Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

CONTENTS

Friday 16 September 1994

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines

Hon Shelley Martel, minister

Donald Obonsawin, deputy minister

Louise Paquette, assistant deputy minister, corporate services division

Stewart Kiff, acting chief of staff

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)

Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND)

*Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)

Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)

*Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L)

Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND)

Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)

Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L)

Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)

*Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:

Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND) for Mr Duignan

Johnson, David (Don Mills PC) for Mr Arnott

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Abel

Miclash, Frank (Kenora L) for Mr Mahoney

Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND) for Mr Fletcher

Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Mr Lessard

Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)

for Mr Hayes

Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia

Staff / Personnel: McLellan, Ray, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1006 in room 151.

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): Good morning. We have approximately two hours remaining to complete the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. I have Mr Martin I'd like to recognize first and then Mr Bisson.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It's good to be back this morning. Certainly, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is an important ministry in the part of the province that I represent, and as I said yesterday, we who live and work and serve up there are very thankful for the effort that has been made on our behalf by the minister and the ministry and this government, and I elaborated yesterday a bit on how my community of Sault Ste Marie has benefited over those years and asked a question of the minister re future plans to continue that kind of very positive activity and growth in the north.

I wanted to, though, talk a little bit this morning and get some thought from the minister on an initiative that has just been announced in my community, and I'm wondering what else there is that she's looking at or that she's aware of that might be coming down the pipe that would help not only myself but others who have some concern about their own economies.

I know that over the last three years we've been focusing very much on maintaining and saving and rebuilding infrastructure in the north. I guess we're all interested now in the recovery that's happening, the fact that the economy is getting better and what we see as the future. Certainly the government can only do so much and then I think the private sector has to kick in.

I was at an announcement a couple of weeks ago in the Sault where a big company out of the States, Georgia Pacific, in partnership with a company out of Canada, out of New Brunswick, Flakeboard Ltd, came together to locate a new plant in Sault Ste Marie, a plant that will be making a product that is not available anywhere else in Ontario. It's a $90-million private sector investment. I was given the opportunity by yourself to speak at that and to thank those folks. There were people who flew in from Germany to that meeting that we had, to that ground-breaking, because they were so interested in this. They spoke at that session of using state-of-the-art technology, the best of technology that's available, and also talked of their interest in making sure that what they do is environmentally safe and all those kinds of things.

These are the kinds of opportunities we need to, I think, be attracting and taking advantage of. Obviously, whatever we've done in the north over the last three years to restructure ourselves has become attractive.

This group, in fact, told a very interesting story when they were there about how they were all coming to Toronto to talk about the possibility of a new plant because they saw there was a need for one in this neck of the woods, and Sault Ste Marie was targeted as a possible site. Without telling anybody they flew up to the Sault to have a look, and the limousine driver overheard some of the conversation and became the economic development officer for the area for a couple of hours and took the guys and showed them various sites and explained the pluses that Sault Ste Marie had going for itself and all of that. So we in the north have become, I think, great champions for ourselves, but you, of course, and your ministry and this government have become champions as well.

Are there any other opportunities like this one where the private sector is looking at northern Ontario? Perhaps for the benefit of people in other parts of the north, and perhaps in the province, what kinds of things are you planning to do to make our neck of the woods continue to be as attractive as it obviously was to this group of people who are investing in Sault Ste Marie?

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): A couple of things. One of the things that we have tried to do throughout the time that we've been here is be sure that the capital infrastructure is in the communities so that those communities are then in a position to attract investment. If a community can't develop because they don't have a sewer and water that will deal with that capacity, if they don't have an industrial site, if they don't have the hard services or the roads etc to deal with a high level of investment or other private-sector interests, then it's really difficult for their economic development people to go and try and sell themselves and attract anything.

So I think that part of the effort that we have made is to be sure that a lot of the capital dollars that we have spent, either through anti-recession or through Jobs Ontario Capital, through JOCA or through our base budget where we have top-up for sewer and water, has been very much to try and help those communities help themselves by putting them in a position so that they have the infrastructure and can go and look for those private sector investments and be very confident that they have in place in their communities all of the infrastructure that private sector companies will need.

If I look to some of the future opportunities that I see, the big one that is on the horizon that the government is currently dealing with and has been dealing with probably in the last year really does focus on the hardwoods initiative that the MNR is leading and that we are providing support to. Again, while five mills have been announced in northern Ontario in particular to date, I think everyone recognizes that a request for proposal went out to a number of companies both in the northwest and the northeast, and in fact that process of selection is not complete.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and our ministry continue to work with some of the individual companies who have come through the selection process to determine where other mills can be situated, or where current mills that are in existence can have an expansion which would support not only their current level of employment but also add some new jobs in trucking, the woodlands operation etc.

So I think in terms of large private sector investment and use of the forest and forest products, that's where you're going to see some of the biggest investment for the next two or three years, and it will be in waferboard products and a number of products that are currently very popular in the US and European markets.

I also am much more optimistic about the state of the mining industry in the province these days than I have been before, certainly from the time when I came in 1991 when we were experiencing a great number of closures and the lowest level of investment that we'd seen in a decade. What the staff tell me who are out in the field dealing with explorationists right now and through the course of the staking season has been very clearly that they see a renewed optimism and certainly a much higher level of activity in the mining sector than we had for a long, long time.

So we have a number of operations that are doing expansion work, for example in Timmins at the super pit, or in Red Lake by those folks, and in some of those communities that's going to offer some major new employment as well.

So on the two sides of the resource-based industries I see some good opportunities that are coming. I think that we are all experiencing, although it's slow, a recovery which is starting to be helpful to people, to give them a sense of renewed optimism and certainly to give companies who are looking at Ontario a better and a clearer sense that this is a good place to invest and we should put our money here. We've got a skilled workforce, we've got the infrastructure, and we could do well in this province.

Mr Martin: Just on that line and using Georgia Pacific-Flakeboard as an example, our community, I think very intelligently, decided early on in front of the potential that was presented re the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program to invest a significant amount of that dollar in developing industrial lands, and I think that was probably one of the key elements in this company locating in Sault Ste Marie.

We were ready, we were providing services, we had property that they could develop and, as a matter of fact, there's a big chunk of that property still out there, if other companies are interested in Sault Ste Marie, that can be accessed rather readily.

How many other communities in the north have chosen to do likewise with some of their money, do you know, and any other money that comes down the pike re our government, either in this mandate or in our next mandate as government, do you think will go to this kind of development?

Hon Ms Martel: Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you which communities are planning what, but the jobs secretariat and our ministry, because we are administering the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program, have a complete listing of all of the project proposals that are coming in from all of the communities, both the regional municipality of Sudbury, which is the only regional government, municipalities, unincorporated communities, unorganized townships and local roads boards. I think that each member also gets notification in their own riding as to what project each community is putting forward.

Right now, we have 400 applications before us and about 300 that have been approved. My quick reading of it is that the majority of these focused on roads, by and large, and a fair number also focused on sewer and water, not major projects that would normally have to be done under OCWA, but storm sewers and other additions or expansions to current water treatment plants etc.

So we certainly could provide you with the full list of what everyone is requesting, but I do think that under that program a lot of communities are in a position to be making those decisions and making those changes in a way that they couldn't before.

The Chair: Mr Bisson.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): There's about five minutes left on our time?

The Chair: About five.

Mr Bisson: I wanted to get into a line of questioning in regard to mining. As the minister would well know and hopefully most members of the Legislature would know, mining plays a very significant role in the economy of Ontario and is probably key not only to northern Ontario as far as our wellbeing, but probably key to the strength of the economy overall.

As members would know, there was a group that was formed in northern Ontario, I guess some three or four years ago, called the Save Our North group, that asked the ministry to move on a number of initiatives in order to try to make the climate for mining exploration and the climate for money to be invested in mining an easier one and one that's more conducive to being able to attract the dollars necessary to sustain the level of activity in the mining industry that's needed in order to find mines.

At the time this particular group, Save Our North, made up of a coalition of people in industry, of trade unions, of chambers of commerce, of municipalities etc, had challenged the ministry and the minister of the day, yourself, to be able to respond to five key requests in regard to what was important for the industry to really put it in the direction that it needed to be put.

I'm going to jump to the back, but I'm going to come back later because I'd like to have a bit of information on one-window permitting, but right now one of the things that was outlined in that was that they had asked the ministry to develop a system that we know today as the earth resource lands information system. It's a geological database that collects all of the minerals information that we have in the province of Ontario through the ministry of mines onto a computer system so that explorationists have a tool to better be able to find a mine.

As the minister would know, I had a press conference in my community about a week ago where we announced the coming of ERLIS into the community of Timmins. It's now deployed in Sudbury and Toronto and we're now deploying it into the regions of Timmins and, later on, Thunder Bay.

There seemed to be some confusion, I think, from industry. There was some people thinking that people were going to be charged a dollar to be able to sit down at the monitor every time they want to extract information from that database. I'm wondering if we just can put that to rest, because the way I understand it and clarify it -- and this is what I think the mining community needs clarification on -- is that when people extract information that is printed onto paper, in other words plotting of information onto coloured maps, it would be a fee that's charged, and I know there would be a registration fee that would be put in place when you first get on the system.

1020

I think what specifically I'd like to have a comment on is, will the mining industry and will explorationists have to pay a fee every time they access that system, every time they sit at the monitor and try to get information from the ERLIS system?

Hon Ms Martel: Let me do the best I can to respond. My understanding is that there will be a $10 registration fee, which will be an annual fee, that our clients will pay for use of the system, regardless of whether or not they're accessing it in Toronto, Sudbury, Timmins, and then as we move on to --

Mr Bisson: Is that like a library card or something?

Hon Ms Martel: I've never seen it, Mr Bisson. For the $10 fee, my staff tell me, you get a password, a mailbox on the system to do the work, and an opportunity to acquire additional space on the system. Right now, because it's so popular and because it's new and it's still in a project phase, we have a number of our clients who are coming in and who have been testing it to see whether or not it will be important either to them or the junior mining company that they represent. So we have large numbers of people who are using the system for quite an extended period of time, and we do have to work with our clients to figure out a way of access that's fair to everyone. Obviously the fee, if you want to pay, buys you some use that might be in addition to those who do not want to pay.

There are two points that I want to make. ERLIS is going to be delivered, in terms of the database's information, in two forms: in a hard copy form and a digital form. It is my understanding that in consultation with the industry the ministry has gone through a process of determining a price, I thought, for a hard copy form which was only the price of reproduction, not an attempt by us to have any cost recovery for the entire cost of the system, which is a $22-million system. Where we are now is we are consulting with them with respect to the digital system and, again, what kind of charge they would incur when they go in to the ministry and load down onto a disc and take it away in digital form, but those consultations, as I understand, are not complete.

Mr Bisson: I'll come back to that on our next round.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): During my review of the Cooperative Corporations Act and the Credit Union Act, I spent a significant amount of time in northern Ontario. One of the consistent things that I heard with respect to the northern development section of your ministry was the compliments with respect to the kind of good work that you and your ministry are involved in.

In terms of some of the newer or new projects, community economic development projects that you see coming on line, whether in resource-based industry or in communities that are trying to diversify their economies away from simply being resource-based industries, can you give me and give this committee an idea of where you see your ministry heading on that?

Hon Ms Martel: First of all in dealing with the credit unions, under the Jobs Ontario community action program, we have made that program available to deal with communities who, for economic development purposes, really do want to establish a credit union or a caisse populaire. In the one case that we've funded to date and the others that we're looking at, they have been forced into that position because the traditional financial institution has left the community. Today we'll be opening the credit union in Ear Falls, for example, which has been funded under JOCA, and we are working with some other communities to develop the same type of thing, because that is really important for their economic development.

We have been really supportive and are doing some work now on the establishment of a labour-sponsored venture capital fund. The lead is being taken by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, but there is a northern component to it which we are very interested in and the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp staff are involved in the discussions with MEDT and the proponents of that labour fund, and there are several unions involved to determine how we can establish it and how it can have a beneficial impact on northern Ontario.

Also through the legislation that was passed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs with respect to allowing municipalities to establish their own share corporations, part of the impetus for that legislation came from some work that was done by the ministry, in fact in Sturgeon Falls. In that case, in order to save the mill and to establish a new corrugated recycling facility, the five communities in the area really wanted to strike a joint venture with MacMillan Bloedel.

The only way we could do it at the time, though, because the Municipal Act forbid those kinds of joint ventures, was to have a private member's bill, and that was sponsored by Mr Harris, who's the local member. But it was as a consequence of that situation and of the success of it that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs then moved to have legislation which would allow that to happen. So there are a number of other communities that we are involved with which, because of what has happened across northern Ontario in terms of the restructuring, I believe will have an interest in entering into those kinds of joint ventures. The legislation will be in place to allow that to happen, versus having to go through a specific private member's bill, as we had to do in the past.

We are, just in terms of our own municipal economic development agency program, trying to expand that, because there are some aboriginal communities and groupings of aboriginal communities that want to participate and we think it's important to really start economic development in those as well, and this year we should be in a position to bring in two new aboriginal organizations to have that program.

The Chair: Before I move to the next rotation, perhaps a question of the deputy. Do you have any of the material which was requested from yesterday in writing to circulate to the committee? Were there any of those additional responses?

Mr Donald Obonsawin: I believe there were two responses. One was copies of the submission that was made to the commission. On that, when we arrived last night there was no one at the commission's office, so we were talking with them this morning to see what their opinion would be with respect to releasing that information.

With respect to the presentations that Mr Stepinac had made, he's in the process this morning of trying to find those. So those are the two pieces that we're still trying to get.

The Chair: Okay, very good. I have received through the clerk a series of questions from Mr Miclash. He has tabled those and we would ask that during the course, in a timely fashion, if they can be provided to the committee, it would be helpful. But I wanted to thank Mr Miclash for putting them in that form.

I'd like to recognize Mr Miclash for the next rotation, please.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Thank you very much, Chair. I do look forward to the answers to a good number of questions that I've tabled with the clerk and the Chair.

Madam Minister, I must go back to an issue that we touched on yesterday, and of course that being a letter that was sent to me, a letter from your office dated May 25, 1993. I'm still wishing to know who initiated the request for that letter to be sent to me. I know it was not initiated out of my office. I would like for you -- "you" being the person who signed that letter -- to tell me who actually initiated the request for that information.

Hon Ms Martel: We went through five hours of questioning yesterday and a number of those questions that were put by the opposition members were in fact in reference to a specific issue which we in the ministry feel has been dealt with by the privacy commissioner. A complaint, as you know, was raised against the ministry with respect to information which was released and the way in which it was released, and that became then the subject of a four-month investigation by a third party; namely, the privacy commission.

On Wednesday of this week, we received the final report from the privacy commission with respect to the findings of the commission and with respect to the single recommendation that the commission has made on how the ministry should follow up and deal with the matter of personal disclosure; that is, that all of the staff should be very cognizant of the release of personal information in a manner which is in compliance with the spirit and the intent of the act.

As I said yesterday, it seems to me that the issue has been dealt with by a third party and I do not intend to use this forum to try and review the case, to look again at the findings of the commission, to go through in any way, shape or form what information was released and the nature of it. I think that situation has been dealt with by the third party, and what we intend to do in the ministry and what I think is most important is that we will implement the recommendation that has been put to us. The deputy has been looking at how to do that, in conjunction with our freedom of information coordinator, and we will undertake to let the commissioner know within a six-month period all of the steps we have undertaken to respond and to comply.

1030

Mr Miclash: We're in a session here which is called "estimates," and during estimates the minister and the ministry are asked to be held accountable for things that they have done, things that have happened in their ministry. I am asking you about a specific letter that was sent to me.

Yesterday we dealt with a good number of specifics. We went into the Shoal Lake mining development, we talked about gas prices, the Red Lake emergency closure, we talked about mine closures, unemployment, youth outmigration, and we dealt with a lot of specifics in terms of those initiatives from your ministry. What I want to deal with today is a very specific letter that came to my desk under your signature, and I want to know whether you feel you are accountable for the information that was given to me in that letter.

Hon Ms Martel: There is no doubt that yesterday I was pleased to deal with a number of very specific issues that dealt with both concerns and problems that we have experienced in northern Ontario and in the mining sector with our mining clients, and I tried to respond as best I could to those specific issues by outlining which of those challenges we had been able to meet, what kind of programs we have been putting forward to meet them and what some of the challenges are that continue to remain that we need to deal with in conjunction with our stakeholders on those issues.

However, I do think I also made it very clear that with respect to the issue which you would like to raise with me today, that is a specific issue that has been dealt with by a third party. I will not be using this forum to respond to any of those specifics. I do believe that the third party, which was an independent third party, reviewed the matter very thoroughly over a four-month period. We had input into that process, we participated in that process, and this week that third party has made a recommendation to us which we have given every assurance to the commission we will undertake to respond to, and as soon as possible.

So for my part, I'm certainly prepared to answer as best I can every and any of the questions that you want to raise or that others want to raise with respect to issues affecting northerners and issues affecting our mining clients, but I am not prepared to use the estimates process to review any of the details of the case. I think that would fly in the face of the process that was undertaken by the third party and fly in the face of what our intent is, which is to implement the recommendation as soon as we can.

The Chair: Minister, the Chair really must suggest here for the record that the matters being raised are definitely within the purview of this committee. I want that to be understood clearly. You have the right to choose not to respond to the questions, but I'm concerned -- I have to be, on behalf of the committee -- when a minister comes forward to say, in her opinion, she doesn't think the process warrants further investigation by her. That is a determination for this committee, an all-party committee of the Legislature charged with the responsibility of looking at all and any expenditures of a given ministry and the minister responsible.

I don't want the record to suggest that you have the right to suggest that this is not appropriate in estimates. That falls with the jurisdiction of the Chair to rule and for the committee to determine and the standing orders to clarify. So you have the right, as every citizen in this province does, to refuse to answer a question. This is not a judicial body; it is just a legislative body charged with the responsibility of pursuing these matters. Just for the record, that's why I cannot rule Mr Miclash out of order with his questions, because he's perfectly in order to ask these questions.

I just wish that to be clarified, because I don't wish there to be any misunderstanding about the authority of this committee to inquire in this matter. If I might, as I've stated earlier, because the matter has been reported, it is now fully within the purview of this committee. It is not under any current criminal investigations, it is not currently before any tribunal, and therefore the standing orders specifically say that we can raise all and any questions regarding it. I just wanted that to be clarified for the record.

Hon Ms Martel: My apologies, Mr Chair. I thought I said that I personally felt this was not the forum to raise it in. If I did not make that clear, I'd like to do so now.

The Chair: Your opinion is interesting, but it is the right of these members to ask these questions.

Hon Ms Martel: I understand.

Mr Miclash: Thank you very much for that clarification, Chair.

Minister, in your response you said that we were here to deal with issues involving clients of the mining industry. Do you not feel that Charles Ficner is a client who is involved in the mining industry in this province?

Hon Ms Martel: As I said earlier, Mr Miclash, for me personally the matter has been dealt with by a third party. That is our feeling as well within the ministry. Again, there was a great level of investigation that was undertaken by the third party as a consequence of the complaint that was raised and I do believe that after that thorough examination, which we had participation in, a ruling was made which we accept and which we as a ministry will abide by.

We also take very seriously the single recommendation that was made, which was to ensure that all of our staff, whether it be by increased training etc, should be made very clear as to how to deal with the release of any personal information in compliance with and within the spirit of the privacy act.

We have been talking to at least one other ministry as to what kinds of training programs we might need to make that clearer to our staff, who within the ministry should be part of that process to be sure we have covered everyone who might deal with any type of disclosure, and we have undertaken as well to say very clearly to the commission as early as three weeks ago, when the draft was released, that we would do this as soon as possible and we would certainly provide to the commission's office a listing of what we had done within the six-month time period.

That is what we have done, and for me personally that is how we're going to respond. I choose not to use this forum to review that or revise it or make comments on the recommendation or what happened or the information that was disclosed any further.

Mr Miclash: Minister, when you talk about the investigation, we know it was a four-month investigation which found that the letter sent to me under your signature violated the Ontario privacy act, and we know that it disclosed personal financial information about the person we are talking about. It also suggested that you divulged the information that only your ministry could have known from its files. Minister, do you agree that you have broken the law in this case?

Hon Ms Martel: Mr Miclash, as I said yesterday during the questioning that came from the opposition, and I am repeating again this morning for the benefit of all members, I will not be using this forum to continue to try or retry this case. I think that has already been done by the third party who was involved. I do believe that what is most important for myself now as minister, and for the ministry staff, is to get down to the business of dealing with the recommendation that was made to us by the privacy commissioner. We have certainly begun that process of trying to respond in the way that we think we should be and the way that we have been asked to, and we will be very sure to have any and all of the processes that we have put in place then given to the commissioner within the six-month period that he has asked for it.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I wonder if I can ask the minister how many times her ministry writes letters to people indicating what its opinion is of the value of real estate holdings in the province of Ontario.

Hon Ms Martel: As I said in general terms yesterday when I was responding to questions on this, Mr Elston, each of us in the ministry, and the staff as well, are cognizant of all of the acts that we operate under, not only freedom of privacy but every other. Any of the information we release either verbally or in written form takes that into account so that the ministry staff are dealing with people in a way that respects any information we may have that may come under the privacy --

Mr Elston: Thank you very much. Over the last eight months, how many times has your signature been on a letter that has opined on the value of real estate holdings of individual clients in your ministry?

Hon Ms Martel: Mr Elston, I do believe that you're trying to get me in a roundabout way to deal with the case that's been dealt with by the third party.

Mr Elston: No, I'm asking you for general information about how many times your ministry tells the public what it believes the value of real estate holdings is in the province.

Hon Ms Martel: Mr Elston, as you can appreciate, information goes out from the ministry in a number of ways. In terms of all of the correspondence we send out to people, I couldn't give you any idea at all of all the correspondence that goes out to people and the information that's contained --

Mr Elston: Is it normal for the ministry to tell third parties what you believe the holdings of your clients are worth?

Hon Ms Martel: As a matter of fact, we do provide information to municipalities for planning purposes. We are required to do that, because in terms of their planning subdivisions and in terms of their developing official plans, we must as a ministry provide information to the same with respect to mineral potentials on lands they are requesting. So as a matter of course, we do that.

1040

Mr Elston: For official public business, you provide them with that information because they can call on you to provide some valuation. How many times would you write to MPPs telling them that your clients in the mining section of your ministry have land holdings which are worthless?

Hon Ms Martel: Mr Elston, as I said, I really do believe that what you are attempting to do is bring me back to the issue that I think has been dealt with.

Mr Elston: You're darned right I am.

Hon Ms Martel: As I said earlier, I really do believe that the issue of disclosure of personal information that was related to the case that was dealt with by the commissioner has been dealt with by the commissioner.

Mr Elston: We know that you did it at least in one case. Is it a general operation of your ministry to send out letters to MPPs and other third parties which say that your mining clients' holdings are worthless?

Hon Ms Martel: As I said in general terms yesterday, we respond to inquiries on a number of levels from a number of MPPs, clients. Those requests are verbal. They are also in written form. The full extent of everything that goes out from the ministry on every issue, I couldn't respond to here today.

Mr Miclash: Minister, the privacy commission found that the disclosure that was given to me via the letter -- again, I go back to the letter of 1993 -- broke the law. Do you believe that you have broken the law?

Hon Ms Martel: Mr Miclash, I have stated a number of times, and I'll go through this again for you, I do believe that the issue of disclosure in terms of the complaint that was raised by a complainant to a third party has been dealt with in a full fashion and in an adequate fashion by the privacy commission, and what we will do as a ministry and what we have done is to accept that.

As early as three weeks ago I asked the deputy to begin to look at what policies and procedures we could put in place, what training might be required to ensure that all of the staff continue to deal with our clients and continue to deal with the disclosure of information in a way that complied with this act and all others that we are expected to abide by, both as a ministry and as an MPP, and that's what we will do. For me, implementation of this aim is the most important issue that is before us right now.

Mr Miclash: I guess my question requires a "yes" or a "no." We have the commission stating that the disclosure broke the law. Do you agree or do you not agree with the commissioner's ruling?

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): We have courts for that.

Mr Miclash: Yes or no?

Hon Ms Martel: Mr Miclash, the commissioner has made a recommendation to us which states very clearly that we take all of the appropriate steps to remind all officials and staff of the requirements of the act in order to ensure that personal information is not disclosed except in compliance with the act. That is the recommendation that was made to us as a consequence of the investigation. We accept that and we are undertaking it.

Any of the issues, any of the concerns, any of the arguments, any of the proposals that were put forward by the ministry to the commission during the course of the investigation so as to outline our rationale for the letter and the information that was disclosed I do believe is a matter that has been dealt with. I do not intend myself, personally, to use this time this morning to review that, to make comment as to whether or not I agree with the finding, to make comment as to whether or not we thought we were or were not in compliance etc.

I do believe that the matter has been fully investigated, that a ruling has been made. We accept the ruling that has been made and we will undertake to live up to the recommendation that has been made as soon as possible and as fully as possible.

Mr Miclash: Just one very brief final question, Minister: Can Mr Ficner expect an apology from you?

Hon Ms Martel: As I said earlier, I really do believe that in terms of all of the contents of this issue, which has been dealt with, I do not intend to respond to questions or review or relive this or retry the case or anything else.

I think what is most important to our ministry and to people is that we have accepted the report that has been given to us, and we intend to deal with the recommendation in as full a way as possible and report back to the commission within the six-month time frame what we have done in that regard to ensure that all staff deal with disclosure of personal information in a manner that complies with the spirit and the intent of this act and all others that we have to abide by.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Good morning, Minister. Thank you for coming. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions on your ministry, and we welcome you back.

I'd like to start off, because there's a whole bunch of issues, and I had the opportunity to spend a couple of weeks up in northern Ontario with a couple of the other members on Bill 171, so I'd like to spend some time on that.

I'd like to start by getting into the same thing the Liberals talked about, with just a couple of brief questions. In most ministries, the legal department is shown in the estimates book as "legal." Yours, in the estimates book, does not. I take it the legal people come under the "corporate services division" in the boxes that are listed in the estimates. Do you know where they would fall in the flow chart?

Hon Ms Martel: If you don't mind, Mr Carr, may I ask Louise Paquette? She's the assistant deputy minister on the corporate services side.

The Chair: Ms Paquette, please come forward in front of a microphone. You have been introduced for purposes of Hansard and you were present to hear the question, so please respond.

Ms Louise Paquette: I'm Louise Paquette, assistant deputy minister of corporate services division. The legal service branch reports directly to the deputy minister.

Mr Carr: They aren't shown in the charts here, in the various boxes. As you know, you've got corporate services -- and they all report to the deputy minister. How come they aren't shown as reporting to the deputy minister? Do you know?

Ms Paquette: Can I have a copy of what it is you're looking at?

Mr Carr: It's page 4 of the estimates book. You can use mine and then give it back, if you could.

The Chair: Could we find somebody in the ministry to provide the assistant deputy minister with a copy of her own estimates, please, and Mr Carr can have his copy back.

Mr Carr: It doesn't show legal people. I just wondered --

Ms Paquette: Actually, it doesn't show legal services or the employment equity office, which both report directly to the deputy.

Mr Carr: Okay. The reason I asked that is that in most of the ministry estimates it wasn't in there, and as you know, the problems you encountered were with the legal department, and I don't know if there's any reason that the legal in your ministry seems to be -- I guess there are different reporting structures. I don't know. Looking at the other ministries, I don't think they're shown as a box for most of the ministries. The question I want to ask you is whether any of the people in your legal services, as a result of the problems they created, have been relieved of their duties? Has anybody been fired as a result of this?

Ms Paquette: No, they have not, Mr Carr.

Mr Carr: Have there been any types of reprimands for the people? Obviously, they made a mistake. What has been done with those people? Has there been any formal reprimand of those people, and what type of disciplinary action have you taken with the legal people who made this mistake?

Hon Ms Martel: Mr Carr, if I might, I don't think I look at it in quite that way. In my opinion, a number of people were involved in the process. I don't believe I would pick and choose one or the other to blame. I don't think that's correct.

Obviously, what we have tried to do is to say as a group that we need to deal in a most effective way with the problem that has been before us, and our responsibility right now, to the ministry and to the public, is to make sure that each of us is, again, made very much aware of all of the requirements and the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, of what needs to be done to ensure that disclosure of any personal information by staff at any level who are involved in that is done in a way that is in compliance with the act.

1050

Mr Carr: So nobody has received any reprimands as a result of this. As you know, traditionally the minister has been held responsible for anything that happens in his or her ministry. The ministerial responsibility tradition goes back many years. What it basically says is that you're responsible for anything that goes on in your ministry, whether you knew about it or not. In this case obviously you did. Do you still believe and agree that ultimately, to use the phrase, "The buck stops with you," anything that happens in your ministry should be your responsibility? Do you still believe in that principle?

Hon Ms Martel: I think where we are, Mr Carr, is that when this investigation was undertaken, as you know, it was a very thorough one. The decision that I have made, which has been communicated to the deputy, is that I believe what is most important for all of us right now is to take the recommendation that has been made by the commissioner and ensure that we comply with it in all shapes and forms.

For their part, the deputy and the freedom of information coordinator have begun some discussions with another ministry that deals more directly with FOI issues and policies and procedures and are working with them now to determine what kinds of training programs we might need, who among the staff should receive those and what other procedures might be put in place so that we make sure we comply and disclosure is always in compliance with the act. They have begun that process already as a consequence of seeing the recommendation in the draft report three weeks ago. We will have all of that in place and we will report to the commission about our efforts in that regard within the six-month time frame they have laid out for us.

Mr Carr: As you know, I sat on the justice committee when the Premier brought in his conflict guidelines and made a big -- I guess the word isn't splash, but spent a great deal of time after he was initially elected saying he had the toughest guidelines around. As we've seen on numerous issues since that time, if you break the guidelines it doesn't matter. What I would like to know is, as a cabinet minister, and you've held various cabinet positions, regarding the Premier's conflict guidelines, there have been problems with yourself and other ministers not meeting these guidelines, and I think one of two things has happened: (1) Either the Premier hasn't clearly, to his ministers, outlined what his guidelines are, or (2) the minister is new and just made mistakes for whatever reason.

I'd like to ask you, in your capacity as the minister, how the Premier advised you of his guidelines. Was there a formal seminar done where you got to ask questions or did he just give you the report and let you read it? How did he convey to you what he would expect from you as a cabinet minister?

Hon Ms Martel: In a general sense, Mr Carr?

Mr Carr: Yes, in general and, if you could be specific, if he did say, "We'll have a cabinet meeting or a cabinet get-together," where they sat down and went through the guidelines or whatever is done, so that he told you exactly what your responsibilities would be.

Hon Ms Martel: You will appreciate, of course, that I do think discussions that go on between the Premier and cabinet, regardless of what those discussions are, are probably matters of a private nature which I would not want to disclose publicly, nor do I think I should. Let me say, though, in general terms that all of us have a copy of the guidelines. Clearly, we have all gone through them and looked at them and clearly we all try as best we can to live with them and to operate under them in the manner that we think they should be operated under, which is compliance. But that is in very general terms. Any other discussions that may have occurred with respect to those between the Premier and cabinet I think are really matters between the Premier and the cabinet.

Mr Carr: Let me ask you this, then. As I maintain, either one of two things didn't happen: Either (1) he didn't convey to you and the cabinet ministers who have had problems what his guidelines were, or (2) the cabinet ministers knew and made mistakes, didn't understand them for whatever reason. You can probably answer this question: Did you feel that the Premier gave you enough information to follow the guidelines or was it "his fault" by not giving you enough information? It can only be one of two things. What would you feel it would be: He didn't give you the information correctly, or he gave it to you and for whatever reasons it just didn't get complied with?

Hon Ms Martel: Mr Carr, all of the cabinet ministers in this current cabinet have the Premier's guidelines. As I said earlier, I think each of us tries to deal with those and operate with them and undertake to abide by them in the best way that we can at all times.

Mr Carr: I'll ask one, and it's similar to Frank's and then I'll move on to another topic. In the Premier's first throne speech he said, "When we make mistakes, we will admit them." I think the public realizes that numerous mistakes are made by politicians of all political stripes. That's probably an understatement, I guess.

One of the things we were hoping for from this government was that when there was a mistake made, there would be an admission of it and, if necessary, an apology. You said there won't be an apology as a result of this incident and I'm just wondering if we could go back. I think it would be helpful if an apology was given to the individual and I'm wondering why, when it was put in the throne speech as one of the ideals of this government, an apology wouldn't be given to this individual under the circumstances.

Hon Ms Martel: Mr Carr, as I've tried to relate both to the media and to members in this committee, I do not want to deal with the specifics of the issue in any way, shape or form for the reasons that I've outlined.

What I do think the most important thing for us to be doing is to be responding in as clear a way as we can to the recommendation that has been made by the commissioner. I think that is the most important thing for us to do, in terms of making very clear and making very sure that our own staff understand clearly the rules and operating procedures around the disclosure of public information and make sure that's in compliance with the act.

I think we need to do that for public purposes as well so that the public very clearly understands that as a consequence of this issue, where a complaint was raised, the ministry is very seriously taking the matter to heart and is doing everything it can to ensure that every bit of information that goes out, either in a verbal or a written form, from this point on will be dealt with in a manner that the commission can understand adheres to all of the acts and all of the guidelines that we have to live under.

Mr Carr: I'm not too familiar, not being a lawyer, but legally there may be some reasons that an apology may be some type of admission of guilt. Have you received any legal opinion from your ministry that you shouldn't apologize because of the fact that it may be some type of admission of guilt? Have you received legal advice that you shouldn't apologize?

Hon Ms Martel: I've not asked for any legal opinion or have been offered one gratuitously by anyone with respect to the matters at hand.

What I believe and what I am trying to convey to all of the members of the committee is what I think is the most important thing to be done now as a consequence of the ruling that has been made by the commission. Clearly what I believe is the most important thing is to deal with the recommendation in the most effective way possible and in as timely a manner as possible to make it very clear to the commissioner that we are complying and to make it clear to the public we are trying to represent that we are complying as well.

Mr Carr: You mentioned that there hadn't been any reprimand of any of the individuals involved. One of the concerns may be, and I will say this not being a lawyer -- from what many people tell me, a first-year law student would know not to give the legal opinion that was given. Notwithstanding that, what changes have you made within the ministry now, whether it be in dealing with a deputy minister, to make sure that problems like this don't happen again? Not only issues relating to privacy but the whole issue of the competence of your legal staff I think goes to the very question as a result of this.

As you know, you said there haven't been any firings; there hasn't been any reprimand. How can you come before this committee and ensure us now that you feel that your legal department is, to use a slogan, up to snuff here? They've made very, very serious mistakes. You said nobody has been relieved of duties or fired as a result of these grave mistakes. What have you done to ensure that incidents like this won't happen again in your ministry, not only as they relate to privacy but the whole legal department? Are you confident that they are now going to be able to do their job?

Hon Ms Martel: Both the legal department and staff within the ministry will be dealing with the requirements of this act and any others that we deal with. What the legal staff and the FOI coordinator within the ministry have done, in conjunction with the deputy, is to approach the freedom of information branch within Management Board services, because they provide, as I understand, the greatest amount of service to all of the ministries with respect to dealing with freedom of information matters.

1100

As a consequence of seeing the draft recommendations some three weeks ago, contacts have been made with them to that branch to determine what kinds of implementation policies and procedures we might need in the ministry to comply; are there training packages available which we could use with our staff who deal with disclosure of information; who of the staff within the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines should be receiving that particular training, and why? All of those discussions have been initiated with that branch of that ministry at this time to get its best advice.

It is certainly my sense that all the people involved in that, including the legal staff, are very cognizant of the recommendation that was made by the commissioner and very clearly want to be sure that we undertake all of the steps necessary as an entire ministry to deal with that recommendation. They very much, as much as I do, want to be sure that we can signal to the commissioner and to the public that we have undertaken every and all of the steps possible to ensure that personal information is never again disclosed in a way which might contravene this or any other act we operate under as a ministry.

Mr Carr: How many people are on legal staff in your ministry?

Hon Ms Martel: There are three.

Mr Carr: I take it all three were involved in this decision?

Hon Ms Martel: I am going back to a discussion that went on with Mr Stepinac yesterday. I do believe he was directly involved and there was one other lawyer within the branch who would be dealing with some mining issues as well. However, Mr Carr, to be honest with you, it's not my recollection whether or not Mr Stepinac clearly said yesterday that he and the other individual had been involved or it was he himself, and I would have to check that with him; I'm sorry.

Mr Carr: In terms of the political staff, as we call them, the ones who are involved in that, there would have been how many involved in this decision as well?

Hon Ms Martel: Mr Carr, there were a number of people who were involved in all of the matters that went on and all of those people will be involved in dealing with the freedom of information branch of Management Board services to be sure that all of us act in compliance with the law. Certainly, it is our hope that not only those people who were involved but some other people who deal with our clients on a fairly regular basis will undergo whatever training we are told is necessary in order to be sure that all of us are very cognizant of what our responsibilities are and that we undertake them in a way that is consistent with the requirements of the act.

Mr Carr: Our problem is less, I think, when I look at it, the legal staff. Notwithstanding the opinion, I would have thought it would have been the political staff that would have said, "This isn't right; we shouldn't do it," notwithstanding whether it's legal. The legal people sometimes look at issues as black and white and say, "Technically you can do it, or technically you can't." I would have thought it would be the political staff who would have looked at it and said: "Hey, we can't do this. This isn't right." They're the people I believe ultimately were responsible as well. Then, falling back on the that, I believe, as I said earlier, in the principles of ministerial responsibility, that if a ministry makes mistakes as blatant as this one was, the minister responsible should resign. I think that's why the tradition has gone on in this place that somebody somewhere has to be responsible for it.

What we've heard here is that not only do you not take responsibility by resigning, but nobody in your ministry has even been reprimanded as a result of it. Are you now reviewing that to take a look at reprimanding any of the people or is the case, in your mind, closed with regard to the staff and their actions upon this issue?

Hon Ms Martel: The action that we are undertaking within the ministry is the one that I have outlined, Mr Carr. That is to have the deputy and the freedom of information coordinator for the ministry deal directly with Management Board and their freedom of information branch to determine how best we can respond to the recommendation that has been put to us by the privacy commissioner. That is what we are attempting to do and we are attempting to do that in as timely and as effective a manner as possible.

Mr Carr: I will move on to --

The Chair: Final question, Mr Carr.

Mr Carr: Final question? Okay. I'll move on to another issue then. I spent some time, as I mentioned, on the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, Bill 171. We spent a great deal of time. We were in Kapuskasing, Thunder Bay, Espanola with Frank -- and I think Gilles was there, as well. When we were up there, I asked the question to all -- and, as you know, the forest industry in northern Ontario is the biggest employer in Kapuskasing and various communities. I asked Spruce Falls Inc, I asked Avenor and E.B. Eddy whether we should pass the bill. As you would know, it falls under the Ministry of Natural Resources; your ministry would be working very closely with the minister in that ministry.

They all said to me -- and I passed this along to the minister because, as you may know, we were up in his riding of Fort Frances and had a lovely day up there -- I passed their presentations on. As you know, Spruce Falls Inc was very involved in that one in Kapuskasing, the biggest employer; each of those three companies, major, major employers, when I asked the question, as Mr Bisson will remember, "Should we pass this bill?" they all said no.

As the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, I would like to know your comments on the bill and what your ministry has done in conjunction with the ministry responsible, because these three major employers have said this bill should not pass. Would you like to comment on the bill and how your ministry sees it and why your ministry would be supporting something when the three major employers in each of those areas -- and I use them as example, I didn't even get into the natives in Mr Hampton's own riding -- said, "Don't pass it," and a number of environmental groups. Would you like to give a comment on your ministry regarding that bill and why we should pass it when all these people are opposed to it?

Hon Ms Martel: Maybe I can go back and make reference first to Mr Hampton's riding because about 10 days ago, two weeks ago actually today, we were in the riding and he was signing an agreement with Rainy River Forest Products, which used to be formerly Boise Cascade, which is the largest employer by far in Fort Frances, a major pulp and paper town. In that respect, the agreement was to sign on to the new stumpage system and to accept all of the responsibilities that would logically flow to them as a consequence of the passage of this act.

I must say at the time, Mr Carr, that the company was very excited about the opportunities they saw under the act with respect to them knowing very clearly what kind of dedicated funding from stumpage fees would now be allocated to forest management throughout their allocations, because for planning purposes it was going to make it very easy for them to plan on five- and 10-year cycles.

The problem they have continuously had, both under the act and with respect to stumpage fees, is that they have never been sure how much money the crown was going to be able to get through the ministry and through the estimates process to allow for reforestation and regeneration efforts. They also clearly told us they felt they were more than capable of doing their reforestation in compliance with any of the standards and regulations that the ministry would set under the Crown Timber Act and, in fact, were more than willing to expose themselves and their limits and all of their plans to any independent audit the ministry might put before them.

When we talk about employers of major pulp and paper companies across northern Ontario, I do think that what we have seen and I do believe what we are going to continue to see, is a split even within that industry with respect to how to deal with this act in support of it.

I can also say that I know from discussions the ministry has been having with other interest groups and other forest users, that in fact there appears to be a broad range of support. I understand that the sawmill industry, through the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association, is in agreement with the act and will be participating on the planning teams that will deal with the regulations. I understand that those meetings were occurring this week, as a matter of fact, and that with some minor changes they were going to be fully supportive. I believe you've got a split within the forest products industry on how to deal with the bill.

What I like about it and what I think, as minister, is important to support, are two things: the trust funds themselves. Given that our own ministry has had to go a number of times through the estimates process, and given that if we cannot on every occasion provide certainty to our clients with respect to levels of funding they are going to receive in any given year for any project, what I like about the trust funds is that there will be a dedicated source of funds coming from the industry that will go back into the industry for regeneration purposes, and I think that has been a long time in coming in Ontario and it's an important piece of legislation, an important part of the bill that we need to implement.

1110

Secondly, I like the idea of the planning committees because what we have found in terms of dealing at least with the communities that have been in crisis in northern Ontario like Kapuskasing and others, is that a number of players can come together in a community for the benefit of the community to ensure that the community has a long-term survival and viability. I think the public as the trustees of the natural resource have a role to play and they have a responsibility in how the forest will be used and I look forward to that kind of public participation which again I think has been a long time coming in the province.

In summary, there are aspects of it which I very much appreciate from a political and a philosophical point of view, and because of the experience we have had in this province around forestry issues. Secondly, I believe that the forest industry as an industry is not unanimous with respect to its approach to this piece of legislation and I outlined one major pulp and paper company that I know of that has already signed on and is in agreement. Thirdly, I think major change, and this is a major change, is difficult under any circumstance and I think that what we have to do is work with all of the companies that are involved to work through it, because I think the benefits I can see in this legislation far outweigh any of the things that are negative in it.

Mr Bisson: Just on that note, as you would know as of yesterday because of the sustainable forestry initiative the government has undertaken, I had the privilege yesterday of announcing a brand-new expansion to a waferboard mill in my community through Malette Lumber. If it hadn't been for that initiative, quite frankly, this being the fifth new mill that will be constructed in northern Ontario, the first in 15 years, it wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for that particular initiative and I'm certainly thankful that the Ministry of National Resources and the government took that direction.

However, I'd like to get back to mining because there are a couple of things that I think -- a line of questioning I'd like to ask.

You would know about three or four years ago, a group of concerned citizens came together under Save Our North. There were a number of initiatives that they wanted this minister and this ministry to undertake in order to upgrade the ability of the industry to deal with exploration issues, and deal with development issues so that it would become a friendlier environment out there when it comes to being able to raise the amount of money necessary, the millions of dollars necessary for exploration just to find the one mine.

There were a number of issues that were raised by this group, the Save Our North group, led by Steve Perry at the time, the head of Save Our North. I bring welcomes and hellos from Steve Perry. Steve sends you his best wishes and as mentioned before, feels that you are doing a great job when it comes to mining and I think that most of the mining industry, as you and I and others have indicated in the past -- but there are a number of points that they asked, the first being that the minister undertake a process by which to try to educate the population of Ontario of the importance of the mining industry. I wonder if you can update this committee as to how the ministry has done with that and what that has led to, and I have a number of other questions after, so if you can try to be succinct in your answers.

Hon Ms Martel: Thank you, Mr Bisson. In terms of public education of the importance of the industry to the economy of Ontario, we tried to do a couple of things, some in conjunction with the industry, some on our own as a ministry. First of all, two years ago in November we undertook a major TV advertising campaign which was displayed entirely in southern Ontario. It ran for six weeks in southern Ontario during September and October.

The purpose of the three TV ads that were on the television were to make the public aware of the products that are produced by the mineral industry and what our daily lives would be like if indeed those products were not there. They were very visual displays of products being removed from a car, being removed from the SkyDome for example, all products in the mining industry and what you had left when all of those things were gone, which was not much, as you can well imagine. That was at a cost of $250,000.

We had contracted Decima to do some polling for us because we wanted to know whether or not public opinion was changed in southern Ontario in particular after seeing the ads, and we did find to a large extent that people's view and their interest and their support of the industry did change, and did become much more positive when they realized all the products that were in use and of value in terms of employment that the industry was making.

We have suggested that the Mining Association of Canada use our ads or develop some like them because of the response that we found from the public through Decima. They have a committee that's been looking at promotion in a positive way of the industry and we have made both the ads available to them and the results from Decima, so that they might undertake to do that themselves. We certainly also said that if they are interested in doing something else in a joint venture with respect to us in Ontario, we'd be pleased to participate again.

Secondly, one of the things we have found is we do need to talk to young people very directly about the importance of this industry because how they view it will then develop how they support or do not support public policy in the future. In northern Ontario, the ministry itself developed educational kits for the elementary school panel which talk about the importance of mining and give advice to school teachers on how to, in a very interactive way, provide this information to students.

Last year at the prospectors and developers convention in March, I also announced that we were entering into a joint venture with the PDA to do the same thing in southern Ontario. In that case, the education kits will be for science teachers in the secondary school panel. Those are being worked on at this time, and we hope that in the next number of months they will be available for distribution across high schools in southern Ontario.

Thirdly, we undertook a project this summer through the Northern Ontario Development Agreement, or funds from that NODA pool of money. This was in conjunction with McDonald's Restaurants. What we did was develop tray liners in McDonald's that had a specific focus on mining. There were games and puzzles on the tray liners that targeted children to get them to think about goods and services and products at home, like toothpaste etc that came from the mining industry in some way, shape or form. We had about 380,000 of those tray liners distributed in a number of regions in northern Ontario and through the McDonald's on Highway 400 because it is one of the busiest in the province.

We have tried to do that on an international scale. The ministry and myself on occasion have participated in a number of stone exhibitions on the dimensional stone side and we were also in Florida last year at a conference of about 1,200 delegates to try and encourage Ontario investors to put their money back in. Through that process, we developed a promotional brochure which is quite extensive, listing all of the properties that we have, the value of the production, where producing mines are, all of our legislation etc, so that potential clients can be very clearly aware of the legislative requirements to establish in Ontario and the mineral potential.

Those are some of the things we tried to do on the promotional front.

Mr Bisson: Just as a bit of feedback in regard to the kits that you talk about, I know the mining industry and people in exploration in general have been going back into the schools, at least, in my community, and there is a recognition, I think, within the student population of the importance. It's unfortunate, quite frankly, that the mining industry didn't start that whole process some years ago. I think sometimes because of their success, they didn't get the opportunity to get out there and do the kinds of things they needed to do in order to show what they are actually doing in mining.

The other thing you should know, because I don't know if this has ever been fed back to you, is the role that the ministry played and you played in the conference in the United States last spring. There's been a lot of people in industry who have come to me and said that the role Ontario played there was a very positive one and really gave investors and people in mining a sort of a -- "We've got to look again at Ontario. This is a lot better than we thought it was." It's really starting to pay off. You're starting to see a lot of interest coming back in.

You talked about regulation. One of the big issues, I think it was the biggest one, as you know during the Hagersville tire fire, the then-Liberal government had made amendments in the Environmental Protection Act to deal with the very real problem that happened in Hagersville. Unfortunately, in rushing through and putting that legislation through there wasn't enough thought put around what that would mean for liability for owners of mining properties in regard to past environmental sins. It was causing quite a bit of concern in regard to -- first of all, for people to know that the best place to find a mine is under a new one.

If there was a mine in operation some years ago and it closed down, it could be that back then the grades were not high enough because of the recovery technology to make it profitable. With prices being higher and recovery technology being better, it's a great place to be looking for new mines. Unfortunately, the way the legislation had been redrafted, it really limited the ability of explorationists to do any kind of work on those properties and quite frankly was barring them from really doing the work that needed to be done there.

I'm wondering if you can bring up to date the committee and those that are watching about what the ministry did directly in regard to being able to deal with those particular requirements under Bill 220 and the amendments that the Liberals had made?

1120

Hon Ms Martel: The problem with the act the way it was drafted -- and it was in response to a particular scenario that was an emergency in the province, I think, at the time when the legislation was dealt with. Everyone recognized that and supported it because of that. The spinoff and the ramifications have been particularly difficult in the mining industry but also in the investment community, because a number of investors, not only those who are investing in mining operations but a number of other industrial operations in the province, have a concern about the extent of their liability and, as a consequence, make decisions to provide or not to provide funds based on what they think their liability is going to be.

We have moved a part of the way in addressing this issue with a change in the regulation that was made to Bill 220. The change is as follows; that any individual who wants to undertake claim-staking work or preliminary exploration work on a site that has been abandoned that has some form of a liability is not responsible for the liability that was there unless they make it worse because of their own action. So we would not be looking for them to clean up the site or assume responsibility for the site as they found it. If, however, as a consequence of their work, they cause more damage, then indeed they will have to deal with that.

Where a company is asked to assume any form of liability that is on the site is in the case where they decide to bring that property to lease. If a company is making a decision to bring a property to lease and are inclined to do that, it is because they think there is enough potential on that site that they can make a profit and make some money and at the same time use some of the profits to deal with the environmental problem that has been left. At that point the liability becomes very much a part and parcel of their business plan, and would be a cost to them developing and doing business in the province. They would have to make that decision at that point.

Mr Bisson: Just by way of feedback, there's been a very strong recognition on the part of the exploration community of the benefit of that. We're seeing in Timmins, for an example, one of the -- I wouldn't say the worst; I don't want to alarm people -- but we have a mine called the Kamiskotia mine where the environmental damage done to that site because of the way the mining was done in the past in regard to tailings did a heck of a mess, I guess, to put it lightly, and Falconbridge entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines in order to get on to that site to be able to do some exploration because there is some potential there for the discovery of a new mine.

The point I would make is that the comments I've gotten from people involved on that project were very positive towards the way that the ministry, not only because of the change in regulation but I think the change in attitude within the ministry, of rather than being the police out there trying to make things difficult for them, that the ministry was out there trying to work with them through this very difficult problem. I think kudos must go to the ministry staff and the minister in being able to really turn that thing around, because there's a strong recognition.

The other part of it was that there was the whole question of permitting. In the past there was a problem when you were an explorationist going out to do some work on the exploration site on to properties, which means to say you've got to get permits possibly from the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. The explorationists had to go to a number of different ministry offices to get all of that information together in order to fill out the permits, and then to fill out the actual permits and wait for them to be processed. It was quite a difficulty for them, and one of the demands of the Save Our North group was that the ministry undertake a process in order to have a one-window approach to permitting.

I'm wondering if you can respond to that, but also talk a little bit about another initiative that I understand is coming down the tubes called Clearing the Path, and how the actions of the ministry a couple of years ago in regard to the one-window, and Clearing the Path sort of as an extension to that, has developed and what your assessment of that process has been.

Hon Ms Martel: A couple of things, if I might: In response very directly to concerns that have been raised by Save Our North, the ministry took another look at all of the efforts that a company would have to make in order to get through the permitting process and, as a consequence of that review between ourselves and three other ministries, we were in a position about a year and a half ago to sign three memorandums of understanding between our ministry and the ministries of Labour, Natural Resources and Environment and Energy which recognized the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines as the lead for permitting processes for advanced exploration projects.

As a consequence, our own mineral development officers throughout the branch are then in a position to act as advocates for the proponents for a particular site or operation and are able to work with them to go through and deal with the other ministries to get any of the permits they may need in as timely a fashion as possible.

We recognize that it takes a lot of money to do exploration work in the province. It takes a great deal of money to bring an operation into the province of Ontario, and what we don't want is to have people discouraged because the time it takes to get permits is so long versus other jurisdictions. So that has been very helpful in terms of allowing our staff to act as advocates with other ministries, in terms of our staff being able to give information to their clients about the legislation and what is necessary and to work with them to move them through the process as quickly as possible.

Secondly, an issue that has not been resolved, however, is a concern that the industry has brought back to us with respect to environmental regulation duplication. You will know that we have an EA process in the province of Ontario. Only one operation has ever been designated under it, but there is also a federal environmental assessment process, which could also be applied on any operation in the province. Throughout the time that I've been minister, a number of companies have pointed out to us this dilemma and asked us to work with our federal counterparts to try and resolve it.

Most recently, the Minister of Environment and Energy has written to his federal counterpart again to encourage her to sit down to negotiate with Ontario how we may be able to avoid duplicating processes and how we may have a single approach between the provincial and federal government on the environmental regulation side so that it is very clear to all companies that want to invest in the province what this single process is they have to go through and what the cost will be. We hope to get a positive response from her on that.

Finally, on Clearing the Path, I'm really excited about this because I think that it will send a very clear signal to small businesses in the province etc that the government is interested in dealing with the duplication on forms, permits and licences that they have to go through in order to deal with having their business develop in this province.

I can tell you that we do, as a ministry, run six self-help centres in northern Ontario. Those are managed by economic development organizations in six different communities, and we fund them. A number of those self-help centres have applied to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade to have a pilot project for Clearing the Path located in their office, and we are waiting to hear from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade as to which ones will be able to get that. I think, because the offices are already established and deal with clients and small business, this will be really helpful to them in order to try and have forms filled out and payments made at a single centre but in a number of communities in northern Ontario.

Mr Miclash: Madam Minister, in terms of legal action that could take place against your ministry, what is your policy in terms of fines that may come upon your ministry, being that you're charged and are requested to pay a fine?

Hon Ms Martel: Mr Miclash, I don't think that I'm here to deal in any kind of speculation with respect to any fines that may be levied against this ministry or any type of action, and so I'm really not in a position to answer your question any further.

Mr Miclash: Generally speaking, Minister, is there, within the estimates, money set aside for legal activities, for legal actions against the ministry?

Hon Ms Martel: Mr Miclash, I'm not aware of what funds, if any, would be set aside if there were any legal action of any sort undertaken against the ministry. We could certainly undertake to get back to you with that information as to whether there is some pool set aside; there is not to my knowledge, but I can certainly get some answer back to you.

Mr Miclash: How about the Premier's office? Would the Premier's office have a budget for such things?

Hon Ms Martel: I think that you'd have to talk to the Premier's office about that. I don't know what their budgets are, what their line items are.

Mr Miclash: At this time I would like to call Stewart Kiff, the chief of staff for the minister.

The Chair: Could you please come forward, Mr Kiff. Thank you. Mr Kiff, would you just introduce yourself for the purposes of Hansard, please.

1130

Mr Stewart Kiff: Stewart Kiff, acting chief of staff to Shelley Martel.

Mr Miclash: Mr Kiff, I'm interested in the process of how you prepare for estimates. Are you involved in that process?

Mr Kiff: Yes, I am.

Mr Miclash: During your estimates, how was it decided that my questions regarding the letter that I was sent in May 1993 would not be answered?

Mr Kiff: Mr Miclash, as my minister has discussed at length already, as she has given the explanations, I too think it is inappropriate to discuss matters that have come before the privacy commissioner. In addition, I think it is inappropriate for me to discuss the advice I've given to my minister here in this forum. If she wants to discuss that, I think you should ask her those questions directly. I think it's inappropriate that I'm being asked these questions.

Mr Miclash: As chief of staff and as a person who I understand makes in the neighbourhood of between $60,000 and $84,000 a year, I feel you do have an obligation to this committee as the chief of staff for this ministry, as someone who is responsible to the public.

Mr Kiff: Mr Miclash, I'm not an elected official. I work for a person who is an elected official, who is a spokesperson for the ministry. I give her my best advice at all times, and I ask that you direct those questions to her.

Mr Miclash: Maybe I can go on to some other questions that you may feel would be appropriately directed to yourself. In terms of personal information relating to financial transactions of individuals, how is that information protected within your ministry?

Mr Kiff: I don't understand, sir.

Mr Miclash: As we know, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act clearly states that any financial information or transactions of a personal nature must be protected. We know that the Mining Act, for example, requires that detailed records regarding individuals who pay the mining land tax must be protected. What I'm asking you is, how is that information within your ministry protected?

Mr Kiff: I don't directly deal with mining land tax issues. I think those questions are better directed to the minister or other people in the ministry. Frankly, sorry about the pun, I think we're going down lines which are inappropriate for me to discuss, and one of those reasons, I might stress, Mr Miclash, is a personal professional reason. I think the best spokesperson for the activities in the office of Shelley Martel is Shelley Martel herself.

Mr Miclash: Again, I go back to you. Being chief of staff, do you not feel it is your responsibility to ensure that any information that should be protected is outlined? Again, I go back to detailed records regarding individuals. Do you not feel that's part of your responsibility, to ensure that information is protected, and protected in the proper way?

Mr Kiff: Mr Miclash, I've sworn an oath to the crown to do my best in regard to all acts of the Legislature and to perform as best as I possibly can. I think that's the best answer for that. All I can do right now is give you a personal assurance that this is very important to me personally and I take my job very seriously.

Mr Miclash: In taking your job seriously, do you feel it is very important that the information I'm talking about, such as the detailed records regarding individuals who pay mining land tax, is kept private?

Mr Kiff: I don't think it's appropriate for me to be discussing issues which have come before the privacy commissioner.

The Chair: Could I please clarify again for the record, Mr Kiff -- I'm sure you were in the room -- the matter is no longer before the privacy commissioner. The report is now public. If this hearing occurred last week, it would have been the opinion of the Chair that matters could not be raised before the committee, in accordance with the standing order. So I want to assure you that this committee has asked you forward to respond to questions which are within the purview of the committee to ask. You're aware of that?

Mr Kiff: I understand that and I respect that, Mr Jackson. However, I'm trying to outline that this is my personal opinion, that I don't think this is appropriate, and I don't think for me, personally, this is an appropriate forum for an appraisal of my activities working for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

The Chair: Well, I'm here to assure you that it is, and your willingness to cooperate is another matter. Mr Miclash.

Mr Elston: Mr Jackson, if I might. Mr Kiff, you are the acting chief of staff?

Mr Kiff: Yes.

Mr Elston: You are the chief administrative part of the political operation in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, is that fair?

Mr Kiff: Actually, I'm not the office manager. We have an office manager.

Mr Elston: No, but you're in charge of the budget and all the activities around the office of the minister, is that right?

Mr Kiff: I don't think that's exactly correct. I don't want to get technical.

Mr Elston: What do you do?

Mr Kiff: I do have final signing authority, if that's what you're asking.

Mr Elston: Yes, signing off expenses that are associated with the operation of the office is in your activity description. So there are budgetary allocations for your operation, is that right?

Mr Kiff: Yes.

Mr Elston: You make decisions, presumably with the minister, as to how you allocate resources, is that right?

Mr Kiff: Yes.

Mr Elston: What was your involvement with people outside your ministry when you discovered that there was a problem with this particular issue? Did you contact the Premier's office?

Mr Kiff: I don't want to appear disrespectful to the Legislature, and I don't want to continually get into going over what I feel is a very fundamental --

Mr Elston: But --

Mr Kiff: If I could just continue, Mr Elston -- question here, that it's not appropriate, personally for me, to be responding to these questions. However, I understand that you feel you have good questions and you want to put them to me. I think, though, the appropriate person for you to put your questions to, if anybody, would be the minister.

The Chair: Mr Kiff, you'll confine your responses to the member and the questions. I want to remind you that your minister put your name on the list of staff who are available to this committee today to respond to questions. Are you aware of that, and have you seen this document?

Mr Kiff: I can't see that document from here.

The Chair: It was given to us by the deputy minister, on behalf of the minister, and your name is on it. You are here before us appropriately and with the full compliance and support of your minister. I'd ask you to confine your responses to the questions and not to your opinion of your level of cooperation before the committee.

Mr Kiff: Certainly.

Mr Elston: I think it's clear that some resources have been allocated to dealing with this particular issue. How many people under your charge have been allocated to deal with this issue from time to time? How many hours have you spent in preparation for the estimates in dealing with this particular part?

Mr Kiff: In dealing with the estimates?

Mr Elston: Yes, and this particular issue in the estimates.

Mr Kiff: I think they're separate issues. Do you want two answers?

Mr Elston: No, they're not separate issues. Did you spend any time counselling -- I'm not asking for what advice -- both your political staff and going over this with the ministry officials as to how you would respond?

Mr Kiff: To the estimates?

Mr Elston: Not just to the estimates but particularly to the issue of the letter that Mr Miclash has been speaking about.

Mr Kiff: I've been working quite hard on the estimates issue for the last two weeks.

Mr Elston: And on the letter issue?

Mr Kiff: On the letter issue, I feel, personally, that it is inappropriate for me to be answering questions on that.

Mr Elston: Has the Premier's office provided any advice to you as chief of staff on the letter issue? That wasn't in front of the freedom of information commissioner, I know, so it seems that you haven't got that excuse to run on that one.

Mr Kiff: I'm not using that excuse.

1140

Mr Elston: Okay. You're not going to answer, though, are you? Can I ask you what you have done with your staff members, and could I receive a copy of the written document that you are circulating, or I hope you have circulated, with respect to keeping privacy among the political staff in your office and the people under your charge?

Mr Kiff: Prior to becoming the chief of staff of Shelley Martel, I was the legislative assistant, and I've worked very hard on freedom of information issues, and we have had a number of briefings on freedom of information issues. That is an important part of being a staff member in a minister's office.

Mr Elston: Did it work in the case of the letter of May that Mr Miclash has raised? Did all those efforts pay off? Did it break down?

Mr Kiff: Again, I think I have to return to that answer there, since you're into a topic which I think I'm making it clear that I don't --

Mr Elston: I'm just asking if your systems, which you have worked so hard to establish, to protect the privacy of individuals worked in the political office in the case of the Ficner letter. Did it or didn't it? If it didn't work, what are you going to do about it? Really, that was my first question: What are you doing about the problems that you've created -- sorry, that have been created? I don't want to point fingers. You may believe that in fact every system worked exactly as you intended it. Do they work?

Mr Kiff: Mr Elston, I must return to my answer --

Mr Elston: Are you going to make any changes to the system with respect to review of the nature of the protection of privacy?

Mr Kiff: If I can complete my answer, Mr Elston, I must return to my original point, that personally I think this is an inappropriate --

Mr Elston: Well, okay, don't bother completing that. You've given us that answer so many times.

Mr Kiff: Well, no, I think I have a right to answer my questions.

The Chair: Mr Kiff, I've ruled on that already. This committee is not interested in your opinion. You can give a straight answer, you can refuse to answer the question, but it is quite uncustomary for a senior civil servant in this province to say that in your opinion you don't think a question is warranted when the Chair has ruled that it is.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): He's not a civil servant.

Mr Martin: On a point of order, Mr Chair: As a member of this committee, I personally think Mr Kiff's doing quite well and --

The Chair: That's not a point of order, Mr Martin.

Interjections.

The Chair: Mr Elston has the floor.

Mr Elston: How much more time is there left here, do you know?

The Chair: You have seven minutes remaining. I did interrupt Mr Kiff. It was Mr Kiff I was interjecting on and advising him that if he wishes not to answer, state that, but we've heard four times now your opinion. The committee does not need to have that repeated. Mr Kiff, have you finished your response? Then Mr Elston would like the floor back.

Mr Kiff: I don't want to be rude here, but I think I have a right to say my answers the way I think I should. I think I have that right.

Mr Elston: That's fair. I wish to go on. I think, in fairness, it's not worth pursuing that. Could I ask a question of the minister?

Yesterday we had the person who is listed as your director of legal services. It is my understanding that although he may still be your director, he is no longer associated, or at least physically at your ministry; that he has been moved to another ministry. Is that true?

Hon Ms Martel: Yes, that is correct. That process was under way as a result of a large reorganization that was occurring within the Ministry of the Attorney General with respect to legal staff.

Mr Elston: But he left just prior to this whole event becoming highly public, is that true?

Hon Ms Martel: The reorganization that the AG's staff was undertaking had gone on some time even before this issue was put to the privacy commissioner, so in no way, shape or form do I want this committee to be left with the impression that this was a consequence of his move.

Mr Elston: No, my question is, though, that I understood yesterday when I spoke with Mr Stepinac that he was the director and that he would be in charge of implementing the new systems to protect privacy, and I wasn't given any inkling that he had been reorganized to another ministry. I guess if I'd known that I probably would have said, "So who's going to be responsible for implementing these systems?" So who will be responsible, since Mr Stepinac probably won't be, unless he's going to both act at Ag and Food and at Northern Development? Is that going to be the arrangement?

Hon Ms Martel: It was my understanding that he is in fact going to still be dealing with this issue, because he will still have some links to our ministry. But in order to clarify further, Louise, do you have the answer to this?

Mr Obonsawin: I can answer.

Hon Ms Martel: If I might refer it to the deputy.

The Chair: The deputy can respond, please.

Mr Obonsawin: Basically, I've asked Louise Paquette, who's our ADM of corporate services to take this responsibility on. The minister is very correct when she states that the integration of the reorganization of our legal services with respect to another ministry was on quite some months before this became public. Mr Stepinac has now relocated as the director of legal services to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I did note in his answers yesterday that he did indicate that he had been a director for legal services for this ministry at this time. He did not address the fact that he had relocated.

Mr Elston: I took from what he said that he was going to be in charge of implementing the new systems, and in fact he said, "I'm working." I asked him, "Who are you talking with to implement these things?" It was clear to me that he was going to be implementing it, but he's not going to be there.

Mr Obonsawin: He's very definitely going to be -- we still have not received yet a final replacement for Mr Stepinac from the Ministry of the Attorney General, and so in the interim, in order to ensure consistency and in order to ensure that there is a continuity, I've given the administrative responsibility to the ADM of corporate services. However, I've asked Stephen to help us in the transition period.

Mr Elston: What plans does Ms Paquette have for implementing the protection of privacy requirements, how many staff people have been allocated to that task and what work have you done to this point? We've been working with this since at least August 11.

The Chair: Ms Paquette, you've already been introduced for Hansard. Please proceed.

Ms Paquette: Mr Elston, the first thing that we have done, obviously, is identify a new ministry FOI coordinator who is being trained, actually today, through Management Board secretariat.

Mr Elston: That person is who?

Ms Paquette: This person will be Ken Shaw, who is presently our director of communications; he will assume that responsibility. I've been in touch with Mr Shaw, as well as Mr Stepinac and the deputy, and discussed what we will do within the ministry. As has been indicated, a program of continuing education is presently being developed to ensure that all areas of the legislation are being addressed. We will certainly, within the next six months, ensure that all staff continue to receive information on the FOI act.

Mr Elston: Mr Chairman, at this time, I wish to move the following motion:

That since the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has failed to take responsibility for her action and has refused to account to the people of Ontario at these estimates; and

Since as a result the minister cannot be trusted to act in the public interest and in a manner that protects the privacy of her ministry's clients; and

Since the north needs a minister free of the cloud of controversy that now hangs over the current minister;

This committee therefore lacks the confidence in the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and that the estimates not be reported.

I ask that we deal with that motion at this point.

The Chair: Mr Elston, it's the Chair's ruling that this motion is out of order since we have a motion on the floor, which is to proceed with the vote of the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

Mr Elston: There are currently no motions for votes at this point.

The Chair: That is the ruling of the Chair and that is my understanding of the standing orders.

Mr Elston: I accept that, but I wanted to make it clear that at this stage, and I know there will be a motion that asks for the estimates to be reported, the Liberal caucus, and I suspect others, will vote against them being reported, not because of the issue of money being allocated through the bureaucracy, but because we don't have confidence in the political operation that is in charge of the ministry at this point.

We have seen a tremendous amount of activity in areas that have been positive for the ministry. We think the estimates in some places are deficient, we think the activity around the political operation of this whole organization is deficient and we want to make it extremely clear, and this was I guess my best shot at underscoring, how concerned we are about people from the political side who just refuse to be accountable in the people's forum.

I wanted to make it clear that there is no confidence in the leadership that has now been here for a day and a half, as indicated on this floor, basically stopping us from examining how this event happened. We can't even examine whether or not there are other difficulties arising as a result of the types of information that are from time to time released. From my standpoint, Mr Chair, I'm discouraged by the unwillingness not only of the minister but also of the balance of the political staff in their view that the people of the province have no right to know what they're doing. I think that's a shameful comment on the operation of this government.

1150

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'm unfortunately just coming in at this late moment, so I apologize if some of the questions have already been asked, but I'm just trying to get a feeling for the procedure of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Certainly, in my former capacity as mayor, I did have the opportunity, as one would expect, to have people approach me with issues on which they disagreed with me, and perhaps disagreed rather forcefully, with positions that I had taken or policies that I was putting forward, that sort of thing.

Mr Elston: Nobody disagrees with you now.

Mr David Johnson: Everybody agrees with me now. Thank you, Mr Member.

Of course, in a situation like this one has to deal with the situation. I'm trying to get a feeling for the approach of your ministry and that you, as the minister, have laid out or perhaps the leadership that you provide in your ministry in terms of dealing with people who may not agree with your particular situation. Is it common, for example, or is it the policy of your ministry, when somebody disagrees with the ministry's position, to contact members of the provincial Parliament and to notify them of the situation in general? Let's just leave it at that as the first part of the question.

Hon Ms Martel: It's the policy of the ministry at all levels to deal with all of our clients in a way that reflects fairness, reasonableness and compliance with any and all of the acts that the ministry needs to abide by and that I need to abide by as an MPP. To the best of our ability, we undertake that in any of the contacts we have with any of our clients, either in northern Ontario or on the mines side, whether in writing or with verbal communication. That is the policy of how the ministry operates in dealing with all of our clients.

Yesterday, in terms of questions with respect to inquiries etc, I also made it clear that this is the same method and the same approach we undertake with respect to any inquiries we receive from folks for information.

Mr David Johnson: Let me be a little more specific then. In a case where a member of the public disagrees with a policy or disagrees with an action of the ministry, would it be the practice to contact, in an unsolicited fashion, members of this Legislature to inform them of the disagreement that an individual has with a policy of the ministry?

Hon Ms Martel: I think there are two separate issues, but they're the same as that I've tried to respond to. With respect to what is the policy of the ministry in dealing with all of our clients and with respect to all of the issues they bring before us, as I said, we attempt to deal with them through all levels of the bureaucracy and the political staff in a way that is fair and that is reasonable and that keeps us in compliance with any and all of the acts we have to deal with.

If, in a general way, we receive requests for information from people with respect to issues that have been raised or that are being raised, whether from MPPs, from our constituents etc, we also attempt to deal with those in the same way and we do attempt to respond to requests for information. I feel that it is the responsibility of myself and my ministry to respond to those requests, be they from MPPs, be they from other clients, and we try to do that, again, within the spirit and the compliance of all the acts that we live under.

Mr David Johnson: Again, if a member of the general public does not agree with the policy that your ministry has pursued, do you feel that there's some obligation on the ministry to try to rally support for that policy in general by contacting members of provincial Parliament and providing information to them unsolicited? I'm talking in the case where members have not requested such information. Do you feel that it's necessary to contact those members and try to get them on side, in a sense, against the position of the property owner or the resident of the province of Ontario who disagrees with the policy that your ministry is putting forward?

Hon Ms Martel: Let me try again: I that I've tried to make clear what our policy is, which is that we deal with our clients and their concerns in a fair, reasonable and equitable way. That is the approach that all of us try to take when we are dealing with our clients, regardless of the issue that is before us and regardless of whether they are clients on the northern development side or on the mines side, the approach that we consistently try and take, and within that approach to be sure that any contact with them or anyone involved in the issue is in a manner that is in compliance with all of the acts.

Mr David Johnson: You may not respond -- I have a suspicion you won't -- but in the particular case that's obviously being discussed today, Mr Ficner, was there a request from a member of the provincial Parliament to obtain information on that particular issue?

Hon Ms Martel: Before you got here, Mr Johnson, I'd been dealing with this issue. I'll repeat again what I have said with respect to the particular issue that you are raising with me at this point: You will recognize that a complaint was registered against the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines with respect to the particular issue that you want to raise, and during that process of an investigation that was undertaken by a third party our ministry had the opportunity to participate, to present our case, to present our side of the issue, and we did that through that process. Earlier this week, the third party responded and released an official report with respect to that investigation. In it there has been a recommendation that this ministry will undertake to abide by. We have certainly given every assurance to the commissioner and we have had action that has been undertaken already in response to the draft recommendation. We will ensure that all of the ministry staff who deal with disclosure of any information do that in compliance with the act.

That is where we are with respect to the issue, and I do believe that I personally will not use this forum myself to either attempt to review the facts of the case, the ministry's position with respect to the case or any of the items that I think were carefully and clearly dealt with in the commission's report.

Mr David Johnson: Can I ask you, then, a hypothetical question, in general, in terms of the approach of the ministry? If one of my constituents in Don Mills felt that a tax, let's say, the mining rights tax -- that would be appropriate in the riding of Don Mills -- if they felt that this particular tax was inappropriately levied, that the tax had gone up a great deal over the last few years and that this was an abuse of the government, and they complained to your ministry directly about this and they were rather persistent, one of my residents in Don Mills was rather persistent in opposition to the way this tax was being handled, would you, in dealing with this individual, as part of the approach of your ministry, would you contact me to indicate that one of my residents had expressed opposition or would you contact any other member of the Legislature to outline that fact?

Hon Ms Martel: It would all depend, I suspect, on who was involved and who had been asked to make the approach to our office. If you were --

Mr David Johnson: Sorry. In some cases you've indicated that you would contact certain members, perhaps myself or perhaps critics, I would gather from your response. What sort of --

Hon Ms Martel: Sorry; if I might, Mr Johnson, let me clarify: I understood you to say that you were contacting us on behalf of your constituents, or it's one of your constituents?

1200

Mr David Johnson: The case I've outlined is that one of my constituents has approached you directly, your ministry directly, and has said: "I do not agree with this tax. This tax is an abuse of the system in the province of Ontario." They've approached your ministry directly. Would you, as the natural course, contact either myself or one of the critics or all of the critics to outline that such an individual had indeed approached your ministry about this tax?

Hon Ms Martel: It would depend on if there were other contacts made, representations on behalf of the constituent.

Mr David Johnson: So in some cases you're saying you would. If you would, what sort of content would you convey to me as the member or what sort of content would you convey to the critics in the course of these communications?

Hon Ms Martel: Of course that would depend on the issue that is at hand. Clearly though, regardless of the issue -- and it is the general operating policy of the ministry -- we would do everything within our power to ensure that the content and the information that was released was released in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and any other act that the ministry abides by. All of the information that we release is done in accordance with those acts.

Mr David Johnson: Who would make the decision that all of this information that would be released to me or the critics would be in conformity? Would it be yourself? Would it be the chief of staff? Who would normally, in such a situation, be the person who would be responsible to ensure compliance?

Hon Ms Martel: Let me respond in general terms: When any of the staff at any level are dealing with our clients and issues that may for any reason whatsoever give them a sense that they may be matters of personal disclosure, all of them certainly know that they should have, and have, available to them the services of the legal staff and the services of the freedom of information coordinator. It is their responsibility as members who are dealing with the clients, any clients who are looking for information, to do that and do that in accordance with the FOI coordinator. It is then up to the FOI coordinator, who obviously would have an understanding of the act, to provide advice to the staff as to what information could be dealt with and how it should be dealt with in accordance and in compliance.

Mr David Johnson: Has there been any formal training within your staff or any formal approach with the privacy commission in terms of ensuring that the staff are (a) aware of the guidelines and (b) has that procedure changed over the last short period of time?

Hon Ms Martel: The staff within the ministry can receive training and do receive training. I understand that it's administered through the freedom of information branch at Management Board services. They provide training sessions, information, advice etc, not only to our ministry staff but to the staffs of all of the ministries with respect to these issues.

Mr David Johnson: Has that procedure changed recently? Has the level or the frequency of training changed in any regard?

Hon Ms Martel: I don't have that answer either. We would have to contact the ministry directly to see if there's been a change. I'm not sure if any of my staff do know. They've been dealing with them most recently to determine how to take an approach to this case. It is not my understanding as to when they change their policies and if they've been changed recently. I think you'd have to talk to them about that directly.

Mr Carr: I'll ask a question now.

The Chair: You have about three minutes left, Mr Carr.

Mr Carr: A couple of minutes ago, you said that in dealing with all your clients you try to be fair, reasonable and equitable, to quote you directly. What happened in this case is that a cabinet office used the full weight of the crown and the cabinet office against an individual. I don't believe that's fair, I don't believe that's reasonable and I don't believe that's equitable. Do you as a minister, and you've said that you clearly want to deal with all clients in that way, believe that on this issue you have dealt with them in a fair, reasonable and equitable way, as you quote that you would like to?

Hon Ms Martel: I think that I have explained that during the course of the estimates process, Mr Carr. I will explain again here for you: This specific issue that you are wanting to raise with me was one that was referred to the privacy commissioner by the complainant for a review of MNDM practices in this regard. The commission, to its credit, undertook a very long investigation and, I believe, a thorough one. We were invited as a ministry to participate in it and we did.

The commission has most recently, this week, come down with an official report which outlines the case and its review of it. In that report, very clearly they have made a single recommendation to us, which is to be very clear that all of the staff understand that in the disclosure of information that disclosure must be in compliance with all acts. We as a ministry accept that recommendation.

Further, we want to be very clear that, in responding to the commission and to the public, we do undertake any other steps that may be necessary to make sure that we are in compliance.

That is the reason why three weeks ago, when I saw the draft recommendation, I asked the deputy to undertake to look at what might be necessary to deal with this matter further. That is why the ADM has been talking to Management Board secretariat and the freedom of information branch there to determine what training assistance is available and who should have it in the ministry. What we intend to do is respond to the commission within the six-month period, outlining all the steps and activities we've undertaken in this regard.

Mr Carr: We are not going to get the decision changed on this with yourself or the Premier, but I would like to ask, because I have one last, final question, will you assure the people of this province and the members of this committee that situations like this will never ever happen again in your ministry?

Hon Ms Martel: Mr Carr, I do believe, and I have said this clearly, that we take the recommendation made by the privacy commissioner very seriously. I have stated very publicly and very clearly to the commission that we will do whatever we can and take whatever steps are necessary to comply. That is why we have started to undertake the work we have. We will, within the six-month period that has been outlined to us, make very clear to the commission all of the actions, all of the steps we have taken to ensure that all of our staff who deal with public information and its disclosure do so in compliance with this act and all others that we operate under.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. This completes the time we've had allocated to us for the 1994-95 estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and it is the Chair's intention to move through the votes at this time.

Shall vote 2401 be approved? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.

Shall vote 2402 be approved? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall vote 2403 be approved? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.

Shall the 1994-95 estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines be approved? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.

Shall the 1994-95 estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines be reported to the House? All those in favour? Opposed? That's carried.

This meeting stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1208.