown: On section 3, why do we have to say this? Isn't it obvious that the crown is bound by the act?
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): In drafting the legislation, it's standard that it's in there. It's in other pieces of legislation and it's in this one.
Mr Brown: You mean it's possible to draft an act that the crown isn't bound by?
The Vice-Chair: The question is to legislative counsel.
Mr Doug Beecroft: The Interpretation Act provides that no act binds the crown unless the act specifically says it does, so this is an essential provision.
The Vice-Chair: Any further questions regarding sections 3, 4, 5 and 6?
Mr Brown: I want to talk about section 4. We will be voting against section 4, and I indicated when I was proposing our amendment to section 1 that we would be opposing it. This act is to deal with crown forests. Amazingly, yesterday we found out that Ontario Place is a crown forest under the definition of the government.
We have real concerns. If we're talking about sustainability and we're talking about crown forests, as the government claims we are, and not talking about timber, as we claim we are, it seems to us that all forests on crown land should be subject to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. For the government to come forward and exempt certain forests from being under this act seems ludicrous. If you talk about ecosystems, just because you have a boundary around a provincial park doesn't mean that it's not part of an ecosystem of the next management unit that the ministry might define. I would like somebody to explain to us why they think the provincial parks need to be excluded if you're talking about ecosystems, ecosystem management and all those good things. Could somebody explain that?
Mr Wood: All section 4 says is, "This act does not apply to a crown forest in a provincial park within the meaning of the Provincial Parks Act." There are other acts that deal with this. We're saying this particular act does not necessarily deal with the crown forests in provincial parks because it's covered under the Provincial Parks Act.
Mr Brown: But is that not a crown forest? The title of the act is the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. What the government is claiming is that we are going to sustain, because it's what the title of the bill says, forests in Ontario. If you want to run around and draw artificial boundaries around things, as provincial parks do, and we're not saying that shouldn't happen, we're just wondering why, if you are looking at diversity and all the good things from an environmental standpoint, you wouldn't be considering the land within the provincial park as part of that ecosystem.
That doesn't mean you can timber in it. It doesn't mean anything like that. It means if you're looking at an overall view of a forest -- we still have some difficulty understanding what you mean by "forest," but if there's a forest ecosystem there, it doesn't start and stop at provincial park boundaries, unless you're telling me that we have a new forest every time we have a provincial park boundary. If you're looking at diversity, you have to consider what's in that provincial park to make the plan for the next unit -- at least I would think you do, and so do a lot of other people, for that matter.
Mr Wood: You've asked the question, is it a crown forest? Section 4 says, yes, it is a crown forest in a provincial park, but the Provincial Parks Act deals with that and there is management in place under the Provincial Parks Act to deal with provincial parks.
Mr Brown: If that's the government's position, would the forest in the provincial park be considered as part of the planning process for the management units that may be adjoining it? Will a forester, when he's authoring the plan, have to think about what is in the provincial park immediately next door, right across the line? One second you're in the park, the next minute you're in the management unit. Is one of the considerations the forester will have to make is in regard to the forest in the provincial park?
Mr Wood: There are values there that professional foresters are going to have to take into consideration when they're there and they have to plan around that.
Mr Brown: If there are, why would you be exempting the provincial parks from this act?
Mr Wood: We're saying, "This act does not apply to a crown forest in a provincial park within the meaning of the Provincial Parks Act." The Provincial Parks Act deals with the management plans of provincial parks. We're not dealing with provincial parks in this particular act.
Mr Brown: But how can you make a credible argument that you're looking after the crown forests, you're going to sustain the crown forests, when you're going to exempt provincial parks from the provisions of this bill? I can't imagine, as I say, that an ecosystem can start here and stop there. You've got to look at what's in that park to do a proper job of understanding what you can do in that management unit or FMA or whatever it is right across the line. How can you exempt it?
Mr Wood: I could argue back and forth for a long time if that was the wish, but this is the way it's been traditionally done by the ministry and this is the way we're saying it's appropriately going to be done in the future. That's the wish of the government.
Mr Brown: I think that's outrageous. I think the answer, "This is the way it's always been done," is not an answer that fits within this broad, new understanding of how we're going to management the forest. An answer to a legitimate question that "We're going to do it this way because we've always done it this way" is clearly not what you're talking about in this act.
We're trying to talk about sustainability. You won't define sustainability, except in relation to some forest planning manuals. It's not clear now whether the forest planning manuals have to be drawn in respect to what's in the provincial park. You'll have to excuse us over here if we're getting thoroughly confused with the government's position on forests, the government's position on sustainability, the government's position on any of these matters.
Does the forester have to consider what's in the immediate -- in all probability it's the same forest that just happens to go beyond the boundary of the provincial park. Does he have to understand the ecosystems in that provincial park and take those into account when he's planning for diversity and all those other wonderful things that we're being told he should plan for?
Mr Wood: I can go back to say that it's covered under the Provincial Parks Act, and there's management for it there.
Mr Brown: But the planning within the Provincial Parks Act relates to the provincial park. It doesn't relate to the forest ecosystem. That's the difference; that's the point I'm trying to make. The professional forester is trying to manage for the forest -- that's what you're telling him he's got to do -- and it's the same forest, in many instances. You would think he has to make a consideration about what is proper to do on his management unit across the line in regard to the ecology of the provincial park on the other side of the line.
Mr Wood: Then he goes under the Provincial Parks Act.
Mr Brown: But that only plans for the provincial park. It's got nothing to do with him outside.
Mr Wood: Then you go to Bill 171 for the rest of it.
The Vice-Chair: Any further questions on any of the other sections?
Mr Brown: Mr Chair, I think we should vote on them one at a time, because some of them we will support and some of them we won't.
The Vice-Chair: That's requested. We'll certainly vote one section at a time. Any further questions?
Mr Brown: How far are we going?
The Vice-Chair: Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Mr Brown: On section 5, just a question to legal counsel. Is this necessary in the act? We don't have the power to change the Constitution of Canada in any event, do we, at least not without the agreement of 70% of the provinces and half the population or some such formula that we haven't been very successful in doing.
Mr Beecroft: We don't have the power to change the Constitution of Canada, but I guess there could be an argument that something in this act adds to something that's in the Constitution. The provision says the act does not abrogate any aboriginal rights, it does not derogate from any aboriginal rights and it does not add to any aboriginal rights. This kind of provision has been placed in several statutes simply to indicate that it doesn't affect in any way for or against.
Mr Brown: I understand that. I just thought --
Mr Beecroft: Whether it's necessary is really a policy issue.
Mr Brown: Okay.
Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a follow-up question for the parliamentary assistant. In section 4 when we're talking about the provincial parks, does that mean it's exempted from the report to the Legislature on the state of the forest within the provincial parks?
Mr Wood: Planning for provincial parks is done under the Provincial Parks Act. We're not amending the Provincial Parks Act right now.
1030
Mr Hodgson: I understand that. I'll come at it a different way. Is it mandated that there be a report to the Legislature on the state of the forest in the provincial parks under the Provincial Parks Act right now? What I'm getting at is that the people of Ontario should know the state of their forests and all crown land, even within the parks. If the government intends to amend the parks act, let us know whether it's going to report to the people of Ontario. If you exempt it, nobody in the province will know the state of the forest within the parks, but if it's outside a park, there will be a report to the Legislature under this act. I'm just wondering if that's the intent of the government, not to report on the state of the forest inside the provincial parks.
Mr Wood: The intention was not to deal with provincial parks in this act because it's covered under the Provincial Parks Act. If at some point in time we decide to deal with other pieces of legislation and amendments are brought forward, I'm sure we'll be dealing with them and how they're going to be reported and things of this kind.
Mr Hodgson: Are there any plans, Mr Wood? That's what I'm asking. Are there any amendments for the Provincial Parks Act to make it report?
Mr Wood: The plan right now is to, some time next year, get another mandate to govern the province of Ontario for another four years, and I'm sure we'll be dealing with other pieces of legislation as we proceed.
Mr Hodgson: I'm sure that's made the people who are worried about the state of the forest within the parks sleep better at night.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Just for the members to understand, there is an act called the Algonquin Forestry Authority Act, which has a responsibility for managing how we approach harvesting questions in Algonquin Park. Algonquin Park is the only park that happens in, the only one they do logging in, and it's under that, so it's reportable through that authority.
Mr Hodgson: I know that one. That's my riding.
Mr Bisson: And it's a policy issue, as the parliamentary assistant said.
Mr Brown: Mr Bisson just made my point. He is talking about a timber act. I'm not talking about lumbering in any of the provincial parks, timbering in any of the provincial parks. I'm just asking, and I think Mr Hodgson had a very good question, if you're going to ask about the state of Ontario's forests and leave out the significant land masses that are within the provincial parks system, and I understand there will be more, if you take that out and don't report to the Legislature, all you end up reporting on is the industrial forest of Ontario and you leave out the parts of the province that are under protection through the Provincial Parks Act and the various park plans that apply to each and every park.
We have provincial parks where you camp, where you do all kinds of things. We also have provincial parks that are wilderness classifications and the only thing you can do in those is canoe and hike, and that's great. But there are forests in those parks, and not to include them in the planning of the industrial forest is quite a remarkable statement for the parliamentary assistant to be making. Maybe 7% or 8% of the forests of Ontario are within those provincial parks, and your report will only be on the industrial forest area; it won't be on the crown forests of Ontario. And this is the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, I remind him.
Mr Wood: We're talking about two different things here. The statement I made earlier is that they're managed under the Provincial Parks Act and Bill 171 is dealing with the crown forests outside of that. It's quite clear in the legislation, it's spelled out clearly, and there's no confusion or misunderstanding in my mind. It's quite clear, the intention and the way the legislation is written.
The Vice-Chair: Any further questions regarding sections 3, 4, 5 or 6?
Mr Brown: I have a question on section 6. It says, "The minister may designate all or part of a crown forest as a management unit for the purposes of this act." Can the parliamentary assistant tell us if the minister has any intention of having the management units align with the ecological units?
Mr Wood: Would you repeat that?
Mr Brown: It says here, "The minister may designate all or part of a crown forest as a management unit for the purposes of this act." Is there an intention, as we are in this bill attempting to manage forests on an ecosystem basis, to align the crown units that he can designate with the ecological units that he is about to decide somehow where they are and how they work, or will they be the relatively arbitrary boundaries that we have today?
Mr Wood: In the management of the units, there has always been a process of negotiations between the large holders and the province as the landlord. Those negotiations are taking place right now and have been for several months, on converting a lot of those management units with their FMAs over to silvicultural management units or licences, and some agreements are in place. You've probably seen copies of the press releases. There are agreements that the province works out with some of the major holders. As to the other part of it, I don't really see where you're coming from on that.
Mr Brown: I'm just trying to get at this: Is there going to be any effort made to align the crown management units or the FMAs or whatever with the ecological units that I presume over time somebody's going to decide what they are?
I understand the commercial side of this, that you've got to negotiate between various people who want the wood -- great. What I don't understand, and what I want to understand, is whether the government is going to try to align the management units with the forest, with the ecosystem? You're the one who's talking about ecosystems, you're the one who's talking about forest ecosystems. Is there going to be any attempt to redraw the boundaries with regard to ecosystems or are they going to be just left to commercial considerations, which I guess is the way they are now? I just want the answer. I'm not expressing an opinion.
Mr Wood: It would give the power to do this, if the need were there. We could manage them on the basis of ecosystems as they're defined. It would give minister the power to do that.
Mr Brown: I understand it would give the minister the power. I'm asking you about a policy decision, because it's not spelled out in the act, is it the intention of the government to do that? I recognize it gives them the power. It's a question of intention. Is there a policy that we should do it or we shouldn't do it?
Mr Wood: There's continuing research into being able to match the two concepts together. A lot of that work was done under the sustainable forestry policy initiative in focusing on those problems.
Mr Brown: In other words, we don't know. There's a second question that would arise from that. It says, "The minister may designate all or part of" -- and this is the key word -- "a crown forest." Does that mean a management unit could not include parts of two crown forests?
Mr Wood: "The minister may designate all or part of a crown forest as a management unit for the purposes of this act."
Mr Brown: Yes. Therefore, the question is, could one of those management units include two crown forests or parts of two crown forests? That's not what it says.
Mr Wood: There are 100-and-some management units out there right now and we're talking about setting up trust funds. There are going to be 100-and-some trust funds set up, and they're going to be there to manage the reforest and the --
Mr Brown: I understand that. My question is, could you have parts of two different crown forests in one management unit?
Mr Wood: The minister could do that under that section.
Mr Brown: But this would prohibit him from doing it.
1040
Mr Wood: What you're dealing with there is "all or part of a crown forest."
Mr Brown: "A" crown forest. What if you've got two different crown forests?
Mr Wood: You've got to deal with them as two separate issues.
Mr Brown: So you're saying the minister could not place two different crown forests in the same management unit or parts thereof?
Mr Wood: Here you're talking about one particular crown forest, and then there might be another one. You can talk about another crown forest and part of it. As I said, you could have any number of decisions being made out there, I would think.
Mr Brown: Maybe legal counsel could tell me. I guess this is a technical question. In your view, could that happen?
Mr Beecroft: There's a general principle, in interpretation of statutes, that use of the singular always includes the plural, and there's a provision in the Interpretation Act that says that. So when this section says you can include "a" crown forest in a management unit, I think you could include several. The minister has that discretion.
Mr Brown: You think the wording would permit the flexibility that I believe the parliamentary assistant wants.
Mr Beecroft: Yes.
Mr Brown: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Any further questions? Mr Hodgson.
Mr Hodgson: I'd like to follow up on Mr Brown's line of questioning, the second part of his question. It says, "The minister may designate all or part of a crown forest as a management unit for the purposes of this act." The Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association had a recommendation, and I'm wondering about the government's thoughts on why it didn't take it.
"All productive forest on crown lands within a management unit shall be managed for the long-term production of industrial wood fibre in accordance with an approved forest management plan." The OLMA also proposed an additional clause to emphasize that productive forest land be managed under the plan for the supply of industrial fibre wood.
I think their concern is that under section 15 of the act, "If a person fails to prepare a forest management plan or work schedule that the minister has required...the minister may cause it to be prepared, and the person is liable to the minister for all costs associated with the preparation of the plan or work schedule."
You want the industry to make up the plan for the whole area or part of the area, more than just what their interest is in, and that's the industrial wood supply. It goes back to what we were talking about yesterday, about having a land use plan. David Balsillie from the MNR the first day talked about how they're trying to establish values for other uses of the forest. I'm wondering if you've made it more clear, if the ministry's thought about that.
Over time, it will be developed, but right now we have a fairly good grasp on timber as one component of the forest ecosystem, and as we get more values that we want to create -- we wouldn't want the industry, for instance, drawing up the plan for the moose habitat. The problem is, you can design a moose habitat for 20 moose or for 50 moose, and where would their interest be? The ministry should retain that power for all the people of Ontario, I would think, and the industry doesn't want to pay for it if they're not going to be actually using that portion. I was just wondering if you had any comments on that.
Mr Wood: Any planning out there is going to have to have regard for other values. Sure, a tree is a value to a sawmill or a processing plant, whatever it is, but there are other values that we have to have regard for, and when they're planning for that, they have to have regard for these other values out there.
Mr Hodgson: So you feel confident that having the industry draw up the plan for the whole management unit or part of it, as may be designated by the minister, the people of Ontario are protected with regard to all these other things, when their main, primary interest is in the timber?
Mr Wood: Their interest could be that, if all the moose population is destroyed in that unit --
Mr Hodgson: I realize they have the same interests as everybody else in Ontario, but the MNR used to balance that. If you had to plan for 20 moose or 50 moose, you have to build a measure to say you're accountable. "Having regard to" is a slippery slope, I would think. Is it the ministry's vision that eventually it will have a land use plan and identify what the objectives are?
Mr Wood: Professional foresters know what the objectives are out there and they're going to be involved in the planning, having regard for other values. They're well aware, and there are other people they can consult with to find out, if they're not sure themselves, what other values out there have to be considered.
Mr Hodgson: So you've looked at the OLMA's recommendation and rejected it, or you didn't feel it was necessary.
Mr Wood: We didn't feel it was necessary. That's why there is no amendment.
The Vice-Chair: Are we ready to vote? We'll take one section at a time.
Section 3: All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 4.
Mr Brown: I think we need 20 minutes.
The Vice-Chair: You're asking for a 20-minute recess? We'll stand adjourned until 11:10.
The committee recessed from 1047 to 1112.
The Vice-Chair: This committee will continue its consideration of clause-by-clause of Bill 171. I did call for the vote, so we are voting on section 4.
Mr Brown: A recorded vote.
The Vice-Chair: A recorded vote. All those in favour of section 4?
Ayes
Bisson, Dadamo, Duignan, Jamison, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: Carried.
We will now vote on section 5. All those in favour of section 5? Opposed? Carried.
We will be voting on section 6. All those in favour of section 6?
Mr Brown: A recorded vote.
The Vice-Chair: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Bisson, Dadamo, Duignan, Jamison, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: The motion carries.
We are now on section 7, and there are amendments. I would like to propose to the committee that we not vote each time the particular amendment would be effective but vote on all these sections wherever "forest management plan" is used in the whole bill, if that's agreeable with the committee. If we pass the motion that is before us, wherever "forest management plan" appears, it would be replaced by "forest resource management plan," if that's agreeable to the committee that we proceed in this fashion. Mr Hodgson, you had the amendment.
Mr Hodgson: I move that the bill be amended by striking out "forest management plan" wherever that expression appears and substituting in each case "forest resource management plan."
For the information of the committee, I've listed each section where it applies. This amendment really goes back to subsection 2(1), where we were to redefine "forest resource" as being timber. The rationale behind this comes from the industry's concern that this subsection 7(1), under "Forest management plans," that "The minister shall ensure that a forest management plan is prepared for every management unit," is inconsistent with the Environmental Assessment Board ruling's terms and conditions, where it states that a timber management plan will be prepared for every unit.
The present definition and the way it's worded, with "forest management plan," it encompasses more than timber. It's the intent of this bill to be sustainability for the whole forest as an ecosystem, but for the industry, their direction from the EA, which is law now, is that they have the authorization to prepare a timber management plan. There's a huge difference between a forest ecosystem plan and a timber management plan. If you have a forest ecosystem plan, it takes into account a whole number of different areas and concerns from a timber plan.
This amendment is trying to clarify specifically what the industry should take into account when preparing this plan, and as the ministry gets more information on other important values they should be consistent with those other values. But to state right up front that the industry's going to pay for and draw up a plan to take into account the whole ecosystem -- they don't have the legal ruling to do it, and I'm not sure whether the people of Ontario want them to make the plan for the whole forest ecosystem and not just the timber component.
That's the rationale behind the amendment, and if the government agrees to this, I would hope it would maybe make its own amendment and define "forest resource management plan" as meaning the timber component.
Mr Wood: First of all, we are not prepared to accept the amendment. With the words you're putting in there, you're talking about timber plans, and Bill 171 is not a timber act. It could be inconsistent with the class EA if we were to agree to the wording you've brought forward; the EA says we should be moving towards forest management, not necessarily dealing with timber. This Bill 171 is not the timber act that we might hear some people on the committee referring to; it's a sustainable forestry act.
Mr Hodgson: I'm quite aware it's a sustainable forestry act. What I'm saying is that it should be broken out, that the sustainable forestry part of it should be an umbrella and underneath that you should make it clear which group is paying for which development of that plan.
The EA board decision, as I was made aware, in the very first item under the terms and conditions, states that a timber management plan will be prepared for every unit. The act as it's presently written encompasses that the industry will prepare more than just a timber management plan. That's what has some people in the industry concerned, that this is inconsistent with the EA ruling. Your opinion is that it isn't inconsistent.
Mr Wood: I've listened to that interpretation from a number of people who have come to my office and lobbied on that, and I disagree with them.
Mr Brown: You will not be surprised that I support my friend's amendment, as we have the identical amendment, which I'm sure you will rule out of order after this one is voted on.
We need some help when we deal with this area. We have a problem all through this bill of comparing the timber management EA's terms and conditions with the bill and the act. As laymen, and not lawyers, we are not sure which takes precedence, the act or the terms and conditions for the EA, and which one will have legal effect. If there is a contradiction between the terms and conditions of the timber environmental assessment, we need to know whether the act or the order of the environmental assessment takes precedence. That's something the committee really needs to know now so we can understand, where there's a conflict or an apparent conflict between the two -- the act and the environmental assessment terms and conditions -- which one would take precedence and how that will be dealt with.
1120
Mr Wood: We must meet the EA. We've said that in the Legislature and we've said that through press releases. The EA says we can move beyond that in management. The bill we have drafted is consistent with the EA, and it's a legal requirement that we must meet.
Mr Brown: You're aware that, for example, disparate groups like the Ontario Forest Industries Association and the Canadian Environmental Law Association take the view that there are contradictions between the EA terms and conditions and this bill.
Mr Wood: They're entitled to their view.
Mr Brown: They're certainly entitled to their opinion. My point is that one is an association of lawyers and the other is an association of some of the largest players in the industry in Ontario, both of which I presume can afford lawyers. As legislators we should be trying to minimize the opportunities for legal interventions, when we're drafting legislation, rather than see it subject to endless litigation in the courts.
What we're looking for is an assurance that the terms and conditions are being met in this act and that we will not see, at tremendous expense both to people interested in this issue and the government of Ontario, legal battles in the courts over which one takes precedence and whether they are in fact consistent. And this section is a good place to start.
We have heard an opinion from the minister that they don't believe that to be so, and I wouldn't expect the ministry to say otherwise, but I'm wondering if the government would consider having independent legal counsel retained by the committee to examine these issues. There is some precedence for committees asking for independent legal opinions, and I'm just wondering if we could save the people of Ontario a tremendous amount of money spent in court by getting a legal opinion from an independent source that may help us understand this issue and minimize the amount of time spent in courtrooms from one end of the province to the other.
I think you can understand the reluctance we have when we have at least two groups that represent large concerns in the province of Ontario suggesting that what you're saying is not correct. We have no way of knowing -- we're not lawyers -- whether what you're saying is correct or isn't correct, and we'd like some independent advice about who's right and who's wrong so we can minimize the legal costs to the province in the long term.
Mr Wood: I'm not a lawyer, but the advice we are getting -- and yesterday again I spent a considerable amount of time reassuring myself and the ministry that our view is consistent with the EA. There is a view, and it's spelled out in black and white in the EA, that we can move beyond timber to what we're proposing in Bill 171, and at this point in time I don't see the need to get an independent view on that.
There are all kinds of people out there who have all kinds of different views and interpretations and put their own spin to what they see. Our view is that Bill 171 is consistent with that, and as a result we're not prepared to support the Conservative amendment that has been brought forward or the Liberal amendment that will be discussed afterwards. We feel it's going back to timber, and we do not want to deal with timber as timber only, even though you've made a number of comments over the last couple of days that you feel that if you put the word "timber" back in there, in a lot of areas it would mean the same old act of 1952. We don't feel that way. We feel that Bill 171 is moving into the future and it meets the terms and conditions of the EA.
Mr Brown: You certainly are cutting-edge guys. Regardless of that, my concern -- you've mentioned that the EA, as you understand it, says we can go beyond the rulings of the timber EA. In fact, though, there may be instances in this act where we are doing less than is required under the timber environmental assessment. In that case, there is obvious opportunity for intervention. I don't know. I'm like you: I'm not a member of the bar.
The committee, in the interest of the people of Ontario, needs to know what the ramifications of being in contravention of a timber EA term and condition would mean to the legality of certain sections of this bill.
We certainly have a point of view that if this bill were properly called the crown forest timber act or the crown timber act, a lot of this would not be necessary, but because it's masquerading as something it is not, it has created a lot of problems for a lot of people. When I hear from the Ontario Forest Industries Association that it believes this contravenes the EA terms and conditions, and when I hear from the Canadian Environmental Law Association that this contravenes the terms and conditions of the timber EA, I get concerned. I'm happy that you take the advice of your own minister, but as legislators we may want to try to satisfy ourselves that the ministry, as always, is correct.
Mr Wood: All I can say is that I disagree with the interpretation you've put on it. I know there's no need for any further investigation because of the advice we have in drafting this. We're not prepared to support the amendment that the Conservative Party has brought forward because we feel we would be inconsistent with the class EA if we were to adopt the amendment, and the same thing will apply to the amendment you propose. I don't know of stronger language I can use to say I disagree with your interpretation of what you're hearing, Mike.
Mr Brown: Is the parliamentary assistant saying he didn't hear from the forest industries association and from CELA that they both thought this contravened sections of the timber EA?
Mr Wood: I'm not saying that. I'm saying I disagree with them.
The Vice-Chair: Okay.
Mr Brown: Okay what? Perhaps we could get clarification. We do have the odd lawyer in this room. I'm not one, and Mr Hodgson isn't one, and Mr Wood isn't one. Perhaps we could have the ministry lawyers come to the table and speak to this.
The Vice-Chair: No, Mr Brown, I don't think that would be permissible. You can ask a question to legislative counsel if you wish, otherwise Mr Wood is here to speak on behalf of the ministry.
1130
Mr Brown: If Mr Wood isn't prepared to have the legal advice from his own ministry come forward, I will ask the legal counsel of the committee what would happen in the event that a timber environmental assessment term and condition is in fact changed or lessened, not added to, that the responsibility is lessened on someone who's governed by that class EA.
Mr Beecroft: I'm afraid I really can't answer the question because I am not familiar with the details of the EA decision, and that would require some careful study of the decision.
Mr Brown: Good answer. Given the fact that legislative counsel doesn't feel competent, given that he hasn't examined the terms and conditions, perhaps the parliamentary assistant might ask the legal advice of his own ministry to answer that very straightforward question.
Mr Wood: I'm saying we disagree with the amendment as it's brought forward by the Conservative caucus, and I have no further debate on that particular amendment.
The Vice-Chair: Are we ready to vote?
Mr Brown: I think we probably need it recorded.
The Vice-Chair: A recorded vote. All those in favour of Mr Hodgson's motion to amend and, as specified, that if this carry it would carry in the various sections that are identified on the PC motion? All those in favour?
Ayes
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Bisson, Dadamo, Duignan, Jamison, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: The motion is lost.
Of course the next motion, as it is identical, would be out of order. However, there is another Liberal motion, regarding subsection 7(3).
Mr Brown: I move that subsection 7(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Preparation
"(3) A forest resource management plan shall be prepared in an open consultative fashion by a professional forester who shall be the plan author and who shall be assisted by an interdisciplinary planning team and a local citizens' committee, with opportunities for ongoing participation by interested and affected persons and organizations and by the general public."
This amendment I believe clarifies what the process will be by the professional forester in preparing the plan. I think one of the key words is "author" rather than "certify," and it makes clear that there will be a number of people with expertise that the professional forester may or may not have and participation by the local citizens' committee, and it guarantees an ongoing participation by the interested and affected parties and organizations. We believe that the word "author" is critical, that this is what is described in the timber EA process terms and conditions, and we believe that this is a substantial improvement over the wording of the government's section.
Mr Wood: This is clearly addressed under the EA decision on timber. We're bound by the Environmental Assessment Act and we don't feel it is necessary to detail these requirements in the bill.
Certification by a registered professional forester is consistent with the EA decision, and as a result of that we feel no reason to support this particular amendment.
Mr Brown: Actually, you're wrong. Term and condition 2 states that a timber management plan will be authored by a registered professional forester, not certified by a registered professional forester. There's a difference. We believe the registered professional forester should be involved in all planning aspects of the forest. He or she should be the one who writes the plan with the assistance of other professionals he or she may need, but it goes beyond the certification of a plan after it has been prepared.
The timber EA in its terms and conditions specifically says "author," not "certified." We have no problem with the certification either, but the "author" part of it is the part that is consistent with the timber EA. If you're saying a registered professional forester does not need to author the management plan, I would be surprised, and I think you would be in contravention of term and condition 2.
Mr Wood: If you're going to have a plan and a professional forester is going to certify it, that should be --
Mr Brown: But what you're saying is that the professional forester need not write it. There's a difference.
Mr Wood: I could get into an argument and drag it out for a long time about who writes your speeches, Mike, whether you write your own speeches --
Mr Brown: Nobody would take credit for my speeches.
Mr Wood: -- or whether you do all your work as an MPP by yourself. If you want to get into those arguments, we could drag this out for ever.
The Vice-Chair: I think we'd better stay with subsection 7(3).
Mr Wood: I think certification of it is making sure it meets all the requirements. That's all I have to say.
Mr Brown: Well, yes, but we're back to the question that I think we just went through in the last amendment that was turned down by the government. This is clearly, in my view, in contravention of a term and condition of the timber management class EA. Term and condition 2 clearly says it will be authored. "Certified" is not the same thing, no matter how you might want to believe that. I think my friends in the Ontario Forest Industries Association and my friends in the Canadian Environmental Law Association will both see it that way, and again I think we will be into the litigation that you are trying to stop.
There is a difference between the wording of the class EA and the wording of this amendment. It actually says less. This is one of those points where it's not adding to, although "certified by" might be considered adding; but taking away the authoring is clearly different from the terms and conditions of the environmental assessment.
Mr Wood: I disagree with you.
Mr Brown: And you're a lawyer.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): If the parliamentary assistant would look at the forest industry presentation, they say exactly what Mr Brown is saying, so essentially the parliamentary assistant disagrees with them as well. On page 4 of the brief they gave us, they're saying the exact same thing Mr Brown is. Quite frankly, I trust the Ontario Forest Industries Association over the parliamentary assistant on this. They say very clearly that this act should be consistent with the EA Board. They voice their concerns, they lay it out under this section, and they put their recommendation.
Again what we're seeing is another case of the Ontario Forest Industries Association coming forward with a very detailed brief and the government saying, "Sorry, we're not going to listen to you on this." It's one thing not to take some of the advice of the opposition, but the forest industries association brought a lot of these comments forward in good faith, hoping they would be taken seriously by the government. So when you're disagreeing with the opposition parties on this point, you're also disagreeing with the people in the industry who are trying to be constructive and tell you to be consistent with the EA Board, as they've outlined in their recommendation. I just want to make that clear, that the parliamentary assistant is disagreeing with the Ontario Forest Industries Association's presentation as well.
Mr Wood: Our interpretation, as far as we're concerned, is that it will meet the EA. I don't want to get into a long debate over the definition of "certified" versus "author." That can drag out for ever. There are definitions out there, but we feel the definition we have there, the way it is, meets the EA decision. That's it, Mr Chair.
Mr Brown: We have some lawyers in the room. Perhaps I could ask legislative counsel if, in his opinion, the words "author" and "certified" are the same.
Mr Beecroft: It's very difficult for me to comment on the timber EA without knowing the entire context of the EA. If you simply take these words out of the EA by themselves, I don't see a conflict. It's possible to comply with both these words and the provision of the act. I don't see any conflict.
Mr Brown: In other words, authoring and certification are the same?
Mr Beecroft: No, not necessarily. They may be. I would have to look at the timber EA to get a sense of what they intended by "author." All I'm saying is that it's possible to comply with both the timber EA and the provision of the bill at the same time. If you comply with one, you're not necessarily contravening the other. It is possible to comply with both, so there's no conflict.
Mr Brown: We have the ministry's lawyers too. Would they be willing to make a comment?
Mr Wood: I don't see why we should be placing different lawyers against each other. I know that's what you would like to do.
Mr Brown: I think the people of Ontario would like us to do that.
Mr Wood: In your interpretation, and I disagree with your interpretation of that again, Mr Brown.
Mr Brown: I think the people of Ontario presume that legislators will do all in their power to avoid getting the government into costly court fights.
Mr Wood: And that's exactly what we're doing.
Mr Brown: Well, we're real happy with your word on that.
The Vice-Chair: Are we ready to vote?
Mr Wood: Yes.
Mr Brown: We'll need 20 minutes for sure.
The Vice-Chair: You're calling for a 20-minute recess? We will be back at 2 o'clock then. This committee stands adjourned until 2 o'clock, at which time we'll be voting on the Liberal amendment to subsection 7(3).
The committee recessed from 1144 to 1413.
The Vice-Chair: We are continuing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 171.
I have called for the vote on the Liberal amendment to subsection 7(3). All those in favour?
Mr Brown: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Bisson, Dadamo, Jamison, Mammoliti, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: The amendment is lost.
There is a further amendment to section 7, from the Conservative Party.
Mr Hodgson: I move that section 7 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Objectives
"(4) Forest management objectives and strategies will include non-timber values which are forest-cover-dependent, such as wildlife habitat and recreational activities."
If I may be permitted, I'll speak. I realize that there are time constraints on our thoroughness of clause-by-clause.
The Vice-Chair: I appreciate that you realize that.
Mr Hodgson: The Forest Management Planning Manual will play an extremely important role in accomplishing the goals of Bill 171. We believe, along with groups that have come before us and made presentations, that it's crucial that there be an explicit objective in each of the forest management plans for non-timber values and alongside wood supply objectives, that forest-based hunting and fishing be explicitly included as recreational values and activities.
I think that's the goal of this bill, to be more than just a timber management plan, to cover the forest as a whole. This is quite consistent with the stated objectives and goals of Bill 171, and I would expect there'd be very little opposition to this.
Mr Wood: The EA ruling deals with this and gives clear direction and objectives, targets, strategies. It's covered in the Forest Management Planning Manual and we'll be covering this under section 66(2)(b), so we'll be not supporting this amendment.
Mr Brown: We of course will be supporting this amendment, as we believe that objectives and strategies in the forest need to include non-timber values. Especially for many groups, including the Ontario hunters and anglers, forest cover is very important for wildlife habitat and certainly for recreation activities. I think it behooves the government to support that.
Mr Wood just made a very interesting comment. He suggested that this is covered by the timber EA and therefore the terms and conditions require the government to do it anyway. We have heard from the ministry staff, however, that the timber EA covers only the area defined in the timber EA process and that there are some lands in Ontario, some crown lands and crown forests, which are not subject to the timber EA.
We heard earlier from the government, as a rationale for including some of these things, "We had to make sure that that crown land and those crown forests were covered."
In this case, the parliamentary assistant seems to be making exactly the opposite argument. I would ask the parliamentary assistant if it is not correct that the timber EA does not include all the crown forests in Ontario. Am I misunderstanding that?
Mr Wood: I guess I should clarify it a little more. I didn't want to confuse anybody. Under 7(2)(b) it says, "have regard to the plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including recreational values and heritage values, of the management unit." This to a certain degree takes care of what had been suggested in this amendment. We think it's covered. Section 66 clarifies it as well.
Mr Brown: If I understand, your argument is that it is already covered so this is redundant. Is that what you're saying to me?
Mr Wood: Yes.
Mr Brown: If it is, could I ask the parliamentary assistant what harm it would do to have this contained in the document. We think it spells it out more clearly than the section you just quoted.
Mr Wood: You're saying non-timber values, but (b) is really pretty specific, covering a large area, including, "plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including recreational values and heritage values, of the management unit." It covers a lot more than just non-timber values.
Mr Brown: But this is an addition just to clarify that these are elements we want to have considered. I don't see what the problem is in including it. You may not think it's helpful, but certainly Mr Hodgson believes it's helpful and I believe it's helpful.
Mr Wood: My only response to that is that we don't think it's necessary to have repetitive clauses in legislation.
Mr Hodgson: If it pleases the government, I'd be willing to amend it to make it 7(2)(b) in addition to that; it wouldn't be repetitive but it would just be more clarification on the existing 7(2)(b).
Mr Brown: I really don't quite follow. How would you --
Mr Hodgson: If I follow the government's argument, he's worried that it's a repetition of clause 7(2)(b) if I made it subsection 7(4). What we're trying to achieve here is just more clarification. So if you made it 7(2)(b), with the addition, "Forest management objectives and strategies will include non-timber values which are forest-cover-dependent," I think that's the key. We're talking about removing forest cover, "such as wildlife habitat and recreational areas," for example, hunting and fishing. It just makes it clear.
What the parliamentary assistant is referring to in the forest management, section 66, is still not clear enough. Maybe it could be reworded there as well, just to make it a little more obvious or clear for future generations to see the clear intent of this bill is to cover more than just timber.
1420
Mr Wood: The manuals are dealing with the specifics of that, and also the EA details clearly in this area. As I said before, 7(2)(b) really covers what you're trying to achieve in non-timber values and areas that are forest-cover-dependent, such as wildlife habitat and recreational activities. All of those values are covered under 7(2)(b), and our EA deals with them, as do the manuals deal with them. We feel that it's well covered right now and it would be repetitive to include this in legislation.
Mr Hodgson: In the interest of time, I don't want to belabour this point, but "have regard to" is different from the forest management objectives and strategies "will include." If you could, instead of "have regard to," just say the "forest management objectives and strategies will include non-timber values," that's different from just "have regard to." I'm not a lawyer, but I think we're quibbling over -- if you're satisfied that the intent of this bill meets the objectives of this amendment, I can't see what harm it would do in putting it in; let's put it that way.
Mr Wood: I'm not a lawyer either, but this legislation wasn't just drafted in the dark. A large number of people, including our legal people, were involved in drafting it.
The Vice-Chair: Are we ready to vote?
Mr Brown: No. I asked a question about the application of the timber EA outside the area where the timber EA was based. The parliamentary assistant told me not to worry, that the timber EA had those conditions in it and those would have to be followed, but there are parts of the province that are covered by this act that were not subject to the timber EA.
Mr Wood: I'm not sure which areas you're talking about.
Mr Brown: I'm not exactly sure either, other than the ministry told me, and I was aware it didn't cover all the crown forests. The class timber environmental assessment process had a defined land base, and this bill includes lands that were not within that land base, is my understanding. Perhaps a ministry official could clarify that, but I believe that's what they told us. Yes or no?
The Vice-Chair: We don't seem to be making much progress here. Are we ready to vote?
Mr Brown: I think we deserve an answer to that.
The Vice-Chair: I don't hear any answer forthcoming.
Mr Brown: Certainly, somebody out there knows the answer.
Mr Wood: I don't have the EA ruling here with me.
Mr Brown: But I'm certain someone from the ministry knows the answer to my question. It's just yes or no, it's all included or it isn't.
Mr Wood: You're saying this bill covers all crown forests and the EA doesn't cover all the crown forests.
Mr Brown: That's right.
Mr Wood: I don't really see that being an argument at this point in time.
Mr Brown: I just want to know if that's right. This bill covers all the crown forests and the timber class EA did not cover all the crown forests, is what I understand. If I'm wrong, we could have somebody just tell me that.
Mr Wood: That's quite possible, that it didn't cover all of the --
Mr Brown: And therefore the terms and conditions wouldn't apply to areas that were not included in the class EA -- I think, but I would just like somebody to tell me. It's a legitimate question that deserves an answer. As we read this act, we always have to read this act using the terms and conditions to augment it, and if it doesn't always augment it, we have to know that too and have to know where it doesn't. It makes it very difficult to deal with the bill when we don't know that.
Not being a lawyer, I don't know. Maybe the class EA governs other crown lands that weren't included in the timber EA also, I don't know, but I'm sure somebody can say yes or no really quickly.
Mr Wood: Regardless, I don't really see what your question has to do with Bill 171. We're saying we're going to accept all the terms of the EA and you're saying it doesn't --
Mr Brown: Yes, but there are parts of the province where the terms of the EA may not apply. Therefore, we would have to use 171 as the legislation governing the forest in that area. Occasionally, you make the argument that the timber EA spells that out and we don't need to put it in the act, but there are areas in the province, so I understand, that aren't governed by the timber EA.
Mr Wood: That's quite possible, but I don't understand where you're coming from. Bill 171 covers all crown forests, the forest manuals and the regulations are going to cover all crown forests, and even if the EA didn't cover all of the crown forests, it's not a point of argument, as far as I'm concerned, at this point in time.
Mr Brown: You don't think it's a point of argument, but there will be areas of the forest that are subject to, because Bill 171 doesn't speak to it, or that rely on the terms and conditions in order to clarify certain issues. There will be some of the province that that clarification isn't available to 171, without it being spelled out directly in Bill 171. Am I not clear here?
Mr Wood: I'm saying that for whatever areas of the province the EA covered, we're bound by that, we've agreed to that, we accept the terms of the EA, and Bill 171, along with the regulations and manuals, covers all of the crown forests. It's something we're proud of, that's going to take us into the future and create jobs and sustain the communities and protect the jobs that are out there. It will be good legislation for the next 30 or 35 years, until it's amended somewhere down the road.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'd like to get an indication of whether the answer to that is going to change your vote. We're voting on a motion here, right? Depending on the yes or no to your answer, will that change your vote?
Mr Brown: It may not change my vote, but it certainly affects the way we look at every section as we go through this bill. Unless you want me to ask the same question about every section, it would be useful to clarify that now.
The Vice-Chair: It would seem to me that we've had a good discussion on this amendment and we're probably ready to vote. That would be my feeling. Are we ready to vote? Okay, we're ready to vote.
Mr Brown: We may need 20 minutes. Mr Chair, we'll try to round up our colleague from Kenora, and I might be able to find out the answer privately in the interim.
The Vice-Chair: You're requesting a 20-minute recess? The committee stands recessed for 20 minutes.
The committee recessed from 1430 to 1454.
The Vice-Chair: We are on Mr Hodgson's motion to amend section 7 of the bill. All those in favour of Mr Hodgson's motion?
Mr Brown: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Brown, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Bisson, Dadamo, Jamison, Mammoliti, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: The motion is lost.
This concludes the amendments I have before me regarding section 7.
Shall section 7 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.
Section 8: We're moving on to section 8 with tremendous speed. I do have a Liberal motion in front of me regarding subsection 8(2).
Mr Brown: I move that subsection 8(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Criteria for approval
"(2) The minister shall not approve a forest resource management plan unless the minister is satisfied that the plan provides for the sustainability of the forest resource, taking into consideration non-timber values that could be affected by timber management activities."
The Vice-Chair: Do you want to give an explanation?
Mr Brown: I would be happy to. The problem with the original text is that the minister has great problems dealing with the sustainability issue again. We have, for example, many people who have expressed concern about this section. "Without a framework in the act that outlines what is sustainable in some format, the act as written appears to give the minister powers based on his judgement of what is sustainable and not what is or what may be sustainable in a more scientific term." That came from NOTOA, the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. Northwatch, in a similar vein, says, "Give some body or definition to sustainability," and they want this in the purpose section, which it is not. Other people are concerned that the minister is going to take the time to actually investigate it himself.
We, in our amendment, have all those same concerns, but are also making it clear that we must take into consideration non-timber values that could be affected by the timber management activities.
I further have more concerns about this section in that one of the things that always concerns me is that there's no time limit in terms of the minister's approval. As any member in this Legislature knows, time is important. If you have a plan that is about to be approved, one of the things you want to know is that it will be approved in a timely manner, and I don't understand here where the minister's under any time constraint to actually deal with the plan in a timely manner.
Nevertheless, I put this amendment forward, and we can make arguments on the broader section later.
Mr Wood: We will not be accepting this amendment. We will be voting against it because we've already dealt with the definition of sustainability, and subsection 8(2) as is in the act is pretty clear and covers what we're talking about. We don't want to focus strictly on "timber" or "non-timber." We talk about all values out in the forest.
Mr Brown: The concern here is that there are no firm specifications or goals that the author of a plan may have put before the minister, and therefore no one knows for sure what the minister is going to understand to be sustainable. We see absolutely no indication that any goals, specifications, will be put in front of the person drawing the plan, the certified or registered forester, and in that case, it gives the minister huge powers to interpret sustainability in virtually any manner he wants. There are no goals, there are no specifications, and if I'm putting a plan before the minister, I would like to know that there's some certainty I'm meeting his goals and objectives, even though I don't know from this bill how you could ascertain that in advance.
Maybe the parliamentary assistant could tell us how a minister is going to interpret sustainability. After all, it's coming from a registered forester who has drafted the plan. Is the minister then going to say to a registered forester, who has the appropriate education, that he doesn't know what sustainability is, as he interprets the definition provided in the act only for forest planning? Is that conceivable?
Mr Wood: Your argument is that you would've liked to have seen something else in the purpose clause. We've dealt with the purpose clause. The determination for sustainability will be in the Forest Management Planning Manual as per subsection 1.1(2). I don't think we have to be repetitive in dealing with that.
Mr Brown: Will there be goals and specifications in the forest planning manual? I have seen none in terms of numeric goals or sustainable yield or anything that might be understandable to a forester in a quantitative way.
Mr Wood: Foresters are involved in writing the manuals.
1500
The Vice-Chair: Any further debate on the Liberal amendment? If not, I guess we're ready to vote. All those in favour of the Liberal amendment to subsection 8(2)?
Mr Brown: A recorded vote.
The Vice-Chair: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Bisson, Dadamo, Jamison, Mammoliti, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: The motion is defeated.
As there are no other amendments to section 8, I'd like to --
Mr Brown: Could we have a discussion on the section as a whole?
The Vice-Chair: Okay, discussion on the section as a whole.
Mr Brown: I just want to reiterate and ask the parliamentary assistant for some assurance of time lines for the ministry dealing with the approval of these plans. I know in the past many governments have had great difficulty dealing with five-year plans in a timely manner for companies and individuals. It has been an ongoing source of some frustration, as the ministry has taken longer than the people who have put the plan in would like; that often costs the companies and individuals substantive moneys, not because there's anything wrong with the plan but because the minister hasn't had the opportunity to vet the plan appropriately through the ministry and hasn't got around to actually signing the plan. Are there any indications from the ministry that the ministry will set a 30-day time line or a 60-day time line or whatever might be appropriate?
Mr Wood: MNR will endeavour to have this done in a timely fashion so as to not disrupt operations out there.
Mr Brown: Could you indicate an approximate time the ministry might consider for the approval of the plan? Would the ministry believe it takes, after the plan's submitted, 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, to actually approve the plan? Or to make a decision, I guess; it would be possible to make a decision not to approve a plan.
Mr Wood: I'm not prepared to spell out 30 days or 60 days or whatever at this point in time, but as I said before, we will endeavour to have everything done in a timely fashion so as to not disrupt operations out there. If there has been a problem out there in the past we are obligated to correct those situations out there, and we'll endeavour to do that.
Mr Brown: I appreciate the assurance, and I'm certainly not pointing fingers at this government. This has happened under all three governments --
Mr Wood: I'm well aware of that.
Mr Brown: -- and it's not something that is unique to this one. I'm always nervous when we leave it that open-ended, however, without any kind of assurance. What's timely to the ministry certainly may not be timely to anyone else. I think the new Planning Act is suggesting reasonably tight time frames. Would the parliamentary assistant be averse to us making an amendment in this section that would suggest a time line for approvals?
Mr Wood: I have no further comment.
Mr Brown: Are you happy or not with making a --
The Vice-Chair: He has indicated that there was no further comment.
Mr Hodgson: What section, just for clarification?
The Vice-Chair: It's a long day. We are discussing section 8. Any further debate? If there's no further debate, we'll take the vote on section 8.
All those in favour of section 8?
Ayes
Bisson, Dadamo, Jamison, Mammoliti, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 9: Any questions, comments?
Mr Hodgson: I just have one comment. "The minister may require the holder of a forest resource licence to prepare a forest management plan for a management unit." I mentioned earlier and I'd just like to restate it that I'm worried that you're going to ask the licence holder, who is a licence holder of only one element of the forest -- which right now is timber, but it could be some other licence holder -- to prepare the all-encompassing forest management plan which will address many other forest resources. My concern, besides the fact that the EA board recommended calling for only the timber to be managed by the companies, is the point I mentioned earlier, that we're asking one licence holder to draw up the ecosystem plan for the whole forest unit.
There are different ways you can manage a forest. You can plan for a forest to encompass a moose habitat of 20 moose or you can plan for it to be a thousand moose. The MNR should retain some control over what the guidelines are going to be on this and set criteria that are measurable and that they can be held accountable for. I'm just wondering if this is what the minister is suggesting in this section, that the licence holder will prepare the whole forest management plan for the management unit.
Mr Wood: The word "may" leaves flexibility in there. In my mind, it's clear enough.
Mr Brown: I'm with Mr Hodgson's point, which is that by this section the ministry is totally turning over the management of the forest for all its elements to the private sector, to the timber company, and, having done that, has perhaps lost some control over the other elements in the forest. What you're saying here is that they're going to manage the entire forest even though they only have interest in timber management. We've got, as Mr Hodgson points out, wildlife issues, hiking, all kinds of issues other than the direct forest management. Are we saying, "You're going to manage for all these values and therefore you're going to pay for all the planning"? Is that what is being suggested?
Mr Wood: It says the minister "may." I can disagree with you completely in terms of a sawmill owner or whatever only being interested in trees. He's interested in the complete forest and the survival of that for a second harvest. He's interested in what the community's involved in. The word "may" leaves the discretion, and there's flexibility there.
Mr Brown: I agree: The minister under this section does not have to do this, but he's permitted to do this to give the administration over all elements of the forest to a business enterprise that is primarily interested in timber-cutting. When I say "interested," I don't mean he isn't concerned about the other elements of the forest, but his commercial interest is in timber.
Mr Wood: The comment I made during the hearings is that no matter which government is in power, the government is the landlord and the people using it are the tenants. There has to be a relationship between the two, and there are business relationships that are being negotiated as we speak.
1510
Mr Hodgson: The parliamentary assistant has said this before. In your opinion, the people of Ontario have nothing to fear that the forest companies "may" draw up the plan for the whole forest and how it's to be managed in relationship to other values in the forest. That used to be the sole jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the people held us accountable for how that was to be done. Now the minister "may" hand that over to the companies, but the government is not worried about that? Just a yes or no; I just want to be clear that that's what's being said.
Mr Wood: As the landlord, there is no fear. If you take it as a landlord-to-tenant situation, there is no fear of losing that control, no.
The Vice-Chair: So have no fear.
Mr Hodgson: I haven't been around here a long time, but the NDP used to use analogies like a fox in the hen-house and things like that when it came to public ownership of resources. I won't belabour the point, but I remember hearing that in years gone by.
Mr Mammoliti: Do you want to be a little more specific?
The Vice-Chair: Gentlemen, I'm having a hard time connecting the foxes and the hen-houses and the fears to section 9 of the bill.
Mr Brown: I could maybe help. There are foxes in the forest, generally speaking, but generally not hen-houses.
I'm just wondering what the parliamentary assistant's view is. I have the terms and conditions of the timber management EA, and section 1 of that says:
"Timber management plans, amendments to timber management plans, and contingency plans shall" -- that's shall -- "be prepared for each forest management unit in Ontario in accordance with the timber management planning requirements described in these terms and conditions."
If I'm understanding what you're saying, in areas where the timber EA applies, you must -- you don't have any choice: you shall -- file a timber management plan, and then at the discretion of the minister, you may also be required to have a forest management plan. In areas outside of where the timber EA applies, you would not have to submit a timber management plan but you may be required to submit a forest management plan. Is that right?
Mr Wood: The language being used here is language that was used in 1952 when the Crown Timber Act was drafted and it's consistent with that. The words "shall" and "may" follow along those lines and are being incorporated into the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, Bill 171.
Mr Brown: Then your view is that the timber management plan is a necessity within the area that was covered by the class EA for timber management, and then it is discretionary that a forest resource plan be provided by the licence holder. Outside of that area that the class EA dealt with, you wouldn't need to have a timber management plan but you might be required to have a forest resource plan.
Mr Wood: The EA says that you "shall" have a plan --
Mr Brown: Only within the boundaries of the EA.
Mr Wood: -- and here it says the minister "may" require the holder to come up with a plan. I don't see that there's any misunderstanding there at all.
Mr Brown: Okay.
The Vice-Chair: Are we ready to vote on section 9 of the bill?
Mr Brown: A recorded vote.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. All those in favour of section 9 of the bill?
Ayes
Bisson, Dadamo, Jamison, Mammoliti, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: The motion carries.
Moving on to section 10, there is a Liberal amendment.
Mr Brown: I move that section 10 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(1.1) An amendment to a forest resource management plan may be made only in accordance with term and condition 67 of schedule A to the decision of the Environmental Assessment Board released on April 20, 1994, in respect of the class environmental assessment by the Ministry of Natural Resources for timber management on crown lands in Ontario."
This in our view is just an amendment to make it clear that the timber term and condition 67 is observed through the entire province and that everything is consistent.
The Vice-Chair: Any debate?
Mr Wood: We're not supporting the amendment. It's already covered under the Environmental Assessment Act, it's covered under the Forest Management Planning Manual, and there's no need to have this in the act.
Mr Brown: But it doesn't cover every crown forest. The terms and conditions of the EA only apply to the land mass that was subject to the EA. It doesn't apply across the province, although, to be fair, it applies to most of the province, but not all.
The Vice-Chair: Any further debate on the Liberal amendment? If not, all those in favour of the Liberal amendment to section 10?
Mr Brown: Recorded vote.
The Vice-Chair: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Bisson, Dadamo, Jamison, Mammoliti, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: The motion is lost.
Any further debate to section 10? We're ready to vote?
All those in favour of section 10?
Mr Brown: Recorded vote.
The Vice-Chair: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Bisson, Dadamo, Jamison, Mammoliti, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: Section 10 carries.
Section 11: Any questions, comments? Ready to vote?
Mr Brown: Mr Chair, may we just have an opportunity to read the section, just 30 seconds?
The Vice-Chair: I had assumed this was done in the recess, but we can always be generous.
Okay. All those in favour of section 11? All those opposed? Carried. I like this.
1520
Section 12: There is a government amendment.
Mr Wood: I move that section 12 of the bill be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall."
This was supported by the OFIA, IWA, the Thunders Woodlands Association. The intent of section 12 is to provide for local citizens committees where appropriate. This will require that the local advisory committees are part of the development of every forest management plan.
Mr Hodgson: We're agreeable to this. The PCs have a similar motion on the table.
The Vice-Chair: Any further debate? All those in favour of the government amendment? Anyone opposed?
Mr Bisson: I want a recorded vote.
The Vice-Chair: You want a recorded vote. Normally we say that before.
All those in favour of the government amendment?
Ayes
Bisson, Carr, Dadamo, Hodgson, Jamison, Mammoliti, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Brown, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: The motion is carried. As was indicated, the Conservative motion was exactly the same; therefore we don't vote on it.
There's a further amendment to section 12.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I move that section 12 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Committees
"12. The minister shall establish a structure of committees in accordance with term and condition 4 of schedule A to the decision of the Environmental Assessment Board released on April 20, 1994, in respect of the class environmental assessment by the Ministry of Natural Resources for timber management on crown lands in Ontario."
We heard from a good number of presenters that there should actually be some sort of guidance in terms of the makeup of the committee, and if we go back to term and condition 4 of schedule A of the Environmental Assessment Board, I think most would agree with that in terms of the actual makeup of that particular committee.
Mr Carr: The government talked about the OFIA supporting the last amendment that they proposed and passed, and this is another one. If you look at page 6 of their recommendations, they say, "This act should establish the trilevel committee structure directed by EA board term and condition 4." This was the same rationale given by the government for the last amendment, supported by one of these groups, so obviously I would assume that the government will be supporting this recommendation as well. It is consistent with what we've said on a lot of the amendments, that is, to be consistent with the EA board decision, so I hope the government will support this amendment as well.
Mr Brown: It's interesting to note -- as all members have before them the terms and conditions of the timber EA, I'm sure -- that this spells out the minimum that these citizens' committees must do, and which citizens' committees must be established at what level; it includes the local level, a regional level and a provincial level. The government, by its own admission, can do nothing less than this. They must fulfil all the terms of the class EA. Our concern again is that the class EA did not cover all the land mass we're talking about, and it should be spelled out in the legislation that this is what the government is required to do.
Mr Wood: I disagree that it has to be spelled out. We've agreed to the terms of the EA and there was no decision made to appeal them. We'd be just duplicating in legislation what is already covered under the EA, so we won't be supporting that amendment.
Mr Brown: I'm again confused. It seems to me that we are establishing two standards, depending on where you happen to be in the province of Ontario, in terms of the involvement of advisory committees and how they are to be made up, which is spelled out in the timber EA term and condition 4.
Mr Wood: If we follow through, we have a government motion amendment to add new sections 12.1 and 12.2. That's going to address some of the concerns that have been raised here and it'll deal with this better than supporting this particular amendment brought forward by the Liberal caucus.
The Vice-Chair: Ready to vote?
Mr Brown: Recorded.
The Vice-Chair: A recorded vote. All those in favour of the Liberal amendment to section 12?
Ayes
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: All those against?
Nays
Bisson, Dadamo, Jamison, Mammoliti, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: The amendment is lost.
Any further discussion on section 12?
Shall section 12 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 12 is carried, as amended.
Mr Hodgson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: These additions under section 12, sections 12.1 and 12.2, will be part of the original 12, will they not? They will not go together?
The Vice-Chair: They're new sections.
Mr Hodgson: But they're related, are they not?
The Vice-Chair: The whole bill is related to each other.
Mr Wood: They're half-brothers.
Mr Hodgson: If we're voting on 12, do we have to vote again on section 12, as amended?
The Vice-Chair: No, these are new sections.
Mr Hodgson: Okay. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Chair. I know time is of the essence.
Mr Wood: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following sections:
"Other advisory committees
"12.1 The minister may establish other advisory committees to advise the minister on matters under this act, including the preparation of forest management plans and the manuals required by section 66.
"Forest management boards
"12.2(1) The minister may establish forest management boards for such areas as are designated by the minister, including forest management boards for community forests designated by the minister.
"Functions
"(2) A forest management board shall,
"(a) advise the minister on matters relating to the management of crown forests;
"(b) prepare forest management plans on the request of the minister;
"(c) exercise any authority of the minister under this part that is delegated to the board by the regulations; and
"(d) perform such additional functions as are prescribed by the regulations."
The Vice-Chair: Any comments?
Mr Hodgson: If the parliamentary assistant wants to speak in favour of it, that's fine with me, but I just have one quick comment, that is, that there's no serious objection from our party on this, except that I can't understand why you wouldn't specify the provincial and regional, as is specified in the EA hearings. "Other" is open. I assume that's the direction the ministry's going in, but do you have any comments on why you didn't want to specify provincial and regional?
Mr Wood: Thank you for your comment. These are new sections that have been brought forward and they're to reflect the legal commitment of the timber management EA terms and conditions. It's a strong argument that MNR will be making wider use of advisory committees in the future, and this will clarify the authority of the minister to establish these advisory committees.
The revised section provides support for the development of the provincial technical committee that has been mandated under the EA and links the advisory role to the development of manuals under this act. Moving the clause on forest management boards increases its prominence within the act. I hope this explains what the intention of these two additional sections are.
1530
Mr Hodgson: I have no complaint with your answer, but my question was about section 12.1, where it says, "The minister may establish other advisory committees." My recollection of the timber EA was that there was to be a provincial and a regional advisory committee, along with the citizens' committees, or at least a provincial one. "Other" will cover it. I just wondered why they didn't specify it to be a provincial and regional. Was there any discussion that you were involved in? The "other" covers it; that's why I'm not objecting to this. I'm just wondering why they didn't do it, if there was a reason.
Mr Wood: It allows us to do what we're mentioning here, as well as other committees as might be required to advise the minister out there. We're committed to what the EA says, and then there might be a reason for other ones to be set up.
Mr Hodgson: You might want to do more.
Mr Brown: I just want some advice on how this system is to work. In the area of the undertaking of the timber management EA, we have a local citizens' committee to manage for timber, we have a regional committee to manage for timber, and then we have a provincial technical committee to manage for timber. Does this mean we "may" have, at the discretion of the minister, a new set of committees, only they're going to manage for the forest?
Mr Wood: The roles and responsibilities even of choosing the committee members are all laid out in the EA decision, and we've accepted that. Sure, you're saying that was referring to timber; that was why the EA was set up. Here we're dealing with sustainable forestry. We've gone one step beyond what the environmental board has recommended we do, that we'll start managing for forests and not just managing for timber.
Mr Brown: So in the area of the undertaking it would be quite reasonable and possible to have a citizens' committee for forest management, and that would include the timber and that would therefore satisfy the environmental assessment. At the regional level, we would have a committee that just deals with timber, because your motion doesn't talk about that. And then at the provincial level, we again would have a committee that would deal with timber. Is that right?
Mr Wood: All of these have specific responsibilities. They're going to be expected to carry out specific responsibilities as committee members.
Mr Brown: I understand, but it would appear at least similar, on the surface anyway, if what you want to talk about is forest management committees and the citizens' committees for forest management. By law you are required to have three levels of committees for timber -- you can't get away from that, at least in the area of the undertaking -- but for forest management, you don't have the same situation at all.
It would seem to me that if you were trying to make this work, you would permit the same thing so that you would have forest management committees at the regional level and forest management committees at the provincial level, instead of having timber management committees at two levels and forest management at another.
Mr Wood: The reason for this amendment is that the advice we had is that the bill does not provide for other advisory committees to assist with plans and manuals. As a result, we've brought forward this amendment to say that, yes, we need something in the legislation. We've brought forward these two sections, which we feel are going to cover where there was a shortfall in the bill. We needed those to make sure it was addressed properly.
Mr Brown: What you're suggesting, then, is that this gives the minister the opportunity to establish the very same committees I just mentioned. There could therefore be committees at the local, regional and provincial levels.
Mr Wood: And other advisory committees as well.
Mr Brown: So the minister can have a whole lot of advisory committees.
The Vice-Chair: Are we ready to vote? Is there further debate?
All those in favour of sections 12.1 and 12.2? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Wood: Unanimous. Holy mackerel.
The Vice-Chair: We're now moving on to section 13. There is a government amendment in front of us.
Mr Wood: I move that subsection 13(1) of the bill be amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following:
"(1) Every forest operations prescription shall be prepared in accordance with the Forest Management Planning Manual and shall include descriptions of,"
The Vice-Chair: Any debate? Are you speaking to it, Mr Wood?
Mr Hodgson: I've got a comment if the parliamentary assistant doesn't want to speak in favour of this amendment.
Mr Wood: I'm going to speak.
The Vice-Chair: He's thinking. We'll give Mr Hodgson a chance to explain it.
Mr Hodgson: I don't know if the government would want me to explain it. Are we moving towards a cookbook approach to forestry on this? That's my only concern here, that the professional judgement of a professional forester might be limited by this. If the government can assure me that this isn't going against the wishes of the minister and having a cookbook formula for forestry, our concerns can be alleviated. It's similar to what the MOEE wanted before the EA hearings. That's my only concern here, that we're on the slippery slope towards a cookbook approach. But if the parliamentary assistant can assure the people of Ontario that that's not --
Mr Wood: Depending on whether you call it a cookbook approach or proper planning for forestry for the future. "Every forest operations prescription shall be prepared in accordance with the Forest Management Planning Manual."
The Vice-Chair: I take it that Mr Hodgson didn't give the explanation you were looking for.
Mr Wood: The wording change is to remove any ambiguity about what the intent is. It's spelled out more clearly, and this is the reason for this clarification in the language.
Mr Brown: A concern was expressed to me by some groups when we talked about these prescriptions -- but maybe this isn't the right point to speak about it -- that at times the prescription, that may have been prepared with the best of intentions and the best knowledge at the time, when you get out on the ground and get doing the work, doesn't fit, and in the judgement of professional foresters there is a better way to do it. I'm just wondering what opportunities there are for some flexibility and latitude provided in these prescriptions.
1540
Mr Wood: The intention is to take a look at the forest before it's cut and come up with some kind of plan about how it's going to look 90 years down the road as you prepare for further harvest, being able to predict how that's going to end up looking, taking into consideration that, sure, there's fire, disease, winds and whatever that could upset those plans. But other than that, you should be able to come up with a prescription for what it's going to look like, what it is out there that's on the ground now and what it should look like in the future. It's going to be required, and there'll be no harvesting taking place without that prescription.
Mr Carr: The Ontario Forest Industries Association had some concerns about this. If you look at their brief, they had some concerns regarding some of the requirements for recordkeeping. I take it this amendment will alleviate some of their fears. Was it put in as a result of that?
Mr Wood: Yes.
Mr Carr: So they're pleased and happy with this part, I guess, because the concern they had originally was that it would generate significant requirements for recordkeeping that they say will divert resources from forest management activity. If they're happy with this --
Mr Wood: Just to go one step further, there is room for a forester to amend the prescription, if required.
The Vice-Chair: Any further debate? Ready to vote?
All those in favour of the government amendment to section 13? Opposed? Carried.
There's a further amendment to section 13.
Mr Brown: I will withdraw that amendment. I think that's been covered; I think we agreed.
However, we have two other subsections in that section, and I'd just ask mr Wood about subsection 13(3). Perhaps my earlier question was better addressed to subsection (3), that is, how can you change the elements of a forest prescription or operations prescription? What are we talking about here where it says, "...Forest Management Planning Manual by a person specified by the minister"? What do we mean in terms of who is certified to do this?
Mr Wood: There might be some question about what can grow back. We have to be able to say we can get a bioecologist, other areas of expertise out there. There could be a concern that with the prescription being applied to that particular area, nothing will happen on that particular piece of land afterwards. You've got to give the minister the discretion to be able to call on some expertise to get some advice in the development --
Mr Brown: So this is a permissive section to permit someone with particular expertise to certify a particular part of a plan that is not within the forester's area of expertise to look at?
Mr Wood: I believe you're right.
The Vice-Chair: Are you ready to vote on section 13, as amended? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
There is an amendment to section 14.
Mr Brown: I move that subsection 14(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "a work schedule" and substituting "an annual work schedule."
It just defines that in terms of I believe the environmental assessment and others, the work schedule needs to be an annual event rather than a work schedule which could be for a period of whatever number of years. We're just trying to say there should be a schedule every year.
Mr Wood: We can't accept the amendment. The term of the work schedule will be covered in the Forest Management Planning Manual. The term of the work schedule may vary over time, and it's not necessary to cover that in the legislation.
Mr Brown: Why would you want a longer work schedule than one year?
Mr Wood: We're saying it possibly could vary. If you're limiting to one year, it's not acceptable.
The Vice-Chair: Are you ready to vote?
Mr Brown: I'm going to lose again.
The Vice-Chair: All those in favour of the Liberal amendment to subsection 14(1)?
Mr Brown: Recorded vote.
The Vice-Chair: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Bisson, Dadamo, Jamison, Mammoliti, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: The amendment is lost.
Mr Brown, you have a further amendment.
Mr Brown: I move that subsection 14(2) of the bill be struck out.
The Vice-Chair: Any comments? Are we ready to vote?
All those in favour? All those opposed? The vote is lost.
Another Liberal amendment to subsection (3).
Mr Brown: I move that subsection 14(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Minister's powers
"(3) The minister may approve the work schedule, reject it or, if necessary to provide for the sustainability of the forest operations in the management unit, approve the work schedule with such modifications as may be made by the minister."
We just want to do this as, again we stress, we would like to see some goals and specifications to be used as a benchmark to define sustainability. Although we seem to have lost that argument on a number of occasions, we again want that placed in the bill so we understand what criteria the minister will be using to approve or not approve or modify the work schedule.
1550
The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? All those in favour of Mr Brown's motion regarding subsection 14(3)? All those in favour? All those opposed? Lost.
Mr Brown: We're not doing very well.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Brown, you have another amendment to subsection 14(3.1).
Mr Brown: I move that section 14 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(3.1) The minister shall not approve the work schedule unless a local citizens' committee has reviewed the work schedule and has been given an opportunity to comment on it."
I think the reason for that amendment is apparent. If we have these local citizens' committee, we would like them to have a look at the work schedule and be able to consult in the community about the work schedule. Many of us who represent northern constituencies know you can be surprised at the reaction of some folks out there to a work schedule, and it would be better to make sure it's vetted in advance with the community groups.
Mr Wood: The amendment is not acceptable. We feel the Liberal motion is not necessary because it's covered under the EA term and condition 72, which includes the opportunity to inspect work schedules, and the Forest Management Planning Manual describes the process for review of work schedules. We don't feel this motion is necessary, so we will try to defeat it.
Mr Brown: All we're attempting to do here is ensure that the citizens' committees have input into the work schedules, to make sure that happens. It doesn't seem to me that it causes any difficulty at all to put it in the legislation and I think it makes it quite a bit clearer that they will have that involvement.
The Vice-Chair: Further debate? Ready to vote?
All those in favour of Mr Brown's amendment to subsection 14(3.1)? All those in favour? All those opposed? Lost.
I see a Conservative amendment.
Mr Hodgson: I move that section 14 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Amendments to work schedules
"(3.1) The minister may at any time amend a work schedule that the minister has previously approved."
The Vice-Chair: Did you say "amend" or "modify"?
Mr Hodgson: I can say "modify," but it's not consistent with section 10 of the bill. I've got written in "modify."
The Vice-Chair: It depends what you want to say.
Mr Hodgson: I'd like to say "amend" and make it consistent, but I would be willing to have a five-minute break and let independent counsel review the language of this section.
The Vice-Chair: Whatever you read into the record would be the amendment.
Mr Hodgson: "Amend" is consistent with section 10.
The Vice-Chair: So you want to say "amend."
Mr Hodgson: That's correct, but I would like to have a five-minute break before any discussion on this to let the independent counsel review it.
The Vice-Chair: Would you read it into the record, please, and then ask for the five-minute recess.
Mr Hodgson: "The minister may at any time amend a work schedule that the minister previously approved."
The Vice-Chair: And you're now asking for a five-minute recess?
Mr Hodgson: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: The committee stands adjourned for five minutes. We'll return at 4 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1556 to 1607.
The Vice-Chair: This committee is in session again. I understand, Mr Hodgson, that you want to withdraw the amendment you read into the record and read another into the record. Is that correct?
Mr Hodgson: Yes. I appreciate the break, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: Sometimes it helps to clarify the mind.
Mr Hodgson: Exactly. I move that section 14 of the bill --
The Vice-Chair: So you're withdrawing the one you read into the record?
Mr Hodgson: Yes, and I'd like to submit another motion, if that's permissible.
I move that section 14 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Amendments to work schedules
"(3.1) The minister may at any time revise a work schedule that the minister previously approved."
I think it's vitally necessary to this bill. It's a friendly amendment and, like all my other friendly amendments, I would expect the government would have no opposition to this, but we'll see.
The Vice-Chair: Any other comments or debate? All those in favour of Mr Hodgson's amendment? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Hodgson, I think you have another one.
Mr Hodgson: Yes, I do, Mr Chair, at the risk of starting a rumour that there's some kind of accord between the two parties.
I move that subsection 14(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(4) A work schedule and any modification or revision to a work schedule under subsection (3) or (3.1) shall be consistent with the applicable forest management plan."
If I can speak in favour of this motion, again it's a friendly motion and I feel it's necessary and, like all my other motions, I feel it should be incorporated into the act.
The Vice-Chair: Any debate? If not, all those in favour of Mr Hodgson's amendment? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 14, as amended --
Mr Hodgson: I have a further amendment, if that's permissible by the Chair.
I move that subsection 14(5) of the bill be amended by inserting "or revision" after "approval" in the second line.
Again it makes it consistent, and I will submit this to the clerk.
Mr Brown: Run that by us again, Chris?
Mr Hodgson: I'm making subsection 14(5) consistent with the previous amendments by inserting the word "revised." The clerk has it and he'll circulate it, I suppose.
The Vice-Chair: The motion reads as follows:
"I move that subsection 14(5) of the bill be amended by inserting `or revision' after `approval' in the second line."
Any further debate? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Any further comments on section 14?
Shall section 14, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Moving on to section 15, Mr Brown, you have an amendment.
Mr Brown: Actually, we should deal with section 15, shouldn't we?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): Deal with 15 first, because this is a new section.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry. It's a new section. We will have to deal with section 15.
Any comments on section 15 itself? No comments.
Shall section 15 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Okay, Mr Brown.
Mr Brown: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Use of forests for industrial wood fibre
"15.1 All productive forest in a management unit shall be managed for the long-term production of industrial wood fibre in accordance with an approved forest management plan."
This amendment is put forward because there is nowhere in this bill that we can find that deals with productive forests and the need to manage for the long-term production of industrial wood fibre in that management plan. We think this would be a helpful amendment in that we make it clear that there is an obligation to manage for the long-term production of wood fibre in the plan. I think it's fairly straightforward.
This bill, as you know, does not have any sustainable yield provisions. It's been criticized by many groups for lacking that. We think this would be a helpful amendment, and I suspect all members of the committee would want to support it.
Mr Wood: We will not be accepting the amendment. What you're doing is adding a section that deals with wood fibre and our feeling is that the motion is inconsistent with the purpose of the act, the objectives and the role. It would preclude other uses of the productive forest land base and we don't feel we can accept the amendment as spelled out in section 15.1.
Mr Brown: I would suggest to Mr Wood, though, that if this is done with an approved forest management plan, it would take those other values into consideration. All we're suggesting is that we maximize long-term production of wood within that forest management plan. The forest management plan I would understand to take into account the other values.
Mr Wood: Our feeling is that we don't have to be specific in that particular section, and that's the reason it's not acceptable.
Mr Carr: We had a motion that was very similar to that and some of our reasons are similar to Mr Brown's, so obviously we will be supporting this motion.
The Vice-Chair: Any further debate? All those in favour of Mr Brown's motion to add a new section, section 15.1?
Mr Brown: Recorded vote.
The Vice-Chair: A recorded vote. All those in favour?
Ayes
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Bisson, Dadamo, Jamison, Mammoliti, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: The motion is defeated.
The Conservative motion being very similar, certainly in intent, we will move on to section 16.
Is there any debate on section 16? All those in favour of section 16? Opposed? Carried.
Section 17: Mr Hodgson, you have an amendment.
Mr Hodgson: I move that subsection 17(1) of bill be amended by inserting after "studies" in the third line "on the timber resource."
I'd like to just clarify and read it as it would read in full: "The Minister may require the holder of a forest resource licence to conduct inventories, surveys, tests or studies on the timber resource in accordance with the Forest Information Manual."
The reason is that we're talking about the holder of the forest resource licence, and I think it's unfair to place the burden on them to do studies in fields in which they may not have their primary interest. But the crown definitely has an interest in these and has the expertise. For other areas that hold a licence, like a third-party licensee -- they wouldn't be called a third-party licensee if it was some other use, but it's consistent with the multiple-use theory of the forest that we shouldn't ask the forest industry, which just is the licence holder, to do the studies for other resources. I think the people of Ontario would want to have a check on that, to have either the ministry do it or somebody else. It just clarifies that the studies they're referring to for the licence holder are in relation to "on the timber resource," similar to the inventories, the surveys and the tests.
Mr Wood: The intent of this section is to provide authority to require licensees to conduct inventories, surveys, tests and studies in accordance with the Forest Information Manual. This amendment, in our opinion, severely limits the contribution licensees can make to information collection, and that's not what we want to do, so we will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr Brown: We certainly share the concern raised by Mr Hodgson. We have an amendment that is very similar, which, as you would note, just changes a few words. It says "relevant to the forest resources under licence." Debating Mr Hodgson's, perhaps it is a little too narrow in its implications.
What we're seeing here, in the name of forest sustainability, is a shift of about $100 million from the people of northern Ontario and from the companies operating in northern Ontario to the Treasurer or the Finance minister of Ontario through the funds of the province of Ontario. At the same time, we're not only asking the companies to pay for all the silviculture work, we're then asking them to pay for all the costs of the studies in their management units or FMAs.
It seems to me, as the government has just pocketed $100 million of the people of northern Ontario's money, more or less, that it might behoove this wise government to suggest that it still have at least some small responsibility for the forests of northern Ontario, the forests that support a lifestyle that is second to none.
Therefore, I'm in concurrence with Mr Hodgson's view that we should narrow that in, but I think our definition probably fits this particular bill a little better than Mr Hodgson's. Nevertheless, we will be supporting it.
I find it really quite strange that the government would choose to ask the private sector to pay for studies without any kind of criteria about what those studies might be. I think people who are primarily interested in the harvest of the forest would find paying for studies that do not directly relate to that resource very, very difficult to rationalize, and I would wonder why the government would expect them to.
Mr Wood: I repeat the comment that we don't want to severely limit the contribution the licensees might want to make to information collection. In today's modern days, we also can't afford the luxury of duplication.
Mr Brown: But you've just pocketed about $100 million. I could be off a million or two, but it's about $100 million -- and that's per year, by the way. You're asking the licence holders to pay, it could be for anything, and that is just not reasonable for a government to do.
The ministry still has responsibility, and the people of Ontario would still expect that it is responsible for the crown forests. As you say, they are the landlord, and if they want some information that doesn't directly relate to the forest resources, maybe the people of Ontario, from that $100-million windfall, might want to pay a little bit of that. That's what Mr Hodgson's amendment does. I prefer ours, but we will be supporting -- probably in a losing cause -- Mr Hodgson's, as I hope he supports ours a little later on.
1620
The Vice-Chair: Any further debate? If not, all those in favour of Mr Hodgson's motion?
Mr Hodgson: Recorded.
The Vice-Chair: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
Nays
Bisson, Dadamo, Jamison, Mammoliti, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: The amendment is lost.
Mr Wood, you have a further amendment to section 17.
Mr Wood: I move that subsection 17 (1) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "for the purpose of forest management planning or ensuring compliance with this act and the regulations."
The reason for this amendment is that the requirement to provide information is seen as an unknown and possibly significant and open-ended cost burden on forest companies. Forest companies do not have the skills or resources to provide information beyond timber, in some cases, and this was a key concern of the OFIA and its member companies. "For the purpose of forest management planning or ensuring compliance with this act and the regulations" is already implied.
This will make the limitations clearer. It provides for some limits on what licensees may be required to provide, and the proprietary use of information is guided and controlled by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
MNR is committed to developing information on the forest for values other than timber in a cooperative and cost-effective way, and this is in line with what we had said before. With today's standards, we can no longer afford duplication and it's a matter of operating in a cooperative and cost-effective way.
Mr Carr: The concern was voiced, as the parliamentary assistant said, by some of the forest industry association, that the information needed to be relevant to the management of timber resources under licence. Like many businesses, they were concerned that a lot of the information generated doesn't get used, and their concern was that the information required for other users is the government's responsibility.
My question is to the parliamentary assistant. I know they wanted it changed. As written here in your motion, they approve of your amendment?
Mr Wood: There's been consultation taking place.
Mr Carr: I don't think there's been a complete dialogue. I hate to be so negative. I take that they still have some concerns. This goes back to the other one when I asked the question about whether they liked the amendment, and the answer was that they liked the fact that we have a definition, but they might not like this one. They still are concerned that this is still too open-ended, though? This is fairly broad, even with this amendment.
Mr Wood: It closes the door a lot from what it was before, though.
Mr Carr: It closes the door, but it still allows a lot to get through. I get the drift. It doesn't completely alleviate the fears, but I guess it's better than it was.
The Vice-Chair: Usually when the door's open there's a drift.
Mr Wood: It causes a better relationship between the landlord and the tenant.
Mr Carr: Based on that, I guess there are still some concerns out there. This is one of the situations where you would like to be able to say to some of the groups: "After you just heard that answer, how would you like me to vote on this? It maybe makes it better, but we have to vote either yes or no." But I appreciate the clarification, such as it was.
Mr Brown: Mr Chair, procedurally, we have an amendment to this section also, 17(1), and I'm wondering whether we are considering these amendments in the proper order.
The Vice-Chair: They're being considered in the order in which they were received.
Mr Brown: Generally, isn't the government amendment considered --
The Vice-Chair: Usually first, yes, but I'm sure the opportunity will arise to consider your amendment as well.
Mr Brown: It puts us in somewhat a difficult position. As Mr Carr pointed out, this may be some small improvement, but in our view it is not sufficient to move us to where we need to be. After all, we know the regulations can be altered at a minister's whim -- well, "whim" is too -- it's discretionary. The minister can change regulations with relative ease compared to legislation.
It seems to me that it is still very broad, and we could be dealing with questions that don't, at least in the opinion of the tenant, appear to be necessary for the proper forest management, but the government may think so. Unlike most tenants, you don't have rent control and you don't have the Landlord and Tenant Act and you don't have legal aid to help you fight those battles.
The discretion here is quite broad, and that's why I asked the question of the Chair. I prefer this amendment over no amendment, but I think our amendment would satisfy both the government and the interested parties out there to a far higher degree.
Mr Carr: It would close the door even more.
Mr Brown: It would still be open a slight bit, but ours says, "relevant to the forest resources under licence." If the minister can show that it's relevant, the company or individual will have to do the study. Yours still leaves it almost totally at the minister's discretion. I'm not so sure that as a private company I want to operate under the total discretion of any politician, for that matter.
Mr Wood: There was a concern by the OFIA and member companies during the three weeks of public hearings. We listened to them with both ears and we're responding and trying to address the concerns in the legislation, and I believe we've accomplished that with this amendment.
Mr Brown: I hate to speak for the various interest groups, but I would think they'd like this better than nothing, but that's about all you could say for it. I would just hope that when we have the opportunity to place our amendment, the government can see fit to adopt it.
The Vice-Chair: Are we ready to vote?
All those in favour of the government amendment to section 17? Opposed? Carried.
A Liberal amendment to the same subsection.
1630
Mr Brown: I move that subsection 17(1) of the bill be amended by inserting "relevant to the forest resources under licence" after "studies" in the third line.
We've now seen three parties attempt to fix this. In our view, by saying "relevant" we are suggesting that the company be responsible for something that is relevant to the resources under licence. At some time in the future, as the government insists that forest resources are not just timber, it could be that there'd be some other commercial enterprise in the forest that might be managing for something else, and they would be under licence also. They may be required to manage for their blueberries or whatever.
Mr Wood: Blueberries?
Mr Brown: Sure. I'm just suggesting to you that this narrows the definition considerably. It does not hurt the government's case. If the study is relevant to what's under licence, it should be done. It takes away some of the ministerial discretion to have individuals and/or companies do work that is properly in the domain of the provincial government and the people of Ontario.
Mr Wood: I think we've dealt with this adequately in our government motion, and we don't see the need to support this amendment.
Mr Hodgson: I have to disagree with my esteemed colleague Mr Brown about whose amendment was better. I believe our amendment spoke specifically to the concerns of the people who will have to pay for this to be drawn up. The "forest resource" Mr Brown is referring to in this amendment was not changed under the definitions section, 2(1); it still encompasses everything in the forest ecosystem. That was my whole point, that --
Mr Brown: It says "under licence," though.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Hodgson has the floor.
Mr Hodgson: "Under licence" is a good clarification, but still, "forest resources" is in terms of the whole forest ecosystem.
The government mentions, if I can paraphrase what the parliamentary assistant said, that this is part of doing things cooperatively, more efficiently and better. Is this an indication of the new business relationship, how the consultation's going to work with agreements? You've met with them and you've consulted? You didn't mention whether they're happy with the government's definition.
Mr Wood: Negotiations are actively being pursued at this time. The phones in some cases are ringing off the hook saying that there are some new business relationships that have been signed, and we would like to get to the table and talk about the new relationships.
Mr Hodgson: So I would assume this is part of the negotiation process, the cost of these studies that you've talked about.
Mr Wood: Yes.
Mr Hodgson: Mr Brown's motion does merit support in that it is more specific to what's at question.
Mr Carr: The big concern, having spent some time dealing with businesses throughout this province in my critic responsibility, is the fear that the government uses not even information that's relevant to a particular industry, but a concern that they feel there's too much information the government wants to gather from them. We've all heard from businesses, small businesses particularly, about the amount of government paperwork. I don't think they'd mind if they thought the information was being used. They don't, number one, think it's being used, even if it's relevant to their particular industry.
In the case of the forest industry, what they're concerned about is that the government is going to ask them to do something that should be the responsibility of the people of the province, that they will be required, at tremendous cost, to keep information that the government should be doing. We heard some of the small companies saying that the costs involved in keeping records under section 16 could put some of them out of business.
What this does, similar to the other amendment, is to just clarify it a little bit. They don't mind putting together the information if it's relevant, but they do mind the fact that it's going to be information that the government should be doing. They are concerned, notwithstanding the assurances from the parliamentary assistant and the negotiations and the phones ringing off the hook. To alleviate some of those fears, in the light of the fact that our motion didn't pass, we support the Liberal motion.
Mr Hodgson: I'd like to make one clarification, if I may. Upon further study of "the forest resources under licence," Mr Brown's resolution is similar to what we proposed earlier and it is specific to what's under licence. I will be supporting this motion and would suggest that we get on with the vote.
Mr Brown: I'm going to do a little more lobbying first. As I look at this, the question that has been raised is how the independents will deal with this, the small DCLers, as we refer to them, and people with rather limited resources on crown units. The government has said: "Don't worry about those people. If they do not have the resources to do a forest management plan, if they cannot do that physically themselves, not to worry -- the crown will do it."
We've been concerned that perhaps the crown would do it at the expense of taking some of the forest renewal fund for the planning, some of the stumpage fees they had paid, and in doing that actually reduce the amount of money available for silviculture in the area. We know from the ministry's own estimates that the forest silviculture budget that is going to be guaranteed under this bill is far less than it was just five years ago, so we are concerned that what we might get is the old "less for more" routine again.
I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could help us and indicate what obligation would be on the DCLer, what obligation would be on someone on a crown unit who is too small to viably do this himself or herself?
Mr Wood: As a ministry, we're committed to trying to develop information, gather the information in a cooperative, cost-effective way, and I think these discussions are going to have to take to place about how that can be done.
Mr Brown: But if you look at the numbers the ministry provided us with Monday afternoon regarding silviculture, if you look at the numbers the ministry has given us regarding the increase in stumpage in the area of charges and the new residual value tax, about $100 million has just kind of disappeared out of northern Ontario into the Treasurer's pockets here at Queen's Park.
We're wondering, do we have three classes of licensees? If you're one class of licensee the government pays for all these studies and does your plan for you; then, the next level up, the government pays for some of it and the person on that unit or a company on that unit pays for a portion; and if you're a different size then you get to pay even for the government's work, not just for what's relevant to your plan.
That's our concern as we go through this. Where's the fairness and the so-called partnership, which has been an overworked word lately?
Mr Wood: When we're dealing with this particular section, talking about inventories, surveys, tests and studies, we're saying "the minister may require." We're not using the word "shall," as we've used in other sections; we're using the word "may." We're saying that we're hoping we are going to be able to do this in a cooperative, cost-effective way, realizing that things are different now from what they were four years ago when we took over government. The cookie jar was supposed to be full, but it was empty, and we've had to deal with this over the last four years.
1640
Mr Mammoliti: It didn't have a bottom.
Mr Wood: Somebody had their hand in the cookie jar.
Interjections.
The Vice-Chair: I'm not sure this conversation will speed things up.
Mr Brown: Maybe I will ignore some of the those rather political, but incorrect, statements.
The Vice-Chair: I think it probably would be helpful.
Mr Brown: The very discussion that the parliamentary assistant talks about here causes us some grief because we may have, and it looks very much like what the ministry's intended, is a very uneven hand across northern Ontario and crown lands in general in that some people will receive some money for studies, other people will receive no money for studies, and some people will be required to do studies they can't even understand why they have to pay for or why they're necessary, with total discretion by the Minister of Natural Resources.
My amendment is rather simple. It just says we should have these "relevant to the forest resources under licence." If the parliamentary assistant could give us a reason he would want a forest company to go beyond that, I would be interested.
The Vice-Chair: Any further debate? Ready to vote?
All those favour of Mr Brown's motion to amend subsection 17(1)?
Mr Brown: Recorded vote.
The Vice-Chair: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Brown, Carr, Hodgson, Miclash, Morin.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Bisson, Dadamo, Jamison, Mammoliti, Waters, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: It's defeated. Any further discussion on section 17?
All those in favour of section 17, as amended? Opposed? It's carried.
Section 18 has a government motion.
Mr Wood: I move that subsection 18(1) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "for the purpose of forest management planning or ensuring compliance with this act and the regulations."
The intent of this section is that it allows the minister to require a licensee to provide information as per the manuals. "For the purpose of forest management planning or ensuring compliance with this act and the regulations" is already implied, but this'll make the limitations clearer. MNR is committed to developing information on the forests for values other than timber in the most cost-effective way. Certification of sustainable forest management practices will be dependent on a consistent province-wide standard.
If any other explanation is required, I'm sure we could get into them before we vote on this particular section.
Mr Carr: The Ontario Forest Industry Association said there needs to be clear rules on the type of information which will be provided, compensation for collecting and providing it, and for its ownership. They made some recommendations. I again wanted to ask the parliamentary assistant whether they have supported the government motion as written, or are we going to get into this door thing again? Does the Ontario Forest Industries Association now approve the bill as you have written it?
Mr Wood: The amendments that are being brought forward, as I said earlier, are not just being pulled out of the air. There's a dialogue going on and it's still going on. We have a number of people working on other sections of the act right now and giving us advice, the stakeholders out there. There are two particular groups actively working on making sure that some of their concerns are addressed.
Mr Carr: So they wrote this motion?
Mr Wood: It's a government motion.
Mr Carr: We're in that grey area again. It makes it a little more difficult, but I suspect it's like some of the other ones: If they don't agree, they'll still like it better than what they had. I guess we're not going to get too much more clarification than that.
Mr Brown: We can appreciate somewhat that the government has attempted to narrow the requirement for information slightly. Exactly the same arguments apply as applied in the section before where the opposition was unable to convince the government that it should be further narrowed. But thank goodness for small blessings here, that the government has narrowed the requests at least slightly. While we can't support it because it doesn't go far enough to limit the information, I would say to the parliamentary assistant, at the end of a very long day, that we at least appreciate some movement in the direction of narrowing the broad scope of this section.
Mr Wood: Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair: In that spirit of compliments, are we ready to take the vote?
Mr Hodgson: I'd just like to make one comment on this subsection 18(2).
The Vice-Chair: We're still on 18(1). We're ready to vote, then?
All those in favour of the government's motion, the amendment to subsection 18(1)? Opposed? Carried.
There is a Liberal amendment to subsection 18(2).
Mr Brown: I move that subsection 18(2) of the bill be struck out.
I'm sure that will carry. We find that this clause is totally objectionable, as did many of the presenters who came before us. It gives the minister the right to use what might be proprietary information, maybe information that would affect a company's operations, affect their stock holdings, affect all kinds of things. The minister seems to believe that even though he or she didn't pay for a report, even though the report may not have been relevant, even though the report had nothing whatever to do with the company's operations nor the good of Ontario's forests, he or she should be able to use that information as their own.
I think this has great ramifications across the province. I think the business community in general would find this objectionable and I think anyone who has any sense of individual rights and freedoms would find this to be objectionable, that the crown can expropriate your information that you paid for on the basis that it becomes their information.
Mr Carr: I want to echo what Mr Brown said. This is a concern. If we had done that to any individual, I think the government would be jumping up and down and screaming that there needed to be protection. Some of the groups that came forward said this section raises serious concerns regarding the confidentiality of company information and that there should be rules to protect some of this confidential information. We assume that the government won't take any of this confidential information and use it, but a lot of people don't trust any government to not do that. We've seen instances where in fact that has happened, and I think they need to have that protected.
1650
When it comes to the confidentiality of company information, this government seems not to be too concerned about the rules and the issues of fairness, but if it had been an individual, I'm sure they would be jumping up and down saying the government needs to protect people.
There are serious concerns with this, and I think it goes further than just this issue. I could get into specific examples that the minister would know, being very close to the situation, of how governments, in some cases with the backing and approval of government lawyers, can use information that they shouldn't. The example we all know is a perfect example of why companies are concerned. Confidential company information can be used, and they just want to say that there should be rules to protect it. I'd hoped the government would come up with some of the safeguards, but they just seem to totally disregard it. I believe the motion by Mr Brown is very, very serious.
I probably would have said a few years ago that any government would err on the side of protecting confidentiality, particularly when we've seen over the last little while changes to the privacy act where we've bent over backwards to protect individuals. Yet when it comes to a company the rules are thrown out, and there are major and serious concerns out there that information that is confidential will be put out to be used to persuade any type of argument. It is wrong, and no government should be doing that.
Obviously, as the government didn't introduce an amendment, they probably will vote against this. But this is one that I think they should take very seriously, because they could alleviate a lot of the fears if they were to strike out this section. If they'd support this motion, they could alleviate a lot of the fears that are out there because of circumstances that have happened over the last little while. It's very dangerous and it's wrong, and we should support the Liberal motion.
Mr Hodgson: I won't reiterate what my colleague's pointed out about the confidentiality aspect of this information becoming as if it were government information. It is quite common within the MNR to operate this way and I understand what they're trying to do. The parliamentary assistant mentioned that they're trying to get a database and collect information in a cost-effective way. It's very cheap for the government to have somebody else pay for the study to collect the data to base your inventory on. But I would like to suggest that there has to be a check, and the government can't completely abrogate its responsibility for verifying this information, and that's going to cost them money.
I'll use floodplain mapping, for an example, that the ministry does. Right now, if somebody does a study, it's up to the individual to prove what they can do on their land, so they hire the consultants and they do a study and that study is deemed to be public property. That forms the data at the local ministry office, and future decisions in that area are based on that study.
What's often overlooked is that the original motivation of the person doing the study can differ. For instance, if you're at one end of a lake, you can assume that the sides of the lake go straight up and that your property might have to be flood-proofed for one foot. That's no big hardship: It's cheap; you can do the study for about $3,000 or $4,000. But then everybody else down the lake is subject to that data, and nobody goes back and says the walls went straight up. You've set your benchmark, but on a lake there are not walls that go straight up and it can flood over other parts. There might have been no human safety at risk by allowing development further downstream, but you've shut it off because your database has identified this as the base point and that's what you're going to make future decisions on.
I just want to caution the ministry that if it's going to accept the industry's data as the base for future decisions, it's not going to save as much money as it thinks it is. You're still going to go out and have your own experts verify how the study was done in the first place and get your own GIS system up and working. I know they're doing that. It's not going to be as cost-efficient as just handing over all the costs of these studies to gather your inventory to the industry. I wanted to mention that as a caution.
I understand it's very close to the time and I'd request a five-minute break.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Mammoliti was still on the list. He has a few minutes.
Mr Hodgson: I should have kept talking.
Mr Mammoliti: I wanted to suggest a way of expediting the hearings. After I listened to Mr Carr earlier, that's what prompted me to make this suggestion, that we perhaps adopt the Taiwan policy of committee hearings. I'd like to pass a newspaper article to the Chair that would outline exactly what that policy would mean. It's called a carrying-out policy.
Mr Carr: It would take more than four guys to lift you, George.
Mr Mammoliti: If we have to endure Mr Carr's speeches in this place one more time, I'd like to suggest that we adopt that policy to expedite the hearings.
The Vice-Chair: The question is, who will do the carrying? Any further debate?
Mr Brown: Coming back to our motion and away from the carrying-out resolution -- I don't think it was actually a motion, was it? At least we have no copies.
In all seriousness, I don't think any government would want this in any piece of legislation. I understand a need for cooperative information-gathering, but there is no recourse under this for any individual or company supplying what they consider to be proprietary information, information they believe helps their competitiveness in a very competitive business, having to make that available as if it were the minister's own. It is Big Brother at its worst. It is photo-radar, except in this case you even have to pay to develop your own film.
Interjections.
Mr Brown: I would suggest to the Chair that perhaps we should take this up tomorrow.
The Vice-Chair: You're quite correct. It being 5 o'clock, this committee stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
The committee adjourned at 1658.