Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

CONTENTS

Thursday 21 February 1991

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines

Adjournment

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South PC)

Vice-Chair: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South PC)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)

Hansen, Ron (Lincoln NDP)

Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)

McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP)

Ward, Margery (Don Mills NDP)

Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)

Substitutions:

Coppen, Shirley (Niagara South NDP) for Mr Perruzza

McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East PC) for Mr Carr

Miclash, Frank (Kenora L) for Mr McGuinty

Sola, John (Mississauga East L) for Mrs McLeod

Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre NDP) for Ms M. Ward

Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP) for Mr Daigeler

Also taking part: Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

Clerk: Carrozza, Franco

Staff: Campbell, Elaine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1007 in room 228.

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

The Chair: I would like to call to order the standing committee on estimates.

Before us we have completed two hours and 30 minutes of the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, with special emphasis on the Mines portfolio. For this morning, I might recommend that we do 20-minute segments, beginning with the third party and then the official opposition and then the governing party. Is there any discussion? If not, we will proceed.

However, several questions were raised yesterday and staff had indicated their willingness to provide information as soon as possible. May I ask the deputy if you have some of that information now? Do you wish to present that now or perhaps a little later?

Mr Smith: There are two pieces of information, I believe. One came from Mr Miclash's question about a comparison of expenditures over the past three years. Mr Irvine has that information and would be prepared to present it now if the committee wishes. The other piece concerned Mr McLean's request for our submission to the demand-supply hearing. That is a public document. It is being faxed down from our Sudbury office, which is our head office, as you know, and we will have that document for the committee a little later on when it comes in.

Mr McLean: Have you the other questions I asked?

Mr Smith: Oh yes. Those were the documentary pieces I was getting. Michael has the --

Mr Irvine: I have copies of sheets which detail the specific information that was requested yesterday, but I can highlight it very briefly for the members.

Specifically, the request was with respect to the 1990-91 estimates in comparison with the actual expenditures going back three years. The 1990-91 estimates were $51,394,000, which represents a 17% increase over the actual expenditures of 1989-90, those expenditures being $43,919,000. The 1990-91 estimates also represent an increase of 14.6% increase over the estimates of the 1988-89 actual expenditures. The 1988-89 actuals were $38.3 million and the 1987-88 actual expenditures were $33.3 million.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Irvine. Deputy, if you have some additional information?

Mr Smith: If I could wait until that other document arrives and perhaps table it later with the committee.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr McLean, are you ready to proceed?

Mr McLean: I have some questions with regard to the estimates under the main office. I would like to start off with one of the concerns I have, that the adjustments are at an average of 35%. First, we have the employment benefit adjustments, we have the reallocation of funds to other activities and we have the services. I wonder if you could explain to me the increase.

Mrs Willis: You are talking about the increase in the employee benefits specifically?

Mr McLean: Yes.

Mrs Willis: Okay. Perhaps, Mike, you could better explain the situation.

Mr Irvine: All of the ministries in the government received an increase from the centre for employee benefits related to an adjustment to the amount of funds that were provided from the employer for the public service superannuation funding, an increase of from 7% to 8%. This was applied to all ministries, and the increases in the employee benefits that you see in each of the activities relates to that adjustment. In addition, there is an adjustment for anticipated expenditures under the unfunded liability, which was computed by Treasury, and last, the increases relate to adjustments in salaries related to movement of staff from various different activities.

Mr McLean: "Relocation of funds to other activities." Can you explain what they represent, because they are in all four pages of the estimates?

Mrs Willis: If you are referring to the fourth line, the in-bracket figure, there should be brackets around the 54 showing a decrease of 54%, not an increase. I apologize for that error. That is a reallocation within the division moving the money to the cost centres where the expenditures actually occurred. There was a minor reorganization previous to this and the funds left in the assistant deputy minister's account, once they were clarified, were moved to the appropriate cost centres so they were moved within the division.

Mr McLean: On page 48 there is a steady decline on the statistics, and I am wondering if the minister can explain where this decline is coming from.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I did not quite catch the --

Mr McLean: On page 48 of the estimates, the total number of mining claims. The statistics indicate there is quite a drop. Why is that?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, it is such a pertinent, paramount question -- many, many components.

First, overall economic activity: The now defunct flowthrough share component, where money cannot flow directly to, namely, junior companies among others, allows less money to be put into the field. The demand for minerals is not as enhancing, mining is not as lucrative as it was a couple of years ago. That goes from gold, a precious metal, to base metals to industrial minerals. Profits are down, and therefore the portion of the bottom line of profits that you allocate or forward towards exploration to find other mines is down, and when that is down -- before you work a claim you have to stake it. So there is less interest on the ground by virtue of those reasons.

But some of it is on the upswing. Ironically, what we are seeing is more interest being shown on base metals vis-à-vis precious metals, for instance. You will recall a few years back the good fortune of the Hemlo gold field in northwestern Ontario, where three mines were put into production. That was a focus, a focus not only to find gold, because the price for gold was fairly good, but with the encouragement of Hemlo there was a search for a sediment formation whereby you would not have to necessarily look for the proverbial vein. So people got taken, said: "This is a new way of looking. Have we missed something in the past in terms of our exploration philosophy, our approach to finding gold mines? Maybe if we look for a sediment formation we too can achieve another Hemlo gold field."

But now it is coming back. The price of base metals vis-à-vis gold and precious metals has done fairly well. The price of nickel has done well, except for the last year when it started a downward trend. The price of nickel, the price of zinc, the price of lead have all done fairly well compared to the price of gold. Gold prices were sustained for a longer period of time, so consequently we are seeing a bit of a reversal, so much money for exploration, but not only allocated to precious metals now. The glitter has gone off and people are going to base metals. Nevertheless, you have an overall decrease, a significant decrease, in exploration activities.

Fortunately, given the fact that we have some very prominent mines, the ground around those properties continues to be staked. More grounds have become open, but we can only look to the future with confidence. It can hardly go any lower. We are told that with lower interest rates and with the possibility of a decreasing Canadian dollar in the not-too-distant future, those are direct elements that the marketplace relates to, and it does so very quickly. It does adjust. So if those components come into play, possibly we will be on the road to recovery. But having said that, this morning I looked at the price of -- the opening in London was $362 for gold, which is very low.

Mr McLean: Mr Chairman, if I am only allowed 20 minutes, I would like most of that time divided up. I do not want the minister making any speeches. Minister, the salaries are up 17%. Why is this?

Ms Haslam: What page is that?

Mr McLean: Page 49.

Mr Smith: Michael?

Mr Irvine: The increase in salaries relates to an increase in the number of staff for the claims project under the mining lands program. There is an increase in plan staffing from 79 to 93 people, and it relates to that, plus an increase in salary awards provided by Management Board of Cabinet.

Mr McLean: And the 45% increase in employee benefits?

Mr Irvine: It relates to the same issue I referred to earlier in the adjustment for the public service fund, as well as the benefits associated with the increases in the salaries for those people for the claims.

Mr McLean: What have you done with regard to pay equity?

Mr Irvine: Pay equity adjustments are provided to the ministry by Management Board. They will not be reflected in these figures, but they will be adjusted in-year with respect to this.

Mr McLean: What services have really been added to have to take care of this increase?

Mr Irvine: Services for the benefits? Well, Treasury and Management Board provided an increase from 7% to 8% for the employer contribution under the public service superannuation fund. It is an adjustment to the benefits act. In addition, there is an increase to the unfunded liability, which is the amount that Treasury and Management Board compute as the actuarial payout required should the fund be called upon. So it is really a reflection of numerical adjustments in relation to that.

Mr McLean: Minister, the number of applications that have been processed -- would you be able to supply the committee with those applications and the names and the amount of grants that have been approved?

Mrs Willis: I am sorry, the grants that have been approved under which program?

Mr McLean: The number of applications that have been processed. There should be a list for both 1988-89 and 1990-91. There should be a list showing the applications that have been approved, the company names and the grant amounts. Would you be able to supply the committee with those?

Ms Haslam: A point of clarification: Under what program, Mr McLean?

Mr McLean: Under mineral development.

The Chair: Can you comply with the request, please?

Mrs Willis: Yes, we can comply with that request. In so far as we can provide the information as provided under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, we will see that the information is made available.

The Chair: If that is not available by the completion of today's estimates, you can make that available to the clerk, and the clerk will in turn distribute it to members. That would be the preferred procedure.

Mrs Willis: We will do that.

Mr McLean: On page 51, the reallocation of funds to other activities has dropped considerably. Could you explain? What does this represent?

Mr Irvine: The $51,000?

Mr McLean: That is right.

Mr Irvine: That is the transfer of one staff person, I believe, to the mining lands area.

1020

Mr McLean: And would the cost escalation go back to some of your original --

Mr Irvine: The cost escalation in each of these activities relates to the adjustment for the direct operating expenditures that Management Board provides. It is inflation, basically.

Mr McLean: Some of your previous answers, on page 53, the employment benefits adjustment, the cost escalation and the reallocation of funds from other activities have all increased considerably. Why? What does this represent?

Mr Irvine: The cost escalation is a larger amount because it is applied to a greater figure in terms of the operating expenditures for the mineral resources activity. The reallocation of funds relates to an increase as per Sheila's remark about the adjustment of funds from the main office activity and the distribution from what had originally been in the assistant deputy minister's area.

Mr McLean: On page 55, the salary and wages are down 68% and services have increased. The explanation says no change. Can you explain that?

Mrs Willis: This has to do with the COMDA, or Canada-Ontario mineral development agreement. In the final year of this agreement, my understanding is that there was less staff activity and the shift to the production of the documents that were developed under the agreement. So there would be an increase in the cost of development and printing production costs of those information documents that flowed from the program.

Mr McLean: Okay. Is the new Canada-Ontario mineral development agreement being negotiated, and if so, what is the status of this?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I will try to broadly summarize my answer, although your questions I find to be so pertinent and interesting that they deserve better than a yes or no answer.

We hope to be able to announce fairly soon -- I am not saying in short order, because you, with your expertise over quite a few years, Mr McLean, would be well positioned to understand that negotiations between the present federal government and our government can take a little longer than expected, because you wish to have every line and every paragraph, every issue meticulously addressed before a formal agreement can be reached. But we are progressing and we are entering the final or terminal phase vis-à-vis reaching an agreement which will yield -- we are talking big dollars -- $15 million from the provincial government and also $15 million from the federal government.

Having said this, we have to wait to make an announcement until finalization, because your confrères in Ottawa only too often have, because of constraints, I imagine, and sudden changes in policies -- I am not saying short-circuit; I do not want to impute motives to the Progressive Conservative federal members; of course not, far from it -- but transfer payments have not been as prominent as they were yesteryear so we cannot take anything for granted, but we are looking forward to signing an agreement fairly soon.

Mr McLean: The provincial government's average expenditure is 11% over each year over the last five years, and I would hope that the transfer payments from the federal government would be in line with inflation, which they are. They cannot keep up with the spending of the Ontario government.

The ministry operates 15 resident geologists. Where are they located, that is, the offices across the province?

Dr Gammon: They are located across the province in Kenora, Red Lake, Sioux Lookout, Atikokan, Thunder Bay, Beardmore, Geraldton, Schreiber, Hemlo, Wawa, Timmins, Sudbury, Cobalt, Dorset, Tweed and London.

The Chair: I think you deserve a little star for that one.

Interjection: He did not even look at his notes.

Mr McLean: I am glad the minister let him answer that.

The Chair: He probably knows where his staff is more than he knows where his family is.

Mr McLean: Of the 525 positions that are anticipated, how many will be moving to Sudbury, 50% of them or what, and how many positions will there be in Sudbury when that $49-million research centre is open?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We are talking 1992. Sheila, will you please -- we anticipate that most of the people will have been moved by 1992.

Mrs Willis: When we talk of the relocation, first, the mineral development and mining lands branch of the division has already moved to Sudbury into the head office building and Mr Gammon can speak of the numbers there. In 1992 the Ontario geological survey branch will be moving from Toronto to Sudbury and that represents approximately 200 positions. We do not know yet which of the staff will choose to relocate. The balance of the division are located in the offices that Dr Gammon just listed and in the regional offices across the provinces and they are not affected by the relocation.

Mr McLean: Just one quick question with regard to the centre. Did it come in under budget or did it cost more money than what they anticipated?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Actually it did. We could not term it an investment in the future. We did come in on time and ironically slightly below budget.

Mr McLean: How much time have I got left, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: About five minutes.

Mr McLean: The Ontario mineral incentive program, OMIP, was designed to assist junior mining companies and individuals carrying out grass-roots exploration and development projects in Ontario. Can you give us a further update on that. There were 174 applications last year. That was 1989-90. How many have there been in 1990-91?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Dr Gammon will attest that it has been significantly increased. It has been a very popular program. People are latching on, especially the grass roots, and in this case junior mining companies are saying: "OMIP, we do not stand alone. The government is behind us." In most cases it provides 30 cents on the dollar. Granted, you have to raise the money to a maximum, Mr McLean, of $300,000, but what the government has done is it has recognized that some sectors, some regions, are having a difficult time now and therefore they have upped the contribution from 30% to 50%. It has met with great success.

Mr McLean: That is my next question. What amount are getting the 50% on the applications?

Dr Gammon: I am just trying to find those exact figures. I certainly will be able to provide them to Mr McLean. I do not have them immediately in front of me.

Mr McLean: Bill 71: What changes are you going to make in it?

Hon Mr Pouliot: As you know, Bill 71 did get third reading, received royal assent, but in order to give it life we are addressing regulations and our target date is to have those regulations in place by 1 June of this year, Mr McLean. The focus will be of course on part IX, which deals with reclamation, and it will enable the ministry to monitor compliance so that the kind of -- well, the word is not too strong, the kind of calamity, if you wish, the kind of catastrophic legacy: Matachewan, ERG in Timmins, the dilemma, the impasse, the problematic of Kam-Kotia. They will no longer be allowed to happen because we will have put in place a mechanism whereby your plan of attack, your vision of restoration, not only will be closely monitored but some money will have been put aside from the day you start extracting mineral, so that you can restore the land and be favourable to the environment. This is the focus of your question, sir, of Bill 71, the regulations which will give it life, give it teeth -- mine reclamation.

It will also make it easier to work the land, to work the claim. In other words, if you go to a recording office and you are a licensed prospector and you stake a claim and as you progress -- that is the very beginning -- you have to work those claims in order to keep access for mineral rights to that land. What we are saying is that there has been no amendment, there has been some redress of the regulations, but the act itself no longer reflects the conditions of today, and it was an encouragement, because it had not been amended significantly since 1906, for people to, if not bypass the statutes, to think about living in sin, because if you had to work under the act it was not conducive to staying alive too well. So what we are doing is we are addressing this and we are making the Mining Act more representative of the year of Our Lord 1991.

1030

Mr McLean: Thank you right there. Canada-Ontario mineral development agreement: The agreement has run out, has it not? What are you doing about it? Are you going to renew it? What negotiations are going on, if any?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Who better than our family of experts to answer? I can answer this, Mr McLean, but it would not do your question justice. We have people who were part and parcel of every line, every t, every dot in the previous agreement and I would not want to shortchange you, so I am going to ask someone who is familiar, and it is going to be difficult because they are so inclined, they are so interested in --

Mr McLean: I am sure I will have a shorter answer.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Someone, I am sure, is about to make a career-enhancing statement, Mr McLean. I think I will get a cup of coffee. Dr Gammon.

Dr Gammon: Briefly, Mr McLean, the previous agreement was clearly very successful in achieving its aims. The client group in the province was very pleased with the results that were attained from it and have been lobbying strenuously both at the provincial level and the federal level for a renewed agreement. We have discussed with our technical counterparts in the federal government what would be appropriate to include in a new agreement.

We have taken that to the client groups, a range of client groups from prospectors through exploration companies to operating mining companies, and got their buy-in and their commitment to jointly cost-share some of the programs. So we have the technical part of it put together. What is awaited now is the signing of an URDA, umbrella regional development agreement, of which this would be a component. So our piece of that is all ready to slot in.

Mr McLean: Just one final question to the minister, and I know that he will be short in answering. The Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy is a committee that is headed by the Honourable Ruth Grier. There are the Minister of Agriculture and Food on it, the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Government Services and the Minister of Natural Resources. I did not think you were demoted that much. I thought the importance of the mining and minerals act -- there is a committee on that. I would have thought you would have been on that committee. How come you are not? Did you know there was a committee?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am very happy to be inside the walls. Do not put me under a state of siege. Our mandate is horizontal; it is not a vertical mandate. Again, we do work as a team from time to time. We tap the resources. We volunteer input for the Ministry of the Environment because of the profile, because people are saying, "Look, you know, things will change." Other times you will find us with the Ministry of Natural Resources. We are certainly not strangers when it comes to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the Ministry of Labour. The list goes on and on. We touch just about every ministry under provincial jurisdiction. We have a horizontal mandate.

I do sit on four different committees, and yes, I look forward to meeting you. One of those is the Board of Internal Economy, Mr McLean, and we are always delighted to meet, to give considerations to our colleagues' requests regarding a whole range of ideas at Internal Economy and also different committees of cabinet.

The Chair: I am fascinated by a horizontal structure.

Could I recognize Mr Miclash now for his segment. Please proceed.

Mr Miclash: I would like to get back to vote 2901. I do believe we had decided this is part of administration costs, 2901. There was a problem yesterday, Mr Chair, in determining whether it was Mines and Northern Development or Northern Development and Mines, but I understand now that we have clarified that and this is part of the Ministry of Mines administration costs.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Miclash, we are just trying to locate --

Mr Miclash: We are at vote 2901, item 3. We are talking about communications services.

Mrs Willis: Yes.

Mr Miclash: Okay, so we have determined that --

Mrs Willis: If I can just clarify, the costs related to the operation of the office of the Minister of Northern Development are contained in this vote and item. The costs related to the administration of the office of the Minister of Mines are contained in the main office item of the mines vote. The balance of this item relates to the costs of the corporate services division, which services both ministers and both divisions.

Mr Miclash: So what I would like to do, Mr Chair, is just carry on with the questions regarding 2901.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Mr Miclash: First of all, let's go back to page 17. We have a change from 1989-90 estimates to a 4% increase, and can I ask the reasons for that percentage increase, please?

Mrs Willis: The primary reason is the 26% increase in employee benefits that Mr Irvine related to you before, the actuarial changes in the calculation of those benefits. You will see that there are reductions in other categories.

Mr Miclash: How many new staff members would that include?

Mrs Willis: There are no new staff in that division in this particular year.

Mr Miclash: Okay. So that is 26% strictly employee benefits, no new staff?

Mrs Willis: That is correct. The employees' salaries and wages you will see above, at 9%, but there are no new staff there. That is just changes and adjustments in the annual inflationary awards.

Mr Miclash: Go down to page 19.

Mrs Willis: Yes?

Mr Miclash: I guess what I am looking at here is a percentage increase of 15%, and again the reasons for that increase, under legal services.

Mrs Willis: Okay. The greatest increase you will see is in the salary and benefits category. This has to do with the addition of one new lawyer in expanding to meet our Mines mandate and the implementation of the recommendations of the Weiler report on salaries for the legal profession inside the Ontario service.

Mr Miclash: Okay. So we are talking about one new staff in that case?

Mrs Willis: That is correct.

Mr Miclash: On page 21, your financial and administrative services increased to 52%. Could we have the reasons for that, as well, please.

Mrs Willis: The main reason there is that this was the year in which we implemented most of the activities we needed for our independent finance and administration for the relocation to Sudbury. As I mentioned yesterday, a portion of this is transferred from Natural Resources and Transportation.

Mr Miclash: Thank you very much.

What I would like to move on to now, and we have talked about it before, is the Ontario prospectors assistance program and the Ontario mineral incentive program. I know the minister has touched on both of these programs. What I would like to ask right now is, noting the economic position -- I spoke of the economic position of the mining industry in my opening comments -- I am just looking for, from the minister, the changes and enrichments that he plans specifically to both of these programs.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I would like Dr Gammon to give you, in order to reach the right perspective, what has been done most recently, how much was spent the previous year, how much was spent last year. This will reflect both the OPAP and OMIP, by Mr McLean, and there have been bold steps forward, as we said yesterday, with less dollars to do it with. Dr Gammon, program enhancement for the benefit of Mr Miclash.

Dr Gammon: Yes, Minister. The Ontario prospectors assistance program budget increased from $1.5 million to $4 million from 1989-90 to 1990-91, and we were therefore able to accommodate significantly more of the applicants. The previous year, however, was the first year of the program, so the awareness level of the prospector group out there increased very much as word spread that this useful program was there. We are very pleased to report that it seems to have been successful inasmuch as prospectors getting grants under the program have been making discoveries and optioning them to major companies, and we have currently got documented that about 22 discoveries have been made which have at this stage been optioned by major companies that will be spending significant amounts of dollars on them. That is resulting from that first year.

The OMIP program was also enhanced with an increased budget and this was partly due to the withdrawal from the arena of the federal government. They withdrew their equivalent grant, called the Canadian exploration incentive program, and that had been a flow-through funded related measure, and the previous OMIP program purposefully made not eligible people who would have been eligible for the federal grant, because we certainly did not want to be stacking one on top of the other. With the withdrawal from the arena of the feds, we have changed the rules so that those companies too would be eligible in Ontario, and that was greatly appreciated by the industry.

We are also hearing of successes from the OMIP program. In fact there is one case where a discovery was made by a prospector under the OPAP program. That property was then optioned by a company availing itself of the OMIP program. They have drilled and are discovering base metals in a currently depressed economic area in northeastern Ontario. So this, frankly, is very much the way in which such a program should work and we are very gratified to see those kinds of results.

1040

Hon Mr Pouliot: On the overall, Mr Miclash, simply put, from $14 million to approximately $20 million, 1990 to 1991. So you are talking about $6 million on a relatively small sum, from $14 million to $20 million, very significant and heavy subscribing, very popular among the grass roots. That is our target group.

Mr Miclash: Just carrying on in terms of assistance to the industry, I touched yesterday on the idea of the Quebec government being able to offer a 133% tax credit to the exploration project because of its ability to collect its own income tax, and I know that the present government has talked about a similar collection of taxes. Could the minister expand on the discussions on that and the possibilities of that becoming a reality in Ontario? He will know, being from the northwest, that in Ontario we are being outdistanced in terms of the mining industry in northern Quebec, and I think this is part of the reason. Could the minister maybe expand on that?

Hon Mr Pouliot: You are quite right. Some Liberal governments are more understanding than others. What Quebec has is its ability to collect its own taxes, which gives it immensely more latitude and it is widespread. It affects almost any program because you are not bound by the terms and conditions of transfer payments. You have more opportunity to decide your own fate and to allocate and reallocate money. There is more flexibility.

We are leaving no stone unturned. I really value your question because if the mining industry is going to prosper, what we have to do is come up with incentives. I certainly do appreciate as much as anyone here, and I am sure we all do, the kinds of programs that have been put in place by the previous administration. They showed imagination and innovation, and what we are doing is using those programs as a base to try within our limitations to come up with, through a tax system, through encouragement -- you have mentioned 133% under the flow-through system. Quebec has gone to 166% if my memory serves me correctly, and it was able, by doing this, by providing incentives, to keep the Quebec money in Quebec and, on top of it, it was able to attract money from outside the province of Quebec.

Ontario is still the best place, in our estimation, to do business. Our ground is more conducive to finding mines than pretty well anywhere else in Canada. We are just as well located. We have the Shield. We have the potential. The thing is, you have to make sure that the playing field stays level in order to attract exploration dollars, and the more exploration dollars, of course, the more mines you will find. It goes hand in hand, all other factors being relatively equal, so we have to be more innovative.

I do not have the answer, and I will be honest, to your question. What I can tell you, Mr Miclash, is that we are looking at ways to be more innovative, more imaginative. How can we while being reasonable to the taxpayers? We have a responsibility to revenue. You have to do business, but at the same time, and it is quite tricky, you have to loosen up some dollars to encourage people to come and look for mines in the province of Ontario.

Mr Miclash: Thank you, Minister. I think my question has been answered. Mr Chair, I will move on to Mr Daigeler.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much. One of the advantages, I guess, of being on the estimates committee is you learn a lot about all these acronyms. I certainly did not know before about OMIP and OPAP and all these things. There is another one, COMDA, the Canada-Ontario mineral development agreement. I understand that this particular agreement expired last March and I presume you are involved in negotiations with the federal government to renew this; at least, the ancien régime was. Is this another one of the innovative activities that the ancien régime was involved in that you want to build on and develop further, despite the limitations that you expressed a little bit earlier? What are your plans with regard to COMDA?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Suffice that, vis-à-vis l'ancien régime, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. In the context of COMDA, we have had COMDA I and we are looking forward again to COMDA II. In the near future we might be able to announce that another agreement à la COMDA I has been struck between the feds and the province. Negotiations are ongoing.

Mr Daigeler: And you are satisfied with the progress then in that regard?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Well, given the pace and given due process, given all the loops that you have to jump through, all the criteria that must be adhered to, yes, we are satisfied. We are on target in the negotiation process.

Mr Daigeler: And your government is prepared to accept its share, as was done before, of that agreement?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Prepared? I mean, you are looking at soldiers at their posts, sentries. Of course we are prepared. This is why we are negotiating and negotiating the agreement. We are more than prepared to do -- not more, but we will certainly do our share. We will show up, we will be there.

The Chair: And they are armed with short answers. Mr Miclash.

Mr Miclash: Minister, I sort of touched on taxation in my opening comments and in particular the high level of taxation at the municipal level on the mining companies. You are probably aware that the Ontario Mining Association has recently made representation to the Treasurer regarding the issue of taxation on mining companies. You in particular are on record as saying that you will revise the taxation structure in the mining industry. I am just at this time wondering what those revisions will look like and whether there will be a representation made to the Fair Tax Commission.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I cannot believe this. We have not changed the tax structure. Of course we are committed to our Agenda for People, to the speech from the throne, to establishing -- and this will be done -- a Fair Tax Commission that will come up with recommendations after having examined all facets of our tax system. When it comes to the effects, the impact, of mining corporations paying taxes at the municipal level, I would like to remind you with respect that the wealth portion, by virtue of an amendment in the Assessment Act -- in other words, the ore underground -- is not taxable. I would also like to remind you that the assessment placed on surface facilities -- for instance, if you had a paper mill in your town -- is minute, pales in comparison.

I do not have to remind you that the sons and daughters of the workers, the whole family takes advantage of the school board and they have a responsibility to enhance the contribution. They take advantage of the fascinating world of sewer and water. Every service, the general purpose, education, recreation, health, is there by virtue of the large employer, so if you are going to share and share alike, why do you not pay and pay alike? In fact, mining is getting a break, sir.

1050

To illustrate, the township of Manitouwadge allows the mines equal division assessment -- and I know because for 10 years I was with the town council -- of $5.9 million. You go 65 miles away and they have a paper mill which over the years has been far less lucrative, and the assessment on that paper mill was far more. Consequently, taxpayers at the residential level in Manitouwadge were paying 65% of the overall tax, school board and general purpose, while their brothers and sisters in Marathon had a reverse situation. The paper mill was picking up 70%.

Hemlo comes to be. New subdivisions had to be built, new sewer and water, a burden was placed on both Manitouwadge and Marathon. The digestive problems became enormous. Someone had to carry the guilt, pay the bill. The paper company was under a state of siege.

Mr Miclash: Mr Chairman, I believe the question has been answered.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We said to Hemlo, "Why don't you pay your fair share?" And your government, after a lot of pressure year after year -- and I know when I was there your government is the one that passed all the legislation taxing those companies, not our government. We are just following the mood.

The Chair: You are just starting.

Mr Miclash: I am glad the minister brought up the Agenda for People and I do hope that he is paying particular attention to various things that were being stated in the Agenda for People. We noticed already on many different occasions that the Agenda for People was not necessarily an agenda for people but was an agenda for the government to be elected and that many of the statements in that agenda have not yet been followed. So again, I am reassured by the minister, as a northerner and as the Minister of Mines, that he is going to be paying particular attention to that particular agenda. I would like to move on to Mr Sola, please.

Mr Sola: Thank you. I have a question. In preparing for this committee I read through the Engineering and Mining Journal. There is an article on Australia there and one paragraph in particular caught my eye, which states:

"Australian industry is plagued with overcharging for services which are provided mainly by governments. The only genuine monopolies in Australia are government-owned operations such as rail, power supply, water supply, ports and telecommunications, and they are characterized by overmanning, restrictive work practices, poor service quality, cross-subsidization and overcharging."

This almost sounds like they are quoting from a Canadian or Ontario source. How would Ontario compare in this regard to Australia?

Hon Mr Pouliot: This ministry has not presented a new opportunity for travel, but we have people around in our team who are very familiar with the Australian situation. Would one wish to comment?

The Chair: Anyone want to?

Dr Gammon: Could I ask you to clarify the opening account of that? That was referring to state-run institutions in Australia, was it not?

Mr Sola: No, the Australian mining industry was complaining about the fact it is overcharged for services, particularly with respect to services provided by government monopolies, and I am wondering if that is the same complaint here in Ontario.

Dr Gammon: I guess it would be fair to say that certainly one does hear complaints on occasion, about hydro rates for example, but it is not just from the mining industry that one hears that. I do not think that the issue has reached such a proportion in Canada as it apparently seems to have done in Australia.

Mr Sola: Okay. That was one of the things I was getting at, because in that article they were complaining about the lack of competitiveness of the Australian industry due to several factors and this was one of the factors that they pointed out. So I would suspect from what you are saying that our industry is much more competitive on the world market than they are.

Dr Gammon: That clearly is very important, but mining is a global business. The exploration dollar can go anywhere. It can come to Ontario, but it can also go to Zimbabwe or Papua New Guinea just as easily; it is not just other jurisdictions within Canada we have to look at. Also, at the other end of it, the product is sold into a global market and you cannot increase prices to your customers, because the price is fixed by international commodity markets, so at both ends of the spectrum it is controlled by the global economy.

Ontario has to fit itself within that environment, and in order to maintain our competitiveness, we are very lucky, as the minister mentioned, in being extremely well endowed with geology. The geology is the best in the world, frankly, in Ontario and that is illustrated by the elephant-sized discoveries that we have had over the years here: Kidd Creek at Timmins, the nickel deposits in Sudbury, uranium in its day at Elliot Lake, Hemlo of course in the gold. The track record is fantastic.

What the government can do is provide the right legislative framework, which we are addressing with the revising of the Mining Act, an indication that the government is receptive to mining. Things like the Ontario prospectors assistance program and the Ontario mineral incentive program indicate: "Yes, indeed, we want you. Come here."

The other aspects of course are political stability compared with Third World areas, which we clearly have; taxation; environmental costs. These things are all taken into consideration, but it is the overall mix and balance of things in that equation. We of course monitor all the time to ensure that Ontario is staying ahead of the pack and we are quite pleased to report that at this point in time, we are.

The Chair: Thank you. Perhaps in the next round we can build on those good points. Ms Haslam.

Ms Haslam: I must admit that Mr McLean took at least five of my questions and that leaves me with --

Mr McLean: They must have been good ones.

Ms Haslam: Yes, they must have been.

The Chair: Just think, that is three quarters of an hour you have saved.

Ms Haslam: That is true. I do want to thank you, Mr McLean. I do have some questions and I would like to maybe build on what some of the other questions were.

In the relocation-to-Sudbury information, we were talking about 200 positions by 1992 and a lot of this will be taking place over the next few years. I wanted to know, though, will the relocation improve the service you provide to the client groups in that area?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mrs Willis, will you bring the right perspective to our relocation program? Mr Smith?

Mrs Willis: In terms of service to our client base, we are a ministry that is well spread out across northern Ontario, and for the purposes of the mining division in southern Ontario, I believe that our relocation to Sudbury will in fact make us more sensitive to the concerns of the north and the industry.

Ms Haslam: You touched briefly on how it was being handled with the least disruption to staff. Will it call for an increase in local jobs, do you feel?

Mrs Willis: We have in fact been able to hire over 50% of the corporate services division from the Sudbury labour pool. Another 25% of the group is from elsewhere in the north or returning northerners, so I think it has in fact reached that objective.

Ms Haslam: Okay.

Mr Smith: Just so you may understand, our move to Sudbury is in two parts. The head office part has been completed, and all of us here, with the exception of the regional field staff from Kenora and Timmins, are centred in Sudbury and live there. Part two is the Ontario geological survey, which is slated to move in 1992. I just wanted to clear that up.

To get back to your point about customer service, some of you may be familiar with the fact that there are quite a few geologists and prospectors who live right here in the city of Toronto and they, over the last 50 years or so, have been used to receiving the facilities of the ministry right here in downtown Toronto. When the announcement of the move to Sudbury was first made, there was significant concern in that community. People do forget that Toronto itself is a mining city in many respects. Dr Gammon and others have been working now over a year with the prospectors and developers association to work out a system so that prospectors who are based in Toronto will still be able to receive good customer service.

Ms Haslam: On pages 28 and 29 of Ontario Mining Today, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, it mentions a review of Ontario's industrial minerals industry and I wondered, what is the result of that review?

Dr Gammon: Briefly, in response to the recommendations that were made in that report, we have taken the following actions. An industrial minerals advisory committee to the ministry is in the process of formation. An individual whose work will focus on industrial minerals is being added to the ministry staff. We are developing information packages to distribute to foreign-based trade offices explaining Ontario's industrial mineral potential and a major thrust in international marketing of our building stone. We had a very, very well received exhibit at an international fair in Verona, which is the centre of the dimension stone industry, and it raised awareness significantly about Ontario's potential.

1100

One of the things I neglected to mention under question about the OMIP program was -- I think I mentioned in response to you yesterday that finding an industrial mineral is not the challenge. The challenge is beneficiating it to a purity and marketing it. So under OMIP we allow exploration expenditures but for industrial minerals only. We also allow marketing studies and beneficiation studies to qualify for a grant. This is specifically aimed at the industrial minerals program and was in response to that report.

We have undertaken and are publishing a survey of research and development facilities in Ontario for the attention of that industry and we are developing a guide to establishing a building stone quarry in Ontario. This will be a handbook to the industry in getting the necessary approvals from our ministry and others to get up and running.

Those are the main points that we have taken in reaction to the report which you mentioned.

Ms Haslam: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr Hansen would like some time as well and he is the only other one I have at the moment, but please proceed.

Ms Haslam: Thank you. On page 26 of the same book, it talks about the new mining legislation for Ontario and you have talked about it a bit today. I wanted to know, has there been some opposition to some of the regulations and proposed fee structures?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Inevitably, when you enter a consultation process as wide-ranging as our ministry did, then you are quite right. This is what makes it so challenging and interesting, because you are committed, you are dedicated to listening to everyone's point of view, and from that strength, from those opinions, you begin to draft. Then you go back to all stakeholders, all parties, everyone who has an interest, a contribution to make, and again you go back and redraft, with opposition, and on and on, and then you begin to understand that you must try a balance where you have the responsibility to legislate for everyone. No winners and losers; win-win situation.

However, there will be some people and some of them -- and why not? -- may approach a recommendation that they made with a certain bias and prejudice because, on account, by virtue of their being very well informed about their own field of endeavour. That is normal. That is a good reaction. So we take all that information, we appropriate it to different levels, to different articles of the Mining Act, and then out of that extensive process of consultation emerges the Mining Act and regulations.

So there has been some disagreement, but not all that major. What struck us is that people came up and said it had to be changed. There were some complaints, but more important, 90% of the time was finding the right alternative to address and to meet today's needs.

Ms Haslam: I will yield to my friend. I have a couple more.

Mr Hansen: My question is actually around Elliot Lake, Minister. My grandparents emigrated from Finland, so they settled in the north and my family on my mother's side has been associated with either the Ministry of Natural Resources or Mines, so my family goes back in that area quite a bit.

The one question is that we are purchasing, as it is right now, uranium from Saskatchewan; I believe we have contracts there. What is happening with Elliot Lake in future purchases for Ontario Hydro? Are we going to buy in Ontario or are we going to starve out Elliot Lake? I would just like a response on that particular area.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Those words are very strong.

Mr Hansen: I guess they are.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Smith, shed some light for our collective benefit regarding the situation at Elliot Lake as it now stands.

Mr Smith: As you know, that is the responsibility of the Minister of Energy, to liaise with Hydro with respect to the uranium purchases, but the member is quite right that currently 75% of Hydro's uranium needs are being met from Elliot Lake under two contracts, one with Denison Mines and one with Rio Algom. Those contracts were signed quite a while ago and they are now reaching the stage where they can be reviewed by Ontario Hydro with respect to what it wants to do in the future, and the Hydro staff and board are in the process of reviewing the contracts at the moment. They have not completed their review as yet.

While they are doing that, of course, they have to take into account what has become quite a steep price differential between the amount in the contracts which we are receiving from Elliot Lake and the world price of uranium. Off the top of my head, it is something like four to one, world price being around $10 a pound and the cost of producing uranium in Elliot Lake being $40-plus per pound. When Hydro takes a look at this in the long term, given the high volume of uranium it purchases it sees quite a cost differential. None the less, obviously that consideration has to be balanced against the social and economic implications of reduced uranium purchases in Elliot Lake.

Last year, there were some very significant layoffs at Rio Algom. In fact, they closed two of the three mines they run, the Quirke and the Panel mines were actually closed, and Denison also phased down some of its production. All in all, about 2,000-plus jobs have already been lost in Elliot Lake. It is important to note that all of that related to international contracts these companies had that had expired and could not be renewed because of the cost. None of those layoffs related to anything that Ontario Hydro has done. That is the situation at the moment, an extremely serious one, an extremely difficult one. As I say, Hydro is reviewing.

Mr Hansen: I was in Sault Ste Marie last week with my friend Tony Martin. It has to do with mines also, Minister, that garbage -- and I read it in this on page 5, of garbage being sent to the north to be recycled and put in abandoned mines; I believe Kirkland Lake is one area. As a minister, you seem to be getting involved in other areas: you had a resource taking it out of the ground and now it looks like a resource going back in the ground. Could you comment on that, or one of your deputies?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am quite pleased to initiate the response on the subject matter that is very close to us. It is in the news almost every day. We are most aware that our government is intent on creating an economic climate whereby to achieve economic prosperity you will not have to export garbage in the north. This is not the way to operate.

When people talk about garbage, I think the first word that comes to mind with our administration is recycling. You have a problem; you also have the necessity, if you are to move garbage from one location to another, to arrive at an agreement. There are all kinds of players. First you have to strike an agreement between the people who wish to get rid of it and then you find a buyer, a recipient, if you wish. But it is not that simple. As you go along in this endeavour, you have to transport from point A to point B, and therefore cross many municipalities, regions that are under different jurisdictions.

1110

You may go from our first Canadians on a reserve, or an area which is being considered by native Canadians as a future land base, where a land claim is either imminent or being considered; then you go to an improved district and an organized community; local services board; fully fledged municipality; the city -- all those people are players in the movement of a commodity from point A to point B, be it chemical products by rail, be it garbage, be it recycled products, because you would have to go back and forth. Unless you have an agreement, unless all the people who risk being affected are part and parcel of the negotiations, then you simply have no agreement.

At present the problem is with large metropolitan areas, and there is a potential risk. There is also the cost of many components, the cost of transportation, the cost of recycling, so I am not aware of any deal being struck in order to move garbage from southern Ontario to any other part of Ontario.

Mr Hansen: We use the term "garbage" but we can take it as a resource on the recycling in the north. This is what I was getting at, a recycling plant and spin-offs from the recycling. The one thing I would not like to see happen is that recycling would stop and become more of a resource in that area -- you need the whole garbage can up north.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am sure you will avail yourself of the opportunity -- the point is so well taken. Our Ministry of the Environment has a lot of very interesting, fascinating information regarding that most important subject matter. In fact, they have prepared papers regarding it, because they recognize that it is a problem. Of course, our role at Mines is so humble. Our focus is to develop and open mines, and of course, to make sure that when that last rock is taken out of the ground we can do some rehabilitation. This has been a focus. Not that we are apologists. We are very cognizant of what other ministries are doing, but this is a question that must be directed, for it is so important, so timely, to the Ministry of the Environment.

The Chair: Mr Wilson. You have a minute and a half. Take your time.

Mr G. Wilson: It has to do with another problem that might be seen in the garbage area, and that is the issue of tailings. I understand there is a problem in the Matachewan area. Is there a lot of research going on on what can be done with the tailings that are lying around in northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Pouliot: When we are talking about tailings, we have to classify them, to block them. You have tailings resulting from a now-abandoned mine, a mine that was once in operation and is no longer in operation. Those come under the heading of abandoned mines. There are some 3,000 of them across Ontario. You have mentioned Matachewan. Of the 3,000 abandoned mines -- no longer producing, of course, defunct -- you may have maybe 50 to 60 that offer the potential of Matachewan.

What we are doing is finding out where they are. What about the 3,000 mines? What potential for disaster, or for safety and health, do they offer? Once you have this database; once you know where they are; once you find out who owns them -- but sometimes it is tales of Houdini when you chase owners. Sometimes you find the owners, most times you do not, especially with a small operation, for they date back many years. If you find the owners, they have no money to redress the tailings situation so the taxpayers of Ontario are left holding the bag.

But that is past performance, and we want to address this, because we have a collective responsibility, and we focus our energy, our attention on addressing the potential disaster, the past performance, as opposed to spending all our time or most of it asking who is going to pay for it.

Part IX of the new Mining Act -- we are still talking about tailings -- will make that situation past history, because this is exactly the highlight, this is our war horse, in the new Mining Act. We are focusing directly on tailings. So when you start producing, you put a few cents for every tonne you take out of the ground, you put a few cents aside so that we will not have to worry about those 3,000 defunct mines, redressing a situation that should have been monitored all along.

The question is, again, of a high degree of prominence, and you focused on it. You are to be commended. This is exactly what the Mining Act is doing, addressing the past, using that experience, and focusing on the future.

Mr Miclash: Do you remember what the question was?

The Chair: I wanted to say that about Mr Hansen's questions. If we could now move to Mr Miclash.

Mr Miclash: I thought we were going to Mr McLean first.

The Chair: No, still in rotation, you take 20 minutes. We still need to --

Mr McLean: I thought I was next in rotation.

Mr Miclash: That is what I thought as well.

Mr McLean: I would like to ask some questions of this minister. I am getting serious now.

Mr Miclash: I believe Mr McLean was next in rotation, was he not?

The Chair: No. That has not been agreed to through the Chair. If you wish to yield to Mr McLean -- we have just finished the governing party.

Ms Haslam: On a point of clarification, Mr Chair: Did we not start with Mr McLean?

Mr Miclash: Yes, we did.

Ms Haslam: So we started with Mr McLean, then we went to the opposition and then we went to the government party, so what we are saying is that if you are following the rotation, Mr Jackson, Mr McLean is next in the rotation, and he will get you later if you do not let him use it.

The Chair: Thank you. It is my fault, and thank you for correcting me. Mr McLean, please proceed.

Mr McLean: Minister, on page 11, admin services, a 52% increase. The total program for administration is up 29%. I just find this unacceptable. What are you going to do about it?

Mr Daigeler: Short answer.

Mrs Willis: I will address that, Minister. The costs relate to the relocation of the ministry to Sudbury, the in-year cost of some of the actual relocation activities and, as I mentioned earlier, the dollars that were transferred from the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Transportation to us for our independent financial and administrative services. It is a one-year blip, and I am sure it is not a pattern that will continue.

Mr McLean: Okay. On page 19 then, a 15% increase in activity services. You indicate that you hired another full-time lawyer. With the economy the way it is, last year, and with regard to the amount of applications being down, and the amount of services going on within the ministry, why would you hire another lawyer?

Mrs Willis: I said it was one additional staff. In fact, it was a clerk; it was not a lawyer. The other costs are for the escalations through the Weiler report award, which was across the government and universal.

Mr McLean: There is a total increase of 15% in legal services, services up 38%. I suppose you are going to account that part of the transfer of the offices too.

Mr Irvine: The services budget for the ministry relates to the salaries for all of the lawyers in the legal services branch. As with the case with all ministries, the Attorney General is responsible for the salary allocation for the legal services people, and we are journalled out of the services account for that, so that accounts for the boost there, which is the $50,000 adjustment.

Mr McLean: So you are paying for services through the legal branch.

Mrs Willis: That is correct. In the first line of that page the amount we have in the budget for salaries and wages is approximately $40,000 in previous years. It is a deduction in the in-year to zero. The salaries for the lawyers and the clerical staff are actually a recoverable item through the Ministry of the Attorney General, and we pay for that through the services line, where you will see the increase to 375 from 102.

1120

Mr McLean: These questions I know have been asked before by my colleague behind me, but on page 21, benefits 38%, the total activity for the ministry up 52%. This is unacceptable today. What are you going to do to rectify that problem? You have your hands full here, Minister.

Hon Mr Pouliot: It is quite a challenge to address it. I always readily acquiesce when someone is concerned about the figures, as concerned as you are about getting value for money. Being the guardian of the taxpayers, we have to respond. Many of those costs are -- I know you have heard it before, but we are not coming back to Toronto from Sudbury -- are associated with the movement from Toronto, the relocation. You will notice that we have not built an empire. We have been spartan. We have been frugal. There are only so many dollars that are available, we are quite cognizant, and this is reflected in no change in staff. I know that you appreciate that, better perhaps than most people.

Mr McLean: Look on page 23 and it says salary awards, 22.7% increase. Why?

Mrs Willis: That is $22,700.

Mr McLean: But go up to line 2 and employee benefits is 22%.

Mrs Willis: That is correct. As Mr Irvine has pointed out, that has to do with the adjustments in the pensions benefits portfolio of the government. It is $22,700 in the human resources branch which represents the in-year award for merit increases and cost-of-living allowance and other awards that were made for approximately 18 staff, $22,700 for approximately 18 staff.

If I could go back to the finance and administrative services, I would like to clarify that the increase of 52% is largely attributable to the cost of relocation, which is a multi-year project costing in the current year approximately $6 million. It will be reduced over a period of time, increase again during the OGS move and then disappear from our item.

Mr McLean: Minister, in the public accounts book, with regard to travel expenditures -- I am not sure whether it is for Northern Development or whether it is Mines because it is not really divided -- you have an M. Barker with a $30,555 expenditure for travel expenses; you have a B. T. Kite $33,000 expenditure -- over that -- you have a C. McDonald at $29,000, a McIntosh at $28,000, Sorensen at $40,000 with an expenditure for travel. Who in your ministry can give me an update of whether those are for Mines or Northern Development? Does any of your staff know?

Mrs Willis: I can. M. Barker is the regional director at Sault Ste Marie for Northern Development, transportation division. He travels considerably in the course of his duties across northern Ontario. B. Kite is an employee of the Mines division. The large amount there would be attributable to his relocation costs for the move to Sudbury. Mr McIntosh is with us here today. He is an employee of the Mines division. He is the regional director in Timmins. Ernie Sorensen is the general manager of the Northern Ontario Heritage Corp. I think that was the list.

Mr McLean: I picked them out pretty good, did I not?

Mrs Willis: Yes, you did.

Mr McLean: I did not know which ministry any of them were attached to. How do they mainly travel? Do they have their own private jet?

Mrs Willis: No. There are days I wish I did. No, they travel by commercial, either ground transportation or air, depending on the departure times and the locations they are going to.

Mr McLean: Perhaps somebody can explain to me then, with regard to transfers, and we were looking at some of the transfers within the estimates, where $11,193,000 was transferred into Natural Resources, and to Transportation $112 million. What does that consist of?

Mrs Willis: The $112,000 million would be the money going from our budget to the Ministry of Transportation for undertaking the construction program of the capital roads program in northern Ontario. The $11 million to Natural Resources -- would it be the access roads?

Mr Irvine: That would also be for the winter roads project and resource roads that they construct for us.

Mr McLean: Would FedNor have anything to do with any grants into that?

Mrs Willis: No. FedNor is a federal program totally funded inside the federal circle.

Mr McLean: Are the transfers to the towns and villages, Kenora and Hearst and Hornepayne and all those, for highways or what?

Mrs Willis: In some cases they might be for municipal roads, but they would be a variety of grants under the Northern Development portfolio for economic and social projects being undertaken by the municipalities.

Mr McLean: Does the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission come under the Ministry of Mines?

Mrs Willis: No, it comes under the Minister of Northern Development.

Mr McLean: Why would there be funds going to the Sioux Lookout Family Centre from the ministry? Would that be under the Ministry of Northern Development?

Mrs Willis: It would be under the Minister of Northern Development and a grant for an activity there under one of the programs of that ministry.

Mr McLean: It would be nice if it could have been shown what was for Ministry of Mines and what was for Ministry of Northern Development, but it is up to the public accounts to do that.

Mrs Willis: That is right. We follow the standard format that is prescribed by the public accounts.

Mr McLean: I noticed the Minister of Northern Development and Mines had a $48,500 airplane tab, and I hope that you, Minister, will take into consideration the restraint that you have always shown in the past and will not use the Lear jet too often.

I have another question --

The Chair: That was a question to the minister. Minister?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes. Thank you very kindly. When you mention the public accounts, you know -- I can see it so vividly, as if it were the same session, where our mandate was simply the taxpayers of Ontario getting value for money. I used to be especially -- well, what is today? Thursday was my day to be appalled and shocked. Every Thursday at public accounts, I was really appalled and shocked. I became like the guardian of the public purse and I looked at it as a challenge. I looked for Lear jets and I was unable to find any.

But on the subject matter of transportation, we make sure --

Mr Daigeler: Did you find a Volkswagen?

Hon Mr Pouliot: A Volkswagen? No, I did not.

We make sure that every dollar is accounted for, and you are right when you said that I have earned a reputation for being tough with the dollar. I come from a very humble background, so I know the need to be very, very careful, especially with taxpayers' money, all those men, all those women that have to work so hard year after year, putting more into the system than they ever dream of taking out. We have an obligation to make sure to the last penny that every dollar is -- and I am not going too far -- spent meticulously for the exact precise reason for which it is intended. May that be a philosophy for the Ministry of Mines. We intend to carry it. It has been and it will continue to be so.

Mr McLean: And you will apply that to An Agenda for People, will you?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, there is a human dimension to it, of course.

Mr McLean: Thank you. I am pleased to have that little story, because I guess I am from a poor family too. I was so poor I remember having to go to the barn for a turnip to get filled up. We grew turnips where I lived. Anyhow, Minister --

Hon Mr Pouliot: We did not even have a barn, Mr McLean.

Ms Haslam: At least he had turnips.

Mr McLean: That is right.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr McLean, you are so right. Operating as we do from the bottom of the heart, there is nothing at all that we cannot reconcile our position with the bottom line.

1130

Mr McLean: I have another question that has to do with electric rates with regard to the north and the Ministry of Mines and people who are staking claims in areas that are a long distance from where the hydro is. Ontario Hydro, they claim, is inflexible in contract negotiations with regard to producing the hydro and getting it to the mines. What are you doing about that, if anything?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The subject of Ontario Hydro -- you are so right, that if you operate a mine, you need a lot of power, you need a lot of hydro. Hydro has a mandate to promote mining. It also has a mandate to produce electricity at cost. But we are asking Ontario Hydro and it has complied, and the previous administration can attest to that, that you can make a deal whereby in times of peak power, when you could be impacted, you could be affected, as part of the deal, if you agree to put your operation perhaps in jeopardy in rare times where it is undercapacitated, Hydro will give you a substantial saving on the overall rates. But it is a chance that you have to take. We are very much aware of the prices that are being paid for that essential service.

One of the problems that Ontario faces is it needs ongoing, massive revenues in order to develop its capacity. Ontario Hydro can go to the option of nuclear power. It can go to renewable resources or it can simply buy and install new transmission lines from the sister provinces of Manitoba and Quebec. Those are pretty well the options that Ontario has. Our government has a philosophy regarding power being made available. We believe that, if at all possible, you must tap all renewable resources before you consider any other option.

Mr Brown: I am most pleased to be able to be here. l have just escaped rent review for a few minutes, so you will understand that it is a pleasure to be here with the minister. I want to ask a few questions of the minister with regard to Elliot Lake, which is in my constituency. Minister, you are more than aware that we have had two major mines close in Elliot Lake, that layoffs have taken place at one of the other major mining concerns in Elliot Lake and that we have experienced somewhere around 2,500 positions being eliminated at mines in Elliot Lake.

My question relates to a number of things. First is the government's position with regard to Ontario Hydro and the purchases of uranium from Elliot Lake. Your government's position has been a little bit unclear and it would be most helpful to my constituents to know if the government intends to buy 100% of the uranium required by Ontario Hydro from Elliot Lake. As you know, Minister, contracts with Denison Mines in Elliot Lake are of the utmost concern at this time to my constituents. It would be very helpful to the community to know what the government's attitude is towards that question.

Hon Mr Pouliot: For a number of years, Ontario Hydro has contracted its major requirement to the community of Elliot Lake. Rio Algom and Denison Mines were the major employers. Denison, more so than Rio Algom, is underprivileged by virtue of low grade and also because of its very infrastructure whereby you have to mine a tremendous amount, high volume, in order to satisfy those basic costs.

Not a little-known fact, but a fact that is often forgotten in the equation when we looked at salvation, if you wish, the 11th hour, the last resort, is that traditionally Ontario Hydro's contract with Elliot Lake has represented a small portion of the overall product that came out of Elliot Lake. By and large, it is that product, that portion, a large portion, that has dried up. It has dried up because of the grade. It is much higher in Saskatchewan. If you were to buy a pound of uranium, you can get it a lot cheaper because the grade is higher. It is cheaper to produce from Saskatchewan than you can from Elliot Lake.

Value for money or the position? It is a difficult choice to make. As Canadians we say price and quality compare. As Ontarians we say value for money, the taxpayers of Ontario. So we give a directive to Ontario Hydro. We do not dictate the terms of reference of Ontario Hydro. It is an economic decision they have to make. But they also have the ability to pass the cost of providing electricity to the consumers, so we are right back at square one. We are the protector of the consumer. It so happens that the price of uranium that is purchased by Ontario Hydro to provide electricity to Ontarians, if it comes from Manitoba, is three to four times the price that you would pay if you purchased the uranium elsewhere. So you really have to make a decision.

It brings forth all kinds of analogy. The price of gold this morning was $362 an ounce. As Minister of Mines -- if you are to guarantee hypothetically and I know it cannot be done, but just by way of example, if you were to add only 20%, not 300% to 400%, to the price of gold, we could guarantee you 1,000 to 1,500 jobs within two and a half to three years.

You have to strike a balance here. Sure, the downsizing that took place in Elliot Lake has been nothing short of devastating. You told me, Mr Brown, that your constituents could not go across the street to get a similar job. Nobody else in fact in your region, sir, can pick up the slack to make sure that you get good jobs with good fringe benefits. So many families have been uprooted, they simply had to leave. That is a dilemma that we all share, but we also have to look at the potential for the companies themselves. What potentials do they offer to get their financial house in better order, if you wish?

Your government, our government did not make a major commitment to buy Quintette. I know hindsight is flawless. It is 20-20. The thing is, there are many, many components, so if you have a debt to service on top of it, it does not make matters any easier. There are all kinds of elements regarding Elliot Lake. We are very conscious that $15 million went from the Ministry of Northern Development -- I do not pretend to speak on its behalf -- $2.2 million, partly because of your lobbying, your efforts, saying, "Hey, what about the people of Elliot Lake?" We are, as a government, addressing the situation of Elliot Lake. We are monitoring compliance on a daily basis.

Mr Brown: I do not know that I am any further ahead here. What I would like to know is, do you agree with your Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier, who both committed to 100% purchases of uranium by Ontario Hydro from Elliot Lake?

I think the Minister of Natural Resources has made some very interesting comments regarding this. He not only suggests that that needs to happen, and I happen to agree with him, but he also suggests and I quote from a letter to the Premier on this particular issue, that, "The provincial government should assist financially to ensure that the restructuring of Elliot Lake contracts under this government does not result in significant increases in electricity rates with Hydro's customers." What he is really suggesting here is that the difference in price be paid from the general revenue fund, from consolidated revenue, and not by the ratepayers of Ontario Hydro.

I am just trying to understand, as my constituents are trying to understand, are you going to buy 100% uranium for Ontario Hydro in Ontario from Elliot Lake and keep Denison Mines going? We have 1,100 workers out there who are very jittery, and with a lot of cause. Denison has lost major outside contracts. They are very nervous about this. I want to know and my constituents want to know what the position of the government is.

You are a very important voice for the north at the cabinet table. You understand mining, you understand miners, you understand these problems. I know you do, Minister. We have had numerous conversations over my three years here about all these problems. What we want is some assurance that the government is going to proceed with what it promised to the people of Elliot Lake before 6 September.

1140

Hon Mr Pouliot: I thank you for your kindness and you are right, I do understand the need to respect the oath of office and at all times to voice my solidarity to the consensus that has been reached by cabinet. Again, those important subject matters are in front of the government. They are being discussed by government as a whole and I encourage you, like we do and I know you do, to keep us abreast of alternatives that could be taken. We have an overall responsibility and if ever there was a cabinet that is solidaire, that is together, I mean, it is the cabinet. At the risk of sounding biased and prejudiced, can I say, this is a fine example of women and men working as one unit after having arrived at a decision through consensus.

Mr Brown: I am pleased, Minister, but I still do not have an answer. I would point out that I asked this question in the House to the Minister of Energy, who I thought may be a more appropriate minister to ask in the fall session, and I did not really hear an answer there. She kind of committed that she would discuss this with her colleagues, at least as I recall that is sort of the drift we got from her more or less non-answer to the question. I understand that she was a new minister and there are a lot of very important issues and she could not at that point be expected to know everything about everything.

I just want you to know that the chairman and president of Ontario Hydro, Mr Franklin, in a speech some two years ago to the chamber of commerce in Elliot Lake, committed that Ontario Hydro would continue to buy and would not reduce the amount of uranium purchased in Elliot Lake. The Premier of the province, in answer to a question by your member Mr Wildman, suggested at that time that all the contracts would have to be reviewed -- Mr Peterson suggested this -- with an eye to increasing the purchases in Elliot Lake. We know what the former government was intending. What we are trying to discover here is whether you are going to maintain those contracts and increase them.

Hon Mr Pouliot: It is not a decision that I can make. This is a decision that cabinet, if faced with that question, would have to address collectively.

Mr Brown: I am asking your opinion, sir, your strong voice for the north, your --

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am cognizant, I am sympathetic, I do --

Mr Brown: You are sitting there advocating the needs of miners and mining companies, prospectors, juniors. That is what your position is at that table and we want to know what the position of the Ministry of Mines is at the cabinet table. Are you going to fight for this? Are you going to put this position as strongly as I know you can and present these views to the cabinet in such a manner that you will be successful and the people of Elliot Lake can be assured of a strong future?

Interjection.

Mr Brown: I did not want to bring that up.

Hon Mr Pouliot: There is no question that we will. No question that we will be front and centre. When it comes to the human dimension, we are very, very cognizant. Again, it is a collective decision of a caucus --

Mr Brown: I understand the collective position. What is yours?

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- decision of cabinet, but I am not in the position as the Minister of Mines, to speak on behalf or on a subject matter regarding what the government will do. I am not the government spokesman.

Mr Brown: Perhaps then I could ask a question --

Hon Mr Pouliot: If you talk about mine promotion, then we can share some vision. If we talk about the need to make sure that people can toil in a safe and clean environment, then we can talk about it. But if you wish me to sanctify, to endorse an overall --

Mr Sola: If you close it down, you will be safe.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Humour does not become you. Do not be cynical, please. If you close it down, you will be safe.

Mr Brown: Minister, perhaps I could get you to --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Appalling. What about the workers?

The Chair: Minister, the Hansard did not record the sidebar. I would prefer that you stayed with the question.

Hon Mr Pouliot: But I was provoked.

Mr Brown: Minister, perhaps I could ask you a question that relates directly to your ministry then.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes.

Mr Brown: The ministry had made some significant commitments to the people of Elliot Lake in terms of exploration in the last year, I believe. I just wonder if you could tell us how that program is going, if there is a significant takeup of the targeting of the particular programs, if we are in fact seeing extensive exploration activity in the area, and if not, what the ministry intends to do. Obviously finding a new mine is the best place to employ miners and seeing as we have, unfortunately, a surplus, it makes sense, we think, to continue with those programs. So if I could have an outline of how it is going, so to speak.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Vic, perhaps you could shed some light on the contribution from the Ministry of Mines, the $2.2 million on geophysical activities, etc.

Dr Milne: Vic Milne, director, Ontario geological survey. The program was initiated just last year and we have a number of projects now operational in there. In fact, if we break it down, first we have mapping in the area, and what we are doing is concentrating on sectors where there is potential for other types of mineralization. In essence, in that area there has been a great deal of work done in particular on the rocks where the uranium occurs, and if there is potential for further discovery there, most of the companies will have looked at it and are looking at it. What we are looking for is diversification and the program we have put in is looking at the potential of base metals and gold. The mapping conducted there is indicating quite favourable environments geologically, and as a result of the publication of preliminary information at the symposium, open house, at the end of last year, there has been an increase in staking in that area. For a long time it has been very low-intensity activity outside of the uranium type of rock.

In addition to that, we have joint projects going with the university in Sudbury, Laurentian University, and there are two interesting projects there. One is in attacking another alternative commodity, platinum group elements, and looking at a specific body of geology just to the east of Elliot Lake. That is progressing well with Mr James, a professor at the University of Toronto. The second one is a lithogeochemistry project which is associated with the mapping, which provides signals as to where gold mineralization might be and so on. So those are going quite well and have stimulated some activity in the area.

In addition to that we now have an adviser, in essence an economic geologist promoter of the area now based in Elliot Lake. This comes under regional management at this point, northeastern region, but Jim Robertson is now positioned in an office there providing advisory service, working with the municipality and with the mines in providing information and encouraging exploration. So the geoscience aspect of the program is going quite well in the advisory and that will continue in the next year.

We will continue the mapping. Research done by Laurentian will be continuing. There will be in addition some projects tackling the glacial and other geology of the area from the point of view of aggregate availability and looking at industrial minerals in the context of the area resource offices.

The program is going well and we are quite encouraged, actually, with the initial results. There is some trepidation whenever you go into an area that is relatively blank geologically, whether you are going to find something useful or not, and we were quite encouraged with what we found. That has encouraged exploration.

The Chair: Members of the committee, I am sorry that at this point I would like to put a point on the record for Hansard and, if I have your indulgence, I would just simply wish to state that in the previous exchange between the minister and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, there was an unidentified sidebar comment which provoked the minister to say, "Humour does not become you." The record of Hansard may not record who that was attributed to and I felt that it should be clarified for the record that the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, who was engaged in a question, a very serious question involving his constituency, was not the person the minister was referring to as saying that humour does not become him and that the minister was treating this response, as was the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, in a very serious manner. I would like to clarify the record for the protection of the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. If we could now please proceed, Mr Brown.

1150

Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Chair. While I am pleased, obviously, to hear of the ministry's activities, I wonder about the program uptake. Are people pursuing the exploration? Are prospectors taking advantage of the enriched programming dollars for the Elliot Lake area, for the targeting?

Dr Milne: You are addressing OMIP and OPAP programs there.

Mr Brown: Yes, exactly.

Dr Milne: I am not familiar with the facts in that area and I would leave that perhaps to Dr Gammon.

Mr McIntosh: I am Sandy McIntosh. I am the regional director of the northeast region in Timmins. Mr Brown, I would like to just state that after replacing Jim Robertson there -- who was probably, as far as expertise goes, one of the best we have in the province and the ministry -- since he has been there, there has actually been an increase week by week and month by month of visitors who are coming into his office for help and advice and what not. So we are encouraged from that.

The number of OPAP grants, I am really not sure what they are, but they have increased too, I believe.

Mr Brown: Thank you very much. I know Mr Robertson. I know he does excellent work.

The Chair: Mr Miclash.

Mr Miclash: Thank you very much. Mr Chair, I would like to go into the area of environmental assessment and the extension of that, mining development. The minister is well aware, and I have touched on it earlier, how this is of particular interest to myself for the development in my own area. At this time I would just like to know if the minister or his staff has had any discussions with the Minister of the Environment regarding this extension to the mining development.

The second part to that question, I would like to know if the minister himself has spoken to the industry leaders about this issue and what he could report from those various meetings. As he will know, this is an issue that they are very concerned about and one that we are setting precedents in. If the minister would just comment, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You are referring to Shoal Lake, of course.

Mr Miclash: Yes.

Hon Mr Pouliot: In terms of consultation by myself with different ministries or with people directly involved in the corporate or private sector, I have not had any discussion with any private party. In the mining community of course in discussions with the Ontario Mining Association or environmentalists, concerned people, the issue of Shoal Lake often comes up. It is not done in an official forum, meetings. I have not taken part in any meeting where the issue of Shoal Lake was on the agenda. Of course, we are very much aware; we do read the paper. We have people in the ministry whose job is to address this sort of endeavour. We are aware of the contribution, among others, the consultative professor has made. We are also aware that an environmental assessment has been commissioned. My understanding is that the EA is ongoing.

Mr Miclash: Yes. Minister, at this point can I ask you, do you agree with that policy of the EA being placed in terms of checking into that situation at Shoal Lake? Are you in agreement with that policy as it stands today?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Not only am I in agreement, I see it as a natural part of due process that an environmental assessment be conducted. I have not only no quarrel with it but I would look forward to the recommendation, to the findings, of an environmental assessment. Whenever the possibility, however remote, whenever questions are raised, EAs address those questions, those concerns. Not only do they put people at ease but what they do is they come up with technical data that is necessary.

Mr Miclash: So you are saying that you would be satisfied with that, what they should possibly come up with. I guess what I am getting at is, would that be to your satisfaction fully, or do you see the intervention of the federal government coming into this issue as being something you would like to see?

Hon Mr Pouliot: You are quite right. Whether I would be or anyone would be satisfied -- and I want to set the record very, very straight. Simply put, I took your question to mean if I favoured as the Minister of Mines the process of an EA and I said yes and I do not wish to mean anything else but that. Simply put, I am not saying: "What will you do with the EA's recommendation? What will be your recommendation." No. I am saying that the EA process is an exercise that I certainly adhere to.

Do you have a supplementary?

Mr Miclash: I am just asking, if you are happy to say that --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Then the feds?

Mr Miclash: Yes, if you are happy with the assessment being done by the province and what we are going through now, how do you see the intervention from the feds in this process and what is your opinion on that?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The point is well taken; intervention. There is a right to review. The feds, if commissioned, if asked, have the right to say, "Yes, we at the federal level will conduct our own EA." I would hope, and I am not saying for the sake of expediency, not in that context, but just for the sake of not duplicating, if you wish -- it may result in expediency -- that if you have terms and conditions that are set forth with a provincial EA, that if the feds choose to conduct their own EA, under the review process if you wish, that they would take into consideration the data that have been acquired by the first EA in order to avoid duplication in mandate. You do it in accounting, you do it almost anyplace else. That would be my way of looking at things. If you have an answer, conclusive evidence that leads to yes or no or whatever, this would be taken into account when the terms of reference are looked at under federal jurisdiction.

Mr Miclash: Thank you. I would like to move now to north of the 50th. I believe Mr McLean touched on some concerns. I guess what has happened so far is that we have had ad hoc negotiations with various groups up there. I am referring to the Dona Lake site right now. Are you as the minister satisfied with the process as it has been up until today, and is your government approving the criteria for areas north of the 50th?

Hon Mr Pouliot: You mentioned the Placer Dome at Dona Lake and you could go on to other partnerships, if you wish, co-management or participation. We must keep in mind that it is early in the process. It was long in arriving, late in arriving, but it is early in the process.

Dona Lake was a pilot project with the Osnaburgh band. I met very, very often with Frank Beardy regarding future participation; with Roy Kaminaiwash, who is the chief at Osnaburgh; with the McKay brothers, who took turn being chief of Big Trout; people involved with Nishnawbe-Aski, with Treaty 9, saying, "What about our say in mining development? What about our say in participation?" in this case at Dona Lake.

Am I satisfied? I am not totally satisfied, because inevitably when you have a pilot project, you must have a phase two. Satisfied that an agreement was reached, yes. Of course, there is the need to improve on those agreements. The agreement that was reached was one where people would be given the right to earn a living. Some training was taking place. I would like to see native participation go many, many steps further.

1200

Mr Miclash: Minister, as we know, you touched on the Dona Lake agreement and there were requirements for jobs for the native people in the area, whom you are, as you have indicated, very familiar with. Currently, apparently the United Steelworkers are contesting the agreement; that is, the requirement for those jobs for our native people, the native people in that area. What discussions have you as minister had with the union? As you have indicated, you already discussed this with the native groups, so what I am looking for here are the discussions you have had with that particular union and the Minister of Labour on this issue.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Trust me. Your last statement, with respect, is total and complete news to me.

Mr Miclash: Okay. Could we maybe have a report back on that and some research done by the ministry?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The point is noted by the members of our ministry. Thank you, yes.

Mr Miclash: I would just like to wrap up at this time with a final question about the negative light, and I spoke about this earlier as well, that the mining ministry has taken, the image that it has taken across the province. I am just wondering what you as minister are doing, your ministry is doing at this time to possibly raise that image in the minds of many people, particularly here in the south.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I understand the need to use this sort of terminology. I sat where you are sitting as a member of the opposition, as a member of the third party, and I too once saw some flaws associated with government programs, saw it as my duty to highlight them, but only when I had a positive alternative. So when you are talking about negative lights, we must keep in mind that our cabinet was sworn in on 1 October. That negative light did not come to shine since 1 October, if there is any such thing, and I do not trust there is.

I do not think that mining has a negative light. If you ask me, "What are you doing to enhance it?" -- and you did -- then I --

Mr Miclash: If I just might interrupt, when you say you do not think mining has a negative light, all you have to do is read the headlines around my particular riding, in the papers of Winnipeg, and for you to sit and tell me that there is no negative light on mining, all I have to do is produce some of those headlines for you. I understand what you are saying about the previous administration. I am asking what you as minister have in mind to change that negative thought, negative perception of these many people. As I say, I could produce many headlines around.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We are constantly building bridges. We are constantly consulting with all the parties, all the stakeholders, all the players involved. If you were to ask me, "What are you doing" -- and you did --

Mr Miclash: I did.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Subconsciously perhaps.

Mr Miclash: I have not been able to get Hansard back and find out whether I did or not.

Hon Mr Pouliot: No, no -- "to give mining its rightful place under the sun?" then we could talk about the proverbial light. We could talk about the golden age. Then I say we are doing lots. We are going to go to the schools and tell them if it is not farmed, it is likely mined. We will tell them about the everyday life, the appreciation, the knowledge. We will not advertise in the financial journals. We will go to the street and tell people: "Look, this is what mining is doing to you. Mining is honourable. You could not live without the efforts that mining is doing." We are going to encourage women to take mining courses. We will go and grab native Canadians and say: "It's part of your land base. We need you for economic development."

We will provide incentives so that the short-order cook will not be found unemployed walking the streets of Thunder Bay; you will find him as a chef working and feeding contractors, diamond drillers. We have to go with our forte. What are we doing? Putting our best foot forward. What we are doing is trying to improve 85,000 direct or indirect jobs, $7 billion to $8 billion; you know that. We want to make it better. We want to give people the tools, the encouragement so that not only can they cope in the economic society of Ontario, but they can enhance the potential of mining, the impact it has, all of it. We will do it with passion. We will do it with dedication. We shall do it with commitment and we can count on your encouragement.

The Chair: Order, please.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Pouliot: So fascinating.

The Chair: Do not forget, Minister, you are going to give calendars to 130 members of Parliament. Mr Miclash, you still have the floor.

Mr Miclash: Mr Chair, I just wanted to say that I did see my calendars yesterday; I went through it very carefully. A very good start, Minister; I must admit that is an excellent start in showing the people of Ontario the positive aspects of mining and the history.

The Chair: Ms Haslam.

Ms Haslam: It is my turn in the rotation?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms Haslam: I have only two questions, because many of the questions I had have been asked. I would have no problem tabling those questions, as I understand that Mr Miclash has ended his question period. I would have no problem tabling these two questions because they do ask for specifics and costs and --

The Chair: Would you like to read them into the record, Ms Haslam? It will take a moment.

Ms Haslam: Sure. Page 12 of the speaking notes -- I would like a list of the research projects and the cost of each. Page 18 of the speaking notes from the minister -- I would like a list of the 20 projects, a list of the universities they are with and the cost for each.

The Chair: Mrs Marland, do you have a very brief question?

Mrs Marland: Yes. I would like to table my question and I would be happy with an answer from the minister. In light of the position of his government which was reconfirmed when we had the Minister of Energy before us dealing with the Energy estimates, that it does not support future nuclear plants being built in the province, could the minister answer for us how he sees that policy of their government affecting the future of communities like Elliot Lake, with the uranium mines, and other similar locations in the province?

The Chair: That question is duly noted by the deputy and a written response will be provided in all instances through the clerk to the members. I wish to simply put on the record two further questions that have been asked of each of the ministers during estimates.

The first one is in the ministerial directive of a year ago. Can you identify what restraint measures and/or cutbacks were undertaken by the Ministry of Mines during this current estimate year? If that can be a brief response; it is usually a one- or two-line response.

The second question has been the new government's $700-million anti-inflation package: Could the minister advise the committee of estimates if he has any of that allocation associated with his ministry? He might exercise his licence if that also includes Northern Development, if he has allocated an allocation to that ministry. But specifically do you have any of those funds and how much for Mines? Those are the two questions we have asked each minister. Perhaps I could ask Sheila to respond to the first one.

1210

Mrs Willis: The constraints -- I can give you it by item within the vote. It is indicated on the briefing package. Just a moment. I think I can give it to you for the division. I am sorry. I do not have the figure for the division. Do you recall --

Mr Irvine: It was a total of 4%, but I do not have the --

Mrs Willis: It was a 4% constraint within the division, which is within vote 2903. I can come back to you with the details of how that constraint was applied against each item.

The Chair: Thank you. You will treat that in a similar fashion to the other requests for response in writing. The minister may wish to respond to the second question briefly, and then I will recognize Mr Miclash for summary comment.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Under Northern Development, many mining communities, naturally, were beneficiaries. There was $40.8 million out of the $700 million committed under the anti-recession program, and under Mines, in Cobalt abandoned mines testing to the tune of $500,000.

The Chair: Mr McLean has already provided his brief summary statement. Perhaps Mr Miclash would summarize quickly his statement, and then we will ask the minister to summarize, and then we will proceed with the two votes.

Mr Miclash: I would just like to indicate at this time that, in the absence of Mr McLean and with the agreement of the party in power, we have also agreed to table the remainder of our questions. There are four pages of them here. We will be looking for a written response from the minister; hopefully it will not be volumes, as we know he could probably produce. We are asking that the minister commit himself to answering the questions, and a possible date from the ministry as to when we could expect the answers.

The Chair: It would be fair to the deputy to have a

sense of the nature of the questions before he could affix a time line. Were they to be order paper questions? You will be familiar with the standing orders. I believe the deputy would try to treat them in as expeditious a manner and in a similar fashion.

Mr Miclash: No, these are not order paper questions. These are questions we would have asked had we gone on with the time this afternoon, and asked for responses from the ministry.

The Chair: With the committee's indulgence, I must give the deputy a moment to read the questions so he can affix a time to their response.

Mr Miclash: While he is doing that, maybe I could just go on to say that I, as critic to the Ministry of Mines, have enjoyed the past number of hours we have spent. I think we have brought forth a lot of very important issues, and I have enjoyed some of his responses. However, we normally produce hockey players in the north and not figure skaters, and here we have definitely seen a figure skater that we have produced from the north on some issues. I must agree with my cohorts that it was a very entertaining few hours.

I would also like to note the minister's commitment to the Agenda for People, something we have heard a lot about, something I know a good number of members in the official opposition and those in the third party are a little disappointed in. I know there are many good things in that agenda that have been stated would be fulfilled to the people of the north, and knowing of the minister's influence in cabinet around the table, I look forward to the fulfilling of that agenda for the people who I know he represents so well in our northern portion of the province.

With that, Mr Chair, I would just like to say it has been a pleasure working in the committee and I look forward to the answers from the minister.

Hon Mr Pouliot: First and foremost to you, Mr Chairman, and to colleagues and good friends, be it the Progressive Conservatives or the Liberals -- of course, you will allow me this bias, with our opportunity to form the government, that our own family of New Democrats -- I know what it is like. I see Michael Brooks, and there are other people, of course, people in the ministry, people in our political staff, everyone who made this exercise. I am not privileged; I am blessed. I say this sincerely, being able to -- not escape, because it is not a game -- but with the collective effort of seeing the common goal: we all wish to benefit through mining. Sure, we have to be aware that it is a political exercise. We have a constitutional monarchy, and the adversarial system will prevail. I know, in a political sense, that some of the people with the respective caucuses have either the skins of elephants -- others are not as thick-skinned, but they have several layers as well. So whatever suits their style and fancy, they play their role very well. Never vindictive -- I did not notice that; passion, but no vengeance; nothing deliberate, systematic to embarrass others. Instead, contributions to make our presentation better next time we have the opportunity to respond to this kind of invitation from estimates.

So thank you again and thank you for all the hours of some anxiety, but the hours of preparation deserve more than a verbal pat on the back. A lot of people have worked very hard to inform and answer the questions of the members of the committee in terms of the legitimate -- and they were all legitimate and interesting questions that were asked. They will be answered. They will be answered fully as best we can in the shortest of time. We will be treating your concerns with seriousness, and they will get all the attention they always deserve.

The Chair: I have been advised by Deputy Minister Brock Smith that he is hoping that 4 March is the date he will have the answers prepared.

I want to thank the committee for their combined efforts in these, our final of six estimates. We have, by prior consensus and unanimity, agreed to complete the assigned time for the 1990-91 estimates for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, specific Mines votes. I shall now call for the vote on each of the estimates vote items.

Vote 2901 agreed to.

Vote 2903 agreed to.

The Chair: Shall the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines be reported to the House?

Agreed to.

The committee adjourned at 1218.