CROWN FOREST SUSTAINABILITY ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA DURABILITÉ DES FORÊTS DE LA COURONNE
Report continued from volume A.
CROWN FOREST SUSTAINABILITY ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA DURABILITÉ DES FORÊTS DE LA COURONNE
Mr Hampton moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 171, An Act to revise the Crown Timber Act to provide for the sustainability of Crown Forests in Ontario / Projet de loi 171, Loi révisant la Loi sur le bois de la Couronne en vue de prévoir la durabilité des forêts de la Couronne en Ontario.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would members kindly leave the chamber if they are on their way. Mr Hampton, would you care to make opening remarks?
Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): It is my pleasure today to speak to my motion that asks this House to give second reading to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, Bill 171.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I would ask members in the chamber if I could be allowed to hear the minister who is making the remarks. I would ask members, if they are carrying on conversations, to leave the chamber.
Hon Mr Hampton: This act is a clear sign of the commitment of our government to greening the forest practices of the province and to ensuring a sustainable forest industry. This act represents a new vision for forest management in Ontario. It is a vision that looks at the whole forest. It moves us beyond the approach of the past, which was to view our forests primarily as timber crops for industrial use.
Our forests must continue to support our forest industries, but our forests must provide much more than lumber and pulp. They must protect the precious ecological diversity of the province. They must provide recreation, tourism opportunities and habitat for wildlife. Our forests must provide opportunities for feeling and sensing the magnificence of nature. Through the vision of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, our government will ensure that our forests meet the range of benefits and values that we and the global community require for a sustainable future.
Briefly, I would like to highlight the key elements of Bill 171. The act is structured to provide careful planning for use of forest resources, to use professional judgement in managing the diverse forests of the province, to recognize the importance of biological and other information in forest management; and to demand accountability for results.
The act will also establish clear and higher standards for activities conducted in forest ecosystems on crown land; will establish strong compliance mechanisms and stiffer penalties for those who don't follow the rules when they operate in the forest; will establish a forest renewal trust fund and a forestry futures trust fund to make sure that our forests are regenerated and that forest renewal meets improved standards.
It will require that forest renewal is planned before harvesting ever takes place. It will require that forest planning be improved and take into account the whole forest and all associated values. It will provide mechanisms to set aside sufficient funding every year to guarantee full forest renewal and it will provide for the inclusion of other forest resources in forest planning and management.
It will give people a greater voice in how our forests are managed and will require the government and forest industries to report regularly to the public on how their forests are being managed so that the people will be able to judge for themselves if our forests are being cared for properly. I will explain these key elements of the bill in much more detail in a few moments.
First, however, I would like to outline that developing a new piece of forest legislation is a complex undertaking. Some might ask why new legislation is needed. The answer lies in the debate many of us see almost daily in our newspapers, on television, in the legislatures of other provinces, in the House of Commons and in legislative assemblies in many other countries. People are concerned about their forests. They are concerned about a sustainable future for our planet, the future of the environment they will leave their children. They want to give their children a healthy planet. Maintaining healthy forests is an important part of providing a healthy environment.
I'm sure most of us in this House have heard the concerns of the public about our forests. People are worried that forests are not being renewed adequately. They are afraid that some forest operations cause environmental damage. They feel that the forest industry takes almost complete precedence and that other values of the forest are ignored. They don't think government provides meaningful and timely information on the state of our forests. They don't think the forest industry pays enough for using our forests. They don't think government does enough to enforce the rules and regulations that are now in place.
When we were in opposition we raised many of these concerns. We called for improvements in forest management. Many of these improvements were summarized in the 1983 report of the Ontario New Democratic Party Caucus Task Force on Forestry. We vowed to make significant improvements if we had the opportunity. In government, we now have that opportunity and we are seizing it.
We want to see significant improvement in the way our forests are managed. The Crown Forest Sustainability Act will enable us to make significant improvements in the management and protection of our forests. We in Ontario, who are blessed with abundant resources and abundant forests, really can do nothing less. We have a responsibility to the global community to improve our forest practices. We have a responsibility to show leadership in the way we manage our forests and to show that our forests can be managed sustainably on an ecosystem basis. We have taken our responsibility seriously since forming the government.
The introduction of Bill 171 builds on a series of initiatives we have undertaken to learn more about the forest and develop the tools needed to improve forest management. Our government asked the Ontario forest policy panel to provide us with recommendations on a comprehensive forest policy framework for the province. This was an independent committee. Committee members travelled the province, speaking to 3,000 people about the importance of our forests. The committee's final report represents a remarkable consensus of everyone from forest companies to environmentalists.
In developing its report, the committee set out a broad, forward-looking mandate for itself. It wanted to convey to forest users and interested citizens a synthesis of new thinking and new directions on all the forests of the province. For forest managers, it wanted to set the tone for new ideals and a more considered ethic towards ecosystems.
The committee's work confirmed things many of us feel intuitively. The committee said: "Forests are an essential element in our sense of ourselves as Ontarians. Forests are important." About forest sustainability, the committee said: "This is the bottom line: Forests are for ever. Forest policy must ensure that all our uses and interventions are done in such a way that forests will always be large, healthy, diverse and productive."
1750
The committee used the concept "adaptive ecosystem management" to respond to the idea of sustainability. It said: "We must plan for and manage forested ecosystems in a holistic way, looking at the many elements which make up the ecosystem. 'Adaptive' means that we learn as we go. The ecosystem teaches us about itself. We learn from it and modify our interventions to ensure that they do not threaten forest sustainability."
The committee's ideas on adaptive ecosystem management are embodied in the flexible approach of this act. I will discuss that flexible approach at greater length in a few moments.
We listened to the advice of the independent policy committee. We have taken the goal statement of the committee's report, called Diversity, and we have made it the cornerstone of our approach to forest sustainability. We have adopted the first Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests for Ontario. It is a historic document because it represents a shift from managing forests for timber to a view that we must manage for all forest values. The goal is to ensure the long-term health of our forest ecosystems for the benefit of the local and global environments, while enabling present and future generations to meet their material and social needs. The policy framework outlines principles for sustaining forests, strategic objectives for forest sustainability and the essential steps towards ecosystem management.
We need sustainable forests to ensure that we are able to sustain forestry jobs, forest-dependent communities and the cultural, recreational and spiritual values of forests. The policy framework is a major step for Ontario to becoming a leader in North America in ensuring the long-term health of forest ecosystems.
I said earlier that we have a responsibility to show leadership in improving forest management. Clearly, we are doing that. But we must be able to go forward from the theory of the framework. We have to put that vision into practice. Again, Bill 171, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, is a key tool for putting the vision of sustainable forestry set out in the policy framework into practice on the ground.
Recently, the decision of the Environmental Assessment Board on the class environmental assessment for timber management was delivered. The Environmental Assessment Board approved a proposal from the Ministry of Natural Resources for timber management. The board also set out 107 pages or terms and conditions for operating in our forests, for expanding community involvement in forestry decisions, for protecting the diversity of crown forests and for sustaining forest industries.
We agree with the goals the EA board set out for improving forest management. In fact, we have begun work over the past two years on many of the ideas in the board's decision. Through the new act, we will move beyond what the board calls for and develop an even better set of forest management practices. That is a commitment we are making by moving to pass the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.
Good forest renewal must be well planned. With this act, we will be making good forest management the law. People who operate in our forests will not be able to shirk the responsibilities to plan their activities so that the sustainability of our forests can be assured.
Good forest planning and good forest practices mean looking at the whole forest and not just looking at forests as a timber crop. Again, I go back to the Diversity report and our policy framework. They tell us to look at our forests as ecosystems, and we will. Forest managers will be required to ensure that the forest operations they plan have regard for water, wildlife, fisheries, vegetation and the heritage values of forest ecosystems.
Good forest planning means implementing improved standards for forest renewal and requiring that renewal be planned before harvest. We will do this. The requirement that renewal be planned before harvest is a significant step forward in forest management planning. This is how to plan forest operations so that we maintain diversity in our forests.
We have taken another significant step. This act requires that a management plan clearly provide for the sustainability of a crown forest and have regard for plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including recreation values and heritage values. The act says clearly that the minister shall not approve a forest management plan unless he or she is satisfied it provides for the sustainability of the whole forest and, if there isn't an approved plan, then a forest company would not be allowed to operate in the forest.
The planning activity that is so central to the act and to good forest management will be guided by manuals that set out acceptable approaches for forest operations. We will develop these manuals in consultation with the forest industry, environmental groups and others interested in the future of our forest. These manuals will guide planning and will have the force of law.
I'm sure members will have noted that the act itself is enabling. It is not proscriptive; it does not spell out every facet of forest management. We have taken this approach quite deliberately. We want the flexibility that this approach provides for improving forest operations as we learn more about managing on an ecosystem basis. We want the flexibility to use new technologies and to react to new information. We deliberately stayed away from a cookbook approach to forest management. That concept is too limiting, too open to becoming stuck in the past when new information points in a different direction.
We also wanted flexibility because Ontario's forests are not a single ecosystem. We have a range of forest types -- deciduous, Great Lake, St Lawrence and boreal -- and we have great diversity within those forest types and so we need to be able to manage all of those forests appropriately.
I have mentioned that we want to be able to make use of new information about our forests. With this act, forest companies will provide more detailed information about the forests they manage. Such information is essential if we are to continually improve forest management.
To return for a moment to the initiatives we are building upon, we commissioned an audit by an independent committee looking at the success or failure of regeneration of the boreal forest. The boreal forest of northern Ontario is where much of the large-scale forest activity, harvesting and renewal, goes on in this province. In our view, it was time for an independent accounting, so the audit was undertaken to look at the status of regeneration in the boreal forest between 1970 and 1985.
The committee noted that a general, apparently widely held impression that the boreal forest is being deforested is erroneous. In fact, the audit found that 96% of the boreal forest has been regenerated, but that the species mix in the new forest is different from the old forest.
The conclusion is that Ontario's forests are being renewed. We are maintaining our vast forest land base. That is not to say we cannot do better. The independent audit did note some concerns.
The most significant was that areas of the boreal forest that were predominantly black spruce before harvesting were being converted through reforestation to forests of mixed species. Black spruce is coming back, but in a lower percentage than in the original forest cover.
We have paid attention to the concerns of the audit. One of our responses and one of our commitments to improve is the new act. It will provide essential tools for addressing the concerns of the audit.
The independent audit also made another significant observation; a recommendation, really. The committee said, in its fourth recommendation, that assurance for funding of silvicultural operations should be in place prior to harvest. The committee said uncertainty about funding for forest renewal is a long-standing concern. It said that before harvesting is conducted, forest managers should know what funds will be available to reforest the areas they are cutting.
We have heard those concerns loud and clear, and we are responding. We are responding because people have concerns about our forests and about the way they are managed.
1800
First among those concerns is a fear that our forests are not being renewed. We have seen from the audit report that this is not the case, but still people feel that we may be squandering the riches of our forests. We need to be able to reassure people about reforestation.
We also need to do better in renewing our forests. We must be able to fully renew every hectare of crown forest that is harvested in the province. This renewal must be done to new and higher standards.
This kind of renewal needs to be balanced, with the right mixture of natural regeneration and planting. It should be undertaken by forest industries so that they can bring to forest renewal the long-term efficiencies available to them.
This kind of full renewal will require dedicated funding. As the independent audit committee said, forest managers must know renewal funds are available before they ever start harvesting.
Through this act, we will ensure the renewal of Ontario's forests will be done to higher standards. Perhaps even more importantly, through this act we will provide mechanisms for greater and more stable funding for reforestation than ever before.
We are committed to making sure our forests are renewed. This act will guarantee that every hectare of forest on crown land that is harvested in this province is also renewed to new and higher standards.
In order to guarantee that sufficient funding is always available for forest renewal, we will set up a forest renewal trust fund with Ontario's forest industries. This renewal trust fund will ensure that there is always enough funding available to fully renew crown forest areas that have been harvested.
The renewal trust fund will be funded with dedicated money from a new stumpage system that we will establish. The crown will also dedicate money to the trust fund so that it too meets its obligations to renew our forests.
Through the renewal trust fund mechanism, we will guarantee greater funding and more stable funding for regeneration of harvest areas of crown forests than ever before.
We will also establish a second trust fund, the forestry futures trust fund, to ensure that money is always available to pay for renewal of forests that have been killed or damaged by wildfire, insects or other natural causes. This fund will also provide the money to renew areas that have been harvested by a company that goes out of business.
Not only must we commit ourselves in this province to improving forest practices in Ontario, we must also be accountable. We must be able to demonstrate to Ontarians and to the world that our forests are sustainably managed.
We want to continue selling Ontario forest products around the globe. By being able to demonstrate that those forest products come from sustainably managed forests, we will keep our export markets open for our forest industries and communities and encourage investment in Ontario.
The new act enables us to implement a number of things that will make the government and forest industries more accountable. We will be setting up local citizens' committees to enhance cooperation between local communities and forest industries. Local committees will involve people more in developing forest management plans, in helping to set local objectives for reforestation and for ecosystem objectives, and in helping to resolve local conflicts over resource use.
Through the act, we will also provide that independent audits are undertaken to review the performance of government and forest industries. These audits will be done regularly and will be made public. The people of this province will have the chance to judge for themselves how well their forests are being managed.
The Minister of Natural Resources will be reporting on the state of the forest to this Legislature.
Another element of accountability is enforcement. Those who operate in our forests must be accountable for their actions and operations. Our legislation will enable us to put in place strong enforcement procedures to make sure forest operations are carried out properly.
There will be significant penalties for those who fail to comply. Our current forest legislation, the Crown Timber Act, is limiting in its approach. It allows us to slap on the wrist or to close down a mill, but nothing in between.
This new legislation provides a much wider range of options so that penalties can fit the problem and repeated problems can be dealt with more seriously.
There will be administrative penalties ranging from $2,000 for a minor violation, up to $15,000. For more serious offences, the courts will be able to impose fines from $10,000 up to $1 million. The fine of $1 million would apply to anyone who refuses to comply with an order under the act to stop operations that are causing or are likely to cause loss or damage that impairs the sustainability of the crown forest.
The ability under the act to issue a stop-work order for operations causing environmental damage is another feature of this legislation. I have said we are serious about ensuring the sustainability of our forests, and this section is another example of that. In addition, we will be able to order anyone who causes environmental damage to repair the damage and prevent further damage. That person will also be responsible for paying all the costs of this work. Costs of this nature can be substantial.
I don't want to leave the impression, however, that I think we need to take a hard line with the forest industry in the province. On the contrary, I think that too often the forest industry is unfairly criticized. It is accused of not being concerned about the future of our forests. That is unfair. I believe Ontario's forest industries are willing to become involved in improving forest practices. This new legislation will provide the guidance all of us need to improve the way we conduct forestry.
We are also involved in negotiations with forest industries on a new business relationship. Among other things, these negotiations will help provide, through the renewal trust fund, the stable funding we want for forest renewal. The new act will put the tools in place to make the new business relationship a reality.
In taking the opportunity today to highlight some of the recent accomplishments of the Ministry of Natural Resources and our government, I would like to note that it has also given me great pleasure to have been able to announce over the past few months our significant initiatives on natural heritage protection.
The new act has to be viewed in the context of our overall approach to the forests, forest ecosystems and natural heritage. We have launched our Keep it Wild campaign to promote the protection of more of our province's rich natural diversity and remaining wild areas. Over the past century, this province has created a magnificent system of provincial parks. We must build on the work of the past and complete the task.
Through Keep it Wild, we will complete a system of parks and protected areas by the year 2000. This campaign is one way of ensuring that we maintain Ontario's rich natural diversity for future generations. It is also a way for Ontario to contribute to global efforts to protect natural heritage areas.
When the federal government, along with 159 other nations, signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, we supported that initiative. The convention includes a pledge to establish more protected areas and develop new ways of establishing and managing these areas. We are moving forward on this. We have undertaken consultations with the public on 17 new Keep it Wild areas that we propose for protection. These areas include a remarkable variety of natural features.
We will also soon be consulting the public on the protection of old-growth red and white pine sites. Protection of old growth is another element of the Keep it Wild campaign. I have already announced that we are making progress on old growth. For example, we have identified 41 old-growth red and white pine sites of varying size that are not currently allocated for timber production. We think that many of these sites can be permanently protected. We will be discussing these sites with the public very soon.
We are also going to develop a red and white pine renewal strategy. Through such a strategy, natural regeneration techniques, tree planting and other efforts will be used to restore red and white pine forests for both biological and economic reasons. The new act will support these efforts to restore red and white pine.
In any discussion on ensuring forest sustainability, I think there is another reality that we must never lose sight of; that is, the importance of forest industries to the people of this province. More than 200,000 jobs in Ontario are tied to the province's forest industries, in logging and in production of lumber, pulp and paper and other products. It may surprise people to learn that more than 80,000 of these jobs, 40% in fact, are in southern Ontario. Forest industries are important province-wide, although most important in northern Ontario. Nearly 50 communities in northern Ontario depend for their economic health on forest industries. Those 200,000-plus jobs produce nearly $12 billion in forest products for our economy.
1810
That may sound like just a series of statistics to some, but to people like me who come from forest communities, those statistics are attached to real people. They are people who want to be productive, who want to provide for their families and who want to prosper with their neighbours. They are people who want to be part of our forest industries. For those people, we need forest practices that will sustain forest industries, sustain our forest communities and sustain their jobs.
A good illustration of the commitment of this government to forest communities was our decision to establish the Forest Industry Action Group. The action group produced a report that sets out recommendations that will help ensure a prosperous future for Ontario's forest products industries. The report, Hard Choices-Bright Prospects, was produced by a steering committee that represented a strategic alliance of government, industry and labour in the forest industry.
I think it is significant to note that forest sustainability was a key element of the discussions. The vision statement of the steering committee says, "Within a framework of resource sustainability and maintenance of ecosystem integrity, Ontario will rebuild and sustain a globally competitive forest products industry that strengthens the economy of the province while providing stability and employment to the communities within which it operates." Once again, the key ideas of resource sustainability and maintaining ecosystem integrity are at the forefront, and those ideas are at the forefront of the announcements I have made in the past few months about encouraging new forest mills.
We have identified a sustainable supply of some four million cubic metres of underutilized hardwoods in northern Ontario that are available for immediate development. I have called for proposals from companies that want to operate in northwestern and northeastern Ontario. We have had an enthusiastic response. We are developing these projects, but the potential for economic growth is significant. We should be able to create more than 1,500 new jobs and encourage investment of tens of millions of dollars. New mills or additions to existing mills will be developed for high value added products such as oriented strandboard, medium-density fibreboard, veneer and other products.
I have been able to announce a new mill for Thunder Bay. We have made a commitment of a conditional wood supply to Buchanan Forest Products so the company can develop a detailed business plan and arrange financing. That mill will be a hardwood specialty sawmill. It will create 189 new jobs and cost about $29 million.
I've also been able to announce that H. Jager Developments Inc is making progress on a new mill for the Wawa area. It plans to build a new mill to produce oriented strandboard. The capital cost could be as high as $90 million, and the enterprise could create more than 380 jobs in the mill, logging and transportation.
It gives me great pleasure to be able to discuss these economic initiatives. They are good for forest communities, for our economy and, most of all, for our forests. They will be developed using sustainable supplies of hardwoods that have been underutilized until now.
The new act will help us improve the management of those important supplies of wood, using the standards or the new legislation and within the context of our commitment to forest sustainability. The need for this legislation is clear and it is great. This act is a cornerstone for our overall strategy for forest sustainability, natural heritage protection and economic development.
I have said this before, but it bears repeating: Our government's sustainable forestry agenda, including this new act, is crucial to the future economic health of communities and people who depend on forest industries and is vital to the long-term health of our forest ecosystems. I look forward to the support of all members for Bill 171.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd just like to take a few seconds to congratulate our Minister of Natural Resources for the last half-hour or so in which he laid out what's in Bill 171, which is going to protect a lot of jobs throughout Ontario, especially northeastern and northwestern Ontario, and create jobs.
I'm sure all three political parties are going to take to heart the comments he has made and work very hard to make sure that, as the minister has said, Bill 171 becomes a reality. It's something to be proud of worldwide that Ontario is taking the lead to protect what we have out there in the crown forests and protect it into the future and make all the taxpayers and residents of Ontario proud of what Ontario is doing, protecting jobs and creating jobs right across this province. I'm going to be listening very intently to the comments the members of the other two parties have.
I found very interesting the opening remarks of our Minister of Natural Resources in kicking off second reading debate of this, and I'm looking forward to listening to the other part of the debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Further questions, further comments? If not, Minister, if you wish to reply, you have another two minutes. No. Any further debate?
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm pleased to rise today to contribute to this debate. I would point out to members that this is the first bill from the Ministry of Natural Resources that has come before this Parliament in the last four years.
Just so people understand -- and it's important, because Ontarians don't understand, I don't believe, at least those Ontario who don't have the privilege of living in northern Ontario -- we're talking about the fact that about 85% of the land base of the province is under the administration of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Often in northern Ontario the Ministry of Natural Resources is called the imperial authority of northern Ontario.
When we come to a bill that affects forestry, talks about forestry, it gets the attention of people in northern Ontario, because northern Ontario depends on its forests for a great number of activities. I think of the northern Ontario tourist outfitters. I think of the naturalists who use the crown land. I think of the forest industry, obviously, and pulp and paper. I think of the lumbermen. I think of the hunters and anglers who use the crown land. I think of the people who camp on the crown land and hike, the cottagers who own land among the crown land or have land-lease permits. I think of the first nations. I think of conservationists. I think of the trappers. I probably omitted some groups who use our forests, but myriad people not only make their living in our forests but recreate in our forests.
As we approach this bill, we have to understand what the minister is saying and we have to understand that the use of our forests for the benefit of all Ontarians is tremendously important.
Aside from the millions and millions of dollars generated by hunting and angling activities in our forests, aside from the money that our tourist operators make, one of the major contributors to the economy of northern Ontario is the forest industry.
To give you some idea about how important it is to Ontario, there are about 50 forest-dependent communities, I think the minister said, communities that depend on forestry for their livelihood, for making a living. Forest-related businesses: There are 500 logging businesses in this province, 850 wood industries, 350 paper and allied industries. Direct employment: The figures I have are that 63,600 people in this province are employed directly in the forest industry. The indirect employment is about 127,000 people; payrolls in the $2.5-billion to $3-billion area; value of production in the $10-billion to $12-billion area; value of exports is about $4 billion, for a net contribution to our balance of trade of over $2 billion. So our forests are tremendously important to Ontario.
1820
When the minister comes with a bill about forest sustainability, people in the Liberal Party are very interested in what he has to say. I've listened to his speech very carefully, and unfortunately the words of the bill and what the minister's been saying are not the same, in that -- and the minister readily admits that what we have is a shell here -- this bill permits a lot of things but it doesn't demand much.
We will not know what this bill really intends until we see the regulations, until we see the manuals, and on this side of the House that is very important. I think the minister and I probably agree on this, and this is the right approach, but it's very difficult for someone in opposition or someone in one of the various groups that are interested in this bill to say: "Wow, I think this is great," or, "Gee whiz, I've got a problem with this." The reason is that what we've got is a shell of a bill, a bill that enables things to be done, but we don't know what it enables.
What our party would hope that the minister would consider, as we go through the discussion of this bill, is that there be extensive public hearings in the crown land areas of the province where people are most affected, and that the manuals and the regulations are available before the committee starts, and hopefully that they're available with enough lead time that we can actually have a look at them and get input from the various interest groups so that when we go out to talk about what this bill really means we'll know what we're talking about. Without that, all the good things the minister says are a little bit suspect because we haven't really been able to understand what the regulations and the manual talk about.
I see the minister has nodded over there, so I guess we're going to have the extensive public hearings across northern Ontario and we're going to have the manuals and the regulations before we attempt to do that. That's all good news, and I look forward to the process.
Again, over here we're a little confused as the minister talks about the government's wonderful record on forest regeneration. Maybe people can help me. I have a press release from 1990 where someone named Floyd Laughren, who might be the Deputy Premier now or who might be the Treasurer, condemns the former Liberal government for not planting enough trees in our forests. I have another press release where Mr Hampton, the present minister, and Mr Wildman, the Minister of Environment and Energy, also condemn the former government for not planting enough trees in Ontario.
The fact is, this government is now planting about 30 million fewer trees in the forests of Ontario. Besides that huge reduction in the amount of reforestation that's going on, they have also decided that they only need to tend about half of the hectarage that they once tended.
That's surprising, given the fact that the government of Ontario, in its wisdom, has doubled the area fees. It now costs you twice as much to rent the land as it did just four years ago. Stumpage fees have increased radically, and that has caused great consternation, given the government's cutback in the activities it was involved in just four years ago in the forests of Ontario.
So we have the government grabbing revenue in the forests of Ontario and, at the same time, decreasing its commitment to reforestation, to silviculture, to good forest management.
That is a concern of ours and it should be a concern to all people in the province of Ontario, because the environmental assessment process that we just completed and the minister alluded to has pointed out that it's not possible for Ontario to continue on this way. In other words, we should be planting more trees; we should be doing more tending; we should be doing more reforestation. That's what the environmental assessment says.
The minister says, "Yes, but with this new trust scheme we will be renewing more and we will have stable amounts of money to do it." But when we look in the estimates book, we find out that the number associated with silviculture in the present estimate I think is $112 million, and he's saying that $100 million will be generated by the trust fund. Automatically, we're down $12 million in activity in Ontario's forests. I don't know how that addition works.
The people in the forest industry, the people who will actually pay the stumpage fees, know how that will work. They think the stumpage fees are going to go up remarkably. It will be them paying for more of what the government used to do in return for the stumpage. Maybe that's all well and good; I don't know. But I think the minister should come straight forward and say, "Look, you're going to pay for it all." But if that's the case, then we wonder why the ministry is then collecting fees above and beyond that.
We understand from the regime, and we can only do this from understanding because there is nothing on paper as far as how this stumpage regime will work, that there's a fee that will come off. The first part of the fee goes directly to the ministry. The second part of the fee then goes into the trust fund. The third part of the fee is something called "residual value" or whatever, an escalating amount of money depending on the price of the marketplace that then goes directly into the pockets of the Treasurer: not the Minister of Natural Resources, not the trust fund, but directly into the pockets of the Treasurer for general revenues.
I find that to be a little passing strange. We know there's much regeneration work that could be done in Ontario's forests. I would wonder why in a time when there's great opportunity, when markets are strong to generate capital, you wouldn't put that also in the trust fund for times when markets are soft; for example, during the recent recession. We cut the number of trees that were planted. We didn't; the NDP government did. That's what happened in the forest. We cut the amount of tending. Why did we do that? Forest product prices were down. There were all these economic factors.
The minister says we can't afford to plant trees in the forest; we can't do it any more. If there was a fund that included that residual profit, we could have done a lot of those things, and there could have been more employment in northern Ontario. There could have been better forests for our children and better forests for our grandchildren if the funds were dedicated to the forest trust. I have some difficulty speaking to that because the ability to raise the stumpage fees was passed in a different bill, in an omnibus budget bill, Bill 160, that isn't even part and parcel of this bill.
I think we should understand, though, what this particular bill does speak to. It is, as I said, a shell or a framework through which the rules governing forest management in Ontario will apply. Currently, the government has not completed the forest manuals. Therefore, it is really difficult to understand exactly how we're going to make a judgement at this point in the debate.
We are a little unclear, and the minister may be able to help us in his reply, as to what kind of input is being given into compiling these manuals at this time. We are told by several groups that they don't have the resources to consult with the ministry and fear that they are being shut out of a process of looking at the draft manuals and being able to make pertinent input into the system.
1830
The second real question we have about this act is the forest ecosystem. "Forest ecosystem" is nice. Everybody agrees that's what we want to do, but I don't know where, in this act or where, "ecosystem" is defined. I think it's a legitimate question to ask the minister what ecosystem we are attempting to maintain or sustain. Is it the one that existed in Ontario's forests 100 years ago? Is it the one that existed in Ontario's forests 20 years ago? Is it the one that exists in Ontario's forests today? Is it the one that we wish would exist in Ontario's forests 20 years from now?
The policy decisions around those kinds of questions are very important. You would do much different things in the forest if you were attempting to get somewhere in the future. If you were to decide that Ontario's pulp mills needed a certain percentage of black spruce 70 years from now, then that would be the ecosystem we would be aiming at, and we would be aiming at the wildlife habitat etc that goes around that spruce forest.
The minister would know, as a fellow northerner, that our forests are always changing, particularly in the northern boreal forests. We're talking about a fire-regulated forest, a forest that if it wasn't for human intervention would be changing constantly. We put out forest fires these days, we manage the forest, and so a lot of the natural regeneration that would occur because of forest fires doesn't occur. So we have a lot of questions, Minister, as we go through this debate and try to understand what you're talking about.
I have had some input from the Federation of Ontario Naturalists. They're concerned with how you define "sustainability." They're concerned that there's nowhere in this act that you actually define the concept. What is it that you're talking about? We throw these words around, "sustainability," "ecosystem," that sound fine, everybody's warm and fuzzy, but we have no idea what the minister is really talking about. Their concern is just strictly that they don't understand what you're talking about. We would hope that the minister, before we get to the committee stage, will be able to help us with that, as he will be able to help us with the ecosystem that he is trying to either maintain or sustain.
We have other concerns. We have concerns that there are apparent conflicts in the wording of this act with the timber EA, especially with respect to the terms of reference. We are concerned with the content of the manuals, as I said, especially looking at forest operations, silviculture planning, information and scaling.
I don't know if it would be useful, I guess we can do this at committee, but the forest industry has supplied me with a whole series of technical questions that surround things such as there's no evergreen clause in this bill.
Most members would be familiar with the forest management agreements and their renewal system, and according to the way the bill presently reads, there's no ability to know that five years from now or 10 years from now you will still be managing the forest. As the bill's principle appears to be that the private sector will be managing the forests under the regulation of the ministry, under the supervision of the ministry and under a final audit from the ministry to see that it actually happens, we find that it would be very difficult for anyone in the private sector to know that they had tenure at the end of the period. So that's another concern I want to bring to the minister now, and certainly that we'll be looking at talking about during the committee hearings.
I'm really quite concerned about the government's approach because about two years ago the former minister decided that the way to achieve full regeneration of Ontario's forests was to do nothing. He was in favour of natural regeneration. Natural regeneration means you don't do anything. Natural regeneration means the forest grows. That was an excuse. That's really what it was, and I said it at the time. It was an excuse for the minister to cut back the spending on silviculture dramatically.
I'm not sure what this minister is saying about his former forest renewal program to achieve full regeneration of Ontario's forests, because it was just a rationalization of bad forest policy. It was an explanation of why this government felt that Ontario's forests really weren't worth spending much money on.
As the minister stands up to reply, I'm sure he will explain to me why they have shut down a number of nurseries, why they have cut back the number of tree seedlings they've purchased from the private sector, and why just two years ago the government decided to mulch 11 million seedings. They decided actually to take the seedlings they contracted for, and it was cheaper for the government, they said, and better for the environment to take the 11 million seedlings, and instead of planting them in Ontario's forests, to mulch them. It was the most expensive organic fertilizer I think anyone could find. Maybe the minister could tell us if it actually ever got spread in the forests. It was sure spread everywhere else.
I could speak for quite a while longer, but as you can see, we are at somewhat of a disadvantage in that we're speaking to a bill that really doesn't say anything and won't say anything until we see the regs and the manuals. I want to repeat and repeat that, because it's making it very difficult for the opposition to be able to speak intelligently to this bill, other than we suspect it may be a gigantic tax grab.
We suspect that in the end Ontario's forests may be worse off than they were before the bill was presented. We are hoping that is not the case, but the proof will be in the manuals and in the regulations. That will be a time when the opposition will have an opportunity to speak slightly more intelligently about this piece of legislation.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I welcome the opportunity to first of all thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin for expressing the concerns about this bill to the House. It's very important that we know about the concerns and the problems, because I well realize the importance of the forestry industry to the north from frequent discussions with him on a matter on which he is so knowledgeable. Certainly, the fact that the regulations and the manuals are not available at this time, especially with this bill in particular, because it provides for those things, is a great concern. We are all looking forward to having the advantage of knowing what is in regulations and in the manuals.
The other item the member has expressed is looking forward to extensive hearings on the bill. I agree with that completely and hope that we have extensive hearings through the north so that all of those affected in any way by this bill will have a full opportunity to give their views and comments regarding the bill, and the regulations and the manual of course.
1840
Hon Mr Hampton: I'll use the two minutes to respond to some of the issues raised in my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin's speech.
First of all, he brought up the issue of public hearings, and I want to say to him that I too favour holding public hearings, not just here at Queen's Park but elsewhere in the province, in the northwest, the northeast and in central Ontario. Hopefully, in the next few days we'll be able to entertain with him and with the colleague for the Conservative Party some proposals for how those public hearings could be conducted. But I too very much want to see those hearings.
I want to thank the member for some of the questions he raised, because I think they give eloquent evidence as to the need for a forest renewal trust fund. He will know from his days when his party was the government here that the Ministry of Natural Resources has to go before treasury board and battle it out with all the other ministries for funding, and you do not know until the last seconds before the budget how much money you're going to get for forest renewal.
It may be that in a given year there are requests for more schools or requests for more hospitals, or maybe there is a request for a new major highway in the province, and he will know, because he sat over here, that forest renewal funding, which is dynamic funding that may take 200 years to show the results of that funding, often takes second place to something for which you can show the results a year later or two years later, in a brand-new hospital or a brand-new school. So he has given eloquent argument for a forest renewal trust fund, something that will assure that we have the funding available year in, year out on a predictable basis to renew our forests.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin, you have two minutes.
Mr Brown: Minister, thank you for your comments. I'm of course in favour of the trust fund. That goes without saying. I'm just wondering why it was your government's choice, as you went before Management Board and treasury board, why the choices were always the forest loses, the hospital wins, or the forest loses, the road wins; how it was that your government, which is spending about 20% more than any government in the history of this province, couldn't find the money to plant trees. If a trust fund helps, that's great. Unfortunately for the province, we've had four years of a government's mandate that has cost our forests and our future investment in our forests a great deal.
But I'm disturbed by the fact that the minister seems to be happy with reducing the amount of money spent on silviculture in this province again in the trust fund.
I'm also concerned with what's happening today. It is far less activity than was generated just four years ago. We have gone backwards in terms of silviculture; we have gone backwards in terms of regeneration; we have just plain gone backwards.
For the minister to say, "Well, gee whiz, I don't want to go in front of treasury board, because I always lose," is not a very acceptable answer to me. I think a good Minister of Natural Resources and a good Ministry of Natural Resources, in a government that's spending 20% more money than it used to spend, would spend it. He would be able to get his share. Instead he put the northern economy at risk, he put northern jobs at risk and he put our children's future at risk in this province, and I don't think anybody would find that acceptable.
I do thank the minister, however, for his commitment to public hearings. I would like to see those public hearings not only in the big centres of northern Ontario but out where the real people work. I want to see them in Espanola, I want to see them in Dryden, I want to see them in Fort Frances, I want to see them in Kenora, I want to see them at Terrace Bay.
The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?
Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I believe this is my time to comment on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario in regard to Bill 191, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994. Is that correct?
Hon Mr Hampton: Bill 171; 191 is the amount of money we're going to have in the trust fund.
Mr Hodgson: Oh. Like I said, I'm pleased to join this debate. I'd like to state up front that as the minister outlined, I fully support the intent of the legislation, to ensure that forestry in Ontario is sustainable, whatever that should mean. Also, as will become clear from my comments, you'll notice I have some concerns about the implementation of this legislation and the ability for it to live up to its stated goals.
The bill seeks to promote sustainability in two ways: sustainability of the forests, the whole forest ecosystem and the future needs in the timber component; and sustainability of the communities or the people who earn their living from the forest economy. As was mentioned by my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, this act covers a huge area of our province. A lot of people derive their living from it in terms of multi-use of the forest in terms of hunters, tourism, naturalists and forestry in itself, the timber industry. I won't go through the long list that he outlined, because he did a more eloquent job than I. But I would like to comment on the sustainability aspect.
We have a problem with global buyers, primarily from Europe, the United Kingdom and Germany, that demand that forest product producers conduct their operations in a sustainable manner. It's incumbent upon governments within Canada to prove to these buyers that we are in fact sustainable and that the forest product coming off and going to these markets is sustainable.
We have a problem in Canada in that we have different practices in different provinces in different forests at different rates of regeneration and with different species. Global buyers find it very difficult to distinguish between timber from Ontario and timber from BC. They see that it's made in Canada. If a problem exists in one part of the country, it can jeopardize the industry throughout the nation.
This is a problem that might seem minor, but it takes a great deal of salesmanship and education on the part of the Ontario government. I applaud this government for its role in getting the message out that our forests are different and that we're trying to make our forests sustainable. In this respect, I think Bill 171 deserves some praise.
The aspect of the bill that there will be an audit and report to the Legislature so it's open, so everybody can have a look and say, "Yes, Ontario's wood products are from sustainable forests," is also applaudable. But the problem is that if we don't follow through on this, it will soon get so that the lipservice, telling the world that our forest products coming from Ontario are sustainable -- if the reality doesn't match the rhetoric, we will destroy the credibility of products coming from this province for years to come. So I think it's important that when we implement this bill, we implement it right.
I'm glad to hear the minister is entertaining and going to insist upon public hearings throughout the province, not just here at Queen's Park but throughout communities all across the province, and particularly in northern and central Ontario, where the majority of the crown land is located. As mentioned, these meetings should be open to the public and also held at hours that are convenient to the people who work in this industry. We shouldn't run it on Queen's Park time. A lot of the people who are affected by this legislation work very long hours during the day, and these meetings should take place in their communities and at night when they are available.
The aspect of sustainability, being for the community and also for the forests and the products coming out of the forests, reconciles a couple of concerns. One, we've got to prove to the international markets that we're doing this, and so the substance has to match the rhetoric. Also, I think this act combines the Carman exercise for getting the industry involved more in the production of crown lands and it also combines the environmental assessment that was carried out on the Ministry of Natural Resources in respect to timber production on crown lands.
It's a bill that replaces the old Crown Timber Act of 1952, which was amended about 12 times. It was long overdue that we replace this act. As was mentioned earlier, it's the first major piece of legislation to come out of the Ministry of Natural Resources in over four years.
We have to be very careful, though, that what we are doing in this act matches what we're saying it's going to do. If we're saying that all products produced in Ontario in wood are from sustainable forests, then we should ensure that's the case. If it isn't, we ruin the market potential for future generations, for people who are dependent upon the jobs related to the forest industry.
1850
I'll just use an example. I believe that this whole exercise is premised on the fact that we can get 20 million cubic metres of wood per year from crown land. To keep the industry sustainable at the present level, it's estimated we need 25 million cubic metres of wood. Five million of these cubic metres come from private lands, or 20% of the wood products coming out of Ontario come from private lands. If the boast of this government's going to be that all products to foreign markets are from sustainable forests, then we should, at the same time we're looking after the crown land, take a look at the private forest lands that produce 20% of the wood.
A regional species breakdown tells a more significant story. In the deciduous forests of south-central Ontario, the ratio has reached 40% of the private lands. I have the honour of representing one of those ridings that produces a great amount of this wood in the deciduous forests of central Ontario. In Victoria-Haliburton, it's one of the major components of our economy. Traditionally, it's provided the wealth and the opportunities for a large number of our residents.
The hardwoods of this region are some of the most commercially viable and valuable in the whole province of Ontario, and these are shipped, as a finished product or as a raw product, to markets around the world.
There's no consideration in this bill or any announcements from the ministry about the huge tracts of privately held land in the south-central region. As I've mentioned before in this House on several occasions, the property tax system in Ontario neglects our private forests. It was a mistake that was made back in the early 1970s. They were assessed as residential property and not assessed as forest lands, or they could have been assessed at a much lower rate as, say, farm land.
This inequity was addressed for many years by utilizing the forest tax rebate program, and more recently, as it got improved, the managed forest tax rebate program. But last year, this government completely removed the managed forest tax rebate program, leaving many forest owners with huge property tax bills and no way to pay for them except to cut the trees off their land. And if you cut the trees off your land, the economic incentive now is to plant corn or do something different than growing trees on it.
It totally negates the idea that we're going to tell the world that all the products coming out of Ontario are from sustainable forests. If the financial incentive is to cut off your trees and not replace them on the private lands, that's five million cubic feet built into this sustainable model that we're telling the world about. I understand the Premier is going to go to Germany in a couple of weeks and showcase this achievement of Bill 171 and indicate that all products out of Ontario will be from sustainable forests to ensure that we keep our markets open in this European climate.
I think for the amount of money that was saved by cancelling the managed forest tax rebate -- it's not just a question of throwing money at it. The managed forest tax rebate had been improved over the years so that there were actual plans by professional foresters that had to be implemented on this land to show that if you're going to get some rebate on your taxes to make up for the mistake that was made back in the early 1970s on the assessment, then you had to show that there were going to be jobs and trees available in 20 years'or 30 years' time.
Also, the private forests have been a major part of the economy in central and northern Ontario. The Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation's initiative to build snowmobile trails that link from one end of Ontario to the other utilized private forest lands. In fact, most of the trails that are linked between crown land and one city here and one city there go through a combination of private lands and crown lands. By cancelling the managed forest tax rebate, we have people in our area who are cancelling the use of these trails across their land. It's like cutting out huge chunks of a rail line.
The whole $14-million expenditure, for which I praised the government for recognizing snowmobiling as a major part of tourism in this province, will be for naught for the sake of less than $1.7 million by the government's own numbers. It's a pittance when you take into account that part of my riding is not under the conservation authorities. Areas that have conservation authorities get the rebate for areas of natural significance or for areas that MNR or the local conservation authorities deem have a provincial interest.
I've mentioned that before and I think that the rhetoric should match the substance of the Ontario government's policy on wood coming out of the province. If we're going to go to Great Britain and Germany and state that all wood coming out of Ontario is from sustainable products, that we're unique in Canada, that we're taking the leadership role, yet when they look at the fine print and realize that only covers 80% of the wood coming out, that 20% is produced from private forest lands and that's the contingency of the sustainability model, and we're eroding that 20% -- so if you're going to keep 25 million cubic metres, and that employs the people in the communities in the north and all the sawmills, if in 10 years you can only get four million cubic metres from the private lands, then you're going to have to make that up from the crown lands, and eventually you've toppled the whole model.
I'd also like to state that, as I mentioned before, really Bill 171 is enabling legislation. The details are provided for in the manuals, and I've been assured that they're going to be released later on this summer, hopefully with lots of advance notice before the hearings that have been announced. As I mentioned before, the manuals will contain the nuts and bolts of how the regulations will be implemented in different forest management areas. I look forward to going over those in detail and talking to people and going to the communities that are going to be affected. We'll hold our endorsement for this legislation until we've had a chance to review the manuals in detail and go through the public hearings, but the overall goals are basically motherhood statements, and I think everybody agrees with those. The consultation part of the bill, the local citizens' committees: We have some questions that I hope will be addressed. How will they be formed? Can they be taken over by special interests from outside the affected communities? I believe the minister was asked this at the local press conference when he announced the bill a few weeks back, and I'm sure there will be more details provided. At what point do the interests of the people surpass or supersede those of the forests? I think that's what the member for Algoma-Manitoulin was referring to earlier: What's the definition of sustainable forests? What's the definition of ecosystem-based forest planning? What takes precedence? Is it this group's definition of what's most important in the forest or is it that group's? There have to be some definitions in how the process would work.
I would hope that this public consultation will be an exchange of information and ideas, and not like the consultation process that went along with the Keep it Wild campaign, where we saw people learning about the proposed changes after the fact. I only need to refer to the Charleston Lake experience. The member for Leeds-Grenville has spoken on that and had to deal with many of his constituents about the fact that they were promised multi-use of these areas, and now they find that some traditional uses have been cancelled, after the fact.
Also in my own riding -- this is a little outside of crown lands, but when you talk about areas of Algonquin Provincial Park that were never part of the park proper but were added back in 1960 by the Premier of the day, Mr Frost, who was also the representative of that area. Right in the Hansard from 1960 it states that hunting and traditional uses of fishing would be guaranteed in perpetuity in the townships that were formerly private lands held by the township of Dysart et al, of Bruton and Clyde. It states right in the Hansard of the debate that these lands would always be for hunting and fishing and traditional uses, in perpetuity, yet we see the Minister of Natural Resources defining that "perpetuity" means to a cutoff period, when that will no longer be allowed.
We've also seen the harassment of older gentlemen who have hunted at camps in that particular location of Ontario, a very beautiful part of Ontario that I have the pleasure of representing, where they're not allowed to have access through motorized vehicles. They've done this for 50 or 60 years. It's harassment of older people and it goes against the whole intent of when that land was taken over. I hope the Keep it Wild campaign won't follow those precedents.
I've already stated that I look forward to the committee hearings. They must be held throughout the province to get a cross-section of opinion in the communities that are going to be affected. Hopefully, they will not become another game of interest group politics. We want to hear from the jobbers, the sawmillers, the manufacturers who will be most affected. A lot of the people who are affected by this industry, as I've stated before, work long hours, and we should take that into account and not run the committee hearings on Queen's Park time. Have them on weekends or at night, when the people who are actually doing the work, the independents, can express their opinions, and not just the people who are paid to represent a vested interest group.
1900
The forest resource licences: It is essential to the stability of hundreds of small sawmills and jobbers that they be allowed continued access to their licences. I'm assured that's going to happen. I would like to state that I hope we're cognizant of the fact we can't overregulate these small outfits. In many cases, they're family-run and they're small businesses.
I know that the idea of not producing a cookbook that would go right across the whole province is to enable this legislation to be flexible enough in the manuals to take into account all the independent people and all the jobs that they create in these small communities throughout central and northern Ontario. I look forward to seeing the manuals on that.
The local producers I feel should be given priority over the outside interests to ensure that the whole process from harvesting to production to manufacturing is kept in the areas. I assume that's what the bill speaks to when it talks about sustainability of the local communities. I look forward to seeing how the manuals relate to that.
It also probably doesn't make sense to haul timber three-quarters of the way across the province, bypassing mills along the way, nor does it make sense to have contractors from outside communities come in and take the jobs of local workers. I hope that's what the bill's referring to when it talks about sustainability of the communities.
We also have the border problems with the province of Quebec which will have to be addressed if we're going to talk about the sustainability of the communities and the sawmills in the eastern part of the province.
The forest renewal trust fund and the forestry futures trust: I've looked forward to that for a number of years. I praise the government for bringing it forward. Previous governments didn't have the courage to do it. It's an excellent idea and it assures that funds are dedicated to the reforestation. It eliminates the need for the minister to go hat in hand to the consolidated revenue fund on a yearly basis. It also facilitates the long-term planning within the industry. I think that's essential. If you're going to have long-term planning, you have to have the money there to plant the trees. If you're going to have a contract to cut this area of forest, there should be some assurance that the money's going to be there to actually replant it.
At first glance you might think that there's actually going to be less money spent now than there currently is. There was a $100-million figure talked about. In fairness to the minister, I think that was in reference to a question asked by the press on approximately how much money will be there. He said that, based on previous years, that was what you could expect.
We intend to hold the minister to his word that the forest renewal trust will continue being supplemented by other revenues and that the money will be there. I'm sure there will be quite a bit of information on that at the committee level. There are two trust funds here. I'm interested to see how the division of money is going to be done and what it's going to be based on. I'm sure we'll address that at the committee -- I see the minister nodding, so that's agreed.
Silviculture: As has been mentioned, quite frankly, this government's record in tree planting has been a disappointment -- as was mentioned earlier, the expensive fertilizer program of mulching up the number of trees a couple of years back. Hopefully, this bill is a step away from that kind of forestry.
Logging companies have been willing to comply with the ministry's requirements to replant. Indeed, they could use the jobs, but they've encountered many difficulties in the past. In some years there aren't enough seedlings available, while in other years the government produces too many. When there aren't enough, loggers cannot fulfil their obligations. Hopefully, the trust fund will end up addressing those problems of stabilizing the market.
I would also like to put in a word for the private nurseries in the silviculture industry. Hopefully, what this legislation enables is for the government to set standards and for the private sector to actually grow the trees and to have it contracted out. It provides stability in the private sector and the nursery growers. That would mean, with the trust funds, that the supply can meet the demand over the long term.
The auditing: I think that's a step in the right direction. Like I've mentioned before, the caution is that we're telling the world that the products coming out of Ontario are going to be sustainable. We're going to market that to all the European nations, the Far East. We have to make sure that the actual results meet the rhetoric. The audits will be the check upon that. It doesn't state in the legislation how often; it says from time to time they'll report to the Legislature. I'm sure that'll be addressed at the committee level.
The government sets a framework and then, periodically reporting to the industry and to the Legislature should minimize some of the bureaucracy involved. By having the industry actually do the work and having the government set the standards and audit, and make sure it's done and have appropriate fines if it isn't done, should save some money in the long run that can be freed up for other areas within Natural Resources.
I'd like to see a costing on the minister's projections for future ministry budgets in regard to this exercise, the caution being that we cannot just download the costs of this on to the industry. They have to be compensated in the tenure that's been mentioned earlier. That would probably be the compromise that could be worked out. If they're going to spend money, make sure they have the jobs available in their communities and their industry in the next 20 to 30 years.
The enforcement, I believe, is a step in the right direction. As is mentioned at the outset of the bill, it was all or nothing, and in lots of cases it wasn't worth the ministry's staff time to go out and document it and proceed with the charges to find out that nobody wanted to close the mill down for a minor infraction.
I would like to state that there is a concern out there that the ministry doesn't have the adequate resources to ensure enforcement is carried out throughout the province. I hope that will be addressed and proven to be false.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): The Common Sense Revolution will take care of it.
Mr Hodgson: The Common Sense Revolution will take care of it. We'll have enough --
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): It will not.
Mr Hodgson: I see the Minister of Environment and Energy is speaking about the Common Sense Revolution.
Hon Mr Wildman: He wants to increase the staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Common Sense Revolution will reduce it by 20%.
Mr Hodgson: Actually, agriculture is exempt from the Common Sense Revolution. But in the Ministry of Natural Resources, this bill is actually a step in the right direction towards the Common Sense Revolution. What it does is that government gets out of the business of actually competing with the private sector to produce the seedlings, which requires less ministry dollars and less ministry staff. We set the standards and make sure it happens, and let the private sector deliver, to make sure that goes on. That's the role of government, to set a framework.
Interjection.
Mr Hodgson: That will provide that. It also takes into account some of the recognition of the sustainability, based on the marketing of our products.
Mr Owens: It's like sticking a ReMax sign on Algonquin park.
Mr Hodgson: Actually, it won't be owned, but I won't touch that. Algonquin park is a beautiful part of Ontario, and I've already mentioned the Bruton and Clyde additions as being not part of the park proper but added on in 1960, guaranteeing traditional uses of hunting and fishing in perpetuity, which seems to be redefined under the present government as having put timetables on it to deny people their traditional use.
The politics of this bill: Some say it's an attempt to save face in northern Ontario after failing to live up to so many election promises -- the $100 million for a four-lane on the Trans-Canada Highway, $400 million for the northern development fund. This was all mentioned in the Agenda for People.
The high taxes and the hydro rates have chased away potential investment and upgrading within all resource sectors, especially forestry. In reality, this bill is an attempt at damage control for rapidly declining forestry regeneration budgets, increasing stumpage fees in a stagnant forest industry because of the financial mismanagement of the government.
Unlike my Liberal colleague who spoke before me, I don't want to dwell on the politics of the issue. I'd love to sooner deal with the issue at hand and be constructive.
I do have a serious concern, though, for the timing of this legislation. My predecessors have been calling for this reform for a number of years. We hope that the manuals will be coming out soon so that we can have the public hearings and get on with the problem. We applaud the ecosystem approach which is being employed, and we've recognized the importance of our forest, the recreation, tourism, the economy and the jobs, and hopefully this is a step in the right direction to ensuring that all those things can happen.
The consultation, both now and once the bill becomes law, must be meaningful and must include the primary stakeholders. I feel confident that can be achieved. The minister must recognize the importance of the private forests in order to sell the sustainability of our wood products coming out of Ontario to the world, to make sure that 20% doesn't become 15% and then 10%, because that means you're going to have to get more than 20 million cubic metres off of the crown lands. If you take 1% a year more, in 100 years you don't have a sustainable forest. If your forests take 10% a year more, it throws out the idea of sustainability in our crown forests, if we're to protect the communities that need 25 million cubic feet of lumber produced a year.
In conclusion, I look forward to working with the minister and to the committees and the hearings.
1910
Hon Mr Hampton: I have to leave for a few minutes, so I wanted to respond in part to the issues raised by my colleague from the Conservative Party.
First, on the so-called Common Sense Revolution which the member's party is promoting across Ontario, I want him to know that the so-called Common Sense Revolution would call for a 20% cut in the budget of the Ministry of Natural Resources. It would reduce a budget that now stands at $476 million to $382 million. That would lead to the layoff of approximately 1,000 people working in the field and would also mean an approximate 10% cut in all of the ministry's budgets, fish and wildlife budgets, as well as the forestry budget. I want him to know that. Perhaps he can bring some common sense into that policy statement by his party.
Some questions have been raised about forest sustainability. I merely want to say this, and this is for the benefit of both critics: If they look at the Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests, under forest sustainability it lists a number of items:
"Forest ecosystems must be kept in good condition and criteria for this condition need to be described and clearly understood by all interests to achieve sustainability.
"Forest policy must ensure that desired future conditions be defined and directed actions taken are compatible with maintaining and restoring these conditions.
"Maintaining ecological processes is essential for the functioning of the biosphere and biological diversity must be conserved in the use of forest ecosystems.
"We must have large, healthy, diverse and productive forests.
"Forest practices, including all methods of harvesting, must emulate, within the bounds of silvicultural requirements, natural disturbances and landscape patterns.
"Forest ecosystems should not be candidates for harvest where this practice threatens or jeopardizes their long-term health and vigour.
"Forest practices must minimize adverse effects on soil, water, remaining vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and other values."
The Deputy Speaker: Your time's expired.
Hon Mr Hampton: It's all there, Mr Speaker.
Mr Brown: I was most impressed by the first speech, I believe, given by the critic for Natural Resources for the Progressive Conservative Party. I think some of the issues that he raised are worthy of some discussion. I know he did his in a totally non-political way, not mentioning the Common Sense Revolution or any of that. But I think it's important, and I think he would agree with me, that the issue of forests on private lands has been woefully neglected by this government.
This NDP government eliminated the property tax rebates on private land. I have talked about this repeatedly. It is having an adverse effect on private land forestry in this province and it affects areas in my constituency, areas in central Ontario, in particular where there are many of these operations. It's a problem.
The other problem the Minister of Natural Resources should consider when he's talking about private forest lands is that he should understand that there will be a relationship between the amount of stumpage and area charges that are charged on crown land and the amount of activity on private lands.
If the price gets out of line, I am very concerned, as members of my caucus are very concerned, that there may be some practices on the private lands that will be very poor in terms of harvest. There may be lands that are purchased and then virtually raped for the quick, easy buck they will be able to get. That is not what we see as an important feature of a world-class forestry operation in the province of Ontario.
The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? The member for Victoria-Haliburton, you have two minutes to reply.
Mr Hodgson: I'd like to thank the minister and my friend from Algoma-Manitoulin. I've talked about the idea of private lands extensively in this House and I won't go over that, other than to say that we could probably take a look at the BC models of woodlot licensing or different combinations of that to address this. I believe that's a very serious issue and it's a flaw with this government's intention to sell sustainability throughout the world, because if the world comes and takes a look at our industry, they will quickly realize that the numbers don't mesh.
The idea that the minister mentioned about the Common Sense Revolution somehow having a negative impact upon the MNR -- he bandies about the 20% figure. Anybody who's read the document can go through and see where the cuts are item by item and realize that the 20% is when you take out the cost of health care in this province and the interest on the debt, which has become one of the fastest-growing and one of the largest components of the Ontario government. When you take that away, you're dealing with a 20% cut on the $30 billion.
The 30% cut in personal income taxes on the provincial side is 30% of a $15-billion pool which we get in revenue. But back to the issue at hand, I would like to just mention that there was a report done. This deals --
Interjections.
Mr Hodgson: Actually, the book's available. If you want to go to any caucus, you could probably get some.
There's been quite a bit stated about this act and how it regards crown land in northern Ontario. This act will also provide a framework for central Ontario, and smaller parcels of crown land will be affected. There's been quite a bit of excellent work done by Bill Brown and the ministry staff and they have a number of recommendations that could be implemented at the same time this bill is going through and it would address a lot of the problems that the small jobbers face in this province.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Hon Mr Wildman: I am happy to join in this debate on the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. I want to say in response to some comments I've heard in the debate this evening that far from being some kind of a face-saving effort on the part of the government with regard to forestry, particularly in northern Ontario, this is an act of vision, an attempt to respond to a serious concern that has been lingering in this province for 70 years, at least since the report in 1947-48 on how we should deal with crown land timber and crown land forests in this province.
We have vacillated back and forth over the years with various successive governments on how to manage our forests and we haven't been able to come to any overall overriding approach that would be acceptable to all the various interests that are concerned about the future of the forests in this province.
I want to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources. It's obvious that he is beginning a new beginning for the forests in Ontario. This is of course not the only new beginning in his life in the next little while, but it's obvious that he is looking forward to significant changes that will have a long-term impact and it will be important for all of us, whether we are from northwestern, northeastern, central or eastern Ontario, or for that matter, all of us, considering the importance of forestry to the overall economy of this province, throughout Ontario. There are as many people, if not more, employed in businesses and industries related to forest products in southern Ontario as there are in northern Ontario or eastern Ontario.
Members are probably aware that the Environmental Assessment Board's decision on the class EA on timber management on crown land in Ontario became final on May 19, 1994. The government is committed to the important task of implementing this decision within the context of all of the Ministry of Natural Resources initiatives related to forestry, including this Crown Forest Sustainability Act, Bill 171.
I'm very pleased to be able to participate in this discussion and in this debate because I think everyone recognizes that forests, in northern Ontario particularly, contribute to the economy and to many northern communities. All of us are as concerned as my friend from Victoria-Haliburton about the sustainability of those communities as well as the sustainability of forests in this province.
1920
So when we're talking about this, we're talking about an overarching approach to sustainability. The problem in dealing with the term "sustainable development," which came to us as a result of the Brundtland commission report for the United Nations, is that everybody's in favour of it these days. The problem is that some people put emphasis on the "development" and some people put the emphasis on the "sustainable." The problem with that phrase is that "sustainable" is the adjective, when in my view it must be, as it is in this legislation, the noun.
What we're about here is developing sustainability with regard to our forests and our communities; that we will be able to ensure that future generations will benefit from the tremendous wealth of resources that up to now too often we've taken for granted and haven't managed properly and, as a result, are now seeing situations where, as my friend from Victoria-Haliburton indicated, we're transporting timber farther and farther in order to supply mills simply because we haven't properly managed the crown lands in the vicinity of those mills over many years, over generations.
Historically in this province, we've never had a forest sustainability policy, we've never had a forestry policy. We've had many timber management policies. We've seen the forest simply as a supplier of wood fibre for the lumber mills and the pulp and paper mills. Obviously, all of us recognize that this is very important when one considers the communities that are dependent on forestry, when one considers the economy of this province. But we all recognize that this is only one of the many important values that forests provide us, and that if we are going to manage on an ecosystem basis, if we're going to manage for biodiversity, we can't simply cut down everything and then with a monoculture, replant one single species, frankly because it doesn't work very well and we haven't been successful at it. In doing that, we denigrate all the other values, all the other parts of that ecosystem that developed over generations.
Some people say "Well, a clear-cut is similar to a wildfire." It is in a sense, but if what comes after the clear-cut is a monoculture plantation, that is not the result of a wildfire, that's not what happens in nature, and if we do that too often, we do it at the peril of our forests. We do it at the peril of ourselves.
What this bill, Bill 171, tries to do is develop a policy and standards that will mean we manage our forests not just for timber fibre, important as that is, but also for fish and wildlife habitat, for aesthetic values, for recreational values, whether it be hiking, angling, hunting, canoeing, cross-country skiing, snow machining, whatever, for recreation, and that we also manage those forests for the values of old growth, that we also manage them for the values of tourism.
Oftentimes those values are in conflict with one another and with timber management, and somehow we have to come to grips with that. I believe that Bill 171 is an attempt to do that, to set standards to ensure that we manage on an ecosystem basis, that we have a holistic approach rather than a fragmented approach to the way we manage our forests. I'm pleased that Bill 171 establishes clear and higher standards for operating in our forests and manages on an ecosystem basis.
Other members have talked about the problems we've had in the past with ensuring that whatever standards are set by government are applied and enforced. The problem we've had in the Crown Timber Act, for instance, is that there was either a very, very small fine, which some unscrupulous operators, if they were caught and charged and had to pay the fine, just treat as a cost of doing business, or the draconian approach of saying, "All right, if you haven't complied with the standards, with the regulations, your company is going to lose its licence," which in fact meant nothing, because nobody ever did it.
Can you imagine what would happen if a major pulp and paper company operating in a particular area was going to lose its licence? The whole community would be devastated and threatened. You'd have the mayor, you'd have the chamber of commerce, you'd have the employees, you'd have the union, you'd have everybody trekking down to Queen's Park here, sitting on the doorstep out front and saying: "You can't do this to our community. This company is far too important to the survival, to the sustainability, of our community." So it will never happen. It just didn't happen.
What this bill does is set a gradient, a way of grading penalties if they are necessary so that you don't have just a little slap on the wrist or a decapitation as your only choices, but you can move in terms of seriousness, depending on the violation, to ensure that the penalty does meet the violation in a way to ensure that companies will meet their obligations and live up to the standards set under the legislation. This means we'll have strong compliance mechanisms and we will indeed have stiffer penalties for those companies and those individuals who don't follow the rules when they operate in the forests. In this, I'm not just talking about lumber companies or pulp and paper companies or jobbers, loggers. I'm talking about everyone who uses our forests: recreationists, tourist operators, tourist outfitters and everyone. I applaud the legislation for that reason.
I guess one of the major debates in Ontario politics since the 19th century has been how we properly regenerate the forests, how we ensure that forests are renewed, and we haven't done very well at it.
I recognize that in the early 1980s, one of the predecessors of my friend from Rainy River as Minister of Natural Resources, the then member for Cochrane South, Alan Pope, significantly increased the investment that was made by the government in the planting of seedlings in this province, and I want to give him credit for this. He made a tremendous effort in increasing the number of trees that were planted, seedlings that were planted in cutover areas. And then Alan Pope went around the province and said: "Look what a wonderful job we're doing. We've planted so many hundred thousand seedlings, far more than were planted before."
The problem was that the number of seedlings that were planted wasn't as important as how many trees were growing five or 10 years later and what kinds of trees they were. Were they monocultures or were they more appropriate to the particular site that was cut over?
What this legislation does is make sure that our forests are regenerated, and are regenerated in a way that is appropriate to the particular areas where the cutting has taken place to ensure forest renewal -- not just timber fibre renewal, but rather forest renewal that is habitat for fish and wildlife and for other plants in a way we've never attempted in a serious way in our forests before.
This of course will require that forest renewal is planned before harvesting ever takes place. In other words, we will design how the harvest is to occur on the basis of the particular kinds of sites in a way that will determine how we harvest, and it will make it easier then for us to regenerate. This planning is going to have to take into account the whole forest and all the values I mentioned, not just timber values.
We've had some discussion in this debate about the funding levels we've seen in terms of regeneration of our timber and of our forests. There's no question that in the last few years funding has been inadequate. Some would say on the opposition side, and it's fair -- I spent some time over there myself and I would have done it myself -- that this government hasn't spent enough. I agree with that, frankly. But I would also say very honestly that no government has ever spent adequately.
1930
I can remember when the former Premier of this province, Bill Davis, had a charter, I believe he called it, the Brampton charter, in which he said that for every tree cut there would be two trees planted. Then I remember when the former member for Sudbury East, Elie Martel, brought in a private member's bill which would have done exactly that, only he didn't even go that far. He said just one tree for every tree cut would be planted, instead of two. The Ministry of Natural Resource officials went bonkers because they were afraid this might actually pass in the House and they didn't know how on earth they would do it. They didn't know how. They couldn't: They didn't have the money and they didn't have the resources. And if we listen to some of the things that are being proposed, in terms of some of the nonsense that's been spread across this province in the last few weeks, they will have even fewer resources if some get their way, and it would be impossible for us to do that.
We can't just determine our funding levels and our regeneration efforts on the basis of numbers of seedlings, of trees. We have to do it on the basis of what is appropriate to a particular area: the kinds of soil types, the types of species in the area and the ecosystems. This will mean more careful planning, more difficult planning. It will also mean ensuring that our harvest methods are done in a way that will make it easier for us to regenerate, and perhaps in some ways less costly.
Many members have congratulated the minister for bringing in a bill that gives people a greater voice in how we will manage our forests. If we're serious about the sustainability of communities as well as the sustainability of the forests upon which those communities depend, then people must have a say.
I'm happy to say that in my tenure as Minister of Natural Resources, I was able to begin four pilot projects for community forests in this province and that they are going on in a very successful way as a way of demonstrating how local communities can have a real say in how the forests in their areas are managed.
This bill will make it necessary for the government and for industry to listen to all of the people who have a stake in how we manage our forests. It will require that the government and the forest industries report annually to the public. So there will be greater accountability on how their forests are being managed and the people will be able to judge for themselves if the forests are being cared for properly.
I believe Bill 171 will provide for the development of forest management plans within five years, which should address the concerns raised by many: not just representatives of the forest industry but also environmentalists, anglers and hunters, first nations, tourist outfitters and all who are interested in our forests and the future of forest management in Ontario. I believe also that Bill 171 will make it possible for us to begin to manage for all our forest values, not just timber fibre, in an integrated way that will make ecosystem management a reality in Ontario for the first time.
My ministry, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, will continue to work in cooperation with the Ministry of Natural Resources to address the many and varied forest management issues through other initiatives, including the Ministry of Natural Resources planning system review, the old-growth initiatives, the Keep it Wild campaign, as well as Bill 171.
In that context and in the context of the timber management class EA approval, this new Crown Forest Sustainability Act will mean that the Ministry of Environment and Energy will have to work with the Ministry of Natural Resources to ensure sustainable forest management in this province. I'm pleased to say that I will have a continuing interest not just as a northern MPP representing an area that is very dependent on forestry and on forest management, but also as the Minister of Environment and Energy with a direct interest in implementing the class EA decisions from the Environmental Assessment Board.
I believe Bill 171 goes a great distance to implement the recommendations of that board but also goes even further, in terms of ensuring that we move further than any other government has, than industry ever has in Ontario, in Canada I believe, towards what Ms Brundtland really meant when she said "sustainable development," because without a commitment to sustainability we will be ignoring our responsibilities to future generations.
I conclude by simply saying that whenever I look at how we should manage our resources I think of the very wise words of an elder who recently passed on, Chief Dan Pine of the Garden River First Nation, when he told me that we all must recognize, in how we deal with our resources, that we don't inherit them from our parents or grandparents, from our ancestors; we borrow them from our children and their children.
That's what sustainability is about. That's what this legislation is about. Again, I congratulate my colleague for having the vision to move forward in this way.
Mr Brown: I would like to thank the Minister of Environment and Energy for his intervention, just as a neighbouring riding, as someone who shares many of the same concerns I do.
One of the concerns I have with this legislation and one of the concerns that many of us have is understanding how this impacts on the crown land units. It's all fine to say all these good things are happening, but unlike FMAs, which most northerners understand -- it's relatively simple in terms of renegotiating a contract with a particular company that holds the rights, and hopefully holds the rights with some kind of security over time -- dealing with the crown land units is a whole different ball game.
We've been looking for creative ideas and understanding how this is going to occur, because certainly along the north shore of Lake Huron, certainly along the north shore of Lake Superior, certainly in many areas of the province, the crown land units create more difficulty in doing what might be ecological management that the member talks about and the minister talks about.
I was at the briefing with ministry officials and they were most helpful, but in the area of understanding how this was to work they weren't very helpful at all. They kept saying, "Well, we're going to work this out."
If this is just about the FMAs at the moment, that isn't that tough. We've had the environmental assessment. This legislation had to wait for the timber EA to report. That's a given. It had to wait, no government could move until that happened, but we are still at a loss about how this is to work on the areas outside the FMAs. It's not fair to ask the member for Algoma to respond to this, but I'm hoping the Minister of Natural Resources will help us with how they see that in the future.
Mr Hodgson: I'd like to congratulate the member for Algoma for a very thoughtful and emotional speech. It was just a pleasure to hear that. I think the whole House agrees with what he stated and nobody has a complaint with that, but what we're waiting to see is how it's going to be implemented, what the policy manuals say, what the regulations say. It's in the details where we'll find out whether it does live up to its advance billing or whether it doesn't.
I would just like to comment along the same lines as the member for Algoma-Manitoulin in that I have the same concern for the people of Victoria-Haliburton in particular, the riding I represent. Large contracts are going to be established, and that's going to be dealt with first. I too was briefed by the senior ministry officials, and I want to thank the minister for that, but when asked how this is going to affect the little people, the people like the jobbers, the independents, the small sawmill operators, the veneer operators, it was, "We'll have to wait and see how the manuals work their way out."
1940
I have a particular concern. There's a young lady who runs a veneer plant in my riding, and what I'm worried about is that we will entrench the status quo. If we're talking about crown limits in supply, here's an operation that the market is there for. Traditionally it's been a source of employment for the small town of Wilberforce, it's provided the main economic activity for that area, the market is up, and they're having a hard time getting products.
Hopefully this legislation will move past the large pulp and paper industry of the north and look at the whole province of Ontario and get its act together with allocating resources to provide sustainability for her operation that she's struggled to keep surviving in a recession. Now it's time she had the market guaranteed, and hopefully this bill can address that.
Mr Wood: I know the member for Algoma very well, and his riding borders on my riding. I also had the privilege of working with him in the first two years of this government, and I know the interest and concern he has that is addressed in Bill 171.
I also know how concerned he is about the number of new jobs that can be created and the jobs that can be sustained out there. As I said, his riding and my riding are very similar, and the forest industry, the sawmills, the pulp mills, the paper mills are very dependent on how we manage our forests now and into the future.
So I just want to say I appreciate very much the comments you have made in helping to bring this bill forward and get it into hearings, so we can have some public hearings throughout the province this summer and get to the point where Bill 171 will become the law of the land in dealing with crown land.
The Acting Speaker: Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, the Minister of Environment and Energy has two minutes.
Hon Mr Wildman: I thank my colleagues for their comments and questions. I think it's fair to say that in the past, because of the importance of the pulp and paper industry in this province, forestry policy has been largely determined by the boreal forest, and the FMAs were part of that situation. There's no question that the forest management agreements which were brought forward by a Conservative government and then continued under subsequent governments meant that the provincial government had significant obligations to the industry for forest management and renewal for silviculture, and that the Ministry of Natural Resources essentially robbed its financing of the crown management units in order to maintain its obligations to the forest management agreement holders. There's no question that we haven't done the job we should have done on our crown management units.
Hopefully, as we negotiate the situation where the former FMA holders will be paying into the trust fund and will be responsible for renewal in their areas, that should free up some resources, if we don't have draconian cuts, as have been proposed by some, to actually do the kind of investments we should be doing on our crown management units.
It's important for us to recognize that we must move for better management and conservation on those areas, and we're doing that on the north shore of Lake Huron, as they have done in the Algonquin area in the past. But it's also important for us to recognize that as we improve the management of our forests, it means more jobs, not fewer jobs. It means opportunities to use the resources in a way that will ensure real sustainability of jobs, sustainability of communities. So this is about proper management, management for all the values of our forests, that will benefit all those values but also the communities that are dependent on those forests.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I am pleased to take this opportunity to make comments on the record with regard to Bill 171. This being the first bill in the past four years that we've seen from this government and in this term of the Minister of Natural Resources, it's enlightening to see this legislation come forth.
When I say that, I do have some reservation, however. Generally, we've heard many good things about this bill, and generally I can actually support it, because it does sound like some good stuff involved in what the minister has said and what we've just heard as well from the Minister of Energy.
I do have, however, some reservations about the vagueness. We've heard it said by both the critics, the critic for the official opposition and the critic for the third party, that the ministry officials were vague in explaining what is going to happen in terms of these manuals we hear about, the policy manuals that are going to follow through on this bill and bring forth the actual policy. That concerns me, that we have a bill here that is in principle fairly good stuff, yet we're hearing concern over what may come forth in terms of the policy around the bill.
Just on that thought, I'm looking forward to what the minister has indicated will be public hearings in terms of going out to the people involved in the forestry industry and going into northern Ontario and northwestern Ontario and hearing from the small operator, hearing from the major companies.
As you can well imagine, the forestry industry is extremely important in my riding. I often tell the story of how I am actually a product of that particular industry, as my grandfather came to Kenora to participate in the development of Boise Cascade. My father and five uncles were involved in the industry; both brothers are now involved with Boise Cascade. I have numerous, numerous relatives from across the riding who are involved in this industry, so I cannot tell you how important it is to me personally, as well as to those folks across my riding.
One of the major concerns I hear about this legislation is the possibility of driving the small guy out of business. We've heard a lot about stumpage fees from the various speakers and they are quite concerned that these will be raised through the roof, to the point where the small entrepreneur, the small company out there, just cannot handle that.
So I go back to the fact that the minister has indicated that there will be public hearings on this particular piece of legislation. Those public hearings are very important in terms of gathering the information, but he's also going to have to listen to that information. I cannot tell you about the people in my riding who are concerned about anything that is going to affect them. Quite often, we find these to be the small business owners, the people who are employing small numbers. I'm not talking about the Boise Cascades of the world and the other major players but about the many small industries in my riding that depend on the forests for their particular industry.
Something that caught my interest in terms of Bill 171, and something which I think is extremely important, is part V of the bill, which talks about the trust funds. This has caught my attention and I think it is very important and something I can see as a very positive measure.
At this point, I would just like to read what it says in terms of this part of the bill. The new act will provide for a forest renewal trust fund to ensure that a dedicated and secure source of funds will be available for the renewal of all harvested crown forests. The act will also provide for a forestry futures trust fund for silviculture for forests killed by natural causes, intensive stand management, and in the case a licensee becomes insolvent.
I can't tell you how important those aspects of what I've just read into the record are to the industry in my riding and to the people who depend on that industry. I've witnessed some of the forests that have been killed either by fire or by spruce budworm, which is going through my region of the province at the present time. In the development of such a fund, we can look forward to something that will be there, and I can only say that I just hope this truly becomes a reality, because I know how important it will be to the industry throughout my riding and my area in northwestern Ontario.
1950
When we hear the member for Victoria-Haliburton talk about the Mike Harris Common Sense Revolution, I must caution the people who depend so much on this industry to read very closely what Mike Harris has said in terms of cutting the budgets of these very important ministries such as the Ministry of Natural Resources, such as the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. These are ministries we depend upon so much throughout the north, and every time I hear that Common Sense Revolution theory and the stuff I have read, I cringe and think about what a great effect that will have on my constituents and the people throughout northwestern Ontario, northern Ontario, who depend on such things as the forest for their industry. I talk about the forestry industry, but we know that a lot of other industries depend on the forest: tourism, the people who come into my region, the northwest portion of the province, looking for that natural experience that takes them into the forest -- some very important stuff.
I've received a good number of comments from the companies and from various constituents throughout my riding in terms of Bill 171, but I would like to read one letter that comes to me from Regional Logging Industries (1979) Ltd. This is a small company that employs a number of people in the Dryden area, and this company has taken time to look at the views as expressed by Bill 171, and the initial response goes like this:
"In reference to 'sustainable forests,' our methods of forest harvesting have always been based on perpetuity. This term is outdated. It should be replaced with 'What will our forests sustain?' which would include all users and stakeholders of Ontario forests."
They go on to say, "Before we can build a new 'policy framework,' we must have numbers to work with. A new up-to-date inventory of all the species must be completed for crown and private lands. Inventories should also include restricted areas and park areas in the province. Most of the ideas for a new 'framework' have been practised for the past several years.
"We must be careful that such a 'policy framework,' when implemented, will not cost extravagant amounts of dollars to police. The money would have to come from the stumpage fees" -- as I indicated earlier, real concern, concern that not only comes from Regional Logging Industries but from other people who have got in touch with me as well. "Therefore, the forest renewal trust fund will be depleted," a reference to the renewal trust fund, part V of this act, a very important part, as indicated here.
"Every time the government involves itself, there is a tendency to create new bureaucratic jobs and positions which cost megadollars. We must be competitive globally! Any additional costs would drive the stumpage fees up, resulting in the industry losing its competitive edge."
The global aspect of the industry is something which concerns a lot of people in the business of forestry throughout. They know that we are competing on a global basis and they know that we must remain competitive -- really quite concerned about the actual policy that will come about with Bill 171.
It goes on: "Some of the methods currently being practised for wildlife and lakeshore reserve have done more damage to our forests than good, such as sun scalding (exposure to the sun at certain times of the year) for different species, and the age of timber being harvested. Modified cuts should be used in certain situations. Damaged forests from fire, wind and bugs should be salvaged expediently."
When they talk about the forests damaged from wind, we have actually just suffered from a major blowdown in the Pakwash forest in the northern portion of my riding. The Regional Logging people speak from experience where we've had to get in and get that forest, which has literally been blown over. If you fly over the area, go over a blowdown, it's trees on their sides. Before the infestation of bugs gets in there or before it's wiped out by fire, it has to be harvested. That's something they bring forth here and something which I hear from a lot from the people involved in the forestry industry.
"The policy for managing patented or pine veteran grants should be eliminated because it is outdated." Madam Speaker, I think you'll find this of interest. "There is no justification for patented land owners to pay stumpage fees for their jack pine on their land. This policy was implemented in the 1800s to restrict the cutting of red and white pines for shipbuilding in the southern Ontario region. It carried over to the PVG lots in northwestern Ontario affecting the harvesting of jack pine, not spruce. It was my view that it should be abolished." A southern Ontario policy, which this person has indicated has been transferred into northern Ontario, makes absolutely no sense at all. "Private land owners should be considered in the 'policy framework' and encouraged to refurbish unused vacant lands."
That represents a good number of the letters I have received regarding Bill 171 and a good amount of what's on the minds of those folks who are dependent on this industry from across my riding.
I cannot stress the importance I place on the public hearings. What I have just read indicates that there are some other thoughts out there, other thoughts this government will have to listen to and possibly take a look at those before it comes to the finalization of what the four policy manuals will look like.
I cannot say that the minister, as he talked about earlier in his comments -- these are real people. These are the real people the member for Victoria-Haliburton indicated worked long hours for their hard-earned dollars. These are the people the minister must ensure are listened to and the people who will help bring forth their ideas, such as the Andersons, who have written me in terms of this piece of legislation.
I would just like to say that in the northwest, as well as throughout the northeast, in fact throughout Ontario, this industry contributes billions of dollars to the economy of Ontario. That's hard to believe when you're sitting here at Queen's Park in downtown Toronto, but if you just take a look around, even at some of the offices located within Metropolitan Toronto and take a look at how they are connected, you will find that it is not just a northern Ontario industry but one which affects this province in a great many ways.
I'd just like to wrap up my comments by saying again that I look forward to the nitty-gritty of what the policy will bring forth, what the policy manuals will tell, but I can only say, and I hope the minister hears this comment, if nothing else, that I honestly hope this will not affect those small businesses in my riding that we depend so much upon for employment.
Mr Wood: First of all, I want to thank the member for the comments he's brought forward. There are a couple of things he's concerned about, first the public hearings and the length of the public hearings. There's no doubt that we are committed to those hearings, and as the minister had said in his opening remarks, hopefully we can work out a schedule with the Liberals and the Conservatives over the next few days to set a schedule in motion that we can stick to.
As to the policy manuals, he mentioned the concern about whether the manuals will be ready. Yes, the manuals will be ready; the four manuals we're talking about will be ready.
As far as the small guys are concerned, he talks about the increase in stumpage fees. I'm not sure the public out there and the people in the province of Ontario are all aware of it, but there is an indexing of the stumpage fees, and as the price of lumber or paper or pulp increases, the taxpayers of the province, who own the crown land and the trees out there, get an increased amount of that. When you have lumber that goes from $300 a thousand board feet to $600 or $700, which happened, there's no doubt the stumpage fees go up, but the sawmills and the paper mills and pulp mills benefit from that and there should be some negotiations where they're sharing the cost of the increased stumpage with the small guys so they don't pay the price. There's no doubt about that. I personally have encouraged that right across the province over the last 18 months, that they should sit down with the companies and make sure they have a fair agreement so that they get a return based on inflation.
2000
The Acting Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Kenora may reply.
Mr Miclash: I can't say how delighted I am to hear that we've had the public hearings committed to again and that this government is committed to the public hearings, but I read a letter into the record in which there were some suggestions, and the important factor is, will this government listen to what it hears during these public meetings?
I understand that the policy manuals will be ready and that the date of possibly August has been set for those to be out. But the important thing is, what will be in these policy manuals? That's what people are looking forward to, how it will affect them and what will be in there.
I brought up the subject of stumpage fees, which the member for Cochrane North explained very well, and anybody related to this industry as well will understand how they work. But again I bring it up as something which is on the minds of my constituents, which is on the minds of the people involved in the forest industry.
The member for Cochrane North mentioned that they are looking for fairness in their policy. I guess that goes back to fairness in gas prices, how this government said there would be equalized gas prices across Ontario. Madam Speaker, you'll know how I feel about that. While this government actually indicated that we were going to have fair gas prices across Ontario, we found out what happened to that, so there's some major concern on the part of the industry, the people out there.
I can only hope that the Minister of Natural Resources will abide by the words that have been given here this evening by the member for Cochrane North and that they will truly be fair when they bring forth the policies in relation to Bill 171.
The Acting Speaker: Is there any further debate?
Mr Wood: As we've already heard from many of the speakers, Bill 171 takes Ontario into a new era of resource usage. We can finally say, to put a twist on the old saying, that we can see the forest because we can see the trees, the moose, and all the other wildlife. With this bill, Ontario will have the capability to manage the forest as a whole ecosystem, not just as a product that goes to the mills.
Last summer, in my capacity as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, I toured most of central and northern Ontario to discuss the silviculture practices in our forests. During this tour, the minister and I met with forest managers from the MNR and other groups interested in the wellbeing of our forests. We made a commitment then, and I am pleased that this commitment is repeated in the act, that each harvest site requires planned regeneration to get a healthy forest. This planned regeneration could include natural regeneration, aerial seeding or planting and tending. No forest stand is harvested if a plan for regeneration isn't ready. This is a significant step forward in the way we harvest our forests and one which I believe will keep our forests producing jobs for a long time to come.
I'm pleased to say that this government's Keep it Wild campaign will enable Ontario to complete a system of parks and protected areas by the year 2000. In doing so, we are ensuring that the wilderness we presently enjoy, our grandchildren can also enjoy in the future. Perhaps our grandchildren will enjoy it more then, since few of our natural spaces will remain unless they are protected.
Again I would emphasize that Bill 171 is Ontario's first forestry act. We've had numerous timber acts, but this is the first bill that actually looks at the forest as a whole, everything from rare species like the falcons to more common animal and plant species like moose and black spruce.
The government has adopted the first policy framework on sustainable forests. This is an important, historic first for the province, because it represents a shift from managing forests for timber to a view that we must manage for all forest values.
I'd like to mention some of the important elements in Bill 171 that make this bill different from any other timber bill this province has seen before.
First, Bill 171 requires that forest renewal is planned before harvesting ever takes place. Again, this ensures the long-term viability of our forests and helps to ensure a healthy northern economy.
Next, Bill 171 ensures that sufficient funding for regeneration of the forests is set aside each year through the forest renewal trust fund. Bill 171 also ensures that our forests are regenerated to meet improved standards for forest renewal.
This bill will establish strong compliance mechanisms and stiffer penalties for those who don't follow the rules when they operate in the forest. Unscrupulous operators hurt us all. Fines can range from $10,000 up to $1 million. The fine of $1 million would apply to anyone who refuses to comply with an order under the act to stop operations that are causing or likely to cause loss or damage that impairs the sustainability of the crown forest.
Bill 171 will require the government and forest industries to report regularly to the public on how their forests are being managed so that the people will be able to judge for themselves whether our forests are being cared for properly. The environment has become one of the public's top concerns over the past decade. Every organization from Girl Guides to Greenpeace does volunteer environmental work, like planting trees or cleaning up polluted community areas. People will continue to be concerned and take an active interest in our environment. Bill 171 acknowledges this and provides the opportunity for people to become involved through the local citizens' committees. The act clearly states that the minister shall not approve a forest management plan unless satisfied it provides for the sustainability of the forest. The forest management plan will outline planned regeneration of the forest before it is harvested. This will ensure diversity in our forests and is a significant step forward in managing our forests.
This planning activity is very central to the effectiveness of the act. The planning will be guided by manuals that set out acceptable approaches for forest operations. At the same time, we can't spell out each and every aspect of forest management in the act. The manuals will outline what is and isn't appropriate in various forest harvesting and regeneration circumstances.
With this act, forest companies will provide more detailed information about the forest. This information will be used to continually improve forest management.
I briefly mentioned the local citizens' committees. These committees will be set up to enhance cooperation between local communities and forest industries. There are already several of these committees in my riding. One example is the Hearst Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and the 6/70 Community Forest Committee. These two committees, comprised of local citizens interested in fishing or snowmobiling or hunting or other forest uses, together review the activities of the forest and coordinate their efforts to ensure harmony between consumptive and non-consumptive users of our natural resources.
Forest managers will be required to ensure that the forest operations they plan have regard for water, wildlife, fisheries, vegetation and heritage values of the forest ecosystems. Sustainable forests will ensure that we are able to sustain forestry jobs, forest-dependent communities, and the cultural, recreational and spiritual values of the forests.
This new legislation will provide the guidelines that all of us -- industry and government -- need to improve the way we conduct forestry in Ontario. I truly believe that Bill 171 is crucial for the long-term health of our forest ecosystems. I am also convinced that Bill 171 is essential to the economic health and wellbeing of communities and people who depend on forest industries for their livelihood.
It is interesting to note the amount of dollars spent on reforestation. If you take the minimum stumpage, there's $20 million residue value; the market fluctuation is $71.5 million; area charges are approximately $14 million. As to the trust accounts, one is $60 million, the other one is $20 million. The special purpose account is $35 million, plus MNR core silviculture funding of $68.1 million, and the forest futures licensing area is $6 million. We're talking about $189 million that is projected to be spent or is being spent, and it's more than has ever been spent in the province of Ontario on silvicultural and managing of their forests.
With that, I would finish up my comments.
2010
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I commend the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources for his comments in regard to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. As northeners, coming from sister ridings, Cochrane North and Cochrane South, we probably understand far too well the whole aspect of forestry, like many other members from northern Ontario who deal with forestry.
What really excites me about this bill and some of the comments the member made is the whole approach, putting money aside into a trust fund to make sure we have the dollars in the future to do the amount of reforestation that needs to be done.
Clearly, those who utilize the forest have to be the people, in the end, who are responsible for doing the reforestation; after all, they're the ones who profit from it. One of the problems I've heard as a member since 1990, and I'm sure my colleague from Cochrane North has heard the same thing, is that part of the problem we've had over the years is that the money that's collected in stumpage has gone into the consolidated revenue fund, and there's a problem when it gets over there in that not enough money comes back sometimes to do the amount of reforestation that truly needs to be done.
So for northern Ontario and the forests of Ontario, and to position the market for softwood and pulp in regard to accessing foreign markets, I think the trust fund and the whole approach to it is sound one. We've seen examples in other places where such positive measures could be taken.
The other thing I'm really excited about is the question of bringing together all the stakeholders within the forest to be the ones who deal with the forest management plans. I would like to talk about that a little later if I get an opportunity for comment.
But I think we can get away from the problem we've had for many years, where the people who utilize the forest, from the anglers and hunters to the cottage associations to all the various groups, including the loggers, all fighting the MNR trying to get a stake in the forest is somewhat difficult. Bringing all the stakeholders together to be responsible for dealing with the forest companies I think is step in the right direction, and I'd like to commend the member for Cochrane North for his comments.
Mr Hodgson: I would just like to comment on the remarks of the member for Cochrane North. This is enabling legislation, and I think everybody agrees with the trust fund idea, that the money will be there to replant and regenerate the forest. This will work fine, the concept of sustainability and the trust funds, so everybody's agreeing with the trust funds.
But the concept of sustainability, when you get away from the large forest-managed areas in northern Ontario and down to the smaller crown land areas, when you've got people who work in Harcourt and Wilberforce and Haliburton -- in this area, we have a lot of independent small jobbers that employ one or two people. They have trucks. They support the local economy.
If the forest manuals that come out are so specific in terms of doing this study or that study and become a consultant's dream, it could have an adverse effect on our economy. I think there should be some caution taken, when they draw up the manuals, to recognize the contribution to the sustainability of small communities in Victoria-Haliburton and throughout rural and central Ontario. Woodlots that are no larger than woodlots, which are still crown lands administered by the Minister of Natural Resources -- you have to recognize the scale of these operations. You can't have the same criteria for the studies and hire consultants and professional foresters and whatever other assorted titles they have.
There has to be a recognition about partnership with the Ministry of Natural Resources to manage crown lands and all the stakeholders. We can't have one interest group deciding on how much timber is allowed to come out of this area or what use takes precedence. We have to very careful that we draw this up so it's practical in the smaller communities and on the smaller scales. The independent jobbers are of particular concern to me, because they're not organized, they're very independent, but they still need to be represented here at Queen's Park.
Mr Owens: I want to thank the minister's parliamentary assistant for his remarks. Those who may be watching this program on television today may find it strange that a person from Scarborough Centre would be up commenting on sustainable forestry. However, during my review of the Co-operative Corporations Act, I spent a fair bit of time in northern Ontario in places like Dryden, Longlac, Wabigoon, speaking with many people about the issue with respect to forestry and its sustainability.
Our government was responsible for the setting up of three pilot projects called Community Forestry, and I had the pleasure of meeting with a number of people who were not only involved with the project itself but were members of the community. As the member for Victoria-Haliburton and the member for Kenora have indicated, there's a great interest in providing a logical and rational approach to forestry management and harvesting.
It's certainly not the intent of this government to go full speed ahead without public hearings and the kinds of consultation the minister has talked about, the parliamentary assistant and others on all sides of the House.
In terms of the sustainability of the forest industry and of course the forests themselves, it's a tough problem, but it's our intent to try to resolve it in the somewhat near future in consultation with people from across the north, both from the side of the provider and also the consumer. It's the only way this process will work.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the honourable parliamentary assistant has two minutes to respond.
Mr Wood: I just want to thank the member for Cochrane South, the member for Victoria-Haliburton and the member for Scarborough Centre for their kind comments on the brief discussion I had on Bill 171, the sustainable forestry act.
I'm looking forward to it going into public hearings and getting out around the province so we can get feedback from the general public, the sawmills, the paper mills, the pulp mills, the unions, whether it be CEP or whether it be the IWA or whether it be the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. I'm sure there will be comments from both sides that will come forward as we travel around the province.
One point the minister made in his opening comments is that we're working with the Liberals and the Conservatives to make sure the hearings are not just held in Toronto, that we do travel to northeastern Ontario, northwestern Ontario and central Ontario, where the crown land is being managed and being managed in a sustainable fashion so it takes in the whole ecosystem approach towards managing.
When we get Bill 171 into law with the four manuals we're talking about, I'm sure it will be an example we'll set for around the world, what we've been able to do in Ontario. If we look back at some of the battles that Bud Wildman and Howard Hampton and Floyd Laughren made in opposition, they're able to see the results of that now in legislation dealing with changing the timber act which was put in in 1952, and now we're into 1994, so it's 42 years.
2020
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to just engage the debate on second reading of Bill 171, An Act to revise the Crown Timber Act to provide for the sustainability of Crown Forests in Ontario.
I have listened both in the House and in my office to some of the comments that have been made, and they've been all extremely appropriate comments, from the minister, through to the former minister, through to the member from Haliburton, and my colleagues from Kenora and Manitoulin, to say nothing of the previous speaker from Cochrane North.
I must say that as I have read the bill and looked at some of the notes I have in my hand, some comments from some of the affected interest groups -- I'm looking, for example, at some correspondence from the Ontario Forest Industries Association which outlines that that group sees some positive aspects, which have been touched upon by some other speakers, some positive aspects in this legislation, and of course it not surprisingly finds some uncertainty and some concern.
I want to say at the outset that it's always an important time when the Legislature of Ontario deals with acts and regulations that touch upon the crown timber resources of the province. There was a time when in fact the legislatures did scarcely anything else.
I must say it is some comment on the increased urbanization of the province that we have a debate of this kind at this particular time in the session, and I don't suspect it's going to engender a great deal of controversy. I've got to believe the bill will pass. It's hard not to want to endorse a lot of the bromides contained within Bill 171. I see the good people from the department of lands and forests, as they still call it where I come from, behind the Speaker's dais. I know they have worked long and hard and I think quite responsibly at this bill, and I don't mean to denigrate those efforts. As I said, I've listened earlier to people talk about the various concepts that inform the legislation, and it's really hard to be opposed to any of that. The fun, of course, is in the practice.
I look at provisions in this bill. For example, part VI provides for the licensing of forest resource processing facilities -- again, straightforward, understandable. One ought to just be there when a minister of the crown, a Minister of Natural Resources, chooses to exercise that power in the negative. The member for Lanark-Renfrew is not here, but he could speak to a situation where, and I dare say at the risk of being criticized yet again in my own constituency, Mr Wildman, on behalf of Her Majesty's provincial government in Ontario, decided not to license a new forest processing operation in the village of Braeside. All hell broke loose, I suppose at one level understandably, because the very lifeblood of that community, one of the oldest sawmilling communities in the Ottawa Valley, was very seriously jeopardized by that decision. Happily, other arrangements were made and another operation was launched a short time afterwards.
I remember when the government of which I was a part chose not to relicense the old G.W. Martin Mill at Harcourt. I remember the slanders that were cast about this place and, more interestingly, in Haliburton county about why that decision was made and who made it.
I was interested, and I don't really want to get too deeply involved in this, in the recent by-election in Haliburton county. I'm glad to know that some of the old slanders are still alive and very well. I have a good, thick hide and I will not be too moved by some of that criticism, but I have to tell you, to hear Bud Wildman make the speech he made here earlier tonight is for some of us to forget some of what happened, I suppose understandably, in a more innocent age.
If there is one really beneficial thing that's happened to the provincial political culture in this province in the last decade, it is that each of the three major parties has now had its opportunity with the responsibilities of office. I think there is a heightened consciousness now on all sides of the difference between articulating a bromide about sustaining a good ecosystem or granting a licence here and not there -- because you can't, of course, be opposed to that; that is motherhood or fatherhood. But there is a distinct difference between the impact of that language on the one hand and the practical reality of making the decision on the other.
I dare say there aren't too many members in this Legislature who are going to take issue with many of the concepts contained in this bill, because it is so generally written it reminds me of the Delphic oracle: It can mean everything or it can mean much less than everything. In fact, one will have to look to the manuals, I'm told not yet written, and more importantly, to the regulations, to find out how this legislation is in fact going to come to rest on the province generally and, more importantly, on operations in Cochrane or in Timmins or in my part of eastern Ontario.
At that point, the rubber will hit the road, and I suspect there will be no difference in the behaviour of most every member from the behaviour I saw just a few months ago with my friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew, who was faced with a right decision taken by Mr Wildman, a very difficult decision but a right decision taken in my own community. But there was very little understanding in the community of why that decision had to be taken and there wasn't a local politician anywhere for 50 miles who was prepared to support the decision.
As somebody who's been here for a lot longer than most members, and I have more sins for which atonement is due, our record in the administration of the Crown Timber Act is a blotted record. It is a blemished and tarnished record. It's how many years ago since the sainted Jack Stokes brought to the Legislature the story of Donald MacAlpine and forest audits of a kind in northwestern Ontario? And Jack was right, absolutely right.
I know from my part of the province that there has been an enormous manipulation over the decades of much of the policy that goes into, among other things, allocating crown timber resources. I shouldn't be surprised about that, because in fact it is the lifeblood, as the member from Haliburton and the member from Manitoulin and others have observed. If you live in Braeside, Ontario, or in Palmer Rapids or in Barry's Bay or in Rolphton, some of the communities that I represent or that are in my county, forestry is what gave the community a raison d'être 125 years ago and it is what sustains many of those communities to this day. So it is obviously going to be of importance to people in the Ottawa Valley as to how Her Majesty's government at the provincial level decides to allocate the lifeblood of that industry, which is resource, and a substantial part of that resource is from the crown lands.
We have overcommitted the crown lands for decades, and there's no doubt about that. In my part of eastern Ontario, one of the great challenges, and it is going to be enormously difficult, exceptionally sensitive, is how we bring the resource base that is there now and is likely for the next generation -- and that resource base in terms of at least quality is shrinking.
My friend from Cochrane North will know there is a difference between a yellow birch tree capable of providing two or three veneer sawlogs, on the one hand, and a similar volume of low-quality poplar or -- what else could I say?
Mr Wood: Poplar used to be a weed.
Mr Conway: Poplar used to be a weed, and it's true. It's becoming more attractive now because we recognize that we can do more with it, and the alternatives are much less than we would like them to be.
The point I want to make is that in my area, any government -- this government, any successor government -- is going to face an enormously complicated business of trying to bring the resource base into line with the productive capacity of the industry, which paradoxically has shot upwards as the resource base has contracted, and sharply contracted, particularly on the quality side.
2030
I'm going to tell you, you can write all the legislation you want, with all the highfalutin language around sustainability and balance and all the other virtuous things that are properly contained in this new Crown Timber Act, but that is not going to lessen the challenge that Howard Hampton or Mike Brown or Mr Hodgson will face as they make the tough decisions. They are tough now and they are going to get tougher.
I simply want to say to the government that I can commend the efforts it has expended to bring forward the new legislation. I look to many of its provisions and, as I say, it is very difficult to take a issue with a number of the concepts.
"Sustainability of crown forests": I couldn't agree more, and I accept the criticism that we have not done nearly enough to meet that test in the past. We want to sustain a good ecosystem, balancing all the various interests that are to be found in the 1990s on crown lands. My friend the minister will know, for example, that in our area we have currently something called the Madawaska highlands issue. The great thing about that issue is that it takes the theoretical and makes it brutally practical.
The Ministry of Natural Resources' good people are now engaged in south Renfrew, north Hastings, north Addington, trying to work out some kind of balance and adjudication of a whole host of enormously complex and often contradictory values and ambitions. No politician, and certainly no one in government, is ever going to say "contradictory." We're going to talk about "challenges," we're going to talk about "complementarities," all of that baloney that has to be said by government. You can't be irresponsible like you can in the opposition and talk about perhaps some of the unvarnished truth.
But I'm going to watch as this adjudication and this balance continues, and I might say it's going to be an overlay to one of the most significant aboriginal land claims in the province.
My guess is that within a few months or in a few years, it's going to take Howard Hampton, Bud Wildman, Solomon and Job and several others to move this file along. I'm very confident that they can do that, but I'm watching. Some of it is in my area, some of it's Freddy's riding and some of it's in the Minister of Agriculture's. I'll tell you, if you want to see what this wonderful theory is going to look like, feel like, come to any of the meetings that the Ministry of Natural Resources is sponsoring on the Madawaska highlands. I haven't been to a family court too often, but I have some experience in watching some interests that sometimes clash on rather vigorous grounds where people see the same situation very differently. I just have to say that this is going to be a lot more difficult, however meritorious and necessary, than I suspect some in the Legislature -- all these smart people you see underneath the press gallery, they know. They live this experience. I can see some of the battle-scarred faces from here, and it has only just begun.
It is one of the great legacies of my county that for decades -- the Legislature, you know, used to reserve, on patented land, pine to the lumbermen, because while the farmers had title to their property in almost all respects, the Legislature decided there was another resource producer in the neighbourhood that had a prior claim to that. It's hard to believe it was just, I think, 40 years ago that that provision was eliminated. Mention that even in my own county today and people smile and wonder what kind of fiction that speaks to.
It just indicates the tensions that have always been there in terms of who gets what on the crown lands. Farmers and foresters in my part of the world fought, and fought vigorously, for decades. Now I see, as society becomes more diverse, as the public good becomes more multifarious, we've got at one and the same time, on one and the same piece of crown land, a birdwatcher, we've got a logger, we've got a bow hunter, we've got a shotgun hunter, we've got somebody who likes to take an ATV on that part of the crown land, and it goes on and on. Now we are of course going to in this brave new world, and of necessity, find a mechanism to adjudicate all these competing claims. It's going to be a challenge and one that I expect is going to teach all of us a lot about managing the public domain in the 21st century.
I look to some of the other provisions that are in this bill concerning licences. I see that the bill properly contains a number of remedies and enforcement provisions, and I chuckle and then say that of course it should be so. In a sense, it always has been so. But again I think the test of the legislation will be in the backbone -- I could use a more colourful anatomical reference but I won't, because it would be very incorrect and déclassé. But it will be really interesting to see how ministers of the crown meet that test.
You see, one of the things about this business -- I know it perhaps better than I should, and according to some wonderful speeches here and in the Haliburton highlands, I should, because I am close to a criminal for some of the things I have done. Bud, you don't read your old speeches. Don't look so incredulous.
I look to some of this, I look to trust funds and all that, and I look at what the current government has done, for example, on the pension front. There has been a systematic pilfering of a whole series of pension funds in the last 18 months. The good thing about it is that you steal today and some poor so-and-so a decade from now will have to deal with it, but the perpetrators of this malfeasance will be gone.
Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Which one of your policies?
Mr Conway: I'll tell you, when I talk pensions, I expect to get the interest of the member from Rexdale. I don't expect you to agree with me. I think Bill Davis probably would. I remember that I was the stupid sucker who got lassoed into trying to clean up the mess -- I didn't go a very good job, as it turned out -- about the teachers' pension plan in 1990.
The Acting Speaker: Would the member please address Bill 171?
Mr Conway: I will, Madame la Présidente, I will indeed. I know you would want me to do nothing less.
Hon Mr Philip: Bob Nixon stopped you.
Mr Conway: The point is that I look to this and I say it's exactly the same game. There are all kinds of --
Hon Mr Philip: Gave him the job.
Mr Conway: Madam Speaker, you are so sensitive about the parliamentary niceties, I would hope you would do something about the caterwauling annoyance across the way. I'm sure you would want to.
The Acting Speaker: Please address your remarks to the Chair.
Mr Conway: I will, but I can only do so if I can be heard. I don't mean to be difficult, but I want to play it fair.
I look to this bill and I see, as I say, a very firm commitment to create forest renewal trust funds and forestry future trusts and it reminds me of pensions. Pensions are trusts. That's what they're all about. I just see at Hydro, I see in the public service plan, I see again in the teachers' plan -- what's going on? The way you work your way through some of the exigencies of the social contract: Call in an actuary, recalculate the surplus. There's hundreds of millions of dollars of surplus.
I'm telling you, within five years there is going to be a new Chancellor of the Exchequer stand up in this place, after almost all of us are gone, wringing her hands or his hands and say it was all a fraud. I guarantee it.
2040
I look to this and I say: "Well, I can't be opposed to that notion. That's good public policy." But again, it will mean a lot less if I see there what I've seen in some aspects of crown timber management and administration in the past, for a lot of good reasons, and I accuse all governments. Ministers of Natural Resources get backed into a corner, and I'm telling you, with an election off in the distance -- I mentioned earlier the G.W. Martin business. I remember 10 and 15 years ago in this Legislature saying that I think we're creating trouble. I knew the late Grenville Martin, a great guy, a very bright, innovative, entrepreneurial member of the industry.
Oh, no. I didn't intend to do this.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You're talking forests, right?
Mr Conway: I'm talking forests, yes.
I remember hearing from a number of people and believing myself that, with undoubtedly the best of intentions, the then Davis government was encouraging a growth of something that was not sustainable over time. The question that was asked by a number of people was, what would happen in communities like Searchmont and Sault Ste Marie and Alban and Tweed and Bancroft and a variety of other places if this little empire unravelled? And it did unravel. It has been a nightmarish concern for about five ministers of Natural Resources since about 1985.
On one level, as a politician, I say to myself and to the Legislature, it's hard to have sympathy for people who do this to themselves, because I have to believe that some of these people over there said, "Minister, don't do this." This is, to quote John Carnell Crosbie, short-term gain for intermediate and long-term pain. But these people I suspect were ignored, and away it went. Like the Hindenburg, it crashed out of the sky, and boy, did it leave a trail.
I'm trying to contain myself, because this is such a botched-up affair -- not the bill. As I say, it's hard to oppose a bromide. I just look at some of the examples. The minister made an interesting speech. It was nicely antiseptic. I listened to it.
Then I think of those half dozen meetings I've gone to on the Madawaska highlands, and it has only just begun. I'm waiting for the Madawaska highlands to meet the Algonquin land claim at centre field. Then I will know I have died and been transported to another place. There will be a Solomon, there will be a Job, who will I think move this forward in a way that I could never do.
To focus the mind on Bill 171, you just need to go, as the minister did a year ago, probably against advice, to Denbigh, to hear 300 or 400 people on the subject. My sense is that as our sense of the public good fractures and fractures again, the implementation of this kind of policy is going to become more and more problematic, however desirable.
I simply want to say again that for my constituents in many small communities whose very economic livelihood depends on the successful management of both the crown and private timber resources, it is their hope that the government, with the support of all members in the Legislature, with industry, labour, organized and unorganized, the environmental community and all other "stakeholders," is going to get its act together to allow responsible harvesting to continue.
I look somewhat worriedly at some of the provisions in the bill in the sense that I think, what do I see when I look at my part of the province, when I look to the traditional timber, sawmill and related manufacturing operations? I see some interesting things. I'm now talking about the Ottawa Valley. I see smaller operators going out of business. I see one of the deepest sets of pockets in the nation, the Irving empire based in Saint John, New Brunswick, leaving the field. I see some consolidation around some of the older family-owned operations. I should be careful; I guess I'm getting close to a conflict here. Somebody will draw me into a line. But perhaps most interestingly, I see a growing number of large Quebec-based operations increasingly dining out on the Ontario crown timber reserves in northeastern and eastern Ontario.
In another life, I probably could do an interesting analysis about -- these are good people; I know them. I sometimes imagine, how likely would the reverse be? Can you imagine Howard Hampton Forestry Inc of Mattawa, Ontario, dining out on the crown timber reserves in la belle province de Québec in 1994? I rather doubt it, but it is an interesting phenomenon, perhaps no more than that.
I wonder about what is going to happen in the next few years if we see some of these larger conglomerates consolidating and then starting to meet the mom-and-pop operations that the member from Victoria, for example, was talking about. I have an idea of how that contest is likely to be resolved. However, that is all into the future.
As I say, it is hard to be opposed, and I am not opposed, to the sustainability of crown forests. It is hard to be opposed, and I am not opposed, to good forest ecosystems. It is hard to be opposed, and I could never be opposed, to a responsible minister of the crown approving a forest management plan only after he or she is satisfied that the test of sustainability is met.
As someone who believes in the importance of good public policy, I could never be opposed to something as euphonious and as cuddly as a forest renewal trust. I just sort of expect to see the bear -- what was the bear's name? I sort of expect Smokey the Bear to walk off the pages of the bill.
Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): With all you know, I would have thought you'd know that.
Mr Conway: It's amazing what I don't know, Allan.
These forest management boards -- I mean, I fantasize about what my friend Elie could do with a forest management board.
Hon Mr Philip: That's not something I fantasize about.
Mr Conway: Looking at you and listening to this treasury bench drives me to fantasies of the most peculiar kind.
I simply say that it is my intention to support in principle Bill 171 and to watch with real interest the unfolding of this brave new world, because I think it is full of opportunity and perhaps even a little bit of controversy. But I wish the minister well in this and other new departures in which he is happily engaged.
2050
The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for his comments. Questions or comments to the member?
Mr Brown: I would like to thank my colleague the member for Renfrew North for his intervention in this debate and to echo what Mr Conway was articulating far better than I: the problem we are going to have on the smaller crown land unit. I look to my own area, just so the minister has some appreciation of the problems we have. As I said before, I think the FMAs, while a difficult negotiation process, are a piece of cake compared to dealing with the crown land units.
The specific example I want to give you is the problem we've had with jack pine budworm in the area, where the forest management agreement holder decided it was absolutely necessary that the forest be treated. The FMA holder ended up coming away with virtually nothing in terms of financing from the government, although some expertise and some Bt that was in stock, but because the FMA holder thought this was important and that those trees he would like to harvest in the future, he spent his own money.
Immediately to the north, and I believe probably in Mr Bisson's riding in Cochrane South, there are 10,000 hectares in identical shape. The minister says: "I've got no money. I can't do it. It should be done, I agree, but I've got no money. I can't do it." But that area is going to be in a crown land management unit. It could still be that there would be no money. It is in the same ecosystem, it is the same forest, and yet it may not happen. Again I would just say to the minister that as we go through this process, it will be very interesting to see how the ecosystem approach and the boundaries of these various units work out.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, the member may wish to respond.
Mr Conway: Just in summary, I have no great difficulty with the broad concepts contained in the bill. In my part of the world, management of the crown timber resources is enormously important because they are the economic lifeblood of most of the communities that I am happy to represent.
In my part of the world, our problems at the present time are too much capacity chasing too little quality material: a private and, more particularly, a crown timber stand that is replete with low-level materials. The question is, how do you structure forest management agreements or anything else to make it economically worthwhile for Lankin and company or anybody else to go in and harvest responsibly with a view to sustainability and ecosystems and all the rest what is now in the bush of north Addington or south Renfrew? That is a very real issue. How do you provide for a suitable framework and security of tenure so Lankin and company are going to go and try to raise the millions of dollars they are going to need to do the job that has to be done? The whole question of security of tenure is enormously important, as I know the minister knows.
Those are the issues that face the nation. Those are the issues that are not going to go away by virtue of any new framework, however good it is. That's going to take real political will. It's going to take discipline. By that, I mean it's going to take some tough love over time, because it took us a long time to get into the corner we're now in. I want to say, in fairness to the current government, you had little to do with getting us into this situation. If there ever were sins for which the Tories largely and the Liberals to some extent are to blame, it's these problems. But I'm telling you, we face some very tough choices and we're going to have to get on with it.
The Acting Speaker: Any further debate on Bill 171? If not, the Minister of Natural Resources may wish to make closing remarks.
Hon Mr Hampton: The parliamentary assistant has already made some remarks. In response to some of the members earlier, some of the critics asked if I could give an outline of potentially how much funding was available for silviculture this year. I can tell them that it's expected that the forest renewal trust fund will bring in $60 million this year. We have agreed with the existing major forest companies in the province to provide transition funds of $20 million. We expect that an additional $35 million will be put into another special fund which will eventually become part of the forest renewal trust fund, but the legislative mechanism is not there yet to do that.
In addition, MNR received this year, as part of its core silviculture, $68.1 million, and we expect the forest futures fund to have $6 million at the end of this year as well, which will give us a total of $189 million this year for forest renewal. That is significantly more than we have been able to set aside for a number of years previous to this.
As well, I can tell the member that part of what we're trying to accomplish here, both through the act and through the new business relationship, is a working relationship with the major forest products companies which will allow them to achieve greater efficiency in the forest through some of the integration of forest harvesting and forest regeneration. We think we'll actually be able to accomplish more with the money we have available.
I'd like to thank all the members of the opposition for taking part in the debate. I can tell them that we will be finishing the work on the manuals and the regulations very shortly. They should have all that material before this goes to committee and they should have plenty of time to do the reviews and to work on that.
I wanted to say to the Conservative critic, who raised the issue of private land forestry, that we'll be bringing to the House some time later this fall a template for private land forestry. I would ask the assistance of all the members opposite, because this is certainly an important issue. We felt we had to deal with the crown issues first. Once we've succeeded with those, we intend to work on the private land issues.
I thank the members for their participation and for their helpful criticism.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Hampton has moved second reading of Bill 171, An Act to revise the Crown Timber Act to provide for the sustainability of Crown Forests in Ontario. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Hon Mr Hampton: Madam Speaker, I believe this should go to the general government committee.
The Acting Speaker: So ordered.
PLANNING AND MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE ET LES MUNICIPALITÉS
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 163, An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act and to amend other statutes relating to planning and municipal matters / Projet de loi 163, Loi révisant la Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement du territoire de l'Ontario, la Loi sur les conflits d'intérêts municipaux, et modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et la Loi sur les municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois touchant des questions relatives à l'aménagement et aux municipalités.
Hon Fred Wilson (Chief Government Whip): Madam Speaker, I believe there's an agreement among the House leaders that when the Speaker calls for the vote on this bill, the Speaker shall see the division and shall defer the vote until immediately following routine proceedings tomorrow.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Is it agreed?
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): May I just ask a question? I just love the politics of the foregone conclusion in the last few days of the sitting. Is it the expectation of the chief government whip that we will conclude the second reading debate on 163 tonight? Is that the plan? I don't know what's been agreed to.
Hon Mr Wilson: That is the agreement, I believe.
The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed. We are now resuming the adjourned debate on Bill 163. Further debate, in rotation.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): It is ironic tonight that I actually came down to speak on Bill 91 and the government figured out this afternoon that they hadn't voted on 91 so they couldn't really talk about that tonight; they had to have a vote. So they had to change orders and bring in 163, which is another important bill that we have to debate here in the House.
2100
Bill 163 is a municipal bill. It seems that the government has a whole lot of legislation before it and wants to stick it all into one bill. We have planning issues in this bill, but also the conflict of interest in this bill. It seems to me that if the minister really understood the bill and maybe had read the bill, he would have decided to split this bill into two different parts. But I guess we have to deal with the bill that's in front of us, and it happens to be Bill 163, which is part of the Sewell report -- I guess all the Sewell report, for what it's worth -- and our conflict of interest.
If you look at this bill, I think what the government is up to is that it's trying to get rid of municipal government. There's no doubt about it. We've seen in the past what they did in the Ottawa area, where they took our mayors off regional government and now they've almost made municipal politics redundant in the Ottawa area. Then we have the London-Middlesex area. The government just went around any planning acts there and brought on what it wanted, not what some of the municipalities wanted. It just overrides anything it doesn't like and carries on.
Now they've brought in Bill 163. It makes me believe this government across the floor says: "We can do a better job and we don't need municipal government any longer. We might as well just get rid of municipal government."
First of all, as we know, they sent Sewell, at quite some expense, through rural Ontario, a person like Mr Sewell, who probably couldn't find his way out of Toronto unless somebody put him in a car and took him out. And then we have a lawyer who's probably never been outside of Toronto, maybe looked at a few duck ponds, but that would be about all she'd ever done. Then we had Mr Penfold. If there was any credibility in the whole commission, Mr Penfold did give it some credibility, but he has stated since then that he's not quite sure that what they did was right. I think we really have a problem with this Sewell commission that went around, and the government takes great pains to tell everyone it consulted.
We've seen before that they love to consult, but they don't listen. The biggest problem we've had through the four-year regime of this socialist government is that it goes out into all kinds of areas and tells the people, "We're here to listen, we're here to consult," but it doesn't listen. This is the problem.
As I've said, we spent considerable money sending out someone who practically ruined Toronto, and Toronto was lucky to get rid of him, and then they tried to send him out through rural Ontario in the name of the Sewell commission to try to tell rural Ontario how they're going to do their planning. We end up with Bill 163.
On the other hand, they sent out another commission to look at the conflict of interest, and they didn't listen to them either. When they came back with their report, they changed everything around and came in here with all their recommendations, 100-some pages of recommendations, and tried to ram it through the House.
One of the good things you could say is that it is going to go out to committee this summer. We'll have to make sure that all the municipalities are out to these meetings -- hopefully, the government is listening over there -- and that they travel all over Ontario, northern Ontario and rural Ontario as well as large urban Ontario, so they can hear from everyone out there.
I've heard from the minister that there is corruption in municipal government and that the conflict of interest is going to help solve this, but I don't really think he understands rural Ontario. You might have corruption down here in large urban Ontario, I'm not so sure.
Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I only worked for the Federation of Agriculture.
Mr Murdoch: The minister tells me he worked out in rural Ontario, but I guess you misunderstood, because I don't see a lot of corruption out there. I was involved in rural Ontario municipalities, and there wasn't any.
With these rules, you're going to discourage people from running for municipal politics. In some small places, in some of the small urban centres and some of the small rural centres, they sometimes have a hard time getting people to run for these jobs. Now you're going to make it worse. You're going to put in controls and rules and regulations that will say, "Hey, there's no sense in running."
I want to comment on some of the comments that were made before me. Al McLean spoke quite well and put in a lot of the concerns of a lot of the people. We had Ron Eddy, and you can't find somebody who doesn't know more about --
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I would ask the honourable member to refer to honourable members' ridings as opposed to their names.
Mr Murdoch: Now, Mr Speaker, you're going to make me look on the form to find out which ridings they're from, but we'll talk about the member for Brant-Haldimand. He spoke quite eloquently about some of the concerns rural Ontario has, along with our member from Simcoe. We also had our member for Dufferin-Peel speak on it. They put in a lot of the concerns, and I won't go over them again, that rural Ontario and the small urban municipalities have with this bill. They're trying to tell the minister, but again he doesn't listen. He says there's a lot of corruption out there and things like this, and we've got to bring this bill in to clean things up.
There are some good things in the bill, but the bad things outweigh the good things. I hope the minister -- now he's going to leave. Maybe he doesn't want to listen to me. That's unfortunate, because out in the hallway he certainly would listen to me. And then he tells me that if we come in and speak against this bill, he'll be quite upset because he can't see what's wrong with the bill. The problem is that I don't think he's read the bill understands what's in it himself. I'm sure that when this bill goes out for committee work, he's going to get a real earful from a lot of the municipalities.
The minister also tells us that AMO and ROMA and NOMA and people like this all support this bill. Well, I've got to tell you, they tell me something different. They tell me they don't support this. I talked to the past warden of Grey on Friday night at a function. He's on a committee that's been looking at this bill, and he said they have grave concerns about this bill, but that there are some good things. We know there needs to be some cleaning up in the planning and things like that, and no one's against some of the conflict-of-interest rules, but they're not in favour of this bill as it sits.
The bill should have been taken in two parts, at least: the Sewell stuff and the planning stuff on one side of the bill, and then another bill brought in for the conflict of interest. Unfortunately, as I say, the government probably couldn't figure out how they'd do that, and they know they're not going to be here too much longer so, "Let's ram this one through now; we can get it through and out to committee this summer and then bring it in in the fall and pass it before we leave the House." That's what they must be saying to themselves. It's the only thing I can see, anyway, that they would want to do.
We have a lot of concerns about this bill in rural Ontario. This fall we're going to have municipal elections, and we want good people to run for our municipalities. We need good people out there. Municipal government is the closest government to the people, there's no doubt, far closer than anyone here is, and we certainly need those people to run. But under Bill 163, I'm afraid we're going to have a hard time getting the good people to run. In some municipalities they hardly make any money at all, and they're going to make them disclose what they make in their business at home, what their wives make in their business, what their kids make.
They're getting carried away over here. As I said, it looks to me like this government is trying to figure out a way they can get rid of municipal government. Then all they have to do is have the one-tier government here at Queen's Park that can look after everything. We've seen that in many other bills. They've gone on and on about how they could look after things. Take rent control: They said, "If you don't want to have rent control, we'll supply all the housing as the government."
What they're trying to do now, through Bill 163, is say to the municipalities: "We really don't need you either. We can control everything here. We'll make it so tough on you that you won't want to run."
As I said before, the other members who spoke on this bill some time last week brought up all the different things in the bill that the people in rural Ontario and small urban centres are upset with. They feel that maybe this bill should even be thrown out. I'm sure that after we go out on some of the committee hearings, they may wish they had thrown it out before they took it out there, because they're going to hear from the municipalities and they're going to be told what they think about this bill, and I'm telling you, it's not going to be nice. But if that's what they want to go out and hear, I guess we'll have to let them do that.
2110
I'm certainly not going to vote for this bill. I'm sad to see that they brought in a bill like this, because we did need some controls, we did need a new bill on planning, but we didn't need to have what Sewell ran around and tried to tell us. We found out that Sewell didn't even know that septic tanks work in rural Ontario.
Now it's saying that you will need an environmental assessment to get one severance. They're going to take the whole process and make it so difficult that there will be no development in rural Ontario. They talk in there about no development on number 1 and number 2 farm land. Well, that's a good idea. We've always supported that on this side of the House, and I think all three parties have. But you have to look at where number 1 and number 2 farm land is. In some cases you can have so much stones and rocks in number 1 farm land that no one will ever farm it, but unfortunately they're going to try to make the rule: "It doesn't matter, it's number 1 farm land; you're not going to be able to use it." They're not going to look at any commonsense approach.
That's been the whole problem with this government: They haven't used a commonsense approach ever since they got elected. As you know, we do have a commonsense approach on this side of the House.
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's nonsense on that side of the House.
Mr Murdoch: I'm glad to see that some of the other members have finally woken up and are starting to listen. Maybe they need some common sense over there. They do like that word. Maybe some of our common sense over here will rub off on them and they can use some common sense in their closing days as government. They haven't got too much time to go. They could use some common sense over there in some of the bills they're bringing in, like the bill we were going to debate tonight, Bill 91. That would be one bill they could get rid of that would make common sense. We don't need to unionize our farms, as you know, Mr Speaker, but obviously this government would like to do that. Just another poor bill like 163, just another poor bill they've brought into the House. We could go on and on about the poor bills they've brought into this House, just like 163.
In closing, I would just say that I hope this government listens to some people. This time, when you go out and consult, please listen. You've never done that before, unfortunately. You go out and you consult and you say, "We're out there consulting," but the thing is, when you consult, you have to listen also. That's your problem: You never come back and change anything. You've already made your mind up before you went out there.
Hon Richard Allen (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): Prove that.
Mr Murdoch: What do you want me to do, list all the silly bills you've brought in? That wouldn't be hard to do, but I don't think we have all night for me to tell you all the bills you didn't listen to people about.
What I'm telling you on this bill is, please go out and listen to the municipalities. Minister, I'm glad to see you're here listening to me. I hope you will make the changes that will be asked for, and you know there will be a lot of changes asked for. You may even want to change this bill and put it into two parts. I would support you doing that, taking the bill apart.
I thank you for listening to me, and I'll listen to the comments.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I appreciate the member showing us that he doesn't know what's in the bill.
The member for Grey-Owen Sound raised a couple of issues. He talked about the consultation. The consultation was very widely spread over a two-year period. After it was wrapped up, this government adopted just about every one of those recommendations out of the report. The other thing is that we sent out 28,000 documents involving 65 different stakeholder meetings and --
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Stakeholders? Any animators or facilitators?
Mr Hayes: Not pork choppers like you; stakeholders -- and received 600 written responses.
Mr Murdoch: Is that unparliamentary, "pork choppers"?
Mr Hayes: I noticed that a couple of the members spoke the other night more or less indicating that the smaller municipalities should be exempt, especially when they talk about conflict of interest and how it's going to scare away future municipal politicians. Just for the members' information, 40% of the conflict-of-interest court cases came out of municipalities of less than 5,000.
Mr Stockwell: Yes, and what percentage do they represent?
Mr Hayes: Under 5,000. What do you consider a small municipality?
The member talks about this piece of legislation as three pieces in one. It's certainly going to streamline the planning process, and it's going to mean open local government, which some municipalities haven't had, and it's going to make not only the local municipalities accountable but also give them more authority to implement government policy, which they haven't had for many years: good black-and-white policies.
Hon Mr Philip: I couldn't help but hear the honourable member take the name of the member for Brant-Haldimand in vain. If he was associating his own views with that of the member for Brant-Haldimand, certainly it wasn't the kind of speech I heard the member for Brant-Haldimand give, which was a thoughtful speech, which was a speech that showed insight and that showed some knowledge of what was actually in the bill. On behalf of the member for Brant-Haldimand, I just thought I should point out some of the differences.
It's regrettable that every Conservative member who has spoken has been against our moving towards a more open municipal government. We did of course, as the member knows, get numerous requests from Grey residents asking for a commission of inquiry as a result of a whole severance process that was outlandish, to say the least, in his own area, but I can tell you that of the 300 to 500 requests we get, they come not just from the large cities but many of them come from the very small municipalities.
If he wishes to protect the vested interests of some people who may want to protect and hold meetings in private, let the Conservatives do that. That's the position of the Conservatives, in the same way that they don't care about the environmental procedures in the bill, but then why would one expect the Conservatives to protect the environment? It was Morley Kells, a cabinet minister under the Conservative government, who said that PCBs might kill rats but they were probably okay for people. That's the kind of environmental policy the Conservatives have. I say that the people of Ontario want open government.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I welcome the opportunity to comment on the member for Grey-Owen Sound's views. He has a tremendous interest in municipal government and the procedures that affect municipal government. He spent a number of years, I understand, in municipal government and has confided to me on occasion that he hopes to return to that forum some time in the future.
I was anxious to hear his views on municipal government and the act we have before us. I agree that the act would be better as at least two individual acts, for many reasons. The disclosure of the pecuniary interest portion of course is very important, and I think he would agree, as we all do, that open council meetings are most important for the citizens of our municipalities. Most elected municipal people really want that. It certainly is an advantage, as I see it, for municipal councils to do their business in public so that the people they serve know not only the decisions but the reasons for the decisions.
But I have the same concern about the strength of the provincial policies and that all local planning decisions must be in conformance with those policies. I don't think it leaves enough leeway for individual situations and problems and solutions that could be worked out locally by locally elected people, because the councils are a responsible level of government, responsible to the ratepayers, and of course have to stand for election more frequently than we do in this House.
Thank you for your comments and the seriousness with which you treat the importance of municipal government.
2120
Mr Stockwell: I guess the proof will be in the pudding when we go out into committee and hear the comments by those people who will be affected by this piece of legislation. If those people come forward and suggest that this piece of legislation could not be amended or changed in some fashion, then I suppose the minister's right. I'm willing to wager that those people who come forward during these committee hearings will in fact bring forward the same concerns and frustrations that the member for Grey-Owen Sound and others have brought to this Legislature.
The comments made by the minister just continue to underwhelm me, and I suppose others. His comparisons and narrative expressions are certainly frustrating to me on this side of the House and certainly to the member for Grey-Owen Sound. You never cease to amaze me, the level you can stoop to when wanting to personally attack a certain member with respect to his home municipality and decisions he made.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): He attacked Sewell. He attacked Penfold.
Mr Stockwell: When I talk about John Sewell, I talk about John Sewell and his attitudes and changes towards planning. I never attack John Sewell with respect to his personal integrity. I think he's a fine man and he's done fine work. But the comments made by the minister were not in that vein and should be seen for what they were. Mr Minister, you'd do everyone in this room a favour by not making those kinds of near-slanderous comments about some members.
Further, I will say that when we go out on committee, I hope this minister comes with us, because then you can show to all the people of the province of Ontario your in-depth understanding of municipal politics, your in-depth understanding of the Planning Act and your in-depth understanding of all the issues that affect local councils and the concerns they're bringing forward. May I suggest, Mr Minister, your in-depth understanding of these issues is about one inch, as far as I'm concerned. When the people out there see, when these issues are brought forward, they will understand this legislation and understand it to be onerous and unfair to local elected municipal officials.
The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Grey-Owen Sound has two minutes in response.
Mr Murdoch: First to the member for Essex-Kent, I appreciate you telling me about all the money you spent on this Sewell report and all the reports. The problem is, you never listen to any of them, just like I said. You told us about all the money you spent on all those great reports and everything. The trouble is, you don't listen to them. I have no problem with you trying to find out what's going on, but the problem is that you don't listen to them.
Referring to the member for Brant-Haldimand, I don't know of anyone else in the House who knows more about municipal affairs than that member. When I was talking about what he said, I meant that he said it in the same vein as this party, as did the rest of the speakers in his party, who told you that you'd better start to listen to some things. That will clear up a couple of things.
The other point is to the minister. When he made some accusations about letters from my riding, was he indicating that there is some conspiracy in my riding, that there is some conflict there and some bad politicians there? Is that what you were trying to tell the people of Grey county, that the municipal politicians aren't good people? Is that what you're indicating? You seemed to get up and say you had all kinds of letters from Grey county that said there were problems.
Hon Mr Philip: You knew that.
Mr Murdoch: That's what you said, Mr Minister, and that's fine, if that's what you're indicating. If the Minister of Municipal Affairs says the people in Grey county are corrupt --
Hon Mr Philip: I didn't say that.
Mr Murdoch: -- if that's what he's saying, then that's fine, because he'll pay for it. I hope when the committee comes to Grey county that he certainly does come and sit on the committee, because then he'll find out what the people of Grey county have to say to him and he may not be too happy with that.
I'll wrap up and say that I just hope that when it goes out to committee, the government of the day will listen to the people of Ontario, for a change, instead of just ramming things down their throat.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Conway: I want to join this debate, because I have to say that in Renfrew county Bill 163 is certainly an issue that is very much top of mind with a lot of people in local government, and I dare say before too much more time has passed, it will be top of mind for a lot of people on Main Street.
Let me deal firstly with the sections dealing with municipal conflict of interest and the rules that are contained in the bill to open up the process. I think I understand what the government intends, and it's hard again to quarrel with that, but I must say that the remedy in terms of disclosure, which makes entirely good sense in larger communities, will have an enormously controversial and largely counterproductive result in the small communities. In that I agree with the member from Grey.
I've already had some very fine people who are the acme of integrity tell me they are getting to hell out, "Because I'm not going to live with this." They're simply not going to live with it. I have tried to argue the government's case. Some of these people I know really well and, believe me, they are exactly the kind of people you want, and they're getting out, for a variety of interesting reasons.
I grew up and still live in small-town Ontario. I live in a big town now, Pembroke. I grew up in a place much smaller than that, in a family that was very much involved in politics. I really am worried about Bill 163, not because its intentions in this respect are bad -- to the contrary; they're very good -- but they are going to have a devastatingly counterproductive impact in many, many of the smaller municipalities.
The county of Renfrew, which I am pleased to represent in part, with my friend from Lanark, has 36 municipalities. Over a score of them have fewer than 500 or 600 people. Have you any idea of what it is like to do business in the township of Brougham where there are, what, 300, 400 people and they're all related one to the other, and where they have all essentially been there --
Mr Murdoch: They'll know what they all make now. They'll have to release it all.
Mr Conway: I don't want to get into that. The difficulty I have with that provision of the bill is that it fundamentally ignores the rhythm of rural communities.
Let me say again that I totally agree with the notion that we should be open, and I probably can be as tough and as miserable about corrupt practices as anybody. Some people might say I am unreasonable on that account, I know some of my own colleagues. I do not profess to any sainthood in this. I try to govern my life by that old adage that it is a useful thing to remember that "All saints have a past and all sinners have a future." I think that's very wise counsel.
Hon Mr Philip: That's a consolation.
Mr Conway: I'll mention a couple of examples, just to focus your mind about this interesting business.
If you've never read Edwin O'Connor's wonderful novel The Last Hurrah, do yourself a favour some day and read it, read about Francis Skeffington. And you'll say to yourself: "But that was Boston in another era. It couldn't happen here or now." Well, we have the Gentile case in the city of York, but we've got a better case in a fairly large community. I know the Minister of Energy will remember. Does anybody remember the late Merle Dickerson? I remember Merle well.
Merle Dickerson was for many years, through many terms, the mayor of the city of North Bay. I can't imagine a more Main Street community in Upper Canada than North Bay. Seriously. North Bay, 50,000 people, and Merle Dickerson was mayor of that happy burgh for many years. It was said of Merle, not just when he ran municipally but when he ran provincially for the Tories and nearly beat my late, sainted friend, R.S. "Dick" Smith in 1971, that he was given on occasion to questionable and perhaps even corrupt practices.
You know what? One day they laid charges and another day they made those charges stick in the district court in the district of Nipissing, and Merle Dickerson, as I remember that, was ordered removed from office, an office he had just won for an umpteenth time. He was told he could not run for some years following, and I'll never forget the image. Defiantly, Merle Dickerson stood on the front steps of the district courthouse in North Bay and said, "Like General MacArthur, I shall return." And you know what? Unlike General MacArthur, he did, and he did it with the support of the electors of North Bay, who presumably knew what they read in their paper and knew what the court had found.
Mr Stockwell: Hazel McCallion.
Mr Conway: I don't remember the McCallion case.
Hon Mr Philip: She hasn't been charged. There are no charges against Hazel.
Mr Conway: I don't know any of that. I know that one case.
Do you remember the case of Billy Joe MacLean? Just to make the point, do you remember the case about Billy Joe MacLean? Billy Joe MacLean was a very good friend of the former Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia, John Buchanan. Billy Joe was an elected member of that Legislature. He was convicted of some kind of practice that was not legal.
2130
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): It was his expense account.
Mr Conway: I think that's right, and they had a tremendous foofaraw about what to do with him, because he wouldn't leave. Then they passed a special bill of the Legislature. I think Pat kicked him out. Then there was a by-election, and this is the part that I like. There was a by-election, and you know what? Billy Joe was re-elected. And then there was a general election about a year later, and you know what? Bill Joe got the boot.
I remember saying to one of my friends in Cape Breton, "Can somebody explain to me what that was all about?" And you know what it was all about? Of Billy Joe's malfeasance there was no doubt; that was not an issue. So I said, "What was the issue in that by-election?" "Oh," my friend said, "The issue was, was Cape Breton going to be kicked around by that bunch of highfalutin, Haligonian élite? And the answer to that in Cape Breton was, irrespective of your politics, 'Nyet, a thousand times nyet; send Billy Joe back to make a point.' And once that point was made, of course we agree he was bad and we want him out of there too, but first things first."
That's not Alabama in the 1890s. That's Nova Scotia in the 1980s and Ontario, North Bay, in about the late 1970s.
Hon Mr Philip: What about Wardle? He wasn't re-elected.
Mr Conway: Let me be ecumenical. I think I've picked on a Tory and a Tory. The member for Peterborough is here.
Hon Mr Wildman: What about the case in New Brunswick?
Mr Conway: Oh, there are several. I think of Art Reaume, the sainted former Liberal member, former mayor of Windsor. If I remember that case, Les Frost was causing a judicial inquiry into poor old Art Reaume about every two years, and every two years they'd find something even more exotic, and every two years he'd be re-elected both to the Legislature and to the mayor's chair in Windsor.
Is there anybody who remembers our old pal -- Charlie Beer might -- J. Earl McEwen? When I was a graduate student at Queen's University, Claude Bennett's brother was rumoured to be the man beneath the judicial inquiry into the affairs of J. Earl McEwen, and it was quite an inquiry. It's worth reading the report. The next thing I know, he was swept up with the Liberal integrity in government campaign in 1975, and we had him in caucus for nine unforgettable years.
But the point of all of those stories is, whether it was Port Hawkesbury, North Bay or Frontenac-Addington, good, sane, Canadian Democrats, for whatever colourful reason, decided to send them to those places, quite breathtakingly, I thought, on a number of occasions, but who am I, whether I'm with CBC Halifax, Alexa McDonough or Toby Vigod or anybody else, to say, "You know, maybe it shouldn't be"? I might agree in theory that it shouldn't be, but in practice, for some wonderful reason, it was to be otherwise.
The point I make in all of this is that we ought to be a little bit thoughtful about the way in which we proceed. Yes, there are problems. There is no doubt.
The member for Peterborough is here. I remember and I often wonder what happened. I knew Paul Rexe just by reputation. I always thought Paul Rexe was a wonderful guy, and he got tangled up in a terrible conflict-of-interest thing. The thing I remember about that was that the poor man was ruined financially; there was a huge bill, I read some place. I think Paul was a good New Democrat -- I didn't know him personally -- but he got caught somehow in some set of rules, and I thought, "I'd like to know more about that." Maybe the member can correct me; I might have it wrong.
I just have been around politics a long enough time that I've seen some things and I say to myself that yes, there is a problem and we have to deal with it, but let us try to deal with it in a way that moves the yardsticks forward.
I heard the other week a wonderful lecture. I sometimes think we should call her to the bar of this chamber or, better still, to a cabinet meeting and a caucus meeting. Her name is Nicole Morgan. She is a professor of public administration, now teaching at Queen's University, and she has a very interesting lecture to give about how increasingly governments -- her specialty is the government of Canada -- are going about making policy not understanding for the moment the consequences, the difficulties of the implementation; that we are all, to use that wonderful Clintonian phrase, "policy wonks," and there aren't too many people around any more who think: "All right. Now how is this going to work?"
The interesting thing is, I sat around listening to those people in those small rural townships telling me why they were getting out because of this proposal. It bothered me a great deal, because they were the very people you want to keep in. That's not the way they saw it, and they had a very interesting set of reasons for getting out.
Now, I worry about that. I know that's not the minister's intention, but that appears to be, in my county, 36 townships, two school boards -- a lot of people required to run local government. A lot of good people are telling me: "I'm out of here; I'm not going to live with this," because in my little township, this is, in my view, an unreasonable burden.
One of the reasons it is, quite frankly, and it might surprise people living in larger urban centres, is that if you live in a township of 300 or 400 people -- now, I know there will be some people who will think, "Aha, I know the answer to that problem: amalgamation." You know what? I'll tell you, I once believed privately that maybe some of that made some sense. I certainly, as a former Education minister, got to live with some of the interesting costs and benefits of consolidated school boards.
I'll tell you now, I have a cottage in the united townships of Brudenell and Lyndoch, population again less than 1,000. I would fight like hell, if I lived there on a permanent basis or even on a seasonal basis, any plan for amalgamation. I would not necessarily fight against some service deals.
But, you see, too many academics, too many bureaucrats and too many politicians have oversold the benefits of amalgamation. We have delivered less than we promised. Invariably, on the street, in many of these arrangements, after a while -- and I think it's borne out by the data -- all the citizen knows is that her costs have gone up, her service has gone down. They believe it. Sometimes it may not be entirely true, but by and large it is true.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Get rid of regional government.
Mr Conway: I don't have regional government in my area. I hear that criticism from a number of people.
But I'm going to tell you, we have a real problem with credibility. I thought the government took an unfair rap on this Substitute Decisions Act, quite frankly. That was an incredible little firestorm, and I thought, "Where is this coming from?" A lot of that had nothing to do with the issue per se, but it was a complete lack of trust.
We got caught with a couple of programs. Bill 8 -- I'd better be careful. But program administration with Bill 8 was rather different in reality than many of us who designed the plan thought, and boy, did we suffer in the affected communities, because what we thought we were doing and what we were seen to be doing were different and sometime contradictory.
I'm telling you, we've played that game, all of us, just about as long as we can play it. And I don't disagree with the minister that it's important to get at the bad actors. I think you should throw the book at the bad actors. As I say, when judges have sometimes thrown the book at bad actors, the people say, "We'll send him back."
I don't know how many of you are watching the Rostenkowski issue in Congress. That is just unbelievable to me. Talk about one of the great pillars of American politics. The indictment has been preferred. If you read the indictment against one of the most powerful congressmen Washington has seen in 40 years, it is unbelievable. I mean, this guy is 40 years in Congress. He's the chairman, and has been for 15 years, of the ways and means committee and is probably is one of the four or five most powerful people in Washington, and you look at what he apparently did. This is not some fool from some backwater; this is Danny Rostenkowski. If you want to talk about ethics -- and he did that in Washington under the glare of the most focused media attention in the world.
Apparently, people talked to him about it and it didn't change his behaviour. Part of the answer, I suppose, is, "Well, that's the way it was done in Chicago in his formative years in the 1950s." Maybe. But this is the 1980s and 1990s and the indictment talks about hundreds of thousands. If you haven't read it, for any of you interested in ethics -- as I say, this is an enormously powerful guy in the front line of every major fight. You'd think, if there's somebody who's got motivation and reason to be clean, it would be a guy like that. Now, the court case will be the court case, and we will see what we will see.
My point in all of this that I think the minister should revisit those sections of part II, is it, dealing with disclosure. The thing that seems to me to be sensible is to draw a line and say -- I know it's going to violate certain canons of something or other; I'm not sure what, at 10 o'clock -- and say, "Let's put everybody into the same set of rules." But I'm going to tell you --
Hon Mr Wildman: You're saying 5,000 and over.
2140
Mr Conway: Maybe that's not the right line.
Hon Mr Philip: That would remove three quarters of all municipalities.
Mr Conway: And maybe it should. Maybe it should, because the interesting thing about some of my small townships is that there is an in-built protection that's not there in larger communities. In Bruce Mines they probably have a pretty good idea of just what's going on. They may not know everything, but I'm going to tell you, if Wildman is running the local hardware store and he's on council and people start to notice -- there are certain local tolerances, but if he decides to hire his neighbour -- I mean, I see it. I've heard it over the years. There is a certain immediacy to the local democracy that's not there in a place like Pickering, not because the people in Pickering are less virtuous; they're just more diffused. They're more suburban. They're more transitory.
Mr Wiseman: They all work for the provincial government.
Mr Conway: And they all work -- but that is a very real difference, and quite frankly it's a difference between where I live now in the city of Pembroke than it would be in Moose Creek, because there is a certain intimacy in these small communities that provides certain balances. They are not perfect. Some really remarkable things can happen in some small communities as well. I read the great novels and I think it cannot be so, but apparently it is. I worry, because I think the objective here is a good one. I think the remedy is draconian, particularly for those smaller communities, and it will have, because it is having, a counterproductive result, and I don't think that's what anyone wants.
To the other question of changes to the Planning Act, I was asking Rev Beer, who's always my authority on things religious -- what's that old biblical injunction? This is the day the Lord hath made. Well, this is the bill that John and Toby hath written.
I agree with the member for Etobicoke West. John Sewell is a wonderfully eclectic guy, but John Sewell is a very focused individual. He has, to be sure, a point of view. The Toby Vigod I know and admire certainly has a view, and that is as it should be. But some of their views, I think, are of such a nature as to miss certain of the realities of the Ontario that I know.
This is going to be, in its implementation, explosive in my county, and it's going to touch on many of the people the government I think would most want to help.
Let me say again that I've heard the exchanges between the minister and the member from north Grey about some problems. I'm sure there are people, those learned people over there -- I don't really know any of them, but they're all good people -- who will say: "Conway's here from Renfrew. Let's check the Renfrew file. Oh, yes, yes. He and Murdoch probably would want to be together against some of this."
I'm not here to say that all that's been done in Renfrew is exemplary, but I can tell you that this bill is going to revolutionize the way people live in my county. It is going to have a huge impact on the price of housing in those rural communities. There's no doubt. I've talked to our planning people about the way -- the minister nods in the negative. Well, the minister is a wonderful fellow, very learned, very experienced; worked for the federation of agriculture; has, as I remember, certain properties in the Trent River valley that would sensitize him by virtue of experience and ownership to the rhythms of rural life in that part of east-central Ontario. I can only admire the experience that he brings. That was a few years ago, and I don't know --
Hon Mr Philip: And elsewhere.
Mr Conway: And elsewhere. We used to call him the Etobicoke landlord prior to his summons to the treasury bench, and now he's just the honourable minister, but I would not be unwilling to give what few shekels I have to be supervised by the minister, because I have a feeling he is one of those resourceful socialists who knows how to make two bucks out of one -- in a very responsible way, I want you to know, Mr Speaker. But the point I want to make is that in Renfrew county this policy, particularly with the application of the various policy statements, is going to have an explosive impact on the way in which people live.
We don't have a great deal of prime agricultural land. In fact, in the upper part of the Ottawa Valley there is a lot of rural land that is not particularly good for agriculture. It grows trees; not the quality of tree that we would like, but with Mr Wildman and Mr Hampton's help, we will get back to some of that.
But I think of some of the places that are up there -- I won't sound like Rand McNally tonight, but I can think of all of these little places -- where young people are able to get into the housing market because they can buy a rural lot in an area that's not prime agricultural land. They can buy a rural lot for, in some cases, a few thousand dollars; in some cases, more than that. Then they can, over time, with the help of their friends and their family, build a modest bungalow and have it built and paid for by the time they are 35 years of age. They have to do this, you see, because these are people whose T4 slip might be no more than $20,000 or $25,000.
Mr Stockwell: Peace of mind.
Mr Conway: It's peace of mind, but it's also driven by an economic imperative. My friend from Haliburton will know of what I speak. Do you know what's already happening as a result of this? Essentially what we're saying to people is that most of that is gone and all development virtually is going to be driven into the urban communities. I'm talking about small urban communities, places where there are services, the villages of Eganville, Barry's Bay, Cobden, Beachburg.
Do you know what a lot is in the village of Barry's Bay or Eganville? It's $20,000 or $25,000 now; in the city of Pembroke, it's $45,000. Do you realize what you've done to some 25-year-old mill worker who is just married, thinking about starting a family and has a $20,000-a-year job?
Hon Mr Philip: He can buy a lot in Eganville the same way he did before the bill.
Mr Conway: Oh, no. No, he can't.
Hon Mr Philip: Yes, he can.
Mr Conway: The fact of the matter is that you've taken away from him the option that he had of accessing, under certain conditions -- and I grant you that in the past there was no doubt some of those conditions were too loose in some cases. But you've virtually taken away from that person, that family, the right to have affordable housing in my part of the province.
Hon Mr Philip: That's nonsense.
Mr Conway: You say it's nonsense. You see, this is where I think any of us in elected office make a terrible mistake, because you're telling people, both as consumers and as local planners and as local municipal people, that they don't know what they're talking about and they're not understanding their lived experience.
Hon Mr Philip: The bill doesn't do that.
Mr Conway: It does do that.
Hon Mr Philip: Oh, no, it doesn't.
Mr Conway: I'm sorry, Ed, but it does.
Hon Mr Philip: Show me.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mr Conway: Listen, you come and have some of these hearings in Eganville. I'll even buy you a hot toddy on a cold winter night to expose you to my constituents on this account.
There are just too many clerk-treasurers, too many planners and too many other people at the county office who are telling me this. Then I go to these urban communities and I hear from the local people, and it's true: There aren't very many serviced lots left in these places. Then the question is: So, what about the next generation of lots? Oh, well, yes.
I don't really mean this as a criticism of this government. I think it's going to certainly be a criticism for people out there used to the old rules. But the next generation of serviced lots is going to be decidedly more expensive, for the reasons that my friends in the cabinet know. Gone are the days when we can up-front all the subsidies, the 75% or 80% subsidies to communities in Algoma district, probably higher in Algoma than in Renfrew.
I look back and it seems incredible that it's just a few years ago that we were -- not just a few years ago; it started with the Tories through the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s. The Liberals and the New Democrats carried on the tradition as money held out, 75% or 80% grants to a whole bunch of communities to help underwrite the front-end capital costs of these services.
Mr Stockwell: Not any more.
Mr Conway: That's gone. I don't think there's any Liberal or Tory who in this fiscal climate is going to be able to say, "Shame on the NDP," because I make this as a general observation.
2150
You get into places like Eganville and Cobden and Beachburg -- there aren't many lots left. In fact, I was saying to people the other day, if my friend Ed, the member for Rexdale, was a private citizen again, I think one of the best investments you could make would be to go out and buy up every serviced lot you can find in these communities, because they're going to be the best investment that you can make.
Mr Stockwell: You can't sever any more.
Mr Conway: You can sever, I gather, under certain limited conditions.
I'm not speaking about Metro. I fly over this urban sprawl that is Metro. I even see some of the sprawl around Pembroke and I've got to tell you, I think I know the concern you have, and it's not altogether a misplaced concern.
Mr Stockwell: It doesn't apply to Metro. The rule doesn't even apply in Metro.
Mr Conway: I know that, but I think I have to say to the member for Etobicoke that the driving spirit for much of the Sewell commission and others was to deal with the kind of sprawl that we saw in the 1980s in places like Metropolitan Toronto or in Ottawa-Carleton or in Hamilton-Wentworth.
I stand here and all I tell you as the member for Renfrew, where we've got 80,000 people living in the largest county in the province -- some 3,000 square miles, I think it is, 36 municipalities, many of them among the most rural that you can find in the province, low population densities, very little good agricultural land in the upper part of the county particularly -- we're going to impose this on people? I'm going to tell you that you are going to create a firestorm. When people figure out the cost of the new housing, it's not going to be pretty. I think, as the member for Etobicoke West pointed out, the hearing process is going to be important.
I understand the broad policy, the visioning that goes on to bring this about. It's a little more than 20 years ago that John White -- my friend from Orono will remember John White, one-time Treasurer, one-time superplanner, the member for London South -- was driving down the 401 one day and he said, à la Martin Luther King: "I have a dream. I have a dream that some day and not far from now there can be built on the north shore of Lake Erie, down there near a little place called Jarvis, a new city, a perfectly planned city that will be an absolute joy to behold.
"I have a dream," he said. "I have a dream that we can plan a new Ontario in that part of the province that will be a magnetic invitation to everyone." John White had a dream --
Hon Mr Philip: And now only Ron Eddy lives there.
Mr Conway: -- and now only Ron Eddy lives nearby. I just say, as I take my seat, that this kind of dreaming, that kind of visioning, to use that wonderfully felicitous phrase --
Mr Wiseman: Don't forget Davis's dream in North Pickering.
Mr Conway: Davis's dream? But listen, we've all had them.
Mr Stockwell: I had a dream and you guys got elected.
Mr Conway: It's late, but that's a good line.
I say on behalf of the people I represent in the upper Ottawa Valley, not just the citizenry but their elected officials and planning staff and others, that this bill has within it some enormously destructive and negative impacts, particularly upon the rural communities where among other things you are going to restrict the access of working men and women to affordable housing in rural environments. No matter how good your intentions, you are going to be judged by your results, and the results are going to be tragically painful and negative. I hope the hearing process wakens the minister and the government eyes to that developing reality.
Mr Stockwell: I certainly applaud the member. I enjoyed his comments with respect to this bill. I'm kind of shocked, actually, that a socialist government brings forward this kind of legislation. As I dealt with them in the municipal world, they often talked about bottom-up planning and the importance of neighbourhoods and the importance of communities planning communities and neighbourhoods planning neighbourhoods, and it was the beauty of democracy that allowed orchestrated groups within communities to say no to some things, yes to others, and all the good things that went along with it.
I remember that, as I said in my speech earlier last week, about John Sewell and that Trefann Court was really his first challenge. I don't even think he was elected, and he got elected on that issue and it was planning in St James Town in the city of Toronto. We built from that a planning process that was second to none in Metropolitan Toronto. There were good things, I said, and bad things, but I think on the whole it's a pretty well-planned community.
The Sewells of the world say there's too much urban sprawl. The difficulty they have with the urban sprawl is that most people who live in that urban sprawl seem to enjoy living in that urban sprawl. That's a very serious dilemma you're faced with, if a government doesn't like what's happening but communities and people think it's where they want to raise their kids.
The kind of conundrum I have with this piece of legislation is how much it moves away from the local neighbourhood planning process that I thought socialists believed in. This is truly top-down planning. This is the province dictating what planning procedures, guidelines, you live within to have a planning process in each community. The communities then no longer have the responsibility for planning their own neighbourhoods. If there's anything I thought was heartfelt by this group of people, it was the fact that local communities could plan their local neighbourhoods. With this piece of legislation, it's taking away the ability of local neighbourhoods to say yes or no to the kind of planning they didn't want.
Hon Mr Philip: I enjoyed the member's presentation and his travel down memory lane, so to speak. I'd like to refer to a couple of the examples that he used, because I think it helps to illustrate some of the challenges we were faced with.
First of all, in terms of the conflict of interest that he talks about, the fact is that the original set of proposals was of concern to AMO and to a number of municipal leaders. So we formed a committee of AMO, and the new set found in this legislation actually is in response to the committee set up by AMO and by our ministry and it implements the recommendations of the municipalities so that it won't be the kind of deterrent he talks about.
He talks about the fact that police inquiries do go on, that charges are laid, but if you look at the cost of those police inquiries, you have to ask, is there not a better way of doing it? If this open-government concept prevents even the need for one police inquiry and the millions of dollars that this kind of inquiry costs so that the police can be deployed in other ways that are more useful and that are more helpful to the kinds of things that we want to get at, then isn't open government worthwhile?
He gave the case of Paul Rexe, and I think the point the member was making is a very valid one: that there are conflicts and there are conflicts. Under the present system, basically a judge is faced with only one option, and that is to remove the person from office. But there are conflicts that don't warrant that, that are not of such a serious or grievous nature. What this bill does is it gives more flexibility so that a penalty for a transaction will fit the transaction. I think that will mean probably more people will be in a sense punished for transactions than are under the present system.
Mr Sutherland: I too enjoyed the comments from the member for Renfrew. I wanted to rise in this debate just for a couple of minutes to talk about it because I think Oxford county is a good example to bring up in this debate. First of all, the member talked about his 36 municipalities. Obviously, he has a far larger geographical area than the county of Oxford, but the county of Oxford, 20 years ago, restructured on its own. I guess I shouldn't say totally on its own, but rather than have a regional government imposed on it, it came up with its own model and restructured and reduced its municipalities from 80 to 20. As a result of that too, planning went to the county level, and since that time, the Oxford county planning department has developed one of the best planning departments and planning systems in the province of Ontario. People coming from developed countries, from China, from Chile, from Argentina come and look at the planning system.
We have very tight planning practices. It's very rare to get a severance, a farm severance, a lot severance, for a retirement home for farmers etc, those types of things: very tight, very strict planning. Not everyone agrees with it, certainly, and I get a few people in my office. But to imply that maybe this will really restrict economic activity in the community in my view is just not accurate.
Oxford has done very well over the last 20 years with very tight planning and official plans. Oxford has already been doing a lot of the things that are in this legislation, so the adjustment will not be as great for Oxford as it will be for other municipalities, granted, but in terms of that, in terms of having effective planning and also having strong economic activity, Oxford has done okay with its good planning system.
2200
Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): I'd like to comment very briefly with respect to some of the comments on the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. I have reviewed these matters and have sat in on some of the discussions. I can also advise, from a great many years of practical experience at the local government level, that I don't believe these particular requirements are onerous at all.
I think some of the fears that have been raised by the members opposite, from those who are present office holders or who would seek to be municipal office holders in terms of the perceived requirement and detrimental kind of requirement it may have, even to the point of having these people decide not to run, are an exaggeration and I suspect will not be the case. The notions of the declarations, as I see them in the act, are fairly straightforward. They quite frankly still carry with them some degree of lack of clarity and more likely sound an alarm bell or a caution to municipal office holders that there is an added degree of accountability. But I don't believe it's one that would particularly embarrass anybody who is seeking public office.
As well, in those circumstances where an alleged conflict of interest does arise presently, a citizen is not in very good shape. At their own expense, they have to apply to a court of law. Who is going to reach deep into their own personal pockets to fund perhaps what could be $5,000, $10,000 or $20,000 to pursue a situation at a distant municipal council level? I think not many. A new circumstance that will allow this kind of matter to be checked without direct cost to the general citizenry when they believe there is a problem will be something that will be welcomed by those particular citizens.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Renfrew North has two minutes in response.
Mr Conway: The member for Oshawa has much more municipal experience than I have. I have none; he has a great deal. But I want to make the point again that the people complaining to me are municipal people. They're good people and they're largely from the very small municipalities.
Now, I suppose I can take the view that they don't know what they're talking about, but that's not my sense of these people and their civic-mindedness. In fact, I heard on CBC Radio on the weekend that the mayor of Pembroke was quite upset about these. He represents a larger community of 15,000. But my concern is that when I hear as many good people from these small municipalities complaining with such vigour and telling me what they're going to do, I worry, because I just know that our local polity will be the worse for this kind of wear. That's not what we've set out to do. There may not be any easy solution, but I would hope in the course of the committee hearings people can find some answers.
On the more general point, I say to everyone, including that redoubtable defender of the treasury bench on almost all occasions, the member for Oxford, who's behaving these days as though he's expecting some additional preferment: I worry that when the bill on the one hand promises a greater delegation of real decision-making authority to the municipal level, when in fact the reality is that the bill occasions just the reverse, a consolidation of more power on key issues at the imperial headquarters in Toronto, the government is going to be caught in this fraud after a short period of time. It had better be sure it's not advertising one thing and delivering something else, because while they won't be the first government to be engaged in that business, given the current mood I think its penalties might be perhaps even more severe than those in the past.
Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): It's a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate on Bill 163. I would like to restrict my comments in regard to this bill to two sections: One is the conflict of interest and the other has to do with the Sewell report on planning matters.
I have experience, like the member for Renfrew North, in living in rural Ontario in small places, and like the member for Oshawa, I have municipal experience as well. I was the reeve of a township and also a warden of a county. I have some knowledge of the consultation process that went about. John Sewell and Toby Vigod and George Penfold came to Haliburton. They were also in Lindsay. I spoke at both these meetings and I also met with them in Toronto.
I wish the minister had split this bill apart, as has been mentioned, one section dealing with conflict of interest and the other section dealing with the Planning Act.
In terms of the conflict of interest, we're all in favour of an open process and an open government, but I think they missed the point about the nature of rural life in small villages and municipalities.
If he talks about punishment for a conflict of interest being someplace between being kicked out of office and no punishment at all, he should also look at the remuneration a municipality or a municipal councillor gets. The fine should be in relation to that, as well as in relation to the severity of the crime, and that might alleviate some of the concerns rural members have who want to sit on council.
The other point I'd like to make is that in small municipalities, everyone knows who their local councillor is, who their deputy reeve is and who their reeve is, and they know the warden. In urban centres, I'd be very surprised if they knew who their ward rep was, or where.
When it comes to a conflict of interest and somebody makes an allegation, the embarrassment of that would keep people off councils, because if you read this act, you can read conflict into any connection. In small towns, there are lots of connections. You might own the local hardware store and you might be approving somebody's severance, and in four years or in six months, they might be building a house. Does that mean that person should be dissuaded from running for council? Just the embarrassment of somebody suggesting that there's a conflict would dissuade them from running for council.
The third area where there's conflict of interest that misses the point in rural Ontario is the disclosure of assets, which is open to the public. We're all for an open process, but at Queen's Park we have a different process than we're going to subject local councillors to, and for the inquisitive or the curious, that's an invasion, that they can go in and have it done on somebody in a small community.
The fear is not that they will own a lot. That's not what will make people so that they won't want to run for office. It's the embarrassment that maybe they don't own very much. In a small town, chances are they already know roughly what a person owns or what they don't own. It's just the idea that they can actually go in and snoop through. We don't allow that in the Ontario Legislature, but we're going to allow it for small municipalities. I think it could be amended.
In terms of the planning aspects John Sewell and Toby Vigod and George Penfold have performed, I agree wholeheartedly; I haven't heard it expressed as eloquently as the member for Renfrew North expressed it, between the policy and the implementation. There's an old expression that there were talkers and there were doers. There are people who can talk a good storm, but there are other people who can actually do it, and sometimes they're not very articulate, but they manage things.
This country has a lot of talkers in politics but very few doers. We need people who can actually do it and resolve conflicts, not just identify problems but actually resolve them and get on with making government work for the people, the point being that we have a theory of how Ontario should look, and planning, to me, should operate as common tools throughout the province. Like a chess set, each piece moves a certain way, but depending on your opponent or where you are in the province, you have to move them in a different series of moves to meet that local challenge or reality.
2210
What I see wrong with this plan is that it imposes how the pieces should move throughout the whole province, regardless of what the circumstances are. To simplify my point, we had a system of planning that was based on the market. It's market driven. This fundamentally changes how the planning will work in this province to a plan-driven process.
I'll give you an example of how it will affect rural Ontario, and it's consistent with what you're hearing from other members, particularly the last speaker from Renfrew North, and how it will affect the housing prices of rural communities.
The market economy for living in rural Ontario is based on privacy. If we're going to attract people to our area or maintain them to live there, it's not because of theatres or the urban things that you take for granted in urban centres; it's because they have a sense of privacy and a quality of life, and the privacy requires bigger lots than you get in a condensed urban setting, which this planning document fails to recognize.
For instance, it puts in a regulation that automobile emissions should be avoided. Nobody defines what it is, but what it could be interpreted as is that somebody's not allowed to create a lot at Kennisis Lake because they might have to drive 10 minutes to the town of Haliburton with 1,500 people, but somebody's allowed to put a subdivision in Newmarket, even though a lot of the people who live in Newmarket work in downtown Toronto. Does that mean the emissions from the people who drive from Newmarket to Toronto are any less dangerous than the emissions from Kennisis Lake to Haliburton? This is what's being implemented on rural Ontario.
With all due respect to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he's consulted with planners and he talks about how there'll be more local control. There's no more local control. What's happening is that Municipal Affairs is unloading off the provincial budget a series and a group of planners that will have to be picked up at the municipal level to implement this local control. It's a download on to the property tax base, but the end result is dictated from Queen's Park, with over 100 recommendations from the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Environment and Energy.
The irony of all this consultation is that they've met and gone around the province -- I thank them for that; I've mentioned I had the opportunity to have them in my riding two or three times -- but the land use and settlement guidelines that were brought in and implemented by the Ministry of Environment, and every ministry in the Ontario government involved in planning is subjected to these guidelines, were brought through with no legislation from this House. It was brought out in regulations, and it's the heart and soul and guts of the Sewell commission report and this proposed planning bill. That's been in place for over a year with no debate in this Legislature, no legal authority, but it is essentially shutting down rural Ontario.
Who will end up developing, outside of the lots that are already in existence? It'll be interests that can bring in a finished report, that can afford consultants, that can afford to carry land for a number of years until it's done. What does that mean for the private property owner in these rural communities? They've had the property in their hands for over 100 years. It was originally for farming, but there's no market for the type of rock that exists there. The only thing this land is good for is having people live and enjoy it and have some forests and some privacy. That's the market we need to create in rural Ontario if we're going to survive.
In the 1980s we had a problem of how we process all this growth. In the 1990s the question is, how do we afford it? This government seems to have come up with some ideas such as road tolls and lot levies that were a hangover from the previous administration, and that's pay as you go or user fees. Those aren't new or progressive ideas. Those ideas are ancient.
This province decided over 100 years ago that we were never going to have toll roads again. We decided that an education was going to be universal. No matter if you grew up in Metro or in Haliburton or in Harcourt, we were going to try to afford a rural education. We've had great benefits from that.
The principle of lot levies, driving the price up, means that rural Ontario and Metro are equal, that you can both raise the same amount of money. You can't do it. Richer areas will have richer and better schools. It's a slippery slope towards what we had in this province about 60 or 70 years ago. There has to be a recognition that the province collects sales tax and corporate tax. We build a framework that helps all of Ontario. The idea that we can somehow change the Planning Act and say, "You guys look after looking after your water and sewage; if you don't do it, you can't have it" -- we're caught in a catch-22. To get the growth you have to have the water and sewage, but to afford the water and sewage you have to have the growth. We don't have the assessment today to be able to afford 100% of user fee costs; as mentioned, the days of 80% and 90% grants are gone.
I'm looking forward to the consultation process when they come around and visit the rural communities and talk to not only the planners at AMO and the county governments, but talk to the construction industry, talk to the people who work and want to build a house and to people who work in the housing business, talk to the real estate agents who have to sell people houses. Can you imagine trying to talk somebody from Scarborough into retiring in Haliburton? Why are they coming to Haliburton? They want to get away from the city. They want a little more space. They want some privacy. They want to be able to walk on the streets. They want to be able to join a curling club without lining up for six months.
The problem is that John Sewell's vision, or the vision this government's implementing, is that we should all live in urban clusters because they're somehow cheaper to run. I disagree with that. I can see where they sell this. They sell it that we don't like the ribbon development that's developed out in rural Ontario. I can tell you one of the reasons why we have ribbon development, why, when you drive down certain roads, all you see is 1,100-square-foot bungalows. It's because of this kind of thinking that we weren't going to allow many severances. It was the severance policy of Municipal Affairs that caused that. When you can only create one, two or three severances, you cannot afford to put hydro off the road. There's no market for it.
Instead of having one driveway on 100 acres of land and dividing it into 10 lots and having 10-acre parcels with one driveway and one bus stop and making those people maintain the road themselves like a form of condominium ownership -- they would share their belief in privacy and they might share some trails and share the road maintenance costs.
Mr Hayes: User fees.
Mr Hodgson: It's their choice. It's market-driven. If you had 10 people who wanted to live in that situation -- you allow a condominium development in Toronto as long as it's got four walls and sticks up 600 feet in the air, but you won't allow it on the ground. This bill does nothing to recognize that.
You've forced, as you've said, on 100 acres of land that has no agricultural benefit to the province, the timber is marginal, all it's good for is attracting people who want to have privacy and a sense of rural life and who like the nature and the birds, you've said to those people, "You can only have three lots of this 100 acres." If you have to divide that, you can't afford to go through all the process of a subdivision. You did three lots along the front of the road and you had the seigneur system of France, where it runs the full length of the 100 acres. If it happened to meet the road, it's 3,300 feet deep and they're a couple of hundred feet wide and you've got three driveways. You build your houses out near the road because you can't afford to put hydro in, five or six poles, and have a buffer zone of green trees, which would look nice if you're driving through the country. But if you're allowed to have 10 lots on 100 acres, you can afford to put the hydro in 500 or 600 feet and have it tree-lined.
That's what Sewell says he'd like, his vision and the vision of people whom he talks to in the country. Of course they want to keep the rural quality of life and the look of the country when they're driving up there. But crazy policies like this -- the reason they put this in was because they didn't want to have a lot of development without regulations, so they said severances, one or two lots, or three in some areas.
The irony, and life is ironic, is that exactly the opposite happened. You've got ribbon development and miles of bush behind that nobody can see and the public can't use. I'd like to see this Planning Act really state what the rhetoric says: local control. Make it so condominium ownership, or any other types of ownership that are allowed in other places in the province, can be allowed on rural land. Make it so that local councils can make these decisions, based on what's best for their area. It's not one uniform policy that it should be serviced by municipal road and municipal taxes and municipal water and sewage throughout the whole province.
There's a recognition in Ontario that there is a market for different types of ownership and different sizes of lots than there is in urban areas. That's the strength we have in Ontario, that we have places where you can live in urban settings and places where you can live in rural settings. I'd hate to think we're throwing that out the window for some grand vision of how things ought to be, with very little consideration of how you'll implement it on the ground.
2220
Mr Hayes: I compliment the member for Victoria-Haliburton. He does have an understanding of rural Ontario. But I tell the member for Victoria-Haliburton that I also spent a number of years in municipal politics in rural Ontario, as a councillor, deputy reeve and reeve. I'll tell you that one of the big problems we had, especially when we talked about our official plans, was the lack of direction and the lack of policies.
Many municipal politicians right across this province have complained for years and years because when they wanted to get official plan amendments or even just do a new official plan, they had to go back and forth from one ministry to the next several times and it just kept getting sent back to be amended and amended because there weren't good, strong policies, as we have here today.
The conflict of interest was mentioned, and I know that is a concern, rightfully so. But let me tell you, one of the problems we've faced and municipal councillors and others have faced is that an individual, whether a politician or whether one of the constituents, couldn't afford it if someone charged them with conflict of interest, because it was just so vague. This is going to clear up that issue.
As far as development goes, this does not restrict development. In fact, it streamlines the process. The other thing it does is that you do not have to go through five or six or seven different ministries before you can get your development. If you want to talk about the developers across this province, one of their big concerns was that there was so much bureaucratic red tape they had to go through and spend all kinds of money and then be told, "Sorry, you can't do it." It's better to tell people up front what they can do and what they can't do.
Mr Eddy: The presentation by the member for Victoria-Haliburton has pointed out the tremendous diversity across this very huge province in which we live. There are tremendous differences. There are intensive agricultural lands with some of the richest, finest agricultural land in the entire world, and it needs to be protected. The farmers who own and operate it want it protected for the future, for ever, and I think we should all be willing to support that. On the other hand, there are many rural areas where the land will not produce much, if anything. It's just a tremendous diversity.
The point of the very strong policies he has mentioned is that they are so restrictive. I think they will in many areas, and perhaps that's good. But the main point about the debate tonight has been that it's very strong policy from the top down and doesn't leave much leeway for real decision-making at the local level, to have local decision-making and then accept it at the top.
It's going to be very interesting, to say the least, what happens if this act is passed as proposed. Perhaps we should proceed to the hearing stage and have hearings and see what people from various areas involved in different ways in land tenure and ownership and use really feel strongly about and the suggestions they may have for changes.
Mr Stockwell: I certainly applaud the member for Victoria-Haliburton. Clearly, whether it's an agreeable view with the government's, it's certainly a view that is shared by some constituency out there with respect to this piece of legislation.
I want to just touch briefly on intensification. As long as I can recall, the Sewells, Martins, Laytons, Sheppards, Sparrows, Vaughans and Chows have been selling this intensification argument, and they've been selling it for decades longer. The funny thing is, on the way to writing this report with John Sewell and buds, intensification never even caught on in Metro.
The intensification argument was an argument put forward constantly during official plan amendments, during official plan report writing, and constantly in Metropolitan Toronto it was processed through, but intensification never happened. It didn't happen for all the reasons the member for Victoria-Haliburton cites. It didn't happen in Metro Toronto because of the costs, the costs associated with developers through intensification: the costs of acquiring the land, the costs of rezoning, the costs of development applications and so on and so on and so on. So the intensification argument doesn't apply, it didn't apply, it hasn't worked.
Now what we have today is Mr Sewell and club out in the rest of the province saying, "You've got to try this intensification thing." So they get out to the rest of Ontario, talking intensification, and what do they do with the piece of legislation? They exclude the very jurisdiction they had some actual control over in the past decade, Metropolitan Toronto. It's excluded from this piece of legislation. Why? Because the intensification argument never materialized. The costs were onerous.
So we're going to say to the rest of the province of Ontario: "You should grab hold of this intensification argument. Increase your urban centres. Increase development within urban centres, small and large." But the bottom line is that costs go up, acquisitions are more, red tape gets larger and neighbourhoods don't like it.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I appreciate the comments that were made tonight. I'm a history buff, and I think you mentioned something earlier about toll roads, that toll roads were out about 100 years ago. I stand to be corrected, but I think toll roads were still in place about the 1920s. I take that from personal interest, because we've decided to do that again. Many people have said to me that it's not the end of the world, that it's a good combination of things to do. So I think that's interesting.
I also recommend to the member, when he talks about how the system and maybe this government doesn't work, that a few weeks ago we were in committee and the member for Victoria-Haliburton came forth with a private member's bill about rep by pop and how the bottom made a decision. Many of us on that committee said, "The bottom made a decision," and we voted in favour, excluding what the Ministry of Municipal Affairs said. They're nice lawyers, but thank you; they made their recommendations, but the point was given and we voted in favour of what the bottom made up.
So when you talk about this government, and in fact many of the opposition members -- Mr Eddy and a few of the others, God bless them, almost said, "What's the government doing?" I said, "That's what committees are about."
In closing, we are going to go to this committee, we are going to hear what's going to be said, because that's what the process is about. That's what I believe as a member of Parliament. We're going to hear what people have to say. Otherwise, why have the committee? The minister has made a commitment that we are going to go forward in first, second and third reading, as we always do in every bill, which people forget about in this place, and we're going to listen to what people have to say.
I understand very clearly why the opposition members expound on the fact that, "Oh, they're not going to listen," just like a couple of weeks ago when there was a bill about land-lease lots. Of course I understand why the Tories said, "No, we want to hold it up." In fact, Mike Harris stood up and said the bill was actually lost because his whole party disagreed with it that day, when there were many people here of senior age -- above me, anyway. I understand that.
This government does listen. We will work forward in this bill.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable member has up to two minutes for his reply.
2230
Mr Hodgson: I thank the member for Huron for his comments and support at the committee level last week.
With respect to the member for Essex-Kent -- I realize he has a lot of municipal experience, and I'll defer and take his comments at face value -- I would state that the reason I feel it will hamper the ability of people to let the market decide where they want to live in rural Ontario is because there's no definition to some of the policies. The problem he talked about, being a county councillor with the planning department, is, "Give us a policy so we can decide." When you take a look at MNR's recommendations and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, there are scores of recommendations with no definition about exactly what they mean. The only people who will be able to afford to define that are the developers who he said are in agreement. That's my only conclusion there. They'll have the resources and the money to hire the consultants to define what the application of these policies outlined by the two ministries will mean when it hits the ground. Somebody without a lot of resources will not be able, if they own the land today, to afford to define that their land meets these qualifications, and that's the problem I have.
I also have a caution about making too many policies, even at a council level or a school board level. I know there have been debates about, "We should have a policy on how far a school bus can stop." You realize when you get out on the roads, when there are corners and things like that, that one uniform policy doesn't fit all cases. That's why you have elected councils and local school board members. They're elected by their peers to use their judgement to interpret standards to meet unique situations. I hope we can retain that flavour and hash this out at the committee hearings throughout the summer.
The Speaker: The Minister of Municipal Affairs has the opportunity to wrap up the debate.
Hon Mr Philip: I want to thank members, including the Premier, for their contribution to this debate. If I make a long enough speech, maybe he'll go home to his daughters and wife, which I think is quite appropriate. But I want to thank the members for their contribution.
I think the editorial writers are correct when they identify this legislation as the most important reform in planning and in municipal government since the 1940s. No one can disagree that the present system is not working. As Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I was constantly confronted by people who said the planning process was broken by companies that did not want to in any way pollute, that wanted to obey the laws of Ontario, but the bureaucracy of the municipalities -- the lower tier falling over the upper tier and the upper tier falling over the ministry and the ministry falling over other ministries -- just wasn't working. So as a result of this legislation, what we have is a more streamlined system of dealing with planning in Ontario.
I mentioned one of the many letters I've received from people in the development industry, but Mario Romano writes: "We in Castle Point would like to go on record as congratulating you and your staff on your initiatives and support to our industry. The Planning Act amendments you introduced last month are a prime example of an attitude and philosophy that demonstrate commitment to the streamlining and efficient process. This positive attitude from the ministry has not only been evident in Markham centre but in several other areas that we are developing in the greater Toronto area."
He goes on to say, "I must also take this opportunity to commend in particular the provincial facilitator's office, who has been so vital to us in resolving and averting possible problems." He goes on later to say, "You have done more for our industry" -- that is, the building industry -- "and the efficiency of the marketplace than any previous government."
What this legislation does is cut through the bureaucracy, streamline the development process so that jobs can be created, and it provides more responsibility to planning boards. It makes more accountability at the local level, and it gives transparency and openness to local government.
This bill is possible because of the tremendous job of consultation that was done by John Sewell and his team. If you look at what happened between the first report that Sewell published and his second report, you can see that he did listen to the input he received from rural and from urban areas, from the tiniest hamlet to the largest metropolis. If you look at what we have done in the bill, we have moved even further as a result of comments we received on the second report of the Sewell commission.
This bill is also possible because of the hundreds of people and organizations that took the time to make their views known to John Sewell and his commission and to members of the government and indeed through AMO and through other organizations that had direct consultations with my staff and myself. It's also possible because of the long hours my very dedicated and I think creative and very bright staff put in studying the various papers that came in and working with John Sewell and his commission.
I look forward to the hearings in the committee this summer. I want to thank representatives of the environmental network, the home builders, the development industry and of course the municipalities who are serving on the implementation team. Without the support of AMO, without the support of the environmentalists, without the support of the builders and without the support of the development industry, this bill, which is a balanced approach to planning in Ontario, would not have been possible. I look forward to the committee hearings.
The Speaker: Mr Philip has moved second reading of Bill 163. By previous agreement of the House, a division is deemed to be seen. The vote on second reading will be deferred until tomorrow following routine proceedings.
Hon Mr Wilson: I move adjournment of the House.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2237.