GLENRIDGE LANDFILL CITIZENS' COMMITTEE
GREENSVILLE AGAINST SERIOUS POLLUTION
FURIOUSLY OPPOSED TO ACTON DUMPING
HICKORY FALLS RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION
CONTENTS
Wednesday 16 February 1994
Environmental Protection Amendment Act (Niagara Escarpment), 1993, Bill 62, Mr Duignan / Loi de 1993 modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement (Escarpement du Niagara), projet de loi 62, M. Duignan
Glenridge Landfill Citizens' Committee
Lynne Matthews, president
Greensville Against Serious Pollution
Wilf Ruland, environmental consultant
Furiously Opposed to Acton Dumping
Diane van deValk, board member
Dr Leonard Landry, member
Hickory Falls Ratepayers Association
Daphne Shropshall, member
City of Niagara Falls
Edward Lustig, chief administrative officer
Rob Barlow
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
*Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
*Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND) for Ms Akande
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Winninger
MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND) for Mr Malkowski
Murdoch, Bill (Grey-Owen Sound PC) for Mr Tilson
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L) for Mr Curling
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) for Mr Mills
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC) for Mr Harnick
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1008 in the St Clair/Thames/Erie Rooms, Macdonald Block, Toronto.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (NIAGARA ESCARPMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA)
Consideration of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment / Projet de loi 62, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement à l'égard de l'escarpement du Niagara.
GLENRIDGE LANDFILL CITIZENS' COMMITTEE
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I welcome Ms Lynne Matthews and the other two members here from the Glenridge Landfill Citizens' Committee. You have half an hour for your presentation. Please leave as much time as you can for questions.
Mrs Lynne Matthews: Thank you. My husband will be showing the slides.
I'm appearing before you on behalf of the Glenridge Landfill Citizens' Committee. This is a group of over 375 families in south St Catharines. We wholeheartedly support Bill 62 because the disastrous history of our Glenridge quarry landfill on the brow of the escarpment provides a cogent warning of what can happen when landfills are so sited.
Our unique Niagara Escarpment, which has been declared a global biosphere by UNESCO, should not be allowed to become an unlimited burial place for garbage and waste. Common sense alone should indicate that putting a landfill on fractured rock is courting disaster. Although engineering reports may suggest otherwise, it's very easy in the welter of dispassionate technical analyses to dehumanize a crucial social problem. The engineers can go home and leave the impact of their work and the environmental consequences of selecting an escarpment site to be borne by the men, women and children who live within the affected community. Our group came into being as the direct result of such consequences.
Initially, in 1975, Dr Mike Dickman, an aquatic biology professor at Brock University, strongly opposed the application for our quarry waste disposal site on the grounds that the fractured rock of the escarpment was too risky. He monitored the escarpment streams prior to the landfill operation and after its construction, and when he became aware of water quality changes in the escarpment streams he made presentations to council, but his findings were ignored.
In 1983 there had been leachate spills into Leawood Court Creek, an escarpment stream running through the private property of Mr J. Waddell at 450 Glenridge Avenue, located on the side of the escarpment hill. This is a significant stream, as its flow goes underground at Leawood Court and comes up as an open stream in the wooded valley parallel to and between two very long residential streets. It circles two local schools, goes through a large local park and the golf course and ultimately ends up in Twelve Mile Creek. The repeated leachate spills into Leawood Court Creek became a problem for Mr Waddell, and from May 24 to May 27, 1986, when there were very serious spills for four days, the stream that runs close to his home became a stream of ugly, odorous, frothing leachate. He later moved out of the area.
By 1989, the Leawood Court Creek had become covered with iron oxide gallionella slimes. This is a red bacteria that thrives in the depleted oxygen areas in the stream. It's difficult to see it up there, but the stream is running down in each picture, and you can see how red it's turned. That was once a sparkling stream that people could drink from. Later the city was ordered by the MOEE to remove all the red encrustation from the rocks and sediment, divert the water flow to the sanitary sewer, and pipe in dechlorinated water, a drastic and expensive solution to the landfill's impact on what was once a beautiful, sparkling stream. They were also required to conduct an aquatic biological monitoring program to evaluate whether the stream can be restored to a natural biota. This is still ongoing.
In 1984, the leachate problem spread down the hill to Trillium Lane at the bottom of the hill, when on many occasions toxic leachate erupted like a geyser from the manhole -- you can see it coming up the manhole here -- and spread over the lane, covering an area of about 50 feet. On one such occasion the leachate went up through the stack vent of the home of Mr and Mrs Syri on the corner of Trillium Lane and overflowed on to the roof. This is what the leachate looks like when it comes up on some occasions, and that was covering the whole of our lane for about 50 feet, and part of our property. It also came up through the basement toilet. This evidently occurred because the leachate pipe from the landfill, which runs down the hill, was connected to the sanitary sewer lines at the bottom of the hill.
In March 1985, during one of the leachate spills on Trillium Lane, we found leachate bubbling up in a large flowerbed in our front garden. That's the flower bed that you can see at the front there covered with white stones. It's about 20 feet long. It's a two-layered flower bed with a depth of about six inches of stones. Underneath that, we had put other stones for drainage of the water, and then the flowerbed is built up on top of that. The city later discovered through the use of an underground television that there was a manhole two feet below the lawn that no one, including the city, knew existed. If you think about it, this is clay soil and the manhole was two feet below the surface of the ground, so that leachate came up through the lid of the manhole, through the clay soil and through our flower garden and spread all over the lawn. We were told to dismantle the flowerbed so the city could add a two-foot extension to the manhole and bring it up to ground level. It was then necessary for us to redesign a new flowerbed to incorporate the manhole, which you can see there. The planter is sitting now on the manhole. We do our own gardening; we don't get anybody to do it for us.
On June 5, 1986, when we returned from a trip to Europe, we were greeted by the devastation resulting from a toxic leachate backup of eight inches which covered the whole of our basement area. It occurred on June 1, and our son, who was in the middle of spring exams at Brock University, had endeavoured to cope with the situation by hosing as much leachate as possible down the drain. With the help of a 65-year-old friend of the family, Robert Layton, he dragged the leachate-saturated rugs and carpets up on to the lawn, where he hosed them down. However, the water heater was clogged with leachate so we had no hot water. The vacuum cleaner was also clogged and inoperable, and considerable damage had been done to furniture, camera equipment, 125 books and other items.
We called in industrial cleaners to power hose, detoxify and deodorize the basement, and then made innumerable trips up to the dump with the leachate-saturated articles that had to be destroyed. These included the bottom drawer of my cedar chest, which had to be banged out and which contained all our wedding pictures and other memorabilia. Our expenses were reimbursed, but I should say that nothing can reimburse the psychological turmoil or the sense of despair engendered by such a catastrophe, nor the ensuing days and days of back-bending toil in cleaning, scouring and disinfecting everything we had managed to salvage.
In July 1987, a new crisis arose when noxious gases from the dump blanketed the area below the escarpment. On the night of July 27, when fire engines were called, the methane gas readings in the manholes on Trillium Lane, on Woodside Drive, and in our front garden were just below the explosive level.
On August 11, 1987, following another gas buildup in the neighbourhood, the leachate gases filled the homes of Mr and Mrs Stagg and of Mrs Embury on Trillium Lane, and they were up all night trying to get relief from them while the city worked on the problem. By morning, they felt very ill. The gases still filled their homes and the air outside was still saturated. The city engineer said it would take a strong wind to blow them away.
The buildup of leachate gases in the air in the neighbourhood occurred many, many times during the autumn months, making it impossible to sit or work in the gardens. The leachate odour is dreadful. I must say it just defies description, but it has a distinctly unique characteristic which the people in the neighbourhood learned, through repeated incidents, to readily identify.
On December 16, the leachate gases again entered the two homes on Trillium Lane, but this time they also entered homes on Woodside Drive and on Glenridge Avenue. During the next few days, the gases entered and re-entered the homes in an unpredictable fashion until December 21, when they became so concentrated both inside and outside that it was necessary to vacate and spend the night in a hotel. During that period, which became an absolute nightmare, the residents of these homes were suffering from nausea, vomiting, light-headedness, respiratory problems, stinging eyes and an overwhelming sense of lethargy and apprehension. No one, either then or at any time, warned us of a potential health risk.
From December 18 to December 23, the gardens of six of the affected homes were dug up, P pipes installed and vents attached to the laterals. The vents expelled the leachate gases into our front gardens instead of into our homes.
It's still difficult to verbalize the stress, the anxiety and the deep sense of apprehension that everyone in the neighbourhood experienced during the eight days before Christmas. It seemed impossible to keep the gases out of our homes and gardens and unpredictable when they would again enter.
1020
When the situation was at its worst, there was no way of knowing what the gas readings were, or whether our homes would blow up around us. Christmas Eve was upon us, but Christmas was not present in our homes or in our neighbourhood. Everyone was ill, and muddy tracks to the basement were left unheeded. All the indoor plants died. We were dazed and filled with a deep sense of lethargy. We felt as if our homes had been assaulted and ravaged.
It was decided by the city engineer that a dedicated pipeline would be installed to hook up the leachate pipe from the dump. This would enable the leachate pipe to be disconnected from the sanitary sewer pipelines and keep the gases out of our homes.
On February 20, once more we had a leachate spill all over our front garden and lawn, and once more our garden and boulevard were dug up in order to install a shower in the manhole and connect it to the water hydrant on the opposite side of Glenridge Avenue. However, the leachate gases continued to invade the neighbourhood at times throughout the winter.
In June, work started on the new dedicated pipeline. Two weeks after its completion, we had our first rainfall in two months, and once more there was a leachate spill on July 17 from the new dedicated pipeline near the corner of Trillium Lane. We called the city engineering department, which once again carried out the familiar flushing operation. We also called the regional health office, which sent out an inspector. But by 6 o'clock the following morning, the leachate was up and had spread all over Glenridge Avenue near Trillium.
We called the Ministry of the Environment, and it sent out its emergency services unit and a mobile chemical testing laboratory to take leachate and air samples throughout the day. They ordered the city to carry out remedial work immediately. A crew worked on the problem late into the night and throughout the following two days, during which time the whole area was again subjected to the noxious odours from the leachate.
From 1986 to 1989, the health of one neighbourhood family in particular, the only one with young children, deteriorated and was so severely affected that consultation was necessary with environmental specialists and other specialists at McMaster and Toronto. Other families in the immediate neighbourhood have all suffered unusual health problems that required special attention. In all cases, these health problems were new and affected people whose previous general state of health had been very good.
For three years, from 1987 to 1990, I had persistent itchy, bleeding sores that gradually spread over most of my body and that no medical treatment could cure. Although I am aware there's no legal proof of any connection with the leachate, I have never previously had any skin problems whatsoever, and it's my belief that the infection occurred from constant gardening in soil that had been polluted by the leachate spills. Both my husband and I have developed heart problems, which can only be attributed to the intense and prolonged stress to which we've been subjected during this period.
As a result of the many leachate spills, the soil in our front garden and in the garden of our neighbours on Trillium Lane had been polluted for five years. In November 1990, all the soil, to a depth of two feet, was removed from both properties -- also eight trees, our front hedge and all our shrubs and flower beds. I might say that although I knew it had to be removed, this was a garden we'd worked on for over 25 years and put in from scratch, and I ended up in intensive care for four days. This was the sixth time during those years that we had to have our front garden, or portions of it, dug up, either because of leachate spills or because of the toxic leachate gases that invaded our homes.
The most recent problem, however, with our escarpment landfill relates to a new collector trench for leachate, which was designed in 1989 by the city's engineering consultants, Proctor and Redfern Ltd. Our hydrogeologist, Wilf Ruland, advised that the design plans had potentially serious implications. His concern related to the very deep groundwater, which is extremely saline. Mr Ruland believed there was probably a hydraulic connection between the deep saline groundwater and the shallow groundwater. His hypothesis was that when the proposed collector trench was operational, the deep saline groundwater would be drawn up into the shallow flow system, which would kill the vegetation on the escarpment.
The city's consultants refuted Mr Ruland's hypothesis, but the MOE was concerned and made it a condition of its approval for the construction of the collector trench that the monitors suggested by Mr Ruland be installed in strategic locations below the escarpment so that the water could be monitored before, during and after construction. They also imposed a condition that no new cells at the landfill be used until it could be shown by a year's monitoring after the installation of the trench that there was no degradation of the escarpment streams.
In December 1991, almost as soon as most of the blasting for the collector trench had been completed, the saline readings in the monitors of the seeps below the escarpment skyrocketed dramatically. A forestry tree-testing program was put in place in July 1992 and extended in area in 1993. Very high levels of sodium and chloride were reported in the soil, and there was also leaf damage.
In 1992, in an attempt to reduce the saline contamination, the valves of the collector trench were turned down. This had minimal effect. The city's consultants are now developing an engineered remedial proposal to try to save the escarpment trees. The Leawood Court Creek has also been impacted by the high salinity, which is threatening the nearby trees.
I should point out that the city has been fighting a very expensive rearguard action to ameliorate the landfill problems. This is expensive for the taxpayers but also expensive for members of our citizens' group, which had to employ an environmental hydrogeologist to ensure that proper remedial action was taken. Quite apart from the cost in dollars, the cost in health and stress to the neighbourhood can never be measured. Our escarpment landfill has been like a Pandora's box that keeps spilling out new disasters year after year.
The original decision to allow the landfill to be situated in a quarry on the brow of the escarpment was based on assurances from the city's engineering consultants that the unique nature of the site, combined with the proposed leachate collection system, would prevent any contamination of the escarpment streams, that everything would be cocooned within a central concave. This has not been the case.
Many of the problems associated with our landfill are related to its location. Although in 1975 it was categorized as state-of-the-art technology, we are now being told that landfill technology was in its infancy at that time and that such problems need not arise with today's technology. Unfortunately, it's today's technology that created the salinity problem in our escarpment seeps and streams that is presently threatening the escarpment trees.
We further submit that the very nature of the fractured rock on the escarpment legislates against any predictability when leachate escapes through the clay liner. No expert seems able to guarantee safety when dealing with the fractured rock of the escarpment.
We're making this presentation because we're very concerned about our fragile environment. We cannot afford to allow the escarpment streams all over the Niagara Escarpment to be polluted by massive landfills, particularly since the degradation of the streams could adversely affect the drinking water of so many people in Ontario. We cannot allow our escarpment trees to be needlessly destroyed. We cannot allow our beautiful Niagara Escarpment to be environmentally damaged in any way by the further installation of landfills, and no community along the escarpment should ever again be subjected to the stress and debilitating experiences that we have had imposed upon us. We have no certainty of what the long-term health implications may be.
We speak with the voice of reason, but also with the voice of horrible experience. We can only hope that the lessons learned from our experiences will serve as a timely warning. Unfortunately, those who ignore history are fated to repeat it. Therefore we strongly urge that you approve Bill 62 and forward it to the House for a third and final reading so that it can become law just as quickly as possible.
1030
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation and the very graphic display of what the experience has been in the Glenridge site.
You have a situation that is somewhat different from what has previously been the topic of much of the discussion, the application of another company, RSI, to create a landfill. Here you're talking about one that is not to be created but one that has been created and is in operation. I take it from your presentation that you are sharing with the committee your experience from a landfill site that has been in operation in St Catharines.
The city of St Catharines came here yesterday, and I would like to read a portion of its presentation. They say on page 10 that the passage of Bill 62 will prevent any remediation: "Even remediation requiring a certificate of approval could not be undertaken for sites which are closed."
Under Bill 62, even as it is proposed to be amended, there is the thought that remediation work such as you have gone through for many years could not be undertaken. Would you expect that any legislation should at the very least create the possibility of allowing remediation work to be undertaken?
Mrs Matthews: I haven't read anything about remediation not being allowed under this bill. I haven't got legal status here, but I haven't any knowledge that remedial work could not be carried out. I would presume that the ministry would instruct them, as they have in the past, to carry out necessary remedial work.
Mr Offer: The city of St Catharines has said that its reading of Bill 62, without it being amended, is that it would be unable to undertake any remediation work. After listening to your presentation, there is obviously the need for remediation work, certainly in the example which you have brought forward.
Mrs Matthews: Except that I believe any remediation work that is carried out should be subject to very strict examination, because remediation work is --
Mr Offer: No question. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that at all. On the basis of Bill 62 and your support for the bill, would you expect that the bill at least contain the provision that remediation work could be undertaken on any existing site within the Niagara Escarpment?
Mrs Matthews: It sounds logical, but as I said, I haven't got the legal implications behind it, so I couldn't pursue it right down to its final, last dotting of the i and crossing of the t.
Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Mr Offer failed to mention that there is an amendment to Bill 62 which deals with the question posed by him; the amendment will deal with any remedial work that's needed on existing landfill sites.
Mrs Matthews: What clause are you referring to?
Mr Duignan: I'll give you a copy of the amendment.
Mrs Matthews: I have a copy in front of me. I'm just wondering where you're referring to no remedial work being allowed.
Mr Duignan: Subclause 1(3)(b)(i) deals with it, and 1(3)(b)(iv).
Mrs Matthews: I see nothing in (i) that would not permit remedial work to be done. Possibly you should ask our hydrogeologist to speak to this. I cannot see that they need to have a higher elevation to do remedial work.
The Chair: Would you like to comment?
Mr Wilf Ruland: I'm on next anyway, so the committee members will have ample opportunity to pursue this.
The Chair: That's fine. We'll do that afterwards.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you very much for coming. You've given a very clear picture of the horrors the people of Halton don't want to have happen again. There's a very great temptation in our province, and probably everywhere where there are quarries, that people want to fill them in. Obviously, the filling in is very worthwhile in a monetary sense because of the need to put garbage somewhere. What you have said clearly is that any site on the Niagara Escarpment is a real danger. That's what your position is.
Mrs Matthews: That's right, particularly a quarry site, where there's already been blasting for the quarry. The rock is already fractured, and when you have a quarry you're blasting even further, and it sets up a more difficult situation when it comes to the escaping of groundwater and leachate or pollutant. There's no control over where it's going to go.
Ms Harrington: I'd like to point out one thing in your brief that I found disturbing. You said that back in 1975, before this site was even approved, Dr Dickman came forward and opposed the application on the grounds that the fractured rock of the escarpment was too risky a site. Oh, how truthful. Obviously, he was ignored at that point. And further, after the site was being used, he monitored the water quality and found that there were changes and he immediately made presentations to city council. To quote your report, "his findings were ignored" by city council.
Mrs Matthews: Exactly.
Ms Harrington: Do you wonder how that can happen?
Mrs Matthews: No, not when you watch the way some city councils function.
Ms Harrington: Both the city of Niagara Falls and the city of St Catharines are before this committee opposing this bill because they feel they will not be able to do remediation work, which is not the case.
Mrs Matthews: I don't find that remediation work is covered by this. In my quick glancing through it, I don't see that it is.
The Chair: I guess you'll hang around as Mr Ruland makes his presentation.
Mrs Matthews: Yes, I'll be here for Mr Ruland's presentation.
Mr Offer: The point that has been brought forward by both this deputant and the city of St Catharines is extremely germane to our discussion. It would be interesting to find out whether indeed remediation work is covered by the amendment. The city of St Catharines, notwithstanding the exhortations of Mr Duignan, has said that its ability to provide any remediation work would not be covered by this amendment. The deputants are concerned and have properly and very forthrightly said, "We don't know, but we think we need it." How is it that we are going to know?
Mr Duignan: On the same point, Mr Chair: That's why we have clause-by-clause tomorrow. We will deal with this issue, and we can ask the Ministry of Environment. I understand they'll be here tomorrow morning.
The Chair: The ministry staff will be here tomorrow morning. We'll begin with them for half an hour to ask questions of that nature that they might respond to. Clause-by-clause of course will be done later, and that's where people's differences of opinions can be raised, by way of amendments or otherwise. But the ministry people will be here tomorrow to answer questions like that.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Can we do one thing in the meantime, Mr Chair? Can we send the finalized amendments out to those people who have made deputations?
The Chair: I have instructed the clerk to do that to all the deputants.
Is that all right, Mr Offer? I'm not sure we can help you beyond that with the concerns you've raised.
Mr Offer: No, apart from the fact that it's important to have the ministry officials here and I'm looking forward to asking them questions on this bill in particular and in principle.
1040
GREENSVILLE AGAINST SERIOUS POLLUTION
Mr Wilf Ruland: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation. My name is Wilf Ruland, and I'm a hydrogeologist. I specialize in the study of environmental impacts associated with landfills. If any of you are curious about my technical qualifications, I sent a copy of my CV to the clerk, and she would have that for you. I don't know if she has made copies, but anyway, I'm not going to go into that in detail.
I've been retained by and I'm speaking here today on behalf of a group called Greensville Against Serious Pollution, GASP for short. This citizens' group is one I've been working for since 1988.
To preface my comments, my discussion focuses on whether landfills are an appropriate land use for the escarpment. I'm going to be coming at that from the perspective of hydrogeology, which is my area of expertise. I'm also going to share with the committee a little information about the typical nuisance impacts associated with landfills.
As part of my work, I've investigated many landfills, including two on the Niagara Escarpment: the Brow quarry landfill, which is near Greensville, the one I've investigated for GASP, and the Glenridge quarry landfill, which I've looked at on behalf of Mrs Matthews's group, near St Catharines. I've gained an understanding of the hydrogeology of both sites. My evidence today is going to cover three broad topics: The first is potential nuisance impacts of landfills; the second is potential hydrogeologic impacts, impacts on groundwater; and the third is a study of the two case histories, the Brow quarry landfill and the Glenridge quarry landfill on the escarpment.
I'd like to get into more detail, first of all, about the potential nuisance impacts of landfills on the environment. Landfills can have a number of nuisance-type impacts. Some of these tend to be restricted to the landfill property itself, but others can extend far beyond the property boundaries of the landfill and negatively affect surrounding areas to distances of up to several kilometres away.
Potential nuisance impacts you might see with a landfill include the following: Landfills are perceived by many people to be visually offensive; landfills which contain organic wastes, food wastes, will attract vermin; the machinery working at landfills is noisy; landfills bring with them an increase in truck traffic; they're a source of litter as well as of dust, and the litter and/or the dust can blow offsite in strong winds; and landfills produce odours and gases which are perceived by many people to be offensive.
A picture is always helpful. I've got a couple of pictures from Essex county landfill 3 that I thought I'd pass around. The pictures being passed around are not unusual in any way. They're of an operating landfill, a landfill operating within its license, legally. This is just what a landfill looks like. It might be interesting for committee members to see that.
The nuisance impacts are ones that are observed personally, and there are also ones I've heard about from people I'm working for in the course of my work. But the main focus of my presentation today is in my own area of expertise, and that's possible hydrogeologic impacts of landfill.
I'll just by indicating that the types of impacts a landfill might have on groundwater are impacts either on the quality of groundwater or on the quantity of available groundwater, sometimes on both, and those impacts occur because of something that's called leachate.
Leachate is the contaminated liquid that's generated at all landfill sites. It forms when rain falls on to the landfill, seeps through the wastes, leaches chemicals out of the wastes and basically picks up contaminants as it goes. Some of the chemicals picked up in leachate from the wastes in the landfill are potentially hazardous; they can have very serious impacts on human health. The leachate tends to contain potentially hazardous wastes or potentially hazardous chemicals because hazardous wastes go into landfills in small quantities. This happens around the province. There doesn't seem to be any way of keeping small amounts of hazardous wastes from getting into landfills, and as a result we have to expect hazardous chemicals in the leachate that's coming out of landfills.
I've got a couple of pictures of what leachate from a landfill looks like, just in case you've not seen this before. Again these are from Essex county landfill 3. The leachate tends to be either a bright red or a black colour. It gets that colour from the iron that's commonly found in the leachate, and depending on the oxidation state of the iron, it tends to have a red or a black colour. The leachate you'll see here is red.
The reason landfills have impacts on groundwater is because, despite the best effort of landfill engineers, over the long term pretty well every landfill is going to leak to some extent and it's going to cause some contamination of groundwater. This is something that's been recognized by the US Environmental Protection Agency. You'll see on page 2 of my statement the quote at the bottom. That's from the US EPA, out of the Federal Register on February 5, 1981. The EPA indicated that:
"There is good theoretical and practical evidence that the hazardous constituents that are placed in land disposal facilities" -- what they mean is landfills -- "very likely will migrate from the facility into the broader environment. This may occur several years, even many decades, after placement of the waste in the facility, but data and scientific prediction indicate that, in most cases, even with the application of best-available land disposal technology, it will occur eventually."
What they're saying is that a landfill will eventually leak, and all the experience I've had in my working life only goes to underline that statement.
If we have impacts on groundwater quality in the escarpment setting, the type of thing we might see is the contamination of springs and seeps on the escarpment face. If that contamination is serious, it can lead to that water becoming undrinkable. It can lead to vegetation die-offs in the area around the spring. We can also have contamination of groundwater supplies below the escarpment, and that contamination can spread over considerable distances, hundreds, even thousands of metres.
The other type of impact on groundwater you might see from a landfill is an impact on the quantity of groundwater available, and the reason that might occur is because, at most landfills, measures are undertaken to try and contain the leachate to keep it from getting out into the broader environment. These measures usually involve the creation of something called a hydraulic trap, which is a lowering of the water table in the vicinity of the landfill to catch all the leachate to make sure water's flowing into the landfill, not out of the landfill. Millions of litres of water have to be pumped to create such a hydraulic trap, and as a result the quantity of groundwater available downgradient to the escarpment is reduced. That sort of pumping to create a hydraulic trap usually has to be maintained for decades, if not longer.
In the setting of a landfill on the escarpment, such a lowering of the water table could have the following impacts: the drying-up of seeps or springs on the escarpment face and a loss of water to escarpment streams or a loss of water to escarpment wetlands; in addition, you can have a loss of groundwater supplies for domestic purposes downgradient of a landfill. Certainly landfills can have these sorts of impacts.
1050
The escarpment setting being a fragile one, the impacts can have serious consequences. With respect to the escarpment environment, of course there are environmental policies and guidelines in place in Ontario. Those policies and guidelines are designed to prevent the types of impacts I'm talking about and the types of impacts Mrs Matthews has talked about from occurring. Unfortunately, experience has shown that these sorts of policies and guidelines can't guarantee protection of the environment from leachate-derived groundwater contamination.
I'd like to suggest to you that as a result, the hydrogeologic setting of the site, if you will, tends to be a very important factor in determining what locations are suitable for landfilling. Some sites have got a hydrogeology that's more suitable, other sites have a hydrogeology that's less suitable for landfills.
A number of aspects of the escarpment environment make it particularly unsuitable for the siting and operation of landfills. These have to do with the fact that the escarpment is an outcrop of intensely fractured bedrock. I've got another picture for the committee. This is a picture of the Brow quarry landfill in Dundas, and it shows you that fractured rock of the escarpment, with the landfill right there.
On page 4 of my brief, I've put together for the committee a number of factors that were considered by the joint board at the Halton hearings, a major environmental hearing that took place a couple of years ago when it was assessing the hydrogeological suitability of potential landfill sites. I've listed the board's factors in italics on page 4 and I've provided the committee with my own opinion about how those factors might apply to landfills along the escarpment.
The board said, "The hydrogeology of the area must be comprehensible." The fact is that fractured bedrock hydrogeology is very complex. It's poorly understood, one of the least well understood areas in my field, and it's less easily comprehensible than the hydrogeology in most other areas of the province.
The board said, "The loss of contaminants should be minimal as a result of either natural containment or engineered works." Natural containment is just the site itself, and engineered works of course are liners and that sort of thing. For sites on the escarpment, you can't count on the environment to give you any protection. You've got to do all the work yourself: You've got to put in very radical engineering measures to contain the leachate.
The Halton board said it prefers sites where natural containment and attenuation of contaminants occurs as opposed to sites that rely on engineered containment and attenuation. Escarpment sites, as I said, have to rely on engineered works. The board would consider those sorts of sites to be less preferable.
Another very important point the board indicated is that if contaminants move away from a landfill site, the contaminant migration pathways should be predictable. The escarpment setting is anything but predictable. Fractured bedrock flow is very unpredictable.
The fifth point doesn't really pertain to hydrogeology. I'll skip that.
The sixth one is that monitoring that's done at landfills to identify contaminant migration pathways should be straightforward. Again, in the escarpment setting monitoring is anything but straightforward. Monitoring fractured bedrock is very, very difficult, and I speak from experience here.
Finally, "There should be the highest possible confidence in the effectiveness of contingency measures to intercept and capture lost contaminants." If you have contamination leaving a landfill, the board is saying you should have a good possibility of intercepting it and capturing it again. In the escarpment setting, such contamination is going to be more difficult to find, it's going to be harder to track, to intercept and to capture than in most other hydrogeological settings in the province of Ontario.
I've been about 10 minutes. I've got a couple of case histories to talk about with the committee. I'll spend a bit of time on the Brow quarry and not much at all on the Glenridge quarry. Mrs Matthews has told you about that. But I'll be happy to answer questions if there are any.
The Brow quarry landfill, the one that was on the picture that just went around, is owned and operated by Steetley Industries Ltd. They're now called Redland Quarries Inc. The landfill opened in 1979. It was in operation for about 10 years and was licensed only for disposal of 100% non-hazardous industrial wastes. I've studied that site since 1988. The landfill is located in a former quarry on the Niagara Escarpment. In fact, most landfills on the escarpment are located in old quarries. The quarry was excavated up to 25 metres below the ground surface.
Groundwater flow in the area of the Brow quarry landfill is from the quarry towards the escarpment, and downgradient of the landfill, on the escarpment face, groundwater discharges in the form of seeps and springs.
When the landfill first went into operation in 1979, there were no measures at all undertaken to protect the groundwater of the escarpment. Wastes were simply dumped on to the floor of the landfill. The quarry has now been filled with wastes.
The leachate from the landfill -- this is the contaminated liquid in the landfill that was just draining freely out of it -- has got high levels of total dissolved solids, salts and organic constituents. Measurable levels of potentially hazardous chemicals such as benzene have been found in the leachate and have been draining freely into the escarpment environment.
A collection system was installed late in 1986. The company eventually recognized that it had a problem on its hands. After that system went in, they figured they were collecting about 50% of the leachate being generated. The other 50% was still going out, and that's millions of litres a year of leachate. The company's own consultants, Golder Associates, in a report I've got with me, estimated that in 1990, 50% of the leachate was being collected and the other 50% was still draining out.
Golder Associated testified at a hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board. In their report before the board, they indicated that the seepage loss from the Brow quarry landfill would combine with groundwater flow in the underlying formations and discharge as springs on the escarpment face or as seepage beneath the talus on the escarpment face. Based on this balance, seepage from the landfill represents about half the water discharging at the escarpment face. We've had a real impact on the escarpment setting here.
The company has done monitoring of ground- and surface water quality since 1978, and the results of the monitoring program confirm that water contaminated by landfill leachate has escaped and continues to escape the site.
I've got a couple more quotes from the Golder report on page 6 of my brief. Impacts on groundwater quality have been recognized by the firm's own consultants. This isn't stuff I'm making up; this is their report. On page 87 they indicate, "The highest concentrations of leachate-related parameters in the downgradient groundwater at the Brow site were encountered beneath the western half of the landfill at...Spring S-W1." That's a spring on the escarpment. Further on in the report, they say, "Spring S-W1 appears to be in large part leachate derived from the overlying landfill."
With respect to another spring, the same report states: "The installation of the leachate collection system" -- this is after six years of operation of the landfill -- "also eliminated a leachate spring that developed on the upper slope of the escarpment below...the east end of the site. The spring which developed in 1985...represented a breakout of saline leachate water from the lower lift area and resulted in a local vegetation kill around the spring."
There have also been impacts on surface water quality -- this is streams I'm talking about -- as a result of the Brow quarry landfill. There was direct flow of surface water across the landfill and over the escarpment during heavy rain events and during spring snowmelt. This was observed again by the company's own consultants.
As well, there have been increases in total dissolved solids and salts in Sydenham Creek attributed to seepage from the apple orchard part of that landfill. That site was in operation for years. It's been closed since 1989. To date, the company has neglected its responsibility to properly carry out final grading or to apply final cover to the landfill. It's simply been left standing in an unfinished state, four years now, since they halted operations at that landfill.
1100
With respect to the Glenridge landfill, I've got a couple of observations to share with you on page 7 of my brief. I'll go through those rather quickly. Mrs Matthews has covered most of these.
The first one is that the presence of the Glenridge landfill has caused the contamination of a creek which collects water from the base of the former quarry area. In that creek there were exceedances of provincial water quality objectives for iron throughout the 1980s. The creek was contaminated with faecal coliforms.
The most serious incident was from May 24 to 27, 1986, when the creek was filled with a black, frothing, odorous leachate. That creek has since been diverted to a leachate sewer. The city now pipes city water up to the top of the escarpment and has that run down the creek bed. The creek itself is so badly contaminated that they've had to, in essence, write it off and divert it to the leachate sewer.
Groundwater quality around the landfill is deteriorating as well. Test results have now shown the presence of chlorinated organic contaminants such as trichloroethylene -- again, potentially hazardous -- in four monitoring wells above the escarpment on the east side of the landfill.
To deal with that, the city installed the collector trench Mrs Matthews was talking about. They blasted a trench into the bedrock to collect shallow groundwater. As we had predicted, putting in that trench caused problems of its own, which resulted in saline groundwater upwelling from depth. That's led to the salinization of springs on the escarpment and it's had an impact on the health of trees on the escarpment.
Finally, points 4 and 5 are the ones testified to by Mrs Matthews. I don't need to go over those. There were great impacts on local residents in the Glenridge neighbourhood.
In conclusion, I'd like to indicate to the committee that based on my review of two specific escarpment landfill sites and my understanding of the geology of the escarpment, it's my opinion that landfilling along the escarpment is generally not desirable from a hydrogeological perspective.
In my experience, even in a suitable hydrogeological environment like a flat area with very deep deposits of clay, even in those environments, it's a challenge to design, operate and monitor a landfill such that hydrogeological impacts are kept to an acceptable minimum. The lack of natural containment along the escarpment combined with the unpredictable nature of groundwater flow in the escarpment area make this an undesirable setting for situating landfills.
The Chair: We have run out of time, but if there's a quick question each caucus wants to ask, we'll permit it. If it's not quick, I'll cut you off.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I take from your brief, and you finished up with this, that there aren't very many places a landfill site can go.
Mr Ruland: Oh, no, there are lots of places.
Mr Murdoch: Maybe you can elaborate on places a landfill site could be.
Mr Ruland: Generally, if somebody put me in charge of a landfill site search, I'd be looking for an area that provides natural containment, an area with thicker deposits of siltier clay-type materials. There are lots of them around the entire area of Windsor-Sarnia, all the way out to London, just south of Hamilton. That's where most of the landfills in that area go, just at the top of the escarpment around Smithville, Ancaster, north of Toronto as well. There are all sorts of sites.
Mr Murdoch: In the rural area of the Niagara Escarpment plan, though --
The Chair: Mr Murdoch, we don't have time for that. Mr Duignan, do you have a question?
Mr Duignan: It's your conclusion, based on your experiences in the Brow quarry and the quarry in St Catharines, given that they were engineered to the technology of the time and that, as I say, they will engineer the Acton quarry to the technology of this time, given your experience the Niagara Escarpment is no place to site a landfill site.
Mr Ruland: I would just remind you again of the statement by the EPA, that landfills will eventually leak no matter how hard you try to keep them from doing so.
Mr Offer: A landfill that has been closed out, you've just indicated, will eventually leak somewhere down the line. In that event, is there approval required to fix a landfill that has been closed out and is leaking? Is there some approval before that work can be undertaken?
Mr Ruland: There quite possibly would be. It's an approval required from the Ministry of Environment. I heard your questions of Mrs Matthews, whether the bill as amended would preclude that sort of thing. I'd like to share with the committee my thoughts on that.
In the amendment as I've got it before me, if you want to be absolutely sure that remediation isn't precluded by the bill, I would suggest that in clause 1(3)(b) there be a change made in the fourth line: "to enable the site to be remediated or operated in a more environmentally sound manner." If you put the words "remediated or" in there, for sure you're leaving that door open, and I would encourage you to do that. There are sites around the province where remediation might be necessary.
The Chair: Mr Ruland, thank you very much for taking the time to come today, and Mr and Mrs Matthews. Thank you for presenting to this committee.
FURIOUSLY OPPOSED TO ACTON DUMPING
Ms Diane van deValk: Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. Dr Landry will be speaking to you for about 10 minutes, and I'll start off this morning.
When I was thinking about the issue that's facing you, I thought the Niagara Escarpment is really a motherhood issue. It's a UNESCO-designated World Biosphere Reserve. We all know it's unique biologically, we know it's unique geologically, so why is it that this bill is not a cakewalk? That's the question. Why isn't it a given that we're going to go ahead and give this bill the green light? In thinking about it, I came up with two possible reasons.
The first is that there are those of you who believe that the Environmental Assessment Act works, so we should let it run its course; that it's the act itself that's designed to protect the environment, so let it do its job, and why do we need this bill?
The second reason I could come up with was that we really are that desperate here in Ontario for disposal solutions or disposal options.
Those are the two possible reasons I could come up with. I would like to address each one of those. I hope I'm not giving too much overlap, but we'll do the best we can.
With regard to the Environmental Assessment Act, as you all know, the act was written for public sector undertakings. In an ideal situation, what you have is a municipality, for example, coming before the act and saying, "The purpose of this undertaking is to find a disposal option." As a result of that definition of the purpose of the undertaking, the proponent is required to evaluate, first of all, alternatives to disposal, so they have to look at all those things like 3Rs and composting, and secondly they have to evaluate alternative sites. They have to say, "This is the best site that we've come up with based on environmental criteria."
There are all kinds of problems associated with the Environmental Assessment Act, and we know those from various municipal undertakings, but now let's look at the private sector undertaking that we're experiencing in Halton Hills. I'm a resident of Halton Hills.
RSI has defined its undertaking not to find disposal; it's defined its undertaking as to make money. Suddenly, what they have to look at in terms of their alternatives is very different. What they're looking at in the way of alternatives to disposal, 3Rs and composting -- they're saying, "No, we don't have to look at those because they're not economically within our projections." It might cost, let's say, $75 a tonne to compost and $20 a tonne to dispose, so if the purpose of the undertaking is to make money, why do they have to look at 3Rs and composting? That's exactly what RSI has done.
Second, in terms of alternative sites, again in an ideal situation you look for alternative sites that are best from an environmental standpoint. That's not what they have to do, because they've defined the undertaking as finding a spot to put garbage at which they can make money: a very different proposition, because in their evaluation of alternatives they looked at only the sites they own or have an option to lease on. That's a very different situation, obviously, because they've eliminated sites because they're too far away. That has nothing to do with the environment.
The problem we see in the application of the Environmental Assessment Act, public versus private, is that the spirit of the act is not followed. That's clear.
1110
The second reason I came up with as to why this bill is not a cakewalk, why there is some concern over carrying on with it, was that we really are that desperate here in Ontario for disposal options that we would consider putting a landfill in this internationally recognized location. We're desperate.
In thinking about that, we have to address the discussion of alternatives. Invariably, the point is raised that if we can't put it there, where are we going to put it? Where's the best spot for a landfill? But maybe that isn't the question. Maybe the question is, what else can we do with our garbage? Clearly, decades and decades of massive landfilling and incineration throughout this continent should tell us that massive landfilling and incineration are not the solution. I can guarantee you, if we put a landfill in the escarpment, 20 years from now the issue's going to be back before us again. We won't have solved the problem, will we, because we still have this need for the big holes in the ground to dispose of our garbage.
I just want to go over my background so that you know where I'm coming from in relation to the 3Rs and composting. I am project manager of Wastewise, a waste reduction and recycling centre in Halton Hills. I'll tell you a little bit more about that in a minute or two. I've been the project manager for three years. I was qualified by the Environmental Assessment Board as an expert witness in 3Rs and composting in a landfill hearing in relation to the Kitchener Street landfill in Orillia.
I was the recycling coordinator of the city of Mississauga for two years. I was the regional coordinator of an onsite industrial waste management project for one year.
Right now I'm working with a group of 48 organizations that are interested in creating a brand new-association called Association for Reuse Organizations. This is a really exciting development in moving up the 3Rs hierarchy, looking at how we can get together to better facilitate reuse in the province.
I was on the executive of the Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators for one year. I am a director of the Halton Hills Chamber of Commerce, and have been for two years. I was an external adviser to a Ryerson architectural student in designing a reuse facility for Toronto island.
As far as my community connections are concerned, I'm a director of FOAD, Furiously Opposed to Acton Dumping. I'm a director of ICE, Incineration Counteracts the Environment, and have been for three and a half years. I've been a member of POWER, Protect Our Water and Environmental Resources, for three years. I was a director for two years of the Mississauga Citizens Environmental Protection Association.
In terms of speaking engagements, just to give you an indication of what I've done in that area, I've spoken for the Ryerson environment science and applications course. I've spoken for Canadian Unified Students Environmental Network at a regional conference. I've spoken for the Sierra Club in Gainsville, Florida; St Lawrence University in Canton, New York; Action Garbage in Montreal; the Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators for the Recycling Council of Ontario; Peel outdoor educators; for the composting and recycling of solid waste short course in Madison, Wisconsin; and a composting seminar for the Technical University of Nova Scotia.
What I bring to you is a suggestion that disposal is no longer the solution, so 3Rs is the solution. Composting and 3Rs are what the real question is here: How are we going to press on with 3Rs and composting?
I told you I'd tell you a little bit more about Wastewise. Wastewise is a registered charity. It has four main activities happening out of the centre. The first is waste reduction education. We knew there was an awful lot of information floating around provincially through various groups and organizations, all the way from the Ontario Waste Management Exchange to the Recycling Council of Ontario to the once Waste Reduction Advisory Committee.
There's information at all these bodies, but what we learned was that locally, businesses weren't aware that these places existed, so there needed to be some sort of a local mechanism for exchange of this information. Residentially, again information needed to be exchanged: What's the problem with household hazardous wastes? What are the alternatives to household hazardous wastes? How do you compost? and so on.
Waste reduction: a really important part of the work we do.
Reuse: I'm sure there isn't anyone in this room who hasn't driven around a neighbourhood on garbage day and looked at the pile and said: "Geez, that thing looks okay. What happens to be wrong with that?" There are plenty of increased opportunities for reuse.
In Halton Hills we have the Salvation Army, but it's not addressing all the reuse possibilities that exist so Wastewise created a large flea-market type of operation to encourage people to look at this stuff and consider it in terms of its potential to serve somebody else's needs. We also have a repair function. It's clear that there's a problem with the economics when it costs more to fix a kettle, let's say $20 to $30 in labour, when you can go buy one for $12. Does that mean the kettle is garbage? I suggest it doesn't mean it's garbage. I suggest it is a problem with the economic system. Perhaps virgin materials are too heavily subsidized and that's how come you can make a kettle for $12 rather than fix one for $20 to $30. The repair is a really important function, and we have volunteers helping us with that.
Finally, we have recycling for materials that extends well beyond the blue box program. We have eight different grades of paper, seven different types of plastic, we have scrap metal, we have corks, elastics, bread tabs, egg cartons and so on.
What we've done at Wastewise is that we've said if we want to fix the garbage problem, we'd better open up the green bag, because as long as we're dealing with a green bag, what are we going to come up with in the way of solutions? We're going to come up with landfill and incineration because we don't know what's in there. Until we open up the green bag we're not going to figure out exactly what it is that we have to do.
Wastewise is just one community effort, and it's a community effort that resulted from the pressure our community has been faced with as a result of the seven-year battle with RSI to settle landfill in the escarpment.
There are other examples, really interesting reuse examples. We have the Restore Store in Brantford focusing on construction waste: windows, doors, sinks etc. That's a for-profit facility. We have the Reuse Building Centre in Scarborough, also for-profit, same types of materials. We have Hobo Hardware in Guelph, all reused materials. We have Value Village, a for-profit chain that's basing its business on used clothing. We have Play It Again Sports, 600 outlets in North America, 12 in Ontario, with six slated to open, all based on used sporting equipment.
Composting: We're told that 50% of residential waste is organic if you include kitchen and yard waste -- 50%, so let's get on with it. In my town they collect brush and leaves four times a year, that's it, and yet what we're saying here is that 50% of the residential waste in Halton Hills could be reduced if we were to actually compost the stuff instead of sticking it in a green bag.
I detect I'm losing people. Come back.
The Chair: The only point I want to make is that after Dr Landry speaks we will have run out of time for questions if you speak a little longer. It's up to you.
Ms van deValk: I'll wrap up. I think I made my point that the key to finding alternatives to disposal is saying no to further disposal options. If approving this bill puts the pressure on at least one more spot, so be it, because that'll be a step in the right direction. We'll say, "No, this is an important area." That's one more pressure point, one fewer spot to put garbage in this province. So be it. If that means we're going to be able to force ourselves up that waste management hierarchy, it's mission accomplished, because that's exactly what we're trying to prove.
Wastewise would not exist and these other centres I've mentioned would not exist if there wasn't pressure from disposal options. That's clear. There are recycling examples that we could go on to discuss. Atlantic Packaging in Whitby would not exist if there wasn't a large-scale urban supply of newsprint in this area. It's clear that disposal pressure creates alternatives.
I'll close there. I was going to use a quote, but I won't.
1120
Dr Leonard Landry: My name is Dr Len Landry. I'm a family physician from Halton Hills. I grew up in Halton Hills, moving there when I was four years of age. I currently live in Speyside, Ontario, which is on the Niagara Escarpment itself, so every day of my life I've looked at the Niagara Escarpment on the horizon, not having done much travelling out of Ontario.
I thank you for the opportunity to hear my views as I lend my wholehearted support for Bill 62. Thank you to Noel Duignan and the NDP, and also thank you to the opposition Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties, because it was your common sense and support that established safety within the Niagara Escarpment in the years gone by and who also saw it become a biosphere reserve under the United Nations.
You've all heard Lynne Matthews speak. I'm so glad she could make it here today. There's little to be said after hearing her talk. Do you think her life or the life of her neighbours will ever be normal again medically, mentally, anything? In the sense of epidemiology, we as doctors, as physicians, are barely scratching the surface. There is enough work to be done with the current problems we have.
My view is, let us not risk new studies by making new mistakes. You look at the Niagara Escarpment, and it has possibly two or three points which might have engendered this interest in waste facilities. It is isolated. There are a lot of holes in it, for various reasons. In some areas, we're told it has this curious flow of water which makes landfilling and other operations unique and reliable. This has since been disproven at Glenridge. You've seen the pictures. Do these points make the Niagara Escarpment the best spot for waste facilities? I say to you, no way. The health effects at Glenridge should make that very clear.
You'll recall seeing the signs. I'm certain you saw the pictures; I have copies myself. They're not exactly postcards you would send from a vacation in this area. It's disgusting what has happened at that site, and I think Wilf Ruland's statements bear that out. I'm not going to repeat his analysis of that particular site.
In medicine, as physicians we always, every day, have to weigh benefits versus risk in something we do. I ask you to weigh that same thing in this situation here in considering Bill 62. In medicine, if we prescribe a medication, there are benefits and there are also risks. If the benefits outweigh the risks, we prescribe it, or if the treatment benefits outweigh the risks. In this scenario, the establishment of a waste facility on the Niagara Escarpment, a very fragile environment, the benefits of waste disposal facilities do not outweigh the risk to the people living around them. I must emphasize that the risk is to a wide population that such proponents rarely consider.
We keep hearing about engineering of safe projects. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not an engineer's game, for God's sake. All landfills will leak. I will make that more firm than Mr Ruland. By the second law of thermodynamics, the process of entropy, all nature seeks disarray; therefore all landfills will leak, all cars will break down, and all houses will need repairs -- especially mine. More technology equals more engineering, therefore more that can go wrong.
The best things in life, I propose to you, are simple: natural environments, natural acts. Am I an expert? No way. I'm not an expert. What we do when we analyse proposals from proponents is that we use their own experts and we find enough information right there -- it makes us sound like experts -- such quotes as, "In a certain area, a landfill would cause contamination of a nearby town's water some time in 28 to 230 years, but a worst-case scenario would be three years." I go on to quote that individual, that so-called expert for the proponent, by saying, "By that time, we would be on Lake Ontario water anyway."
That brings me to the point that in our communities many of us are on wells we treasure, that are precious to us. The thought of drinking Lake Ontario water is repulsive to us. The fact is, though, that by contamination of the headwaters from which many rivers flow from the Niagara Escarpment into Lake Ontario, that Lake Ontario water is going to get worse. The International Joint Commission talks about things like the biosphere reserve, the need for protection of special areas, the headwaters, restoration of degraded areas, non-degradation of already high-quality areas, the history, the value of the Niagara Escarpment.
I will conclude by saying first that doctors like myself are just beginning to become aware of health effects. We need to study patients like Mrs Matthews, like her neighbours, where they have breathing problems, where they have blood count problems, where the kids have learning problems. Second, physical effects are one thing; mental health aspects are often neglected. There's tremendous mental abuse going on with proposals of such facilities. Third, remember the benefit-versus-the-risk profile in any decision you make. Do the benefits of the establishment of waste facilities on the escarpment outweigh the risks? I say not. It is too risky. The Niagara Escarpment must be protected. I support Bill 62 with the strongest part of my heart.
I would invite you all to come out to Halton Hills. I think we have a pretty self-sufficient community with Diane's Wastewise project that we mentioned, with the establishment of our recent landfill which, although it has problems, was the clear choice over an alternative landfill in Burlington. We could have pushed it farther away, but our community chose that the Milton site was the best site. Milton's close to home. We aim to show all of you, when you come out to visit us, that we have a community to be envied, and we wish that other people would envy us as well and would protect the Niagara Escarpment in our area as well as in all areas of the NEC.
Ms Harrington: Thank you very much. You've both spoken very powerfully. I think we all agree that there are areas that have to be protected, such as the Niagara Escarpment, but this bill begs the question, are there other areas across this province that might fall into the same category?
Ms van deValk: I would suggest, based on my presentation, that every area of the province should be spared a landfill or an incinerator. Every area of this province should be protected from those two sources of the stresses Dr Landry mentioned. As long as we focus on the 3Rs alternatives that I discussed -- in fact, we've got to consider this whole province as being an area worth protecting.
Ms Harrington: At this point in time, garbage is a fact of life. I certainly agree with you that we can try to reuse everything we possibly can. In fact, my husband has a Play it Again Sports business. But we still do put out green garbage bags; I don't know if you do. But at this point in time, landfilling is still, and into the future, very much a part of Ontario. Are there other areas you think should be protected from landfill?
Ms van deValk: I just want to add to that by saying again that yes, the whole province should be protected. Second, we were in this sort of landfill crisis debate in the 1970s when Keele Valley was opened. Now here it is 24 years later and we're prepared to dump on Maple again. My argument is, in 24 years, where did we get? I have a book that was published in 1977 called The Garbage Book, published by the office of energy conservation. It was during the energy crisis. That book talks about 3Rs: reject, reuse and recycle, and it talks about composting. My question is, where have we come since 1977?
Ms Harrington: I'm sure we have graphs to show that there's a lot more composting and recycling going on everywhere, but it's not 100%; maybe it's 50%. We still need landfills.
1130
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I have more of a comment than a question, and it relates to the comment you made at the beginning of the presentation about trying to figure out why people are resisting this legislation or appear to be resisting this legislation. That's not my perception of what's happening. We have an obligation on the committee to make sure the bill works and that it properly functions.
When we started these hearings, there was no amendment. An amendment was produced. That amendment didn't exist before. We now have one of the presenters suggesting an amendment to the amendment. We have the city of St Catharines coming before us, presumably with some kind of a mandate representing the people of St Catharines, to suggest that the bill in its present form is not acceptable.
I can't remember any bill that's come before a committee and gone through the process that's had a cakewalk or a free ride. It's our responsibility to refine it, to make sure there's fairness and equity. Indeed, I think there is still a significant legal flaw in this legislation, which will be dealt with tomorrow in clause-by-clause. If that is not rectified, I think it leaves the door wide open, for example, to RSI to challenge this bill. We have to ask the tough questions, we have to look at it. I don't think there'll be very many pieces of legislation that will get a free ride before they go out the other door. That's our responsibility.
Ms van deValk: That's right, and I think that's a good thing. It isn't resistance I detected; it was an analysis of two possible reasons there might not be support. The purpose of my presentation was to analyse those two possible reasons there might not be support. I don't profess to know all the reasons you might have for choosing to support or not support. I just looked at two of them.
Mr Stockwell: My concern comes also from the Ministry of Environment, which has very clearly dodged this piece of legislation.
Laughter.
Mr Stockwell: I don't know why that brought laughter. They're not coming out and saying they support this bill. They've not come out and said they don't support it, but they just haven't come out and said they support it. What is it about this piece of legislation that has left them, supposedly the leaders in the landfill and 3Rs issues -- why have they put themselves in the position of sitting on the fence, straddling the issue? If they came out today and said, "We're 100% in favour of this piece of legislation. We are going to call it for third reading," you'd probably end up with a lot less discussion here because we know it would be going through. But as they haven't, what's the big question mark?
Dr Landry: I think we could answer that, but we could get into really difficult legal issues. I'd be willing to talk to you any time, Chris -- Mr Stockwell -- about that.
Mr Stockwell: Chris is fine. Maybe we should have a little chit-chat, because I don't know.
Dr Landry: We have seen similar resistance from the MOE to act in our community on issues related to these ones. We should talk at some time when we could clarify the issues, but there is an explanation.
Mr Stockwell: So are they going to support it in the end, do you think?
Ms van deValk: Ask them.
Laughter.
Dr Landry: And that's why the laughter. Begging your pardon, but some people are familiar with how --
Mr Stockwell: With the story. Thank you.
The Chair: Dr Landry and Ms van deValk, thank you very much for taking the time and the interest to present to us this morning.
HICKORY FALLS RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION
Ms Daphne Shropshall: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. I am hoping my voice will hold out, so if I have to take a break occasionally, please forgive me. This cold was not very good timing.
My name's Daphne Shropshall and I'm here this morning to speak on behalf of a small ratepayer group, the Hickory Falls Ratepayers Association, who live on the Niagara Escarpment between Georgetown and Acton in Halton Hills. We formed as a group approximately four years ago to attempt to raise the awareness of all levels of government to the concerns of those of us who live not only in the escarpment but also in any rural area of the province.
Since forming as a group, we have addressed not only the local municipality but Halton region, the Niagara Escarpment five-year review and the Sewell commission. Our concerns are varied, but the overriding consideration for any rural resident is the quality and quantity of our water supply.
Our membership in Hickory Falls Ratepayers covers a wide diversity of ages, occupations and lifestyles. We range from young couples, both of whom are holding down full-time jobs to maintain their homes, to retired residents who have lived in that area for 20 or 30 years; from farmers whose roots in the area go back four or five generations -- we do have century farms in the area -- to farmers who have moved to this area more recently and now have young families who are involved in operating a family farm; from young couples just starting their families, to those in my own age bracket who enjoy having grandchildren. In other words, we're a very ordinary, varied group of people, just like the majority of the residents on the escarpment. But the thread which joins us all is a respect for the rural lifestyle and for the Niagara Escarpment.
I'm here today not as an expert in any particular field such as geology or hydrogeology or on behalf of some commercial concern looking to make a large profit, but on behalf of the hundreds of your constituents in this province who have made their homes on the Niagara Escarpment or close to it. We believe the escarpment is unique and deserves special protection. The Niagara Escarpment plan and the UNESCO designation reinforce our belief. Surely those who voted for the original plan did not envision the area becoming a focal point and magnet for garbage dumps, but the temptation is there because of the quarries and the pressure exerted by our modern society.
Recently, garbage has become a lucrative business, and a map of the escarpment will show you the many, many quarries, both old and new, which could be used as landfills. The area of the escarpment in which we live in particular is directly between two landfill proposals. One is an old quarry which is being suggested as a fill site for construction debris, and of course the RSI. Both of them are a potential threat to our local water supply if they're allowed to proceed.
1140
I'm here to speak for those of us who rely on the aquifers of the escarpment for that basic necessity of life which is water. Bill 62 will serve to protect the water supply of every person who happens to live close to a quarry, those who in the future could face the horrendously expensive and lengthy hearings, using taxpayers' dollars, just to protect their water. Experience has shown and consultants have told you that the fractured limestone of the escarpment is not a safe medium for landfill sites. Other experts will try to tell you that there would be no problems. Whom are we to believe? More important, who has to face the consequences? Certainly not the proponents of the landfill sites -- it's not their water that's at stake -- nor the hearing officers and consultants who make the decisions. We, the residents, face the consequences, with no guarantees and, even more important, no alternative source of supply.
Bill 62 will take away that doubt and uncertainty for us. It will say a straight no to any landfill proposal on the escarpment. The rules will be clear. I am here to ask for some common sense in supporting this bill. When experience has shown that landfill sites become polluters of the environment, no amount of reports, lawyers, hearings and arguments can alter that fact. No guarantees can be offered to us, and the decisions are irreversible. If we cannot save the escarpment, protect this special, narrow band of land, then what hope is there for the rest of Ontario? Please give your support to Bill 62.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I just have a couple of questions. One of them is quite specific, actually, and you might not know the answer; I certainly don't. I gather there is a distinction between the plan area and the planning area. Are you aware of that?
Ms Shropshall: I wouldn't call myself an expert on it. I know the boundaries of the Niagara Escarpment plan area. I'm sorry, I'm not aware enough to answer.
Mr Murphy: I'll leave that for later. I gather the ministry will be in.
I represent a downtown Toronto riding, so part of this process is an education for me. The concept that we should protect the escarpment is a good one. We've had a set of rules that have been in place for a while; some people have relied on those rules. There is a perception, and probably rightly so, that this bill is aimed at one particular project in Halton, the RSI project, and has an impact all across the escarpment area. The question I really have is one of fairness in the process. The RSI project has been under way for a number of years. I gather they've gone up once, come back down again and may be in the process of reapplying again, something like that. Anyway, there is a process under way. The way this is drafted, it is basically saying that (a) that project is stopped and (b): "No matter that you've spent money all along under rules we've agreed to, at least up until the point this bill is passed. You can't get any of that money back. It's just tough luck."
Assuming that this bill passes and has the effect of stopping that project, do you think it's fair to those people who relied on the old rules and have spent a lot of money on the basis of the old rules to not get any compensation for what they've at least spent to date?
Ms Shropshall: My answer to you would be, is it fair to us, the taxpayers of Halton Hills, to carry on that fight which is so fundamental to the good of the whole town? We are spending taxpayers' dollars fighting a corporation which stands to make millions. Where is the end benefit for the taxpayers?
Mr Murphy: I understand that. I'm asking my question on the assumption that the bill passes, that it's already stopped so the taxpayers of Halton Hills no longer have to spend money to fight the project through the process we've established to date.
Really, it's a bill targeted to a person. For example, say you were constructing an extension on your house and we decided that on the escarpment area, it was just unfair, that from now on we don't want any more building of any kind on the escarpment. You're halfway through the extension to your house and we pass a bill to stop it. Do you think you should be given some money for the money you've put out to build the extension to the point where it stopped?
Ms Shropshall: I don't think the RSI proposal has reached that stage. If it had been a good proposal, I believe it would have been accepted in the first place and wouldn't have dragged on over this number of years. But I'm here this morning not specifically to talk about the RSI proposal. I would like to point out that the escarpment travels right up to Tobermory. There are a lot of empty quarries, and any of those quarries could become a landfill magnet. The rest of the residents on the escarpment are going to be in exactly the same position that the people of Halton Hills have been in for the past few years.
Mr Murphy: I understand your point. For those quarries that exist but for which no proposal has been made, there is no fairness issue because no one has spent any money. This bill would stop them, so we don't have to worry about anybody having spent money under the old rules. This would stop any new proposals, and there's no unfairness in that. On that point, we agree. Well, I think the question has been asked and answered. Thank you.
Mr Offer: You've spoken eloquently about the need to protect the Niagara Escarpment. Would you agree that the protection should be for any development on the Niagara Escarpment and not just be limited to landfill sites or waste management systems?
Ms Shropshall: No, I don't believe that at all. I believe if development is appropriate, by all means, but have some perspective on what is appropriate and what will not damage the ecology of the escarpment, because it is a very delicate balance. As a rural resident, going back to water, we are very conscious that our water supply is down there. Without it, what would we have? Nothing. We have no alternatives.
Mr Murdoch: Just to carry on from what Mr Murphy was talking about, he mentioned there's a planning area and the plan and things like that. When it first started, it had a huge planning area in Ontario, but when the plan was finally recognized and passed into an act, it was the Niagara Escarpment plan area. That has basically three different areas. It has a natural area, and I think that's the area you're mostly concerned about, and then they have an area called a protected area which goes out from it, and then beyond that again they have an area they call the rural area. The problem I have with this bill is that it takes in all three areas.
Maybe in the Halton area and further south, basically all you have left is the natural area, but when you get up into our area, it broadens way out and has these other areas: the protected area and the rural area. We heard earlier today that a good area for a dump site would be heavier soils with clay; it was mentioned by a professional earlier. In our rural area that's the kind of soil that does exist. The rock face could be three miles away.
You see, that's the problem we have with this bill, that they'll just pass it and say it's all the Niagara Escarpment plan area. If it was amended to take in your natural area, which I think you're concerned about -- and most of the quarry pits are in natural areas, because that's where the rock is, the stone they wanted.
Ms Shropshall: I myself am a resident of the Niagara Escarpment rural area, and I believe the aquifer underneath my property is connected to the rest of the area.
Mr Murdoch: It could easily be, but in our area, that's where the clay and the proper soil is. Some of the area would be fine.
Ms Harrington: You'd like a landfill, would you?
Mr Murdoch: No, I'm not saying we would. Nobody will say they want a landfill site. I'd be surprised if anybody would. But there has to be one, unfortunately. The lady who spoke said there shouldn't be one in Ontario, and that would be nice. If we put a bill in, who would object to a bill that there wouldn't be one in Ontario? But the unfortunate thing is that landfill sites, like you said, are a way of life. Sometimes when a county does a study, they have to look at every area, and in our area it may have to be in this rural part. This bill encompasses everything, and that's why there's a problem with it.
1150
Ms Shropshall: Could I ask you a question, Mr Stockwell? Oh, Mr Murdoch. Sorry.
Mr Stockwell: Ask me the question and I'll translate. When do I get my question? That's all I want to know.
The Chair: Ms Shropshall, please go ahead.
Ms Shropshall: If a landfill proposal was put forward in your area and your constituents from your area came to you and said, "We do not believe this is a safe site," who would you listen to, your constituents or the proponents' consultants who are going to gain by being able to make a profit?
Mr Murdoch: You have to look at both sides. We have a system in place now in the province, and I believe it is working. I would have to listen to that system and work through it that way. I wouldn't come here and propose a private member's bill to stop that one site and inflict it on everyone else. In my mind, I'd have to look at all the questions and answers and decide. At this point, I couldn't make that decision because I don't have one proposed. In the past I did, and I stuck up for --
Ms Shropshall: Maybe you are fortunate.
Mr Murdoch: No, just a minute. I was going to say that in the past I had one, when I was reeve of my township. I didn't think it would work because it was on a hill and we were told by the experts -- who sometimes are wrong because they said water doesn't run downhill, so it was hard to believe that. I opposed that one, and that was the right thing to do, because it has run downhill. I'd have to look at it.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell, would you like to ask a question?
Mr Stockwell: Just a quick comment mostly. First of all, there isn't a municipality in the province that is going to go out and invite landfill sites per se in the way you've outlined it. As a member of Metropolitan Toronto council, we tried to site a landfill site within the general area and there wasn't anyone who wanted that landfill site other than Kirkland Lake, which was rail-hauling it way up north, in an open quarry actually, in a mine.
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: Eight hundred kilometres, someone says. It may well have been.
The difficulty I'm faced with, with this piece of legislation, is that there are many people who would argue that putting a landfill site on grade A agricultural land is a huge mistake, some 600 acres or something in Peel or York or Durham. That's what this government's doing, so be forewarned. They're putting it on grade A agricultural land. They're expanding dump sites in Peel without so much as one second of environmental assessment hearings, expanding sites considerably with not a second of hearings. Further to that, they're going ahead with expansions and have talked about lifts at Keele Valley without so much as one second of public hearings.
So I am a little cynical when a private member of the government who voted for expansions without a second of public hearings, who's putting 600-acre dumps on grade A agricultural land, suddenly finds the light and introduces a private member's bill that happens to be in his own backyard to call for "no dump sites in my area."
If the process is good for me and the process is good for my constituents and others' constituents, why the hell is the process not good for your constituents?
The Chair: Any comment?
Mr Duignan: I wouldn't waste my time. It's not worth a comment.
The Chair: Okay, Mr Duignan, questions?
Mr Duignan: We've just listened to the usual warped ramblings of Mr Stockwell and his vision of life.
Thank you very much for appearing here this afternoon. The question, though, is that it's not out of kindness that RSI wants to site a landfill site in the Acton quarry or anywhere else. It's out of kindness to their pocketbooks to the tune of about $2 billion, I understand, as the potential profit from this particular site.
Mr Stockwell: Who's profiting from those sites in Peel, Durham and York? You, the government. You're making the money.
Mr Duignan: I do have the floor, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Yes, go ahead.
Mr Duignan: And it's certainly not out of kindness to humanity.
Could you tell us why your ratepayers' association came into being?
Ms Shropshall: We came into being because we were concerned about the integrity of the Niagara Escarpment. We believe it is a very special area. We're very fortunate to live there and --
Interjection.
Ms Shropshall: I'm sorry?
Mr Murdoch: I'm just talking to myself.
Ms Shropshall: It's certainly very offputting.
We believe it's a very special area and should be protected. We're seeing encroachments just through the sheer pressures of being close to a very heavily populated area, and we believe it should be kept for the people of that area. We live very close to the Bruce Trail, and we enjoy showing people which way to go when they're lost walking along the road, putting them back on the trail. We enjoy the wildlife, and one of our members has an agreement forest which he operates with MNR.
There are a lot of reasons we came together as a group, and we fully give our support to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Sometimes we wish the plan was a little more sure, because after going through an OMB hearing in trying to uphold the plan, we've certainly seen how wording can be interpreted when it can be taken in a couple of different ways.
Mr Duignan: Of course, the proposal by RSI to site garbage in the Acton quarry is that it would be a private landfill site and would be accepting garbage from right across the province. Not only would you have a garbage site, but the residents of Halton Hills would have to put up with the large garbage trucks that would be coming in on a daily basis to that particular site, as well as the quarry trucks which will be sited at the quarry next to it.
In fact, there is no application for a landfill site as far as I know at this point in time, as of February 14, to look for a certificate for landfill in the Acton quarry. As far as I know at this point in time, there is a request for an amendment to site a landfill site at the Acton quarry, but it's not yet been formally initiated by RSI at this point in time.
It's my firm opinion that they don't deserve it, because since the original ones turned down in 1991 to the present time, for example, an application under the Conservation Authorities Act: No new documentation has been submitted by RSI. Under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, nothing new has been submitted, but I understand they are working on it. An application under the Regional Municipality of Halton Act: The region of Halton has not received any new documentation to date. Application under the Water Resources Act: They have not submitted any new documentation to date. Application under the Aggregate Resources Act: No new documentation has been submitted on behalf of RSI. Application under the Planning Act: Halton region has not received any new documentation to date; Halton Hills has not received any new documentation either. And with the application for a certificate of approval, as far as I know at this point, no new documentation has been submitted.
What they're trying to do is play games with people of Halton Hills, and the bottom line is to line their pockets with a lot of money they're going to make from the dump sited in the Acton quarry.
Ms Shropshall: And leave us with the problems.
Mr Duignan: Yes. If you look at the directorship of RSI, only one of them lives anywhere on the escarpment. The rest of them are either in London, British Columbia, or in New York state or Connecticut.
Mr Stockwell: Tell them you waived every one of those acts to expand three sites.
The Chair: Ms Shropshall, do you have a comment to that?
Ms Shropshall: No.
The Chair: Very well. Thank you very much for taking the time to give your presentation to us this morning.
Ms Shropshall: Thank you.
Mr Stockwell: Go out and tell every one of your constituents you waived every one of those acts.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell, please. Can we do this after the meeting?
Mr Stockwell: Tell them. Tell them what a hypocrite you are, Noel.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Chair.
The Chair: That comment would not be a point of order, Mr Perruzza.
Mr Perruzza: Calling someone a hypocrite is not a point of order? If you recall --
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, it just gets to me after a while. He waived every one of those acts for three landfill sites --
Interjections.
The Chair: A bit of order, please. Mr Stockwell, it's not helpful.
Mr Stockwell: I apologize. I withdraw.
The Chair: Mr Murphy, your question.
Mr Murphy: Mr Chair, through you to Mr Duignan or perhaps the parliamentary assistant, the amendment and Bill 62 apply, it says, to the plan area. The question I was asking this witness was about the distinction between the planning area and the plan area. It's quite straightforward: If there is an operation in the planning area, does this bill extend to it?
Mr Duignan: I think I filed with the clerk the definition of the various areas to be circulated to the members. This particular bill, as defined in the act, is confined to the plan area.
The Chair: All right, Mr Murphy?
Mr Murphy: Thank you.
The Chair: Very well. We'll recess until 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1201 to 1406.
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
The Chair: Mr Lustig, from the city of Niagara Falls, welcome. You have a half-hour for your presentation.
Mr Edward Lustig: At the outset, Mr Chairman, I should advise you that I am aware that a draft amendment to the bill has been suggested. I became aware of that this morning. I will refer comments on that, if you will indulge me, to after I finish this presentation. This presentation was prepared on the basis of the bill that exists presently in the form that was given two readings. It deals with the bill as it was, and then I'll address comments I have after reviewing in a somewhat cursory manner the amendment proposed later.
I'm the chief administrative officer for the city, and I'm here today on behalf of the city to present this brief on what we feel is a most important matter. You might note, at the back of this material is a resolution that was passed the day before yesterday by the council of the city to authorize this presentation.
At the outset, I would like to thank the committee for taking time to hear this submission and finding the extra time to accommodate the city. I understand we weren't originally on the schedule, but you made time for us and we appreciate that.
The purpose of our brief is to voice concerns with Bill 62 as it's presently written. Our brief, which I will read, describes our reasons for opposing this bill in the context of waste management in the city of Niagara Falls.
The city owns and operates a solid, non-hazardous waste disposal operation described as the Mountain Road landfill site. This landfill has operated continuously since 1967 and is designated by the Niagara Escarpment plan as an "escarpment rural area." It is therefore within the Niagara Escarpment plan area and subject to Bill 62, should it be approved in its present form.
In October 1993, the city received a favourable decision from the joint board which will allow the continued operation of the Mountain Road landfill site for the next seven years. To obtain this approval, the city spent over 10 years and several millions of dollars to produce technical studies and complete other work necessary to support our application.
A primary activity undertaken in support of the approval was the city's participation in the proposal of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, amendment 52/89. The city allocated time and resources to contribute to the discussion on amendment 52, and our participation resulted in significant revisions being made to that amendment. Amendment 52 now provides that any significant changes to the Mountain Road landfill will require application to the Niagara Escarpment Commission to amend the Niagara Escarpment plan. The application would require a comprehensive technical submission that addresses environmental and planning matters.
It is important to note, however, that the city has no plans to expand or significantly alter the Mountain Road landfill site. Indeed, it is a condition of our recent approval that the landfill be closed no later than seven years from November 1993.
Before we offer our reasons for opposing Bill 62, we do note that the city is working diligently to establish a long-term waste management system. The city is involved with three other municipalities in developing the Niagara north waste management system plan. The objective of that exercise is to establish a new landfill site and a comprehensive waste diversion system. It is estimated that a new landfill will take another seven to nine years before a location can be identified, the site approved and made ready for waste disposal. During this interim period, the city must rely on its Mountain Road landfill site.
Of interest to the standing committee is that the city recently approved its strategy for identifying a new long-term landfill site. We note that our search will specifically exclude looking for a new landfill site within the Niagara Escarpment plan area. Our actions demonstrate that we are not opposed to the spirit of Bill 62 but rather its potential effect on our current landfilling operations.
We have reviewed the one-page brief entitled Background on Bill 62, which is undated and we assume was produced as a rationale in support of the bill. It is our view that this background does not provide any technical or scientific information in support of Bill 62. Certainly, proposed legislation with the significant implications that Bill 62 might have requires comprehensive scientific and technical argument in its support. More importantly, the background paper appears to address the establishment of a new landfill as opposed to the continuation and closure of the few existing landfills that are now operating within the Niagara Escarpment plan area.
The city, as noted, opposes Bill 62 as written as it has the potential of seriously affecting the continued operation of our landfill site. It is the city's view that the Environmental Assessment Act, the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and the Environmental Protection Act provide the necessary protections and offer more than adequate opportunity for public participation to any application to establish a new waste disposal site or to expand or alter an existing disposal operation.
Bill 62 would serve no useful purpose and could in fact, in its strictest interpretation, prohibit the city from making any changes or alterations to its operations which may be required to improve the environment or satisfy the concerns of the public or the Ministry of Environment and Energy. The operation of a waste disposal site requires a degree of flexibility to allow ongoing improvements to be made to its operations and design. This is an ongoing process of upgrading and improvement common to landfills located within and outside the Niagara Escarpment plan area.
It is the city's view in reviewing Bill 62 that it is not in the community's best interests to provide any further controls or burdens on the city's ability to operate the Mountain Road landfill site. It is also our view that the passing of Bill 62 could seriously affect the city's ability to continue the operation of the landfill. This would have serious consequences to the city. For example, it is estimated that if the Mountain Road landfill were closed, the city would be faced with at least $5 million to $6 million in additional annual costs to export its waste to another facility.
It is the understanding of the city that the intent of the amendment may be to prohibit a new landfill proposed in the Acton area. If so, Bill 62 is not the proper process for addressing the application. Furthermore, if the intent is to prohibit the establishment of new waste disposal facilities in the Niagara Escarpment plan area, Bill 62 should be amended to reflect the specific purpose of the legislation. Bill 62 now casts too wide a net and may have the effect of seriously impeding environmentally acceptable operations such as the Mountain Road landfill. It is important that the standing committee seriously examine the intent of Bill 62 and consider whether it is necessary in light of other provincial legislation that currently exists.
As it is written, Bill 62 would prohibit the operation of other types of waste management facilities such as recycling and compost facilities, which most feel have a positive effect on the environment. Therefore we feel Bill 62 should also be amended to be specific to the establishment and operation of a waste disposal site.
In our view, if a site selection process consistent with provincial requirements identified suitable areas within the Niagara Escarpment plan area for composting and recycling, these should be considered. We note that there are designated areas within the Niagara Escarpment plan area, urban and minor urban areas, which may be suitable for these kinds of operations. The total prohibition of these opportunities through the broad, sweeping effects of Bill 62 is inconsistent with provincial policy to seek and examine all reasonable opportunities.
The city would support either of two courses of action by the standing committee with respect to the bill:
(1) Outright rejection of the bill on the basis that it is unnecessary, duplicates existing legislation and is not in the best interests of the community. This course of action would recognize that the Niagara Escarpment plan has been recently amended to address the matter of establishing landfills within the Niagara Escarpment; or
(2) Amend Bill 62 to specifically note that it applies only to the establishment of a new waste disposal site within the Niagara Escarpment plan area. This could be done by altering the language in subsection 1(2) by removing the words "use, operate, alter, enlarge or extend" and simply refer to the establishment of a new waste disposal site.
Another alternative would be to develop a new subsection that reflects the specific current concerns and situations in the city of Niagara Falls.
In conclusion, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the standing committee for receiving this report. If the committee has any questions, I'll be pleased to attempt to answer them.
Before any questions are directed towards me, I mentioned at the outset that I had a cursory review of the draft, and my comments on it are as follows. First of all, I would like to have the opportunity to have more time to review it with our technical staff, which I haven't had yet. Obviously it's not yet enacted, it's a proposal, and one would expect that it would be coming forward in some sort of legislative form. There are two areas of concern I have with it, however.
First of all, clause 27(3)(a) might not conform with what is in amendment 52/89, and I'm not completely clear on the exact wording of 52/89. I had some discussion with ministry officials just before we started, and this may or may not be a problem, but it would be desirable to have as great a degree of conformity as possible in that area.
Second, in clause 27(3)(b), the use of the words "environmentally sound manner" raise questions of interpretation that I'm not at this time able to completely understand or know. I think it would be wise to allow us a little more time to consider the implications of those words. There may be other reasons as well, including safety and financial concerns, in addition to the words "environmentally sound manner," and that's something the committee might consider as well.
In spite of this draft, it's still our position that we would prefer that the bill either not proceed at all or that it be directed, as the explanatory notes indicate, towards new landfill sites only and not involve those seven or eight sites that have already been approved and no doubt will end their existence in a relatively short period of time.
Mr Offer: My first question, and it is terribly unfair because you've already indicated your response to the amendment, had to do with the phrase "environmentally sound manner." I say it's unfair because I was going to ask you, who do you think is going to decide what is an environmentally sound manner? Have you received any notification about who makes such a decision?
Mr Lustig: As I mentioned, I had a brief discussion with the Ministry of Environment and Energy official who's present here today, and there was some discussion about that. I have no ideas myself, but I presume it would be someone within the ministry. That's something that perhaps the ministry people themselves can respond to.
As a lawyer, that kind of language gives me some concern because it is subject to interpretation, and if it is too strictly interpreted we would be at some risk.
Mr Offer: In Niagara Falls there is a landfill and it is operating.
Mr Lustig: Yes.
Mr Offer: And it is scheduled to close by the year 2000, I would imagine.
Mr Lustig: Actually, we have a decision from the joint board that we presently petitioned the cabinet to consider changing. The decision of the board was essentially to allow us seven years. The evidence before the board at the hearing was all consistent with us requiring nine years; the opposition did not, in our view, advance arguments that suggested it shouldn't be nine years, so that's the ground for the petition to the cabinet. We have one that's working, and we hope it will be allowed to be open for up to nine years.
1420
Mr Offer: Where is that now? You obviously don't have the certificate -- or do you have the certificate for the further duration of time?
Mr Lustig: We have the certificate, but it is now subject to this petition to the cabinet. We were operating on an emergency certificate that had been extended on several occasions, but I believe the effect of the decision of the board and the certificate that has been issued, subject to this appeal, must be to allow us to continue to operate.
Mr Offer: Basically, if this bill is proclaimed prior to that petition which is now on the doorstep of cabinet, having had a decision, you're caught.
Mr Lustig: I would hope that was not the interpretation. That's not the thrust of this argument. It isn't that we may be caught because there has been this appeal that may not resolve the decision until after this bill is passed. Our feeling is that we're all right in that regard. Our concern is more related to things that might crop up during the remaining life of this landfill that might require us to make some changes, for environmental reasons, for example, that we would be precluded from doing by the wide prohibition that this bill would --
Mr Offer: Could you give me an example of some of the concerns? Now I understand that what you're saying is that you've got a landfill, it looks like you're going to have a capacity until the year 2000 or so. Your concern is not that Bill 62 stops that, but rather that 62 may impede some things that will take place between this point and its close date.
Mr Lustig: That's my understanding. If I'm not correct in that, my submission would include that point you've raised, that we ought not to be caught in view of the fact that we have a pending petition to the cabinet that has not been determined yet. But my understanding is that our certificate is good and allows us to continue in spite of this bill.
Mr Offer: But I'm wondering if you could provide an example of to what it is that you're concerned about, if you are not caught. I mean, it's a much larger issue if you're caught on the petition. We're going to get a total clarification of that, I can assure you, because that would be somewhat interesting for the city of Niagara Falls to have to go through.
Mr Lustig: If you were to know the history of the trials and tribulations of our application, which goes back years and years and years, it would be particularly interesting to find out that we were caught in that. But, hopefully, that's not going to be the case.
One example, and it appears to have been covered by the draft amendment, has to do with recycling types of facilities. That's one example. But another example or examples might have to do with monitoring systems and changes we might have to make in the landfill itself during the course of its life that might be viewed as an enlargement or an extension, or some steps that might have to be taken, new technology or whatever, to deal with the environment, and we wouldn't be able to accomplish those, as well as safety features. I can't be more specific than that. Those are the areas we are concerned about.
Ms Harrington: I think we have a clarification now that it is not the intent of this bill to stop remedial work on this particular landfill or any landfill but that the intent is to stop any new landfilling within the escarpment.
Certainly you and a whole lot of other people in Niagara Falls have worked very hard to try to address the problems of waste management in Niagara Falls. It's been a very long process. In that vein, I'd like to make a comment and maybe have you respond.
On page iii, in the paragraph "Position of the City of the City of Niagara Falls," you state "that the Environmental Assessment Act, the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and the Environmental Protection Act provide the necessary protections and offer more than adequate opportunity for public participation" etc for any new landfill disposal site. Having been through that type of process over many years, wouldn't you say that it is extremely costly and that the bottom line is that there should not be landfilling on the Niagara Escarpment? The point of this bill, wouldn't you agree, is that the answer is no landfilling, that you don't have to go through all these various acts because it shouldn't be there anyway and it costs too much to go through all this.
Mr Lustig: My response to that is that the effect of those three pieces of legislation makes it expensive to locate a landfill site anywhere, including on the Niagara Escarpment. It's a very expensive process, as you're very well aware, no matter where you locate. My other comment would be that we have specifically, as this brief points out, in setting the criteria for this search for a new landfill site, excluded the escarpment as an area that we will consider for our next site; that is, in Niagara north. We've gone on record as excluding that from possible consideration.
Ms Harrington: I was just pointing out that that is one advantage: Where you have this United Nations biosphere -- we know how fragile that particular environment is -- why go through this huge process to say no at the end, when it should be saying no right at the beginning? And hopefully, these three acts can protect the rights of the people of Ontario to decide where a landfill should go in the rest of Ontario.
Mr Duignan: Indeed your suggestions are very useful and we will take them into consideration when we go into clause-by-clause tomorrow.
The fact is that most municipalities act in a very reasonable and responsible way; they know it will be expensive to go through the amendment 52 process. But what we're dealing with here are private landfill sites that don't act responsibly, that don't act in the spirit or the intent of amendment 52, such as the case of RSI. They're putting to enormous expense communities such as Halton Hills, which has spent to this point in this particular application some $800,000 in fighting a private landfill proposal for the Acton area. The intent of this bill is to close off that loophole that wasn't covered in amendment 52, and that is the simple intent of this bill.
Mr Lustig: Might I suggest, if that's the case, that you could exclude all municipally owned and operated landfills. That would get St Catharines and Niagara Falls -- I understand St Catharines was here yesterday -- off the back of this committee.
Mr Duignan: As I said, we will take a serious look at the suggestions you've made here today and take them into consideration at clause-by-clause tomorrow.
Mr Stockwell: Talk about all municipalities being excluded from the process. Peel, Durham and York would be really interested in being allowed to spend some money to fight the process, but the government has legislated against any ability to fight anything it's legislated on the three 600-acre sites.
If the timing falls into place as you hope it would fall into place with respect to your appeal at the cabinet, everything's fine. But in the event that it doesn't fall into place, and this bill gets adopted and cabinet has not dealt with the appeal, it seems to me there's very little, other than a direct amendment at your specific site, that could solve your problem.
Mr Lustig: Earlier on, we dealt with this matter, and it was my view, subject to further interpretation and advice, that that is not going to be the effect of this legislation. Our concern is related to our continued use of the landfill with a certificate and our ability to do some of the things that may be necessary to protect the environment with respect to our existing landfill. But I've reserved the right to make the argument that you and your colleague have advanced in the event that we do fall into this situation, where our petition to the cabinet closes the door. I don't think, though, that that is the effect we have with respect to that issue.
1430
Mr Stockwell: You're looking for an expansion, is that correct?
Mr Lustig: We were given an approval by the joint board and we have a certificate, but we have appealed a petition to cabinet about it just with respect to the number of years the certificate applies to. As I say, it's my understanding that regardless of this bill, that certificate will be good. That's not the principal reason I'm here today.
Mr Stockwell: I understand that, but it's kind of an interesting point that I'd like to pursue.
Mr Lustig: It's very interesting.
Mr Stockwell: Where is it that you feel you're protected with the amendment should the procedures fall differently than you're expecting?
Mr Lustig: If Mr Offer's and your scenario is correct, we wouldn't be protected at all, because we would be into another approval.
Mr Offer: And you couldn't get it.
Mr Stockwell: That's right. With this Bill 62 in place, you couldn't get it, so you'd really be up the creek without a paddle.
Ms Harrington: This morning we heard about the terrible situation with the Glenridge landfill in St Catharines and how the people who live below the escarpment have had the leachate right on their street, their gardens and their homes. The Niagara Falls landfill is in a similar situation in that it is right in the escarpment. Why is it that we don't have the same kind of thing happening below our landfill site? We've got Highway 8 running along the bottom of the escarpment and homes along Highway 8. Have there been any incidents where leachate has come out below the escarpment?
Mr Lustig: Not to my knowledge.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lustig, for making your presentation.
ROB BARLOW
Mr Rob Barlow: I'd like to thank you, Mr Chairman and committee. I've been to the Legislature many times, but I never thought I'd be here speaking. I used to meet my local member from Renfrew county down here over lunch about ambulances and fire extrication vehicles. Today I'm here on a totally different issue.
I'd like to start off this afternoon with a quote: "It is a requirement, not a luxury, to protect the environment." That was stated by Indira Gandhi, who lived half a world away from us in one of the most populous nations in the world. I hope this statement can be a guiding principle which this committee should consider with this private member's bill.
This bill is vitally important because it is a litmus test for the escarpment. If I were any other company thinking of doing such a facility in the escarpment, I would let somebody else do the spade work for me. If you remember Dofasco, it always waited till the Steel Company of Canada settled its strike and then it had the same contract. As a businessman, if somebody else were going to take the lumps, I certainly would wait until I found out what the process was going to be. I guarantee you, there are others waiting in the wings to see what the outcome of this process will be.
As I've watched the hearings since Monday afternoon, I'm appalled by the number of pieces of paper that are generated. Do you realize how many trees you legislators consume in a year? I have my presentation here on a disk. Unfortunately, I had to print it on a piece of paper, because there isn't a monitor I can use here. I'm quite happy to distribute this to you over electronic mail, but the mail for the Tories and the Liberals won't talk to the NDP one. I don't understand that.
Mr Stockwell: It's not just the mail.
Mr Barlow: Also, unfortunately, I have found out since this that only two parties here have real computers. The Liberals obviously thought the initials "IBM" stood for International Business Machines, when it really stands for "I bought Macintosh."
Mr Duignan: We're trying to find them as well.
Interjection: Computers are just a passing fad, anyway.
Mr Barlow: That's what they said about radios and cars too.
Technology is indeed one of the components that proponents of waste fills base their proposals on, that they will be using state of the art. But this state of the art always seems to be attempted for the first time on the project, not as good scientific process would dictate: by tests over an appropriate length of time, starting with small sites and working up as the technology is proved out.
Technology is a funny creature. In the 1950s, we all thought punch cards would last for ever. Then we found out moisture got into the waxed cards and fluffed them up so the card readers couldn't read them. So we invented magnetic tape, which would last for ever. When it came time to retrieve information from the thousands of tape records of the Voyager probes, they found out that data was being lost. Now they are transposing the data to CD-ROMs, which now have questions about how long they're going to last -- and this is high-tech.
I was a senior manager on the Canadian space station program and I can tell you that we were working on state of the art. We had a design for a grapple device for locking on to the station. Under NASA specs, we had to run the test 35 times without failure. We couldn't get past two or three at Spar. If you want to go to Mars, any of you, you're welcome, because I'm staying here. There is no CAA vehicle to follow you out there in space with spare parts.
As you get older, you understand that one's infallibility is moderated over time. If I were a 30-year-old engineer, I'd probably tell you that I could guarantee anything. If I were a 50-year-old engineer, I might put some caveats along with that guarantee. If I were 70, I might be able to see if my 40-year-old faith was as well founded as I thought it would be. You must remember that Mother Nature is a very powerful force and that no matter what humans attempt to do, in the end, Mother Nature will always defeat what man has done.
Let's assume that landfilling is allowed in the Niagara Escarpment. We can all understand that this geographical formation is not high on the list of natural containment formations, that engineering solutions will have to compensate for this deficiency. So who are going to be the canaries in the mines to warn us about potential problems?
I also remind you that in the Acton quarry case, should it become a landfill, at least for the next 20 to 30 years there will be ongoing quarrying operations and blasting operations within 200 feet of that quarry.
I'm going to make a suggestion here: that every director of the companies, their families, their lawyers, and a select number of major shareholders who have an interest in that facility must live on the site. They have to drink the water, breathe the air and source their food from all the land around, and even if they were no longer directly involved in the future of that company or that interest, they would be committed to living there for the rest of their natural lives. That would be natural justice, in my view. I doubt that anybody would be willing to make that commitment. If something happens to the canaries, then at least we would have some advance warning.
Professor Larson yesterday talked about the unique ecosystem that is still intact in the Niagara Escarpment lands. He explained how we cannot continue to remove the links in the chain without eventually destroying this long-term monitor of the wellbeing of this planet. His comments were in relation to 700 kilometres of this ecosystem that exist within the Niagara Escarpment plan area. His comments of sacrificing small pieces of the escarpment so that other areas can be spared is critical to the long-term preservation of the escarpment.
1440
There seemed to be a view expressed by some on this committee that it would be acceptable to sacrifice quarries along the escarpment for use as landfill, that this would only be disturbing one of the links. One must remember that there are over 2,000 quarries that exist in the Niagara Escarpment plan area. That's a lot of links.
Certainly, in relation to the 700 kilometres, each individual quarry site is relatively small, agreed, but in a particular watershed, the potential environmental damage is substantial and, in many cases, irreversible for many decades or centuries, if reversible at all.
Let's look at the Acton quarry, for example, which straddles two watersheds. Eventually, a leak from this site would affect Black Creek, which is a cold-water fishery. It flows into Silver Creek. At that point, it flows past the major wells that supply Georgetown with drinking water. It then continues on to the west branch of the Credit and eventually into the Credit River. At the same time, possibly the Sixteen Mile Creek water course would be affected by the same problem. Now you have two major river systems in the west part of the GTA contaminated.
If one knows one's geography, the next link in the puzzle is Lake Ontario. As this contamination moves eastward by the shore currents, it will pass a small, insignificant community called Muddy York, whose people believe they are the centre of the universe. This community has a small pipe that extracts water for its inhabitants from the lake. The water that sits in that pitcher comes from somewhere, and I'll let the members contemplate where that may come from. Give us your garbage and over time we'll return it to you.
Over the last few years, the inhabitants of York really got concerned when the local department of health closed their beaches, so they brought in their best hired gun, Mr Crombie, to find a solution. As he studied the problem, he realized that to clean up the beaches, he was going to have to ensure that the watersheds that affected the beaches would not be sources of contamination. And what's that western boundary? The Niagara Escarpment plan area.
The original licence that was granted to the Acton quarry, which we all have a copy of, is conditional that it be rehabilitated according to a plan submitted by Professor Coates of the University of Guelph. That plan included lakes and trees and was described in the press of the day as a recreational beauty spot. Allan Lawrence signed this licence. Now the rehabilitation plan is strangely missing from all places where it should be. Where is the integrity of the businessmen of this country to live up to the promises they've made to the community and to the province and to the government of this province?
Mr Mills said, "Restore to a natural condition." The natural condition does not include garbage. Garbage wasn't there in the first place when they started quarrying, so I don't understand how placing garbage there today would meet this commitment.
It's always been interesting how lawyers can perceive an issue. To me, the escarpment, as most of us know, is a valued piece of land. A quarry is a scar on the landscape, essentially a downgrading of the zoning, if you could look at it from that point of view. For most citizens, rehabilitation of such a property to, say, a conservation area, a lake etc would be an upgrading of the zoning. A lawyer working from a different perspective would argue that landfilling would be an upzoning. One can always make a silk purse out of a sow's ear if one wants to stretch far enough. More individuals would say landfilling is a continual downzoning of the land, not the reverse.
As you know, there was also a claim made here yesterday by RSI that it has an application in to the Consolidated Hearings Board. As far as I know and from what I've found out from the ministry, there is no such application existing at this point. When are we going to have these claims based on fact in this case?
There's a question Mr Chiarelli raised about why municipalities have not excluded landfill as a use in the escarpment components of their jurisdictions. As you know, provincial legislation always overrides the lower government. Until 1962, this was still not a permitted use in the Niagara Escarpment plan area, and it still has to get a plan amendment. A municipality had to bring its plan into line with the NEC policy rather than the other way around. They could determine what they wanted, but the NEC would always override. They didn't have that restriction there, so it could not be applied to those lands.
I also find it interesting that one member of this committee was very concerned about the possibility of the province being sued. On Monday, a clause was added to the amendment that would preclude this option. On Tuesday, that member had changed his tune and was asking individuals whether it was fair. You can't have it both ways.
Another issue was that certain areas of the province, the NEC lands, are wider than they should be. That's a totally different issue from the one here today. If it's a concern, I'd welcome his having an opportunity to put forth a private member's bill to address the issue and that he should have his day in this same room, hopefully. I would be happy to participate in that discussion.
I am pleased to note that yesterday the Environmental Bill of Rights came into force in the province of Ontario. This empowers Ontarians with the tools to ensure that their environment is protected. The legislative steps such as Bill 62 and the Environmental Bill of Rights are the beginning of a more caring, responsible and environmentally aware community.
For the last few days, the vast majority of the presenters here, as with the letters of support received by the clerk, have taken the position that the escarpment shouldn't be used for landfill purposes. Now is the time for the opposition to be counted on. Does the opposition favour landfill in the escarpment? Plain and simple. I want to know.
If you vote against this bill on technical grounds, then you are indicating that you and your party are in favour of landfill in the Niagara Escarpment. If you are opposed to landfill in that area, then you have the duty to the people of Ontario to bring forward an amendment that you can support that will accomplish what this bill is endeavouring to accomplish. I presume Mr Duignan will be responsible with any amendment you may come forward with.
This may be our only chance this decade to correct the omission that occurred when the Niagara Escarpment legislation was passed. The taxpayers of Ontario sent you here to do a job and not to quibble about technicalities. We as taxpayers want to know where you stand on the landfill on the escarpment, and I expect you will have the courtesy of simply stating, yes or no, is landfill acceptable or not in the Niagara Escarpment plan area? Thank you very much for your time and patience.
Mr Duignan: Thank you, Robert, for coming here this morning and making an excellent presentation, summing up some of the process that's happened over the last couple of days.
The intent of my bill is to prohibit any new, future landfill sites on the Niagara Escarpment. Of course I'm a reasonable person and I'm open to reasonable amendments. I appreciate you coming here today and also making reference to the fact that the Environmental Bill of Rights was proclaimed yesterday and is now law. It gives that extra protection to the citizens of this province that when someone does something irresponsible to the environment the citizen has a right to recourse through law to have that corrected.
Mr Offer: You said you're against landfills on the escarpment, and you made a very eloquent argument. You were here when the city of Niagara Falls made its presentation, and one of its concerns was that they feel this bill may stop the expansion of their site. Are you in favour of Niagara Falls's expansion of the landfill for seven years?
Mr Barlow: I don't think Niagara Falls has asked for an expansion; they've asked for the use of that landfill that's already there to be used for another seven years, not to expand it, necessarily. They have that permit.
Mr Offer: Are you in favour of that? I think we have to share that.
Mr Barlow: What he said is that they expect they need an additional two years over the seven years they've been granted by the board that gave them that certificate. I don't have the technical expertise to know whether that's acceptable or not.
Mr Stockwell: That's a political answer, if I ever heard one.
1450
Mr Offer: But my question -- and this is important, because we're talking about the principle here. They have a petition, apparently, before cabinet. There has not been a decision. It may be that the wording of this bill catches them on principle. If that is the case, are you supportive of reducing the time period that Niagara Falls can use its landfill site?
Mr Barlow: I would press that the cabinet make a decision before this bill is passed. That's only fair. They've asked, and they should be allowed to have that ruling. The other thing is, and I think the lawyer from the Canadian Environmental Law Association said it very clearly, that many of the things we may have to do can be done through other legislation, such as MOE's orders to clean up certain sites. But I expect the cabinet would duly work and in its diligence -- and I don't run the political process; you guys are part of that process -- would give a quick and adequate answer to the city of Niagara Falls to its request.
Mr Chiarelli: You were here yesterday when St Catharines made its presentation?
Mr Barlow: Yes.
Mr Chiarelli: They proposed an amendment to address their concerns for expansion of the site they already have approval for. Would you support that amendment?
Mr Barlow: I haven't had a chance to read it.
Mr Chiarelli: If any member of this committee supported an amendment to accommodate St Catharines, would you say we would be going against the principle of Bill 62?
Mr Barlow: Bill 62 prevents additional landfilling sites. We have those in there and we have to make sure they're environmentally sound and left in a sound way when they're finished.
Mr Chiarelli: In other words, you think Bill 62 should exclude Niagara Falls's proposed amendment and St Catharines's proposed amendments.
Mr Barlow: I don't think they will get trapped in that as long as you as legislators deal with that fairly and reasonably and you take that into consideration. I don't have the consequences of the legal implications and the political implications of that particular debate. You far better understand this process than I do. I'm just on the fringe of this process. But certainly I would hope you would take into consideration their problems with their current sites. We're talking about new sites.
Mr Chiarelli: Bill 62 basically came before this committee and appeared to be very clean, sort of a yes or no, black-and-white situation. But we on this committee now hear representation from Niagara Falls and St Catharines which indicates that it isn't quite so black and white as it applies to them. That's something we have to wrestle with.
Mr Barlow: These are ongoing sites, not new ones, so I think you will have to deal with those. Because they are there, because there are certain individual problems with them, hopefully you as legislators can come up with some means to deal with those, because they're going to be there for a long time and it needs to be resolved.
As for new sites, no, I'm opposed to any additional ones. Both those communities have indicated they've tried to exclude the Niagara Escarpment plan area and the geology that fits into those in their search for additional sites. They understand the danger of continuing to site additional sites in that area. I think you as legislators will have to find solutions so you can allow them to finish off their landfilling sites and to make sure those sites are left in an environmentally sound way when they are finished off.
Mr Stockwell: You can see how difficult it is to say you're either in favour of or opposed to Bill 62. I think the point was very ably made by the two previous questioners.
You're opposed to it on the Niagara Escarpment plan area. Another place where it would be terrible to put landfill sites, would you not agree, would be in the ever-diminishing grade A agricultural farm land in southern Ontario. Wouldn't you think that would be a terrible place to put landfill sites?
Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): Grade A? Do you think they're eggs or something?
Mr Stockwell: I apologize. The best available farm land in southern Ontario.
Mr Barlow: I have farm land where I live, and I look after it as best I can. We have to protect that too. There are a couple of new sites that have become available. One is that a liner could be put into the SkyDome, and if the odour --
Mr Stockwell: This is not a frivolous question; it's very serious. It's a terrible place, would you not agree, that you should not put landfill sites on prime agricultural farm land in southern Ontario.
Mr Barlow: We don't have much of it and we should protect whatever we can. That's one of the areas that certainly has to be looked at very, very closely, because we have encroached on it from many points of view, from an urban way and that. We've used it up and we haven't got much left.
Mr Stockwell: I agree with you. What about the Rouge Valley, in the eastern part of Metropolitan Toronto? It seems to me that would be a place where you wouldn't want to put any landfill sites, would you not agree?
Mr Barlow: That is protected by the conservation authorities under their acts.
Mr Stockwell: Oak Ridges moraine: That would be another area you just couldn't imagine putting any landfill sites on, could you?
Mr Barlow: That's something you're going to have to spend a lot of time negotiating with all those municipalities, what land is going to be in and out.
Mr Stockwell: You know what? Every one of those municipalities is saying, "We shouldn't have a landfill site," and every one of those members across there voted to give every one of those areas a landfill site, and with no environmental assessment hearings to expand Peel and Keele Valley.
It seems to me I could ask the same question of you and the government members. You've got to stand up and be counted. You should be opposed to not just this area you're speaking of, but the Rouge, Oak Ridges moraine and any prime agricultural land, that there should never be landfill sites on any of those regions. Would you not agree?
Mr Barlow: As I said, we're going to have to start somewhere. To do an all-encompassing piece of legislation on that --
Mr Duignan: Chris has become an environmentalist all of a sudden.
Mr Barlow: -- you know it will take years and years and years.
Mr Stockwell: I couldn't hear you. Noel was chiming in.
Mr Barlow: You know how long it takes to get any process through this Legislature. It's a long time. If we wanted to get into that, I'd be quite happy to participate, but we've got to start it some time, and why can't we use the Niagara Escarpment legislation as the basis we could use to protect other areas of this province?
Mr Stockwell: Do you want to know why it's getting very difficult? All those areas I've mentioned are getting dumps: major league, big-time dumps. They're not going through a full environmental assessment. There are expansions taking place without one second of public debate. I would ask you and the members who came down with you that you petition these members opposite, who are supposedly supporting Bill 62, and ask that they give the same rights to those constituents that you're demanding for yourselves.
Mr Barlow: I'd like to say that I've been involved with Wastewise and some of the other initiatives we tried to take in our area, because we realize we've got to do something about it. Halton has its own landfill site, as you know, and when we looked at some of the sites that were on the Credit River system near Brampton, say, they excluded those sites because of the hydrogeology. It just wasn't suitable for those sites.
I know Mr Offer didn't like the process --
Mr Duignan: But it worked.
Mr Offer: What? It worked?
Mr Barlow: -- but there has to be a better way to find how we get through environmental assessments and that whole thing. It's not easy and it's a great ball of wax, and we've got to start unravelling it some time and finding a way to get it solved.
Mr Stockwell: Just call me a cynic when a member of the government comes forward excluding his area and no one else's.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell, thank you. Mr Barlow, thank you for coming today with your presentation.
One last thing before we adjourn: If any member has amendments, it would be useful to get them to the clerk today, but I would recommend no later than 9 o'clock tomorrow morning to be able to distribute them to the members.
Mr Stockwell: I have a question. The member from Halton said we were waiting on a letter or some kind of word from the Ministry of Environment with respect to the support of this piece of legislation. As I understood it, it was left that they helped him draft the legislation, but he gave us an undertaking that he would get some kind of commitment from the ministry, the last time this was being discussed.
The Chair: I don't remember that. Mr Duignan, do you want to respond to that?
Mr Duignan: I don't remember that, Mr Chair. It's his fertile imagination at work again.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell, so we don't carry on, I don't remember him saying that.
Mr Stockwell: Fine, and I apologize. I then ask, through you, Mr Chair, to the member, who's so committed to this bill, whether he is going to give us some indication, or whether the ministry is going to give us some indication, of whether it supports or doesn't support this piece of legislation. It's very important.
Mr Duignan: I understand the ministry will be here tomorrow morning.
1500
Mr Stockwell: No. I'm not asking for legal and technical answers. I want to know a political answer. Will he get us a position from ministry officials as to whether they support or do not support this legislation?
The Chair: I think he understood the question. Do you want to answer that question, Mr Duignan?
Mr Duignan: I already did, Mr Chair.
Mr Stockwell: What was the answer?
Mr Duignan: The ministry will be here tomorrow morning.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Wildman?
Mr Duignan: The ministry officials will be here tomorrow morning.
Mr Stockwell: And they will answer the question as to whether or not --
Mr Duignan: I suspect you will ask them that question.
Mr Stockwell: I respectfully submit, Mr Chair, that they're not authorized to answer that kind of question. I'm asking, is he going to get the answer or not?
Mr Duignan: I suggest you ask the ministry that question tomorrow morning, as I predict you will.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, this is an absolute and complete copout.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell, you're asking the question, and that's quite clear. He's answering it, and that's clear too.
Mr Stockwell: What?
The Chair: The respective questions and answers are clear.
Mr Stockwell: No. I'm asking the question and his lips are moving. It doesn't necessarily mean there's an answer there.
The Chair: But I'm suggesting that that is the answer. If there is no answer, that's your answer.
Mr Murphy: I know there are some ministry officials here. One of my concerns is that we'll ask them questions tomorrow and they may have to go somewhere else to get the answers. I wouldn't mind putting a few questions on the record now so they can get the questions overnight so that they'll have them tomorrow when we're here.
The Chair: I'll allow that for their benefit, so they know what kind of questions you might be asking.
Mr Murphy: I asked the question of Noel earlier and I just want the ministry's answer on the distinction between "planning area" and "plan area," whether this encompasses anything within the planning area and what that includes.
-- I also would like an opinion on what "environmentally sound manner" means and how it gets determined in this process.
-- If your purpose is to stop landfills and not affect other kinds of existing facilities and remediation of existing facilities, blue box programs and domestic waste, whether this achieves that purpose; if the focus is landfills.
-- Also, where else we've seen wording like in subsection (4). If that's a lengthy list, I don't need all of them, just a couple of examples.
-- Whether you think, if there is an existing application from someone within the escarpment area, that provision could survive a charter challenge.
-- Whether subclauses 27(b)(i) through (iv) allow an opportunity for remediation of a site or expansion of an existing site.
These are some of the concerns St Catharines and Niagara Falls have aired to us, so those are some of the questions I'd like to have answered by the ministry tomorrow.
Mr Chiarelli: I have a concern about the relationship between the Niagara Escarpment act and Bill 62, which may provide some area for challenging the legislation by RSI or anybody else. That is, under the Niagara Escarpment act there is a mandated responsibility to create the plan and control development etc. We now have Bill 62, which says that no, to a certain extent you cannot develop or create landfill. I think it may be open to challenge from RSI to say: Which bill has precedence, the plan, with amendment 52, or Bill 62?
My question is a technical one. Do we need to amend the Niagara Escarpment act to say it is subject to Bill 62? Do we need to amend Bill 62 to say, "Notwithstanding the provisions of the Niagara Escarpment act" etc? Right now, I think the bill as drafted, even with the proposed amendment, can be challenged by RSI or anybody else unless there's some sort of coordination of the two pieces of legislation.
I'd like an answer on that tomorrow. Do we need an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment act? Do we need an additional amendment to Bill 62? Do we need a rewording of Bill 62? In my semiprofessional opinion right now -- I'm a lawyer but I haven't looked at this thing technically -- that is really an area people could look at to challenge the bill, because the two are in conflict.
Mr Offer: Some questions we have -- and we may have further tomorrow. I don't think this is viewed as any limitation on our ability to ask questions tomorrow, and I understand that to be the agreement. In terms of "environmentally sound manner," is a regime for that decision necessary to be drafted, and if not, where is the decision coming from?
The remediation aspect has already been brought forward. I know ministry staff have been here and have heard the submission of Niagara Falls. I don't want to misspeak the position that city has taken, save to say that you've got its presentation and its concerns and we want to know whether there is the possibility that the city of Niagara Falls could be caught within Bill 62 and not get the extension of time it has petitioned cabinet for; also, whether it will have any problem in terms of safety monitorization, as I think it had indicated.
Mr Murphy: Monitoring.
Mr Offer: I like "monitorization."
I would also like to know the position from the ministry on the amendment which we expect will be moved by the member in subsection (4), and that's the "No proceeding," whether without that subsection there is the possibility of a citizen of the province suing the government as a result of this.
My last question is whether the ministry officials will come before this committee with a view to sharing with the members the position by the ministry on this bill, with suggested amendments, in terms of its continuing progress through the Legislature.
The Chair: Mr Murphy, one additional question.
Mr Murphy: I'm wondering whether tomorrow the ministry could come and confirm for me my understanding that, as a general rule, when ministry officials are asked whether a policy is supported by the government, they say they can't answer it and that we have to ask the political officials that. I understand that's the normal course. I'm wondering if you could confirm that for me, just in reference to Noel's comment that we should ask you the government position.
Mr Stockwell: That's going to be very interesting, because we're going to ask the ministry officials what their political opinion is and they're going to tell us to ask Noel, and Noel's going to be whistling. That's all he's going to be doing.
On subsection (4), the question about the legality had that not been included -- I assume we are getting that opinion.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Stockwell: And we're getting that from whom?
The Chair: We have made all the investigatory work about who would do that. We've asked the Attorney General and they said no.
Mr Stockwell: "No" what?
The Chair: That it was not their jurisdiction to give a legal opinion on this matter. We're getting a legal opinion from the Ministry of Environment. We were hoping we might be able to get it today. If it's available, we'll make sure you get it; if not, tomorrow morning. I understand they will have it by tomorrow morning at least.
Mr Stockwell: All right. Following up Mr Offer's question, his will automatically follow my request, because in the amendment they included this catch-all at the end, which wasn't included in the original motion. Right?
The Chair: Well, you'll get a legal opinion. We can follow it however you want, really. Once you get that opinion, you'll know what to ask.
Mr Stockwell: Maybe this is more a question to you, Mr Chair. Considering that the government said we can't ask the minister to come and respond, could we ask some of the minister's staff, who are his political staff, to respond to the question?
The Chair: I'm not sure the political staff would speak for the minister on this matter, Mr Stockwell.
Mr Stockwell: I put myself in your hands, because we're faced with a very difficult situation. We asked the minister to attend and it was voted down by the committee. So we asked if he could write a letter, and the committee voted that down.
The Chair: That was part of the same motion, yes.
Mr Stockwell: Now we've been told that we can have staff, but we know they can't answer political questions. We asked the politicians and they told us to ask the staff. The last option open so we can get this very important question answered would be to ask the minister's politically appointed staff to come, or the Premier.
Mr Murdoch: We never tried the Premier.
Mr Stockwell: We know where the buck stops, anyway.
The Chair: The political staff is here and I'm convinced they wouldn't speak for the minister.
Mr Stockwell: I'm in your hands. Who should we ask, Mr Chair?
Mr Offer: I think we have the answer.
Mr Stockwell: Tim has an answer?
Mr Murphy: I don't have the answer, but I know the parliamentary assistant is here, who in many circumstances has the authority to speak for the minister. Perhaps we can ask directly through the parliamentary assistant, do the minister and the government support the bill?
The Chair: Parliamentary assistants represent the ministers when they have a bill they are presenting. This is a private bill. If the minister wishes --
Mr Murphy: Rosario, why don't you let the parliamentary assistant speak?
The Chair: If the minister wishes --
Mr Murphy: Mr Chair, don't answer; see if there's an answer forthcoming.
The Chair: I am facilitating.
Mr Murphy: You are not. You're blocking.
The Chair: You all know the answers and everyone understands the questions.
Mr Stockwell: It's really awkward, Mr Chair. We're in your hands. We're asking a simple question: Does the ministry support this?
The Chair: The Chair is facilitating but cannot answer your question by saying --
Mr Murphy: We didn't ask you; we asked through you to the parliamentary assistant.
The Chair: But the answers have come. You don't seem to want to hear the answers.
Mr Stockwell: The answer is what?
The Chair: Mr Duignan, could you answer his or their questions again?
Mr Duignan: I anticipate that one of the questions to be asked of the ministry officials tomorrow is whether the ministry supports this bill. I suspect that the ministry officials who have been here during this whole process have also taken that into consideration and I suspect that the ministry officials will have the appropriate answer tomorrow morning.
Also bear in mind that this is a private member's bill, not a ministry bill, and also the fact that my colleagues support this particular bill, otherwise it wouldn't be here this far into the process.
The Chair: Do the members want to pursue that again?
Mr Stockwell: Not really. It's a waste of time.
Mr Murdoch: Do I make my amendment to the original bill or to the amended bill?
The Chair: You can make the amendments to the original amendment that was here or to the amendments that you assume will be made, the additional ones. You can make amendments to either of the two, however you wish. Please submit these amendments to us today, if you have any; no later than 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
This committee is adjourned until 10 tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 1513.