COALITION ON THE NIAGARA ESCARPMENT
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION
VALERIE CRANMER AND ASSOCIATES
NORTHERN ONTARIO AGGREGATE PRODUCERS
CONTENTS
Thursday 10 October 1996
Aggregate and Petroleum Resources Statute Law Amendment Act, 1996 Bill 52, Mr Hodgson / Loi de 1996 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les ressources en agrégats et les richesses pétrolières, projet de loi 52, M. Hodgson
Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment
Ms Linda Pim
Mr David Hahn
Canadian Environmental Law Association
Mr Richard Lindgren
Valerie Cranmer and Associates
Ms Valerie Cranmer
Sierra Legal Defence Fund
Mr Doug Chapman
Northern Ontario Aggregate Producers
Mr Marcel Ethier
Mr Roy Bertolo
Ministry of Natural Resources
Mr Ray Pichette
Ms Krystine Linttell
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président: Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
*Mr JackCarroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
*Mr HarryDanford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
*Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr BernardGrandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
Mr ErnieHardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
*Mr BartMaves (Niagara Falls PC)
*Mrs SandraPupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
*Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
*Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)
*Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
*Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr JimBrown (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Tascona
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Grandmaître
Mr FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC) for Mr Hardeman
Mrs MargaretMarland (Mississauga South / -Sud PC) for Mr Danford
Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC) for Mr Young
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Ms ShelleyMartel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel: Mr Jerry Richmond, research officers, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1006 in committee room 1.
AGGREGATE AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RESSOURCES EN AGRÉGATS ET LES RICHESSES PÉTROLIÈRES
Consideration of Bill 52, An Act to promote resource development, conservation and environmental protection through the streamlining of regulatory processes and the enhancement of compliance measures in the Aggregate and Petroleum Industries / Projet de loi 52, Loi visant à promouvoir la mise en valeur des ressources, la conservation ainsi que la protection de l'environnement en simplifiant les processus de réglementation et en renforçant les mesures de conformité dans l'industrie pétrolière et l'industrie des agrégats.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Jack Carroll): Good morning, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. There is one small housekeeping item that we have to deal with first. Mrs Pupatello?
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'd like to move adoption of the subcommittee report of the standing committee on general government.
"1. That hearings continue in Toronto on Thursday, 10 October 1996.
"2. That witnesses are allotted 20-minute time slots.
"3. That the committee invite ministry staff to appear in Toronto on Thursday, 10 October 1996, commencing at 5 pm to provide a 20-minute technical briefing followed by a 15-minute response from each of the opposition caucuses and a 10-minute response from the government caucus.
"4. That clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 52 commence on Thursday, 17 October 1996.
"5. That the committee invite the Minister of Natural Resources to appear before the committee at the outset of clause-by-clause on Thursday, 17 October 1996, for a 15-minute presentation.
"6. That the researcher provide the committee with a summary of recommendations."
The Chair: There are just a couple of updates on that. Number 3: The ministry staff will actually be here at 3:30, or when we commence this afternoon, because we will be dealing with all of our presentations this morning. So the ministry staff time has been changed to 3:30 or whenever question period is over this afternoon.
The second thing, item number 5: The minister has confirmed he will be here at the beginning of clause-by-clause on Thursday, October 17.
All in favour of the report? Any opposed? The report is carried.
There's just one other update. The government has committed to have any amendments it is putting forward available by Wednesday morning. Mr Klees, is that Wednesday morning?
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Yes.
The Chair: Our first representative this morning -- and we apologize for being a little bit late; it's not our custom, but we are -- is the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment, represented by Linda Pim.
Mr Klees: Mr Chair, while they're coming forward, could I just ask for your indulgence? I had undertaken, in response I believe to Ms Martel's request, to table with the committee an explanation of the staffing issues around the reduction in staffing. I have that available now for distribution.
The Chair: Thank you. The clerk will pass that around.
COALITION ON THE NIAGARA ESCARPMENT
The Chair: Good morning, welcome. You have 20 minutes. Should you allow any time for questions at the end or in your 20 minutes, they will start with Mrs Pupatello. The floor is yours.
Ms Linda Pim: Good morning, Mr Chair and members of the committee. My name is Linda Pim and with me is David Hahn. We are the two co-presidents of the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment. The Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment, or CONE, very much appreciates this opportunity to share with your committee our serious concerns with Bill 52.
By way of background, CONE was founded in 1978. It's an umbrella group of environmental organizations, and there are many thousands of individual members and supporters. The six organizations currently represented on our board are the Bruce Trail Association, the Bruce Peninsula Environment Group, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Ontario Streams and the Sierra Club of Eastern Canada.
CONE has worked consistently for the protection of the Niagara Escarpment and its many values to Ontario society. We were full participants in hearings on the original Niagara Escarpment plan in the early 1980s and on the five-year review of the plan in 1992-93. We have been involved in monitoring development up and down the escarpment and in educational activities to heighten public understanding and appreciation of the escarpment. We have participated in several government studies on the environmental impacts of various kinds of development on the escarpment. The coalition was honoured to receive the Lieutenant Governor's conservation award for 1995, recognizing excellence in environmental protection and resource conservation.
We will restrict our comments on Bill 52 to aggregate resources; we have not been involved in petroleum resource issues.
The Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment felt that it was important to make a submission to you on Bill 52 because the matter of indiscriminate aggregate extraction was the primary issue that galvanized the Ontario public about protection of the escarpment as early as the 1960s. Indeed, it was then-Premier John Robarts, acknowledging the public concern about the escarpment literally being carted away, truckload by truckload, who in 1967 called for "a wide-ranging study of the Niagara Escarpment with a view to preserving its entire length." That study commissioned by Premier Robarts was the forerunner of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, which was passed by the Progressive Conservative government in 1973, under which the Niagara Escarpment plan was approved.
Before we get into the specifics of our concerns about the bill, we would like to remind members of the committee of three very important facts. The first is that the Aggregate Resources Act, the ARA, applies throughout the Niagara Escarpment Plan area, which is a 725-kilometre strip of land running from Queenston Heights to Tobermory. The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act adds a further component of environmental review over and above the requirements of the ARA. This is in keeping with the fact that the Niagara Escarpment is recognized as a special area, warranting added environmental protection through an environmentally based land use plan, which is implemented at the provincial rather than the local level.
Our second point that we want to remind you of is that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, designated the Niagara Escarpment a world biosphere reserve in 1990, precisely because of the delicate balance that the Niagara Escarpment Plan strikes between development and the protection of significant natural areas.
Our third point is that the Niagara Escarpment Plan area is the only part of Ontario where new aggregate extraction is expressly prohibited. In other words, the environmental impacts of aggregate operations on the escarpment landscape are so significant that most of the plan area is completely off limits for new licences under the ARA. It is only in areas designated "escarpment rural area" that a new aggregate licence may even be considered, through a site-specific amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan. This was the case when the Niagara Escarpment Plan was first approved by the Conservative government in 1985 and was reconfirmed with the passage of the revised plan in 1994.
We'll now move on to our specific concerns about the bill. We have many concerns, and time won't permit a detailed discussion of them all. Our concerns fall under several broad headings and we'll give you examples that illustrate some of our points. Our overall opinion is that Bill 52 is fundamentally at odds with the very purpose of the Aggregate Resources Act. Section 2 of the ARA states that one of its purposes is "to minimize adverse impact on the environment in respect of aggregate operations." In our view, Bill 52 denies this purpose.
Our first specific point is that the bill replaces legislation with regulation. In many instances, Bill 52 transfers the open process of the Legislature to the far less transparent process of regulations approved at the cabinet table. Wherever possible, we believe that legislation should spell out the intent of a bill and the main means of achieving that intent. To put all the meat of a bill beyond the reach of the Legislature is to allow the intent of the legislation to be lost through possibly inappropriate regulations.
By repealing section 8 of the ARA, Bill 52 would replace the legislated requirements of a site plan for both class A and class B licences with requirements that would be set out in regulations. Why? No reason is given. The current requirements in the ARA contain a list of items that we believe are essential if proper environmental control is to be maintained over an aggregate operation. Which items might be dropped? Is there an intention to add requirements? We don't know. The bill removes an essential control in the legislation without any reason being given. It seems that we're being asked to have faith that the regulations will call for the same site plan requirements as are now in the ARA itself. We find this completely unacceptable.
Likewise, Bill 52 removes the statutory requirement for public notice in section 11 of the act. We don't know what will replace them because the "prescribed procedures" have not yet been laid down in regulations. This essential part of the public process should remain squarely in the legislation itself. Aggregate extraction is too controversial an industrial activity to be allowed to carry on with any suspicion that the public is being excluded from decision-making. If anything, the current legislated requirements in the ARA should be strengthened, not weakened.
We can only ask: Why is this change being proposed? What is the intent? It's difficult to believe the government wants the freedom to strengthen the notice requirements; rather, it seems that the intent is to weaken them. Without any satisfactory rationale given, this provision must be dropped.
Mr David Hahn: The second concern we have about the bill, or one of the concerns, is that the right to a public hearing is seriously impaired by this bill. The public has a right to know what's going to happen; they also have an equal right to be able to comment on it. In our view, this bill removes that right. It's within the ministerial discretion to refer or not to refer a challenge to an application to the OMB. The bill does not set out any criteria under which the minister would make such a decision.
Secondly, the applicant -- or at least the person who wants to have a referral -- is not given any reason if the referral is refused. Compare that with the rights of the applicant for the licence. If the licence is turned down, as a matter of legislation the applicant gets a referral to the OMB. This is unfair treatment between the two opposing points of view and it is not, in our view, acceptable.
The second concern we have is that this bill makes a mockery of any attempt to ensure compliance. The amendments to the bill would remove the responsibility for monitoring enforcement from the Ministry of Natural Resources. It means that the operations of one of the most environmentally and socially intrusive industries are monitored by the people who are carrying them out, and the government is abdicating any responsibility for seeing that the law is complied with.
How can we have confidence in a system in which those who are regulated, regulate themselves? Where's the proof that this has worked in the past? It asks the responsible operator to live by the law and possibly become uncompetitive, when somebody down the road who's not responsible will flout the law and profit by it. It seems to us that it's a major leap of faith to suggest that human nature is such that all people regulated under this act are going to regulate themselves. If they fail to regulate, the costs to the environment and to the community are very severe.
1020
We're asked to be confident that the industry can police itself, and again I ask, what is the evidence that supports this? What is the history in the past? We've heard that in the bad old days, back before the Aggregate Resources Act, pits were abandoned and operators disappeared and rehabilitation didn't take place. All that's changed now because of the legislation that's in place. If the industry was unable to police itself before, where's the evidence that they're going to be able to do that, and will do it, now?
Not all operators are unscrupulous. There are many very responsible corporate citizens out there who believe in the environment and are prepared to carry out their operations at cost to themselves in such a way as to protect the environment. But not all operators are like that. There are those who, in order to make a fast dollar, would flout the rules, try and get a competitive advantage, and in so doing cause damage that is not easily repaired, if it's even possible. The only way to ensure compliance with the law is to have a cop on the beat and the only proper cop is a cop that is a government cop, not the industry itself.
The government is spending money and taking great pains to track down people who steal from their fellow taxpayers by cheating on welfare. What about people who cheat on their fellow citizens by destroying the environment? Is that group more responsible than the welfare recipients? I think human nature is such that compliance can only be achieved by proper monitoring and enforcement.
We're not against aggregate extraction and we're not against the aggregate industry. We all recognize that the economy and lifestyle of the province are very heavily dependent on materials that are produced by the aggregate industry. We just can't exist and flourish without aggregates. We know, though, that this industry happens to be one of the most environmentally, and in many ways socially, destructive -- socially to those who live in the area. It's therefore very important that there be tight controls over the operations and that everything possible is done to mitigate the environmental and social disruption that this very necessary industry, of necessity, causes. Strong legislation is required to balance the economic necessity of extracting aggregates with the detrimental environmental effects.
Licensed properties have got to be monitored for compliance and enforcement action must be taken when somebody tries to break the rules. What we need is, as the title of your act says, An Act to promote resource development, conservation and environmental protection through the streamlining of regulatory processes and the enhancement of compliance measures in the Aggregate and Petroleum Industries. This bill, in our view, fails to meet the criteria set out in the bill. We've given you a couple of reasons why we think it fails to meet the criteria, and others will give you, I'm sure, some other ideas.
In our view, the bill's unacceptable. The title of the bill, to us, is Orwellian doublespeak. The actual impact of the bill is to do exactly the opposite of its purported intent. We haven't seen any reason why the bill is being brought forward in this form. What is the evidence to say that the aggregate industry is capable of policing itself? What is the intention behind removing the right of notice, the right of appeal, from the legislation? What is the reason, what is the necessity, of putting in regulation many things that we think should properly be spelled out in the legislation, things that are already spelled out in the legislation?
Before we take the steps to do these things there should be reasons put forward as to why. We think that the bill therefore is seriously flawed, has many deficiencies and we would ask that in your considerations you listen to the comments of people like ourselves and bring forward amendments that will correct the flaws in the bill. We thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and to state our points of view.
The Chair: Thank you very much. You have effectively used up all but a minute of your time. There is no effective time left for questions. Did you have a final statement that you wanted to make? Okay, thank you very much. We do appreciate your input this morning.
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Our next presenters are the Canadian Environmental Law Association, represented by Richard Lindgren, staff lawyer. Good morning, sir. Welcome to our committee.
Mr Richard Lindgren: Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Richard Lindgren. I am the staff lawyer with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, or CELA, and we certainly appreciate the opportunity to address this committee on Bill 52 this morning.
As some committee members are no doubt aware, CELA is a public interest group that was established in 1970 for the purpose of using and improving laws to protect the environment and to conserve natural resources. Since 1970, CELA staff lawyers have been actively involved in many cases and many law reform activities in relation to aggregate operations across Ontario. We've been involved in various matters on the Niagara Escarpment involving pits and quarries, we've been involved in Oak Ridges moraine disputes involving pits and quarries and a number of other disputes across northern and southern Ontario with respect to pits and quarry operations.
We've used that experience, that background, plus our public interest perspective, to review Bill 52. I should pause to note that I'm only going to be addressing the portions of Bill 52 that amend the Aggregate Resources Act, or the ARA. I've been at CELA for about 10 years and I cannot recall too many instances where I have received a telephone call about petroleum resources development, so I'm not going to be addressing the Bill 52 amendments to the Petroleum Resources Act. It's not something we deal with. There may or may not be problems with that industry, but if there are it's not something that I get telephone calls about.
But I do receive frequent phone calls about pits and quarries all across Ontario, pits and quarries next to or within wetlands, pits and quarries next to or within environmentally sensitive areas, pits and quarries next to or within provincial parks, the list goes on and on. That's the background that we've used to review Bill 52 and it's our conclusion that Bill 52 should not be passed in its present form. In fact, in our view, there are several key amendments to Bill 52 that should be considered in order to protect the natural environment and to protect residents living near aggregate operations.
Two weeks ago I filed a formal and I think detailed written submission to the committee. The committee members will recall that the deadline for written comments was September 23. At that point, we hadn't received confirmation that we'd be attending here today so we took the precaution of prefiling our written submission. It was my hope and my expectation that committee members would bring their copies of that submission today so that I could answer any questions that may arise from the written submission.
But if committee members didn't bring it, that's okay because what I'm proposing to do in my remaining time is read into the record our seven key recommendations. At the conclusion of that summary of our recommendations I would be happy to take any questions, time permitting.
I should also indicate for the record that the brief we filed on September 23 has been given committee exhibit number 1/05/015, so again, if committee members didn't bring this document with them they can retrieve it at some later date and go through it. The recommendations that I am about to read into the record are found at page 17 of that brief, so that's where they can be located if further recourse is needed to them.
1030
Before I go through the recommendations, I should advise committee members that had the opportunity to review very carefully the Hansard record of the proceedings of this committee on September 11 and 12, when presentations were received in Milton and Niagara Falls. I've also had an opportunity to review a number of the written submissions that have been filed with this committee by different agencies, groups and individuals. I'm actually quite pleased to see that many of the recommendations put forward by other groups and individuals look pretty similar to the ones we're about to put forward.
I was particularly tickled to see that I could agree with most of the positions put forward by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. It's not often that we're able to agree with AMO but I found myself in complete agreement with most of their recommendations. Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, I can't say the same thing for the Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario, as will be apparent when I go through the recommendations.
As I say, the recommendations are reproduced at page 17 of my brief, and if I could, I'll start by going through each of the recommendations. I'm pretty optimistic there'll be some time for questions at the conclusion.
Our first recommendation is with respect to the proposed Aggregate Resources Trust.
Recommendation 1(a): Bill 52 should be amended to permit the minister to only designate a crown employee as a trustee of the Aggregate Resources Trust, or alternatively, permit the minister to establish a multistakeholder advisory committee regarding the trust.
Recommendation 1(b) is to amend the bill to ensure that trust expenditures are expressly limited to environmental protection, resource conservation or rehabilitation purposes. There's a fair amount of open-ended discretion in the current provisions with respect to what trust funds can be used for. We would like to see that tightened up, if possible.
Then moving on to recommendation 2, there's a series of them here. They deal with public notice and public hearing rights under Bill 52. Actually, I'll back up.
Recommendation 2(a) can be summarized as follows: Bill 52 should be amended to eliminate the distinction between class A and B licences. In our view, there's no environmental rationale for continuing that distinction under Bill 52.
Recommendation 2(b): The bill should be amended to retain the prescribed content requirements for site plans and reports in the Aggregate Resources Act itself rather than bearing them in the regulations that don't have the kind of open, transparent nature associated with legislation. We would much prefer to see that detail retained in the legislation itself as opposed to put in some regulations that have not yet been circulated or drafted, as far as I can tell.
Recommendation 3(a): Bill 52 should be amended to retain and enhance public notice requirements in the ARA rather than in regulations. As you know, the proposal is to prescribe notice and comment opportunities by regulation, so a lot of the existing requirements will be gutted in favour of some regulation that we haven't seen yet, and quite frankly, I'm not prepared to buy a pig in a poke. I'm not prepared to accept that we're going to see the same current requirements reproduced or replicated in these future regulations.
Recommendation 3(b) is that Bill 52 should be amended to retain the current 45-day appeal period for the filing of objections and hearing requests. Again, this should be found in the legislation rather than regulation.
Recommendation 3(c): Maintain the current ARA provisions which require the minister to refer an application and objections to the Ontario Municipal Board upon request by any person unless the hearing request is frivolous and vexatious. We don't like the new, open-ended discretion of the minister to refuse to send anything on to a hearing if he or she sees fit.
Recommendation 3(d): Delete the power of the minister to direct the OMB to consider only the issues specified in the referral. That provision in Bill 52 is completely unacceptable and unfair. It allows the Minister of Natural Resources, who's a party to the proceedings, to skew the proceedings, to take the contentious issues off the table. If I could use an analogy, you wouldn't permit the crown necessarily to dictate to a court what issues are on or off the table in a criminal trial. I suggest that the same principle should apply here. Once there's a hearing, there's a hearing and the board decides what's relevant to the issues in dispute.
Recommendation 3(e) is that the board should be empowered to impose, rather than recommend, conditions of approval. As you're aware, Bill 52 will give the board the decision-making authority as to whether or not the licence should be granted, but the minister still has the power to impose terms and conditions. In our view, the decision to approve or not approve is often tied up with what conditions, if any, will be imposed. It makes a lot of sense, in our view, to give the board the power to impose the conditions and not leave it to the minister down the road.
Recommendation 3(f): Delete the power of the OMB to refuse to hold a hearing after the objection has been referred to the board by the minister.
Recommendation 3(g): Require adequate public notice and EBR, or Environmental Bill of Rights, registry notice where the minister makes a proposal regarding the issuance or refusal of a licence, licence conditions, site plan amendments, licence transfer or licence revocation.
Finally, under recommendation 3(h), Bill 52 should be amended to ensure the application of section 43 of the OMB act and section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to decisions and orders of the board under the ARA.
Those provisions allow the board, in certain circumstances, to go back and revisit previous decisions if circumstances warrant that reconsideration. Given the fact that the board, under the ARA, will be making very significant long-term decisions about a very environmentally significant activity, namely, aggregate extraction, I see no compelling reason why agencies, ministries and interested people, shouldn't be able to go back to the OMB if there has been a material change in circumstances or if new information about new impacts comes to light.
Moving on to recommendation 4, it's simply this: Bill 52 should be amended to retain section 17 of the existing act to ensure the continuation of regular monitoring, investigation and enforcement activities by MNR staff to the that there's any MNR staff still available to do it.
We've heard a lot of hype, a lot of noise about the self-monitoring regime that will be established under Bill 52. Quite frankly, we find it quite unacceptable. It's not an adequate substitute for a systematic program of regular monitoring, investigation and enforcement by public officials. I note that this recommendation has been made by a number of other parties appearing before this committee as well.
Recommendation 5: Bill 52 should be amended to ensure that only crown employees may be designated as inspectors under the ARA, and the bill should be amended to delete the proposed delegation of ministerial powers under part III and part V of the ARA to the Ministry of Transportation, which of course has a profound interest in ensuring that there's lots of cheap aggregate available for its various activities.
Recommendation 6 is that the bill should be amended to retain part IV of the ARA with respect to abandoned pits and quarries. It may well be that once the trust is up and running, a lot of the provisions in the current part IV of the act will be addressed, but given the paucity of detail associated with the setup, the administration, the composition of the trust and so forth, I'm not prepared to sign off on part IV, at least not at this point.
Finally, recommendation 7 is that Bill 52 should be amended to delete the minister's power to grant exemptions from aggregate permit requirements and to delete the minister's power to waive or reduce rehabilitation requirements under the legislation.
In conclusion, unless and until those recommendations are acted upon by the government, CELA cannot and does not support Bill 52. I'm not bold enough to suggest that these are the only recommendations that are necessary, nor am I suggesting that we have the magic wand solution here. There may be other ways to address the concerns we've flagged here today and in our written brief. But something has to be done to improve Bill 52.
In our opinion, Bill 52 undermines a number of important environmental protection provisions that are currently found in the Aggregate Resources Act; Bill 52, as drafted, dismantles some key monitoring and reporting requirements that are now found in the existing act; and Bill 52 creates or continues a number of problematic loopholes and perpetuates uncertainty, at least from our perspective, under the Aggregate Resources Act.
In my submission, those problems are compounded by the fact that we have not yet seen copies of any of the regulations that are going to implement the Bill 52 regime. Maybe similar concerns will be addressed, maybe they won't be, but really until they are produced, and presumably they'll be produced with some public input including input from us and other interested stakeholders, we really can't comment any further on Bill 52.
Those are my submissions. If there is any time, I'd be happy to take questions.
1040
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Thank you, Mr Lindgren. It's always a pleasure and an important part of hearings like this to have a presentation from your group because it provides us with a framework we don't often get.
Having seen governments in this province for the last several years move towards executive power taking power from the Legislature, from other tribunals around the province -- this is not these guys, this is a fact of life in government in Ontario in the last three or four years. Witness Bill 171, the forest bill: the same thing, we get a shell.
Many of the concerns you've expressed are concerns that may be addressed in regulations, but nobody knows. I think you have more ground in common with the industry perhaps than you realize. They too would like to see the regulations in the legislation rather than left out there for any government at any time in the future to change in any way it might wish without much public scrutiny at all.
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I should just remind my colleague that at least with Bill 171 all the technical documents went out on public hearings with people as well, so people had a chance to comment. We've repeatedly asked for both the technical documents and any regulations that might be in place, because we know work is being done on both. We had that confirmed by industry representatives who have seen some of the information. At this point, the government has refused to give that to us. The government says the regulations will go out to a large number of stakeholders. We don't know who they will be yet, although they have invited us to send forward names, so we will certainly do that.
The problem is that the regulation process is not like this legislative process. The regulations will be developed by the government. They may well be submitted to stakeholders. They will go back to cabinet and they will be approved or not approved by cabinet, and there will be no public forum like this one for people to participate. That has been our problem with this whole process all along.
The bill that we see before us is very much a shell. It asks us to trust the government in developing regulations that will hopefully enhance environmental protection, not weaken it, except I've seen the government track record over the last year and I, for one, am not convinced that when it comes to environmental protection that's what we're going to get.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): First of all, I want to congratulate CELA, because every member of our government who is familiar with your work appreciates the work of your association and the competence of the people who are involved.
One of the biggest controversies about the removal of aggregate in this province has always been what happens about rehabilitation. I think you must agree that especially under section 6 of the bill, we have a tremendous emphasis on rehabilitation.
Mr Lindgren: I can certainly agree that the word "rehabilitation" shows up in section 6. My concern is that there are other provisions in the bill that will allow the minister to waive or reduce rehabilitation requirements in the future, so even though there may be a commitment today to full rehabilitation and restoration of an agricultural use or habitat or something, down the road that can be amended, and amended with the stroke of a pen. There are lots of instances where that's occurred. Even though rehabilitation is a good thing and everybody can support it, the track record unfortunately has been less than desirable and I don't see that being changed by Bill 52.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Lindgren. We appreciate your input here this morning.
VALERIE CRANMER AND ASSOCIATES
The Chair: Our next presenter, representing Valerie Cranmer and Associates, is Valerie Cranmer. Welcome to our committee. You have 20 minutes. Should you allow some time for questions, they would begin with Ms Martel. The floor is yours.
Ms Valerie Cranmer: Thank you for the opportunity to address your committee. I'm Valerie Cranmer, president of Valerie Cranmer and Associates. In the past I've had considerable involvement with the aggregate industry and the application of its legislation.
Prior to establishing my own firm, I was director of strategic planning with the regional municipality of Durham. In this capacity, I was responsible for the review of our official plan, which of course included a review of the aggregate policies. Achieving aggregate policies which maintain a balance between municipal and industry goals is never easy. However, by working with representatives of the industry and ministry officials, we were able to develop an excellent set of policies to guide the development of aggregate in the region for the next 25 years.
In addition, I was the region's representative on the Oak Ridges moraine technical working committee, where aggregate extraction was a major topic of discussion.
More recently, I represented the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on the provincial aggregate review committee which was established by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Bill 52 reflects the restructuring of the Ministry of Natural Resources non-renewable resources program to shift more responsibility for direct program delivery to the municipalities and to the industry. In the preparation of this legislation, the various approval processes were examined and standardized as much as possible with respect to the application, operational aspects and rehabilitation. As a result, many of the amendments reflect this streamlined approach. Much of the detail which is contained in the existing legislation is to be deleted and will be in the regulations, and the regulations are to be developed through consultation with key stakeholders.
In this presentation, I will address the following: the positive aspects of the proposed legislation and the areas which are of concern to me. Where appropriate, I will make suggestions how these concerns could be addressed.
Many of the applications for aggregate licences are disputed and are referred to the Ontario Municipal Board for a resolution. In the existing legislation, the Minister of Natural Resources can overrule the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board. This provision is deleted in the proposed legislation and replaced with the requirement that the Ontario Municipal Board decision be binding upon the Minister of Natural Resources. This is a very positive revision to the legislation and is in accordance with other provincial legislation and should be retained in the final legislation.
A recurring theme throughout the legislation is the addition of responsibilities to the industry and municipalities to ensure that the applications are complete and that the prescribed notification and consultation procedures and the requirements of the licence are complied with. This shift of responsibility from the province is reflective of the province's commitment to downsize government and to place more direct responsibility in the hands of the main stakeholders. Essentially, this legislation is providing for self-regulation of the industry.
In order for this initiative to be effective, I believe all aggregate operators should be required to be members of the Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario and that there should be a commitment by all three parties -- the province, the APAO and the municipalities -- to improve communication.
Municipalities, at this time of considerable restructuring and financial restrictions, may not be in a position to accept a greater role and responsibility in the regulation of pits and quarries, and these governance issues have to be addressed first. In addition, municipalities will have to address the need to obtain the expertise necessary to ensure meaningful involvement in the process.
The act will establish the Aggregate Resources Trust. This trust is to collect and disburse annual licence fees, administer the abandoned pits and quarries rehabilitation fund, administer a new pooled trust fund to provide for rehabilitation where aggregate permits and licences have been revoked as a result of default, and be responsible for research into rehabilitation processes.
In accordance with the privatization of government services initiatives, the trustee will be appointed by the minister but will not be employed by the crown. In addition, the Aggregate Producers' Association will be responsible for the administration and delivery of the rehabilitation program associated with the abandoned pits and quarries rehabilitation fund. It is hoped that the establishment of this trust will result in a more effective and efficient use of the rehabilitation fund while allowing for some key and necessary research. Key to the success of the trust will be the appointment of the trustee and the establishment and maintenance of appropriate communication with municipalities.
1050
I believe that the proposed legislation begins to pave the way for the reduction of duplication between the licence approval process and the municipal approval process. These processes should be completely integrated in order to reduce costs both to the producer and to the municipality. In addition, it would assist the public in better understanding the process. The proposed requirement that no licence can be issued unless the site complies with all relevant zoning bylaws is a positive step.
There are a number of efficiency measures that are introduced in Bill 52 which should be retained. The six-month limitation on the suspensions of a licence aggregate permit has been removed. Rather than having to renew the suspension, the suspension will remain until the issue is resolved. In addition, permits for aggregates will no longer have an expiration date. The permit will remain in effect as long as the operation is in compliance. Further efficiencies should result from the requirement that no prosecutions for contraventions to the act or the regulations can be commenced more than five years after the date on which the offence was committed.
An important tool for implementing this act is the regulations, as has been mentioned by the previous presenters. I understand that they are presently being prepared and much of the detail which is contained in the existing legislation will be in these regulations. It is important that these regulations be developed through true consultation, with all key stakeholders. The success of this legislation depends on the development of appropriate regulations.
In summary then, I view the proposed legislation as implementing the government's commitment to downsize and to streamline the development approval process. The positive aspects of this legislation are dependent upon the regulations. The development of appropriate regulations, developed in consultation with all key stakeholders is critical to the success. The aggregate industry is an essential industry and there must be a balance between the goals of the industry and those of government.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to address the committee and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Ms Martel: Thank you for your presentation today. You said earlier that you're part of the aggregate resources working group.
Ms Cranmer: Yes.
Ms Martel: Can I ask you then as a member of that group what your responsibilities would have been to it as an AMO representative?
Ms Cranmer: It was very difficult to determine in fact what my responsibilities were as an AMO representative, but I was there with a regional planning perspective. That was my main area of expertise.
Ms Martel: Can I ask you when you first saw a copy of this bill?
Ms Cranmer: After it was presented. The members of the committee were not aware of it being prepared until it came out.
Ms Martel: I want to follow up, because I asked Glenn Harrington the same question when we were in Milton. How does that make you feel, as a member who's participated freely trying to give your advice to a government body, that the day you see this bill is the day that it's introduced in the House?
Ms Cranmer: Actually, the whole committee was extremely upset with the way that it happened and we requested a meeting with the minister to clarify the role of the committee, because we felt that with the discussions and the stakeholders that were sitting around the table, it was very appropriate for that committee to at least be aware of what was happening with the legislation.
Ms Martel: I understand also from our meeting in Milton that the committee at that time also requested to the minister very specifically that the committee members be allowed to participate in the drafting of the regulations.
Ms Cranmer: Yes, they have, and unfortunately since I formed my own company I am no longer part of the committee so I was not aware whether there was any discussion with respect to the regulations with the committee as they were being drafted.
Ms Martel: The response we got was that the request was made to be involved in the drafting and the minister clearly told the committee they would see the regulations after they were drafted. So that's a bit problematic for people who are part of a working group who do that work for the ministry and then effectively are shut out of the process.
Why would you be concerned about the regulation process at this point? You've said several times in your presentation that the success of this bill and the success of enforcement etc really heavily depends on the regulation-making process and what it looks like.
Ms Cranmer: With taking the detail out of the legislation, I think it is critical that all of the main stakeholders are involved in those regulations to ensure that they are balanced in their content and requirements.
Mr Klees: Ms Cranmer, thank you for your presentation, very helpful. You've had extensive involvement with -- or certainly familiarity with the industry over the years and you're aware of the fact that over the last number of years the majority of the pits and quarries in this province have not had the prescribed inspections. There just hasn't been, I understand, the manpower within the ministries to actually conduct these inspections. Is that your experience?
Ms Cranmer: Yes, that is.
Mr Klees: With the initiative of this bill to transfer a lot of the administrative responsibilities through the trust as well as some of the self-assessment functions, the intent, as you're aware, of the legislation is to free up those inspectors who are on staff to focus much more of their time on the actual inspection functions, with the view to actually being able to enhance the enforcement and compliance function of the ministry. Do you feel that the industry in general is responsible enough to carry out the many self-assessment functions that will be transferred to them?
Ms Cranmer: I think that for the industry to be able to carry out the self-regulating function, all of the licensed operators should be members of their association. I understand that not all of them are. In many cases the operators that the municipalities have problems with are ones who do not belong to the association. I think there seems to be a lot of goodwill -- and I don't know how far the goodwill will go -- with the association to ensure that the self-regulation does work, but they need to have some method of bringing under their control the operators who at the present time they do not have any association with.
Mr Klees: You've used the term "self-regulation" and I just for the record want to assert from the government's point of view that this legislation certainly does not result in self-regulation. The regulations will clearly be the responsibility of the government and in fact the ministry will continue to function as the enforcer of those regulations. What has happened, though, is that through this legislation we will be requiring the industry to assume many of the administrative functions that heretofore the ministry has performed. I just wanted to clarify that because there is a significant difference between self-regulation and self-assessment.
Mr Michael Brown: I was interested in your views around the Aggregate Producers' Association and that you were suggesting that all aggregate producers should belong to that organization. I think one of the things we've learned through the hearings is that not all companies want to join the Aggregate Producers' and that perhaps -- and this might be unfair -- the real problems in the aggregates industry occur with a very small percentage of companies but they tend to be smaller companies without the resources to do many of the things the larger companies can do. Is that a fair assessment from your view?
Ms Cranmer: I come from a municipality that has a large number of pits, in the township of Uxbridge. I think some of the aggregate producers we have had difficulties with are not necessarily the small ones.
Mr Michael Brown: That's interesting.
Ms Cranmer: I agree that a large number of the problem ones may be the small ones, but I think there are also some of the larger ones as well.
1100
Mr Michael Brown: Would the ones at present in your community, the larger ones, be members of the Aggregate Producers' Association, or do you know?
Ms Cranmer: No, they're not at the present time -- at least that's my understanding.
Mr Michael Brown: One of our concerns in this whole process has been what happens to the relatively small company. In many industries in Ontario, we are seeing consolidation after consolidation and the market becomes controlled by a relatively small number of players that are very large. I have some concern that smaller businesses will be excluded by both the way this self-monitoring is required, with the ministry I think essentially abdicating the monitoring function itself, and the fact that big companies like regulations, small companies don't. Do you have any comments on that train of thought?
Ms Cranmer: I have seen that trend happening in other industries as well, particularly the development industry, and it's a very difficult one to address. I don't know how the aggregate industry is really going to address that.
Mr Michael Brown: I thought your suggestion about being part of the aggregate producers was a way for the smaller operator to maybe share information with the larger corporations.
Ms Cranmer: Hopefully, that would happen.
The Chair: Thank you again, Ms Cranmer. We appreciate your input here this morning.
SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND
The Chair: Our next presenter is representing the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Doug Chapman, the staff lawyer. Good morning, Mr Chapman. Welcome to our committee.
Mr Doug Chapman: The Sierra Legal Defence Fund is a non-profit organization that provides free legal services to environmental groups and concerned citizens. I wish to direct my comments solely to the enforcement and self-assessment aspects of this proposed legislation.
The importance of environmental legislation -- we all know how important it is. It's essential to the public interest. A study for the law commission of Canada in 1984 described the regulatory process of the 1970s, going back in time, as somewhere between "cautious" and "captured by industry." I'm suggesting that the self-monitoring, self-assessment aspects of this proposed legislation are placing trust in industry where it is not due. I'm suggesting that the government policies have been captured by industry.
First of all, I should inform you that our organization is involved in assisting a woman in the Niagara Escarpment area who has found it necessary to launch a private prosecution against a member of the aggregate industry as a result of an allegation that the aggregate corporation was carrying on a development without a permit. There is nothing in the history of corporate behaviour, either in this country or anywhere in the world, that suggests that trust can be left with corporations to self-monitor themselves effectively. It was for that very reason that the Ministry of Environment and Energy formed its investigation and enforcement staff, which as it turns out is probably the most effective in Canada, and one that Ontario has always been proud of.
When we come to the aggregate industry, it's felt that they, for some reason, unlike other corporate actors, should be allowed to police themselves. We all know the massive cuts that have taken place in the Ministry of Natural Resources. It's been suggested here that the regulatory aspects of this legislation that are left with the ministry have not been handed over to industry, and I question that because of the plain lack of people to go out and inspect these pits and quarries. We all know what tremendous environmental damage can be done by this industry. I agree with the remarks that have been said today about how there are sometimes only a few bad actors, but the only way you can find out which ones they are is to go out and inspect them yourself.
Another point I wish to bring up is that studies have shown that corporations that have been inspected, investigated, prosecuted and convicted have allocated significantly more resources to protect the environment than corporations that have not faced that process. That's clear. No study can be found that suggests that a corporation can effectively protect the environment if that corporation is allowed to regulate itself or assess itself.
I'm particularly disturbed by the bill as it relates to section 17 of the existing ARA, which as you know imposed an express duty on the ministry to make inspections of these sites. I'm suggesting that there's absolutely no incentive for corporations left alone to take steps to protect the environment. In that regard I suggest that MNR must retain its policy of inspections, even to the extent of increasing the number of inspectors and investigators. Those are my submissions.
Mr Klees: Thank you for your presentation. With regard to the issue of inspection, we certainly share your concern that the appropriate inspections are conducted, and in discussions with the industry that was front and centre. I think you'd agree that it's not a function of the number of staff people in the field relative to inspections so much as what their job description is. We might have 100 people in the field, for example, and if their job description requires them to do many other things and only a small percentage of their time can actually be focused on inspection, the number of people isn't the issue; it's the position the ministry takes on what we require the inspector to do.
One of the objectives of the ministry is to free up the functions of the inspectors so that they can focus much more attention on inspecting those sites that are a potential problem. You've agreed that the problems that occur in the industry come from a very small number of operators. One of the objectives we have is, through the self-compliance, to transfer a considerable amount of that administration and reporting to the industry with those operators who are in compliance and are operating at a high level of credibility. Very little time then is necessary for the individual staff person to actually focus on those particular sites, because they are in compliance and it takes a fairly routine review. What this would allow, though, is for much more focus on those operators who are questionable.
I'd be interested in your response to that because I want to assure you that the whole issue of inspection is very important to us, that what we felt we were achieving here was being able to concentrate on those operators who are not in compliance.
Mr Chapman: The plain answer is, sir, if you don't have enough inspectors to start with, they can't cover the territory. I prosecuted for the Ministry of the Environment for five and half years and I know how important it is to have a lot of investigators, number one.
Number two, I'm saying that you can't trust industry to provide accurate reports at the end of one year. If you don't have inspectors, how are you going to find out which ones are the bad ones and which ones are the good ones? Are you suggesting that the bad actors are going to come out with a report and say, "We've been bad last year"?
1110
Mr Klees: You say that in your experience it's important to have a lot of inspectors.
Mr Chapman: Ontario is a big province.
Mr Klees: Would you not agree that it's much more important that we have inspectors who are focused on inspection?
Mr Chapman: I would say that it's equally important to have sufficient numbers and proper training for them. That's the answer.
Mr Klees: We're not in disagreement on that point. That precisely is where we want to go as a government, to ensure that we have the appropriate number of people in the field who have adequate training and who can be focused on this issue of inspection, rather than have a proliferation of people who are doing many things that perhaps the industry can do equally or perhaps even more effectively, and allow the government to really focus on the issue of enforcement in the interest of protecting the environment.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you for coming today. One of the issues you didn't raise but I'm sure you're interested in is the penalties that this bill might, or will, inflict on companies or individuals in contravention of the act. In my experience, penalties are only effective if they're appropriate. In other words, if it's a huge penalty that you might have to pay for a minor variance, often you will not be prosecuted for it because the two don't make sense. It's like sending someone to execution for jaywalking. Maybe that's what you have to do according to law so the prosecution won't go forward.
If I'm making myself clear, I just wonder what you think of the penalty sections of this act which have been strengthened. I've not made myself totally comfortable that they are appropriate in all cases to minor variations, a minor problem versus a major one.
Mr Chapman: I was pleased to see that the penalties were increased. In reply to your question I would only say that's what judges are for, in the courts where prosecutions are brought, to weigh those factors, take them into consideration so that a small operator with a minor offence, if I can put it that way, is not going to be hammered with a huge fine. But I think the high fines have to be there. They have to be available for the worst-case scenario.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm suggesting to you, and we know it happens in the legal system, that often, because the penalty may be too severe -- a suspension of your licence for a period of some time -- that might not necessarily be appropriate. Or do you think it is? That's the question I'm asking. Sometimes people just don't enforce the law because they think either the cost of enforcing it or the penalty that will be imposed is too great.
Mr Chapman: I go back to what I said before. I think that's up to the judge in each individual case and I don't think you can generalize. I don't think overall the penalties are too high.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm not saying they're too high either. I'm asking you, do you think they're appropriate?
More than probably any other resource in Ontario, the government and municipalities of Ontario are in a huge conflict-of-interest situation when they look at aggregates because they are one of the largest consumers of the actual product.
Mr Chapman: Yes.
Mr Michael Brown: I wonder if you have any kind of broad philosophical view about that, because I think it colours the way we approach this whole situation; there is a huge conflict of interest. I think about half the aggregate goes to municipalities or the provincial government or agencies of the provincial government.
Mr Chapman: One answer is to have all the stakeholders have an opportunity to get together and meet and discuss it, and not the way this legislation has been put forward. There haven't been these meetings and discussions.
Mr Michael Brown: Oh, I agree.
Ms Martel: Thank you, Mr Chapman, for your presentation this morning. I noted that in your presentation you were highly critical of the government's desire to trust the industry to monitor itself. You made that point several times during your discussion. You probably expressed it more firmly than I've heard from any other presenters, and I wonder why you are feeling the way you are with respect to your not believing that the government or any of us should trust that the industry can self-monitor.
Mr Chapman: That comes from my experience as a prosecutor with the Ministry of Environment and Energy. I have had several cases where false evidence was given to the ministry by corporations. I've had many cases where corporate activities have clearly shown that they did everything they could to hide their emission or their discharge. I have spent many hours lecturing investigative people with the Ministry of Environment and Energy on the legal aspects of it. I knew all those investigators personally.
I know, I believe, what is necessary for the proper enforcement of environmental law, and that is good inspections, adequately trained inspectors and investigators, and I firmly believe in using that process, including charges and penalties, as a way of bringing corporate activity into line to protect the environment.
It's almost a contradiction in terms to ask a corporation whose reason to exist is to make a profit, and the more profit the better it is, to monitor itself. It has not worked. I would like to hear of any study anyone has ever heard of in the world that has suggested that corporations, when they're left to monitor and police themselves, effectively protect the environment. I know there is no such study.
That's why, maybe, I speak so strongly. I'm worried about the protection of the environment as it relates to the aggregate industry and the effect of this bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Chapman. We appreciate your being here this morning and giving us your input.
Is our next presenter, Stuart Marwick, here? No.
NORTHERN ONTARIO AGGREGATE PRODUCERS
The Chair: Marcel Ethier, chair of Northern Ontario Aggregate Producers, you get to move up in the program. Welcome to our committee. Maybe we could just get you to identify yourselves for the record. The floor is yours.
Mr Marcel Ethier: My name is Marcel Ethier. I am president and part owner of Ethier Sand and Gravel Ltd from Sudbury, a mid-sized company producing aggregates in the Sudbury area and in northern Ontario.
The company was formed in the late 1930s by my father, who passed away in 1964. We employ approximately 40 to 65 employees, depending on the season and the amount of work there is in the area. We own seven licensed properties. We also have 10 aggregate permits, which are on crown land, for a total of 17 pits or quarries. We generate approximately $5.5 million to $6 million to the local economy of Sudbury and northern Ontario.
We operate two gravel pits year-round. The others are seasonal, depending on where the work is. We also operate a quartz quarry for silica and decorative stone and we ship the decorative stone to parts of Michigan state, Quebec and southern Ontario. The silica is mostly used in the mining industry, in smelting the ore.
I am also chairman of the APAO northern Ontario committee, a committee specifically struck to deal with northern Ontario issues and represent aggregate producers throughout northern Ontario. We have representative members attending meetings from northern Ontario, Sault Ste Marie -- that's Roy Bertolo here -- Timmins, Parry Sound, New Liskeard and North Bay; Thunder Bay attended only a few of our meetings.
1120
I am speaking today on behalf of both Ethier Sand and Gravel and northern Ontario aggregate producers in general. I'm here to express our support for Bill 52. I would like to discuss what I believe are some important aspects of the legislation. There are many improvements in the bill that are much needed and long overdue: self-monitoring and rehab-streamline site plans applications.
I would, however, like to begin my presentation by speaking to you about something that is not addressed in Bill 52. My comments relate to the areas of Ontario that are designated under the Aggregate Resources Act and the lack of any expanded designation in Bill 52.
By way of background, the Aggregate Resources Act only applies to certain parts of Ontario. I have a map here that I could show you. This area of southern Ontario is designated and the top part is not designated, except for Sudbury and Sault Ste Marie. Virtually all of southern Ontario -- generally areas south of the Canadian Shield -- is designated, whereas areas north are not, with the exception of the regional municipality of Sudbury and the city of Sault Ste Marie.
As a result of this arbitrary designation, aggregate producers in northern Ontario often face great difficulties in the marketplace because of the cost associated with operating in areas that are designated versus the reduced cost of operating in areas that are not designated.
In Sudbury we have some operators situated just outside the designated areas that excavate material beside the roadway. They drill and blast, as they feel free, and they are just outside the designated areas. They deliver to the market in Sudbury and have no rehab costs or no licence costs. They don't have to license their properties either.
We strongly believe that a level playing field in terms of legislation and regulation should apply to all aggregate producers, regardless of where they are located.
When you travel to Toronto from Sudbury you will see some operations digging and stockpiling alongside the highway, which makes it an eyesore for tourists and travellers in our province. Especially south of Parry Sound it's very visible; I won't specify exactly where.
We believe, from an environmental viewpoint, the Aggregate Resources Act provides for protection of the social and natural environment and that this level of regulation should apply to the entire province.
We strongly urge that Bill 52 be amended to include the entire province. Our position in support of designating the entire province is one of the few areas where industry, municipalities and a wide range of environmental groups all agree.
The impediment to full designation expressed by a number of governments in the past relates to the financial burden to government from an administrative viewpoint. Many of the proposed changes in Bill 52 eliminate or significantly reduce financial requirements, such as self-monitoring, the rehab security system.
This is an extremely important issue to the aggregate producers in northern Ontario. At a bare minimum, additional designations must be made under Bill 52 to include all areas south of, and including, the Highway 17 corridor from Sault Ste Marie to North Bay.
I would also like to provide the committee with general comments on several other areas of proposed legislation.
We support the general approach of the government in respect to crown aggregates.
We support any changes in legislation that would enhance the protection of crown aggregate resources and enhance the regulation of operation under crown aggregate permits.
We believe that crown aggregate permits should be considered more like licences in terms of both regulation and the extended time frame for commercial operation purposes.
It is often said that many of the regulatory and environmental problems associated with southern Ontario are not always felt as strongly or as severely in northern Ontario. I can assure you that many of the difficulties experienced by aggregate producers in southern Ontario in terms of the current ARA licensing process are also being felt by northern aggregate producers in designated areas.
The time and cost associated with acquiring ARA licences is extreme and increasingly difficult for medium- and small-sized companies to bear. We support any changes in Bill 52 that would streamline the current licensing process while maintaining the ability of the industry to acquire new reserves to meet future demand. We support a process that would focus on provincial standards and standard licence conditions as a way to reduce time and add certainty to the process.
I would also like to express our full support for the proposed ARA trust and changes to the current rehabilitation security system. Aggregate producers in northern Ontario and elsewhere accept that rehabilitation is mandatory and makes good business sense. There are numerous examples of excellent rehabilitation throughout northern Ontario. We believe the establishment of a superfund to guarantee rehabilitation of any licensed site in Ontario is a vast improvement over the current system. The superfund ensures that sufficient dollars are available to undertake rehab for any site where it is required.
Aggregate producers in northern Ontario also support the delivery of the abandoned pit and quarry program by the aggregate producers of Ontario. The abandoned pit and quarry fund has been utilized to rehab abandoned sites in the Sudbury and Sault Ste Marie areas very successfully. We believe the industry can successfully expand the abandoned pit and quarry program and involve municipal, environmental and other partners to ensure that older sites are returned to useful conditions.
I would be happy to answer any questions regarding my comments. Now I'll pass it on to Roy Bertolo from Sault Ste Marie.
Mr Roy Bertolo: Good morning. My name is Roy Bertolo and I'm secretary-treasurer and general manager of Brandes Aggregates Ltd of Sault Ste Marie. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the committee both as a commercial aggregate producer and as a member of the northern committee of the Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario.
Brandes Aggregates is a small family-owned business that has produced aggregates for the public and private markets of Sault Ste Marie and area for over 30 years. We are currently employing nine people and have 132 hectares under licence in Sault Ste Marie. We also run permit pits in the White River and Marathon areas. In the 1970s we campaigned actively to ensure that Sault Ste Marie would be designated under the Pits and Quarries Act. We felt the act would help ensure responsible development of our industry.
I am here today to express my strong support for Bill 52. I believe the bill offers significant improvements to the act and reflects the reality of today's business-government relationship. My remarks this morning will focus primarily on self-assessment, as there are several specific sections of the proposed bill that we believe require modification.
As an APAO member and a small aggregate producer in northern Ontario, we have been involved in voluntary self-assessment for our licensed property in 1996. We fully support self-assessment and endorse it as beneficial to both aggregate producers and the public.
I personally was involved in the training program conducted by the APAO and the MNR and I completed the self-assessment report for our property, including remedial measures for areas where non-compliance was identified. I believe there are many benefits to self-assessment for small companies, and without question the program is affordable and within the capabilities of small companies and individuals. With appropriate training, I believe any and all aggregate producers can successfully self-assess their properties without incurring significant expense.
We support the MNR remaining as the enforcement agency in terms of compliance and we support clear and severe penalties for non-completion of self-assessment, falsification, and failure to meet remedial action deadlines. It has been suggested that MNR may not be able to direct the nature of enforcement penalties; however, we believe that licence suspension must be automatic for the issues I have mentioned. I would urge the committee to find a way to enshrine a consistent and mandatory punitive approach in this respect.
1130
I would like to reinforce and support the comments that have been made by Marcel Ethier in respect to the designation of northern Ontario under the Aggregate Resources Act. Designation is a critical concern for northern operators. The situation arises frequently where a pit or quarry in a designated area is struggling to compete with an operation in close proximity but in a non-designated zone. The playing field is seriously off level.
Producers in northern Ontario also face stiff and unfair competition from the large mining and steelmaking sectors that produce and sell slags as aggregates. These industries produce a significant impact on the environment and the infrastructure, and as of yet are not subject to licensing under the ARA.
Both of these areas represent a potential source of revenue for the province, and with the present amendments to the ARA and the success of the self-monitoring program, the time is right to address these glaring inequities in our industry.
I ask the committee to give these matters serious consideration. I would also like to bring to the committee's attention several issues that we believe require modification or amendment.
First, we support the ability of the minister to refuse a licence based on the applicant's past compliance history. The industry has always been a strong supporter of adding this provision to the ARA to address those situations where companies or individuals have a history of serious non-compliance problems.
As currently proposed, however, Bill 52 may encourage applicants' compliance issues to become the subject of debate at Ontario Municipal Board hearings even if the licence application was not refused by the minister on that basis. Much of the direction of Bill 52 is to shorten the hearings, focus issues and eliminate those issues that can be used as delays or red herrings in a licence application. We strongly urge the committee to add to the bill that applicants' compliance histories should only be before the OMB when the minister has refused a licence application for that reason. This would accomplish the objectives of all concerned in addressing serious offenders, but would safeguard this issue from becoming an additional cost and time delay for responsible operators.
I would also refer the committee to the proposed five-year limitation period for proceedings in respect of an offence under the ARA. The current act calls for a six-month limitation period, which we agree is too short to allow for effective compliance enforcement. Five years, however, is too long. We urge the committee to amend this section to establish a limitation period of two years.
I would like to close by reaffirming our support for the position of the Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario in respect of Bill 52.
It has been our pleasure to provide the committee with these comments and the views of northern Ontario aggregate producers regarding Bill 52. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming down from my part of the world to make your presentation today. One of the concerns I have -- and I represent Algoma-Manitoulin, so kind of in between both of you -- perhaps you can help me with. I appreciate your comments on the Aggregate Resources Act applying across Ontario, but I'm having some difficulty understanding at least in some way the situation that may occur in unorganized townships.
I have examples in my area where an aggregate producer or an industrial mineral producer -- ie, silica -- may be producing in an unorganized township but using very little of the road network within the unorganized township. Probably he built the road himself and it's his road. But then the next municipality, which happens to be organized, has all the trucking go through it. I'm having increased pressure in my area from those municipalities that say, "The government is no longer providing the road maintenance grants they once did and we have no source of revenue to pay for the hardship on our roads that is being produced in an adjacent township where we get no revenue." Is that a problem with your companies?
Mr Ethier: Not really. The four cents or the six cents would be going to the government coffer, and I think that your operators in your area or in your township could turn the road over to the township or --
Mr Michael Brown: But it's an unorganized township.
Mr Ethier: Yes, I understand that, but in unorganized townships there's a different -- I don't remember what it's called, but there is a different --
Mr Michael Brown: Without a local roads board; there are no roads in this township.
Mr Ethier: There are no local boards in that area?
Mr Michael Brown: No.
Mr Ethier: I thought since that was their local roads board, they'd turn over the roads to the local roads board and the government pays for part of it.
Mr Michael Brown: That would be given that somebody lives in that township and somebody actually has a road in that township. Neither of those is the case in the ones I'm thinking of.
Ms Martel: Thank you to the two of you for coming to southern Ontario today for this presentation. I want to just go back to the trust fund a little bit, because you talked about expansion of the pits and quarries program, I guess, into the trust fund; maybe I was a bit confused. You also said you would support a multistakeholder presence around that. How do you see that happening? Are you interested in having an advisory board attached to the trust fund so that there can be other influences on how that money is put out, particularly for rehabilitation purposes?
Mr Ethier: You're talking about the trust fund for the rehab?
Ms Martel: Yes.
Mr Ethier: Yes. It would be governed by the APAO. I think it would be done more now than it's been done in the past. For example, there's one in your area that was assigned to be done this summer, and nothing has happened to it. I have it in my office. Right now we just can't seem to get the money for it. It's very small and it's in Capreol township. I think the producers will be more policed on our own, and we'd have to do rehab. There would also be a fair amount of money in the kitty to do rehab that's not being done now. I think now they're only picking the small areas. Last year there was only about $10,000 spent in the area, which I think could be more.
Ms Martel: Where I'm heading is the presence of other stakeholders when it comes to making decisions about where money is going to go. For example, under the current proposal your organization will have the responsibility to administer the fund. There have been other people who have come forward to suggest that should be broadened to include other folks, either municipalities or people with an environmental background. I'm wondering what your thoughts are with respect to if they should be involved and how we can involve them in that process.
Mr Ethier: Do you want to answer that, Roy?
Mr Bertolo: As the funds in the trust come from industry and we have a strongly vested interest in getting a good return on the expenditure of those funds, I think the primary responsibility should stay with the industry. Input from other groups is certainly something to be of consideration.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Gentlemen, you heard the previous speaker and I'm sorry he isn't here, but I take great offence to anybody coming into this chamber and suggesting that they cannot trust anybody in your industry. I apologize for your having to listen to that.
My concern, and I'm going to ask you very bluntly, that comment being made from him -- I believe you're right; there are some in the industry that possibly aren't reputable people. But do you believe your association can gather all of the operators together and can assist in making sure that the various groups are in compliance with the regulations that will be coming from the ministry as well as the regulations you could put within your association and also the regulations that are imposed by the municipality, ie haul routes, hours of operation etc? Do you feel that you can control this industry to protect the people and the environment?
Mr Ethier: Yes, we can, to answer your question. We are also being policed, or audited, by the MNR, which has inspectors. We went through training with the aggregate producers and MNR on how to do our self-monitoring reports. We found we were stricter with this, because right now they're going for five years -- we wish to have two years -- to charge you, and they can suspend your licence. On a false report, they can immediately suspend your licence, which they don't have now. If we make a false report -- really, we're designed to be stricter now with our reports. Before, we let the MNR hold our hand and put in the reports. If they said, "You've got to cut that tree down," or "Don't cut that tree," we wouldn't do it, and we left it that way. We didn't know where our lot lines were; we assumed they were there. If the inspector put in a report that the lot line was not quite identified, it was only a comment that he would make. Now on our report we have to identify our lot lines. Now I know where all our lot lines are. I didn't know that last year.
So this is my answer to self-policing. I think it's going to be better for the industry, stricter on the industry. This is where, again, I'm playing to a field of we should all be designated, because only some operators have to abide by the law. It's like driving on the highway and saying, "Well, you can't fine me because I'm from northern Ontario," or away from the designated areas. It doesn't make sense.
Mr Stewart: Supervision by your peers. Thank you, sir.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate your travelling down today and making your presentation to us.
We have tried to contact Mr Marwick and were unable to do so, so I guess he will not be appearing. We stand recessed until 3:30.
The committee recessed from 1141 to 1532.
The Chair: Good afternoon. Welcome to the members of the ministry staff. I will not introduce you; I will allow you to that yourselves.
Just one housekeeping thing: We would appreciate it if any amendments would be filed with the clerk by noon on Wednesday so that the clerk's office has a chance to go over them and to ascertain their validity and forward copies to everyone.
The basis of the format we've agreed to is a 20-minute presentation by the ministry staff, 15 minutes for the official opposition for questions, 15 minutes for the third party for questions, followed by a 10-minute wrapup by the government members. The floor is yours.
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr Ray Pichette: My name is Ray Pichette. I am the manager of the non-renewable resources section, Ministry of Natural Resources. With me today also are staff from the Ministry of Natural Resources. Brian Messerschmidt is our policy officer for environment and rehabilitation in the aggregates part of the non-renewable resources section. Stuart Thatcher is our senior policy adviser, aggregates, in the non-renewable resources section. Krystine Linttell is senior solicitor for the legal services branch of MNR. Rudy Rybansky is our chief engineer in the non-renewable resources section on the petroleum side of the programs.
I refer the committee to the handout that we've distributed, as it provides in point form the basic highlights of Bill 52 and will form the basis of my presentation before this committee in the allotted time.
I'm afraid that what you're going to hear is a lot of repetition of what you've heard from some of the many excellent presentations before you, and I apologize for that, but we've been asked to give you a technical presentation of the act.
Bill 52 amends basically four pieces of legislation: the Aggregate Resources Act, the Petroleum Resources Act, the Mining Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act. It is effectively structured into four parts, part I being the amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act, part II amendments to the Petroleum Resources Act, part III amendments to other acts and part IV the transition, commencement and short title part.
Focusing on part I, the amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act, in the handout you'll see reference to section numbers. Those are actually section numbers of Bill 52, to make it clear if you need to cross-reference. In the provisions of Bill 52, the ministry is embarking on what we call a standards approach in delivering the aggregate resources program. There's been a lot of discussion with regard to the elimination of listings and direction in the act and effectively transferring those directions into regulations. This is being done for the application requirements and the site plan requirements.
We might add that the primary focus of decision-making on determining whether a licence or a permit is issued is not under these sections. They are located in other parts of the act. Particularly, section 12 of the Aggregate Resources Act is the fundamental section that deals with the considerations that must be taken into account by the Minister of Natural Resources or the board under Bill 52 in determining whether to issue a licence. That section has not been altered, or anything removed from that section.
There are many benefits that will accrue going to a standards approach. Some in particular are that there will be clear, upfront and comprehensive details with regard to the requirements that proponents must submit to the ministry in order to embark on the application process. It allows us the opportunity to introduce more technical and scientifically based criteria up front, as well as to deal with emerging technology and adapting. We are unable to do that with the provisions that are currently in the act and we've often been challenged in terms of the ambiguity of the listings.
We also have provisions in this act to introduce regulations or what we call standards in the areas of the annual compliance report, and I will speak to the annual compliance report a little later. This will be the manner in which these reports are to be submitted, and the timing and the content.
There's also expansion on enabling provisions in the areas of notification and consultation requirements. The notification requirements in the current act have been repealed under Bill 52 and are to be introduced into regulations. There are no consultation requirements per se in the Aggregate Resources Act, so this is very much an addition that we're contemplating under the regulations.
There's also provision to introduce prescribed conditions. These are conditions that will be automatically applied to operations based on the type of operation they're contemplating. In the end, we find that the process is often very much an argument of what should go on and what shouldn't go on in the form of conditions. There is a whole series of conditions that are very technically based that automatically should apply, so that we can remove the process associated with arguing whether they should be on or not.
Bill 52 adds several additional what we call compliance and deterrence provisions under the aggregate resources portion. Firstly is the compliance partnership or self-assessment, but more appropriately it may be called compliance reporting under sections 15.1 and 40.1 as proposed in Bill 52. This has been interpreted as a self-regulation and self-policing framework for the aggregate industry. It is not so. This effort of the compliance reporting is more in keeping with complementing MNR's efforts in ensuring compliance by operators and does not at all delegate any of the enforcement duties that MNR has. MNR will be in control of all prosecutions and enforcement initiatives.
We have seen through our pilot project of 1994 and the examples of the Aggregate Producers' Association members voluntary compliance with the compliance reporting this year. The benefits we're seeing are really beyond our expectations. I believe for the first time in many years we are seeing sites that are completely and 100% in compliance. So we see major benefits. Again, it's to complement the efforts of MNR in its inspections and enforcement.
Yes, we have removed the annual inspection requirements of the current Aggregate Resources Act. The reason for that is that we did not want to focus inspectors in terms of the legal requirement, to send them to a site that we know is in compliance to do a full-fledged inspection. We'd rather have the time elements refocused to deal with the non-compliance issues out there that we tend to sometimes miss because we're busy doing the inspections.
1540
An additional thing that's been added in terms of the consideration of whether to issue a licence is the licensee's past history. This is in addition to the considerations. Other than that addition, we have not altered the considerations for the premise of whether a licence should be issued or not.
Under the Provincial Offences Act there is a six-month limitation with regard to prosecutions. That window has been increased to five years under Bill 52. In addition, we've removed the six-month limitation on suspensions so that they do not have to be renewed. They'll be in effect until such time as the operator has corrected the violation or the suspension has been removed.
Under the wayside provision, wayside permits are short-term extractive operations that are used by public authority for public projects. There is provision under wayside permits to allow for delegation to staff of the Ministry of Transportation. The intent here is so that the delegation will be for wayside permits for provincial use only. Again, it's not a delegation to MTO but rather its staff; they become an extension of MNR. Of course, the delegation does not include enforcement; that will be retained by MNR.
Aggregate permits: There's been some consolidation and efficiencies introduced under the aggregate permit regime. Currently there are three types of aggregate permits: personal, public authority and commercial permits. They're all being rolled into one aggregate permit without term. There's also a provision being added that more than one site may be applied to one aggregate permit. We feel this is very easily adaptable to things like the sustainable forest licence under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and will provide certain efficiencies without undermining any of the objectives.
There is also a provision in the legislation for exemption to the aggregate permit; however, still subject to regulations. This is contingent on other pieces of legislation that have resource management plans that effectively meet the same objectives. The purpose is to remove duplication of effort and red tape.
Finally, there is a similar provision for aggregate permits where staff of MTO can become an extension of MNR in the issuance of aggregate permits on crown land for provincial use.
The act allows the minister to establish the aggregate resources trust. During our business analysis of the functions in the aggregate resources program, many items were considered important for their continuance; however, not necessarily required to be delivered by the province. Hence, the creation of the trust and items that the ministry feels are important but need not be delivered by the direct Ontario public service. These are the financial components of the rehabilitation security. I might add that this change has allowed us to look at that system, its inequities and its shortcomings, and improve on the system.
You've heard the comment of the superfund; we prefer to call it the floating fund. Clearly the old system did cause major concerns and didn't help us meet the objectives of rehabilitating sites where the licences of operators were revoked or they went into bankruptcy. Often when we looked to their accounts there wasn't sufficient money available to do proper rehabilitation. Going to a floating fund account will allow the trust to do that in this case.
Also, the financial management of the abandoned pit and quarry rehabilitation fund will be under the jurisdiction of the trust. The Minister of Natural Resources has made statements both in the Legislature and publicly with regard to the Aggregate Producers' Association actually doing the rehabilitation, but the money management will be with the trust.
In addition, we felt that research should not fall off the table in terms of some of the downsizing going on in MNR, and the provision is with regard to allowing moneys available to research institutions and consultants to do research.
Finally, the fee collection and disbursement: The licence fees that are collected from the operators and disbursed by the municipalities will be accomplished by the trust.
The trust will be established by the minister. A trustee will be appointed by the minister so that there is still a direct accountability to the minister. The trust must report to the minister annually and the minister must table this report in the Legislative Assembly each and every year.
Bill 52 also changes the role of the Ontario Municipal Board. The board will be given the opportunity to rule on objections that are deemed frivolous and vexatious. Currently, that authority is with the Minister of Natural Resources. In addition, the Ontario Municipal Board currently just reports back to the minister with the recommendation. Bill 52 makes that decision of the board binding on the minister whether to issue a licence or not.
In addition, through the referral from the minister of objections and issues to the board, the minister can scope the hearing and that is to simply have items that are outstanding or unresolved dealt with by the board. This, we feel, is a savings to all parties, including the board, applicant, municipality and ratepayers.
Going to part II now, the petroleum and brine sector. One of the important components of this legislation is the definition of the business. The Petroleum Resources Act has often been misinterpreted as dealing with simple things such as gasoline handling or heat pump wells and it was important that this act be focused on its ultimate objective of regulating the following sectors.
We've also done some consolidation of business here in bringing the salt solution mining industry and the hydrocarbon storage industry in salt caverns over to this sector, and I'll explain why.
But clearly Bill 52 in this sector defines the business of being oil and gas exploration and production, storage of oil and gas and other hydrocarbons in a geological formation, disposal of oil field fluids in a geological formation, salt solution mining -- this is where you get your table salt -- geological evaluation and testing. The common denominator here is the extraction of subsurface resources or the use of the subsurface for storage. However, the important component of course is the use of and the construction drilling of a well.
Again, this sector is taking a standards approach, but I might add that the petroleum sector internationally has adapted this type of approach for many years and in fact Ontario has adopted the Canadian standard, the CSA Z34193 standard that deals with hydrocarbon storage in underground formations as a regulation. So the changes to Bill 52 are simply just clarification on enabling provisions so that we can ensure that we can adapt standards that are in keeping with the business in Ontario.
In addition, there's a consolidation of business areas and that primarily is of course to introduce many efficiencies and removal of duplication, but "notwithstanding" means that we have to revamp the current regulations so that they can be adopted in those sectors as well.
In the petroleum sector, the bill introduces several compliance and deterrence provisions, in addition to what's already there. Firstly, plugging orders will be allowed to be issued by inspectors. The plugging of a well is probably the most critical part of closure in an oil and gas operation or cavern operation since clearly, if it's done improperly, it will create hazards forever and a day to future generations.
The plugging orders were originally done by the minister under the current Petroleum Resources Act. However, a violation of the plugging order would only involve the seizing of operations and of course the seizing of the liabilities. We want to make the operators more accountable to this and so the front-line inspectors would have the authority to issue plugging orders.
We've also introduced the concept of private sector examiners. These will be examiners certified by MNR, having a specific skill set and knowledge set with regard to examining operations under this legislation. They are not there to replace our inspectors but again to complement our inspections in the form of having the right formula to ensure compliance by all operators. There will be no associated enforcement-related activities by these examiners.
We've also added provisions that inspectors can issue orders for tests and examination. Much of this industry is a bit out of sight, out of mind. Most of the activity is going on in the subsurface. When suspicion of non-compliance is apparent, then the inspectors will have at their disposal the proper tools to seek the operator to do certain tests to determine whether there's compliance.
In addition, the maximum fines have been significantly increased from the level of $10,000 to $500,000 and, in addition to that, if there has been any profit realized during the violation, it's added to the fine.
1550
Similarly to the aggregate side, the five-year prosecution window from the current six-month on the Provincial Offences Act has been introduced.
Finally, for the purposes of trying to avoid abandonment of wells without proper accountability, previous well owners will be left liable to ensure also that the wells are properly abandoned and plugged.
In addition, we've introduced enabling authority to bring in financial assurance and liability insurance provisions to operators. Our current system of bonding under the Petroleum Resources Act is very much inadequate, notwithstanding the fact that the dollar requirements are very low. The intent here is of course to transfer the accountability for the financial side to the operators and to make sure that all operators are playing by a level playing field.
Finally, in this area, we've enhanced and updated the appeals of the inspectors' orders.
With the consolidation of the business that we've made under the petroleum and brine sector, we had a review of all the separate instruments that are currently under this sector and found out that quite a few of them were incredibly out of date or really had no specific purpose. As a result, again to introduce efficiencies and reduce duplication, we've consolidated all these instruments into a life cycle well licence, in the sense that it's more of a cradle-to-grave approach control of operations. We feel that many efficiencies as well as better control will be seen through this method.
There's been some discussion with regard to the transfer of the jurisdiction of compulsory pooling and unitization from the Ontario Energy Board to the Mining and Lands Commissioner. Pooling is the joining of oil and gas interests in the production of a well. Both pooling and unitization are terms that are known worldwide in the areas of oil and gas resource management. Unitization is a higher form of pooling in the sense that the entire pool or oil and gas field is managed as a unit. Many efficiencies and economies can be realized by the operators, including being able to introduce production strategies that promote conservation of the resource.
There are, however, situations where certain operators or even land owners refuse to get into these agreements, leaving the rest of the operators in a scenario where they can't proceed, and of course there is the opportunity for adjudication, which currently rests with the Ontario Energy Board. We have found historically that the Ontario Energy Board is a utility regulator and has not had a lot of experience in the resource management side of the equation, even including the energy side.
As a result, we felt that the Mining and Lands Commissioner is a more appropriate adjudicator and tribunal for this purpose. The commissioner has similar roles under the Aggregate Resources Act, the Conservation Authorities Act, the Public Lands Act and of course the Mining Act. In addition, all the references in the Petroleum Resources Act where there were referrals and appeals to the board have now been replaced by the commissioner. However, I might add that the Ontario Energy Board still has jurisdiction on gas storage, and that has remained intact under this legislation.
The Chair: Excuse me, can you wrap this up? The 20 minutes have been used up.
Mr Pichette: Okay, fine.
Finally, the provision of the gas and salt resources trust, again functions that we felt had to continue but need not be continued by the province information management research and laboratory facilities. There has been amendment to the other acts to make sure that the things that are being transferred and the consolidation of business are done appropriately. Finally, there are transition elements to make sure that the old can get to the new.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you for appearing this afternoon. I really just want to go through some of this. I didn't quite understand some of the things that were said to us, actually particularly around this petroleum and brine area, which I don't have a great deal of expertise in.
In the commercial aspect of this, pooling and unitization, I gather from the presentations we heard, is something that is favoured by the industry in general. Would that be fair to say?
Mr Pichette: It's a common term. There's a principle called correlative rights. What it is, basically if you have a resource, there is a protection for you for undue drainage of that resource, the resource you own, without proper compensation. The joining of the interest in terms of dealing with not only your allocation of resource, as well as your compensation, is effectively pooling. So it is a normal practice in oil and gas --
Mr Michael Brown: No, I understand that, but the changes you have made, would it generally be said that the industry itself is finding this to be adequate? I think we had at least one presenter who was saying we should even be more proactive in forming these pools etc.
Mr Pichette: The industry is of course very much in favour with us of the transfer of who has the compulsory pooling, simply because they found it too costly and too formal to go before the Ontario Energy Board.
Mr Michael Brown: And too slow.
Mr Pichette: And too slow.
Mr Michael Brown: That was one of the questions I asked actually one of the presenters: Does that in any way take away from the land owner's ability to negotiate? When you make it a little bit more efficient for one side of the equation, often it has the ability of changing the negotiation standard that you work under.
Mr Pichette: No, I don't believe it does. I think it's actually going to improve that component with regard to the informality that may be the commissioner will have in her hearings simply because the land owner might be in a better position to understand what's required, whereas it's not that case right now before the Ontario Energy Board.
Mr Michael Brown: In your view, land owners would stand to benefit as much as the industry does in this?
Mr Pichette: That's right. But I might also add that in a lot of cases this is two separate operators or two separate companies not being able to come to agreement on all the particulars and of course there is that provision for adjudication and help to resolve the dilemma with not being able to come to an agreement.
Mr Michael Brown: There was also an issue raised by one of the presenters, or maybe more than one of the presenters actually, that talked about the liability factor of where if you had 300 or 400 wells -- you're going to have to help me here; I'm just doing most of this from memory -- I think we're requiring $3,500 or $5,000, I forget the number, and for an operator it just didn't seem logical or reasonable. If you happen to be operating a large number of wells, a smaller amount would be reasonable.
Mr Pichette: Currently, the rate is only $500.
Mr Michael Brown: And we're increasing that.
1600
Mr Pichette: There's no question that the numbers that are being discussed right now with industry are in the order of $10,000 to $15,000 per well. What we're trying to do is also come to an equitable formula by which, if you have 400 or 500 wells, what is your maximum? I think there is that propensity where we get to a level where it becomes more of an impediment to the ability of the operator to operate if so much money is caught up in terms of covering future liabilities. That's what we're discussing right now in developing the regulations.
Mr Michael Brown: I should probably know this, but is it the posting of a bond for that amount of money or is it actually that amount of money you put out?
Mr Pichette: We'll be looking at a number of areas. Some companies are actually interested in dealing with the cash and others are interested in letters of credit. We hope to be flexible, to allow them the type of instrument, as long as there is that financial guarantee.
Mr Michael Brown: You're looking for some assurance, but it's negotiable as --
Mr Pichette: That's right. The manner in which the security is put in place will be really subject to the individual operators.
Mr Michael Brown: Is there any difference between the liability that might accrue to a well on land versus one that may be actually in the lake? I don't know that we have any. I presume we do.
Mr Pichette: Yes, we do. We have about 630 wells in Lake Erie.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm a Lambton boy. I just know about --
Mr Pichette: In addition to the bonding requirements that we will have right across the board for all wells, under our lease agreements with Lake Erie operators, there is $1 million worth of liability insurance with the operators there.
Mr Michael Brown: So there's additional insurance if you're in --
Mr Pichette: Yes. Right now it's to protect the crown from liability in terms of inheriting the liability. That is through the lease agreement we have with the operators, not through the legislation. That's separate from the legislation. Even though Bill 52 adds the enabling authority to have liability insurance right across the board, we have had that with operators on the lake through the leases they have from us.
Mr Michael Brown: Is it all natural gas that's in the lake?
Mr Pichette: That's right. There's no oil. There's no liquid recovery; it's strictly gas.
Mr Michael Brown: On the aggregate side, we've heard some discussion about extending the aggregate act, and in terms of the area that is designated, there's some talk that relatively minor increases may solve the majority of the problem. I'm thinking about enforcement across 90% of the land mass, which is northern Ontario, which is basically exempt, but there are certain areas, as we heard from two gentlemen this morning, that are experiencing particular problems. I think one of them is in Ms Martel's riding. Do we have any sense of how much larger some of these regions would have to be to accommodate the problem, or do you just push the problem of one more township as you go?
Mr Pichette: Designation historically has been incremental. If you saw that map, that grey area wasn't done overnight; it was done over a period of 21 years -- 22 years, actually. There are areas that we know and we are aware of where there are inequities in terms of non-provincially regulated operations that are feeding a regulated market. The decision of further designation would rest, of course, with the Minister of Natural Resources. It has long been the staff's position that all significant parts of the province should be designated. It is more of a fiscal issue than it is an issue of policy.
Mr Michael Brown: One of the things I found surprising in Bill 26 was that it precluded municipalities from charging an operator directly for using the roadways any kind of a royalty. It's actually spelled out that whether you're hauling logs or you're hauling aggregate, whatever you're hauling, they can't charge.
I didn't perhaps explain it very well this morning, but I'm having some difficulty in my constituency where, out of unorganized areas, operators are hauling across organized areas to get where they're going. I think maybe you understood the conversation I was having this morning in regard to, is there any thought in the ministry to find a way that those very rural townships can find some kind of revenue base to make up for the wear and tear on these roads?
Mr Pichette: For operations in designated parts of the province, there of course is the licence fee. This fee is currently six cents a ton, and a portion of that fee is reimbursed to the municipalities, both upper and lower tier.
Mr Michael Brown: I understand that.
Mr Pichette: That is meant to be compensation for the impact within the municipality where the extraction has occurred. We have situations where the transportation is right on to a king's highway, and no impact accrues to the municipality from the extraction in terms of road damage. Notwithstanding, the policy had to be placed some place and it was really with regard to the local extraction and impact.
The difficulty in dealing with that fee is that it is not a level playing field out in the province right now. That is really the only form of compensation right now from the industry.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm just suggesting that in some of the townships I'm thinking of, the aggregate is actually not in their township -- it is, say, slightly to the north -- and there are no roads in the township that the aggregate is being taken from. The mining or the aggregate company would have made their own road on crown land and would have just then come to an organized municipality, which is probably very close and has a road. They get absolutely no revenue from this. The difficulty is, I used to be able to say, "Well, 80% of your roads grant was paid by the province." That works; it made some sense to them. But now that there is no funding for roads, it's all lumped into an unconditional grant, you should try to go and explain this to them.
Mr Pichette: You're talking about aggregate permits on crown land. Their source of material is going into organized municipalities or even hamlets.
Mr Michael Brown: Going across them, not really into them.
Mr Pichette: The only compensation is through royalties to the crown and application fees and permit fees. There is nothing going to the local level. Of course a big policy question is, how much? I mean, everybody is using roads. I'm really not in a position to give any sort of concept or opinions in that area.
Mr Michael Brown: Oh, I understand. I just wondered if there was thought being given to those issues, because frankly I think it's not so much you, but the forest industry's going to be involved in a lot of these problems very shortly.
Mr Pichette: If I may, I think there's more thought in terms of making sure there is a level playing field among aggregate operators than dealing with different situations that might occur in different parts of the province.
Mr Michael Brown: Is there any change being contemplated at all, through regulation or otherwise, to the definition of "aggregate"?
Mr Pichette: There is a provision in the current Aggregate Resources Act that allows us to exclude certain commodities from the definition of "aggregate." The Aggregate Resources Act has to work with the Mining Act, which has the industrial minerals component, and there are scenarios where it's probably best to deal with that particular commodity specifically in the industrial minerals sectors under the Mining Act and the closure plans. There is that provision, so there are a number of commodities right now that have been exempted through the definition. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Just one question: With respect to regulations and requirements, if we were to turn over everything to the private sector, do you think this level playing field would be much smoother than it is now?
Mr Pichette: I guess I'd have to ask the question, in terms of giving everything over to the private sector, what is meant by that?
Mr Sergio: A self-regulatory body.
Mr Pichette: I guess it is MNR's position that the industry needs to be regulated, and I would argue that what we have presented here is not self-regulation. It is certainly a transfer of more accountability to the industry, a devolution of functions that we do not feel the province needs to perform, but never the less its focus is very much in standards development, licensing and permitting and enforcement. From that perspective, that's what Bill 52 is attempting to accomplish.
Mr Sergio: You said it is not a level playing field now. What kind of change would you like to see to improve it?
Mr Pichette: I would say that the level playing field at this point in time is because of the designation. It is not an issue of Bill 52. The provisions to designate have not been altered or changed whatsoever under the current Aggregate Resources Act. That is something very separate from Bill 52.
Ms Martel: Thank you for the presentation. Let me just follow up on that particular point and ask the question: Has the ministry estimated the cost that an individual operator might incur to go from being undesignated now to being designated? I assume that's what the financial concern is when you talk about finances.
Mr Pichette: That's a very difficult question. We were trying to look at that back in the early 1990s, and we actually had a rough figure of about 15 to 19 cents per ton, but the aggregate industry is a local industry because of the transportation costs, so it's very difficult to say provincially that that's a good figure.
Ms Martel: And that's what the costs would be. Let me just move through some of the comments that you've made, because I've outlined some questions. You talked about the site plan requirements and how much of that section will move into regulation. One thing I was curious about is that before, when there was a site plan amendment that was being proposed, I understood it was mandatory that a clerk of an adjacent regional municipality or county etc would get notification. Now the change that I see seems to be that the notification comes at the minister's discretion. Why would we have that change? Notification of all of these kinds of things I think would be particularly important to adjacent municipalities.
Mr Pichette: I believe the current act allows for discretion for the service of notice to the municipality, so we really haven't changed anything in that area that I'm aware of.
1610
Ms Martel: That was not my understanding. Can I just --
Mr Pichette: If you refer to section 20 of the Aggregate Resources Act -- that is, if you have the Aggregate Resources Act.
Ms Martel: Hang on, I've got it, yes. The section I'm referring to is on page 16 of the old bill. Under section 16, my read of the changes around amendment of site plans is that, at the bottom, "The minister may, at any time, require a licensee to amend" it, and "A licensee and any municipality served with notice" under that clause "may provide the minister with comments within 30 days" -- unless I'm reading it wrong. It's not a huge point. Maybe I can add that to my other concerns about notification, because you said a lot of the consultation requirements are not in the bill now and they are going to be added in strengthening the bill.
The problem I have is, you didn't say anything about notification, because what I see in the bill, and I've raised this a couple of times, is that again and again where there are notifications to people in unorganized communities, for example, notifications to municipal people, whether it be with site plan amendments etc, all of those are being moved into regulation and I don't understand why that's happening. It's important to give people public notice about these changes. These issues can be very controversial.
By and large we heard that municipalities have a good relationship with the majority of their companies and I'm confused why now we would be taking what I perceive to be a backward step with respect to letting people know what's going on and allowing them to have the opportunity to participate. Maybe that's not a fair question to ask you; maybe I should be talking to the minister about that when he comes next week. But I've seen that time and time again in the changes and I'm really perplexed why we would think that's an appropriate thing to do, especially these days.
Mr Pichette: The current notification requirements in the act cannot be altered whatsoever or added upon, and one of our intentions here by moving this to regulations is to add on to the notification requirements, particularly the consultation side of the equation. Of course, there is nothing in the act to that effect other than service. At this point in time, my office, in terms of trying to draft the regulations, is putting requirements in for open houses and public meetings. We can't do that under the current act.
Ms Martel: Is that for unorganized and organized communities, or just unorganized?
Mr Pichette: The reason the unorganized community component of the current Aggregate Resources Act was removed is because we're moving everything into the regulations. It becomes redundant to have that sticking out there when all the rules will be under regulations.
Ms Martel: Sorry, my reference was whether you're going to have open houses for both communities, because they're different processes to notify two.
Mr Pichette: This is strictly at the staff level at this point in time. I can't really speak for the Minister of Natural Resources, but it will be a recommendation that we are going to make.
Ms Martel: All right. If I could get some guarantee that the provisions would be strengthened and not lessened, I would probably feel better. I also think that if they're in the act, it just has a much clearer and stronger force in law as well.
Mr Pichette: We are not intending to at all weaken those notification procedures.
Ms Martel: If I flip to the next page, when you talk about, at the bottom, the limitation on suspensions, I agree with that section. Correct me if I'm wrong: In the act now there will be no annual renewal of a permit. Why is that change being made?
Mr Pichette: Efficiencies. We find that a major part of our cost is dealing with renewals, as well as being a major impediment to the industry in terms of rationalizing their need for crown aggregate. There will still be an annual fee. There will be a compliance report, which the aggregate permitees didn't have before. There was no form of inspections or requirement for inspections. In lieu, in terms of that added cost, is that you won't have to make that application every year to get the permit renewed. There are sufficient provisions in the act to either suspend or revoke the permits if there is not compliance.
Ms Martel: Maybe I should reference another act and say that even under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act you would have to do a number of things in renewals at five-, 10-, 20-year periods, but most of those contracts would not be carried on in perpetuity. I'm curious why in a resource that still belongs to the public we would have what I think is -- I could be wrong -- quite a different set of rules being set in place here.
Mr Pichette: I don't think the principle of perpetuity is really what we're expecting here. It's again, I think, more of the ability to introduce efficiencies on the administrative side of dealing with aggregate permits, but also providing the opportunity for operations out there to significantly invest in proper aggregate operations, knowing very well that they are a going concern, because at this point in time every year there's a question of whether they're going to get renewed and whether they're going to have to argue with MNR through appeal mechanisms. So again, there's a benefit to the industry side. I think in the end we'll end up with far more mature operations out there as a result.
Ms Martel: Let me ask about the trust. How far along has the ministry got in terms of its discussion with the association about how this is going to be structured? I've listened to various presenters express concerns about there being some outside influence, either by municipalities or environmental groups, into how some of these decisions are made about rehabilitation. Maybe that's an unfair question because I don't know how far down the road you are in determining this.
Mr Pichette: We actually aren't that very far, unfortunately. I wish we were farther. We've had just generally internally, in terms of what we see as the trust, in terms of a business plan, a decision-making body, dealing with the functionality that we expected to deal with and we've had some preliminary discussions with aggregate producers for their thoughts, but that's about as far as we've gone so far.
Ms Martel: The trust that's in place under the mining side I think continues to be administered within the public sector domain. I'm curious why we are moving from that to the private sector now, because the mining industry does not have administrative responsibility for rehabilitation matters.
Mr Pichette: There's no question that this bill has an Ontario public service downsizing component, so items that we felt need not continue with the province would be somewhat transferred to private sector organizations. That's predominantly the reason. In addition, based on the functionality we expect from the trust, there will probably be far more efficiencies in dealing with the functions than would happen within the Ontario public service. So we think there'd be better service to the industry and the public at large.
Ms Martel: My former employees at the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines might not agree with you on that one. Is that the same reason there is also a change around who can be designated as an inspector? I know we had this discussion I think in Niagara Falls and I am still confused as to the change-around on page 2 of the new bill, subsection 4(1), where it talks about, "The minister may designate in writing any person as an inspector for the purposes of this act." What is that reference to?
Mr Pichette: It's speaking to the removal of the employee of the ministry. That's what we removed in that section. Our intent here is -- we're maybe having a little bit of foresight here in terms of government potentially restructuring -- the opportunity to appoint other ministries' staff as inspectors. A good example would be environmental officers. Under the current legislation the inspector had to be a ministry employee, couldn't be a Ministry of Environment and Energy employee.
Ms Martel: But my read of this would also allow anyone to go beyond the public sector. There's no limitation here that the employee has to be an employee of another ministry or indeed MNR.
Mr Pichette: It's not the intent. It's just to introduce the potential ability to appoint other ministries' staff.
Ms Martel: Will you be bringing forward an amendment to clarify that, because my read of it now is it leaves it wide open to anyone in the private sector too. If that's not the intent --
Mr Pichette: I think you'd have to refer that to the committee, to Mr Klees.
Ms Martel: I'll leave that with you. I don't think it's clear, and I think we had that discussion in Niagara Falls.
Let me ask you as well about the references to the Ontario Municipal Board. I'm not clear why we'd be giving the minister the power to refer or to scope and to decide what would be referred to a hearing. My sense of it, and correct me if I'm wrong, would be you're going to end up at a hearing probably because of a ministerial decision. So why are you letting the same person who might have made a negative decision then have the authority to scope what is actually heard at the OMB? Am I reading that wrong?
Mr Pichette: No, only the minister can refer to the board. Basically the process that's being contemplated under Bill 52 is a proponent-driven process -- accountability on the proponent to try and resolve all objections. If the objections can't be resolved, the minister can refer the matter to the board for a decision. The intent here is that if there are only a few outstanding objections, by virtue of the minister's direction, should he or she choose, the board can just simply focus on those outstanding objections. It doesn't have to go to a complete, full-fledged, de novo type of hearing to start afresh on everything. Only the minister can refer to the board.
1620
Ms Martel: What if a proponent cannot get a licence because the minister has denied that licence? There is no access then for that proponent now under the changes to ask to have that referred to the OMB?
Mr Pichette: That's an appeal to the board. That's not a referral, it's an appeal to the board.
Ms Martel: Are there two different circumstances wherein the minister can scope in one case and not in the other?
Mr Pichette: Yes, that's correct. Are you clear on that?
Ms Martel: No. If you were going to add something I'd appreciate it just to clarify this.
Ms Krystine Linttell: It's basically two different processes. Where we're dealing with the application for a licence, the referral to the board is to resolve the unresolved objections. The scoping is in order to focus the board's attention on only those objections and not to extend the hearing to a consideration of issues that have already been dealt with satisfactorily. Where an applicant is denied a licence, there are no limitations. It's the applicant's right to appeal to the board and it does not go through the minister or in any way involve a referral of the minister.
Ms Martel: Let me follow up on a point I think my colleague from Algoma-Manitoulin was raising, and that had to do with the financial assurance, because we heard from a number of persons who were concerned about how they would be able to financially themselves be in line with the requirements that the ministry was going to make. We had the same dilemma when we tried to deal with financial assurance for several of the major mining companies in the province, not so much because they had extensive mining operations but because the cost attached to rehabilitation of any one of their single operations was in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
I wonder if you've had a chance to talk to the staff on that side of the operation about how that was dealt with? There were very similar concerns raised by Inco and Falconbridge at the time we made those requirements as well. Can what they put in place there be applied here?
Mr Pichette: We're talking about very separate, very distinct, different industries here from a perspective of setting up financial assurance. If I recall the Mining Act, most of it's upfront moneys of a magnitude far more than you'll ever see in the oil and gas exploration industry.
The objective here is twofold in developing any form of financial assurance. One is to provide an encouragement for any operator to properly abandon their operations in a manner that will not contribute environmental hazards for the future, and by doing so there's a financial incentive to get their money back, that they have an assurance. The other objective is to have that money should the operator default so that the crown can recoup that money and come in and do the work for them.
On a per-well basis in Ontario, again we're having fairly extensive discussions with the industry on what is equitable here. It is not our intent to put any of the operators in a financial bind, but it's clear that we do want some form of assurance so that wells are properly plugged in the future. It's becoming a bit of a negotiation, but we're sort of holding firm on some fairly significant increases in this area, and so far they're very amenable to it. It's just a matter that I think we are going to introduce a maximum level so that isn't an impediment to future investment in the province.
Mr Klees: Thank you to you and your colleagues for such a precise précis of this bill. I'm glad that Mr Brown now in very short order has become an expert on oil, gas and brine. I'd like you to please comment on the transition to the standards-based regulatory system that really this bill is effecting. Could you comment, first, on the reason for the standards-based system and second, what effect do you feel that's going to have on the industry and the relationship of the ministry to the industry?
Mr Pichette: When we were designing the standards-based approach -- and it's not without a degree of precedent, as I mentioned; the petroleum sector has been doing this for some time on an international level. There are many benefits. Of course, we've had six years of experience in delivering the Aggregate Resources Act right now and we have found that the current listings under, I believe, sections 8 and 9 of the current act provide much ambiguity to both the industry and of course ratepayers and municipalities.
By going to a more comprehensive and clear format in standards not written in legalese, we feel that these rules can be more up front and have specific direction that will allow the industry particularly to have more improved business decisions. I think it's very important, if you look at the current listings under the Aggregate Resources Act, that the standards approach allows us to bring in more technical and scientific-based criteria and requirements so that we are more specific and there's more tangibility with regard to the industry and what they must provide. There's of course a flexibility in being able to be dynamic with regard to emerging technology, and this is very apparent in the oil business, where we're getting into horizontal well drilling. It removes a lot of uncertainties in the process.
One of the biggest examples we have right now is that, under section 9, an operator must consider water quantity and water quality, but nowhere in the piece of legislation or the regulations is there a requirement for hydrogeological study of a certain magnitude. It is the intent to have that kind of detail and requirements in terms of the scientific research requirements up front and mandatory by the applicants. There's an opportunity to remove much red tape and duplication with other ministries by going to a standards-based approach.
It also provides an opportunity for more accountability with the industry, and this might again, in terms of your second question, deal with providing, hopefully, that maturity over time with the industry so that they become more accountable for their actions, better business decisions. It also avoids having our ministry issue what we call non-enforceable policy and program direction documents that really, when you are challenged legally, have no full force or effect of law.
Going to a standards-based approach, the upfront, clear approach will put us in proper stead in terms of being challenged by applicants. I think that will reflect on the industry as well as the ratepayers and the municipalities, because hopefully this will be laid out in plain English from a perspective that everybody will understand the process. That's our intent.
1630
Mr Klees: I'll just follow up on one other item that's obviously of concern, and rightfully so. We're making a transition here in terms of how business is being conducted. One of the concerns that has been expressed by Ms Martel, I know, on a number of occasions is that by moving to the self-assessment and placing significantly more responsibility on the industry, and even though I have repeatedly made the statement that we're refocusing the functions of our inspectors, which will allow them to spend much more time at the function of inspection, the concern is still there that, given the restructuring of the ministry, will there in fact be sufficient staffing available to make this new system work? I'd be interested in your comments on that.
Mr Pichette: There's no question that the ministry has every intent to allocate sufficient dollars to deliver on Bill 52 and the existing legislation. We believe with the refocusing of the inspection and enforcement component of our inspectors and removing many of the administrative financial functions that they've done will actually see an improvement in terms of our field presence, and an improvement in our focus dealing with non-compliance operators.
Mr Klees: Would you comment briefly on the effectiveness of the inspections that have taken place over the last number of years under the system as it is right now. Has it been an effective method of inspection? What percentage of sites in the province has been inspected on a regular basis?
Mr Pichette: There is certainly a degree of effectiveness when an inspector does a full inspection on a site. Unfortunately, with the fiscal realities of today, we are not meeting that objective 100%. Some areas are; some areas are not. The difficulty we see is that by sending an inspector to a site that is in full compliance or substantial compliance with legislation, regulations, site plans and conditions, and not to see a compliance issue result from full inspections, which can take anywhere from a day to two days, we feel that there isn't a real return on the investment in terms of dealing with the broader non-compliance component of the industry. Does that answer your question to some degree?
Mr Klees: Let me ask you to be more specific. Of the total number of sites that we have in the province right now, what percentage of those sites would be current in terms of the regulatory requirements and how many of them would have been inspected within the last year, or what percentage of them?
Mr Pichette: We haven't got statistics for the last year.
Mr Klees: How about the last four years?
Mr Pichette: I would repeat myself in saying that we have some areas that have accomplished 100% inspection and other areas that have been as low as 50% and maybe even lower than that based on the statistics we've seen.
Mr Klees: One last point on the rehabilitation issue: My understanding of the system as it's working right now, we've got -- what? -- $60 million in that fund, but my understanding is that all of those dollars are targeted to specific sites. While there may be $60 million there, it may well be that a particular site is in need of rehabilitation and the cost for that might be $50,000 but there may only be $2,000 set aside for that particular site. As a result, we have a very real situation that the rehabilitation can't really be done effectively. Under the new system with the pooling that won't be happening. In other words, we'll actually be in a situation where, when rehabilitation needs to take place, the moneys will flow to the source of need. Is that correct?
Mr Pichette: Yes. In fact I'd go so far as making the statement that in most of the revocations and bankruptcies, when we go and open up the account there are insufficient dollars to do anything and as a result very little money from the fund has been used in history and that's one of the reasons it's so high. Going to the floating fund will allow the trust of course to access dollars to rehabilitate those sites where we can't right now.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Pichette and all staff members. We appreciate you coming here today.
Mr Michael Brown: Is there an opportunity to ask a couple of quick clarification questions?
The Chair: Sure, if nobody has any objection to that.
Mr Michael Brown: Just with the penalty part of the bill, if you are not in compliance, it's an automatic suspension. Do I understand that?
Mr Pichette: No. It has to be an action by the ministry to suspend. There is no such thing as an automatic suspension. If for some reason you've broken the law, you're automatically suspended, must close your gate. An inspector has to issue any suspension notice.
Mr Michael Brown: Okay. Let's say the inspector issues a suspension notice because you're not in compliance and then you bring yourself into compliance within -- I don't know -- whatever period of time. Having been around bureaucracies for a while, what assurance does the operator have that the licence would be reinstated in a timely fashion once he's back in compliance?
Mr Pichette: If you correct the violation, the suspension automatically removes itself.
Mr Michael Brown: That's the theory, but --
Mr Pichette: Yes. Always subject to interpretation, I imagine, between the operator and the inspector, but that's the way it's currently built in the Aggregate Resources Act.
Mr Michael Brown: There's no time line associated with --
Mr Pichette: No. It doesn't necessarily have to be officially lifted. If there has been compliance with the suspension, you can open up the gates and continue activities.
Mr Michael Brown: Oh, I see. So if you are back in compliance then you can start operating even if the inspector has not come out to verify you're back in compliance.
Mr Pichette: That's it.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We do appreciate your giving us some of your time this afternoon.
Any other items of business for the committee to consider?
Mr Klees: I had asked staff to prepare parallel summaries of the act which I thought might be helpful to members of the committee. They're available now if members of the committee would like them. They basically show the existing act and the parallel changes to it. So if you would like those, the Clerk can distribute them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klees. There being no further business, we stand adjourned until next Thursday, October 17, at 10:00 am.
The committee adjourned at 1637.