CONTENTS
Tuesday 26 August 1997
Ministry of Natural Resources
Hon Chris Hodgson, minister
Mr Ron Vrancart, deputy minister
Mr Cameron Clark, assistant deputy minister, field services division
Dr David Balsillie, assistant deputy minister, science and information resources
Ms Gail Beggs, assistant deputy minister, natural resources management division
Ms Patricia Malcomson, assistant deputy minister, corporate services division
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
Chair / Président
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)
Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick PC)
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt L)
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Rosemarie Singh
Staff / Personnel
Ms Alison Drummond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1537 in committee room 2.
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The Vice-Chair (Mr Rick Bartolucci): I'd like to call the meeting to order and thank everyone for showing up on time. Thank you, Minister. Again, just to introduce the legislative staff to you, there is Rosemarie Singh, who is the committee clerk; Alison Drummond, who is the research officer; and Maureen Murphy from Hansard. We welcome them and thank them for their efforts.
We are now with the third party and Ms Martel has two more minutes to address the committee and ask questions.
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Minister, I'd like to know whether the deputy has the discretion to pursue or to drop the charges which have been raised by conservation officers against the member for Lanark-Renfrew.
Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I'm sorry. I didn't catch the question.
Ms Martel: Does the deputy have the discretion to pursue or drop the charges which have been laid against the member for Lanark-Renfrew?
Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll let you answer that, Ron.
Mr Ron Vrancart: Now that the charges have been laid, it's our intent to pursue.
Ms Martel: So you don't feel that the memo that's gone out under your signature on behalf of the minister which calls for non-enforcement after 30 days will impact on that court case at all.
Mr Vrancart: No, I do not.
Ms Martel: And so you will continue to pursue those two charges despite any other action that the ministry is taking around the federal Fisheries Act and enforcement of the act itself.
Mr Vrancart: That's correct, and any other charges that may be outstanding, that are in the courts or before the courts or have been laid. We've given notice that in 30 days from the time that we posted it, we'll be out of that business.
Ms Martel: Do you think the decision not to enforce the federal Fisheries Act is going to have an impact on the legal proceedings, ie will the court throw the charges out, arguing that the ministry doesn't think the act important enough to enforce any more?
Mr Vrancart: I'm not a lawyer. Maybe we can get a lawyer up to give an opinion on that.
Chair, if we could just wait for a lawyer. Shelley, just give us a second.
Ms Martel: If I might, Minister, the reason I'm asking the question is my concern --
Hon Mr Hodgson: We don't seem to have a lawyer with us right now, but we can get a lawyer to answer that question.
Ms Martel: Maybe we can leave the question with you. My concern is that the crown's case will be weakened because of the decision now not to enforce the federal Fisheries Act. I'd be interested in the view of your legal staff around your case now with respect to those violations and non-enforcement of the federal Fisheries Act.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Martel. Could we have an answer to that tomorrow?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes, we can bring an answer in. Sure.
The Vice-Chair: Now the government side or the minister has 20 minutes for right of reply. You remember that last week we used 10 minutes; the minister continued and used 10 minutes. So we'll turn it over to the minister. You have 20 minutes.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I'd just like to open it up to questions from the government side, if that's okay, for the 20 minutes. That seems to be the precedent set by the two other parties.
The Vice-Chair: Anyone from the government side wanting to ask a question?
Interjection.
The Vice-Chair: Because it is a right of reply, we'll need agreement from all three parties that in fact he'll use that 20 minutes for questions. Agreed? Agreed.
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): I have a question that concerns me with the growing, I think we'll call it, nuisance of the Canada geese that seem to proliferate. They seem to be a protected species. Then along the same line, what are we doing to help farmers with the deer population, which has expanded to such an extent that it's also causing damage?
Hon Mr Hodgson: It's a good question. As you know, Canada geese are under the federal migratory bird act, so that's a federal jurisdiction. But as to the deer problem, or the nuisance deer problem, as it's sometimes referred to, in early 1997 an internal MNR task force was formed to review the strengths and weaknesses of a controlled deer hunt program and to make recommendations to provide better control over deer populations in areas where agricultural damage was a major concern.
As a result of that report, we recently announced a new approach to the controlled deer hunt that is more responsive to deer populations in agricultural areas. This new approach will increase hunting opportunities. It should look after this problem of deer damaging agricultural crops and also make sure the deer populations are sustainable and not subject to starvation when they get to large numbers.
Mr Sheehan: Are you going to permit hunting of antlerless deer?
Hon Mr Hodgson: It's more for hunting opportunities around all deer, not just the antlerless. A recent review has developed recommendations that have been passed into law and will be in effect for the 1997 hunting season that will increase hunting opportunities by introducing longer hunting seasons and allowing hunters in some areas to take more than one deer. This is just in areas that have been identified, primarily in southern Ontario, around agricultural areas. More specifically, the expanded archery season will open October 1 instead of October 15 in many controlled deer hunt wildlife management units.
Shotgun and muzzle-loader hunts will now run from Monday through Saturday in many areas. In addition, multiple game seals will permit hunters to take more than one deer in a few wildlife management units. So there are more opportunities and a little longer season for the archery and hunting, a little longer season with the muzzle-loader.
Mr Sheehan: You'll be continuing to monitor the population so you can adjust these terms?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Exactly. It's based on the inventories that we take to make sure that deer populations are managed in a sustainable manner, but also recognizing that we don't want an overpopulation that runs the risk of disease. Overpopulation can ultimately result in starvation or just nuisance deer that interfere with agricultural crops to a large extent.
Mr Sheehan: What is the attitude of the ministry on the subject of scouting out moose by aeroplane? I understand that's a new twist that people have put on the game.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm sorry?
Mr Sheehan: They're actually scouting to find out where the moose are, flying over them, and then they drop the hunters, kind of loading the game against the moose.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): We don't hunt that way.
Hon Mr Hodgson: We've increased the aerial surveys to determine the population of moose and to make sure we have up-to-date data in order to set quotas that can be managed in a sustainable fashion, but it's illegal to hunt by helicopter or aeroplane.
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Minister, we've read stories in the paper about reduced numbers of conservation officers. I wonder if you could give us an update on this, exactly what the facts are on that particular matter and what the numbers are.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes, it's been disturbing to see some accounts in the media around that. The number of badges prior to our government taking office was 281 conservation badges and is today 281. There has been some shifts in where they're located throughout the province, based on demand. Also, the conservation officers association recently met with me and they thanked me for living up to that commitment. They're pleased with the way the program's been changed.
We've allowed for more special units to coordinate provincial enforcement, to make sure that Ontario doesn't become a place where illegal poaching operations can be based. The nature of the crime has become more sophisticated in recent years and we had to adapt to that by getting more specialized units having a province-wide perspective on enforcement. But the number of enforcement badges has not decreased.
We've kept the funding up and we've done a number of improvements around identity packages for the trucks, replacing new trucks, giving better radio equipment, high-tech tools that can be used for better enforcement in the province.
We've also expanded the flying field program. This is where we use aeroplanes to catch poachers that are hiding on the ground or catching animals in an illegal fashion or in illegal quotas.
So there's been some huge improvements around enforcement and that's been recognized by the outdoors community, as well as by the conservation officers association.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Doyle. Ed.
Mr Doyle: Sorry, I thought somebody else was going to ask a question here. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the ministry is doing to ensure that there are enough funds for parks, for wildlife and forest management.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Enough funds?
Mr Doyle: Funding, I guess.
Hon Mr Hodgson: There's been a couple of improvements that's significantly improved the way we manage our park system and manage lands and forests on it.
First of all, the parks, I'll deal with that. We've created a special purchase account so that every time you go to visit a park or pay the fee to get into a park or buy things inside the park, that money stays within the park system as a whole. That improves the accountability of the whole park system.
It means that managers are accountable for not just the spending but for the revenue collected as well. We want to encourage excellence in our staff personnel. In the old days -- I'll give you an example of sort of an unwritten rule -- managers were held accountable for the spending of a budget. In the parks system, one of the only ways you can overspend is if people come to the park. They might break equipment or use more supplies and you run the risk of maybe overspending. So there's sort of an unwritten rule that if you want to be a good manager and not get in trouble, don't overspend, and to make sure that would be easily achieved, don't encourage the people to come to your park. And so you saw a decrease in the advertising. It was an unwritten rule, but you wait till about February and blow your budget so that you get it back next year.
What a special purpose account does is it allows for long-term planning where you can roll the money over, with interest. You can encourage managers to be entrepreneurial or look at the best way to manage the whole park, ask customers how you can improve the service so they will have repeat visits, how to maximize the usage of our parks. As a result, we want to open more parks in this province. We created seven new parks last year. We think the days of closing parks was wrong, that there's a better way to achieve our goals, that parks are supported by a vast majority of the public that see them as part of our lifestyle in Ontario and something we want to pass on to future generations. With our new Ontario parks model, I think we're leading the way for park management around the world. We've had a lot of interest expressed from other provinces and other jurisdictions.
1550
Around how we manage our forests, and specifically around dollars, there are a number of trust accounts that were set up, and credit for that should be given to the past government. The NDP put into place a number of trust accounts where the money goes directly -- in some cases directly, in some cases indirectly through third parties -- into trust accounts to be used to replace the forests for future generations. That has to be done according to sustainable standards that have been developed. Now there's a huge improvement of forest management in this province.
Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington): Under the managed forest tax incentive program, I know the ministry has encouraged the stewardship of private lands. However, I'm told recently by constituents that they're having great difficulty in getting seedlings for reforestation of these private lands. They've been encouraged to perhaps plant poplar. That of course is not satisfactory. Has the minister heard of this before? Is he aware of perhaps a shortage of saplings or seedlings for reforestation on private lands?
Hon Mr Hodgson: No, I'm not aware of that.
Mr Vankoughnet: It's good for beavers, but --
Hon Mr Hodgson: Poplar, in our country, grows like a weed, and it does in northern Ontario as well. I'm not sure why you'd have to go out and spend a lot of money to regenerate poplar.
The managed forest tax rebate system was brought in. If you remember, the old program was a rebate and the NDP cancelled that. I don't know the reasons why. I guess it was because it's private lands. We reintroduced that and in 1998 it becomes a permanent part of the property class system. That should allow private land owners to afford to own their land and to pay the 28 cents a seedling from one of the nurseries in the province.
The private sector is developing a capability to grow seedlings and we think that will get better as years go on, now that private land owners have the tax system that makes it affordable to keep land with trees on it.
Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): Minister, when you say we've opened up seven new parks, I wonder about the number of forest fires, how the number compares this year with last year, and what you're doing to protect people who live in threatened areas, as well as protecting forests. Do you have any other plans than the ministry has always had?
Hon Mr Hodgson: There are two questions there. Basically, I'll deal with the latter question on the priority of fire protection. There is a well-established priority that human life comes first and then there's a ranking of priorities, from buildings and houses down to forests, and forests are divided up into valuable timber and not-so-valuable timber. The first priority is human safety and human life protection.
The first part of your question dealt with the history of firefighting, how many fires were started and fought this year.
Ms Bassett: Yes, the numbers this year compared to last year. The only reason it might be relevant is that it might be a drier year this year, but then when you've added seven new parks, I wondered if there were more people in the area.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Ontario dealt with a high fire load in June and a difficult fire load in early August this year. By the end of June, Ontario dealt with over 727 fires. Some 202 of these fires occurred over a 10-day period between June 5 and June 15. The fire hazard was high over the entire intensively protected fire zone and the majority of the fire starts were in northeastern Ontario.
Several problem fires escaped simultaneously in Cochrane and the Timmins area, and these fires tied up a large number of firefighting resources -- firefighters, water bombers, helicopters and support staff. These fires were in close proximity to cottages, homes, recreational sites and high-value timber. To respond to the threat, we successfully fought -- about $25 million was committed against the emergency firefighting funds.
July was relatively quiet this year. In August, Ontario dealt with 1,470 fires up to August 26.
How that compares to last year -- I just have to get a comparison. We track this stuff every year and it goes back a number of years. Does somebody want to come up and give the comparison? I know we did it.
Ms Bassett: Minister, I can get it later. I'm not in a rush. It just seemed --
Hon Mr Hodgson: No, it's okay; we've got it right here. We'll do it.
The Vice-Chair: Could you identify yourself for Hansard, please.
Mr Cameron Clark: Yes, my name is Cameron Clark and I'm the ADM, field services, in the Ministry of Natural Resources.
I just need a second here to locate the exact figures for you. Just to put this thing in context, this year we had a significant number of fires but they were relatively small in acreage. We were very successful in engaging an initial attack and suppressing the fires early on. So while we had a large number of starts, they were relatively small and the total number of acres burned was not that great.
Last year we had fewer fires generally but they were much larger in area. This was largely the result of a different range of fire indices where we had drier conditions, less humidity for longer periods of time and we had funnel systems moving through northwestern Ontario in particular that produced a lot of lightning. As a result of that, we had a situation where we had fewer fires, but when we did get starts they were considerably larger and the spread was greater. So the total area burnt was greater last year.
I'm just trying to see if I can actually find those figures for you.
The Vice-Chair: Cam, while you're finding the information, someone else may want to ask a question.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Minister, I can remember the time when Ontario was known as the rabies capital in North America, if not the world. I understand that incidence of the disease has been much reduced. How low is it? How safe is it now? Should people be concerned if there are foxes living in their backyards or in their vicinity?
Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll ask David Balsillie to come up and answer that question. The rabies program was one of the great success stories in Ontario and I'd like to give a little credit where credit is due, to his department.
Dr David Balsillie: My name is David Balsillie and I'm the assistant deputy minister for science and information resources.
In order to illustrate some of the rabies activities, I might just, if I may, Mr Chairman, ask the members to pass these around to each other. These are --
Mr Doyle: I thought you had a raccoon in there.
Dr Balsillie: No, there's no raccoon. What is being passed around right now is a bait which has been developed by the Ministry of Natural Resources. For fox rabies, the bait is made up of cod-liver oil and chicken fat, so we ask you not to eat them. Inside that is a vaccine which the fox eats and then is protected against rabies.
Mr Chudleigh: How long is the bait good for?
Dr Balsillie: The bait is good, as far as I know, for a season, and we rebait every year. We've been doing this for some time. If I might just go back historically, from 1980 to 1989, there was an average of 471 cases of fox rabies in Ontario, ranging from a low in 1984 of 243 to a high in 1986 of 814. I'm very pleased to report that in January to March of this year, 1997, there were no incidences of fox rabies in Ontario.
The Vice-Chair: The government's time has expired. We move now to 20 minutes with the Liberals. It's 20-minute rotations now.
1600
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I appreciate the chance to talk with the minister. In your response that you handed out today you indicated that -- the issue I'm talking about right now is the Ipperwash issue -- "MNR had indicated on several occasions a willingness to undertake cooperative research and investigations into the possible existence of an aboriginal burial site in Ipperwash Provincial Park." Could you elaborate on that?
Hon Mr Hodgson: There were a number of questions, Gerry, that were asked last week around Ipperwash and today I'm glad to provide you with the answers to the questions you raised in last week's session. They tie in directly with the question you just asked. My staff and I have given careful consideration to your questions and I trust their answers will satisfactorily address your concerns.
I'll proceed by reading each question and then providing a response.
Mr Phillips: I've got that. I asked a question on the response. Could you respond to the question?
Hon Mr Hodgson: I just want to read into the record the questions so the people who are listening to the radio or voice audio of this will understand where I'm coming from. I'll begin with questions concerning the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ipperwash Provincial Park. I'll provide you with answers to those questions; however, I'm not in a position to discuss details related to the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park.
Mr Phillips: I don't mean to interrupt, but we have the answers. We're on to a question now and I wonder if we might get a response to my question. Is that proper, Mr Chair?
Hon Mr Hodgson: I was asked to respond at the committee last week on these questions.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Phillips, I see no problem with the minister responding to your question. At the same time, Mr Brown, if at some point during this you will allow the minister to read those responses that you asked for into the record.
Mr Michael Brown: Is it necessary to be read into the record? Can't we just table them as part of the committee's record?
The Vice-Chair: What we can do, the clerk tells us, is we can mark it as an exhibit and therefore it doesn't have to be read into the record.
Mr Phillips, you had a question.
Mr Phillips: Yes, just on one of the answers, to re-ask the question. The answer was, "MNR had indicated on several occasions a willingness to undertake cooperative research and investigations into the possible existence of an aboriginal burial site in Ipperwash Provincial Park." My question to the minister is, can you elaborate on this? Was this over a one- or two-year period, and can you indicate why there wasn't either a cooperative research or why the ministry itself didn't conduct the research?
Hon Mr Hodgson: There is a history to this that I would have to get back to you to table a specific answer. Mr Phillips, as you can appreciate, the park was purchased a long time ago and over that long history there's been a lot of discussion, a lot of records. We'll have to get back to you on that.
Mr Phillips: Do you have the dates, or does staff have the dates on when those several occasions were?
Mr Vrancart: I'm sure there were many, many occasions when there were discussions between the park staff and the first nation with respect to the burial site. I know for sure that in the early 1970s, around 1972, there was an archaeological study done in Ipperwash park as a part of the park master planning process and at that time -- and admittedly it was a cursory archaeological survey -- there was no evidence of a burial site identified.
The next time that I'm aware of discussions taking place with respect to investigations into a possible burial site was at the time that, I believe in the fall of 1995, there was a memorandum of understanding signed between the first nation and the federal government with respect to the terms and conditions under which Camp Ipperwash would be transferred back to the first nation. In that memorandum of understanding there was an item whereby the federal government agreed to fund an investigation into the possibility of a burial site at Ipperwash park.
When we were made aware of that particular item, we as a ministry agreed to cooperate fully with the federal government and the first nation in undertaking any such investigation. To this point we have not had any request from either the federal government or the first nation to embark on such an investigation.
Mr Phillips: I gather it was from communications from the federal government to the provincial government on the possibility of a burial site there. When did the ministry finally discover that, and how did you discover that?
Mr Vrancart: I believe there was a letter that surfaced in the federal government back in 1937 that was a communication between the deputy minister of Indian Affairs federally and the deputy minister of lands and forests at the time indicating that there was evidence of a burial site in the park and asking that it be protected in the park development.
Mr Phillips: Was that letter in your files?
Mr Vrancart: I think we were subsequently able to go back into the archives and dig that letter up.
Hon Mr Hodgson: And find a response.
Mr Phillips: Pardon me?
Mr Vrancart: And to find a response as well.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Back to the federal government.
Mr Phillips: I'm sorry, what?
Hon Mr Hodgson: And find a response back to the federal government at that time.
Mr Phillips: You didn't find a response?
Hon Mr Hodgson: There was a response. That's what I'm told, but we could get the specifics to you.
Mr Phillips: Is there a reason why you wouldn't have found that communication? I assume, based on your comment, that this issue had been raised several times before the confrontation in September 1995. Is there a reason why the ministry wouldn't have been able to locate that file?
Hon Mr Hodgson: There was an investigation done in the early 1970s. There was a recognition of it. There was also a recognition that a burial site is not a land claim, that they're two separate issues, as you're well aware. Land claims have a separate process and one has never been applied for there; even to date it hasn't been. We've offered in the last year and a half to help with that, with the forms that are required. The burial site itself had an investigation done in the early 1970s and there was correspondence, as Ron mentioned, back in the 1930s between the two ministries. We can get you those letters, if you'd like.
Mr Phillips: Yes, that would be helpful.
Just, I guess, a couple of other questions. The Ministry of Natural Resources -- and this is a little bit technical -- decided to seek an injunction. That was your preferred course of action, but for some reason or other you chose an ex parte injunction as opposed to what the lawyers had told the judge you were going to do.
Just to set the stage, the judge was told on September 6 by government lawyers that you would be in court on September 7 seeking a normal injunction, not an ex parte injunction, and when you arrived in court the judge was surprised it was ex parte. The reason it's important is because that denied the first nations the right to appear at the injunction hearing and to state their case on the burial grounds. It's conjecture, but had they been at the injunction hearing, the first nations may very well have been able to convince the judge that they had legitimate grounds to be in the park, which subsequently, by the way, the government was forced to acknowledge. You had to drop virtually all the charges because the court -- you, the government, determined that they had what's called the colour of right.
So you had the lawyers telling the judge on September 6 it would be a normal injunction, but showing up in court the next day asking for an ex parte injunction. As I say, the judge was quite surprised. Who made that decision to move to an ex parte injunction, when apparently the lawyers were telling the courts the day before it was going to be a normal injunction?
1610
Hon Mr Hodgson: My understanding is you would have to ask the Attorney General those types of questions, the OPP, the Solicitor General or the Attorney General.
Mr Phillips: It does say that it was the Minister of Natural Resources seeking the injunction.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Once the park is occupied, it becomes an Attorney General, Solicitor General and OPP matter, not a matter for our ministry. Once that occurrence happened, we phoned the AG and the Solicitor General, and there is a process that kicks in at that time. They make those decisions.
Mr Phillips: That will be interesting. So the Ministry of Natural Resources had no say in whether it would be a normal injunction or an ex parte injunction?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Not that I'm aware of.
Mr Phillips: The minutes of September 6 also say -- I'm speaking now of the minutes of the emergency planning for aboriginal issues. It was agreed that MNR as the park's owner and steward will continue to be the ministerial spokesperson regarding the occupation, and MNR will develop a communications plan with main messages as follows: "The AG has been instructed to seek an injunction ASAP." So somebody instructed the AG to seek an injunction. Then it goes on to say, "The police have been asked to remove the occupiers from the park." Who actually made that request of the police?
Hon Mr Hodgson: These matters are before the court in most cases. In the other cases, your questions probably should go to the Attorney General. He can probably give you an answer.
Mr Phillips: So even though MNR had responsibility for this.
Hon Mr Hodgson: They had responsibility for the park, but once it becomes a policing issue, it's not a question for the ministry that looks after the parks and the trees.
Mr Phillips: So it wasn't MNR that asked the police to remove the occupiers from the park?
Hon Mr Hodgson: To use an analogy, Gerry, if your house was broken into, you would phone the police; you wouldn't direct the police how to get your house back. Maybe it's not even your house, but you would contact the police and they would do what's within the law. Politicians cannot and should not direct OPP.
Mr Phillips: That's exactly right, so why did they? Who asked them to remove the occupiers? You took away the option to negotiate with them, but they had been asked to remove the occupiers from the park, and the previous minutes say "ASAP." It wasn't that the police had been asked to deal with this matter; they had been asked to remove the occupiers.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Like I pointed out before to you, Mr Phillips, with anything to do with the occupation, we've been told by our lawyers that it's a matter before the courts and we're not in a position to discuss it. I would suggest you talk to the Attorney General, like you have been doing in the House.
Mr Phillips: I realize how difficult this is, but we're having difficulty getting answers on these things and we go wherever we can try and find an answer. From reading the minutes, it looks like -- and this is your direction: "The minister wants to act as quickly as possible." It goes on to say, "Police have been asked to remove the occupiers from the park." Somebody instructed the police to do something, and I'm just trying to find out who instructed them. It wasn't you, I gather, so it has to be one of the other two ministries, I guess. You're saying it was not the Ministry of Natural Resources that asked the police to remove the occupiers.
Hon Mr Hodgson: That's correct. I don't think anybody directed the OPP how to carry out their functions. It certainly wasn't the MNR, and that's your direct question, but it's like these rhetorical questions go around and around. I'm just telling you, from our point of view, we did not direct the OPP, and I'm not implying that anybody else did either.
Mr Phillips: To go back to the injunction, the OPP were surprised when the government chose to seek an ex parte injunction rather than a regular injunction. The commanding officers, as you know, said, "That kind of surprises us, because that's not what we had" -- I'm paraphrasing -- "expected or thought was going to happen."
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): It would put them in a difficult position.
Mr Phillips: It put the judge in a very difficult position. He had been told to expect a regular injunction, and he, in his remarks, was quite surprised to find that the government came to court seeking an ex parte injunction.
The reason I raise this is that perhaps those decisions accelerated the tensions at the park, and I'm trying to find out who made those decisions. Can you tell us who made the decision to seek the ex parte injunction instead of the regular, normal injunction?
Hon Mr Hodgson: I can't tell you who did, Gerry. I don't know. It's beyond my jurisdiction. I can tell you that the Ministry of Natural Resources asked for an injunction. What type of injunction is required is an Attorney General decision; it's not our ministry's decision.
Mr Phillips: Was it clear to you -- I realize my colleagues have other questions in other areas -- when you were briefed about the situation on the 4th and 5th that one of the reasons the first nations said they were in the park was that they believed there was a burial ground there?
Hon Mr Hodgson: What was clear to us at the time was that there had been problems with the military base beside the park, which is the federal government's land. The federal government promised -- this is just my recollection of two years ago -- to work with the first nations and do an environmental cleanup so the military base property site would be safe for people to walk on and enjoy. They were dragging their feet and this had gone on for a long time. The federal Liberals were unwilling to help the first nation with their legitimate claim against the military base, and some people were frustrated with this. That's what I recall back a couple of years ago from my memory.
Mr Phillips: I'm sorry, but I said when you were briefed, were you told that one of the reasons they were there was that they believed there was a burial ground there?
Hon Mr Hodgson: I can't remember that.
Mr Phillips: Why did you think they were there, then?
Hon Mr Hodgson: We were aware of the situation that was going on with the federal government, where the first nation had a problem with the inaction of the federal government around issues on the military base beside the provincial park and that there was a great deal of frustration around that issue. I recall that quite vividly because that had been going on, it was in the news. You are probably more aware of that than me.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Phillips, that exhausts the 20 minutes of Liberal time. We'll move to the third party.
Mr Wildman: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources, which I think those of us from northern Ontario would all agree is -- or should be -- the most important ministry of the government in our part of the province, along with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.
There was a time when people referred to "the ministry" in northern Ontario and everybody knew when you said "the ministry" that meant the Ministry of Natural Resources. In many communities, the ministry was the provincial goernment as far as the people in the community were concerned.
I'm concerned about the current ability of the ministry to meet its obligations, so I'd like to use the time allocated to me to ask about a couple of issues; three, actually.
First, I'd like to follow up on what my colleague has just now been asking about, and that's Ipperwash. I can't think of the official designation of the interministerial committee, but the colloquialism was "the blockade committee," so I'll use that term. I would like to know if this committee continues to be operative and how often it meets with regard to the Ipperwash situation, which is ongoing. This committee involved the Ministry of Natural Resources, as we all know, the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat, the Solicitor General, the OPP, the Attorney General and other interested ministries.
Could the minister indicate, if this committee is still operative, does it meet? I'm not asking him to tell me what has happened in the committee, but just if they are continuing to have discussions re the Ipperwash situation.
1620
Hon Mr Hodgson: I don't know the specifics on that, Mr Wildman. If I could get back to you on that I'd appreciate it.
Mr Wildman: Okay. I would think that if the committee were continuing to operate we would know, but let me put it this way.
Hon Mr Hodgson: No, there was more to your question than that.
Mr Wildman: I won't belabour this, because there will be other venues where we can raise these issues, but as I understand it from what I've read from the minutes that have been published, discussions in the media publicly and my discussions with various officials, the Stoney Point people, the occupiers, entered the park as the park was shutting down for the season and they were met by park officials, Ministry of Natural Resources personnel. They were not barred. They were informed how to operate the water system. That approach seems to be quite different from the approach that was taken only a couple of days later which led to the shooting death, the wrongful death, of Dudley George.
First, is my understanding of the ministry's park officials' approach at the time of the occupation correct? If so, could the minister indicate what led to the changes in approach that led, at least helped to lead, to the confrontation which resulted in the death of Dudley George?
Hon Mr Hodgson: First of all, anything to do with the occupation itself or the blockade I can't talk about because it's before the courts. But I can explain to you about the pumphouse. That was prior to any occupation. The pumphouse located on the park property provides the water for the military base that the federal government owned. When they took over the military base, the Stoney Pointers or whoever, they wanted to be able to run the water system, to make sure the water wasn't cut off and was working. Our officials made sure they knew how to run the pumphouse. That was prior to any occupation, and that had to do with water for the military base.
Mr Wildman: Thank you. As I understand it, the former Minister of Indian Affairs, Mr Irwin, went to the occupation and produced the correspondence of 1937 at that time. He handed it to the aboriginal people who were in the park. That was quite public, it was on TV. Since that time, what correspondence has the Ministry of Natural Resources and/or the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat had with the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with regard to the documentation that was in their archives, which they discovered, from 1937?
Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm not sure, Mr Wildman. I can tell you that I was told there was a response to that letter that, you correctly point out, the federal Liberal cabinet minister went down and waved. He also made some promises around the military base at that time as well. It was quite public.
Mr Wildman: There is a federal promise -- that actually dates back to the Tory federal government -- that they will in fact return the base. The issue is around the cleanup, which will cost several millions of dollars, and nobody has indicated they are prepared to do that. That's something outside of our concern here.
Hon Mr Hodgson: At estimates.
Mr Wildman: I would be interested if you could let me know what further analysis the ministry has done -- beyond the archaeological findings which disputed the existence of a burial ground, done in 1972, to which Mr Vrancart referred -- either this ministry or I guess maybe ONAS, but it would more normally be this ministry, of the documentation that was produced by the federal officials to determine whether this government accepts that there may in fact be a burial ground where the Stoney Point people claim there is.
Hon Mr Hodgson: We've offered to do joint discoveries with them on the site. I know you're aware that a grave site is different from a land claim, that you're quite cognizant of that.
Mr Wildman: Yes. Under the Cemeteries Act, under I think the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations --
Hon Mr Hodgson: That's right, David Tsubouchi.
Mr Wildman: -- it's quite clear that if there is an aboriginal burial ground there is a requirement that I think the closest first nation be consulted with regard to how that land is to be protected.
Hon Mr Hodgson: We've agreed with that and made offers to all interested parties that we'd be willing to do that in conjunction with them or on our own or however they would like to proceed with that.
Mr Wildman: Okay. I'll be raising these issues in other places, but since I don't have a great deal of time before the committee I would like to raise a couple of other issues.
As Mr Vrancart knows, I had correspondence with him in the spring regarding the timber management EA that was completed and a number of conditions in that EA, one of them being condition 82, that there be an annual report of the ministry's success in implementing the timber management EA and its conditions.
The deputy did write to me after I had some further discussions with officials. His assistant deputy, Ms Beggs, had indicated to me that the report for 1995-96 was being finalized. The date of the letter is April 16. I realize you might want to fine-tune things, but it is now August 26. So, April 16 to August 26: Where is this report?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Thank you very much for your question, Mr Wildman. I'd like to ask Gail to come up. Gail's an assistant deputy minister. She'll introduce herself, and I know she'll be glad to tell you all about the progress she's making on this.
Ms Gail Beggs: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Gail Beggs. I am the assistant deputy minister for the natural resource management division in the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Mr Wildman, I can't answer your question directly, where the report is. In the last discussions I had with staff on the report, they were still finalizing the report. I suspect the delay between April 7 and August 26 is in part a result of our staff being involved in a court case around the timber EA and spending time on that court case and subsequently having taken some summer holidays. Tomorrow I can address the committee and give you a response on when you might expect the report to be out.
Mr Wildman: Okay. I am looking here at the terms and conditions. It's a document I've memorized. It refers to appendix 20, which is on page 527, the part I'm referring to, and it indicates that there should be progress reports on scientific research, technical development programs and policy development programs related to a long list of conditions.
Ms Beggs: That's correct.
1630
Mr Wildman: I'm wondering where those are.
Ms Beggs: We do file progress reports with the Ministry of Environment and Energy.
Mr Wildman: Are those public documents?
Ms Beggs: They would be public documents. I don't think we publish them. They are available to the public.
Mr Wildman: Are they published on anything like the electronic billboard for the Environmental Bill of Rights?
Ms Beggs: I don't believe we publish them. I don't know if the Ministry of Environment publishes them. I can check with the Ministry of Environment tomorrow and also answer that question, if you'd like.
Mr Wildman: Okay. In regard to condition 77, which was one of the central issues I was referring to in my correspondence with the ministry, there was a draft protocol prepared within the ministry for implementing condition 77, or the timber management EA. That was not followed through with. I understand under the terms and conditions, district managers have the responsibility for ensuring compliance with condition 77. That's one of the reasons I was interested in getting the annual report, because in that it will indicate the tremendous progress that MNR is making with regard to implementing condition 77.
I'm referring here to condition 113, where it says, "The first year shall be deemed to start the day that this decision is received by the Minister of Environment and Energy." Also, "All other terms and conditions shall come into force as provided in these terms and conditions of approval." It would seem to me that you are in violation. If you're supposed to be providing an annual report and you're now more than a year from the time this matter came into force, the ministry is not complying.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Do you also want Ron to answer that?
Mr Wildman: I want to know whether you are in fact in violation. You are not complying with the terms and conditions of the timber management EA.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Obviously, Mr Wildman, it is our intent to live up to the terms and conditions of the Environmental Assessment Act. I'll check into it and get back to you. It is my understanding that we are in compliance and I'll report back to the committee on that.
I can tell you, though, when you're talking about the terms in condition 77, and you mentioned that --
Mr Wildman: The 1995-96 report is not available. It's still being finalized. This is getting past the middle of 1997. I'm talking about the 1995-96 report.
Ms Beggs: We've been in court over whether or not we are in compliance with both the conditions of the class timber environmental assessment and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. It is the ministry's position that we are in compliance.
Mr Wildman: I know your official position in court; I'm not trying to raise the issues that have been raised in court. But if the annual report is not available and it's more than a year -- I'm not trying to play lawyer here but it just seems obvious to me.
Ms Beggs: I can't answer you whether that particular term and condition meant that it needed to be available on a specific date, Mr Wildman. What we could do is have someone here tomorrow who could address that question, who is more familiar with the 115 terms and conditions and the numerous pages in the appendices than I am, because we're at a technical level of detail.
Mr Wildman: Okay. On page 455 of the terms and conditions, it says, "MNR shall report on the progress of these ongoing negotiations district by district" -- the ongoing negotiations that are referred to are the negotiations with first nations for the implementation of condition 77 -- "in the annual report on timber management that will be submitted to the Legislature"; not to the Ministry of Environment but to the Legislature. "Ongoing" seems to mean to me that something is happening at a negotiating table or a number of them in various districts.
Ms Beggs: That's true.
Mr Wildman: "Ongoing" means that you meet on an ongoing basis. So I would like to get a progress report, which is required as per page 455 of the terms and conditions.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Okay, we'll get back to you on that, Mr Wildman.
Ms Martel: Can I add to that? The reason we're raising this, particularly with respect to condition 77 -- and I'll raise some of the other reports that MNR should have tabled by now which have not been tabled, which leads me to wonder about staffing levels in the ministry and your ability to deal with your obligations, Minister.
Particularly around condition 77, you were the one who set the government on a policy to convert the crown management units into sustainable forestry licences. You have a time line around that, which as I understand it is the end of 1997, the beginning of 1998. We have a number of first nations that have directly raised concerns with your district managers or you about not being involved in the process of that conversion and not being allowed to participate in any of the benefits. But the EA very clearly directs district managers to lead those negotiations; not to tell the first nations to contact the forestry companies, but to be specifically a part of the negotiations to ensure that first nations get some benefits.
We do not have the annual report, we have no idea what's happening to first nations, but at the same time we do know that your staff is working as hard and as fast as they can to convert those crown management units to sustainable forestry licences. Our concern is that first nations right across the province are being left out of the process, left out of the benefits, which is contrary to the terms and conditions in the EA, specifically around 77. That's why there's some urgency about getting this annual report. That's why we're frustrated. It's been some number of months since my colleague last corresponded and still no annual report. We didn't think that "as soon as possible" meant the end of the year; we thought it meant soon after April 16.
Hon Mr Hodgson: The conversion to sustainable forest licences does not involve a reallocation of resources. That's a question of who is responsible for paying for the regeneration of the forest. Should it be the taxpayer or should it be those who make a profit from the forest?
Mr Wildman: The question is, will the first nations make any profit from that?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Through the SFL negotiations, and I think you're aware of this, district managers are requiring potential licencees to have detailed discussions with the first nations adjacent to forest management activities. In some cases greater involvement in harvesting of silviculture is the result. Where there's been no gain to date, it can be for a number of reasons, including opportunities not being compatible with the adjacent first nations' capability or lack of available opportunity in the standard of harvesting and tending activities. Some first nations are unwilling to engage through a contract or an overlapping licence and are looking for a means of asserting what they consider to be a treaty right. Other --
The Vice-Chair: Thanks, Minister.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Well, it's a complicated issue. I'll defer to you, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: The time has expired, so we'll move to the government.
Mr Wildman: I would just close off.
Hon Mr Hodgson: If he can close, I should be able to finish my answer.
The Vice-Chair: Your time is up.
Mr Wildman: In my view, negotiations are not detailed discussions. That's not my definition of the word "negotiation."
The Vice-Chair: Your time is up, Mr Wildman.
Hon Mr Hodgson: They get to speak and I can't finish the answer.
The Vice-Chair: We'll go to the government side for their 20 minutes of questioning.
Mr Beaubien: My question may seem to be trivial compared to the questions I had before. I would point out for the record that my constituents still have concerns with regard to the Ipperwash issue. However, I also have constituents who have concerns with other issues and one is with regard to moose tags. I have many complaints in my constituency with regard to --
Interjection.
1640
Mr Beaubien: Unless you don't want to talk about moose tags today, but it does come under your jurisdiction. Could you explain to the committee how a person qualifies or is able to be a successful candidate to obtain a moose tag?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Do you want a detailed explanation that you can send out?
Mr Beaubien: Yes.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Okay.
Mr Wildman: I think it's called the luck of the draw.
Mr Beaubien: Yes? Well, some people haven't been lucky in the past five years.
Hon Mr Hodgson: There's a lottery system that's in place and right now the fundamental issue is that we have more hunters than we have moose that are allowed to be harvested on a sustainable basis. To make it so that it's fair, it's based on a management unit area, after an inventory is done, to determine how many moose can be sustainably harvested without affecting the population for future generations. The harvest number is divided into pools, like a lottery system. You can apply in a group or you can apply individually.
We'll get someone who's an expert on this to explain it in more detail so that you have a precise answer for Hansard and for the people back home. David Balsillie, would you like to talk about the moose tag draw?
Mr Balsillie: No.
Hon Mr Hodgson: No?
The Vice-Chair: Who from the staff does?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Gail, would you like to talk about the moose tags in detail, on how the pools are divided up?
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Get someone from the Ontario Lottery Corp.
Mr Wildman: When it first started, you had to be 55.
Hon Mr Hodgson: It's a good question though, Marcel. This probably has more interest than any other issue in politics, the moose tag draw. We had a study under way last year to get some consultation on this because there's a lot of dissatisfied hunters out there who feel that the system should be improved, so we're consulting and we'll continue to consult all fall on it.
Mr Beaubien: It seems there is a disparity in the system, because I have talked to quite a few constituents whereby they have pooled their licences, and for the past seven to nine years they have not been successful in obtaining one tag. Sometimes I wonder. Sure, it's the luck of the draw and I understand the rationale behind the lottery system, but there must be some type of equity or balance in the system. I know that tags have been reduced again this year.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Thank you very much, Marcel, and Gail, I'm sorry. I think we can get Marcel a more detailed answer on how it's carried out. I share your frustration, and the frustration of your constituents. What we're trying to do is take the uncertainty around the system and try to give it as much certainty as possible.
We had a review last year that was carried out by George Simmons. He held public meetings right across Ontario, and his report outlines a couple of options maybe to improve that. I want to consult with hunters this fall through the federations and through just people who receive a hunting licence or an outdoors card on how they feel we should improve the system. Through that consultation process there are some options, and one of the options might be that you give some certainty around a group application. You'd know in the spring how many you'd need in a group to get a guarantee to have one tag. Other options are a wait-in-line system, or to just improve the lottery system with more information around it. We're taking our time on this to try to get it right. It's a complicated system. We want to make it simpler but fairer for people who enjoy the outdoors and hunting moose in this province.
Mr Chudleigh: Minister, you got halfway through my rabies answer. I was going to ask about racoon rabies.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll tell you, I was very appreciative that you asked that question, Mr Chudleigh, because I was just getting into that topic myself and Mr Balsillie would like to come back up and finish his answer for you, I'm sure.
Mr Wildman: There are certain members of the House involved.
Hon Mr Hodgson: David, I'm not sure if Mr Wildman was here for this, but maybe you could pass a sample out.
Mr Balsillie: Do you want the samples again?
Hon Mr Hodgson: I think Mr Wildman would like to see the samples.
Mr Wildman: Actually, I have to go up to the House, I'm sorry. I'll be back.
Hon Mr Hodgson: This is educational, Bud. You'll learn something here.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, David, are you ready to answer the question now?
Mr Balsillie: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Once again, I'm David Balsillie, science and information resources division. We are very concerned about the spread of racoon rabies through the northeastern United States. It has moved up very close to the border along both the Niagara and the St Lawrence rivers. We have instituted a program of what we call "trap, vaccinate and release" to create corridors of protection along those areas on the Ontario side of the border in order to trap racoons, to vaccinate them and to release them so that if they were attacked by a rabid racoon that had crossed the border, then they would be immune from the disease.
This, so far, has been very effective and we haven't had a case of racoon rabies in Ontario. We have a major problem, though, because there are large numbers of racoons in Ontario and if racoon rabies were to get into the province, it could spread very quickly. The emergency program that we put in place is to work with local officials at the municipal level to put in an immediate plan if there is a racoon rabies incident detected, in order to contain that outbreak in Ontario so that it doesn't spread anywhere.
We have a problem with racoons that can climb over bridges, racoons that get on to transport trucks -- we call them "hitchhikers" and they move long distances -- so we're watching the border as closely as the customs are to make sure that racoons are not entering the province. We are working with colleagues in research to develop a racoon oral vaccine which is cheaper than the one we have at present. The vaccine which goes into the racoon bait is about 75 cents a bait, whereas the fox vaccine is only about eight cents per bait, so you can see that the cost of dropping a large number of racoon rabies baits would be very expensive.
We're also working with New York state and Cornell University in experimental programs to try and reduce the amount of racoon rabies in the state of New York so that the actual threat to Ontario is extremely reduced. We're attacking this problem on a number of fronts: in terms of the trap, vaccinate and release; in terms of having local emergency contingency plans in place so that local officials, supported by the province, can contain an outbreak of racoon rabies very quickly: and we're working with New York and Cornell and also actually with Vermont and other states in New England because it's also getting very close to the province of Quebec.
In a nutshell, that's the program that we have in racoon rabies, and I'd be pleased to answer any other questions.
The Vice-Chair: Any other questions from the government side?.
Mr Doyle: I wonder if I could I get a little more information about this. I was interested in the bait program. The bait itself, does it do anything else for the racoon other than protect against rabies? Or is it harmful in any other way, for example?
Mr Balsillie: No, the vaccine for both the fox and the racoon rabies strain is specific for protection against rabies. It's not unlike you getting a shot against measles or chicken pox or whatever.
Mr Doyle: Okay. Now, why are the two different? Is it because they have different diets?
Mr Balsillie: No, the strain of the virus is different between the fox strain of rabies and the racoon strain of rabies. So the one strain is different from the other.
Mr Doyle: This may seem like a silly question, but how do you know that the fox will eat the fox bait and that the racoon will eat the racoon bait?
Mr Balsillie: You don't.
Mr Doyle: I see.
Mr Balsillie: So in certain cases you would be double baiting, but in our case we're baiting only in Ontario for fox at the present time. We don't drop baits for racoon rabies because we don't have racoon rabies.
Mr Doyle: Oh, I see.
Mr Balsillie: But in New York state, we're dropping for racoon rabies. The baits are dropped by aircraft which has been especially outfitted through MNR. Through our association with Queen's University, they've developed a very specific flight path for covering large areas and getting full coverage of the area. The baits are dropped out of the aircraft in rural areas. In urban areas the baits are distributed by hand up and down the valley corridors of the cities from Oshawa through to Hamilton.
1650
Mr Doyle: The reason I ask is because I live in a rather open area and have quite regularly seen fox and racoons. I think I've got a racoon living in my garage, which kind of cheeses me off. I don't want to fight with it.
The Vice-Chair: Any other questions from the government side? You have some time left. Anybody else?
Mr Chudleigh: Watching the fish stocking take place in Lake Ontario, the coho salmon specifically, which has been ongoing now for some years, obviously one of the problems is making sure there's enough food in Lake Ontario to support the salmon that we release. Over the last number of years, the number of cormorants have mushroomed, I think, increased greatly in Lake Ontario. I understand that they feed off the same bait fish.
There's an increasing number of loons along the north shore of Lake Ontario which feed off the same bait fish again. How closely do we monitor those stocks of bait fish to make sure, when we're stocking the fish in Lake Ontario, that there will be enough food there for them to live off of being a large bonus to the sport fishing industry?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Just give me a second and I'll get the precise answer. In a general sense, we base our efforts on science. We have some of the best biologists in the world. We analyse within the boundaries of science what we think are the odds that this will be a successful program. We also have public consultation to find out what anglers think about it, because they're in the water. We've had a fairly successful stocking program in this province for many generations.
We want to improve that. In the late 1980s we had a better fishery than we do now in Lake Ontario, but it's coming back. The fact that we have more loons and more wildlife is a sign that our natural resources are probably in better shape than they were 10 or 20 years ago. The toxins around -- DDT for instance -- threatened and made a number of species extinct or vulnerable, and they're coming back. The water quality is coming back.
The lake has changed a bit with the introduction of zebra mussels. Some of the balances are changing, but we have the best biologists in the world, we feel, and we work in cooperation with United States biologists around the Great Lakes, Lake Ontario in particular. We want to return Lake Ontario to the great fishery it was in the late 1980s by stocking salmon and we feel that's sustainable in terms of angler opportunity. We monitor the feed in the bait fish and other species as well.
Mr Chudleigh: They're seeing sightings once or twice a year of bald eagles in the area as well, so it's an indication that things are coming back.
Hon Mr Hodgson: They are. We've got a family close to where I live up in the Haliburton area that is quite impressive. I was up on Lake of the Woods this summer and saw pelicans. There are a number of families of pelicans around. We have a great province that people sometimes take for granted. But it's getting better each year.
Ms Bassett: Minister, since I'm new to this committee just today, perhaps you could just walk me through the Rabies Advisory Council, which is in the estimates briefing book on page 11. First of all, I'm just looking at the estimates. Is this $10 million or $10,000, or what are we talking about here?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Those are thousands.
Ms Bassett: Thousands or millions?
The Vice-Chair: I think he said thousands.
Ms Bassett: I know the actuals of 1996-97 are only half that and I wondered why the estimates would be doubled. I don't know whether this is for the council or this is -- what does it do? Since we're asking about everything, it would be interesting to know, since everybody's here.
Hon Mr Hodgson: We've got an expert on it. David Balsillie has talked about rabies quite a bit. David, do you want to go through the council and their busy agenda for this year and why they've been allotted the huge sum of $10,000?
Dr Balsillie: With regard to the Rabies Advisory Council, this is a group of folks who have research capabilities, knowledge etc of rabies and rabies control. Last year, in 1996-97, we put forward a budget of $8,000 and in fact they utilized only $4,577 of that budget. With the increase in our activity related to racoon rabies, with our programs which are going on in Texas for the control of rabies and coyotes, with our increased activities in control with the states of Vermont and Maine etc, and with our activities in concert with Quebec and New York, we have budgeted this year for $10,000. If we don't use $10,000, then it would be the same as happened last year and we would only spend $6,000 or $7,000.
Ms Bassett: So your accounting practice is you build in contingencies.
Dr Balsillie: In this particular case, yes.
Ms Bassett: Do you across the board, or just in this?
Dr Balsillie: No, not necessarily. We've budgeted pretty tightly across the board, especially with --
Ms Bassett: I'm not trying to pin you down, but it's just interesting, if you look at fish and wildlife, down the way, you see $96,000 versus $73,000. Is that contingency again?
Dr Balsillie: The Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board isn't my particular area, but in fact we had budgeted for this new board, as you see, $150,000 --
Hon Mr Hodgson: I can answer that question, if you'd like.
Ms Bassett: Okay.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll just give David a break here so he can catch his breath. Thank you for the first answer.
Isabel, the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board wasn't up and running for a full year and we anticipate they will be meeting more often in the next year. The first year, when the set the budget, we weren't sure. It was a guess, based on our best estimate of the time required. After running for a full year we think we can operate on $96,000.
The Vice-Chair: The government side time has expired. We'll move back to the official opposition for your next 20-minute round.
Mr Michael Brown: Minister, I'm just going back to the written responses you've provided to questions that we raised last time. I asked a question regarding the interest rate that would be applied to the fish and wildlife special purpose account. I'm told here -- well, today the rate is 2%.
I'm just wondering if somebody can elaborate on how this special account works. This is an account kept by the government. Is it a totally separate account from all other government funds? In other words, is there a bank account somewhere where this trust money is placed or is it an internal account that is administered by the Ministry of Finance and they act as the bank?
Hon Mr Hodgson: As I understand, it's an internal account, but I can get Patricia up. It's separate from the consolidated revenue account. Perhaps Patricia Malcomson would like to come forward and explain the intricacies.
I would just like, for the record, Mike, to take a second to describe the written answer that you alluded to. Our listeners might not be aware that as per order in council 24/97, the interest rate applied monthly to the fish and wildlife special purpose account, the opening monthly balance is "a rate equal to the 30-day short-term deposit rate offered by the Province of Ontario Savings Office on the first business day in that month." As of today, this rate stands at 2.0%. The Province of Ontario Savings Office is a provincial crown public banking services agency operated by the Ontario Financing Authority of the Ontario Ministry of Finance.
Patricia, if you'd like to explain, Mike wants to know if this is a bank account that's held in the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board's name or in the Ministry of Natural Resources' name or if it's still a part of the Ontario government but just a special purpose account set aside from consolidated revenue.
1700
Ms Patricia Malcomson: I'm Patricia Malcomson. I'm the assistant deputy minister, corporate services. In response to your question, it is an account that's held separately by the Ministry of Finance, so the interest rate the minister has just described is the one that is used by the Ministry of Finance.
Mr Michael Brown: It is in effect managed by the government of Ontario or the province of Ontario. They are using a rate from outside to determine the interest rate that is available. Can you give me an idea of what the average monthly balance in that account might be?
Ms Malcomson: I could probably get back to you on the average monthly amount, because as we manage the ministry's finances with respect to this account, there are some things for which we spend operating funds from the ministry that are then billable back to the special purpose account. That happens in a fairly fluctuating way, and we do those journal entries at the appropriate time. If you wanted to know the specific figures on the amount, the special purpose account has roughly $44 million in it at the moment, but it varies. I believe last week we were talking about the varying amount in that account, and of course it varies with the three-year cycle of licence moneys in the account. But if you wanted a more specific average over a period of time, I could get that for you.
Mr Michael Brown: No, I was just wondering, because the licences flow, depending on the hunting seasons, fishing seasons, outdoor car renewals -- there's kind of a three-year bump with those -- what kind of money we could talk about. My concern is that 2% seems like a pretty good deal for the government of Ontario to be paying on that balance, if it's substantial, and if you were outside the government of Ontario, you may very well be able to negotiate a rate of interest that would far exceed 2%. That was my only query.
Hon Mr Hodgson: It's competitive on a 30-day -- as set by the bank rate.
Mr Michael Brown: It may very well be that there are substantial sums of money that are always there flowing through. I have no idea; I'm just asking the questions. I'm trying to make sure that --
Hon Mr Hodgson: That's a helpful suggestion.
Mr Michael Brown: -- the hunters and anglers and others have an opportunity to receive the best interest rate possible.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I appreciate that.
Mr Michael Brown: This is about a specific group but it probably applies to virtually every provincial park in Ontario. I have a particular interest in the Mississagi Provincial Park, which is just north of Elliot Lake. There is a group called the Friends of Mississagi Park which is a very active group of volunteers that work in the park and for the park and raising funds. They even operate the store that's in the park. They rent some canoes and boats and things like that to raise money, but all the money is used in the park. They do things like brush trails and generally just volunteer to help make the park a better place.
My concern is, and they were in my office raising this concern, they have to pay $500 for liability insurance every year. They're a small group, and I suspect this happens all across the province, not just with them. Their only work really is within the park. They're doing this as a public service. Is there not a way the ministry can find for these volunteer groups within the provincial parks, which are helping all of us, to somehow be indemnified -- maybe that's not the right word, but their liability looked after by the provincial government, rather than to have to go out and buy liability insurance, which is just money that can't be spent in the park? I'm sure the provincial government can do that at a far better --
Hon Mr Hodgson: If you can get me the information on that, I'll take a look at it. It seems strange that this wasn't brought up before.
Mr Michael Brown: It just seems to me if it's $500, it's just $500 that isn't spent in the park.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I haven't heard that before, and we have all kinds of friends groups right across Ontario.
Mr Michael Brown: That's the point. If this is happening all across the province --
Hon Mr Hodgson: I think I would have heard about it by now.
Mr Michael Brown: -- that these groups have to pay a certain amount of money so that they can be safe with liability if they get hurt or whatever, brushing a trail or whatever could possibly happen --
Hon Mr Hodgson: Let's take a look at it, Mike. You can tell your constituents that came this week that we'll look at it. Can you get me the information?
Mr Michael Brown: Okay. I appreciate that because I think it may not be something that would cost the provincial government much money and it may help both the parks and the good volunteers that do the work.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Let's check it out and see if the assumption's correct.
Mr Michael Brown: Sure. I'm just going by what I was asked in the constituency office.
On perhaps a bigger issue, although that's a significant issue to me, the crown lands: Many of the municipalities that I happen to represent, and certainly across all of northern Ontario, have a great deal of crown land within them. The crown land does not pay taxes to the municipalities. As we're seeing the huge downloading of responsibility to municipalities, is it the intention of the Ministry of Natural Resources to pay municipal taxes on the same basis as everybody else so that the municipalities are in a better position to meet, in some places, just a staggering new responsibility?
Hon Mr Hodgson: The trade that you're referring to where we take half the cost of education eventually and trade it for other services across the province, that's what you're taking about when you say the downloading?
Mr Michael Brown: I'm just saying, are you going to pay taxes or aren't you?
Hon Mr Hodgson: We pay taxes in lieu in some cases, but I can't see any change --
Mr Michael Brown: Only on patented lands. You do not pay it on --
Hon Mr Hodgson: I can't see any change in that. I can tell you that on private lands we have made it so that people can afford to own property with trees on it through the managed forest tax rebate program. But on the crown lands, we're not going to start paying municipalities for the ownership of crown land.
Mr Michael Brown: I will give you a for instance that was raised by my colleague the member for Renfrew North where a number of municipalities are being asked to take over a highway that runs, I believe it's 41 --
Hon Mr Hodgson: It's highway 41 that he's talking about, yes.
Mr Michael Brown: Right. It's up to Pembroke. It's virtually all through crown land. It seems rather odd to me, if the municipality is to maintain a road through crown land, that the municipality would not at least have the province of Ontario paying taxes to it like everyone else. Does that not strike you as a little bit odd in this brave new world?
Hon Mr Hodgson: If you're asking that we pay municipalities on crown land, you know that's not realistic.
Mr Michael Brown: Many of them would say some of the things you're doing aren't very realistic.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I don't know. I was down there yesterday with FONOM and NOMA -- and I'm sure if I met with eastern Ontario representatives -- and I think they recognize that if they work together on this, it'll work out. We've got a difference of opinion there.
Mr Michael Brown: It's just that the ministry is responsible for somewhere around 80% of the land in Ontario and to exempt them from municipal taxes when they're changing the role of who does what dramatically seems odd to me. I guess I've got the answer: You have no intention of paying the taxes.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll tell you what, though. I'll leave the door open to you. If the Liberal Party has the position where they want the Ontario government to pay full market value to municipalities for all the crown land, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Mr Michael Brown: All right. The conservation officers: You've alluded a number of times to the number of badges of conservation officers in the province. Are there people behind all those badges?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes, I believe there is. I've asked the same question myself many a time. Unless somebody's retired in the last week or two. I have the -- Cam, I see you nodding. Do you want to come up and explain that? I had the CO association in --
Mr Michael Brown: You could just say yes or no.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Yes, unless somebody has retired.
Mr Michael Brown: I know there are continuing restrictions on overtime. In other words, the officers work whatever their contract calls for, 40 hours a week or whatever it happens to be, and they're not paid to work overtime. They get overtime in terms of compensation time, which means there's only a certain amount of hours worked by conservation officers in this province. Is that correct?
1710
Hon Mr Hodgson: I don't believe so, but I'll tell you that one of our concerns was to make sure the conservation officers had resources to get out in the field and actually do their job. You know that when you and I were both in opposition together, we criticized previous decisions that said they had to sit behind a desk, and we asked for money to get out in the truck. We've put more money into new vehicles, identification packages.
It's up to management to determine these collective agreements, and I'd like to have Cam Clark come up and just talk about the overtime.
I'm told that we have the resources available to provide effective enforcement. In fact, one of the indicators is that the number of charges were up last year and over previous years, so I know that our field staff are out there.
Cam, if you could come up and just explain this overtime issue to Mr Brown. You may want to repeat the question specifically around the overtime and the collective agreements.
Mr Michael Brown: What I'm wondering is, when overtime is worked, I take it there is no monetary compensation, there is time in lieu granted.
Mr Clark: Generally, that's the way. Basically what we've tried to do is manage overtime because we didn't want to find ourselves in a situation where overtime became an entitlement rather than something that was absolutely necessary. So in both the fire program and in the enforcement program we've worked very hard over the last few years to restrict overtime and put real emphasis on scheduling and developing work programs that address the needs in a particular area for a particular time.
There are obviously exceptional circumstances where it becomes necessary to work overtime, and in those instances we make provisions for that to happen. But I guess the bottom line here is that what we try to do is manage overtime in a way that ensures that people are working meaningful hours, that they're addressing the priorities, and that their work schedule reflects those priorities.
Mr Michael Brown: As a general statement, would it be fair to say that there are as many hours worked by conservation officers as there were, say, 10 years ago?
Mr Clark: I can't answer that categorically because I don't have the information from 10 years ago. We are not limiting the hours that conservation officers work in a way that detracts from their ability to deliver the job. We're very mindful of the fact that in dealing with the enforcement issues that they deal with, it is essential that they're available when necessary to do the work. But I would emphasize once again that we're trying to be prudent in the way we manage the dollars that we have to run the program, and to that end we're taking a fairly hard line -- I'm sure you've got that message -- on enforcement so that we don't find ourselves in a situation where we're paying more for the program than we need to with very limited funds.
Mr Michael Brown: Have conservation officers over a period of time taken on new responsibilities?
Mr Clark: I think in the last couple of years we've broadened their role somewhat. Clearly they have a very, very strong enforcement orientation, but we recognize that they're also one of the most powerful customer service agents we have in the Ministry of Natural Resources. With that in mind, we encourage them to reach out into the community and involve themselves in a way that helps us deliver the MNR message and the programs we're involved in. So in that sense, I think we've changed the focus of some of their activities from what they have done traditionally.
Mr Michael Brown: With the evaporation -- I guess I'll put it that way -- of other ministry personnel from the forests of Ontario because of the way the ministry now operates, is this problematic? Obviously there was at least an informal exchange between conservation officers and their colleagues who would have been in the forest for other reasons. Their colleagues are no longer there. Is that intelligence being lost?
Mr Clark: We recognize that in some cases we're dealing with fewer numbers, and of course as a result of that we've refocused the emphasis in the enforcement and compliance areas that we deal in. We've put more of an emphasis on the development of regulation. We've put more emphasis on self-management, not self-regulation, by some of the client groups that we deal with. But I should also point out that we've established enhanced training programs to address this need so that we're not simply relying on conservation officers. We've also established training programs for area technicians and so on who work in area and district offices so that they can adopt some of the compliance requirements and take on a new role in the forest which is somewhat different than what they've done historically.
Mr Michael Brown: But there are significantly fewer personnel from the ministry in the forest now.
Mr Clark: In absolute numbers, there are fewer people.
Mr Michael Brown: We've had some discussion about forest fire fighting in committee so far, and I guess one of the things I'm interested in is the evolution in how the ministry intends to pay for this. I am told that the ministry is moving quickly to have the people holding the SFLs pay for forest fire fighting, to have the municipalities that may have forest fires within their boundaries pay for themselves. Would you just outline your position for me?
Hon Mr Hodgson: With the municipalities -- I'll answer that first -- we're trying to update the agreements so that everyone's the same. There are some municipal fire agreements with the MNR that are based, I guess, on a 1995-96 year cost. Others are back to the 1940s, some in the 1950s, some in the 1960s. Those are reciprocal. If we need support from a municipality, we'd pay the same rate, and if they need our support or call us in -- it's their call, whether they call us in, and this is the rate. We just want to update those agreements. That's not a huge revenue source. It's not going to pay for the provincial firefighting. It's just a cost-recovery mechanism to a small extent, basically.
The other one around the forest industry: There have been rumours and proposals from past governments, and even rumours today, that the forest industry should move to sort of a Quebec model. I haven't been that supportive of that, but what I have said to industry is that they can sit down with our fire people and senior administration, pick a few people from industry and review all the studies that have been done on the efficiency and the effectiveness of our fire operations. If they have ways to improve upon that, by all means we'd look at it.
Mr Michael Brown: Does it not strike you, though, that a forest company's attitude towards fighting fires is basically a commercial view, and there are some other values in our forests that --
Hon Mr Hodgson: I don't think you listened to my answer.
Mr Michael Brown: What? I thought I did.
Hon Mr Hodgson: The Quebec model has it so that the industry plays a direct role in the management of the fire operations. I've said no to that operation. I have said that we can sit down and take a look at how to make it more effective and efficient. The MNR will still be in control of what you would like to call the priorities of where fires go and how the operation is conducted. Human safety has got to come first, and I don't think the people of Ontario expect anything less.
1720
The Vice-Chair: We'll move over to the third party.
Ms Martel: I'm just going to follow up on this because I was going to raise this issue and give you examples of two communities in my riding that are being impacted. As I understand what the MNR is doing beginning April 1998, it is to move to full cost recovery for fire protection on crown-protected land within municipal boundaries.
I'll give you an example of the increases that municipalities will face under this total cost recovery policy. The town of Nickel Centre --
Interjection.
Ms Martel: That's exactly what the document says. The town of Nickel Centre pays a little over $2,000 right now for its fire protection from MNR. If they move to $1.50 per hectare, which is the rate your ministry wants to set, they will look at paying $34,000 next year for fire protection. The town of Capreol, where I live, right now pays the ministry about $948 a year in terms of protection of crown-protected land. If they have to move to the $1.50-per-hectare fee that you want to implement, they're looking at a bill of over $29,000 next year. How do you expect municipalities like just those two in my riding to cope with those kinds of increases? That's the effect of cost recovery that you want to implement in this sector.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll take a look at that for you, Shelley, and the two specific examples that you mentioned. My understanding is to update the fire agreements so that it's a question of equity across Ontario, that they pay the same rate and it's reciprocal. It has to be agreed to by the municipality; we're not imposing this. But I can check it out for you, if you like.
Ms Martel: I would appreciate if you'd check that, because your ministry has handed out a document to a number of -- first of all, they sent out a letter, and I was going to raise this tomorrow, so I'll bring it with me tomorrow. But they certainly sent out a letter to every municipality saying that these agreements had to be renegotiated and that the new rate would go into effect as of April 1, 1998.
When I talked to your fire support staff up in our district, the figure that the ministry was looking at for a fee was $1.50 per hectare. I'm assuming that is just a provincial average. I don't know where that amount of money comes from and I'd be interested in finding out how the ministry arrived at $1.50 per hectare as the charge that had to be recouped. But it will have a very serious impact, and I will bring tomorrow just those two communities, because there's no way those folks will be able to cope. Even if they renegotiate lesser coverage and lesser protection on crown-protected lands, they are still going to face a significant fee increase.
I want to ask you a couple of questions about Lands for Life, because I have a very serious concern around the ability of this process or how this process will actually deal with some very complex land use and land conflict issues that have been boiling for a number of years.
Frankly, as I look at the time lines, and I want to get some confirmation of them, I don't believe there is anywhere near enough time for the tables to do their work. At the end of the day, you will have each of the three tables basically deferring to whatever MNR had as designs for that crown land in terms of the division between parks, tourism operations and forestry companies.
My first question would be, what are the time lines that the tables are expected to meet in terms of giving you information about how to divvy up this crown land? Is it at the end of 1997, the first report?
Hon Mr Hodgson: You've probably got a series of questions around Lands for Life, Shelley, and I know Gail Beggs is itching to get up here and explain to you in detail --
Mr Michael Brown: She looks really eager.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Gail, do you want to come up and just talk about Lands for Life for a bit?
Ms Beggs: Good afternoon. Once again, I'm Gail Beggs, assistant deputy minister responsible for the natural resource management division. That project, Lands for Life, is under my guidance.
Ms Martel, you asked a question about the timing of recommendations to the minister. The timing that's been set out for the round table recommendations to the minister I believe is early spring of 1998. I think you mentioned December 1997 in your question. There is a series of sort of project time lines and deliverables, but recommendations from the round table to the minister I believe are spring of 1998.
Ms Martel: Secondly, my question would be, what information is MNR making available to the round tables?
Ms Beggs: We have been busy compiling all of our information: information about resource-based tourism establishments, information about the wood supply across each of the three ecoregions, information about hunting and fishing activities. We're compiling information about gap analysis, about where we have the best natural heritage sites in the province, socioeconomic information about the various resource-based industries that operate on the crown land across each of the three ecoregions. In addition, industries themselves are compiling information that is also being supplied to the round tables.
Ms Martel: When will all of the information be supplied to the round tables?
Ms Beggs: I can't give you a date, but I can tell you it's our objective on the part of government to have all of that information into the hands of the round tables by September, I believe, October at the latest. Much of that information has already been compiled and supplied. Some of it is still coming. The tourism industry itself is doing a consultation and confirming things with their operators and intends to supply that information once their consultations are complete, and I think that's planned for September. So depending on the particular piece of information you're talking about, the actual date it gets to the round table may be a little bit different.
Ms Martel: If members of the tables want information over and above what MNR is providing them, what is the mechanism to obtain that? I was told that one table was looking at only providing information outside of MNR-based information with the unanimous consent of committee members. Is that correct, or will people, regardless of what their backgrounds are, be able to make requests about wood supply, parks etc, over and above what MNR has given them?
Ms Beggs: Would people at the round table be able to make requests of MNR for information beyond what they are given?
Ms Martel: Yes.
Ms Beggs: Yes, they can make the requests, and I think we'd do our best to supply the information if we have it available. If it's not readily available, then we may not be able to get those answers, but certainly if they are things that we have in our files or in our databases, yes, they would be made available to the round tables.
Ms Martel: So there's no truth to the rumour that unanimous consent of the members will be required before specific information is given to this group?
Ms Beggs: If you have a specific incident with a specific round table, I can't answer what they've agreed to as a round table, but in general we don't have a policy that we need every member to consent. If it's government of Ontario information, important in making the kinds of recommendations that the round tables are charged with making, and we have that information, we would supply it to the round table. Maybe you could just elaborate a little bit on what you've heard.
Ms Martel: I was actually told that the policy of one of the tables was going to be that for information that was requested outside of what was being fed by MNR, there would have to be consent by all of the members about obtaining that. My concern was that if you have environmentalists who want information about forestry company operations and there was someone at the table who wanted to block that because they represented that industry, then that information would be blocked. If that's not the case, then I'm happy to hear that.
Ms Beggs: What I will do is check between this afternoon and tomorrow to see if any of our planning managers have any knowledge of some agreement among round table members, but I have no knowledge today about that.
Ms Martel: Can you tell me, what's the specific mechanism that's going to be used to get input from those people who live outside the planning area, specifically outside of northern Ontario, but who have obviously some very serious interest in what's happening? I know there has been one provincial forum on July 3. There was an expectation there would be another in September, but I have yet to see any formal process to allow other stakeholders to participate and to be part of the recommendation-making process.
Ms Beggs: We've actually conducted two provincial forums, and all major client groups have been invited to those two provincial forums. We intend to, throughout the process, to continue to convene provincial forums. As well, the minister has asked us to look at more broad-based consultation beyond the round tables. I believe my director of land use planning is discussing with each of the round table chairs how exactly they would like to conduct that consultation, and we'll work with them to find an effective vehicle that works for both the chairs and the tables and the people outside the planning area.
Ms Martel: If you have a set timetable for the other forums, can we get a copy of that?
Ms Beggs: Sure.
Ms Martel: Just so I'm clear, the mechanism also in northern Ontario for input, is that going to be consistent across the three tables in terms of when they're going to go out, who they're going to talk to? Because there are lots of interests that need to be represented that way too.
Ms Beggs: Perhaps consistent in principle, because each of the round tables is challenged with consulting with people who aren't present at the round table, but individual chairs and the round table members may choose slightly different vehicles. One table may have open houses, one table may solicit written input from all interested citizens through advertisements, but the principle of more broad-based consultation is a principle that each of the tables must adhere to.
1730
Ms Martel: Perhaps I can get from you a sense of what the tables intend to do in terms of having the public input in northern Ontario. I'd like to get that because I continue to have concerns about how that whole operation is going to be managed in northern Ontario as well, and just how open the process is going to be for people.
Ms Beggs: If I understand your request correctly, what you would like to know is for each of the round tables what their intentions are for more broad-based consultation in northern Ontario.
Ms Martel: And does that represent open houses, submissions etc? That's for northern Ontario. For southern Ontario, if you have a timetable about the provincial forums, I'd like to get that.
Ms Beggs: Provincial forums, yes, we'll get that to you as well.
The Vice-Chair: Ms Martel, I'm sorry for interrupting, but the minister says he's having trouble following. So could you maybe speak just a little bit slower or more clearly? Thanks so much.
Ms Beggs: Any time, Mr Minister, that you'd like to answer, feel free to.
Hon Mr Hodgson: No, I think you're doing a great job on your own. It's just that it's pretty hard to follow the questions, that's all.
Ms Beggs: I didn't want you to think I was stealing time here.
Mr Wildman: Did you ever hear that Bob and Ray skit The Slow Talkers of America?
The Vice-Chair: Absolutely.
Ms Martel: Part of what was included in the Lands for Life was the resource-based tourism policy. As I reviewed that, there's a whole implementation schedule that's listed, with at least nine activities that have to be undertaken. It looks like the government is going to be undertaking those. Can I get some idea of where we are in dealing with any of the nine implementation issues that were outlined in the tourism policy released at the end of March?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Gail, go ahead. You're on a roll.
Ms Beggs: An implementation schedule for the resource-based tourism policy? I'd need some time just to read this and give you a response back. Would it be fair to come back tomorrow with a response for this?
Mr Wildman: You better ask Mr Douglas.
Ms Beggs: Pardon me? I'm having to come back with a lot of things tomorrow, aren't I?
Ms Martel: That's fine. Can I just tell the minister and you why I'm asking this? As far as I can see, the policy I've just given you outlines a number of activities that the government is to undertake, yet it was part of the announcement around Lands for Life. So I want to know if it's the government that's going to be undertaking the implementation schedule in this document or if the tables are going to be doing that, because clearly everything that's outlined shows the government being responsible for setting up dispute resolution mechanisms etc. If the government's going to do it, I don't know why it was part of a Lands for Life announcement in the first place --
Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll explain to you the reason behind the Lands for Life. The days of promising timber companies there's another hill to go over, there's more fibre out there, without doing a thorough analysis are over. There's a lot of pressure on our land base. You can't promise parks at the same time you're promising more timber supply at the same time as land withdrawals.
The remote tourism industry is a sector that needs some certainty around where they can operate. It's all the same land base, and we thought the best way to achieve a remote tourism policy, completion of our parks system, security for our wood industry in the communities that depend on the wood industry and security for our mining interests was to put these things on the table and have a land use plan, which should have been done 30 or 40 years ago. I think it would have been a lot easier. But given the fact that we didn't, the longer we wait, the harder it gets to do this. The pressure keeps building up.
You would know, and I know Mr Wildman would have a deep appreciation for this, that there are conflicting uses that compete for our land base. This should be based on science, and in a rational way we have to work together to sort this out. If we don't do it now, it just gets more difficult.
I appreciate your concerns that the process is short and that it's not an easy process, but I think it's absolutely necessary that we do it and we do it to the best of our ability based on good science with people who are involved locally from the region. I've been criticized for putting northerners on these committees to make decisions about their communities --
Mr Wildman: Which northerners?
Hon Mr Hodgson: -- but I stand by that. I think it will work and there will be access for people from southern Ontario.
Ms Martel: If I might, Minister, my concern around this is, one, is there enough time? My second major concern, and I'll deal with it tomorrow, is the whole issue of tenure. I have grave, grave concerns when I look at the six-pack report that you are moving to a system of tenure that would allow forestry companies to have access to land for between 60 to 90 years. I just think that is the absolutely wrong way to proceed, but I'll do it tomorrow in the context of the six-pack. So anyone who knows anything about the six-pack and those recommendations, I'll leave that until I see you tomorrow.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I fundamentally disagree with you, so I look forward to having that debate, and I think people who have looked at forestry and forestry practices will disagree with you.
Mr Wildman: I have a question. I understand there's only a minute left, so I'll just put it on the record. In terms of the changes with regard to two things, area charges and scales, I understand now that the area charges have been eliminated. I'd like to know if this means that large farms can tie up volumes of timber greater than they need without any cost. That's the question.
The other question that relates to the scale is, I've been told that there are serious problems about the accuracy of the scales in certain areas, such as the Wawa district, to the point that last spring there were three companies in the area that apparently owed enormous sums to the crown. These companies also lose when they don't pay accurate dues because the funding for silviculture is based on what they cut. So it hurts both sides. It certainly hurts the revenue for the government. I think it also, in the long run, hurts the companies and it certainly hurts regeneration. I'd like to know if that's the case and, if it is, what the ministry's position is with regard to ensuring tenure is fair and that scales are accurate for timber cut, when it is cut, to ensure the crown gets a proper return.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks very much, Mr Wildman. As you know, the time is up, but you are on the record.
Mr Wildman: I'd just like to know when I'm going to get an answer to this.
The Vice-Chair: It's now the opportunity for the government to have their 20 minutes to respond, and you may want to build your answer into those 20 minutes. Anyone from the government side?
Mr Vankoughnet: Mr Minister, previously through correspondence I've brought to your attention the decline in the Land o' Lakes division 29 fishery due to increasing pressure on spawning of walleye. It's a result of the shorter fishing seasons and the adjacent division 10. The fishermen who usually fish in division 10 moved to division 29 for the month of March, the time when the large prespawning female fish are vulnerable.
You've addressed this previously, saying that through the community synthesis, ministry staff are looking at the best ways to apply recent science to walleye management. I just wonder if you would tell me now so I can relate the message that this is on course for completion in the spring of next year, this study. If you don't have the information today, perhaps you could have your officials bring you up to date as to whether this study is --
Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm familiar with it, Bill. Can you just repeat the first part of your question? I apologize. I just had a hard time hearing.
Mr Vankoughnet: Division 29 is in Land o' Lakes, which is in the northern part of my riding in Frontenac, Lennox and Addington counties. Division 10 adjacent closes, I believe, on March 31. What local people are asking for is to move this date back to February 28.
Hon Mr Hodgson: What we've been trying to do is involve local people in these decisions, but it's got to be biologically sound. So given those parameters, we're trying to manage our natural resources. I'll look into the specifics to see where that process is at in your area since the last time we talked about this.
Mr Vankoughnet: I'd appreciate that because I would think being neighbouring areas, divisions 10 and of course 29, that the same situation would apply technically in both areas. I guess this is why local people are questioning why the added pressure on the fishing in division 29.
Hon Mr Hodgson: That's a good question, and I'll report back on the next day of estimates, which is Thursday, I believe.
Mr Vankoughnet: Great. Thank you.
Mr Beaubien: Minister, your ministry used to be a great source of employment for the youth in the province in the past. How many programs are available for employing youth to help with the environment, to help with maintenance of the parks and so on? Are the levels of employment about the same levels that they used to be?
1740
Hon Mr Hodgson: Thanks for the question, Marcel. It is a very important area. We have a number of programs that hire youth in the Ontario government. I made a statement in the House the other day and we talked about two such programs.
Mr Michael Brown: You should be ashamed.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm very pleased and proud to say that even though you know the government has been cutting back, youth are a priority for this government. I know that the opposition parties agreed with that.
Mr Michael Brown: The Ontario Rangers --
Hon Mr Hodgson: There were 2,000 youth employment opportunities in 1997. Youth employment programs are imperative. They create jobs for the students of Ontario. The Management Board has continued the partnership in support of youth employment. We have the Ontario Rangers that Mr Brown mentioned and I know Ms Martel was a big supporter of. We kept 400 students in that program. If you take the percentage of the cuts from when the NDP was in to what we cut, I think we look very good and our record is one that we can be proud of.
We also have a number of other programs. The firefighting program employs a great deal of students; I read out in the House the other day the exact numbers. If you like, it'll just take a second and I'll find them for you, even though this is a government member's time.
In the summer of 1997-98, the number of positions were 2,025 just on the two programs, the employment summer program and the Junior Rangers. We also hire forest fire fighters, and a number of them are students going to university or people who have successfully completed their training programs and are continuing their education. I think we have a record to be proud of. It's a proud history of having youth in the MNR to work with our natural resources or to fight fires or to do rehab work for outdoor clubs, etc.
Mr Beaubien: I have another question dealing with fish stocks. It's quite interesting. I had one of the constituents from Mr Brown's riding, because I have been at his summer camps doing some fishing, and he was complaining -- and I have to agree -- that on Lake Wolsey that it's very difficult to catch a fish any more. There's not too many fish left there.
I was reading an article just in front of me that appeared in the Peterborough Examiner on August 14. It says that the abundant supply of pan fish in the Kawartha as according to the Ministry of Natural Resources tempted some anglers to reap more than their fair share, and it talks about people taking 250 pounds of fillets, sunfish, rock bass, yellow perch, bluegill.
A lot of people are complaining that the fishing stocks may be decreasing in some areas and that when we're looking at pan fish, there doesn't appear to be any protection or any limits for this type of fish. What is the ministry's policy in dealing with this particular issue?
Mr Wildman: I understand a sunfish really puts up a fight.
Mr Beaubien: I'm sure, Mr Wildman, that they put up a hell of a fight. But somebody over here -- and I don't know; I'm just going by a reporter's analysis -- took 250 pounds of fillet. You may find this quite ludicrous, but I would point out that I have a constituent in Mr Brown's riding who complains that there are no more decent fish in the lake. So you may want to make light of this matter, but what happens if all the fish disappear?
Mr Wildman: Don't overreact, for crying out loud.
Mr Beaubien: I'm not overreacting.
Mr Wildman: I agree 250 pounds is a serious problem. I agree with you. I just said that sunfish --
The Vice-Chair: Okay, Mr Beaubien, I think you've made your point. We should let the minister answer. Go ahead, Minister.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I can assure you, Marcel, I share your concern even though Mr Wildman doesn't.
No, this is a serious issue. There are a couple of questions here, Marcel. First of all, we try to make our decisions based on the best science we have. We're trying to do inventories and we're getting more local clubs and more volunteers involved in our data collection. You have to have good data collection and analyse that to make those determinations.
I've heard that the fishing is up in a lot of areas around the province, so it's very hard to generalize specifically, but if in Mr Brown's riding there's a lake that the numbers are down on, we'll take a look at that. The first thing to do is to make sure the public is aware of it, to find out if it's true and then make the public aware that it's true, and then look for solutions that will work. You have to have the pubic buy-in to make effective resource management policy. There's sort of an old saying that natural resources will look after themselves; it's the people, when they enter the equation, who create the problem. To a large extent we're managing people and their behaviour and how they interact with fish populations or deer populations in their natural environment.
In your other question, the pan fish in the Kawarthas, that's a lake system over by Peterborough. It's not in Mr Brown's riding. It would be over by Gary Stewart and myself and John O'Toole, in that neck of the woods. There's a concern that there's pressure being brought on a variety of what they call pan fish: rock bass, sunfish, perch, small fish that basically provide a lot of feed for larger fish as they grow.
There's no limits on it, and I'm not suggesting we need to do it, but there could be a problem developing if people go up and fish almost to a commercial rate, so in some areas we've imposed a limit for the first time of 100 to 150 fish. We think that's a reasonable amount to draw people's attention to the fact that this isn't an endless resource. We have to be cognizant of the fact that this is feed fish for a lot of the other fish that grow: walleye for instance, or pickerel, as they call it in that area.
We have to manage to make sure that man doesn't drain the lake of the pan fish, but we're a long way from what that article is suggesting, that we come in and impose unilaterally restrictions on it. We want to consult more and do more studies to make sure that it's right and that it's going to be effective resource management.
That's a long answer to your question. We're trying to make it better for fishing opportunities.
The Vice-Chair: Anyone else from the government side?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Have you caught a fish on Lake Wolsey, Mike?
Mr Michael Brown: No. I could help out. There is a serious problem in all of the Great Lakes, as I'm aware, with regard to perch, I'm told by the ministry biologists. Lake Wolsey is actually not an inland lake.
Mr Chudleigh: Mr Brown, my question is dealing with some fishing resources and some wildlife resources.
Mr Michael Brown: I was just trying to help Mr Beaubien out here.
Mr Chudleigh: I know. You're very helpful in those areas.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Well, I'm pleased to see that Mr Brown thinks it's a serious issue, unlike Mr Wildman, who thought that it wasn't.
The Vice-Chair: Let's go on. Mr Chudleigh, do you have a question?
Mr Chudleigh: Minister, in talking about the wildlife management and fish management that we have in this province, by and large our freshwater fishing industry, both sport and commercial, I believe is among the healthiest freshwater fishing industry in the world, and growing. The same could be said for our game animals, that we attract hunters from not only the province but across North America and perhaps a few visitors from around the world.
It appears to me that there's a great opportunity here for a resource-based tourism industry. What is MNR doing about promoting this resource and taking advantage of some of the opportunities that evolve around this area?
Hon Mr Hodgson: Okay, that's a great question. There's a huge industry around recreational fishing. It's estimated to be in the billions of dollars and it creates a lot of jobs in Ontario. I've read out in my original speech -- it's in the record -- the precise job numbers and figures.
The remote tourism, eco-tourism -- that was one of the things I did before I got into politics, was to get an eco-tourism course through the college located in our area. I think that's a growing field. The international market is expanding at a rapid rate. We want to make sure that we have the land use plans in place to give security for our remote tourism.
Mr Chudleigh: Could you expand on the definition of eco-tourism?
Hon Mr Hodgson: That's where we attract tourists based on the ecological values that we have in our province or in our communities. It's an approach to make sure that things are consistent, are environmentally sensitive or sustainable practice by your whole business community in those communities. It's a growing trend. There's a college course now offered through Sir Sanford Fleming College located out of Peterborough, Lindsay, Haliburton and Cobourg. There's a course that's offered there.
What we want to do with the dedicated funding and the special purpose account and the advisory board that's been set up with people who appreciate the outdoors, they've recommended to me that we get a marketing person and market better the opportunities that exist in Ontario. We've also worked with -- and this is through my other ministry, northern development and mines -- the heritage foundation and with the northern Ontario tourist associations to market northern Ontario and these fantastic tourism opportunities around enjoying hunting and fishing and maybe just bird watching. But we have some of the best natural resources in the world, and we don't brag enough about it. We're not out there marketing it well enough, in my opinion.
So we're trying to get our ministry to make people aware of what exists, how they get involved, how they can participate in the outdoors, and also encouraging our tourism association operators to promote Ontario's natural resources better. We'll give them information and pictures and support on doing that.
Mr Vankoughnet: Minister, I know there's a stocking program, and certainly it's been under way for some time, in the eastern part of Lake Ontario, but there is also concern being raised about the availability of bait fish to be able to sustain additional stocking and the amount of bait fish that existing stock will take. Can you comment on that as to what your opinion is?
Hon Mr Hodgson: I can just tell you in a general sense that we're gathering a lot of information around that topic. It is becoming topical. We think that through proper management, we can increase the stocking of the fish that people want to fish in Lake Ontario. There are signs in the east end that the lake trout are reproducing, so we have been to back off on that stocking program and add more salmon to the mix. The bait fish is a concern. We're taking a look at ways to improve that.
The Vice-Chair: Any other questions from the government side?
Mr Chudleigh: Minister, this past summer, Buchanan sawmills up in Thunder Bay opened I believe what's the largest hardwood sawmill in Canada.
Interjection.
Mr Chudleigh: I think it goes back some years.
Ms Martel: To 1994.
Mr Chudleigh: It was a very positive aspect for the people of that industry in that area. I wonder what kind of opportunities there are for expansion of sawmills in Ontario generally or the pulp and paper industry in Ontario generally. Are we using our resources to their maximum or is there room for expansion, particularly given the Buchanan situation, where I think about 50% of the production from that areas goes to export?
Hon Mr Hodgson: It's a complicated issue. First of all, we want to make sure the fibre that's being harvested is done in a manner that is sustainable. By that, I mean that if you give approval for a sawmill in a community that will employ people, you want to make sure the timber doesn't run out in two years' time and you're left with a community that's economically dependent upon a forest industry when there are no trees to support that. We also want to make sure that there's a forest there for future generations. We want to make sure the forest provides more than just wood. It is an integral part of habitat for a lot of our wildlife that we enjoy as well.
So you want to make sure that forests are managed properly and that the plans of where they're going to harvest are done properly. There are also great opportunities, so we want to have a land use plan. Lands for Life is part of that to make sure we are managing in a plan that will accommodate all these concerns.
There are opportunities, if I could just have the indulgence of the committee for one minute, around value added products with our wood. If you talk to anybody who is an expert in this, we want to encourage our companies to invest in the forests, not just the minimum standards but invest in quality, and also we want to add more value to the wood before it leaves Ontario so it creates more jobs in communities that are dependent on the wood industry.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks very much, Mr Minister. That ends our time for today. When we reconvene tomorrow, we have three hours and 30 minutes left. We'll start with the Liberals for 20 minutes and then our regular rotation. Thanks very much for your input and your attention. Have a good evening, everyone.
The committee adjourned at 1755.